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.
Additional notes:
| ||
Claire Danes
Collapsing outdated text below. This issue is ongoing at Claire Danes, which is now protected with the contentious version that violates WP:BLP.
Previous discussion
|
|---|
|
TolWol56 is currently engaging in an edit war on Claire Danes. Danes has been banned from Manila, but the article wrongly states that she has been banned from the Philippines based on a source cited in The Guardian, which is based off of the original 1998 CBS article. Upon inspecting the CBS source, it becomes clear that the author of the Guardian piece incorrectly reported on the events, as the CBS source clearly states that she was banned from Manila, but that the President thought she should be banned from the entire country. Furthermore, her comments are incorrectly represented, and the entirety of the commentary is less neutral than every source on the matter. Upon fact-checking this part of the article, I corrected the errors. This was reverted by TolWol56, who claimed I was "whitewashing" the entry about it. I informed this user I am not white, and referred them to the Code of Conduct, which they promptly deleted, and restored my revision per WP:BLP, since the historical version was factually incorrect. TolWol56 reverted again, referred to my edits as "rambling" and "whitewashing" again, and left an erroneous Edit War UW on my talk page. I have made a new entry on Danes's talk page, but given that what is currently written is misrepresenting her words, along with the ban itself being factually incorrect, I need some assistance on Danes' page to fix it so I do not violate any edit warring policies. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I had to unindent this, because it's going right off the side of my screen. That doesn't look bad, but there are flaws. The problem I see here is that the savvy reader will ask themselves, "Interpreted by whom?" Now, I'm not too invested in this, and the exact choice of wording should be worked out on the talk page, as it's not really a BLP violation. I mainly got involved because this was getting into a heated discussion about something totally off topic, when in fact SquareInARoundHole had some good points hidden there ... somewhere. And my bad for not thoroughly reading the sources from the start, but the point there was that the argument should be about sources and not each other. That all aside, what I like about FireFangledFeathers' idea is a simple footnote explaining the source discrepancy, because you can bet that if you don't this won't be the last time you have this discussion. As long as there are conflicting sources people will keep trying to "correct" the article. And this isn't a BLP-only problem. This is all just policy in general. You see it in everything from scientific and technical articles to religion and metaphysics. To give an example, in some books the fossil ancestors of the moose are under the genus Alces, whereas in many others the genus is listed as Libralces and Cervalces. Might as well explain right there in the article why this is, or it's just going to keep coming up. Same with modern moose. Over and over on the talk page, there's an argument about whether there is one species or two. All depends on what source you happen to have in front of you (and someday when I have time it needs to be sorted out in the article as well). The point being, if you don't explain why sources conflict, you will just keep having these same conflicts all over again. But wording and stuff, I mean, this is all talk page stuff where everybody, including Square, should hammer this all out in a collaborative way. Zaereth (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
|
This is still going on, or going on again. My position is as follows:
We have solid sourcing for the claim that the Manila city council declared Claire Danes persona non grata. There is not a shred of evidence that the city council proceeded to enact into law a ban on Claire Danes or her films. This is because it could not do so, either legitimately or practically. Manila is not a walled city with four gates; and I will be very surprised to learn that the Philippine Executive delegates questions of speech to city councils.
Nor did the Congress formally ban Claire Danes or her films, and no source says it did. Instead, what happened was the city council hit the credulous-foreign-reporter-jackpot. The resolution they passed was just censure. A purely political gesture, pandering to local opinion. They declared, "Claire Danes is banned, and all who sail in her", and the American press repeated it, without asking, "Wait, how does this ban work?", because it made good copy, thereby greatly amplifying it without costing the council anything. The president of the Philippines was happy to jump on board the publicity train, but doesn't seem to have been interested in spending any money or political capital turning the notional ban into a real boy. Since then, every reference in a puff-piece or vacuous listicle just repeats the original mistake, over and over.
None of the sources I have seen cited are much good, including the oldest ones. They all butcher the quotes that started the fire, quoting a condensed version stitched together by a wire-service reporter rather than going direct to the magazines. They repeat as fact that Danes's films are banned in the Philippines, when Danes herself claims only Brokedown Palace was affected, and there is independent reason to believe Terminator 3, Stardust, Me and Orson Welles, and The Family Stone—at a minimum—screened in the Philippines. It is perfectly obvious that all of the recent sources we have are garbage: for twenty years, not a single reporter has actually checked with anyone in the Philippines, preferring to take the last fellow's word for it, who was taking CBS's word for it, which was taking AP's word for it, which was taking the city council's word for it.
Conspicuously absent from the list of sources are serious-minded business or entertainment-industry reports about movie studios wrangling with the Philippine Dept. of the Interior or whatever agency would be administering the ban if it existed. If the ban was in force when Terminator 3 came out, and is in fact still in force now, why didn't the Philippines exact a price for the right to show that movie in its market? Why didn't the studio thrust Danes in front of a camera to make another, better apology? Not a peep. Because there is no ban; it's just business as usual. There is nothing to talk about in the serious press, because there is nothing to talk about.
The claim that Danes is banned from entering Manila is risible; do they have roadblocks set up? The claim that she is banned from entering the Philippines is unsupported. The claim that her films are banned is no better supported, and must admit (explain?) numerous significant exceptions. So: we have a set of claims which are poorly sourced and which are the subject of active contention, right here and now. It is my position that WP:BLP demands either a fairly exhaustive outline of the facts, the claims, and all the caveats—which I would oppose on WP:UNDUE grounds—or a conservative statement of only those facts known to be true. My proposal:
"In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by the city council of Manila in reaction to comments she made in interviews following the shoot of Brokedown Palace."
In its current form (which may not last long (and, sure enough, has been reverted before I am finished writing the present wall of text)), this is supplemented with the complete Premiere and Vogue quotes, in footnotes.
Now. To the counter-arguments. Several editors are unsatisfied with anything less than the full-throated claims that Claire Danes is banned, either from Manila or from the Philippines, and that her films are banned in either Manila or the Philippines. But they seem unable to grapple with the issues. One problem appears to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy, or perhaps an inability to distinguish quality reporting from regurgitation. I think at least one editor believes that if a publication appears in green in the perennial sources list, everything it prints is automatically reliable. I have also noticed that the other side is quick to insinuate racism, whitewashing, and bad faith. I am told I am pushing a pov; but Claire Danes means nothing to me. I was pinged because I was in the history, but that's only because Danes has a name ending in s, and I gnome pages into compliance with MOS:'S.
The claim is advanced that it is impossible for many sources all to be wrong. Has that been your experience? One person might be wrong, but if twenty people say it, it must be true? We are told that Danes hasn't won an Oscar because she is a racist; that the discussion of the "ban" needs to be at least as long as paragraphs at The Beatles, Jerry Vlasak, and Michael Savage, because Danes is more popular than those figures, or less popular, take your pick; that it's okay to get this wrong because it's a work in progress; that Cracked is a serious source. Wikipedia guidelines and policies are cited willy-nilly, one after another; a big scary discretionary sanctions alert box appears on my talk page, along with "you have been told"; the paragraph needs to be longer, but if we write out Danes's offensive quotes in full or mention her age at the time, it's too long, it's bloated, it's a quotefarm. The whole thing is exhausting, and it's meant to be. I am supposed to throw up my hands and move on. If you feel my summary of the counter-arguments is light on substance, that is how I feel about the counter-arguments. Believe me, I wish there were more of substance to report.
Last time this issue was brought up here, this noticeboard didn't exactly cover itself in glory. The discussion hadn't started before it got bogged down in arguments over the semantics of "whitewashing". I will say I think SquareInARoundHole was quite right to detect the insinuation that their edits were racially motivated, though I think it was a mistake to say, "but I am not white". Let's try to keep our eyes on the ball, this time.
I feel I have been pretty patient; I feel SquareInARoundHole has been extremely patient. I'd like to see some support from the community for the principle of caution detailed in WP:BLP.
"Contentious material about living persons ... 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." Regulov (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Regulov, I have opined and included evidence the ban does not extend to streaming, if it exists at all.Slywriter (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Regulov:
not a single reporter has actually checked with anyone in the Philippines, preferring to take the last fellow's word for it, who was taking CBS's word for it, which was taking AP's word for it, which was taking the city council's word for it.
- What's worse is that the city council stated they did not have the authority to ban her from entry, and at least one councilor doubted their authority to ban her films. The tertiary sources don't include that, and the other editors are ignoring the secondary sources in order to prefer the most wrong tertiary sources possible. This went from "We will ban Claire Danes's films from Manila." to "Claire Danes was banned from the Philippines." The fact that this has been so hard to correct over the course of several years on her article is absurd, and of course, it's increasingly frustrating that we are being accused of challenging the content under BLP and Wikipedia standards with bad faith and personal opinions. This should be the easiest error on Wikipedia to correct, and yet, here we are, having to ask for administrative intervention. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Update: I don't believe the RFC is enough at this point. Regulov, in good faith per WP:BLP, decided to boldly enforce the policy and removed the contentious material. I added the quotes from the magazines in the citations. This was all reverted, claiming it was the editor's personal opinion, and not a legitimate concern under BLP policies. The standards seem to clearly state we need to fix Danes's article immediately. It is concerning to me that editors are synthesizing a narrative and cherrypicking subpar tertiary sources (bypassing every single secondary source) to stonewall a status quo that is verifiably false. I am trying my best to be brief here and not bludgeon the process, but I'm learning how to properly raise concerns and I'm hoping this is a better outline of my concern.
The violation of BLP is as such:
- Per WP:BLPSTYLE:
BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects.
- Status quo uses only tertiary sources, two of which are only passing mentions in articles about other events/people and one is a random citation in a college thesis about the portrayal of female criminals in movies, which briefly mentions she was unwelcome in a citation, despite an abundance of reliable secondary sources, and even superior tertiary sources which actively contradict status quo. These are all listed in the RFC.
``She is declared persona non grata. All her films will be banned,″ said councilor Kim Atienza, the principal sponsor of the resolution and a son of Manila’s mayor... Councilor Julio Logarta, one of the three who voted against the resolution, said the ban was a curtailment of freedom of expression... Logarta also questioned the council’s authority to ban movies.
