Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Alice Ripley

• Alice Ripley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP has removed a cited block of content from this article, stating "There is an active lawsuit and Wikipedia will be on the hook for libelous material. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." The content wrote about certain accusations that were in the news, in the voice of the multiple cited refs rather than in WP's own voice and seemed careful to avoid implying any of it was true. Ordinarily, I would simply start a talk-page discussion about it, but the IP has also removed that discussion from August 2021 on the same basis. Therefore, I'm coming here for others' input on whether the talk-page discussion, and beyond that the article content, should be kept.

Pinging Jbbdude who wrote the original article content after commenting in the talkpage and Sunshineisles2 who recently overhauled it. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

There was actually one cited ref, but it included quotes/info from several others. DMacks (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Are there better sources about this than the WP:DAILYBEAST to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

There are The Independent [1] and the Metro [2] in the UK. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

per WP:RSP, the Independent is considered a reliable source while the Metro isn't. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be exactly one original source, an "exclusive" by WP:DAILYBEAST, and other tabloids/news outlets duly parroting what Daily Beast reported for a few days, and then radio silence. The gossip column Page Six printed an "exclusive" of their own, with Ripley again denying the allegations. After almost a year there appears to be no subsequent coverage of the allegations or further developments in reliable sources, and very little reason to include this blip in a BLP. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like TMZ broke the unified story first (reporting on multiple others' previous social-media posts, and Ripley responded). To be clear, the content isn't "Ripley did this", but instead "there's a lot of social media about Ripley doing this, and Ripley has responded to it". So I think it's at a minimum reasonable for the talk-page discussion to stand and now with link to this BLPN thread, even if a non-credulous discussion concludes (as Animalparty says) that it wound up being just a blip. I also don't see any substantially more recent coverage in the news about it. I did turn up a Rolling Stone story using the Ripley situation as the starting-point for a more wide-ranging discussion of various related topics, the month after the TMZ story. Not sure that's enough to cross the threshold of "highlighted as an example/secondary-source providing context". DMacks (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Alice Ripley.

I am a friend who will not be editing Alice Ripley's article. I quoted Wikipedia guidelines here only because no one else mentioned them. Please check that the guidelines are relevant and that my comments are neutral. Thank you. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)JunoSpriteRocket

Per WP:RSP, The Daily Beast does not have the icon denoting "generally reliable," rather it has the icon denoting "no consensus" on the reliability of The Daily Beast and reads "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." The Daily Beast's own editor from 2018-2021 called it a "high-end tabloid." This is the second sentence in the article. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPRS, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. [...] The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." The Daily Beast is a self-identified tabloid, a tabloid is a poor source, thus the contentious material should not be added to the article. (If A=B and B=C, then A=C.) JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, "Biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. [...] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm not particularly invested in this situation, generally, aside from wanting Wikipedia to be as complete and accurate as possible (which I hope motivates all... OK, most editors). I edited the page one time a year ago, which I did after I encountered a conversation among theater people which casually referenced some allegation. I found nothing about it on Wikipedia despite multiple notable sources reporting on the controversy.

It seems pretty obvious (to me) that a) the deletion from the talk page was straight-up vandalism (I wouldn't have named the section "vile acts", but I didn't start the talk page section) and b) there should be some mention of this incident in the article given the multiple notable sources reporting on the controversy. The fact that the story hasn't advanced much seems more a function of the limited world of theater reporting than a statement on the notability of the claims. Again, this situation was reported on by multiple reliable outlets over time, with one particularly extensive exposé. To me, it seemed like a case of the second example in WP:PUBLICFIGURE.

As a separate issue... This feels like a WP:COI situation. I say this purely as speculation (again... feels), with no knowledge other than 1) the edits, 2) them coming from an IP user (an IP which has only edited these two articles) (an IP in a block assigned to Charter in Queens, NY; Ms. Ripley lives and works in NYC, and a quick Google search suggests Ms. Ripley may live or have lived in Long Island City or Ridgewood, and at some time maintained a fanmail PO Box in LIC), and 3) the discussion of ongoing, and threat of potential further, defamation litigation (something that I haven't seen reported publicly; another quick Google search brings up a GoFundMe supposedly from Alice Ripley herself, but no news coverage of a lawsuit or that GoFundMe; curiously, the user posting as Ms. Ripley suggests in that GoFundMe that these allegations have ended her notable and extensive career, yet the editor of the article implied through removal of the info that the allegations were not notable). (Obviously... that's a whole lot of original research and none of it would belong in an article, but the info seems relevant in this context) These are pretty standard indicators in such cases, with lawyers or PR folks or subjects themselves editing, no? Regardless, though, that's speculation (though I wouldn't call it wild or unfounded). More significantly, the edits clearly did not come from an NPOV perspective.

As far as the law goes, IANAL but a) NYT v Sullivan lays out a pretty high bar for public figures, and b) I wrote my edit to report on the reporting without taking a stance on truth or falsity of the allegations. The editor cited the need to remove contentious material that was poorly sourced; the existence of the allegations and the controversy was not at all poorly sourced, and was not at all libelous. It's true that those things were reported. If there is a lawsuit, and some decision is made about something, that, too, would likely be notable, would be reported on by notable outlets, and would then warrant inclusion in the article. If there's news coverage of such a lawsuit now, it should probably be in the article now. All of this is to say, Wikipedia's policies are the way they are because the laws are the way they are, as well as to protect living persons from unfounded allegations without substantiation or without any credible sourcing. Here, there's credible sourcing. No malice, no recklessness or reckless disregard, a clear belief that there is a public interest in knowing this information and that the information presented was accurate, reliance upon reputable sources for the information.

I am unaware of any requirement for ongoing coverage of a controversy or the presence of new updates/information to justify the inclusion of such a controversy in an article. I don't see anything about it in the BLP guideline pages. I would genuinely appreciate information on such a standard, if it exists, to improve my editing in the future.

If the issue is sourcing, there are many reliable sources commenting on the allegations, at least on their existence if not the truth of them. Again, Ms. Ripley herself seems to (can't verify who's running a GoFundMe) claim that it's a notable enough situation that it's impacted her career. Also again, keep in mind that the article's subject is known for theater, not film or TV or whatever megastardom results in constant breathless national coverage of scandals. This subject was reported on in national, regional, and industry publications, but it hasn't resulted in an ongoing series of investigative pieces on the front page of the New York Times or a Ronan Farrow New Yorker deep dive. I'm not sure how any of that means it's not notable information.

I'm curious to see how this discussion shakes out. At a bare minimum, I will restore the talk page content, which is an entirely separate issue from the removal of the article content.

To paraphrase a quote variously and likely apocryphally attributed to Pascal and Twain, apologies for the long comment. I did not have time to write a shorter one. Or one with fewer parentheticals. Jbbdude (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping someone would respond, but it's been over a week, so you're stuck with me.

1. The comment has the word "notable/notability" nine times, but only once is it used correctly. Per WP:N, sources must be reliable, not notable. Information must be verifiable, not notable. This isn't just semantics; this is about following Wikipedia guidelines to make one's point.

• "Notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article". Alice Ripley is notable, thus she has an article.
• Information added to an article must be verifiable. To call the allegations/claims/situation notable is to say that they merit their own article, and no one is proposing that.
• Verifiable means coming from a reliable source, of which there is none, so saying "multiple reliable sources" is also inaccurate. (See earlier comments.)

2. The deletions do not appear to be vandalism. They appear to be per WP:RS: "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" and "do not move it to the talk page [emphases mine]. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space".

3. I disagree that "The fact that the story hasn't advanced much seems more a function of the limited world of theater reporting than a statement on the notability of the claims". What it seems is that the claims are false. What it seems is that there was insufficient verifiable proof for a reliable source to publish the story. The accusers, by their own admission, never called for an investigation, not by Actors' Equity nor by the police, even though the original accuser said that "one of [Ripley's] insane fans tried to kill me". What did happen was a "trial" by mob conducted on social media (TikTok, Twitter, YouTube). When caught in a lie, an accuser publicly admitted it, yet refused to take their tweet down.

4. I'm posting in three parts to make it easier to respond. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

5. The editor put what they felt was Ripley's IP address locations. This is disconcerting because it disregards the likelihood that Ripley received death threats because of the allegations.

6. Fortunately, the fact that the IP address of the user is in Queens, NY means that it is not Ripley, as she is currently in Barcelona, Spain, per Variety and Broadway.com.

7. The editor wrote that the GoFundMe page says "these allegations have ended her notable and extensive career, yet the editor of the article implied through removal of the info that the allegations were not notable". It's not curious; it's that the first use of 'notable' is correct, while the second use is not per WP:N, so they're not comparable. It was the false allegations that got Ripley canceled, and the info was removed because the allegations were not verifiable.

