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.

BLPs created by User:Davidcannon (un-archived)

Note that I have manually unarchived this thread. See also WP:ANI#Davidcannon's_BLPs. El_C 04:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)>[reply]

For some background, reading this conversation is useful context. Davidcannon is an adminstrator that has created 600+ articles, many of them which are BLPs. From a brief spotcheck, I'm not sure going to ANI is the best course of action (and honestly the idea terrifies me when it's not really something I've tried to do before). Two of the articles they've created have recently been deleted: Laisa Digitaki and Samuela Matakibau. However, the brief spotcheck has somewhat convinced me that not all of their biographies are like this. There does seem to be issues every once and awhile in regards to controversial unsourced information [1]. 600+ articles is a lot of articles to check and I thought that maybe here would be the better place to fix any problems that may be identified. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection, some articles that could likely use a second set of eyes include:

There may be more. I'm going to be taking a break for now. As I previously stated, more eyes and input is welcome. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also pinging The Wordsmith because of the aforementioned discussion that started this thread. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davidcannon's speciality on Wikipedia was Fiji and its unstable politics. As far as I am aware, he created well-sourced articles (but with embedded external links rather than references), but the links were mostly to Fijian news sites, and many years later, the links no longer worked and Davidcannon deleted them. Some of these links could be restored using web archives. For example, looking at the just-deleted article Laisa Digitaki, the references to fijitimes.com are recoverable, but references to fijivillage.com and fijilive.com appear not to be. I know there's a bot which can recover dead links, but for it to run, we would have to first restore the dead links preferably without removing subsequent improvements to the article, and we would end up with an article which has not been substantially updated for many years with some unrecoverable links and dubious notability. I certainly do not have the interest in Fijian politics to want to tackle this myself. Two editors currently active in that area are @IdiotSavant: and @Thiscouldbeauser:, would you have any interest in working on such articles? As you're not administrators and can't see the deleted article we're discussing, perhaps we could move it to draft space and blank it if you're sufficiently interested to assess it. (I am aware that User:Everyking was desysopped for offering to restore a deleted edit (but he did not actually do so upon reviewing the edit), so I want to make it clear I have no intention of undeleting this article without a clear consensus to do so.)-gadfium 00:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest raising it with Wikipedia:WikiProject Fiji, which does have some active users (people who did bios of MPs elected in the 2022 Fijian general election would be a good start). I'm currently doing a bit of cleanup for that project, and focusing on BLPs at the moment. I'd noticed that lots were created by Davidcannon, but not the removal of dead sources. I'll start checking for them, and see what I can do to restore them. Though there is an underlying issue with source availability for that period of Fijian history - major media outlets don't have archives going back that far (some having scrubbed them to avoid trouble with the military regime), and we've also lost the East-West Centre's Pacific Islands Report mirror of news coverage. Some of the latter is archived, but its very haphazard.

WRT the specific article, there appear to be sources available on RNZ. -- IdiotSavant (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the similarity of content, references for Laisa Digitaki should be available on Angie Heffernan.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean articles about Fijian politicians? Sure, I can create a few of them in the coming weeks if I find enough good info. I haven't created articles about people themselves before though. A quick Google search for Laisa Digitaki comes up with a deleted Wikipedia page, a LinkedIn profile, social media accounts (Facebook and Instagram) and articles about her from generally unreliable sites (i.e FijiLeaks and Fiji News Wars, the latter is a blog hosted on Blogspot which I only found out about today and the former being a site is often critical of Frank Bainimarama and claims to be like WikiLeaks), as well as other random stuff, e.g an e-book on Google Books about her and several other coup-era Fijian politicians and two random TikTok videos. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its more a case of trawling existing articles, checking whether links have been deleted, restoring them, and adding other references as required (oh, and adding them to appropriate WikiProjects, because not everything seems to be appropriately tagged). Required skills: using the wayback machine and reference templates, and searching appropriate news sources (Fiji Sun, Fiji Times, Fiji Village, RNZ).-- IdiotSavant (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. There was still this content that I removed after you striked as Angie Heffernan "done" [2]. At least from what I've seen, I'm concerned that some of these articles wouldn't follow WP:BLPCRIME. An example is Ben Padarath – he was never elected as a politician (WP:NPOL) and there's a whole section with mostly unreferenced content detailing his alleged crimes. It's been like that since creation [3]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a problem there with undue focus (I assume because of when it was written), but the article may also need expansion - there's stuff he has been convicted of (see here and here), but its not in the article. OTOH, that's not especially notable, and honestly barring the sedition charge, he's not someone I'd remotely consider creating an article for if there wasn't one already (so maybe he's a candidate for AfD?). Regarding sedition, where there doesn't seem to be a conviction yet, is there a guideline for political crimes? Because for a lot of Fijian political figures there's a history of oppression by the military regime, sedition or equivalent charges brought and later dropped, and not including them would be leaving out something very significant.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium "I am aware that User:Everyking was desysopped for offering to restore a deleted edit". This is well before I started serious wiki-editing. However, a more recent counter-example is Micaela Schäfer, which I deleted per WP:G10 / WP:BLPDELETE and was subsequently restored by SoWhy who cleaned it up and fixed all the BLP violations. There was a thread at AN running at the time, where I explicitly stated I had no issue with SoWhy doing this. So I think that's your answer - ask if The Wordsmith is okay with you restoring the article for the purposes of fixing the BLP issues, and if they are, then just do it.

A further point that's worth mentioning is that WP:BLPPROD originally only applied for articles created after the policy was introduced in 2010. Then, in 2017, this grandfather clause was removed by consensus. So at the time Davidcannon removed the dead news links, he might have reasonably assumed BLPPROD didn't apply because the article was verified at one point. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We used to have a grandfather clause? Are there any others that are still in effect? It seems bizzare to me that we could ever decide anything by consensus and then go "but it doesn't apply to any articles created before now". I'm interested in the rationales that were used at the time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 7#RfC: Remove the grandfather clause? for further reading. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to briefly clarify that, it was a very unusual situation that led to the grandfather clause being created. The BLPPROD process was created because we had an absurd nightmare of something like 80K completely unreferenced BLPs, and one camp was mass summary deleting them while the other thought we should try sourcing them all instead of deleting. As part of the compromise for dealing with them, the grandfather clause was established to prevent people from just tagging them all at once while the effort to source them was underway. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333 and Gadfium: I do object to restoring the history of those two articles either in mainspace or anywhere else, since the contents of them are bad enough that they'd be a gross BLP vio in any namespace. Pretty much all they covered was allegations of crimes committed and being investigated. What I can do is email the deleted versions (and the sources used, if you like) to any editor interested in rewriting. I have no issue with a bio (or even a stub) for those subjects being recreated if it can comply with our policies, just not the history of those two. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through 2004 Pitcairn Islands sexual assault trial, largely written by David, and the amount of unsourced depictions of underage sexual activity are beyond the pale, and if a new editor did that, I'd revert and redact it. And to make it abundantly clear, my issue here is adherence to WP:BLPSOURCES and our longstanding policy is that unsourced claims involving living persons should be removed - I have no opinion on the content. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like his contributions were mostly in 2004.[4] Were the inline sourcing requirements different then? Was he an administrator then? Wikipedia policies and BLP (if it existed) enforcement may have been more lax then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. BLP was first started in 2005 by Slim Virgin, who was probably one of the greatest Wikipedians to ever exist and someone I very much admired and looked up to, and even then it took many years to build and refine this policy into what it has become today. Rules were definitely much more lax then (it was basically the Wild West in those days) and not many people gave much thought to the real-world repercussions of the things we do here. Wikipedia has grown up a lot since those days, but there is still a lot from back then that needs to be cleaned up. Thank god we had someone with the knowledge and foresight of Slim Virgin. She has been sorely missed. Zaereth (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had quite a few arguments with SlimVirgin back in the day, but BLP was one of her greatest contributions. I do know it wasn't taken as seriously as it is today at first. We had Rachel Marsden in 2006, Badlydrawnjeff in 2007, and Footnoted quotes in 2008 which especially strengthened it by creating BLP Special Enforcement. Even until late 2009/early 2010 there was a strong minority who felt that completely unsourced BLPs weren't a problem and it led to that mass deletion and the establishment of WP:BLPPROD. Yes, Slim will be missed but she helped get us where we are today. I probably wouldn't go bringing Davidcannon's articles up at the dramaboards since it was absolutely a different time with looser standards, but we do need to clean up the mess now by making them conform to Wikipedia's current BLP standards or summarily deleting them. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe pin this to keep it from archiving again until the list has a chance to be seen by more people? Valereee (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I had my own disagreements with some of Wikipedia's policies when I first started, in particular the whole "Verifiability not truth" phrase (which I still think is very poorly worded) but I had a great discussion with Sarah in which she explained the reasoning behind this seemingly contradictory statement, and in her reasoning I agreed entirely. I actually never had much interaction with her aside from that, but over the years you get to know people even if you don't interact. The first article I worked on was the flashtube article, which was mostly just a bunch of really plausible-sounding bunk that people made up because it sounded good in their heads. Same with the tempering (metallurgy) article, or the basic fighter maneuvers article. They were dreadful, but most Wikipedia articles started out that way. It was new territory and people were creating articles by the thousands each day. It was a very different time. I wouldn't waste a lot of energy assigning blame or shame. Like anything, we just have to tackle these things as we find them and move on to the next. Zaereth (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She sounds amazing. I don't think I ever personally interacted with her, but I'm familiar with the username. I had no idea that she was instrumental in starting WP:BLP, we really should have a "history of Wikipedia" outlining the major changes we've experienced throughout time. I've noticed some stuff has changed since I started editing in 2018, I can only imagine the scale at which other who have been here for longer experience that. I agree that tackling this and moving on is the best course of action. If I had known that I could've just unarchived the thread, I don't think I would've started the ANI one. I just wanted to make sure these issues didn't disappear into a void and then someone else a decade later would be here to say something. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She did some great things, but she could be absolutely infuriating to argue with. She also had a flair for the dramatic and a habit of unnecessary escalation, sandbagging discussions she didn't like and even wheel warring; there's a reason she has at least 3 or 4 Arbcom cases named after her personally. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like RfA was in June 2004. And yes, sourcing requirements were far different then. Valereee (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've used Template:DNAU at the top of this thread to prevent archiving; once the thread is concluded anybody can just remove that line to allow the bots to archive it as normal. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right vs. far-left

So, recently an IP removed "far-right" from Kristina Karamo, with an edit summary: Removed far right, slanted view point. Never see far left. And frankly in the US at least, it's extremely true. Like by a factor of ~~100~~ 20. (Note I haven't counted how many of these are not living people.)