[10]
Claire Danes is persona non grata in Manila, Philippines, after the City Council voted 23-3 Tuesday to ban her films.
[11]
Manila's city council on Tuesday banned all movies of Claire Danes... "She is declared persona non grata. All her films will be banned," said councilor Kim Atienza, the principal sponsor of the resolution and a son of Manila's mayor.
[12]
But Danes went "overboard" in Premiere, Atienza claims, and the Manila city council will discuss next week whether to ban all of the thespian's films... "She painted a surreal picture of Manila," Atienza said. "Those are irresponsible, bigoted and sweeping statements that we cannot accept. We cannot stop her from coming back because that is a diplomatic decision. But we can stop theaters in Manila from showing her films."
[13]
After the publication of two interviews in which 19-year-old Claire Danes said unkind things about Manila, the city council voted 23-3 this week to ban her movies... "This resolution is in fact abridging her rights," said opposing city council member Julio Logarta. "Most of what she said is true." Logarta doubted that the council has the authority to enforce a ban.
[14]
- There's also evidence the persona non grata is also no longer in effect:
Claire Danes has apologized for those not-so-nice comments she made this year about Manila, and now all is swell between her and the Philippines...Her movies were banned, but they’ve been brought back now that she sent the city council an official letter of apology.
[15]
- There's also evidence the persona non grata is also no longer in effect:
She has apologized many times. Clare Danes was young and careless then and has matured to be more responsible and retrospect in her observations. Clare is very welcome if she wants to.
[16]
- There is no actual reporting that any of her films weren't shown in Manila (or the Philippines for that matter) because of the persona non grata, but there is reporting that several of her films were screened in the region, including (but not limited to) Terminator 3, Stardust, and The Family Stone.[17][18][19][20] Me and Orson Welles was also reviewed in the region. [21]
- Per WP:BLPGOSSIP:
Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.
- Status quo relies on tertiary sources previously mentioned, the crux of which weasely provide false authority that a ban on Danes from entering or her films being screened in the Philippines was still in place. "
as far as we can tell
" is weasling.[22] Two of them are about Dan Brown and state that the president of the Philippines banned Danes from entering the country in 1999, despite that this is verifiably false.[23][24]
- Status quo relies on tertiary sources previously mentioned, the crux of which weasely provide false authority that a ban on Danes from entering or her films being screened in the Philippines was still in place. "
- Per WP:BLPREMOVE:
Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that... relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards.
- Because status quo violates those two BLP standards, Regulov was correct to remove it, as I, and others, had done before, regardless of the RFC.
- Further, status quo is violating WP:PMC, in that it is misquoting Danes. The misquote is from a reliable source, but is a regurgitation of the original misquote from 1998. The actual quote is still readily available (I work in archives at a publication and obtained the quotes from the respective 1998 magazines, you can also find these in libraries, etc).
- Actual passages from the magazines:
The shoot was plagued with malaria and hepatitis outbreaks, and had to be shut down for several sick days. "It was just so hard," Danes says, now comfortably ensconced at a Beverly Hills lunch joint, where she's gobbling up a plate of extra-rare ahi. "The place just fucking smelled of cockroaches. There's no sewage system in Manila, and people have nothing there. [We saw] people with, like, no arms, no legs, no eyes, no teeth. We shot in a real [psychiatric] hospital, so takes would be interrupted by wailing women--like, 'Cut! Screaming person.' Rats were everywhere."
- Spines, Christine (October 1998). "Claire and Present Danger". Premiere. p. 66.
Danes's first film without her mother was shot in the Philippines this past winter. It was, she says, "utter hell to make. Manila is such a ghastly place."
- Van Meter, Jonathan (July 1998). "Perfectly Claire". Vogue. p. 118.
SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Teal Swan and Barbara Snow
Hello, I concern regarding one source used on pages for Teal Swan and Barbara Snow (therapist) Here is the source:
The source has been mostly used on Barbara Snow's page and this is the only source for creating an entire section. My concern is that while there is no consensus regarding Gizmodo on controversial topics, it is still used for sensational and controversial information placed on Wikipedia. There are other concerns too, which I listed below (copied from my prior correspondence with another editor but we haven't reached consensus):
- The source is a podcast with the information presented as a show with the focus on "sensationalism".
https://gizmodo.com/weve-launched-an-investigative-podcast-about-a-controve-1826416613
- It is not understood how the information leaked about the relationship of Teal Swan and Barbara Snow (if there was any sort of information, which I honestly doubt) based on the fact that the relation between a psychologist and a client is confidential:
- https://www.apa.org/topics/ethics/confidentiality
Couldn't it be the case of a leaked information about the client without her consent? Even if it is a small chance that it is, doesn't violate Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons?
- Finally, please, check this table of sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Here is on Gizmodo: There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements.
Since this source of Gizmodo topic is a radio show with a lot of controversial topics, don't you think it is unethical to use that source without adding more reliable ones? To me it looks like Gizmodo publishes this type of shows to attract more public with "sensationalism". I can't see how it is a proper source for Wikipedia if there is no consensus.
I also believe that it might be a violation on WP: BLP Teal Swan. Other concern, is that while the topic is controversial, only one no-consensus source used for information, which is mostly sensational. There is a need for a second objective opinion of other editors to review the source. --Onetimememorial (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- The information has been removed and should not be reinstated without consensus to do so. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Strongly Support Inclusion It is not at all controversial that Barbara Snow was Teal Swan's therapist. Could you elaborate on which statement you feel is controversial specifically? Gizmodo interviewed Teal Swan directly, and from Swan's own mouth she confirms unabashedly that her therapist was Barbara Snow. Gizmodo covering controversial topics does not make it unreliable. The New York Times also covers controversial topics. Teal Swan is a pop culture phenomenon. I disagree that the coverage by Gizmodo is sensationalist. Controversial and sensationalist are not the same thing. Snow and her relationship with Swan are an important part of both their stories, and should be mentioned. Epachamo (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Both Swan and Snow are controversial figures. Further, what was removed was well beyond confirming a patient-therapy relationship.[25] Interviewing Swan does not verify things on Snow's end. This issue needs coverage by multiple reliable sources under WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:REDFLAG, and Gizmodo is not one of them for controversial topics per WP:RSP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- The assertion made that Gizmodo is getting information from leaked sources is ridiculous, since Gizmodo says where they get their information. It is from publicly available records, from interviews with Swan herself and from a statement by Barbara Snow in their podcast. You can read the primary sources that Gizmodo used right here. Gizmodo did a fair job summarizing the points. Gizmodo being discounted because they cover controversial topics is also a bit ridiculous. The New York Times also covers controversial topics. Referring to Gizmodo as "sensationalist" is ad hominem. Do you have a source that says that Gizmodo is sensationalist? This independent site found that while Gizmodo leans left, its factual reporting is "high". It is I am befuddled that putting this paragraph is considered controversial. Onetimememorial has yet to list what "information" is specifically found controversial and in need of multiple sources. On WP:RSP, it clearly does NOT say that Gizmodo can't be used for controversial statements, it just says that there is no consensus on whether or not it should be. Once Morbidthoughts, or Onetimememorial can articulate what they find controversial, then I recommend going to WP:RSP and asking the community if Gizmodo is a valid source for whatever specific thing is considered controversial. Epachamo (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything about leaked sources. Reread WP:PUBLICFIGURE again, " If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."! Not only do I not believe that Gizmodo is an RS for these matters (allegations of sexual abuse and the ensuing investigation that looked into Snow's history) because of WP:RSP, you haven't supplied any other RS to even establish this incident should be given any WP:WEIGHT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The assertion made that Gizmodo is getting information from leaked sources is ridiculous, since Gizmodo says where they get their information. It is from publicly available records, from interviews with Swan herself and from a statement by Barbara Snow in their podcast. You can read the primary sources that Gizmodo used right here. Gizmodo did a fair job summarizing the points. Gizmodo being discounted because they cover controversial topics is also a bit ridiculous. The New York Times also covers controversial topics. Referring to Gizmodo as "sensationalist" is ad hominem. Do you have a source that says that Gizmodo is sensationalist? This independent site found that while Gizmodo leans left, its factual reporting is "high". It is I am befuddled that putting this paragraph is considered controversial. Onetimememorial has yet to list what "information" is specifically found controversial and in need of multiple sources. On WP:RSP, it clearly does NOT say that Gizmodo can't be used for controversial statements, it just says that there is no consensus on whether or not it should be. Once Morbidthoughts, or Onetimememorial can articulate what they find controversial, then I recommend going to WP:RSP and asking the community if Gizmodo is a valid source for whatever specific thing is considered controversial. Epachamo (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Morbidthoughts: YOU didn't say anything about leaked sources, but the original poster did, and was who I was responding to. It is pretty clear from reading both your and Onetimememorial's comments that neither of you bothered to even look at the source in question, so I'm unclear how you are making the judgement on how much weight should be given or whether it is reliable. Re-read WP:RSP and you will see that it never says that Gizmodo is NOT a reliable source, just that consensus hasn't been established. And for heaven sake, I beg once again, please, oh please, state what specific item you find controversial. Is it just the allegations of sexual abuse and ensuing investigation that looked into Snow's history? Then why are we blanking the entire section? Epachamo (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Naw, I looked at the source. The WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS is on you to make sure everything complies with our policies, including obtaining consensus. Two editors have already given you their opinion that the disputed material doesn't. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Morbidthoughts: YOU didn't say anything about leaked sources, but the original poster did, and was who I was responding to. It is pretty clear from reading both your and Onetimememorial's comments that neither of you bothered to even look at the source in question, so I'm unclear how you are making the judgement on how much weight should be given or whether it is reliable. Re-read WP:RSP and you will see that it never says that Gizmodo is NOT a reliable source, just that consensus hasn't been established. And for heaven sake, I beg once again, please, oh please, state what specific item you find controversial. Is it just the allegations of sexual abuse and ensuing investigation that looked into Snow's history? Then why are we blanking the entire section? Epachamo (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is not the number of editors, but the strength of the argument that matters on Wikipedia (see [[WP:NHC]). Could I please ask you to tell me which statements you find controversial? Do you find this statement controversial: "Swan said of Snow, "I still consider her to be one of the best psychologists that I have been to. ... When I started telling her the stories about what was going on with me and childhood, she literally just started crying. It was actually the first time I had a therapist cry." Any objections to adding it back in? Epachamo (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I object as to why any of those statements should be given weight. We can keep going around in circles, but you haven't obtained consensus. You want to get more opinions about this, start a WP:RFC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- If a number of editors agree with an argument, and you're alone on the other side of the argument, perhaps you should consider that it is you who are incorrect? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't intend to pile on here, but yes. Given the fact that we're dealing with people who tend to be controversial in and of themselves, I think we need to be extra cautious when it comes to BLP policy, and what we have here for the claims advanced doesn't meet that bar for me. Happy Friday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is not the number of editors, but the strength of the argument that matters on Wikipedia (see [[WP:NHC]). Could I please ask you to tell me which statements you find controversial? Do you find this statement controversial: "Swan said of Snow, "I still consider her to be one of the best psychologists that I have been to. ... When I started telling her the stories about what was going on with me and childhood, she literally just started crying. It was actually the first time I had a therapist cry." Any objections to adding it back in? Epachamo (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Is Karine Jean-Pierre a conspiracy theorist?