8. Editor: "the existence of the allegations and the controversy was not at all poorly sourced..." Yes, it was: The Daily Beast is not a reliable source per WP:RSP. "...and was not at all libelous". The information is libelous and Ripley's lengthy official statement is available. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

9. Editor: "This subject was reported on in national, regional, and industry publications..." I haven't seen this. Please correct me if I'm wrong. For one thing, the main industry publications did not cover the story: Playbill.com, Broadway.com, and BroadwayWorld.com.

10. Editor: "...but it hasn't resulted in an ongoing series of investigative pieces on the front page of the New York Times or a Ronan Farrow New Yorker deep dive". It hasn't resulted in a single word on any page of The New York Times, nor even a shallow dive in The New Yorker.

11. I agree with one thing: "Wikipedia's policies are the way they are because the laws are the way they are, as well as to protect living persons from unfounded allegations without substantiation or without any credible sourcing". Ripley is not being protected. That the addition of unfounded, unsubstantiated allegations was done with "no malice, no recklessness or reckless disregard" is not clear. What is clear, as seen on Ripley's View History page, is that much of it met Wikipedia's standards for vandalism and was repeatedly, properly removed. Let's continue to keep Ripley's article and talk page accurate. (See the May 1st removal as one example; I'm not referring to what Sunshineisles2 added on Mar. 19.)

12. To that end, I am requesting deletion of the first line in section #6 on Ripley's talk page, as well as a re-naming of the section title because both are contentious and unsourced per WP:RS. I will use the proper template, if necessary. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I have renamed the Talk Page as no one owns the title and it was unnecessarily harsh, though likely not policy violating. Same for the discussion itself as it is a sourced discussion, not musings of editors.

On the content itself, BLP policies lean strongly against including accusations that do not have sustained coverage. Given the lack of media followup, I do not think it should be included. Though the IP is wrong that the alleged defamation lawsuit plays any part in why the content should not be included. Slywriter (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the renaming and for this, which I did not know: "BLP policies lean strongly against including accusations that do not have sustained coverage". JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

JunoSpriteRocket, you have crossed the WP:AGF line in your #11. The allegations might be undfounded, or even an intentional and malicious whisper campaign, but all that WP had done was report on the reports. It's a neutral fact that the accusations were made, were reported in public media, and she responded. It's an unfounded accusation by you that they were added to WP with malicious intent, and given they do have cited refs (and by extended discussion here involving multiple editors in good standing), are not in the realm of vandalism. As you can read earlier in this thread, there is a legitmate debate about the reliability of the sources, some of which are reliable on their face in general even if with a deeper dive they might all derive from a source with questionable or poor reliability in this specific instance. DMacks (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not cross the WP:AGF line in #11 because the vandalism I was referring to was when you see that word on the View History page (on May 1st, for example), not about what Sunshineisles2 added on Mar. 19. The cases of vandalism that were removed did not mention reports or have cited refs.

I'm not sure I'm understanding... it's acceptable for editors, for Ripley's article, to cite a source that is "reliable on their face in general"? I thought sources had to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. WP:RSP, WP:BLPRS, WP:BLP were the ones I mentioned (July 9 to 11) and I sought feedback about whether they were relevant, but no one responded. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Remove the poorly-sourced, contentious allegations based on the WP:DAILYBEAST from the article. I think we should follow the caution noted in the WP:RSP entry: Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. I also think the contentious and unsourced allegation made on the Talk page by an editor with one edit in their edit history should also be removed, per WP:BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC) - fixed 'not a tabloid' link, although WP:NOTGOSSIP also applies. Beccaynr (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Update: I removed the contentious and unsourced allegation made on the Talk page by an SPA, after reviewing the article history and noting similar activity by SPAs had also been removed from the article, and noting the page protection that followed revdelled content that includes visible edit summaries referencing the Daily Beast. Beccaynr (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka

So there's a lot of unsourced content between the two articles. They're serial killers and the main reason I care is because I grew up in Niagara Falls and St. Catharines. I heard a lot about them growing up, especially in my high school law classes. I tried to fix some of the content and I'd thought I'd be okay because I already knew the horrible details to some extent... but I'm not sure it's nessecarily the best course of action. I've had some nightmares since and that's typically a really bad sign that I should not be doing whatever I've been doing lately for the sake of my own mental health.

Anyways, the sourcing really isn't ideal. These articles have collectively recieved ~120,000 pageviews in the past 30 days so ideally something should be done. They're serial killers and I really don't want their crimes to be whitewashed, but at the same there's some potential WP:BLP violations that should be dealt with. Clovermoss (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Going to have a look, but it would be helpful if you could be a bit more specific as to where you think the problems are. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Well one potential issue is the Scarborough Rapist cases subsection in the Paul Bernardo article, which includes a list of rapes that's almost entirely unsourced. The main thing that I think is not ideal from a BLP violations perspective is that there's a lot of unsourced content about their crimes between the two articles. I will say that nothing really quite stands out to me as glaringly untrue, but still. Clovermoss (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

There's been tons of stuff written about them and their crimes. Books, magazines, newspapers, TV shows, documentaries, the internet, etc., etc., etc. Not to mention, court transcripts, appeals, legal documents, etc. So, I suspect that sourcing will not be a problem. If the statement offered in the article is indeed true, I am sure there are many sources out there. But, yes, I agree that unsourced material should be sourced ... but, it should not be removed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Yes. My point was more that I can't go through it all right now because of the nightmares. I tried to improve the articles and things did not go well for me even though I thought I would likely be fine... but I've also experienced trauma so it makes sense. I'm very aware that they did awful things, I don't want their crimes to be whitewashed. I just wanted to bring attention to it on here because there really shouldn't be the amount of content that's unsourced in the article (even if sources exist) for stuff describing rape, kidnapping, murder, etc. Clovermoss (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I understand your point. Thanks for bringing it to our collective attention. And thanks for your efforts. Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

william benton

I am william benton, a poet and novelist. I was put on wikipedia years ago by David Murray, a librarian, who has since died. I'm 82 years old and don't belong to any social media, but I have tried to keep my wikipedia page up to date, at least as far as books published. Obviously I'm not doing things right. Can someone advise me about this? My books are published by reputable publishers -- I'm not a self-published writer. My work has appeared The New Yorker, The Paris Review, and many other publications. Articles and reviews have been written about me and my books in national and international publications.

I recently saw the notices on my page, about a stronger opening and more citations, and had begun to address this. (I also tried to add a photo.) But I must be doing things wrong, since it provoked the same notices, and a newer one that now questions my "notability."

I value having the wikipedia page. I'd greatly appreciate a response.

William — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafcadio4 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lafcadio4 Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Assuming the article is William Benton (writer). A little background. The article was created in 2013, and WP:s rules on sourcing etc has got stricter over time, but since we're all volunteers/hobbyists, "updates" only happens when someone notice/feels like doing something about it.

What the article needs first is sources that demonstrate it meets WP:s criteria for "should have an article", WP:GNG. These are sources that are at the same time, reliably published, independent of you and about you in some detail. What is wanted is a for example a The New Yorker article about you, not by you. I will take a look and see what I can find. Some may already be listed in the article, I haven't checked, but if so they are not used correctly. @Theroadislong, pinging you if you're interested.

Per the WP-rule WP:COI (conflict of interest), please don't edit the article directly, but you are welcome to suggest sources and changes at Talk:William Benton (writer), the article talkpage. You should also "disclose your COI": click the redlinked "Lafcadio4" in your signature just above, type something like "I am the the poet William Benton and interested in improving the WP-article about myself, William Benton (writer)." and publish.

We can discuss adding a picture at Talk:William Benton (writer), there are some strict rules to follow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you so much for responding. It's nice to hear a pleasant and human voice. As you can probably see from my page, I had only recently begun to address it (wrongly, I now know). I was starting to track down and add exactly the kinds of articles you mentioned (not by, but about, me). I tried to add a second article from The New Yorker, and two or three reviews of my novel MADLY. That novel, by the way, was published in 2005, and has never gone out of print. Counterpoint Press (previously known as Shoemaker & Hoard) is one of the most prestigious literary publishers in America. Blurbs for MADLY were written by James Salter, Ann Beattie, and Philip Lopate. I had also tried to address the opening of the article, which one of the notices flagged as insufficient. (I was brought up in an age where self-effacement was valued.) Anyway, I tried to add more about myself. Besides being a poet and a novelist, I write other things. A play of mine (listed on my page, OUT OF THE BLUE) was produced Off-Broadway in 1999, a musical for which I wrote music, lyrics, and book. There are reviews from that. Another play of mine, called ILSA, was previewed at the Austin Film Festival in 2019, and starred Kate O'Toole. There are articles about that. We were, in fact, scheduled to go on tour, but covid cancelled everything. I also write about art, viz. My books about Elizabeth Bishop, Joan Brown, Ted, Waltz, and the essay collection EYE CONTACT. Anyway, I was attempting to add more of this kind of thing to my page, but tripping over my own feet in the process. How shall I sign this -- Lafcadio4 or William?