Even if most of the far-right ones are dead and it's only a factor of 10, to me this feels like a problem w/re BLP policy. Valereee (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's also extremely time consuming from an editorial standpoint as literal books-length discussions have been promulgated across multiple BLP talk pages disputing the use of the "far-right" label. FWIW, it's over-use in modern media has diluted the term to meaning almost nothing at this point. RE: "Opposes abortion" == "far-right". However, we can't control how the media spins and we want to be really careful here re: censorship or policy making for something that is, at face value, a trend that will likely boomerang at some point. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those two categories are inherently problemic, as there are no global nor stable definitions of 'left' and 'right'. This keeps being a problem across a lot of Wikipedia articles. --Soman (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should censor. I do think we might want to think about which RS we're using for that term. If right-of-center RS aren't calling a politician "far-right", maybe we should give it more thought.

The categories are just a symptom here, I think. They're just what I thought of as a way to take a look at what we're calling people. Valereee (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone written about should have their views clearly and unambiguously delineated, good or bad. Shortcut labels should be banned from the Wikipedia lexicon. Slywriter (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need a sufficiency of sourcing for the label. I added the label in Wikivoice to Itamar Ben-Gvir recently as there are plenty sources using it. Still got diluted to "His political position has been described as far-right". If there is no agreement on someone like that being right wing, then one can't expect agreement for anyone. Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that "far-right" is a measurable, identifiable political continuum. While, at least in American politics, "far-left" is largely a pejorative. The two are not comparable, and if someone is running around deleting comment on the basis of "Never see far left", then that is disruptive and open for sanction. Zaathras (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There actually more of a defined gap between the left and the far left (given that there is so little of what is the far left), compared to the blurry line that still exists between right and far-right. Kcmastrpc has a good example where any politician that may be opposed to abortion, or that supports gun rights, is categorially thrown to a "far-right" pot by some media sources.

To call someone far-right (or far-left) in Wikivoice, which includes being in these categories, we need 1) a lot of time to have passed so that the general opinion over time keeps that person in far-right (eg David Duke), and 2) a near plurality of sources over time to use the label. Unfortunately, more often than not, we see one publication throw out the term "far-right" and the article suddenly frames the person as far-right in Wikivoice. We simply cannot do that. We need that agreement, and after several years, to be able to establish that. Masem (t) 15:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford dictionary and Google Scholar disagree with the assessment of no definition of far-left. And what authoritative source provides a measurement of far-right while also claiming far-left does not exist? Slywriter (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason, besides a sort of belief that the world is inherently symmetrical, to think that there should be equivalent numbers of notable far-right and far-left politicians in the United States. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, but this is pretty lopsided. Valereee (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~fun fact: searches for "far-left", "far-left politics" and "far-left United States" generate more returns than their far-right equivalent, albeit only slightly.~~ (see below for more accurate on-wiki search)

So think the question is whether the categories accurately reflect the content on Wikipedia. Suspect need to use Quarry to dig further down and see if those stats hold for BLPs Slywriter (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fun fact: WP:GHITS is a meaningless measure. Zaathras (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm betting Sly was doing a Wikipedia search. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