Karine Jean-Pierre replaced Jen Psaki as the White House press secretary a couple of weeks ago, and became thereby much more interesting to a small group of our editors, including IPs. (The article is currently semiprotected, but only for 48 hours.) There's edit warring and general disagreement about two 2020 tweets by Jean-Pierre alleging that Republican Brian Kemp stole the 2018 gubernatorial election from Democrat Stacey Abrams. Do these tweets make Jean-Pierre a 'stolen elections conspiracy theorist'? is the question, with accusations of 'whitewashing' against editors who think not. The problem is really that too few editors are discussing, and both article and talkpage could really do with more eyes. Bishonen | tålk 20:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC).
- Unless mainstream reliable sources are asserting she is a conspiracy theorist, no. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agree, with the caveat that they can't be sourced to WP:RSOPINION. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not every opinion should be in an article. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agree, with the caveat that they can't be sourced to WP:RSOPINION. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- There are, in fact, multiple sources referring to her claims as conspiracy theories and as false. Wikipedia should not sugarcoat on behalf of those who seek to undermine democracy by denying the legitimacy of elections; not all opinions are equal and valid, and claiming elections are stolen are among those that are invalid. Toa Nidhiki05 21:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- of course Raffensperger would call a Biden appointment a conspiracy theorist. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Toa just re-reverted me to restore wikivoice statements about false claims and conspiracy theories. The Mediaite entry at RSP says "marginally reliable", which to me reads as "don't use this for contentious BLP claims". The Henry Herald is the local paper for a tiny city. Unless there's more reliable sourcing, contentious claims based solely on these two is a deep enough NPOV problem to also be a BLP problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- TheWrap should be reliable. Their story. I've just added another ref from the Independent Journal Review, which is a member of the News Media Alliance. There's no reason to imagine Mediaite just made up a direct statement from Psaki, and their story was republished by Yahoo news:
Psaki told Mediaite “We all agree the 2018 election in Georgia is settled. And we’re also all concerned about voter suppression issues, including the President. Kemp won and she sees that tweet as having oversimplified the problem.” Addressing the 2016 tweet, Psaki said that Jean-Pierre “has affirmed that Donald Trump won in 2016, too. Like so many of us, Karine was concerned about the U.S. intelligence community’s unanimous finding that Russia intervened to help Trump. But he won.”
- User:Toa Nidhiki05, I totally feel for you--"Really a shame to see editors defending conspiracy theories here - I expect better". By the same token, in the same edit summary you said, "Revert unexplained removal of content", even though your reverters, two of them (meaning you don't have consensus for your edits), said "ouch! I'm partially reverting just to remove the "unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories", which is a BLP vio. I think the rest of my changes were improvements, but those can wait for consensus at talk" and "Don't use this for contentious BLP claims". So riddle me this. Two editors revert you, and explain what they are doing. You, on the other hand, offer "Rv whitewashing", and a clear violation of AGF by way of some personal accusations. And on top of that, which part of "if it's contentious, don't put it in article space" is not clear to you? Drmies (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I stand by everything I said. It's embarrassing that editors are so insistent on not reporting what sources say about her claims - which is that they are both false and conspiracy theories. There's no justification for it and I expect better. Toa Nidhiki05 23:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- If we are going to call someone a conspiracy theorist in wikivoice, it should be a claim made across a vast number of RSes, otherwise it must be both attributed and should be weighted on inclusion per UNDUE. For example, we fairly can call Alec Jones a conspiracy theorist as that is a very common descriptor in RSes. This doesn't appear to be the case for Jean Pierre, cherry picking from a few weak RSes, so absolutely not. --Masem (t) 23:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Saying someone promoted a conspiracy theory isn't the same as saying they are a conspiracy theorist (no tag was added to the article), but the idea that the 2016 and 2018 elections were rigged is absolutely a conspiracy theory. Toa Nidhiki05 23:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- That is still a contract if RSes routine do not state that those claims are directly about the conspiracy theories -- that's original research to take what was said and call it a conspiracy theory. And if only a few sources with questionable reliability are making that call, that's probably not important for us to pick up on. BLPs are not for trying to highlight every negative thing said about a person. ---Masem (t) 23:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- These sources are in no way sufficient for negative claims about a BLP. As outlined at WP:RSP, The Wrap is reliable for "entertainment news and media analysis" (which this isn't) and there's no consensus about its reliability on other subjects. And there's no consensus about the reliability of Independent Journal Review, either. The Yahoo source is just The Wrap again. Controversial/negative claims about BLPs require impeccable sources, and often several of them. Woodroar (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, The Wrap is a poor source in this case, not up to BLP quality. --Hipal (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Saying someone promoted a conspiracy theory isn't the same as saying they are a conspiracy theorist (no tag was added to the article), but the idea that the 2016 and 2018 elections were rigged is absolutely a conspiracy theory. Toa Nidhiki05 23:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- She should not be labelled a conspiracy theorist unless a vast number of RS are calling her that, which does not appear to be the case here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Did User:Masem and User:Hipal read the article? or just this noticeboard? KJP is not called a conspiracy in wikivoice; that allegation is clearly made by Brad Raffensperger. Also, it's the attempt to give Psaki's defense of KJP that is being reverted, not the allegation. (Psaki explains that KJP now accepts the electoral results.) YoPienso (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Now that I look closer, the Henry Herald source is actually a press release from Raffensperger himself. So it's an WP:SPS, absolutely unacceptable for claims about other living persons. And that's why we generally don't trust tiny local papers like this. Woodroar (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- And the author of second source, which is Mediaite, also writes for The Daily Caller, deprecated for publishing false news (the article itself. Doug Weller talk 10:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Now that I look closer, the Henry Herald source is actually a press release from Raffensperger himself. So it's an WP:SPS, absolutely unacceptable for claims about other living persons. And that's why we generally don't trust tiny local papers like this. Woodroar (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Did User:Masem and User:Hipal read the article? or just this noticeboard? KJP is not called a conspiracy in wikivoice; that allegation is clearly made by Brad Raffensperger. Also, it's the attempt to give Psaki's defense of KJP that is being reverted, not the allegation. (Psaki explains that KJP now accepts the electoral results.) YoPienso (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, per Masem. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:REDFLAG, WP:BLP, and if consensus says include, then it's WP:INTEXT. An opinion is still an opinion even if multiple news sources publish it, especially in the echo chamber. Isn't it generally accepted that when a political opponent claims an election was stolen that it's automatically a conspiracy theory? Regardless, it's an opinion until it is proven to be factual. Atsme 💬 📧 17:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely no. Even if RSs say she is, and I suspect it would not be a significant number of them, this sort of thing doesn't rise to the level where we should be applying such a LABEL. Even if we did have a lot of RS claiming this, it is an inherently subjective claim and thus per LABEL and BLP guidance we would only include this as an attributed claim (even if she 100% believes the election was stolen AND we have strong evidence against her claims). Springee (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello - Section 2.3, recently added to this page, is argumentative and unsupported. The same substance was previously removed by a Wikipedia moderator (Nil Einne) in Feb 2022. (I should note that I am the subject of the entry.) As public sources reflect, I announced the cited case against Prof. Gang Chen in January 2021, but I left the U.S. government a month later, on February 28, 2022 (https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/united-states-attorney-andrew-e-lelling-announces-departure). I was not involved in subsequent events (the case being dismissed, etc) and knew nothing about them. The cited sources do not support the contentions in this section - for example (none of this is libelous or defamatory - merely incorrect and unfair criticism):
- "The handling of the case was widely criticized, as it appeared to criminalize normal academic activities, and the "China ties" Chen was accused of hiding was evidently an MIT collaboration with a Chinese university, which appeared in the news at the time." The cited article (n.27) (1) says none of this beyond noting the school's collaboration with a Chinese university and (2) the article is an announcement MIT - by the school employing the professor who was charged (that is, it is not a reliable news source). Finally, the charges against the professor were not based on MIT's collaboration with another school. - "MIT president Rafael Reif soon released a letter regarding the case, and pointed out the obvious mischaracterization in the indictment." There is no support for "obvious mischaracterization," and again the cited source (n.28) is not a news source, much less a reliable one - it is an open letter from the President of the school. - "No apology was issued by FBI or Lelling regarding the handling of the case." When the case was dismissed, I had been gone for over a year and had nothing to do with the decision to dismiss it - the reference to "apologizing" is inapposite, and there is no citation, since this is basically a criticism by the writer. - "Chen later came forward and revealed further details about the extent of the mishandling of the case,[31][32][33] indicating that the prosecuting team led by Lelling deliberately hid multiple pieces of obvious evidence that would have negated the charges all together." The cited sources (n. 31, 32, 33) (a) do not support that I "led" any team, do not support the assertion that any evidence was "hidden," and do not support that any evidence "obviously" exonerated Prof. Chen; and (b) are all statements by the person prosecuted himself, or opinion pieces published on his behalf (again, they are not even technically neutral news sources or other reliable source material).