Lafcadio4 Lafcadio4 (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lafcadio4 And it seems you have had a career as an art-forger. Signing is automatic if you use the [ reply ] link. Further discussion fits better at Talk:William Benton (writer). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian describes Benton as an art curator. I have found no sources suggesting he is in any way connected to art forgery. Beccaynr (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Beccaynr I didn't see this before I posted at the article talk. Art forger was a joke of mine, but based on [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Ha ha -- yes, let me know if you'd like an inferior Diebenkorn. I hope I'm writing this in the right place. Here are a few links about -- not by -- me, in this case my book EXCHANGING HATS. There are articles, some more important, about this book that are oddly not on line. I remember a piece in Vogue, written by Susan Minot, and a piece in the Times Literary Supplement, with a lot of color reproductions, but I can't find them. I'll also search for other links re other books, plus OUT OF THE BLUE (the times critic hated it. I more or less agreed, it was a terrible production). I'm very grateful to you for your help.

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/08/books/art.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/02/books/elegant-gift-books-to-admire-and-even-read.html

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/05/15/the-many-arts-of-elizabeth-bishop/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1996/08/19/easel-2

https://www.theguardian.com/books/gallery/2011/nov/03/elizabeth-bishop-exchanging-hats-in-pictures

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-12-08-9612080176-story.html

https://newcriterion.com/issues/1997/3/not-so-innocent-eyes

https://www.missourireview.com/elizabeth-bishop-and-the-art-of-the-tablecloth/

https://elizabethbishopsociety.org/bulletin/2012-2/tibor-de-nagy-exhibition/

https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2012/01/17/pronoun-trouble/

I am William Benton (writer), trying to learn how to do necessary maintenance on my page. Lafcadio4 (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lafcadio4, posting links like these on the article Talk page would be very helpful. Click on the New Section tab at the top, add a title to the section, explain what you are offering, and then sign your post. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, advice, and joke. If I become a professional art forger, I'll up my contribution to Wikipedia. 65.65.159.176 (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, more information about signing posts is here, and logging in to your account will also be helpful for conversations. Thank you very much for your help with this article - I think it is developing nicely now, and please feel free to ask questions and let us know if you have any concerns. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Javier Milei

Javier Milei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The opening sentence links Javier Milei with a political doctrine usually related to things like neonazism and racial supremacism, but the references are not valid: two are opinion pieces (and conspiracy theory opinion pieces, at that), and the third is an interview. Opinion pieces are not valid references for statements of facts per WP:RSEDITORIAL, and neither are interviews: they may be useful for "X says Y", but not for plain Y.

I explained this at the talk page, but the user that keeps restoring this material says that opinion pieces are not opinion pieces unless the newspaper places them inside an "opinion" subsection. There's more at the talk page, but this is the main point of dispute. Cambalachero (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done, it turned out that the user was abusing sock puppets and got blocked. Cambalachero (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Talal Yassine

I'm getting close to edit warring with one editor over the "Controversies" section. The issue is sourcing:

• Independent Australia - a political opinion blog
• Honi Soit - a student publication
• Farrago - a student publication
• Crikey - an online political comment site

I am not disputing the material, just the sources. This seems like a pretty cut and dried matter to me. Content critical of the subject must have solid sourcing. If it isn't covered by a reliable source, just how notable is the material?

Could I have some more eyes on this, please? --Pete (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pete,

Independent Australia is an electronic newpaper and not a 'political opinion' blog. Similarly, Crikey is an electronic newpaper and not a purely 'political commentary site'.

Buzzfeed is also a cited source.

Cheers,

Baba El-Baba (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Aside from "Crtiicism" sections often being poorly structured and imbalanced cruft magnets (note "Controversies" implies plural, but this section only discusses one), it is somewhat concerning that the majority of sources in that paragraph (including juicy quotes like "ruthless hardball") are from student newspapers (Farrago Magazine and Honi Soit; the "Independent Australia" citations are merely repackaged Farrago Magazine content). WP:STRUCTURE and WP:BLPBALANCE argue this 'controversy' shouldn't be highlighted by its own devoted subheading, even if it rises to the level of enduring notability (c.f. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:RECENTISM). See WP:RSSM for considerations about using student newspapers. Addendum: and as pointed out on on the Talk page, the author of the Crikey piece and the Farrago piece may be directly involved in the controversy. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed section.[4] I saw some UNDUE quotes in the first sentence and detail that was not directly verified by the source. Pete, both of you are at 3RR, but your removals seem to fall under the BLP exemption. This issue should be resolved by discussion and consensus at the article talk page before re-adding the section. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I pointed this out on the talk page, but it seems to have been missed: the authors of the articles in the four sources listed by Skyring were personally prominently involved in the campaign to oust the leadership of the Co-Op Bookshop and the subject in particular, so were not just publishing in questionable sources but had a massive conflict of interest. I believe past discussions have sensibly held that Independent Australia is not a reliable source - it's a political blog with minimal journalistic editorial control. Crikey is a hit-and-miss source that I don't think should have a hard-and-fast rule either way (due to the amount of freelance content they publish) - but should absolutely not be considered in this due to the authors' conflict of interest. The only legitimate source here is the Buzzfeed News article (dating from the period when they had a professional news bureau in Australia, and written by a then-and-now professional journalist), which could only be used to source a much more limited paragraph about the subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to mention Buzzfeed. I was overwhelmed by appall that a "criticism" section was so thinly sourced. IA has some low standards - think Breitbart or Infowars - and shouldn't be used as a source for anything let alone the sensitive bits of a bloke's biography. Thanks, DW, for uncovering the COI aspect, and on that note I should really disclose that I'm a part owner of the enterprise as well. I have a Uni Co-op card somewhere, unused for many years. --Pete (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the valuable input!

With regard to 'controversies', it was titled in that fashion because the allegations and reported happenings - albeit related to the one institution - were multiple in number. El-Baba (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Takarafuji Daisuke

Takarafuji Daisuke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article Takarafuji Daisuke states that Takarafuji is a sandanme (4th) division wrestler. This is false, he is competing in the highest division, makuuchi, fighting in the 2022 Nagoia basho right now.

Depp v. Heard

More editors with BLP experience would be helpful here to keep this article and other related topics under control and properly sourced. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

exchanging hats

These are articles and reviews about the book Exchanging Hats, the paintings of Elizabeth Bishop, edited with and introduction and afterword by William Benton. I would like for them to be posted on the William Benton (writer) page. Lafcadio4

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/08/books/art.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/02/books/elegant-gift-books-to-admire-and-even-read.html

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/05/15/the-many-arts-of-elizabeth-bishop/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1996/08/19/easel-2

https://www.theguardian.com/books/gallery/2011/nov/03/elizabeth-bishop-exchanging-hats-in-pictures

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-12-08-9612080176-story.html

https://newcriterion.com/issues/1997/3/not-so-innocent-eyes

https://www.missourireview.com/elizabeth-bishop-and-the-art-of-the-tablecloth/

https://elizabethbishopsociety.org/bulletin/2012-2/tibor-de-nagy-exhibition/

https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2012/01/17/pronoun-trouble/ 65.65.159.176 (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but you might want to make an edit request on the talk page if you want to propose an edit for an article. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 03:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Like I said above, Talk:William Benton (writer) is the right place for this. And remember to log in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Rick Day sexual assault allegations

Would some others mind taking a look at Rick Day#Sexual Assault Allegations? The section was added earlier today by what appears to be a SPA account (only edit made so far was to add this section). The sections in just a few sentences long and it is supported by some citations, but I'm not sure how strong they are for a claim such as this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Marchjuly, removed per WP:BLPCRIME. There's only one source, the Advocate, as the other two are not reliable sources and are parroting Advocate anyway. More importantly, there appears to be no follow up, so no justification for inclusion. Slywriter (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this Slywriter. The first time something was added about this, it was just an unsourced blurb added to the lead; so, I removed it. This last time it was a bit more developed with some "sources" cited in support. I imagine that there will be another attempt made to add it again sometime in the not too distant future. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Atakan Karazor

Atakan Karazor isn't in custody anymore according to this source: [5] So the article should be changed. --Geduldiger Leser (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Jessica Matten

Jessica Matten Reasons for violation: Harassment, Racism and false information. Inaccurate identity claims constantly being changed on this person's page due to alot of lateral violence within Native communities of mixed Native and asian heritage. The persons' correct racial heritage is listed on her official website: www.jessicamatten.com but harassers keep changing it with incorrect information about both her Indigenous and mixed asian descent. Requesting for this to be stopped with the inaccurate information and to maintain the quality of accurate information held on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7forward (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ooh, yeah. The page is in something of a sorry state at the moment. And I just watched Dark Winds, which I quite liked. Will see what I can do, but more eyes would be welcome. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Use of primary sources for full names.