correct, which is why Quarry and accuracy of categories mentioned since drilling a search down to BLP isn't easy. Though I will be amending as lack of " " distorted. "Far-right" use is 2 to 1 over "Far-left" and adding born to either to approximate biographies shows 3 to 1 usage of far-right to far-left. So the categories may be underpopulated but disparity will exist Slywriter (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the usage of these terms is lopsided because, in current times in the US, the existence of openly extremist media is lopsided. There are a large number of far-right radio stations. There are far fewer far-left stations. The same can be said for social media. Presumably this is due to popularity. It may be that there are fewer folks on the far-left, or that they just don’t like listening to conspiracy theories or ridiculously unbalanced content. There certainly seem to be fewer far-left politicians as they can’t get elected. Of course Google searches are useless as the far-right sources call someone far-left if they think a six-year-old shouldn’t be able to buy a grenade launcher. In any case, we should avoid creation of a WP:FALSEBALANCE to cure a problem that may not exist. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's lopsided compared to a parity that doesn't necessarily exist. If someone published a paper tomorrow saying that the far right is 20x more influential than the far left in American politics, I'd be unsurprised. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's an interesting thought. Valereee (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why were you assuming that there were equal numbers of far right and far left figures in the United States? In my own state we have close to a dozen members of the far right in our legislature and not a single member of the far left, the far right is just so much bigger than the far left here that any NPOV coverage is going to give you an overwhelming focus on the far right. I assume for other countries those numbers are different, in some contexts it might be appropriate to spend 90% of the time talking about the far left because thats what they have. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't assuming equal, just that 3:69 sounded like maybe we should be discussing. Valereee (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like the US has an actual far-left movement (i.e., a communist movement) EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that these can be seen as contentious WP:LABELs, there should be some sort of standard as to when they should be applied, especially when used in the MOS:LEADSENTENCE or as categories. Why does "far-right" appear in the lead sentence of Alex Jones and Steve King but not Steve Bannon and David Duke? Why does "far-left" appear in the lead sentence of Cathlyn Platt Wilkerson and Sara Jane Olson but not Angela Davis or Bill Ayers? And that's just the United States: there are a few hundred other countries that also have far-left and far-right figures. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I bet there are better examples but in the case of Davis it would appear redundant as we say she's a Marxist in the first sentence and link the Communist Party USA in the second. In the case of Ayers we run into the issue that while they were at one point a violent leftist their views appear to have been moderated over the years and I'm not seeing contemporary sources calling him far left. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the core problem involves loose compliance with MOS:LABEL, and, more loosely, emotive writing. I very much like Bill Ayers, Angela Davis, Steve Bannon, and David Duke (the articles, not the people!), and quite dislike Alex Jones. These articles are proof, IMO, that our main problem is not ideological bias, but the writing being too "overt" and two-dimensional, making it non-encyclopedic. The exact same point of view can be stated in a neutral, encyclopedic manner, or stated in an excessively emotive way. This older comment of mine, IMO, quite neatly addresses the distinction. DFlhb (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found a great, apolitical example: there are countless reputable sources that say Steve Jobs "revolutionized the computer industry". And that's what he's known for, right? So it should go in his lead sentence! In wikivoice! But it shouldn't, because it's emotive and non-encyclopedic. Instead, the lead should describe specifics. We should strengthen MOS:LABEL, because many editors incorrectly believe that MOS:LABEL conflicts with WP:FALSEBALANCE. DFlhb (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents has always been that we should almost never include "far-left politician" or "far-right politician" modifiers in the first sentence of the lede; I think it is much more tact to expand upon how they are far-right or far-left further in the lede, as is done at Roy Moore and Wendy Rogers. I think our single worst article in this regard is Josh Mandel; the lede doesn't expand upon the extraordinary claim of being a far-right politician and so it comes off as being very shoehorned. I also must note that this is nearly exclusively being used against modern/currently serving American politicians, and not the plethora of extreme politicians that once served both in America and across the world. My statement does not apply to, for example, George Lincoln Rockwell or Marjorie Taylor Greene, where the far-right modifier is supporting a different statement (political activist, conspiracy theorist). Curbon7 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I just thought all left was far left. The line between right and left seems to be drawn at the far left, and anyone who is not far left is deemed "right" or "far right", therefore the term "far left" seems rather redundant. The far right scares the crap out of me, and the left is all a bunch of haters who like to label anyone who even slightly disagrees with them, and they scare the holy crap out of me. I don't think it's a simple continuum that has a line drawn right in the middle of something. Zaereth (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take care to not conflate left-right politically when it involves an organized group or violence. e.g. Boogaloo movement where it was a constant argument of not "far-right" politically when any organization or violence is smack dab far right. fiveby(zero) 18:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is defining left and right. These terms are very different from country to country. Someone who is on the left from the perspective of one country might be on the right from the perspective of another. Far better to avoid labels, and instead focus on actions and stances. Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll bite. The problem is mainly in the US, which is asymmetrically polarized at the moment (books like Network Propaganda do a good job of providing a huge amount of evidence for this asymmetric polarization [of the news, in that case]). We have more people in politics and political media who support ideas that have traditionally been associated with the far-right now such that a ton has been written about them (and that phenomenon). So there are more sources to cite about the far-right in the US. Those on the right have tried to characterize the increased distance between the center of gravity on the right from everyone else as more symmetric than it actually is, but uses the term "far-left" in wildly inconsistent ways. It's tricky because (and this is also a perennial challenge for the left come election time) there's a larger variety of priorities on the left such that the number of people who support the fringe on any one of those issues aren't so numerous, and short of promoting communism (which has almost no foothold in politics/media) none of the "far-left" applications have really stuck (criticism of police? anti-racism? talking about lgbtq people in school? increasing taxes? more regulation on business? saying slavery had lasting effects? these are all "far-left" in one usage or another). On the other hand, while "far-right" can mean an awful lot of things, too, there are a few, pretty well-defined areas that will lead to being called far-right in the US: nativism, authoritarianism, fascism, theocracy, certain types of militant opposition to the federal government, and extreme stances on race or civil liberties. They aren't two sides of the same coin. We don't have neat spectra with lines down the middle such that we can calculate extremity with statistics. All of this is to say, the far-right in the US is better defined and more prominent. Because nobody thinks of themselves as "far"-anything, that also means there are more people to see the term and object to it. If we follow the sourcing, and only use the terms when there's strong support among the sources that it applies, we're going to wind up using "far-right" more than "far-left" because they're only counterparts in the abstract, not in practice. I hope that changes soon, but it is what it is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced this is a Wikipedia problem. First, while both these terms are relative, and so in theory should be used equally frequently by all types of commentators, political commentators aren't necessarily following that sort of logic, and are choosing the terms they feel fit best (or will get them the best ratings). Second, even if the terms could be applied to similar numbers of people, that doesn't necessarily mean that notable people are equally likely to be "far left" as "far right". Third, and most importantly, we're not in the business of balancing these categories; we should be applying the terms when reliable sources use them, and if there's an imbalance in their use, that's not necessarily our problem. If I had my way, I'd dispense with these terms altogether, as they become quite meaningless to anyone who has a certain familiarity with politics in multiple countries. But that's neither here nor there. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- In the case of the left in the US, there is the problem of where on the continuum the left becomes the far-left. In my thinking, Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist and revolutionary anarchist politics are clearly far-left, but should any elected official who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America automatically be categorized as "far left"? I think not but others may disagree. Also a factor is the definition of "politician", which in most contexts we reserve for elected officials or candidates for office. Bill Ayers and H. Bruce Franklin were far left activists half a century ago, but neither ran for office and both have had long careers in academia. We have 84 articles in Category: Members of the Black Panther Party but only a handful of these people ever ran for political office. Notability on the American far left often results from militant activism outside the realm of electoral politics. Cullen328 (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The issue of classification of "far-left" is that what defines far-left varies. The DSA is solidly on the left, as a post-capitalist ideology, and as such is "far-left" when compared to US ideologies, but would not be considered "far-left" in most countries not called the US, UK, or Canada; as such, we should rightfully not state it is a far-left organization. I would also like to bring up that Nepal's ruling democratically-elected government is a coalition between Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, and Maoist parties; should we thus turn on WP:AWB and run down all of them inserting "[name] is a Nepali far-left politician..."? Obviously not! Curbon7 (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having been working with sources that address this exact question recently, this is pretty much the conclusion that they agree on. Revolutionary politics (such as Marxism and anarchism) are "far-left" while reformist politics (such as social democracy and modern liberalism) are "center-left". And then democratic socialism is really the only one where they don't have a broad agreement on whether it's center-left or far-left. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no widely recognized clear-cut distinction between social democracy and democratic socialism. Cullen328 (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds like agnostic atheist and atheistic agnostic (hah, I was right, both links turned blue!). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This comes up regularly, mostly by drive-by editors complaining about some article. (Generally not the categories but the lead description.) I admit I used to think it was nonsense. While it may be trust there's a difference in how many US politicians are described as far right vs far left, this seems to be reflective of the difference in how common theya are in the real world, since despite what those complainers like to say, even from the US let alone an international context, neither Sanders nor Ocasio-Cortez are far left. One time I intended to reply to one of them pointing out it was nonsense so I check out Jean-Luc Mélenchon which I assumed would definitely say he's far left and found it didn't and gave up. I'm not saying we definitely have a problem, my knowledge of French politics is limited. Nevertheless, I very often hear of Mélenchon described in the RSes I read or watch as the far left counterpart to Le Pen so I do wonder. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories for "Far-right politicians" and "Far-left politicians" seem highly questionable in general. Practically nobody self-describes themselves as "far"-anything, and it is essentially same as calling someone "extremist". Seems like an obvious case of WP:BLPRACIST: Do not categorize biographies of living people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, and the like, since these have the effect of labeling a person as a racist, sexist, or extremist..--Staberinde (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s my take I guess. First I would like to make a couple observation. (1) There is a double standard in the perception of these political labels when being used under politicians (e.g. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Josh Mandel, Wendy Rogers) than when being used for media personalities (e.g. Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones, Rachel Maddow). (2) With regards to media personalities, we also tend to include a broader range of spectrums than politicians, including the less extreme conservative and liberal. With politicians we only include the descriptor if it’s far- something, typically far-right. You never see [Insert name] is a conservative/right-wing politician… or [Insert name] is a liberal/left-wing politician. The usual justification for this disparity offered byproponents of such labels is that these radical politicians are primarily known for being radical more than anything else they’ve, assumingly even more than the office they hold. Therefore, we should use the label for the extreme one’s and not the mainstream ones. At least that’s what I’ve seen from my experience. I find this a hard argument to make but also a hard argument to rebut. Like, how can you as Wikipedia gage that someone whose serving in public office is primarily known for their extreme views rather than anything else they’ve done to the point that it needs to be shoved in the lead sentence, when such a label typically shouldn’t? And how do you determine the contrary? What this means in practice, from what I’ve seen, is that once about 3-5 RS newspapers have used the label (even in passing) it will be introduced into the first sentence since it’s considered to the “widespread or extensive coverage.”

Now to my opinion on all of this. I don’t mind these labels being in the first sentence when it’s comes to BLP’s of media personalities; I think the reason I have this opinion is because of the greater tendency to include the whole spectrum of ideologies for these people, rather than just the extreme ones. But, the disparity when it comes to politicians is just odd to me, and that’s why I oppose the practice generally. If were not gonna call Mitt Romney a conservative politician in the first sentence,I don’t think we need to label Josh Mandel far-right in the first sentence either. There also the MOS:LABEL concern, which I find quite valid, and the argument that these views should be described in greater detail later in the lead seems like a very reasonable and worthy compromise on this issue. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^talk 15:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking about a clear neutral, impartial, disinterested tone, even for a run-of-the-mill person, including their political leanings in the very first lede sentence is a problem. We're supposed to write from the most objective and central facts about the person first, and then introduce other more subjective factors as appropriate. For example Maria Cantwell establishes in the lede she is Washington State's junion senator in the first sentence, and then explains her political alignment. That means from a tone standpoint we aren't calling out her political leanings. But when we push these into the lede sentence and without establishing context, such as what's done at Marjorie Taylor Greene, the tone of the article immediately shifts into something that is hostile (in MTG's case) since we have now prioritized her far-right leanings. In the case of MTG, it would be far better to explain what her ideology is in something like the second paragraph as to give room to give it context (what's her motivation for it, what impact has that had). Its not something to be whitewashed away, obviously, but providing in better order helps to make the tone far more neutral and less problematic than it is now. Masem (t) 15:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With MTG, the article isn't stating that she's a far-right politician, it's stating she's a far-right conspiracy theorist, so there is a distinction when compared to other cases mentioned above. Curbon7 (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even stating that she is a fat right conspiracy theorist is a problem, but that us not an objective term. I am not saying we can't call her that in the lede, among other notable far right or MAGA claims, but the lede sentence is not the home to anything that subjective, as it sets a negative tone immediately for the rest of the article. Masem (t) 15:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely think we shouldn't call her fat. Valereee (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion - this is not a BLP issue as framed because there is not symmetry in the US political arena. The US does not have any significant far-left movements or actors. American Left is not the far-left. Within our Overton window, it may seem Bernie Sanders is "far-left" but on the full spectrum he is not; no one in Congress is left of social democracy. The closest we've come in recent history is the Occupy Wall Street movement. ([5]) We do, however, have a far-right movement in the US (e.g., Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Christian nationalism#United States). This reminds me of the gender symmetry argument. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Antifa (United States) is certainly far-left, and at least some prominent figures in the Black Lives Matter movement are openly Marxist and revolutionary in their politics. Further, there is no shortage of far-left figures in American academia. I do however agree that at least at the national level of politics, hard-core leftists are pretty hard to find. Bernie Sanders was an avowed Leninist in his youth and has never fully repudiated a lot of that. But I haven't seen anything from him since being elected to office that I could fairly describe as far left. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem I agree with the Antifa part but honestly they haven't been in the news as much recently. This might be just my perception, but it seems to be going the way of Occupy Wall Street. But you're correct it should have been mentioned. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am inclined to agree that it is problematic. The terms far left and right are being tossed around almost indiscriminately with little thought to actual definitions, which is a gray area in itself. Adding to the problem is that the terms are routinely used as pejoratives by people in the political class and pundits as a descriptor for anyone whose politics they find disagreeable. There certainly are people who are far right and left, including in the US. But coming up with a fair way to categorize them would be a challenge that might be beyond easy reach. I am reminded of the former US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who when dealing with a case involving obscenity, famously said of hard-core pornography that while he would not attempt to define it, "I know it when I see it." Unfortunately, that doesn't really work here. Unless we can define these terms in some reasonable way, I would support deletion of these categories should someone care to send them to WP:CfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just FTR (I'm not disagreeing with any of what AO is saying), the categories are just a symptom. I agree they probably should be deleted, but they were really just what I was using as a very rough viewing point for understanding the size of the possible issue. I'm more concerned about whether we're adding this to the lead of too many articles about politicians and political commentators if we can find any reasonable RS calling them that.