I understand that people have strong feelings on these issues, but the recently-added subsection is argumentative and factually incorrect, and I had no connection to the underlying events surrounding dismissal of this case. Thank you for your review of this matter. SMaturin99 (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Much of the section has now been reduced with the weight being cited to the NY Times article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just to note, I am not a "moderator" although there's no such thing on Wikipedia anyway. The reduced section is far better than that which I removed. I think it's still complicated by the fact that while the source and IIRC some others do mention Lelling and include critical commentary of the case, it's a general thing rather than explicitly linking Lelling to the problems or discussion his role in depth, indeed the NYT only mentions him twice I think and one of them is relating to him now. However maybe the implicit criticism is enough to warrant inclusion, as he was in charge of something which even he later agreed was problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Beyond sources which more strongly link discuss the involvement of Lelling in the case, as always sources primarily discussing Lelling which mention the case would IMO help to resolve WP:UNDUE concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. The author (WaldenLi) who added the problematic section has now removed the new language fashioned by Morbidthoughts and re-inserted his original, argumentative and unsupported, text. I respectfully ask that the entry be revised again and that WaldenLi be blocked from making further changes. (I should note that I am the subject of the entry.) I suggest one additional change, which is to insert "allegedly" before "singled out" in the new text - the law enforcement initiative (the "China Initiative") that is the subject of this subsection was not designed to target people based on ethnicity, but I acknowledge the arguments of those who say it must have been. Thank you again for the time spent on this issue. SMaturin99 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, it may be better to shift the section to Lelling's role in the China Initiative rather than focus on specific cases like Chen.[26][27] WP:BLPCRIME most likely requires this since many of the cases were dropped.Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Beyond sources which more strongly link discuss the involvement of Lelling in the case, as always sources primarily discussing Lelling which mention the case would IMO help to resolve WP:UNDUE concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Patrick Constable
Aislingrose18 conveys an ostensible request from Constable to remove a reference to a positive drug test and subsequent ban. I'd initially reverted, thinking the sources sufficient, but upon further consideration, I worry they may run afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY. We just have a table from UCI and a press release from Sport Integrity Australia, two primary sources. Even if this survives BLPPRIMARY scrutiny, I think it raises the question of the ethics of including such material on a page that essentially exists to turn some links blue on some tables of competition results. So I've self-reverted for now, and bring this here for others' thoughts. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, BLPPRIMARY, UNDUE Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Elite Canadian Championship Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would appreciate if someone could look at Elite Canadian Championship Wrestling. I removed a large amount of unsourced content--mostly about living wrestlers and managers--and the edit was reverted a few times by User:Mr. C.C.. I left a detailed message on their talk page explaining that it was a BLP violation to continue to reverted edits in order to add back unsourced content about living people. This editor responded that they are working on adding sources, and that it is also my responsibility to add sources the article. This editor has also added various "under construction" tags, but then does not edit the article until the next day, threatening they will report me I keep removing the tags or the unsourced content (they appear to be gaming the system with the "under construction" tags). I have also suggested this editor move the unsourced content to their sandbox while they look for sources. My concern is removing the vast unsourced content about living people that remains in the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've removed the unsourced claims again. Mine was the fifth time because you've had to remove them four times already. I also left Mr. C.C. a discretionary sanctions notification and have no issues asking for sanctions if this continues. Woodroar (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Entire content under Elite_Canadian_Championship_Wrestling#History is unsourced. 106.213.247.85 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, this is the fifth time that Mr. C.C. has restored unsourced claims about living persons, many controversial or negative, at Elite Canadian Championship Wrestling. Mr. C.C. has been warned and been given a discretionary sanctions notification. Admin intervention would be appreciated. Woodroar (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I checked other paragraphs too under Elite_Canadian_Championship_Wrestling#International_success which are mostly unsourced.
- Elite_Canadian_Championship_Wrestling#Alumni includes lists of mostly non-notable wrestlers. 106.213.247.85 (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, this is the fifth time that Mr. C.C. has restored unsourced claims about living persons, many controversial or negative, at Elite Canadian Championship Wrestling. Mr. C.C. has been warned and been given a discretionary sanctions notification. Admin intervention would be appreciated. Woodroar (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Entire content under Elite_Canadian_Championship_Wrestling#History is unsourced. 106.213.247.85 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Since User:Mr. C.C. seems to be incapable of stopping edit-warring to re-insert this mostly unsourced and BLP-dubious material, I have removed it myself and p-blocked them from editing the article for six months. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I had no hope that he would cease edit warring. This has solved the biggest problem and now rest of the issues can be discussed at Talk:Elite_Canadian_Championship Wrestling#Sourcing issues. 106.213.247.85 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
"found guilty due to an incident during which he insulted and threw a glass at Selen Soyder, his co-star in the 2016 series Hangimiz Sevmedik.[9][10]"
This is libellous entry which has been several times previously evaluated and sources of the info checked. The source is tabloid press and not the actual court documentation and court outcome. The info is incorrect. Following source checking the information was deemed previously libellous and removed and the contributors who were repeatedly entering the entry for defamatory purposes had been block from contribution to the page and also the page was put under protection. Please check the the talk history for this issue previously experienced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.210.131 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Given the number of sources which say that he was fined 7,830 lire for the offence, even if these are tabloids (and they don't all appear to be), why are they repeating the same "false" information. What in your opinion was the court outcome? Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Author wikipedia page has been targeted by online by online vandalism, false reasons of mass deletion and mass removing of articles, including Wiki approved images
- Please provide evidence of anything removed improperly.Slywriter (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- please excuse as not familiar with functions of Wiki. the User:Thurlow0391 has made multiple changes in the last hour, removing several cited articles, removing the profile image that was wiki approved. adding a cite from a far right blog, and claiming that the author themselves has created the page as their reason for mass deletion. so many cited articles removed it has triggered an article requiring notable sources. the vadndalist removed all of them. have undone most of their vandalism but they come back and redo it again. page would probably be helpful to have a kind of lock to stop the targeted vandalism 89.241.224.16 (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Continued Vandalism on page from User: Thurlow0391 deleting large amounts of cited links and information based on what appears personal opinion/vendetta of Mikey Walsh have undone their changes but they are quick undone again. they have also triggered a speedy deletion of the page based on a lack on cited information, which they are accountable for deleting. suspending of user, undoing their changes and a lock on this page would be very helpful Charmainetstone93 (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I repeat please identify and show actual policy violations. You not liking their edits is not a policy based reason. Content must be sourced and verifiable.Slywriter (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Continued Vandalism on page from User: Thurlow0391 deleting large amounts of cited links and information based on what appears personal opinion/vendetta of Mikey Walsh have undone their changes but they are quick undone again. they have also triggered a speedy deletion of the page based on a lack on cited information, which they are accountable for deleting. suspending of user, undoing their changes and a lock on this page would be very helpful Charmainetstone93 (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is at least the fifth time Walsh's biography is discussed on this forum. I think only this discussion about film adaption is relevant. I objected using Politicalite, which 89.241.224.16 describes as "a far right blog", and removed it in January, but the source has been restored by two different users ([28], [29]), and is currently in the article. Politrukki (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Bernard Donoughue, Baron Donoughue
Bernard Donoughue, Baron Donoughue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lots of recent edits were made on the basis that he has died but I cannot find it in the media and there is no source, that I can see, in the article. I don't want to screw this up and he is not a young man ... could an experienced BLP operator please take a quick look? Thank you. DBaK (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can't find anything, not even any twitter comments (y'know, the usual RIP stuff). It's been nearly a week since the supposed date of death, there would be something. Death must have a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- The death of a lord would definitely be reported on to some extent, so it's doubtful at this point. Curbon7 (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the speedy responses. I really appreciate the experienced eyes taking a look. With best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Tejasvi Surya
Tejasvi Surya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please help to resolve 2 questions,
1. Subject is a member of Indian parliament. An editor is removing and suppressing information about his criminal cases, should this information be added? There are multiple reliable sources (national newspapers) discussing his criminal cases. (see Talk:Tejasvi Surya#Police book trespass case against Tejasvi Surya) (Source: Police book trespass case against Tejasvi Surya )
2. There were protests by Human rights org during MPs overseas visit, leading to the cancellation of the subjects talk. Discussed at Talk:Tejasvi_Surya#Protests in Australia against Surya covered by international newspaper in detail. "Indian MP visiting Australia appears to equate Muslim conquest of India with Holocaust". the Guardian. 3 June 2022. Retrieved 5 June 2022. but once again, this user is suppressing the mention in the article calling it WP:UNDUE. --Venkat TL (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- One-off coverage about the things that haven't affected the person's career are simply WP:UNDUE. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Abhishek0831996 (1) where is this rule coming from? (2) this is not one off ok. Venkat TL (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Bronze Age Pervert argument about stating his real name
See bottom thread at Talk:Bronze Age Pervert I didn’t link to it as it mentions a name and I don’t know if it’s correct. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: this seems like an OSPOL#1 thing if sources can’t be provided. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Mhawk10 Thanks. I and another Admin have cleaned up the talk page and article, the editor's been blocked for outing and socking. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Great news! Would you also be willing to suppress the edit on that page made on 20:43, 4 June 2022, since that seems to be related to this? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, there seems to be some disagreement as to whether it's libelous but not about hiding it through some Admin process. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Great news! Would you also be willing to suppress the edit on that page made on 20:43, 4 June 2022, since that seems to be related to this? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Mhawk10 Thanks. I and another Admin have cleaned up the talk page and article, the editor's been blocked for outing and socking. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Ruja Ignatova
Ruja Ignatova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm a little concerned about some of the claims that are being made on the page. There are several anonymous editors making claims that appear, to me, to be poorly sourced. In particular, the name of her husband doesn't seem to be reported by most reputable sources but is being listed by some, in my opinion, poor sources. I don't feel particularly competent to assess the quality of the sources and I don't have a huge amount of experience working with BLP. My reading of WP:BLP is "If verifiability is in doubt, remove" but I'd appreciate a second (or third) opinion.--Hazel77 talk 20:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I removed that mainly because of WP:BLPNAME. We don't name family members unless they themselves are notable enough to have their own article, and we most certainly don't link their name to sources about alleged criminal actions as if they are wikilinks in disguise. Zaereth (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Is the widely published name of a home a BLP violation?