Hello, so I recently started removing second names from Mixed martial artists that only had primary sources to back it up. It was my understanding that secondary sources are needed for personal details like date of birth, full names, etc. Editors at WP:MMA have raised a discussion here about my removal of full names, given I'm not the best when it comes to BLP, I thought I'd come here to see if I'm just misunderstanding or not. Thanks. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

BLP commentators will probably have a view, but in my opinion it's not so much a matter for BLP, and more to do with WP:V. The reference burden is generally on those wanting to restore content. If it can't be referenced then it may as well be fabricated. It seems to me that many of the articles listed aren't referenced at all. Arguing about unreferenced content is moot. When it comes to using primary sources, it all depends. A birth certificate, or many other public records, may not clearly indicate that it relates to the same person, and it may not include all the facts. I'd pull one example from the list of articles that I looked at: Dustin Poirier. Before looking into that document too much, I would accept an official-looking fight record as proof of a full 'fighting name'. It is not a record of a birth name. Thus, it's not referenced. I'm a big fan of WP:V, which is one of our most fundamental policies. Let it remain your guiding light. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:BLPPRIMARY:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

In the context of full names, most mixed martial artists have their full names sourced by public documents from the athletic commission for whichever state/country they competed it. It's pretty rare to see secondary sources for full names in MMA articles. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 13:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Correct, per BLPPRIVACY, we include full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public . BLPPRIMARY says that public documents aren't enough. Woodroar (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As others have said, you're right and those challenging you are wrong. Whatever the supposed importance of these names to MMA fighters, if reliable secondary sources don't care about such details then there's no reason we should. It's inappropriate to use primary sources to source such details. Also, as always it's fairly ironic to claim some detail is super important but then be unable to find a reliable secondary source that mentions it. Either the person isn't notable or the detail isn't actually so important. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC) 13:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed an issue with UK youtubers where people will cite the UK company directory in order to get their legal full name, this is currently the case for Wilbur Soot. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yup, I've seen the same thing. In my opinion it is a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY policy. And frequently involves an element of WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with the above, but as a reminder that we do allow when the person themselves stated the information via an WP:SPS (eg on social media, as long as we know the account is verified). But that doesn't sound like the type of sourcing that had been used in these cases, so removal is appropriate. --Masem (t) 14:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Debbie Hayton

Debbie Hayton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could one or more editors please take a look at Debbie Hayton and Talk:Debbie Hayton#Removal of content. Three days ago I removed a lot of content from the article, listing my exact reasons at the linked talk page discussion. In short I believe there to be issues relating to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:COATRACK, WP:SYNTH, and several WP:UNDUE and unverifiable claims. An editor has now twice restored this (first restore, second restore), which I believe goes against WP:BLPRESTORE as the content removal was justified by several policies. I asked the editor to self-revert per BLPRESTORE however they have refused pending discussion from other editors. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal is appropriate until discussion comes to a consensus. If there is no consensus, the disputed items should not be reinstated per WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ONUS, let alone WP:BURDEN if there is original research. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. That was and is my understanding of those policy points. I've asked the editor who restored it what their understanding of BLPRESTORE is, however I have yet to receive a response. I didn't want to edit war over it, nor try to invoke WP:3RRNO#7. So I commented here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Since both of you are now alerted that this article falls under WP:GENSEX, you both or others can request arbitration enforcement if the edit warring continues slowly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Heh, going down the WP:AE route seemed like overkill as it's not quite at a conduct problem yet, and guidance elsewhere is to ask here first. Hopefully next time Dskjt is online we can get some dialogue going on the content though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Tony Keeling

Recent decisions by Tony Keeling and his subordinates have led to great deal of frustration amongst youngters who have already used the wiipedia page as an outlet - it would be best to lock the article for a short period to allow the heat to die down. Examples of two instances today: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Keeling&type=revision&diff=1100011830&oldid=1100011421 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Keeling&type=revision&diff=1100011830&oldid=1100010050 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davix (talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

He does not appear to be notable enough for his own article and I have nominated it for deletion.[6] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Wendy Turner Webster

In the first sentence of this article,it states that Turner-Webster "opposes animal welfare". Surely this is an error. She is an advocate of animal welfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pure gallus (talk • contribs) 01:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yup. I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Philip Weiss

There are two unsourced allegations accusing American journalist Philip Weiss of of ferocious antisemitism. The Wikipedia biography of Weiss cites accusations from two different articles written by pro-Zionist political adversaries of Weiss: one written by Elliot Kaufman; the other written by David Bernstein. Both of the articles referenced make outrageous claims, citing no sources to verify the truth of their claims and demonstrating their political hostility towards Weiss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodger Kroell (talk • contribs) 04:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

No comment on the specifics of the issue, but I would note that Wikipedia does not stipulate that sources we cite in turn cite sources for their content - that would lead to absurdities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

You're better off writing letters to The Stanford Review and Washington Post about this issue. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Little good that would do. Both sources are very obviously op/ed columns, and the news outlets will (rightfully so) argue First-Amendment to the death on such issues of their rights to print their opinions. Normally, an op/ed wouldn't be a reliable source, even if it comes from a reliable publisher. But they are reliable for the author's opinion. A good example of this is, say, a book review, movie review, restaurant critique, etc. This case is more along the lines of something like that. There may be a good argument about why we're singling out these opinions, as in, why is their opinions of any importance to the reader? I don't know. But that should be hashed out on the talk page. However, this is one case where we're using the op/ed in the correct manner, citing only the authors' opinions and attributing them correctly.

Oh, and sources aren't required to provide sources for their opinions. They are the primary sources. Zaereth (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

A fair question is that while we do not allow SPS on BLP, we should be a bit careful on op-eds. Now, I don't think would apply to the WaPost which probably reviews op eds to make sure they are not grossly insulting, but I do wonder about the Stanford Review, which is a student-run newspaper. And if these are the only sources that are making claims about Weiss and antisemitism, that also may fall into UNDUE. --Masem (t) 00:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't dig that deep. But that again begs the question, why are these people's opinions of any value? I mean, are they some kinds of experts? For example, I would put some value on Dr. Ruth's opinions of sexual topics. Not so much for Dr. Dre, or even Dr. Phil. I highly doubt a student-run paper has much if any value behind their opinions. Washington Post, maybe, but is the author someone whose opinion we should print? Most valued opinions come from people with some kind of credentials, be it a book critic, food critic, or whatever. Anyhow, without digging too deep, that's where the best argument for removal would be. Zaereth (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

To answer your question, David Bernstein (law professor) is the author of the The Volokh Conspiracy column that was published by the Washington Post so there may be political bias there. Also, The Atlantic comments Mondoweiss "often gives the appearance of an anti-Semitic enterprise" and gives multiple Weiss examples of why.[7] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Accordig to his Stanford Review profile, at the time of writing Elliot Kaufman is "a sophomore from Canada who loves America. In addition to his role as News Editor of the Review, he is the President of the Alexander Hamilton Society and the VP of Cardinal for Israel. To sponsor him for US citizenship, please offer him a job". Call me crazy, but I think the bar for inclusion for an opinion in a so-called encyclopedia should be higher than "some undergrad wrote something on the internet once that agreed with a Wikipedian's opinion". Weiss get's mentioned only twice in Kaufman piece, amid a broader and tangential criticism of Mondoweiss. Rather than bending over backwards to attribute and qualify Kaufman's view as "According to Canadian Stanford undergraduate student newspaper editor Elliot Kaufman....", and presenting his view as having equal weight as David Bernstein's (actually more weight, as it comes first), the prudent thing to do would probably omit it. It's also amusing (and smacks of POV pushing) that the article devotes an entire subheading to allegations of antisemitism, and cherry-picks funding from the Unz Foundation, yet doesn't even summarize a single review of Weiss's books (reviewer's include Peter Godwin). I'm not defending Weiss's views, and realize he is controversial, but it appears strongly that Wikipedians want allegations of antisemitism to be emphasized as much as possible. The Tablet profile offers a commendable model I think for describing controversies while remaining impartial in tone and structure. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree about the student piece. I removed it. I think the “Allegations of antisemitism” section needs to go. If this were a well developed and NPOV article, perhaps this would be a criticism section. Thriley (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