@EvergreenFir, it's not that I have some misapprehension about whether we should be calling the same number of people far-left as far-right or even close. But the first mention of far-left at Antifa (United States) has 14 sources directly on that word. Fourteen! (seven are nested inside one footnote), all extremely high quality and most of them academic. I didn't investigate how we ended up with fourteen on that word, but I have to assume it was due to pushback on calling even antifa far-left. And even then the description, which is not in the lead, says has led some scholars and news media to characterize the movement as far-left". Shouldn't we be using similar-quality sources for calling someone/something far-right? It's not like academics haven't been writing about it. Valereee (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee - I don't know the history on antifa but I could guess as to why there's push back. Regardless, it does not need 14 sources and neither should any labels of far-right. I do think we need to be more judicious in our use of "far-right" and only use high-quality sources (e.g., I wouldn't rely on Vox or Teen Vogue or Mother Jones for those labels). EvergreenFir (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think for inclusion in the lead, especially, we should be very careful with our sources. And I don't think we need this many, we just need multiple truly excellent ones. Valereee (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As others have indicated above, there's no reason to assume that the political spectrum neatly fits a bell curve with equal numbers of far left and far right. However, with a ration that lopsided it seems likely that at least some examples are vandalism, unsourced, poorly sourced/sourced to editorials, and other various BLP violations. It may be worth doing a systemic review and checking to see if there are any issues there that need to be reviewed. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a false dichotomy is what it is. It's far easier to lump people into some stereotypical category that is solely defined by a label than to see them as being an entire spectrum, and unfortunately it's been a staple of politics for as long as recorded history. It's a lot easier for politicians when it's "us against them". Zaereth (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do see the push for inclusion of "far-x" into the opening of any article as generally poor writing/not encyclopedic. I can think of a number of reasons why we might have more instances of far-right vs far-left. Some may be due to Wiki editor bias but I suspect more is related to the rate at which sources we classify as generally reliable use those terms, carefully or casually, in sources. I think our articles are better overall and better adhere to IMPARTIAL when we try to avoid labels, even when used in sources, and put more effort into explaining positions. If we can't find sources that justify the use of a label, or if a source uses the label but doesn't doesn't provide evidence, then we shouldn't use it at all. If they do support it then we can use it to describe those positions actions. It would be best if we avoided it in most cases.
I can only really echo the sentiments of the above users and say that the reason there's so few politicians described as far-left rather than far-right (a label used where they're described for the most part by reliable sources) is because of the absence of "far-left" politics in the United States. The usual example people give is "why isn't Bernie/AOC/Nancy Pelosi described as far-left then?" which is frivolous given neither are anywhere near. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We really should put less effort into applying the label and more into finding the facts that justify it. Bias, even among good faith editors, may be part of the issue. All else equal it is probably easier to convince an editor that "far-x" is due if the person disagrees vs agrees with the subject in question. It's also possible that a Wikipedia bias in favor of some sources vs others means we have more sources that are likely to use "far-right" vs "far-left". I think there also might be a motte and bailie issue here. For example, it would be reasonable to say Bernie Sanders is "far-left" if our reference is the range of "left" in the DNC. I'm not certain that, at the national level the "far-right" GOP is significantly further from center than the "far-left" DNC. However, since the national media in the US is left of center it's not surprising that they might be more likely to recognize the extremes of the other side vs their own. This isn't exactly the same but recently there was some research noting that the authoritarian left isn't getting much academic attention vs the authoritarian right [6] and the feeling was part of the gap was due to the left bias in the academic circles that tend to study the area. /TLDR The reason is probably a mix of more RSs use "far-right" vs "far-left" and, all else equal, we are probably more likely to find "far-right" due for inclusion. I think the real solution is probably a MOS fix. We put more effort into showing why the label might apply and less effort into using the label. We should also be more selective about what sources provide weight for the label. Sources that don't justify the label or use it casually probably should be discounted when deciding if we should include the label. Honestly, this seems like how we should treat any contentious label. Springee (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me the key question shouldn't be whether sources justify the label, which just encourages editors to ~~free base~~ generate WP:OR opinions of what is it isn't "justified". Rather, it should be what is the quality level of sources using the label? and do any sources of that quality contest the label? (Not using a particular label isn't at all the same thing as contesting it, and I would much rather editors try to figure out whether sources are depicting a BLP subject in compatible ways using different language, versus offering conflicting characterizations, rather than editors evaluating evidence on their own as a basis to decide what is "justified"). This applies equally, needless to say, to far-right, far-left, far-forward and far-behind labels. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When contentious labels are used causally we should look at the evidence before including them. Part of the problem is a label like "far-x" has variable meanings. It can reasonably be used to indicate that Senator X is a hardliner in her party. Not that her policies are extremist, rather than she is uncompromising or just that within the reasonable bounds of left/right, she is at the extreme of those bouts. For example, she is "far-left" on minimum wage legislation. What isn't often clear is if a source that says a person is "far-right" is using it to mean they are simply "right within the group" vs our wikipedia definition which includes them in the group of white nationalist, or NAZIs who killed millions. I'm sure there are many politicians who served at the federal level whom we might call "far-right" who also proudly fought to liberate Europe from the NAZIs. I do agree that "quality" matters but part of "quality" comes from justification. I don't care if we feel the NYT is a gold standard newspaper, we shouldn't treat a single sentence mention of "Sentator X, a far-right, politician from Smithville" as usable. Conversely, a source that explains there far right positions would be more usable, assuming it was done well, even if the source is a second tier source. If the source for "far-right" comes from a source that is using a lot of persuasive language vs impartial language, again we should pause and ask if the assessment is based on facts or on an attempt to sway the reader's opinion. I agree that not using isn't the same thing as contesting, but we shouldn't take that no sources contest it as sources accept it either. Sources, as a rule, shouldn't be expected to adjust their reporting to respond to other sources. We expect our best sources to focus on the facts at hand. If they don't think that label applies then that is meaningful in and of itself. Springee (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But when you say, we should look at the evidence before including them, it seems to me that the relevant question is not, "what evidence does this particular source present in support of the label" but rather, "do the best avaibale sources agree with this characterization and do any comparably good sources disagree". I agree that impartial sources should be weighted over emotive ones (of course I would), but a sober statement of fact by a quality source doesn't derive from the evidence it provides for the descriptive use of a label in a particular piece - it is the reputation for reliability of the source generally speaking, or the publication process (in the case of peer review), that make the source reliable.

Meanwhile, I am completely unconvinced by your sample statements such as, Senator X ... is "far-left" on minimum wage legislation. Are there any reliable sources characterizing any sitting US Senators as "far-left on minimum wage legislation"? What would that even mean? Far-left politics paradigmatically includes such demands as worker control of the means of production - whether "from above" or "from below" - and it is hard for me to see how this is relevant to minimum wage policy. If no reliable sources at all would characterize any members of a population as "far-left" (or "far-right"), then the last thing we need is editors drawing up a spectrum of policies from left to right and trying to decide whether or not they agree with the best available sources. (This is what I think of as "free basing", btw.) Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we decide the "best sources" agree? What percentage of source need to use the label? Do we need to show the label is applied by a range of source or just those who are on the other side of center? You say your are unconvinced that sources use the term loosely. In that case you would need to show that sources are generally consistent in their usage. I guess the best way to establish that is only use sources that explain why they apply the label and what they consider to be "far-x". Springee (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it seems to me that the relevant question is not, "what evidence does this particular source present in support of the label" but rather, "do the best avaibale sources agree with this characterization and do any comparably good sources disagree". Is poor advice when dealing with controversial labels, particularly when we know that a good chunk of dissenting sources would fall into unreliable but otherwise nontrivial sources (eg Fox News, Breitbart). The quoted advice tends to suggest we can cherry pick sources to support a label if only a minority of reliable sources support that, which should never be the case. The abscene of the use of labels in the majority of reliable sources should absolutely be treated as a reason not to use the label..On the other hand, having a majority of reliable sources in general agreement about the label then making inclusion of the label make sense, That gets us away from the current nature of cherry picking labels via a more evidence driven approach. Masem (t) 21:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced there is no issue here. Sources that do refer to certain individuals as "far-left" are not suitable for use on Wikipedia, so that leaves us where we are today. I don't know if there's a solution to this outside of what Springee is proposing (and that's assuming one recognizes there is an issue). It's problematic that the sources which are deemed as reliable seem completely unreliable with regards to how they use this particular label. I believe in order to rectify this we just need to ensure that sources who do use this terminology are doing so responsibly, however, I suspect a policy around this topic won't ever gain acceptance, but I'm open to being proven wrong. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that one of the issues here is that, certainly in the US, it's far easier to differentiate "far-right" from "right-wing" than it is the opposite. Given that actual left-wing politicians in the US are few and far between and 99.9% of people couldn't name a single issue that would make someone "far-left" as opposed to "left-wing", it is unsurprising that this imbalance persists in reliable sources as well. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There is a difference between right-wing and far-right as right-wing isn't usually fascist, interested in taking away as many liberties that citizens are used to, forcing their religious beliefs on other citizens' children, and promoting violence to obtain goals. Left-wing, far-left, commie, socialist, and other terms most often used in the US as pejoratives, seem to be interchangeably applied to anyone interested in gun control, diversity, inclusion, equality, LGQBT rights, climate change, mentions of race, historical accuracy, etc. Any attempt to equate far-right and far-left is false balance. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor insisting on labelling a person as a hacker because of doing it thirty years ago when young