The New York Times, Business Insider, the Associated Press, Atlanta Magazine, and others [30] [31][32][33] all report the name of Kelly Loeffler's home as being Descante. Is is a BLP violation to include this name in the article? This is not private personal information per WP:BLPPRIVACY: it is not a cause of identity theft, it is not contact information, it is not original research, it is not self-published. Reywas92Talk 00:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at the edit history, multiple users have removed this on BLP grounds. Rather than edit warring, a WP:RFC on the article talk page could get you more eyes over 30 days to gain a consensus for inclusion or exclusion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- At first glance, I don't see what the BLP vio would be, but I also don't really want to start digging through all these source trying to come up with a theory. It's possible that it may be, but what part of policy does it specifically violate? What is your theory? The bigger question I would have is, what does it matter? I mean, were not talking about Graceland here. Why is it important to know what someone named their property? What specifically does this tell the reader about the subject? Unless there is some significance to it, it seems like boring trivia that would better be left out as irrelevant or pointless to the story. Zaereth (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I believe the objection (WP:BLPPRIVACY) is the name and the city leads to the postal address easy due to Google[34] given the low value of inclusion. This is a good faith objection that should be resolved by consensus for inclusion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I should ask @Bishonen: to confirm though. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- In that case, I'd have to agree with Masem below. She's a public figure, and as such the expectations of privacy are much lower. But that still doesn't answer the question of why it needs to be in the article. That's a question that should be answered to the reader within the article, because information should be able to demonstrate its own significance, or else it's just trivia. But that's better worked out on the talk page, at an RFC, or maybe at DRN . Zaereth (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure what it's doing at this board — did I call the name of the house a BLP violation? (Checks. No.) I removed it for the practical reason that it made it easier for bad actors to find Loeffler, just as you surmise, Morbidthoughts. Of course it's published elsewhere, but Wikipedia is widely read, and why should we risk triggering a reader to go look? Especially as it's uninteresting trivia. Bishonen | tålk 07:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC).
- 99% sure that for relatively famous PUBLICFIGUREs, you can search and find their address rather easily, named home or not. What we do not want is to give the exact address (city at most in terms of detail), unless the home itself is actually notable. --Masem (t) 01:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I should ask @Bishonen: to confirm though. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I believe the objection (WP:BLPPRIVACY) is the name and the city leads to the postal address easy due to Google[34] given the low value of inclusion. This is a good faith objection that should be resolved by consensus for inclusion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can't see this being a BLP issue for a PUBLICFIGURE, particularly with the quality of sourcing (Times + AP to start). I also don't see any immediate privacy issues, compared with , say, if Samuel Alito's home was named in the wake of the potential abortion ruling from SCOTUS (and that's a stretch). For a relatively unknown figure, however, this would be something to be concerned about including, but definitely not the case for Loeffler. --Masem (t) 00:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- At first glance, I don't see what the BLP vio would be, but I also don't really want to start digging through all these source trying to come up with a theory. It's possible that it may be, but what part of policy does it specifically violate? What is your theory? The bigger question I would have is, what does it matter? I mean, were not talking about Graceland here. Why is it important to know what someone named their property? What specifically does this tell the reader about the subject? Unless there is some significance to it, it seems like boring trivia that would better be left out as irrelevant or pointless to the story. Zaereth (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Enlightenment comes from considering why personal information should be included in a BLP article. Exactly what encyclopedic information is provided by naming a person's house, other than leading crazies to politicians' doorsteps? @Reywas92: You will be blocked if you post that information again without the support of an RfC on article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Really, you're going to threaten me with an effing block about something that's been sourced on the article for two years? This is not personal information, it's public information about a public figure, not something Wikipedia needs to be protecting. Is the New York Times leading crazies to DESCANTE and politicians' doorsteps because they published this? The name is not the same as Kelly Loeffler's address, which actually is listed as personal information under WP:BLPPRIVACY. Utter bonkers to think that people would be going to this (no-longer-a-politician's) (fenced-off) house just because of this. Moreover, the WP:STATUSQUO is with the information, and an RFC should be needed to remove it. Reywas92Talk 01:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:STATUSQUO is an essay (see that yellow box in there?) while WP:BLPUNDEL and WP:ONUS are explicit policies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. Disputed content in a BLP is treated with a much higher degree of scrutiny, and we generally err on the side of caution. Keep in mind that while BLP works with all other policies, but it ultimately trumps all other policies. That means leaving the disputed content out until consensus is achieved to include. Getting mad isn't going to help your case any. It will only hurt it, and edit warring is never a good way to sway others to your point of view. This is all counterproductive to your goals. As an encyclopedia, we are here to provide a summary of all knowledge, not all knowledge. The very nature of summarizing means cutting out all the boring details and whittling it down to the raw essentials; the nitty gritty. The question is simple. Why should I, the reader, care about this little tidbit of otherwise seemingly useless information? I'd equate it to her favorite cereal, name of her first dog, or her weight and height. Reading it makes me think, wtf? Why am I reading this? What is the point here? Zaereth (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I really don't see how that edit helps not 'lead crazies to politicans doorsteps', since the linked citation lists the name of the estate. Cononsense (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- The point is that anyone with an "interest" in a person will read the Wikipedia article but may never see the dozens of other websites that mention the subject. For example, there are several articles about abuse victims where easily discoverable personal information is not in the article. The reason for that is as mentioned above, namely that knowing stuff like where a person (WP:BLP) currently lives has no encyclopedic value (WP:DUE). It does have gossip value, but this is not a gossip site. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Really, you're going to threaten me with an effing block about something that's been sourced on the article for two years? This is not personal information, it's public information about a public figure, not something Wikipedia needs to be protecting. Is the New York Times leading crazies to DESCANTE and politicians' doorsteps because they published this? The name is not the same as Kelly Loeffler's address, which actually is listed as personal information under WP:BLPPRIVACY. Utter bonkers to think that people would be going to this (no-longer-a-politician's) (fenced-off) house just because of this. Moreover, the WP:STATUSQUO is with the information, and an RFC should be needed to remove it. Reywas92Talk 01:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Background = Kelly Loeffler talk page thread Personal life (re record residential Atlanta real estate deal, Update. Bishonen did not mention WP:BLPPRIVACY, I and another editor did, I also brought up WP:BLPUNDEL, subsequently others have done so too. I'm glad to see more people agreeing WP:BLP should be followed, but not hopeful that the slightly misleading header will be fixed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is being talked about by reliable sources. There are multiple reliable sources discussing the connection between the home and the person in detail. The name is widely publicized. It is not an address. The mansion itself would easily pass WP:GNG.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Great. But just because something is found in reliable sources doesn't automatically make it worth including. Lot's of sources discuss what Kim Kardashian had for breakfast this morning, but that's trivial information and not worthy of an encyclopedia. Everyone seems to be avoiding the simple question: why is this important for the reader to know? Seriously, as an outsider who has never heard of the subject before, my mind can easily be changed, but no one is making any argument as to why it needs to be there. The more interesting question is, why is it so important to you? Zaereth (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is not. But if you could create an article for the mansion then we'd normally link to that article anyways!Lurking shadow (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Could've, would've, should've. It still doesn't answer the question of why it needs to be in this article. I mean, seriously. I'd like to know. What is the point, because that's what the reader will be asking themselves. If information cannot demonstrate its own importance then its not information at all. It's just useless filler. Zaereth (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- If a notable person owns a notable residence I would like to know that and there is clear public interest (and encyclopedic value) in that. Thats clearly not what our BLP protections are for. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Could've, would've, should've. It still doesn't answer the question of why it needs to be in this article. I mean, seriously. I'd like to know. What is the point, because that's what the reader will be asking themselves. If information cannot demonstrate its own importance then its not information at all. It's just useless filler. Zaereth (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is not. But if you could create an article for the mansion then we'd normally link to that article anyways!Lurking shadow (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Great. But just because something is found in reliable sources doesn't automatically make it worth including. Lot's of sources discuss what Kim Kardashian had for breakfast this morning, but that's trivial information and not worthy of an encyclopedia. Everyone seems to be avoiding the simple question: why is this important for the reader to know? Seriously, as an outsider who has never heard of the subject before, my mind can easily be changed, but no one is making any argument as to why it needs to be there. The more interesting question is, why is it so important to you? Zaereth (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is being talked about by reliable sources. There are multiple reliable sources discussing the connection between the home and the person in detail. The name is widely publicized. It is not an address. The mansion itself would easily pass WP:GNG.