If there is really only the Bernstein op-ed on that (and I'm not questioning his credentials), that's probably a good reason to not include at all, per UNDUE and given the weight of BLP. Multiple quality op-eds would be needed to include a section on that. Masem (t) 04:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I have been reading Mondoweiss for many years. I cannot imagine Philip Weiss writing the offensive antisemitic statements attributed to him by David Bernstein. Mondoweiss is controversial because it features articles highly critical of Israel. This angers pro-Zionist intellectuals like David Bernstein to no end. False charges of antisemitism -- and unsourced quotations attributed to critics of Israel -- issued by pro-Zionists like Bernstein are a common feature of 21st century American society. This is something Wikipedia editors need to be conscious of.Rodger Kroell (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's the deal. I'll start with saying that I agree with Masem, that this is most probably undue and should be removed. Where we have an opinion we also need to make an effort to find opposing viewpoints, and if one is all we got, then NPOV can't be measured or satisfied. But here's where your argument falls apart: how do you define antisemitism? Is that the same as how others define it? It's a subjective term that is based solely on the opinion of the beholder. Some people are easily offended, and others may go out looking for it and invariably will find it everywhere. Others may be more resilient and aware of other possibilities. In some cases you get instances where most people's opinions agree. But there is no such thing as a false opinion, because opinions are not facts, thus that argument fails to persuade. The argument of undue weight, on the other hand, has persuaded me. Zaereth (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"killed about 5 people"

Hi everyone. This seems a pretty serious BLP violation: [8] Should the revision be deleted? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• I suppose, and I just did. But it's so stupid that I don't know if it's a serious violation. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Joe Brown (judge)

• Joe Brown (judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes on this one, please. Persistent addition of problematic WP:BLP content with a dose of WP:OR in the narratives. Perhaps some of it stays, if well sourced and tersely stated. Right now it looks agenda-driven. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have reverted Itsaboutheritage's edits. I agree that it's all way too chatty, way too much tabloid journalism. Wikipedia isn't here to report on or reflect the views of the subjects of articles. Note also the post on the talk page, where the editor argues that they think it's noteworthy even without secondary sourcing to include the subject's appearance on some talk shot--that's not how it works. Pinging User:Sdrqaz. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Hey, It's fine that you reverted. I did mention this on the talk page. I'm learning Wikipedia. If these are the rules, they're the rules. Itsaboutheritage (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Drmies. Sorry I didn't reply in time, Itsaboutheritage, but I think that approach you stated is probably best. One of the limitations of Wikipedia is that as a tertiary source, it cannot be the quickest to report something – we need to be patient. If it's worth mentioning, a secondary source will eventually do so. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Implicit naming of a non-notable witness via a notable father

Does anyone here have a view on the inclusion in the "Beergate" article of this sentence: "The footage was taken by conservative journalist [fully named]'s son who at the time was a student at..."? This effectively reveals the identity of a non-notable person who witnessed the event, and I think may unfairly prompt readers to speculate that there was a possible political alliance and motif for his actions. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have a view, and I removed that irrelevant and BLP-violating factoid. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Drmies There are multiple reliable sources (including one in the article) identifying the person who took the footage, since he admitted it when it came to light in the media. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Black Kite, sure, perhaps--but we are not the media. Is it relevant to the actual event? If so, that should be made explicit, not left as a suggestion. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Proxima Centauri, if you believe the son is like the father, and there is a "strong family connection" or something like that, that needs to be made explicit. Is it explicit in the sources? If not, what's it matter? Did the father have a role in shooting the video or publicizing it? Etc. Innuendo is for the tabloids, not for us. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Drmies Actually, the son does not appear to be like the father, according to Guido Fawkes (which as a Tory-supporting site had no axe to grind here [9]). Any claim that the father distributed to video to Lawrence Fox and co, whilst totally logical (and claimed as such by one of the recipients on social media), would clearly be SYNTH without reliable sources though. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
        • If he was anybody else, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt instantly, but his father's involvement in promoting the art of the fake sting makes me a bit wary; indeed, the reason why it was covered in RSes is precisely because of that. Sceptre (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• The identity of the son has been covered in reliable local, national and international media. It is covered in The Guardian, The Northern Echo and again, Stern (Germany) and the Novinky (Czechia). That seems to me to satisfy WP:BLPNAME. If those reliable sources consider the son's identity and his father's identity to be relevant, then we should follow what reliable sources say. (This is not tabloid innuendo, because these are not tabloids.) Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The gist of BLPNAME is "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.", and it's still a single event, even if a motley few sources cover it. BLPNAME also says "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context", I don't see a wide dissemination, and what context would be lost without naming this guy or mentioning who his father is? And I don't see WP:DUEWEIGHT there either, is that the only UK source covering it, and is that the sum total of all sources you could find? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Caution should be applied doesn’t mean “don’t do it”: it means, think about. We are thinking about it. We can identify individuals discussed primarily in terms of a single event if there’s wide dissemination and RS coverage. International media coverage in the UK, Germany and Czechia seems to me to satisfy widely disseminated. WP:DUEWEIGHT, likewise, seems to me to be met by Guardian, Stern and Northern Echo. That’s 2 UK sources (3 articles), by the way. Those are the main sources I found that seem to meet RS. There is other coverage that doesn’t seem to meet RS, like Guido. Bondegezou (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Sure, it doesn't say you must not add it, but neither does it say that you have to add it. The other question which is unanswered, is what context does it add that would otherwise be missing?
        Claiming that appearing in 3 or 4 likely reliable sources worldwide qualifies as "widely disseminated", is, at best, wishful thinking, in my opinion. I'd say that if it was widely disseminated, it would, at least, be covered in all the mainstream national UK media, especially BBC News, The Times, The Telegraph, and The Independent, and not just the one mentioned. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see any policy support for your interpretation of widely disseminated. I don’t see why coverage by a major German magazine matters less than more UK coverage. I would’ve thought that international coverage is better evidence of wide dissemination.

Lots of editors at Beergate support the inclusion having also considered the relevant policies. We’ve discussed the matter at some length. You started a discussion here without even notifying the article’s Talk page, which looks a bit like forum shopping to me. Bondegezou (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• • • • Bondegezou, the gist of the BLP is really clear here: we should be sparing in giving detail, and do so only if it matters one way or another. Your argument seems to be "it happened to be this way and a few sources wrote it up". That's just not enough. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It’s a basic Wikipedia principle that what’s due is determined by RS coverage. There is RS coverage. It’s in a number of different publications and has gone international. If you feel that’s just not enough, can you expand on precedent or guidelines as to what is or is not considered enough? Because in the opinion of several editors, this is enough. Bondegezou (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The principle of due is that it's determined by a preponderance of RSs, but that is only a small part of policy. But that aside, all this wikilawyering seems to be evading the most pressing question, which is: what value does this name add to the article? We shouldn't include something just because we can. An encyclopedia is a reference source, which means we don't need all the boring details found in the newspapers and textbooks. What we do is summarize the sources, and that means cutting out all of the boring details, and whittling out anything that is not absolutely essential to the story. All we need for any article is the gist of it. The nitty-gritty. Now, as a reader and an outsider who knows nothing about this, I don't see a difference between the two sentences, except one is longer and gives me unnecessary details which leave me wondering, "So? who cares what the videographer's name is, or who his father is? What does any of that have to do with the price of rice in China?"

Now, the entire article reads like that. It's written like a newspaper would write it, filled with tons of details and unnecessary information that is basically just filler as far as I can tell. Contrary to popular belief, for the reader, it's always best to get the point across in the fewest words possible. Longer is not always better, and there are a ton of these boring details that can easily be cut.

So, the real question that should be answered is, why is this information necessary for the reader to understand the subject? I don't need that answer, but the reader really does, and it should be evident just from context why that information is important. Maybe it is incredibly vital, but if so then some key piece of information is missing, because it reads just the same without it. So, what is the logic behind keeping it? Zaereth (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the article as a whole is written in an overly newspaper-ish way. It has been a heavily edited article, with a lot of to-ing and fro-ing over issues like that. But that’s tangential to the point under discussion here.

Why is the identity of the student important? Beergate is not just about Starmer being at a gathering and there being questions as to whether that broke COVID regulations. The wider context to Beergate is Partygate, the breach of COVID regulations by Johnson et al., which ultimately played a large part in Johnson’s resignation. Much of the furore around Beergate was about Conservatives and supporters using the allegation (subsequently proved to be false) that Starmer had also breached regulations to distract from Johnson’s woes. In that context, some RS consider it notable that the source of the video is someone with links to Johnson, and someone whose dad has very strong links to Johnson. The father was one of many Conservative-supporting commentators who were critical of Starmer, yet he did so without mentioning his own connection to events.[10] That could be better explained in the text, yes. Bondegezou (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page some time ago, there is a balance to be made here. There is, of course, the possibility that I.D. was simply on an innocent errand when he took the picture of Starmer. But there is a possibility that I.D. was being economical with the truth about what exactly he was up to that evening. This is seriously being discussed in reliable sources (i.e. Johnson is, or was, a family friend of I.D.; I.D.'s father is a notorious fake news peddler; and Johnson has spent most of 2022 either throwing dead cats on tables or wagging some dog to distract from Partygate).