In Talk:Julian_Assange#Is_a_hacker_in_lead @Softlemonades: keeps asserting Assange is a hacker in a way which I believe violates WP:BLPCRIME and wants to stick that into the first sentence of the article despite there being an ongoing case against him. I put a short description of what he did in as a second sentence and removed the contextless label in the first sentence but they are not satisfied diff. They insist it is reasonable because they have RS saying he is a hacker and because of he himselff saying so. However his organisation denies it and he only said he was a hacker when describing what he was convicted for. They also say all RS say he is a hacker despite my showing RS saying it is an allegation that he is a hacker rather than a journalist. They also say there is evidence of him hacking, that is in an RS but with one anonymous source the lead author has published at least two very damaging things about Assange which are definitely untrue citing anonymous sources. They assert they have a consensus but that was previously and they don't now. They insist they are not acting against BLPCRIME by going on and on in the talk page despite having no new suggestions since being asked to stop. I believe doing so goes against the first sentence of WP:BLP 'Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and project pages.' Could somebody please explain to themthatsoliphisms about hacking not necessarily referring to a crime and other such stuff simply does not stop a reader assuming that a label as a hacker without context will be assumed to refer to the current case and it is just wrong in the first sentence? NadVolum (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 They assert they have a consensus but that was previously and they don't now Editors in favor: Softlemonades, ValJean, Slatersteven, Kcmastrpc. Editors against: NadVolum, Cambial Yellow, Jtbobwaysf. Consensus is still to include it

2 However his organisation denies it His organisation also admits it. As a teenager he became Australia's most famous ethical computer hacker. After referrals from the United States government his phone was tapped in 1991 and he spent 6 years in court. He hacked thousand of systems, including the Pentagon and the US military Security Coordination Center. [7] NadVolum also brought up that the source of the denial isnt reliable Would you trust someone on something big if they tell a lie on something small?Talk:Julian_Assange#Asked_for_an_ambassadorship

3 They also say all RS say he is a hacker I never said all. But I did say that the RSes continue to say hes a hacker this week, like The New York Times. The documentary insists that the computer hacker, who’s accused of publishing classified government documents, is the victim of a smear campaign. What exactly those smears are, the film declines to specify or debunk. [8]

4 I put a short description of what he did in as a second sentence The conviction does not cover his admitted hacking activities, he plead guilty to 24 counts of hacking related to Nortel and Australian companies. None of it had to do with the Pentagon, MILNET, or any of the other activities hes described or that are covered in RSes Julian_Assange#Hacking,_programming,_and_early_activism

5 despite having no new suggestions since being asked to stop Ive suggested alternate language like has been after NadVolum said the problem was the word is but then NadVolum had a problem with the past tense, too.

6 NadVolum already raised the issue at WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Putting_is_a_convicted_hacker_in_the_first_sentence_when_there_is_a_current_case and didnt get any support. Softlemonades (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is that Assange has long ago reached celebrity status, so BLPCRIME doesn't really apply in this case. He actually falls under the exemption to that rule, which is PUBLICFIGURE. Celebrities have a much lower expectation of privacy --by law-- than a private citizen. There may be other arguments against the use of this term, although none have been presented here, but BLPCRIME isn't one that is likely to hold water. Zaereth (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, in certain subcultures being described as a hacker isn't considered a negative label. I've objected to labeling him as a "convicted hacker" though, as I have concerns with "convicted" giving weight to the accusations of criminality with what he is most notable for (wikileaks). That being said, if given a choice between, "convicted hacker" and nothing, I'd side with nothing. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it needs to say "convicted hacker", that was a compromise suggested. I think hacker is good and includes all the meanings. Assange talks about hacking things but he also describes what I think hacker subsculture is By now, the computer work was taking up a great deal of my time. I was beginning to get the hacker's disease: no sleep, bottomless curiosity, single-mindedness, and an obsession with precision. Later, when I became well known, people would enjoy pointing out that I had Asperger's or else that I was dangling somewhere on the autistic spectrum. I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, so let's just say I am – all hackers are, and I would argue all men are a little bit autistic. But in my mid- to late teens I could barely focus on anything that didn't seem to me like a major breakthrough. [9] Softlemonades (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of WP:BLPCRIME. The bit saying 'A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.' is not covered by public figures. Also see WP:LABEL about contentious labels. The label is denied. He did do hacking in the past - we can mention that as Wikipedia is not covered by Australia's laws about expunged crimes. That also does not label him in a way that prejudges the current case. What Softlemonades talks about just above is him describing doing hacking when young. NadVolum (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of WP:BLPCRIME. Now your arguing with the people you wanted an opinon from. Great

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law He plead guilty to 24 counts and we can use his own words about hacking the Pentagon

expunged crimes^{[citation needed]} His lawyers had some of the documents unsealed. Theres a lot that wasnt covered in the court case, like the Pentagon hacking, that Assange has talked about publicly and wasnt charged or expunged Softlemonades (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is currently accused of a crime. A reader will assume 'hacker' as a label refers to his work with Wikileaks and the accusation by the US. It isn't a question of 'hacker' 'convicted hacker' or 'nothing'. I removed hacker from the first sentence and put in ' He was convicted in Australia for hacking in 1996' as the second sentence but seeming that isn't good enough for Softlemonades. NadVolum (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why will the reader assume that? I'm a reader and I didn't assume that so its not true but I'm interested in knowing why you think it is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say you have a number of friends who call themselves hackers but are not criminals. Might I suggest you are not a typical reader? Most people's ideas of hackers will come from films of their incredible skill hacking the Pentagon in five minutes, hospitals being held to ransom, and and Window's patch Tuesday. NadVolum (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But Assange *did* hack the Pentagon, if thats what they think in this context that is entirely appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was when he was a teenager thirty or so years ago. It has nothing to do with what he is charged with now which relates to his time with Wikileaks. It is wrong to label him as a hacker and especially not in the context of being accused of it. If he committed a murder thirty years ago then it would be inapproprioate to label him as a murderer whilst he was accused of another murder. At most the right thing to do is say he committed a murder thirty years ago. NadVolum (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking? If a convicted murderer was being tried for a separate murder there is absolutely no way we would remove murderer from the lead. If they were being retried for the same crime you would have half a point, as it stands you have no point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not joking. I really do believe as BLPCRIME says 'A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.' Labelling them as a murderer in Wikivoice, especially in the first sentence without any context, when they are accused of it rather than just saying they committed a murder in the past is telling people that the person is guilty. NadVolum (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The person is guilty. That remains true no matter what happens in the second case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not of the murder he is currently accused of. That murder is in dispute. Saying is a murderer in that context in Wikivoice without specifying what murder yoyu're talking about is labelling them as guilty. Did they commit the murder a person asks and looks up Wikipedia. The person is a murderer Wikipedia says in the first sentence. It is the sort of stuff one gets on the web but it is very wrong and quite repellant and sophistry does not make it right. NadVolum (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're a murderer either way... That remains true no matter what happens in the second case. No matter what happens in the second case the lead is still going to say "murderer." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it would say something like 'Xyz committed murder thirty years ago date or his age when he did abc' instead if we follow WP:BLPCRIME and WP:LABEL. In Assange's case we have headlines like Journalist or criminal: Julian Assange, notorious for leaks of US secrets, faces computer hack charge which shows talk about hackers may not be criminals so it's fine to stick it in without context is simply not true. NadVolum (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of any of that... Assange. Is. A. Criminal. Hacker. Convicted in 1996. That will remain true and verifiable no matter what the outcome of these pending matters is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The context is the article and the section called Hacking, programming, and early activism. Leads arent meant to explain controversies for a persons life, but they should introduce them. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

For Julian, the hacking is more than just his conviction. So we dont have to say hes a hacker, but if we dont give the simple, general description then we need to say more than just "he was convicted in Australia" because even he and WikiLeaks admit he did a lot more than what he plead guilty to.