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Is it a notable residence? I see no indication of that from reading the article. I mean, I've heard of Graceland and the Ponderosa, but I've never heard of whatever this place is called. To ask it another way, did the story lose anything by removing the name? Or does it read just the same? As an analogy, does the name of a rape victim add anything to the article of a convicted rapist. Or would it read just the same is we simply use a generic term like "victim"? In general, names like these are meaningless to the general reader. Nobody cares about a faceless name. Unless there is a good reason, what is harmed by omitting it? I know it's not a BLP question; that's already been established to my satisfaction (albeit not to everyone else'). But I am curious since nobody seems to be able to answer what is a very basic and simple question. Could it be that it's not necessary? Zaereth (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to make the argument that it's not interesting or necessary, that's fine. But instead people removed it because it was "leading crazies right to politicians' doorsteps" with implications of BLP issues, which has no basis. Reywas92Talk 21:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- yes, it seems much more like a DUE issue than a BLP issue. I'm wondering if this residence is locally famous. I know for example, of some famous residences where I live (washington d.c), which may be situationally due in articles, but I would struggle to name anything in atlanta. Cononsense (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to make the argument that it's not interesting or necessary, that's fine. But instead people removed it because it was "leading crazies right to politicians' doorsteps" with implications of BLP issues, which has no basis. Reywas92Talk 21:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Is it a notable residence? I see no indication of that from reading the article. I mean, I've heard of Graceland and the Ponderosa, but I've never heard of whatever this place is called. To ask it another way, did the story lose anything by removing the name? Or does it read just the same? As an analogy, does the name of a rape victim add anything to the article of a convicted rapist. Or would it read just the same is we simply use a generic term like "victim"? In general, names like these are meaningless to the general reader. Nobody cares about a faceless name. Unless there is a good reason, what is harmed by omitting it? I know it's not a BLP question; that's already been established to my satisfaction (albeit not to everyone else'). But I am curious since nobody seems to be able to answer what is a very basic and simple question. Could it be that it's not necessary? Zaereth (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps that's a valid argument, and also one I'm willing to give serious consideration. But to me, I'd be asking the same question if we were talking about some trivia being added to the capacitor article. Honestly, at this point, for me, it's just a deep curiosity about human nature, because it always fascinates me when people want something so badly yet can't tell anyone why. It's one of those human oddities that comes up ever so often, especially around anything political. Personally, I'm pragmatic, and feel that information is only as good as the results it produces. As someone who's been trained in encyclopedic writing since long before the internet was even a dream in someone's mind, I like to think I have a certain knowledge on what is expected from them. If there is a good reason to include, then wonderful, I'm all for it. If there is not, then it's just useless filler which will only annoy the average reader. The goal should be to give the most information in the fewest words possible, so anything we can cut that is unnecessary is a good thing. If there is a concern of revealing someone's private address, then I am very sympathetic to that concern, especially since there is no "overriding public need", as the SPJ would put it. But my real fascination at this point is why is such a simple dispute over such a tiny, insignificant detail being so blown out of proportion? Zaereth (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- A google search for "Descante" without mentioning the BLP returns immediate results solely for this residence. If thats not a notable residence I don't know what is. Its sale to the BLP subject was the largest single family property transaction in Atlanta history, you can argue thats only of regional significance, but its hard to argue it isn't significant and its impossible to argue that the purchaser of such a property has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The ownership or creation of a notable residence is a significant accomplishment of encyclopedic value, for example an encyclopedia entry about P. T. Barnum would be remiss if it didn't mention Iranistan. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- When I google "Descante" the first two hits I get are about a California company named Descante Design, the third is realtor.com about the house without mentioning the purchaser, the fourth and fifth are references to Portuguese and Spanish dictionaries. So much for the claims re googling. As for the claim that the purchaser had no reasonable expectation of privacy, my idea of "reasonable expectation" is that editors here on WP:BLPN will concern themselves with WP:BLP. It says no "contact information for living persons", it says remove "personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc.", it does not say to ignore "good-faith BLP objections". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Google tailors results based on who does the googling, even for you it returns the residence under question among the top three results. Google generally returns nine results, were the rest about this house? This is no more contact information requiring BLP oversight than "Elizabeth II resides at Buckingham Palace" is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Re "Google tailors results" -- that's my point. Re "were the rest about this house?" -- no. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I thought your point was that this was contact information and the quibbling over whether a google search for the residence returned some or many results was just a side bar discussion. I haven't noticed you running over to Elizabeth II to scrub her contact info so you must not believe that it actually is contact info of the sort that is a BLP concern. Or are we to treat different public figures differently? We don't really acknowledge different levels of public figure, for our purposes anything that applies to Kelly Loeffler also applies Elizabeth II. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Re "Google tailors results" -- that's my point. Re "were the rest about this house?" -- no. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Google tailors results based on who does the googling, even for you it returns the residence under question among the top three results. Google generally returns nine results, were the rest about this house? This is no more contact information requiring BLP oversight than "Elizabeth II resides at Buckingham Palace" is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- When I google "Descante" the first two hits I get are about a California company named Descante Design, the third is realtor.com about the house without mentioning the purchaser, the fourth and fifth are references to Portuguese and Spanish dictionaries. So much for the claims re googling. As for the claim that the purchaser had no reasonable expectation of privacy, my idea of "reasonable expectation" is that editors here on WP:BLPN will concern themselves with WP:BLP. It says no "contact information for living persons", it says remove "personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc.", it does not say to ignore "good-faith BLP objections". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- A google search for "Descante" without mentioning the BLP returns immediate results solely for this residence. If thats not a notable residence I don't know what is. Its sale to the BLP subject was the largest single family property transaction in Atlanta history, you can argue thats only of regional significance, but its hard to argue it isn't significant and its impossible to argue that the purchaser of such a property has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The ownership or creation of a notable residence is a significant accomplishment of encyclopedic value, for example an encyclopedia entry about P. T. Barnum would be remiss if it didn't mention Iranistan. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps that's a valid argument, and also one I'm willing to give serious consideration. But to me, I'd be asking the same question if we were talking about some trivia being added to the capacitor article. Honestly, at this point, for me, it's just a deep curiosity about human nature, because it always fascinates me when people want something so badly yet can't tell anyone why. It's one of those human oddities that comes up ever so often, especially around anything political. Personally, I'm pragmatic, and feel that information is only as good as the results it produces. As someone who's been trained in encyclopedic writing since long before the internet was even a dream in someone's mind, I like to think I have a certain knowledge on what is expected from them. If there is a good reason to include, then wonderful, I'm all for it. If there is not, then it's just useless filler which will only annoy the average reader. The goal should be to give the most information in the fewest words possible, so anything we can cut that is unnecessary is a good thing. If there is a concern of revealing someone's private address, then I am very sympathetic to that concern, especially since there is no "overriding public need", as the SPJ would put it. But my real fascination at this point is why is such a simple dispute over such a tiny, insignificant detail being so blown out of proportion? Zaereth (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Looks like nationality warring--subject has self-identified as Israeli-Palestinian, but there seems to be an effort to expunge half of that. More eyes, and page protection if necessary. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:3597 (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Per MOS:ETHNICITY, the lead should mention his nationalities (preferably citizenship) over ethnicity but with the support of RS. How do RS generally describe him? Does he hold an Israeli or Palestinian passport or both? Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Paul Pelosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a unique situation involving WP:PUBLICFIGURE. A person who is now a public figure, Paul Pelosi, was charged with a crime way back in 1957, when he was not a public figure. The event was reported at the time in just one local newspaper, the San Francisco Examiner. My attempt to add this information to the Palosi article has been reverted because WP:PUBLICFIGURE asks for "multiple reliable third-party sources". In the past week, after Pelosi was charged with another driving offense, the 1957 charge was unearthed, and was widely reported in conservative media, most of which are blacklisted at WP:RSP. Mainstream media did not report it, perhaps because Paul is married to Nancy Pelosi. The incident happened--way back in 1957--when it was just another car accident involving a teenager. Do we follow common sense and exempt this one from the strict requirements of WP:PUBLICFIGURE? Your input at Talk:Paul Pelosi#David Pelosi would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see no reason given why should ignore PUBLICFIGURE. Common sense is often a euphemism for want, but rarely a reason for need. If it's not widely covered then there would appear to be little public interest, so I would say no. If nothing else, due weight would apply, in which case, for a public figure, there should still be substantial coverage. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is covered by NY Post.[35] Instead of looking for only mainstream friendly-outlets, I think we should instead focus on checking if the information is false. If there is no source disputing the information then it needs to be included. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. If there's no coverage in mainstream sources then it's not WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish there was mainstream coverage at the time.