My reading of BLPNAME is that naming I.D. is okay, as long as the encyclopaedic voice doesn't cast those aspersions towards him: nobody is suggesting any sort of criminality occurred, so BLPCRIME doesn't apply; I.D.'s name hasn't been deliberately suppressed; and there is a possibility that significant context may be lost, as I.D. being the one to take the picture is central to the argument that the whole affair was deliberately manufactured. Sceptre (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There's an obvious contradiction here. If we aren't casting those aspersions towards him because there is insufficient evidence and coverage, then there is no reason to mention the name. It can't be "central" to an argument if there is no argument. Arguments covered in other places but which we don't mention at all are not of much relevance to us.

Also while BLPCRIME may only apply to criminality, the wider issue of not covering non criminal allegations if they are insufficiently sourced, not of great relevance and especially when the person is not a public figure, remain. The same as we would treat an extramarital affair (which if involving consenting adults in most cases in the Western world is not a crime) or claims of plagiarism (which in some cases could be a crime but often won't be) or cheating on a test (ditto).

I'd add that any source which thinks someone journalist's random son recorded something happening in mid 2021 which even the Daily Mail didn't give a fuck about, so it could be used by Johnson in 2022 when the shit hit the fan is so obviously silly that any source suggesting as such is probably not a reliable source.

Note that from what I've read which I admit isn't much, it seems incredibly unlikely that this whole thing was deliberately manufactured as this would suggest someone in Labour involved in the decision making was working with outside parties which is such an extreme claim to make that it seems to me to be approaching Pizzagate level of wackiness. The only other scenario I can think of is if the 1 hour takeaway delay someone contributed to the situation seeming worse on video, but that still suggest way too much conspiracy, work and ifs and buts for something which let's remember even the Daily Mail didn't give a fuck about.

Note that this is distinct from the possibility that the videographer didn't just happen upon the scene. There are other ways that could occur e.g. they were following the campaign or someone involved for a long time trying to observe something of interest. Or perhaps they somehow found out about the takeaway deliveries either from someone at the restaurant or delivery service or someone in the campaign. Which could even be without any sort of conspiracy if the person was e.g. simply careless with what they shared on social media. Whatever people may think about such things, it clearly doesn't make the recording something that was deliberately manufactured as what was recorded such as it didn't only come about because someone had set it up (i.e. deliberately manufactured or engineered the situation). Instead it was something that happened "naturally" or without mal-intent, no matter how the recording and release were engineered and used.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

One could argue (and indeed it has been argued) that the reason the Mail didn't give a fuck about it in 2021 is because it wasn't worth running when there was clearly no contravention of the rules; but then when Johnson got fined in 2022 the Tory party tried to spin it into something it wasn't, and the Mail gave it their best shot. But, of course, there's no reliable source for that, because those involved are hardly going to trumpet what they're doing. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any need to be getting into conspiracy theories. I don't see any need to make comparisons to an extramarital affair (which if involving consenting adults in most cases in the Western world is not a crime) or claims of plagiarism (which in some cases could be a crime but often won't be) or cheating on a test (ditto). The son is not being accused of wrongdoing. That means that we should be somewhat more relaxed about naming him as no accusation of immorality is being made. It's like talking about Abraham Zapruder when discussing the Kennedy assassination. (Obviously, that's a limited comparison given the differing magnitude of events!) If random person Joe Bloggs had filmed the video, we probably would have named him and left it at that. But reliable sources have chosen to note the connection between the son, his father and Johnson for context. It seems to me that we should take our lead from RSs and do the same. Bondegezou (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If there was a preponderance possibly, but as there's less than a handful, no. The question remains though, what value does naming him add? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Starmer's visit was public knowledge (there was, after all, a by-election on), so I.D. most likely found out that way. What is being said in RSes isn't that the curry was being forced into Starmer's mouth; what is being said is that there is a definite air that the Daily Mail (et al) deliberately over-egged the pudding in order to vindicate their man in the eyes of the public. And the videographer's identity is part of this argument, given his father's involvement in the fake news industry for the past ten years, and said father's promotion of the video as if some random concerned citizen sent it through a tips line. Sceptre (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Mandla_Lamba

This individual is the target of an organization in South Africa known casually as "The Stellenbosch Boys" with links into NASPERS and various other media brands IOL and News 24. This "post apartheid" organization is aimed at preventing various black businessmen from gaining traction in South Africa. The articles used as links in this article violate the Biographies of living persons since they are "Attack Pages". I recommend that this article be scrapped and that the user that originally created this be banned i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730

I will be submitting a variety of article updates over Mandla Lamba over the next few days and hope that this defamatory and libelous article not snuff the ideals on which Wikipedia is establish i.e. Collaborative and Neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GettingBaked1983 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• GettingBaked1983, you will need to do a lot more groundwork to make this stick, particularly with the allegation that every one of these sources is somehow corrupt. That requires very specific proof. Having said that, the article is problematic, with at least somewhat sensationalist language and various other things. For instance, the images of Motsepe and Ramaphosa are not appropriate, certainly not in the DYK nom. User:BuySomeApples, I do not think this should be on the front page just yet. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • That makes sense, the nomination should be on hold until the tone of the article can be worked on. That said, I'm a little skeptical that Independent Online (South Africa) and News24 are both compromised by an anti-black businessperson agenda. The only source that seemed unreliable to me was WP:FORBESCON. What kind of sources are you going to use to improve the page @GettingBaked1983:? You also probably shouldn't remove the existing sources until reaching consensus on the talk page, just in case. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

    Thank you for your responses. I am working on better content and will support with appropriate sources and keep the talks going as I aim to improve the accuracy of this page.

    GettingBaked1983 (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

    After this attempt to replace the article with a promotional, barely-sourced, and suspiciously technically competent puff piece, I've blocked GettingBaked as obviously either a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gingie11 or someone in their employ. (One of their mercs accidentally said the quiet part loud recently.) It does seem like there's legitimate things to discuss here, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, looks like a lot happened while I was away. I will comment on three things:

1. Paid editors. Tamzin has already touched on the Gingie11 sockfarm involved with this article and the recent inadvertent admission of UPE. I'd like to also point out that there was another earlier round of articles on Simple English 123, so this isn't an isolated incident; there's a history of UPE hired for self-promotion and it looks like they haven't given up. This doesn't mean there aren't legitimate issues to be addressed, but it does mean we must remain cognizant that there may be bad faith actors attempting to abuse the process.

2. Sources. There are other sources besides IOL and News24 that reported on the subject. I ended up using primarily these two because a South Africa-focused editor offered them in the article AfD discussion as reliable sources that supported notability of the subject, and a quick check (1,2) indicates their size and market share as the online presence of a significant number of hardcopy newspapers as corroboration thereof. The secondary reason is that the sourcing seemed "enough" with a reasonable number of inline citations, so I wanted to avoid excessive ref-bombing with myriad sources.

One example of other sources that also had coverage is The Sowetan which I am given to understand comes from an anti-apartheid historic background. Also worth noting, the investigative journalist who was lead writer on the initial expose is no longer credited on the news article, but a bit of digging (not included in article due to OR) reveals it was Jacques Pauw, who "was a founding member and assistant editor of the anti-apartheid Afrikaans newspaper Vrye Weekblad".

Really compelling evidence would be needed to support the allegation that all these sources are somehow compromised; on the other hand it certainly wouldn't be the first time the subject of the article has blamed some kind of elaborate conspiracy against him.

The FORBESCON source mentioned by BuySomeApples was a miss on my part and as already indicated elsewhere, I'm willing to substitute other sources for it and remove any remaining unsupported and unverifiable content.

3. The article. My work may be imperfect, but trying to portray it as malicious to the point of warranting a ban is pretty far-fetched. I put in signficant effort to ensure that everything is supported by inline citations -- we report what sources say. In the last section, I sought to give balanced coverage to both allegations and the responses from Lamba and affiliates, including liberal use of direct quotes. Very recent activity and purported upcoming events were not included as TOOSOON.

In the content dispute department, let's discuss the subject of Motsepe and Ramaphosa: it is widely reported that Ramaphosa personally refuted Lamba's claim of a connection to them; coverage persisted well after the event, with the false claim receiving mention in subsequent articles such as those reporting on Lamba's arrest or court dates. I get that using their pictures in DYK when they're not the bold link is not optimal. But aside from that can someone please explain why it is not appropriate to cover this widely reported event or use photographs to illustrate the people, because I found nothing against it in WP:PUBLICFIGURE or WP:MUG and genuinely do not understand the objection.

As for tone, copyedits like this are absolutely welcome -- mea culpa, failure of NPOV on my part there. Other tangential issues: Drmies wrote in an edit summary: such overlinking is frequently a sign of poor writing Okay, I'll take the criticism about overlinking, that's certainly something I've been made aware of and need to work on. But "poor writing"? Care to elaborate more specifically on that and offer constructive criticism?