Example The Time Julian Assange Hacked the Pentagon Julian talks about it and article says the statute of limitations expired. They say the US contacted Australia, but Australias investigations were over local things like Australian National University Softlemonades (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assange isn't notable for crimes he committed as a teenager. There is no legitimate reason to put this in the first sentence of the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assange isn't notable for crimes he committed as a teenager. He began hacking as a teenager but they were crimes he commited as an adult, and his admitted hacking goes beyond the crimes he was convicted of. They were also what first made him famous. But I agree its not what hes most notable for now. Softlemonades (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in what you 'agree with'. Assange isn't notable for hacking, and inclusion in the lede is undue and prejudicial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assange is one of the world's most famous hackers, thats true no matter what your opinion of the term hacker is. How does "A hacker is a person skilled in information technology who uses their technical knowledge to achieve a goal or overcome an obstacle, within a computerized system by non-standard means." not describe Assange? This is of course putting aside the point that a whole bevy of WP:RS use the term to describe Assange, its definitely Kosher from a BLP standpoint. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside that this topic appears to have two camps of opinion warriors who would rather eat their own toe than give the other an inch the term hacker is not innately or universally derogatory. I have a number of friends who refer to themselves as hackers and none of them is a criminal (one even works in public security). I note that nobody on team "don't call Saint Assange a hacker you ho" has gone over to Hacker to give it a complete overhaul. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can also mean a person who commits criminal activities. If a person comes to the article from something saying the US accuses Assange of hacking they'e hardly likely to assume your meaning! Are you saying I had a very slanted pro Assange mindset when I put in 'He was convicted in Australia for hacking in 1996' instead of just is a hacker in the first sentence? NadVolum (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying I had a very slanted pro Assange mindset when I put in 'He was convicted in Australia for hacking in 1996' instead of just is a hacker in the first sentence? A version of that had been there for a while. I could argue about my Rollback meaning I didnt have a view but just let it go Softlemonades (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Assange both? He was convicted of the criminal sort of hacking as well. If a person makes such an assumption despite nothing like that being said then they lack basic reading comprehension and we need not concern ourselves with them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your absurd, groundless and pointless mischaracterisation of the participants in the discussion and their position neither furthers the discussion nor advances your position on the topic. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange and its talk page are a toxic cesspool. The top ten editors to the talk all have over 300 edits, that is absurd. Its a sewer and its the same editors shitting in that sewer day after day and then bathing in it. This ridiculous talk page discussion only makes sense in that context, it would not have been escalated here from a normal or healthy page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m glad you got that rhetorical flourish off your chest. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much... You've made 361 edits to Talk:Julian Assange, is that figure correct? It appears to be by far your most edited talk page[10], no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So? Cambial — foliar❧ 16:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive315#Softlemonades Cambial Yellowing, I picked up on one slightly older warning to indicate that this is an ongoing problem. That's what "inveterate" means. That I p-blocked you and not the others is precisely because it has become clear to me that you cannot edit neutrally etc.--as opposed to those you keep fighting with. Anyone can look through the archives of ANI and ANEW to find that this is not a new thing. And you could have protested my p-block, or even my later warning, but your only response for that block was this--in keeping with how dismissively you treat communications, warnings, and notifications. You also never responded to VQuakr's rather detailed ANEW report, which resulted in that p-block for WikiLeaks. -Drmies As for Cambial Yellowing, I'd love to hear an argument for why their combative approach to editing doesn't necessitate an indefinite block. - HJ Mitchell Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the old Thatcher quote? - “I’m always encouraged when people attack me personally, as it means they have lost the argument.” You managed to do so without even engaging with the debate – impressive, in its own way. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Ian Hislop "If that's a personal attack, then I'm a banana". It's pretty rich of you to complain about personal attacks, given that you called Doug Weller a lying cunt and a piece of dogshit. (this is mentioned in the above AE post). Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is complaining? As I already stated, it’s encouraging as it indicates a realisation that the argument is without merit. Your failure to say anything whatsoever about the subject at hand is also telling. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my reply above: While a 1996 conviction for hacking is likely due to the lead, it seems hard to justify in the second sentence of the lead even before Wikileaks is mentioned. Honestly, that lead has far too much play by play content rather than a summary. His 1996 conviction, unless it is related to Wikileaks, should be background content of the lead rather than the second sentence. It likely shouldn't be in the first paragraph of the lead. It certainly isn't a defining characteristic of Assange. Springee (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my reply above to be complete It was in the second paragraph before, but another editor moved it to be in chronological order and clearer. [11] Softlemonades (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Chronological order' is an absurd justification for inclusion of anything in the lede sentence of a biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is talking about the conviction, which had been in the second paragraph before it was to the second sentence of the lead like Springee said and the diff showed Softlemonades (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that moving it from the first sentence to the second sentence corrects the issue? Springee (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im just giving the history. The conviction was in the second paragraph. Then it was moved to the second sentence, where it is now. Andy thought it was moved to the lede sentence for chronological order by another editor, but

I didnt explain the edit right and they didnt look at the diff 21. The edit isnt about the first sentence, and chronological order was never a justification for inclusion of anything in the lede sentence Softlemonades (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As AndyTheGrump says, Assange is not notable for a hack in Australia in 1991. His Wikipedia page was created in February 2010. The first part of the lead is to establish article subject’s notability. This isn’t part of subject’s notability, so it ought not to be in the first paragraph. As to whether it should be mentioned in the lead: that’s a value judgement which should be based on how often this is raised in RS that discuss Assange and his work. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

1. I can accept adding "He was convicted in Australia for hacking in 1996" as the second sentence instead of "hacker" in the first sentence.

2. NadVolum does not understand PUBLICFIGURE. Conviction and truth or falsity are totally irrelevant. Contrary to what NadVolum writes above, accusations, investigations, and arrests are indeed covered by PUBLICFIGURE. That's why that policy exists! If any negative information, false accusation, conspiracy theory, rumor, libel, or arrest, etc. is mentioned in several RS, PUBLICFIGURE tells us how to include (not to exclude) mention of those things, even if terribly false and libelous. (This keeps us on track to fulfill our obligation to document the sum total of human knowledge. Such things are part of that knowledge.) The public has heard of these false accusations and may wonder if they are true. Wikipedia refuses to memory hole and cover-up the issue and provides a service by providing the facts on all the sides of the issue mentioned in those RS. Failure to mention such negative information violates BLP's PUBLICFIGURE and is a disservice to a person who is falsely accused in the media. The negative in junk media is usually what makes a lasting impression, whereas an acquittal or debunking in reliable sources is barely noticed. Wikipedia steps into the breach and sides with those who are falsely accused.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not objected to reliable reporting on him. I have objected to saying something that is disputed and is the subject of BLPCRIME in the lead sentence in Wikivoice. I can accept your point 1 as well - that's what I did! NadVolum (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's my take. First and foremost, the article is awful. I only read the lede, and the lede is awful. It's basically another article written out as a timeline of events, which makes it very hard and monotonous to read. That's not meant to be an insult, but, rather, some constructive criticism. Adhering to a strict chronological order is not usually the best way to convey information, simply because our brains don't work in a linear fashion. Different aspects of a subject may (usually) overlap chronologically, and sometimes the order of events is not very important at all, depending on the subject. It far better to divide a subject up into different aspects and order those by level of importance, and use chronology more as a secondary system. It's just easier to read and follow that way, and you'll find it reads a lot more like an encyclopedia article that way too.

Next, the lede of any article doesn't need that much detail. It should be written like a summary, but in this article it's like all the boring details from the body are being jammed in there. That, also, makes for some boring reading. All we really need there is the gist of it. The lede should be written at a sixth-grade level. The first sentence should be a simple equation that best sums up the subject in as few words as possible. It's ok if the first sentence is somewhat vague, because it's only a starting point. It provides the very basic context for the next sentence, and so on. It's important to begin with what the subject is, and save the wheres, whens, and hows for after you have some context in place. Chronological order is only as important as it applies to the importance of the six basic questions, and that order is determined by what the brain needs to build context. "What" is always the first.

We all have our personal biases, and that greatly affect how people assemble these articles. Technical and scientific articles often have an academic bias, and are written so that articles are often only understandable to other academics or people with a lot of background knowledge of the subject. Take the mirror article, for example. For the longest time it began with long-winded and tedious explanations of specular reflection, and then others coming along complaining it's too technical. It's not necessary to begin an article with the deep science. To the contrary, it's best to start out simple and provide context for further information, and divide up a subject by it's most notable aspects rather than adhering to strict chronology. There's too much wikilawyering here about why this should go in and not that, but what we should really be discussing is how to make that mess better. Less detail, more summary, and put stuff in a more logical order so it flows nicely would be a start. Zaereth (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of that Softlemonades (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. But as noted above it can be a bit toxic. The discussions have got considerably better though over the last year compared to what it was like before despite the evidence of this discussion, so who knows? perhaps there is hope for a nice Wikignome to come along and tidy it all up. I'm certainly not qualified, perhaps we should see what GPT-4 can do with rewriting it and sign for it in the history ;-) NadVolum (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I glad you are able to find some common ground. That's a step in the right direction. I don't know much about the subject, but as a general thing we have much more leeway with celebrities than we do with non-celebrities. We can discuss ongoing trials and allegations in a way that we shouldn't with the average Jo. While we can't in any way affirm nor imply they might be guilty until a conviction is secured, we can still report them provided we are still adhering to V, NPOV, DUE, and all the other policies. In general, however, people often put too much emphasis on getting their pet info right at the top, or as close to the top as possible, in the mistaken belief that the top is the best place for it, but that's completely backwards and achieves the exact opposite of the desired effect. That's what's called the ironic processes of thought control; trying too hard to achieve one goal produces exactly the opposite effect. I just call it flat-Earth thinking, because things are rarely as they seem from our limited perspective. Writing is not as easy as it looks. We have a lot of policies about what should or shouldn't go in an article, but not much on how to actually write them. I guess an analogy that people might understand is a joke. You have to begin with the set-up which takes us into the delivery before getting to the all-important punchline. You can't start with the punchline unless you're Groucho Marx, and Wikipedia should not be a collection of one-liners. Cohesion and flow are very important. Zaereth (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the second sentence of the current article, it mentions Assange's 1996 conviction for hacking. There have been several attempts to add "is a hacker" or "has been a hacker" to the first sentence. And to add "guilty to 24 hacking charges" to his infobox. The article seems to have other, more pressing issues. I do not understand the obsession with something that no longer strongly defines Assange, even if it ever did during his teens. Senorangel (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Softlemonades is like this, I think they may just be rather obsessive with their edits, but there definitely are people who hate Assange and would like him to serve this life and the next in some hellhole prison in constant pain. The case very much depends on his being shown to have engaged in hacking as in for instance Journalist or criminal: Julian Assange, notorious for leaks of US secrets, faces computer hack charge.