- [36]
- also a article from the San Francisco Examiner Basedosaurus (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- The sensational headlines from that front page of the San Mateo Times don't give me the utmost confidence that it should be any more citable than the NY Post. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. If there's no coverage in mainstream sources then it's not WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is covered by NY Post.[35] Instead of looking for only mainstream friendly-outlets, I think we should instead focus on checking if the information is false. If there is no source disputing the information then it needs to be included. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- This edit[37] is troubling in that it attributes blame to Pelosi when the sources and courts haven't. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yea, the sourcing needs to be quite a bit better, otherwise it is giving undue weight to a half-century old happening. Laura_Bush#Early_life_and_career covers the former first lady's vehicle incident that also resulted in a death, but that was touched on by several prominent reliable sources at the time of her husband's candidacy. Zaathras (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Zaathras Laura Bush is more of a can be considered Public Figure than Paul Pelosi.Most people would know who the First Lady or potential First lady is compared to who the husband of the Speaker of the house is,so of course there would be more coverage. Basedosaurus (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- A person is either a public figure or not. There's aren't Degrees of Public Figure-ness. My point was that this situation here needs better sourcing. Zaathras (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Zaathras Laura Bush is more of a can be considered Public Figure than Paul Pelosi.Most people would know who the First Lady or potential First lady is compared to who the husband of the Speaker of the house is,so of course there would be more coverage. Basedosaurus (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yea, the sourcing needs to be quite a bit better, otherwise it is giving undue weight to a half-century old happening. Laura_Bush#Early_life_and_career covers the former first lady's vehicle incident that also resulted in a death, but that was touched on by several prominent reliable sources at the time of her husband's candidacy. Zaathras (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Magnolia677@Morbidthoughts I agree the wording of this edit needs to be changed. It should instead say something along the lines of "Pelosi was charged with Misdemeanor Manslaughter after the death of his brother during a car crash in which he was in control of the vehicle". Basedosaurus (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I still have reservations on whether Paul Pelosi should be evaluated as WP:PUBLICFIGURE, mainly for who he is married to, instead of WP:NPF given that the NY Times reported that he has "typically avoided the spotlight".[38] At this point, I don't believe the legal aspect of the crash should be mentioned under WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- So you believe it should only be mentioned that his brother died in a crash that he was also in?correct? Basedosaurus (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is probably the most that should be put into the article given the available RS that has been presented. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- So, Paul Pelosi was charged with a misdemeanor offense in 1957, which is not a half a century ago but actually 65 years ago? It was a family tragedy but was he convicted? I see no evidence of that. What I see is the unreliable Daily Mail and the unreliable New York Post doing their very best to bring negative attention to a terrible accident that happened 65 years ago, because they hate Paul Pelosi's current wife Nancy Pelosi. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is probably the most that should be put into the article given the available RS that has been presented. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- So you believe it should only be mentioned that his brother died in a crash that he was also in?correct? Basedosaurus (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I still have reservations on whether Paul Pelosi should be evaluated as WP:PUBLICFIGURE, mainly for who he is married to, instead of WP:NPF given that the NY Times reported that he has "typically avoided the spotlight".[38] At this point, I don't believe the legal aspect of the crash should be mentioned under WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Magnolia677@Morbidthoughts I agree the wording of this edit needs to be changed. It should instead say something along the lines of "Pelosi was charged with Misdemeanor Manslaughter after the death of his brother during a car crash in which he was in control of the vehicle". Basedosaurus (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- That sounds about right. I guess I should have looked at the article first, but I was commenting solely on the nature of the original question. How is it we're calling this person a public figure? That term has a very specific legal definition, which is people of celebrity status or similar. I would expect an article on one to be much longer and contain more than a dozen or so sources. Notability is not inherited nor passed on through marriage, and the more I look at this, the more it seems like the typical mob-mentality where going after someone's family to get at them seems like the thing to do. To me, that's reprehensible, but I guess at least it's not the children this time, as it often is the case with politics. Since PUBLICFIGURE doesn't seem to even come into play here, I would say leave it out unless we can show that BLPCRIME is satisfied. I would also say the same about the 2022 DUI charge. If there is no conviction, then we shouldn't have it in the article. Zaereth (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Zaereth The idea you have stated of no conviction no article would mean a substantial amount of Wikipedia would be deleted.It would need to be applied evenly to all BLP's. Basedosaurus (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Basedosaurus, please feel free to remove mentions of all 65 year old misdemeanor accusations that did not result in convictions from any biography of a living person that you can find. Please read WP: BLP in its entirety and take it seriously. 05:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Zaereth The idea you have stated of no conviction no article would mean a substantial amount of Wikipedia would be deleted.It would need to be applied evenly to all BLP's. Basedosaurus (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- The articles used are not from the daily mail or NYP.They are from the time of the incident. Basedosaurus (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it should, and does. Please read BLP. The exception to BLPCRIME is PUBLICFIGURE, and this person doesn't seem to pass that by a long shot. Zaereth (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- On the narrow question of whether he was convicted, the answer seems to be "no". At least, according to the deprecated source The Sun [39], he was cited at the scene but exonerated by the coroner's jury. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- That sounds about right. I guess I should have looked at the article first, but I was commenting solely on the nature of the original question. How is it we're calling this person a public figure? That term has a very specific legal definition, which is people of celebrity status or similar. I would expect an article on one to be much longer and contain more than a dozen or so sources. Notability is not inherited nor passed on through marriage, and the more I look at this, the more it seems like the typical mob-mentality where going after someone's family to get at them seems like the thing to do. To me, that's reprehensible, but I guess at least it's not the children this time, as it often is the case with politics. Since PUBLICFIGURE doesn't seem to even come into play here, I would say leave it out unless we can show that BLPCRIME is satisfied. I would also say the same about the 2022 DUI charge. If there is no conviction, then we shouldn't have it in the article. Zaereth (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Please note that I have rewritten the text of this edit, and provided three reliable sources. Please see Talk:Paul Pelosi#David Pelosi. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- How did you find and review the content from the Pacific Drug Review and the Nancy Pelosi book? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have updated the sources with an OCLC number and ISBN number, respectively, to make the sources reasonably available. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- You can not WP:FORUMSHOP and rely simply on the discussion at the article talk page to insert your edits.[40] Multiple editors in this thread have questioned inclusion based on WP:DUE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE,WP:NPF, and WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have updated the sources with an OCLC number and ISBN number, respectively, to make the sources reasonably available. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree based mostly on BLPCRIME. This is obviously a low-profile individual, who has purposely avoided the spotlight despite being married to a high-profile person. There is no indication whatsoever that PUBLICFIGURE even comes into play here. A public figure includes most politicians, plus people like celebrities such as Charlie Sheen, Tom Cruise, or Kim Kardashian. Public figures by law do not have the same expectations of privacy as low-profile people, and Wikipedia follows this standard. You can usually tell if a person is a public figure by the sheer number of sources out there on them, and their articles on Wikipedia tend to be quite long. There are cases where low-profile people have become public figures for nothing more than the crimes they committed, but these are people like Charles Manson or Mary Kay Letourneau, but if you look at the sheer number of sources out there covering them, then we would be remiss in not covering them as well. That is nowhere near the case here. Not by a long shot.
- The one question which again nobody seem to be bothered to answer is: why does it need to be in the article. Wanting something is not the same as needing it, and my suspicion is that people want it for political reasons. Keep in mind that I personally cannot stand Nancy Pelosi, and would love nothing more than to see her voted out of office, but I would never go after her family as a way to make her seem guilty by association, which is what I suspect is going on here. (That's one of the main reasons I stuck around Wikipedia and BLPN all these years, because I was shocked at how people went after Sarah Palin's children during he 2008 election. That kind of tactic is just horrible.) That or something similar is usually the case when people can't say why the article needs such info (or rather, why they want such info in the article), because there must be a reason but saying it out loud will sound terrible. Instead the argument for inclusion is always one of "because we can" rather than why we should. Zaereth (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello. In addition to the recent NY Post and Daily Mail reporting, the crash was covered in multiple contemporary reports, and mentioned in subsequent books, including Nancy Pelosi's herself (although obliquely). The Pacific Drug Review was a West Coast pharmacy trade journal that probably covered the event due to the father being a noteworthy druggist. The biography by Susan Page substantiates the "conservative media" articles, including that a coroner's jury cleared Paul of blame. See below:
- "College Student Dies in Skyline Crash". San Mateo Times. February 22, 1957.
- "Youth Killed in Crash; Neck Brace Blamed". San Francisco Examiner. February 23, 1957. p. 4.
- "S.F. Youth Killed as Sports Car Crashes". San Francisco Chronicle. February 23, 1957. p. 4.
- "David J. Pelosi". Pacific Drug Review. 69: 40. 1957. OCLC 1084928151.
- Pelosi, Nancy (2008). Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters. New York: Anchor Books. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-385-52586-2.
Faith has always been important to the Pelosi family and would be a source of strength to them when they lost a son, "dear David" as Nana called him, who died in an automobile accident in 1957, and much later two granddaughters who died in a tragic fire.
- Page, Susan (2021). Madam Speaker: Nancy Pelosi and the Lessons of Power. Grand Central Publishing. pp. 94–94. ISBN 9781538750711.
- There is no doubt the event is verifiable and covered in reliable sources. Whether it belongs in an encyclopedia is up for debate. If included, it should be presented conservatively, succinctly, and without sensationalism or undue emphasis on minor aspects of the event. Mention of the loss of a brother would help clarify the early life (the article does not even yet mention his brother Ron Pelosi in prose). It should not be juxtaposed with the subsequent DUI in 2022 or ottherwise construed to imply that Pelosi is a particularly reckless person. 63.155.44.196 (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure how the Pacific Drug Review even came up in the search for sources (JSTOR? Google? PUBMED?) and whether it (an obituary?) should be given any more weight than the local news articles that might fall under NOTNEWS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- A snippet of it comes up if you search Google Books, same as the Susan Page book, which displays several pages on Google Books (the search term "David John Pelosi" allows more text to be seen, although it might vary regionally or in different browsers). It would be a different matter if Pacific Drug Review was the only source reporting it (and I can't verify if it mentions Paul by name or not), but it adds weight along with the others. 63.155.44.196 (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- It does matter whether PDR verifies Paul's role in a PUBLICFIGURE or DUE analysis. Editors should not be citing to things that don't directly verify what is being asserted per WP:BURDEN and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- A snippet of it comes up if you search Google Books, same as the Susan Page book, which displays several pages on Google Books (the search term "David John Pelosi" allows more text to be seen, although it might vary regionally or in different browsers). It would be a different matter if Pacific Drug Review was the only source reporting it (and I can't verify if it mentions Paul by name or not), but it adds weight along with the others. 63.155.44.196 (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure how the Pacific Drug Review even came up in the search for sources (JSTOR? Google? PUBMED?) and whether it (an obituary?) should be given any more weight than the local news articles that might fall under NOTNEWS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a current discussion on this page with another editor who is wanting to include exhaustive detail about a story that is just allegations at this stage and reported by mostly tabloid sources in conservative media. I have been accused of censorship and sanitising the information, but am merely wanting not to place undue weight on a story that does not warrant more than a passing mention at this stage as its mostly gossip from anonymous sources published from only one side of the political spectrum. Would appreciate some more input or contributions to the discussion to help establish some consensus as to the right way forward here, given the history (and future risk) of edit warring on this page.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have attempted to clean up some of the language to make it concise and clearer. In general, each contentious detail that is to be included must be supported by multiple reliable sources per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Great work, I agree with your changes, thanks.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Wiki editor Daniel Case seems to be constantly removing material that is added in to improve the readability and neutrality of the article in question.
Without the added material, the article in question has essentially the following problem: A reader looking only at the first part of the article will walk away with the impression that Mackenzie Fierceton lied about her past, exaggerating claims about suffering child abuse. BUT, if you actually were to read through the rest of the article, with associated references, one ends up with entirely different impressions: That Fierceton's story was first misrepresented not by Fierceton herself, but by members of the press; that Fierceton may not have so much mis-represented her past so much as her story was distorted by other entities (like the Rhodes Trust) who had on certain elite preconceptions of foster children; that key University of Pennsylvania administrators put an overwhelming amount of pressure only to reverse itself once that inappropriate pressure attracted a public outcry; and most notably, that UPenn itself had no problem endorsing a certain definition of First Generation College Student that Fierceton fell into due to estrangement from her parents, right up until the point they didn't.