— 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

References

WP:BLPSPS, WP:FRINGEBLP, and WP:PARITY

There's been some discussion on Talk:Kevin Knuth about using a WP:SPS to provide criticism on a BLP subject. I'm interested in broader community input on using SPS in WP:FRINGEBLP, and if that violates WP:BLPSPS, or if it can be acceptable because of WP:PARITY. This isn't particularly tied into Kevin Knuth, but it does provide an apt example.

I'm of the mind that FRINGEBLP specifically says that BLPs on fringe-related subjects must adhere to the BLP policy, which specifically forbids the use of SPS. Taking PARITY into account, I can see some instances where SPS might be usable, but it should be the absolute minimum usage necessary to provide context and balance. I'm very interested in the views of the community on this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy seems clear enough on this, and WP:FRINGEBLP explicitly states that WP:BLP has to be adhered to. Having to resort to questionable sources for content regarding fringe beliefs is generally an indication that discussion of such beliefs doesn't belong in an article in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Even WP: PARITY says that we don't suspend BLP for fringe topics. Upholding BLP is taking PARITY into account. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, to start with, that article reads like a resume. The first source is a university profile; a primary source but ok. Source 3 is a simple profile from "The Conversation", which is not much different from the university profile. Sources 2, 4-11 are all papers he has written.

Now, the way this is written is: we are saying he has written papers on such and such a topic, and then using the papers he has written as evidence. There is nothing from secondary sources. No peer reviews. Nothing even about what he has written. Just that he has written. This is just OR.

Source 12 is the same thing. We're using the website he's an editor of to prove he the editor. Source 13 is SciProfiles, which is just a list of his published works, not much different from 1 and 3. The last three sources are the only secondary sources we have!

As for the blog in question. No, that should not be used. But in looking at the article as a whole, it all just reads like a resume --even the UFO section! "He is vice president of..." "He is a member of..." "He has been quoted in..." But it doesn't really tell us anything about the person, does it? It's all stuff a future employer might be interested in, but as the reader I want to know what he believes in. What was he quoted as saying. I want to know if this is a person or just a collection of job qualifications. As written, I would have to support the nomination for deletion. I really don't see much for independent notability. Zaereth (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A big problem here is that there has historically been a WP:CRYBLP faction that advocates for special treatment in living person articles that removes WP:PARITY-based criticism but allows for all sorts of poor sourcing to support their fringe activities because WP:BLPSPS says that self-published sources by the subject are okay as an exception. Thus the BLP becomes a WP:COATrack for fringe theories. See the problem? Perhaps a way out is to remove all sources that do not stand up to the WP:FRIND standard. If we avoid all sources that are not reliable for fringe claims in BLPs, this would solve a lot of problems. jps (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

SPS by the subject of a BLP are only ok for uncontroversial factual claims (typically degrees, job titles, and dates), not for anything that involves an opinion (the fringe theories in question, or even the fact that the subject has promoted these opinions). For instance, the self-sourced "Education" section of the Knuth BLP is fine, but the description of what research topics he is known for in the "Academic career" section, sourced only to his own publications, is more problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I can agree with that. My particular opinion of articles like these is that they usually become pseudobiographies that are all about the particular fringe theory rather than the person who believes in them. This is often a big problem with the BLPs for scientists and professors and the like, because we very often have little in the way of actual biographical info on the person themselves. So Wikipedia articles often become a vehicle for them to push their theories, fringe or otherwise-- and other works in the guise of a biography. In an article about a person we need to know what that person believes in to be able to understand them, because that's a part of who they are. We shouldn't promote those beliefs, but at the same time, in a bio I see no reason to try and refute those beliefs either. If the article were about the fringe topic, then sure, but it's not. It's supposed to be a bio about the person, so all I need to know is what they believe.

Now this article is different because it really doesn't tell me anything about his beliefs, or anything else that would give me insight into him as a person. There's nothing being promoted and thus nothing to refute. Zaereth (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a way out is to remove all sources that do not stand up to the WP:FRIND standard. If we avoid all sources that are not reliable for fringe claims in BLPs, this would solve a lot of problems. This is an inspired idea that I can completely get behind.

Either we note that the guy's a UFO proponent and move on, or we include details about his advocacy/beliefs, and treat those details according to WP:FRINGE, meaning WP:PARITY applies. Happy (Slap me) 21:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Knuth is best known for his advocacy of the notion that UFOs are most likely the work of aliens. His academic career is not the focus of RS coverage of him. His Newsweek opinion piece and The Conversation piece are cited in a number of media, usually with click-bait headlines about governments hiding evidence of aliens. His primary notability is in relation to his WP:FRINGE ideas and not his rather unremarkable academic career. If his bio survives, it shouldn’t be downplaying his ufology advocacy in favor of his non-notable academic works. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Then we use WP:FRINGE to guide how we write about his advocacy. The whole situations is remarkably simple, and I really don't understand the hand-wringing about this. There's no contradiction in the policy.

In this case, a well known skeptic commenting on Knuth's arguments isn't even addressing Knuth himself; he's addressing the arguments. As far as I can tell, BLP protections don't extend to arguments.

There's a world of difference between saying "X said something ridiculous" and "X is a ridiculous person". Happy (Slap me) 21:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If we are writing about material in a BLP, it must comply with the sourcing requirements of BLP. We can't hide behind the excuse that when we write about some specific aspect of a living person, especially their beliefs, it is somehow not about the person. If we cannot provide neutral mainstream-POV sourcing for his beliefs, then per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE we cannot cover those beliefs. If those beliefs are the only thing he is notable for, then we cannot cover him. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I have never seen nor heard Knuth claim that all UAP are "aliens". That would clearly be preposterous. What he has said - quite clearly - is that the extraterrestrial hypothesis cannot be ruled out and should be considered as one possible explanation for some of the cases for which there is, as yet, no other feasible resolution. This approach is absolutely consistent with the scientific method. The Colavito quote in question blatantly misrepresents Knuth's words. This seems to be an effective tactic, since it'd appear that many now believe Colavito's misinterpretation of Knuth's statement represents the intent of the statement, despite that conclusion being absurd by any reasonable and objective reading of what Knuth actually said. Cosmoid (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

We aren't here to fight about whether Colavito is correct or not in his analysis (I happen to believe he is correct, but I'll leave that argument for another venue). The issue here is whether and how arguments from Knuth that are at least partial to allowing for the possibility of aliens being the result of UFO reports can be couched appropriately given that this position is so profoundly marginalized in the mainstream. It does the reader no good to pretend that this isn't the case. This is precisely why we have a WP:FRINGE guideline. It's because it's often the case that WP:PROFRINGE prose ends up being promoted if we aren't careful. jps (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

LuckyLouie stated "Knuth is best known for his advocacy of the notion that UFOs are most likely the work of aliens." This implies that Knuth believes that all UAP are the "alien" in origin - which is precisely the way that Colavito's comment, that provoked this discussion, misrepresented Knuth's position. The misrepresentation is clear. And that is why this is the place for that discussion. The offending comment was taken from the personal blog of someone with an agenda. As such, it should not have been included in the article. Cosmoid (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, I'll add that I'd have accepted the less egregiously misrepresentative aspect of Colavito's criticism appearing in the article, for the sake of parity (even though I now see that violates rules on SPS). This is not about preventing factual critique of one notable aspect of Knuth's biography - it is about preventing the inclusion of deliberate misrepresentations of the subject of the biography, which were published by a critic on their personal blog. Cosmoid (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, there is no objective measure we can point to here to decide that you have successfully identified a "misrepresentation" here. I am fairly convinced that Colavito is not misrepresenting Knuth, but it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to make that determination one way or another. Otherwise we are doing original research. If you want to show that Colavito is misrepresenting Knuth, you'll have to find a source which indicates that. But this is rather beside the point. Deciding whether and how to include text and ideas in an article is subject largely to a question of relevance rather than the judgement of the editor that the rhetoric is sound, for example. jps (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Knuth actually stated "A scientist must consider all of the possible hypotheses that explain all of the data, and since little is known, the extraterrestrial hypothesis cannot yet be ruled out."

Those were his actual words. Please explain how anyone could reasonably arrive at the conclusion that Knuth was intending to convey that, as a scientist, he considers all UAP data indicates all UAP are "aliens". Good luck - because that is precisely not what he said. Cosmoid (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is beside the point. But briefly, the reason that Colavito correctly identifies Knuth as holding water for his predilection for a belief in aliens being the cause is because by his argument any extravagant hypothesis can't be ruled out. The fact that he focuses on the "I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens" discussion is the basic name of the game and basically has always been that way. jps (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

No - that's the way you choose to interpret it, based on your biases. What Knuth actually stated - in so many words - is there for all to see. Knuth has never claimed that any UAP case was "aliens" as far as I have seen, never mind all UAP cases. He has stated that he's seen accounts and some evidential data that, in his view, merit investigation and that, in the small subset of UAP cases that appear to exhibit extraordinary capabilities and cannot be readily resolved, extraordinary solutions cannot be immediately ruled out. That is entirely reasonable and in concordance with scientific method.