Top judges use Wikipedia when writing their decisions, a major new study has found. shows that sticking their POV in Wikipedia may well go towards satisfying their aims. NadVolum (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That study was on articles on individual legal cases considered to have precedent, not on biographies of individuals. It also only applied to judgements given by lower-level courts, with it found to have no effect on higher level courts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You believe therefore biographical articles wouldn't influence them? Or a jury? I'm not altogther keen on such an experiment put perhaps a study can be devised. And a high court judge is not a lower court judge. It was the supreme court and appeal judges where they found little influence. NadVolum (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juries arent supposed to be reading articles about the subject at all. Thats why jury selection and jury sequestration exist Softlemonades (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it is against the law to chain up a firedoor in a theatre so people can't get out when there is a fire. NadVolum (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs WP:TNT. It needs to summarise the article and wiki link to the right sections, not try to re create his biography in a few paragraphs. Can we agree to that? Softlemonades (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a nice wikignome who is has made other articles readable come along and do it. And no links to sections. Sorry I don't think you're it. NadVolum (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And no links to sections. I thought you might want the context

Sorry I don't think you're it. I wasnt going to say that. I was going suggest starting a topic about it on the main Talk page. If you have a Noticeboard you want to bring it up at, we should Softlemonades (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LEAD 'The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic'. It should be written so it is reasonable without reading other bits for context. Putting in a citation for 'hacker' or putting in a link are neither good enough. NadVolum (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should stand on its own, Im not arguing text, I dont know why you are. Im just suggesting that the community can work on it Softlemonades (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing it because I know that it is extremely hard to divert you from your path. Just look at where I removed that rubbish picture but you have it back in again. Is it really anything much to do about anything? Is it worth putting in the rather long article? The context of this discussion if you will look back at the title fromm a long time ago might indicate why I'm arguing text. NadVolum (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Youre arguing something Im not because Im hard to divert from my path?

but you have it back in again I didnt put it back Softlemonades (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You argued for it going back in. Anyway this has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion if it is not about hacking so we should stop taking up time here. NadVolum (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt bring up Putting in a citation for 'hacker' or putting in a link are neither good enough. But I was trying to find a solution to the problem you came to here about, based off @Zaereth's suggestion. But you want to argue so I agree we should stop here Softlemonades (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bwahaha! In the real world (not FBI HQ), "hacker" is the opposite of a pejorative, and carries a lot of "street cred". Still, we shouldn't use "hacker" in the first sentence, purely because it isn't precise enough. Just like Horse Eye's Back said: there are ethical and criminal hackers, and every shade in between, so we can't be encyclopedic unless we're precise. And since the first lead paragraph is meant to be a 40,000 ft bird's eye view, such precision doesn't belong there. I'd put it at the beginning of the second lead paragraph, so it's at the beginning of the chronology. I'd phrase it as something like: "In his teens, he was a notorious hacker, and targeted various organizations linked to the U.S. military" (though this deserves copyediting). And the charges obviously don't belong in the infobox, because they're not remotely why he's notable. DFlhb (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like this general solution except the word "notorious". I feel like without strong RS support that's a WP:LABEL and should be avoided. Just removing "notorious" would work, but I think the ideal is something more like "He was convicted of hacking...". Loki (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely; could be toned down to "notable" or "well-known" (and I got "notorious" from the already cited Sydney Morning Herald, but you're right it would need to be attributed). I'd avoid focusing on the conviction, purely because AFAIK it happened in his early twenties, so we couldn't say "teen", yet most of his hacking did happen in his teens, so I'd prefer that last point be explicit. DFlhb (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I too dont mind the term hacker by itself, but I disagree with the undue weight of "convicted hacker" (or maybe notorious is used now, whatever) The 'conviction' was so trivial he received no jail. The current formulation is pejorative. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was twenty when he was discovered - they took about five years before the court case. The law grinds slow. Young adult I think would be fine. I think DFlhb is out of date about people's feelings on people who infect computers with viruses and demand money. And 'street cred' as in 'the acceptance and respect of people who live in poor city neighborhoods. the tough neighborhood where he earned his street cred' is not something one wants when facing a charge. NadVolum (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway hacker is inappropriate when it is very likely he has never done any computer intrusion or given any actual help with it whilst with Wikileaks never mind about the evidence being rather weak. NadVolum (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with "Anyway hacker is inappropriate when it is very likely he has never done any computer intrusion" as it seems to be used in the pejorative. The crazy over the top response to this term tells us it is controversial. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Isasi

Because this BLP is so unknown, traffic to the page is nearly non-existent. I stumbled across it merely by accident. Once there, however, it was quite clear that this was either a subject generated article, primary sourced, OR, or a first attempt at a non-notable BLP. The cited sources speak for themselves. Age aside, the listing of achievements and credentials are not what they seem. I have placed the page up for AfD but both editors, who I still suspect of either SP at at the very least COI, have voted: "keep". I think more eyes need to be on this article and AfD. Cited sources that sound impressive but do not link the BLP in anyway provide too much filler and puff-writing. Most sources are directly from the BLP's website. If this is found notable enough to keep, it will need a very good scrubbing down for inclusion here at WP. Perhaps there is a major miscommunication in translation from the Spanish article: [12]? Maineartists (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Per discussion on Page and AfD Nicolas Isasi, I have scrubbed and done a major overhaul. Still the article is left with primary sources with content that only mentions the subject. No significant coverage by any secondary or third party source. Nothing at all outside of Argentina. Could still use another set of eyes. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Sachiti

The subject for this BLP is relatively unknown and the page is not viewed particularly often. However, it appears that there have been several improper edits by both the subject of the article and a freelancer hired to edit articles on their behalf. It is quite clear that there are conflicts of interest and violations of the BLP on this article, selected to portray the subject in an unduly positive light.

For several months there have been comments on the talk page regarding Wikipedia:Wikipuffery (see: Talk:William_Sachiti) - many of which appear to have been made by the subject of the article (again, see the Talk page), which alerted me to potential impropriety.

A freelancer (User:ARKGJL) notes on their profile that they have been hired to write material for an affiliated organisation (the Academy of Robotics) - this user had also been reverting "unflattering" changes to William Sachiti page. On their talk page it is notable that the freelancer has been warned about conflicts of interest in the past. Until this afternoon (when they were challenged), the freelancer had not declared their conflict of interest with Sachiti and continued to add material that portrays the subject in an unduly positive light (i.e. Wikipuffery and violations of the "Tone" section in the BLP policy), as well as removing verifiable and appropriately-sourced material that portrays a more balanced view of the subject. IntentionalModifications (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coi Leray - Attention Deficit Disorder label

In this interview with Office Magazine, when asked "How do you channel that level of energy in your songs and performances?" Leray answers "I got ADD, so it’s natural." User:Benmite has used this to source the statement "Leray has stated that she has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" (with a wikilink to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). I believe that this violates WP:BLP, in that the terms "ADD" and "ADHD" are often used to describe oneself in a casual way, rather than to assert a medical diagnosis of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. I'd appreciate third opinions from the community. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's the same with birthdates sourced to twitter, except in this case we're talking about the need for MEDRS level sources. People just don't talk very literally, and it's a leap to take a statement that is quite often used figuratively and interpret it in the most literal sense. Unless we have some damn-good RS that is making that leap for us, or he clearly makes that connection himself (ie: I was diagnosed with ADD by a doctor...), I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. Zaereth (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's some policy or guideline about this but can't find it at the moment which affects things like religion or medical conditions or being trans. Basically it should only go in as a category or other label if it is a WP:DEFINING characteristic which has been noted on in reliable sources. NadVolum (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of two minds on this one. On one hand, certain labels like ADHD, OCD and Bipolar are often inaccurately self-applied to describe behavior rather than the actual disorder. On the other, if a BLP subject says something like "I have autism" or "I have a broken leg", we usually take them at their word unless there is a specific reason to doubt them. Saying it in wikivoice is questionable, but if we were to attribute to her and say something like In an interview with Office Magazine, Leray stated that she has ADHD that should be in line with the expectations of WP:BLPSELFPUB. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a reasonable compromise. Does avoiding wikivoice include:

Not categorizing the article under any ADHD category?
Not wikilinking the ADHD article?

Cheers, Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A wikilink in the sentence would seem reasonable for readers who don't know what ADHD is, but I don't think the category is warranted per WP:DEFINING unless it is discussed and given prominence in secondary sources. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this is some defining characteristic of the subject, then what exactly is the point of including it? At best, it seems like a passing comment that can be taken as trivia. At worst, it may just be figurative, as in "I'm easily distracted by shiny objects". I know a lot of people who talk like that all the time. Now, if the subject was giving in-depth interviews about this or using their own experience to promote ADD awareness, or something of that nature, then adding it would make more sense, but otherwise I don't see the point. Zaereth (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I'll also note that people who legitimately do have ADHD are very often ignored or accused of faking, so it can be tough to know what is right to do. Overall I think that if a BLP subject feels like a detail about their personal life is important enough to mention in an interview, it wouldn't be out of place for us to mention it in their Personal Life section barring any other issues like an overly long and detailed article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most things in most articles are not defining characteristics of the subject; WP:DEFINING is a much higher bar than the threshold for inclusion! I don't have any particular opinion on this case, but "it isn't defining" and "it is trivia" are not the same thing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with Zaereth here. As well as the possibility they are saying it figuratively, there's also considerations of privacy, I don't think saying something in passing in an interview is necessarily good enough to be including medical information that could reasonably be regarded as personal on someone's wikipedia page. I would want something that is more clear here Tristario (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post this down here rather than inline since it's probably going to get lost otherwise. I think User:NadVolum is thinking of WP:BLPCAT above, the part of BLP which deals with categories. It states that "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources which applies to all categories.