Essentially, this reality is not a clear cut story that "Makenzie lied". And given that we cannot assume most wikipedia readers will read a long article to the end, its is important that nuance as well as conclusions from subsequent journalistic investigations into this story are placed closer to the opening of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batango7 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm glad you have decided to start discussing this rather than reverting constantly, and created an account to do so. The article talk page would have been better, but whatever.
- Creating this article in draft space over the past two months since the New Yorker article has been a very tight balance to strike, so much that a couple of times I'd let it go for a day or two to catch my breath. BLP and NPOV mean we have to be fair to not only Fierceton but her mother, who after all has in addition to the charges being dropped had her arrest expunged and been removed from the state's child abuser registry—things that matter very much for BLP. We cannot slant the article to say that she abused her daughter, only that Fierceton says she did, and that many people who knew her around the time believe her when she says that.
- As for Penn's treatment of her and her FGLI identity, I would defer to any outcome of her suit against Penn over making a definitive statement about that, since that suit would be the only formal process that matters for the time being. A journalistic investigation is not an official process that can compel a party to do something as a result. It is not an official finding of fact. We can say what The New Yorker reported and what it concluded, and note that two weeks after the article's publication Penn released its hold on her MSW, without saying or implying that the one led to the other, no matter how much it may otherwise seem like that's what happened. We cannot say in the infobox, not at present, that she has been "vindicated". As much as I personally believe Fierceton is telling the truth about her mother's abuse and that Penn has motives to discredit her that go beyond any possible fallout from lax administration of its Pell grants, the article has to not take sides on these things for now.
- I also do not see BLP and NPOV as being constrained by readers' tendencies to read, or not read, the article beyond the intro (In fact, I have noted that when people cite bits from our articles on Reddit, Twitter or other social media, they very often quote from the article body, not the intro). Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Ping @Daniel Case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Trevor Graham
The biography about Trevor Graham is against the laws of a living person. Many things in the article is poorly sourced or is not sourced Mrtego (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- The only unsourced section was about his coaching career. I have removed that. Everything else appears to be adequately sourced. —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Mrtego: What is your connection to Graham? Based on this edit to the talk page, one could draw an inference that you are Graham. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Hu Xuntian
This article appears to be pretty wildly NPOV. This composer's work came up in a discussion elsewhere and someone noted that his Wikipedia page reads as though he wrote it himself, with lines such as:
- creator of a new musical language
- In 2003, he composed Images in Sound, which was humanity's first gift of primordial music to all species of the natural world
- In 2008, he produced Ehe Chant, the first work of Preconsciousness Music in human history.
While these things are, I suppose, strictly possible, to this (very much musically literate) editor it reads as pretty overwhelmingly congratulatory. Jemiller226 (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: He Xuntian. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Vivian Kubrick
In Vivian Kubrick, the entire "Social media activity" section is sourced to The Daily Beast. Based on Beccaynr's suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivian Kubrick, I'm starting a discussion here rather than just remove it myself. As noted in WP:DAILYBEAST, Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons
. It seems like claims of association with fringe groups, for which I haven't been able to find any backup in WP:RS, is exactly what TDB shouldn't be used for. The other statement in that section, regarding the subject's suspended Twitter account, is sourced to a Twitter announcement which doesn't even verify that the account in question is Kubrick's. That @ViKu1111 is indeed Vivian Kubrick is a reasonable guess, but we don't do reasonable guesses about controversial statements in WP:BLPs. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose use of the Daily Beast for this section. My hesitation for removing the section was based on the edit history of the article and my observation of challenges to previous attempts to remove it. However, the DB article is written in a sensationalist style, makes other poorly-sourced claims, admits it is unaware of the authorship of the posts and appears to have failed to preserve them. When I attempted to check the characterizations made by the Daily Beast, I followed links from its article and found the account suspended. Removal of the source and content based on this source seems well within the particular caution expressed at WP:DAILYBEAST, so I support the removal of the entire section, including because I have not been able to find other sources (beyond churnalism, and possibly a Le Monde article noted in the AfD that I have not been able to fully access) at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say removing it and opening a talk page section detailing the concerns is the right call. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with immediate removal and notification/justification on the talk page also. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because this is a BLP, I immediately removed the section and left a note on the article Talk page: Talk:Vivian_Kubrick#Removal_of_content_per_WP:BLP. Thank you all, Beccaynr (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Based on Wikipedia's "notability" criteria, I don't think Vincent Phillip Muñoz merits their own page.
Their academic achievements (one peer-reviewed book) are far less significant than those of far more qualified and well known academics who do not have Wikipedia pages (and who probably shouldn't). The same applies to the (single) award Munoz has received: APSA's Hubert Morken Award. This award is given out every year. APSA's most prestigious award is the James Madison Award, which is only given once every 3 years and which "honors an American political scientist who has made a distinguished scholarly contribution to political science." See: https://www.apsanet.org/PROGRAMS/APSA-Awards/James-Madison-Award. Munoz did not get this award.
The article also asserts that Munoz has a forthcoming book "in the summer or [sic] 2022," but provides no citation. How are we to verify this claim? Who knows this information about Munoz?
In short, if Munoz merits a page, then so do tens of thousands of other tenured academics in the United States with relatively minor achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carelesswhisper93 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, just wanted to quickly note that Mr.HerbieHoover introduced this information at this article, wherein an accusation of plagiarism is made against the subject. While I believe Reason is generally reliable, given the hedging in the article itself and standard WP:BLP policy, I undid as not compliant, but I thought I would bring it here to see if perhaps people see things differently. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dumuzid; I went back and forth. Still, after examining the substance of the sourced materials, mainly primary sources, as well as the author's, Phillip Magness, reputation, I felt that this was pretty rock solid and worth adding. Happy for anyone else's input. Mr.HerbieHoover (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think that this is contentious enough that it should be thoroughly discussed at
Talk:Kevin M. Kruse, and only added to the BLP when there is clear consensus to do so. Cullen328 (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough, Cullen. As the proponent here, Mr.HerbieHoover, I'll leave it up to you to get that started. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Ron DeSantis
Troubles have arisen at the BLP for Ron DeSantis (governor of Florida). I made this edit after extensive discussion at talk page resulting in 3-1 consensus. Nevertheless, the "1" in the "3-1" consensus reverted. Rather than go to ANI or someplace like that, I thought it would be more friendly to come here and see if perhaps the 3 are wrong and the 1 is right (doubtful). The pertinent talk page section is here. In a nutshell, DeSantis made a statement about the power of state legislatures to regulate a presidential election, in particular the 2020 U.S. election. Then later on he issued a clarification. So, in keeping with WP:RSBREAKING, we cite reliable sources that addressed not just the initial statement, but also the later clarification. They are both reliable Florida sources, which is understandable given that Florida media pays more attention to DeSantis than media anywhere else. I am concerned that USER:SPECIFICO's revert has restored information that is blatantly contradictory to the cited sources, and am also concerned about this editor’s insistence on prevailing. The other two involved editors are User:Nemov and User:Marquardtika who both approved the edit that SPECIFICO reverted. The article is subject to post-1992 discretionary sanctions, with which SPECIFICO is familiar (as am I). Thanks in advance for any help/advice/guidance with this. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Was an RfC called there so you can get more editor involvement? It would also help if there were multiple sources that discussed this issue to confirm whether either version is actually WP:DUE. I don't see how the weight of a local news report should even be included when it weasily prefaces DeSantis intent with "seemingly suggested". How should that become a straight up *wikivoice* suggestion from DeSantis to whatever editors think he suggested? Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- We could certainly start an RFC if people here recommend it. I don’t think it should be necessary given the 3-1 consensus and the distortion of the cited sources that’s now happening. There are only two reliable sources that address the November 20 clarification by DeSantis and his aides, and we cite both of them. The author of one of them is a former deputy managing editor of the National Law Journal (links to the reporters’ biographies are provided at article talk). The reason why both sources use words like “apparently” and “seemingly” is probably because things seemed one way before the clarification, and another way after the clarification; I have not relied upon either of those parts of the cited sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Egads, that article is aweful. It's terribly bloated and hard to read through. I've seem books on quantum physics, written almost entirely in math, that was easier to parse than this. It's written like technical jargon that, for the reader to follow, they would need huge amounts of background knowledge of whatever the hell it's talking about most of the time.
- We could certainly start an RFC if people here recommend it. I don’t think it should be necessary given the 3-1 consensus and the distortion of the cited sources that’s now happening. There are only two reliable sources that address the November 20 clarification by DeSantis and his aides, and we cite both of them. The author of one of them is a former deputy managing editor of the National Law Journal (links to the reporters’ biographies are provided at article talk). The reason why both sources use words like “apparently” and “seemingly” is probably because things seemed one way before the clarification, and another way after the clarification; I have not relied upon either of those parts of the cited sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- For example, one of the disputed sentences is: "DeSantis openly supported Trump's legal disputes of the 2020 United States presidential election, suggesting state legislatures of states won by Joe Biden could revolt and select slates of presidential electors that would instead vote for Trump." Now, besides being a run-on sentence, what exactly is that supposed to mean? "Openly supported" is redundant, and gives a non-neutral tone, whereas "supported" will work just fine without the use of an adverb to make it seem like a bad thing. "Trump's legal disputes"? What legal disputes? Apparently, I'm supposed to bounce back and forth between a million wikilinks just to be able to follow what the heck this article is talking about. "State legislatures of states won by Joe Biden could revolt and select slates of presidential electors." Seriously? A tongue twister? I mean, I'd like to help, but I have no idea what the dispute is even about, because there is no context and the article just assumes the reader knows what it's talking about. No offense, but your changes were no more coherent. Apparently, one would need a master's degree in Trumpology to be able to follow along with this article. To an outsider, like me, it's all just jargon and a much too-heavy reliance on wikilinks I'll never look at.
- Bottom line, the entire article needs to be trimmed down to the important stuff and written to be coherent to the general reader who has no background knowledge of any of this. Zaereth (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)