Come on, be reasonable. The suggestion that Knuth would believe all UAP are "alien" in origin is utterly absurd. People like Colavito - and apparently yourself - may desire to put those words in his mouth. But, you're simply creating a straw man. By all means, criticise Knuth for what he actually said. But, it's extraordinarily disingenuous to infer that "he said this, but really he must have meant that" just so that you can fit him into a box of your own creation. Cosmoid (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This may be the last time I respond to you since, again, this is not relevant to this discussion, but you aren't really dealing substantively with the point that the "U"-boosters entertain aliens because that's what interests them in spite of "U" taken at its most straightforward admitting literally any wild hypothesis. They rarely entertain, I don't know, huldufólk as a possible explanation, for example. Knuth sure doesn't. jps (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

To say Knuth isn’t pushing a fringe view is to ignore his many appearances on UFO conspiracy podcasts and the like. He’s even a featured speaker at events such as Phenomecon: Utah's Paranormal Conference "We Believe". - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This chosen tactic of WP:PROFRINGE always perplexed me. They will, on the one hand, argue that they are being conservative in their proposals, but insist that they not be judged by the company they keep. "I don't agree with everything that is said at the woo-woo conference, but I think they deserve to be heard." We only have a limited amount of time in this mortal coil to entertain ideas. Why these ideas? They must find something they think is worth considering. The irony is that I do as well! It's just that I think agnotology is fascinating and they categorically reject the proposal that their pet idea falls under that umbrella! jps (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Appearances and even featured speaker status do not make someone notable. What has been written about him in reliable sources? I'm not talking about sources that simply quote him or use him for a soundbite. I mean, has any reliable sources taken enough notice to actually write about him?

Just to be clear, when people use the word "fringe" it is often done with a negative connotation, as if anything fringe is automatically something psychotic. When Alfred Wegener first proposed the theory of plate tectonics, he became the laughing stock of the scientific community. His theory was fringe at the time, but only because it hadn't been accepted yet, but now it's gospel. Ask any astronomer if they believe there is life somewhere out in the universe, and you'll get an almost unanimous "yes". With all the billions of stars surrounding trillions of galaxies, the odds are too great. Besides, it would give a great boost to the evolutionists to shove in the face of all those intelligent design-ers out there, and billions of dollars in space explorations is done in search of life. But you ask those same astronomers if we've been visited by spaceships, and most are likely to say the odds are greatly against it, although few would probably give you a direct no. I think Richard Feynman said it best:

Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said "I don’t think there are flying saucers’. So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?”

But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.

The problem is, these are all great opinions to have on the Flying Saucer article, where we can worry about parity and all those good things that any theory should really have. A biography about a person should be about the person. Take the J. J. Becher article, for example. This is what a biography should look like. Do we spend a lot of time promoting his phlogiston theory? Do we need to spend a lot of time debunking it? No. We save that for the phlogiston article and use the bio to describe the man.

And really, when you're talking about flying saucers and aliens, you're no longer in the realm of science but off into the realm of modern mythology. You may as well try to refute Jesus, Buddha, or Scientology. Those who believe will regardless of what you tell them, and those who don't, won't.

But this article is not about any of that. It's about a person, isn't it? This is yet another example of why I think we need much, much higher notability standards for BLP articles. We should never even create an article about a person unless we have enough biographical info to make a decent C or B-class article. That's what would save us a lot of these problems. Save stuff like this for the UFO articles and create a bio when secondary sources take an actual interest in the man himself. Zaereth (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan

• Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Statements_by_President_Ilham_Aliyev

The entire paragraph was synthesized and written in a biased tone. The information was cherry-picked from primary sources and a few secondary ones. Sources cited are either primary, not-RS, or unrelated secondary sources.

• ANTI-ARMENIAN XENOPHOBIA AND RACISM IN AZERBAIJAN is a highly partisan source which represents the side of the conflict. thus it is not reliable for Azerbaijan-Armenia-related articles, especially if we are speaking of BLP. The entire report's sole purpose is to demonstrate xenophobia and racism in Azerbaijan; therefore, the authors who are unknown were biased and seemingly cherry-picked information to prove their point. The transparency.am who published the report on their webpage is not third-party, reputable, or academic.
• Oxu.az - again, the entire content and implications of the article are ignored, and only a few words are cherry-picked from the article.
• www.aljazeera.com does not state much but is used to support long statement synthesized from several primary sources.
• ARMENOPHOBIA IN AZERBAIJAN this is the partisan and self-published report written by the authors who hold the side of the conflict. Academia.edu is a place where almost any can publish their paper.
• All other sources I have not listed are primary sources (twitts / transcripts) whose context was neglected, and the material was cherry-picked from them.

I believe the mentioned paragraph violates the BLP policy because, in Wikipedia, particularly in the case of BLP, we must reference peer-reviewed reputable academic sources and be neutral. All of this must be reported by independent RS; otherwise, it is considered original research and should not be included in Wikipedia.--Abrvagl (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Everett Stern

The page is under attack by an individual and they are stating I committed a crime. I NEVER committed a crime and I have NEVER been convicted of a crime. I have served the United States with the highest honor. I testified to the January 6th committee and that is not in the article. I am entitled to due process of law. I did not do anything wrong and again have Never been convicted of a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everettstern (talk • contribs) 00:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The allegation has been reported by NPR [11], so it's not unsourced or poorly sourced. Whether it is due at this stage is another question. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have never been convicted of any crime. To have it in the Wikipedia like this is not right. I testified against General Flynn and that was in the New York Times and Guardian and that was not put in the article for me testifying against the January 6th committee. I have a right to due process. This is libelous as it infers I committed a crime. Everettstern (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You have never been convincted of a crime. However, you are currently accoring to NPR: set to be arraigned in a Pennsylvania court Thursday following accusations [you] masqueraded as a public servant while pulling over a vehicle occupied by four young women in late March, according to a police affidavit.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an accusation. That is it. To have it in the top of the Wikipedia completely destroys me when I did not commit a crime. Everettstern (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC

If it was just a baseless accusation, then why are you being formally charged? Whether or not you committed a crime is up for the court to decide. That said, the coverage of this has been pretty thin so far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That is not what happened. They were on my property. I used a Tactical Flashlight to get them off. I said I was a federal candidate! Not a Federal Agent! Everettstern (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The facts are not being presented accurately. Even according to the story. Everettstern (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add to the article that I testified to the January 6th committee against General Flynn as reported in The Guardian and New York Times. If this is going to be reported against me then this is fair. Everettstern (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if WP:PUBLICFIGURE is being met here given every story I could find on this is authored by Bryce Schuele from Fresh Take Florida ("a news service of the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications"), published to two local NPR affiliates and one local newspaper.[12] We have to ponder about NOTNEWS also since the news stories are not more than 24 hours old. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have moved the criminal charge to the body of the article, and included detail of the incident/his denial of the accusation that was published in the cited source, as recommended at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Denial. Endwise (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

List of serial rapists

I started a discussion about List of serial rapists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on Jimbo Wales talk page. Frankly, I am disgusted by this page, which looks like a scoreboard of the most prolific rapists. It is sorted by number of "proven cases". One of the problems is that "proven cases" is not defined and it is immediately apparent that the numbers in "proven cases" are not "proven" in any sense. Just as a convenient example, the most recent addition was yesterday by Adakiko. The person added has been convicted of 9 sexual assaults, but the "proven cases" reads "9+". There are also "proven cases" like "1000+", "950+", and "14-24". It should be obvious that claiming that someone has "proven cases" of such a heinous crime as rape is a violation of Wikipedia policies.

Another issue with this list is that "rape" is a somewhat loose term. As Wikipedia's rape page says "The definition of rape is inconsistent between governmental health organizations, law enforcement, health providers, and legal professions". Having a scoreboard of cases like this encourages people to lump cases together to make a single, higher number. One entry says Erik Anderson was "Convicted of sexually abusing and assaulting 60 boys by frotteurism and oral rape". The "proven cases" number for this entry is 60. The page on Erik Andersen (child molester) actually says "The more serious offenses he is alleged to have committed include oral sex, which in some cases borders on the Norwegian criminal code's definition of rape". So he was not convicted of "rape" at all, let alone in 60 cases.

A further issue that needs to be dealt with is that the list includes people who have been accused of sexual assaulted or charged with sexual assault but not convicted. I pointed out the example of actor Danny Masterson (which was removed) but there are others, like Richard Alexander (exonerated convict) (listed in the table as "River Park rapist"), a man who was exonerated by DNA evidence after he was wrongly convicted of two sexual assaults. Peter Nygård is another example of someone charged but not convicted.

I would like this entire scoreboard of rapists to go away, but I don't think that is likely to happen, so I am asking for adult supervision some attention by responsible and careful editors. Thanks. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)