However the part NadVolum seems to be thinking of which requires" the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability" limits itself to "religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation". IMO it's reasonable to include gender identity in this even if it isn't covered strictly speaking. But I'm not sure if we should really be covering medical conditions in this without expanding policy after discussion at WT:BLP.

There is additional guidance for "categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light)" but this is intended for things like criminal categories and stuff like that. I'd argue it's unreasonable to say most medical condition categories should be covered by this. This includes stuff like obesity, HIV or schizophrenia, no matter that people may sometimes perceive some conditions negatively. The only areas where I can see this arising would be something like antisocial personality disorder or especially paedophilic disorder but it seems very rare this would ever arise and I don't think we should have categories including people with such diagnoses for those point blank.

Note that I'm not saying this means we should include the categories willy-nilly if we mention a medical condition in the article with reliable sources, simply that BLPCAT provides very limited guidance at this time.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found the rbit I was hinking of: Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Disability,_intersex,_medical,_or_psychological_conditions win which point 1 says "People with these conditions should not be added to subcategories of Category:People with disabilities, Category:Intersex people or Category:People by medical or psychological condition unless that condition is considered WP:DEFINING for that individual. For example, there may be people who have amnesia, but if reliable sources don't regularly describe the person as having that characteristic, they should not be added to the category." NadVolum (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should Scott Adams' recent comments be described as "racist" in wiki-voice?

Please respond at the RfC here. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Williamson

This article is already a mess with but becoming worse given her 2024 presidential bid with disruption starting back in December-ish so requesting additional eyes. S0091 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of changes are being made? Because, honestly, as the article is now, it looks kinda whitewashed, with a minimization of her long history of pushing pseudoscience that, prior to 2016, was her main claim to fame. Seems like a WP:FRINGE issue currently that isn't addressed. Silver seren^C 22:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Evans (actor)

In the "Years of Service" section for this actor it states 1968-1969. Below that it states the rank, which is Sergeant First Class (E-7). That is impossible to achieve that level of rank resulting from one year of military service. The rank appears to be from a character the actor portrayed in the television series, China Beach. Only the actual rank should be presented which he earned in real-time military service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.73.103 (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it since it was unsourced Tristario (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UK Companies House website

The WP:BLPPRIMARY policy states that 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. However this does make sense at least for UK Companies House website as the information there are verified against the government record see [13]. So I see these information as more accurate than any other sources. Which beg the questions why governmental public records are "not" to be used? This will contradict for example the date of birth reference provided for all US presidents for example Barack Obama's which is referenced to a governmental public record, i.e., white house. I might be missing something here? or thie wording of this policy just do not make any sense, espically the use of "public records" FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main point of the policy is to stop people doing WP:Original research, they should find stuff in reliable secondary sources which show they have some note rather than trawling through government records for every last silly thing noted there. We shoulc not be going to companies house to find stuff that papers have not bothered to write about. It can be used as backup but that should not normally be needed unless it is wrong in some sources. NadVolum (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NadVolum how do you classify it as original research if it’s already mentioned by a verifiable source. That is stretching the definition of original research and can create a circular argument as it equates the process of searching of verifiable information with original findings. These two are not the same, one is doing a proper search and the other is original research

In addition, what makes you jump to consider government sources are not reliable. As I mentioned, many featured articles contain information from governmental sources. This policy wording need to be re-written or dropped entirely FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the information available at Companies House. It's not "verified against the government record" in any sense. When a director is appointed by a company the company secretary files the relevant form containing the director's personal information. There's no verification of that data by Companies House or the govenment. They just published what they've been given. True, it would be a criminal offence if it turns out the company secretary filed something fraudulently, but the information isn't independently verified. It's not much more reliable than taking information of a company's own website. DeCausa (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DeCausa from a personal experience, I disagree. When you send your details as a director you also send prove for these information. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't. I'm a lawyer and I've done this more times than I care to remember. You can see from Form AP01 here it's entirely self-certifying. DeCausa (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that about immigration and visa forms, and as far as I am concern you can be Pope and it would not make any different. Here is what I am based my info on [14] without the need to provide personal infromation or prove my (irrelvant) personal claim.

Feel free to refute it but please provide evidence beyond "I'm a lawyer" FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FFS Evidence beyond "I'm a lawyer": I already linked to AP01 which refutes your gaslighting nonsense of "from a personal experience, I disagree". Also your link doesn't prove shit. It doesn't say anu=ything about verification. Inconsistency with other forms submitted is tiotally different. Obviously. DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the from is bond by section 1112 of the Companies Act 2006, it is “an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly … to make to the registrar … a statement … that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular” FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOB may be relevant. DOB:s are not gold to be mined. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång the policy am challenging is not citing this DOB policy, so DOB is irrelevant here. And I don’t have a problem with how the DOB policy is written. It’s coherent and makes sense and leaves a room for common sense FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem with using Companies House to confirm that "at date X, person Y was the director of company Z", given that the information has been confirmed both by person Y and the Government. Using the further information (i.e. DOB, address) has issues with BLPPRIMARY, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention above, it's not conformed by the government. DeCausa (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DeCausa but you said yourself, it’s fraudulent to provide false information. Compare that to any other reference, where also people provide such information voluntarily about their DOB, what is at risk there? How is it considered more reliable?

and moving to the broader perspective, how the way this policy is worded stated “not” to use public records? What is the reason for that general statement FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You started by saying its value comes from government verification. You're wrong about that. DeCausa (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under section 1112 of the Companies Act 2006, it is “an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly … to make to the registrar … a statement … that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular” FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear. I am contesting this policy not only for the specific example of UK but for the broader sense of prohibiting public records with many examples where this policy is non sensical as public record is a very broad term that can pertain to everything relates to a government FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to propose a fundamental change to long-standing core WP:BLP policy, this isn't the place to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump thanks. I still think I might have misunderstood the wording of the policy judging common sense as I really do not think it would have been a policy if - as I understand it - means something as broad as this. Where do you recommend going with this proposal? FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Companies House is an absolute shit source -- they publish whatever is submitted to them. It's the best possible example of why we shouldn't use primary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to tell them that (above). Apart from audited accounts it's all SELFPUB effectively. DeCausa (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity citation needed? FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Companies House is dysfunctional and facilitating fraud, MPs told", "Fraud is causing Companies House to crumble. It needs a stronger footing.", "Fakers, fast sign-ups and fraud: the crisis at the UK’s Companies House", "Dead directors’ on records listed at Companies House' etc etc DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DeCausa thanks. It’s clear enough now. I surely have trusted this government website blindly. Time to go back and fix some articles FuzzyMagma (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should not use this or any other public records for claims about living persons. As mentioned above, they require original research and there are concerns about fact-checking and accuracy. WP:NOR and WP:V should be enough. But beyond that, many documents are effectively self-published, they may involve people who are relatively unknown, and they can enable identify theft. Then there's the very real possibility of mistaken identity. Virtually everything about us is available in public records, often without our choice or consent. Just because someone applies for a job or gets called to testify in court doesn't give us, as editors, the right to reveal their private information. Woodroar (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tory Baucum

This article has clearly been (a) created, (b) curated, and (c) carefully written by the subject himself, Tory Baucum. Attempts by other contributors to add other content (i.e. less fawning) has been removed. By the subject himself. In recent revisions, the author has attempted to dialogue with those seeking to make the page more balanced. And he has undone their edits. I believe this violates the biographies of living persons policies because the subject of the article is interfering with those seeking to add factual elaboration to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothercrust (talk • contribs) 22:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The biography has serious issues, certainly. It isn't even entirely clear to me that the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the change summaries are getting quite concerning, bordering on threats (from both sides it would appear). Random person no 362478479 (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if Tory Baucum has personally written this article about himself and has been diligent in removing any content that makes reference to documented source material which is less-than-flattering Brothercrust (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite concerning. Smatherston (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the article be deleted as the back-and-forth is inappropriate Brothercrust (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears as though the subject of the article has clearly been the author and editor, and is now engaged in making accusations in the "talk" section. Very unfortunate. I have watched this story from afar for a number of years and am not surprised that the subject of the article would behave in such a way, as it fits the very pattern for which he is infamous Everglades704 (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the creation of multiple accounts in order to mislead is a violation of Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about that, oh grumpy one. I've blocked these three accounts for abuse; I haven't reviewed the article's history, and have no view on whether or not the concerns expressed above are valid - happy for folk to go look at the article and make any changes necessary, and/or to report any suspect accounts to COIN or wherever. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång did a lot of cleanup, and I've done some rewriting of it. The talk page looks like somebody talking to themself. Schazjmd (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It literally was someone talking to themselves, for the most part. When folk make it that obvious, there's hardly a need for CU, but I checked just to be sure. As we say at SPI, they are

Confirmed to one another. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Alexeeff

I created the page for Victor Alexeeff years ago. For some reason, the page was taken down. I now paid a professional editor, who has been adding pages to Wikipedia for 3 years to add that page again since I obviously made mistakes putting it up. Now THAT page has been deleted. I'm at a loss and do not know what else to do. I need help. Check www.VictorAlexeeff.com for information about this artist. Thank you. Best, Petra Luna --Petraluna111 (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a free hosting service for the biographies/CVs of non-notable people. It was previously deleted at an AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victor_Alexeeff. Your whole purpose of editing here (aside from some edits you made in 2010) has been to push for the creation of this biography, suggesting that you may have a WP:COI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Stintz

Karen Stintz article seems to violate the NPOV requirements, with significant portions displaying editorial bias by praising the subject's actions while a politician. Reads as though it was written by the subject or someone affiliated.

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards