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)>

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)

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

1. Ben Padarath
2. Angie Heffernan - done
3. Sakiusa Tuisolia - done
4. Viliame Naupoto - done
5. Willem Ouweneel
6. Jimi Koroi - done
7. Pita Driti - done
8. Ballu Khan - links added
9. Peter Ridgeway - done
10. Imraz Iqbal - done
11. Richard Naidu - done
12. Meli Bainimarama - done
13. Litia Qionibaravi - done
14. Viliame Seruvakula - done
15. Vyas Deo Sharma - done
16. Akuila Yabaki - links added
17. Saula Telawa - links added
18. Jone Baledrokadroka - done
19. Naomi Matanitobua - links added
20. Jale Baba - done
21. Sakeasi Butadroka - done
22. Kolinio Rokotuinaceva - done
23. Lagamu Vuiyasawa - links added
24. Asesela Ravuvu
25. Asenaca Caucau
26. Simione Kaitani - done
27. Kenneth Zinck - done
28. Ofa Swann - done
29. Injimo Managreve
30. Kaliopate Tavola - links added
31. Ateca Ganilau
32. Petero Mataca - links added
33. Rakuita Vakalalabure - links added
34. Daniel Fatiaki
35. James Ah Koy

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

Not sure where to put my own comment. Feel free to move it or remove it. I've only just seen this, as my attendance on Wikipedia is intermittent at the moment. Most of the BLPs in question are Fijian biographies. There was a military coup in 2006, and many of the online sources (news outlets, etc) got censored. A lot of them have not been restored. Much as I would like to go back and add sources, I cannot do so when they no longer exist.

I fully support the BLP rules, and will fully support the deletion of any article of mine that cannot reasonably be made to comply with the rules as they stand. David Cannon (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Davidcannon: Thanks for the response! I realize that not everyone is on Wikipedia 24/7 (I once took a year wikibreak myself) so I'm glad to hear from you even if it wasn't immediately. IdiotSavant has had some luck with finding sources that were archived, but as you implied, many have been lost to time. If you have some extra time, maybe you could try to help? Many hands make light work. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you had any questions about how article creation standards have changed, maybe Ritchie333 or The Wordsmith would have some useful advice? I haven't been around as long as they have. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice :-) And yes, I'll be happy to return to the project to help with the cleanup whenever I've got time. Looking forward to it!David Cannon (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note - another resource to help with these: Australia and New Zealand Reference Centre Plus on EBSCOHost has the Fiji Times from the relevant period.--IdiotSavant (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Bob Morley & Arryn Zech

Bob Morley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Arryn Zech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reasons I believe it violates the biographies of living persons policies

WP:V

Wikipedia:Point of view Specifically the indication of relative prominence of opposing views.

This is in regards to the wikipedia page of Bob Morley (actor), the page cites gossip websites including a statement from his ex where she alleges abuse. Upon trying to add other information representing other sides, or more importantly adding life altering events such as knee surgery and marriage, gets instantly removed. The information has the same citations from news sites as well as videos from public appearances of the involved individuals. A timeline of his relationship with his current wife, providing another viewpoint on the accusations (with the same citations as the first accusation) has been deleted as well. Every addition is rejected even providing sources (the same sources as those added before)

Could someone take a look at it? It would be of my interest to add to the article in a way that represents all events and sides.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam4R4O (talk • contribs) 04:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Cheating allegations does seem like WP:BLPGOSSIP and the cited sources are not the strongest. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'd say that in this case, the sources are as good as we can get at the current time. Also, the additional citations added to give "another side" of the story have been even worse than the existing sources. Also, I have serious questions as to whether the person who posted this original inquiry is doing so in good faith, considering their thinking that geekspin and Hollywood life are reliable sources, when it is clear they are NOT. A LOT of page have been editing that page and removing/adding content recently, and the OP is one of those people, causing the page to be muddled beyond belief, leading to situations which almost lead to edit wars. It is really bad.Historyday01 (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

We've discussed the same thing in the Bob Morley talk, so I'll not repeat too much from there, but one thing I want to point out is that this comment (Perhaps, but I'd say that in this case, the sources are as good as we can get at the current time.) to me is all the more stronger reasons to not include these claims (or drastically reduce how much we're talking about the claims).

Our requirements for how reliable sources should be, should not be lowered because one topic is less covered. Soni (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That's true. I only added it originally because I was under the impression that it was the "right" thing to do, and never expected this much discussion about it. Historyday01 (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, we have discussions that can go far and wide over the most trivial topics heh. Sometimes, people just have strong opinions about policies we use here. And so long discussions often go in circles and need explicit closes.

But also, we need to be extra careful when talking about living people we directly affect by just "what goes into their article" so the extra concern and scrutiny is warranted here. Soni (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I can understand that. Historyday01 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear consensus before restoring any disputed content without fixing the issue which are the sources supporting the contentious claims. Are there are no better ones out there? If they aren't touching the topic, wikipedia shouldn't either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You stated in a recent edit that "compromise text doesn't address the problems with the given sources", and I have to thoroughly disagree with your argument, as I would say NONE of the sources cited in the compromise text I came up with are unreliable. Some sources added by other users are, but the ones I added are reliable, plain and simple. Apart from talking about this on this discussion, there are also the various ongoing discussions on Talk: Bob Morley. I would hope you involve yourself in the latter. This is NOT the time to be acting boldly.Historyday01 (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain why continuing to use those same sources fixes the issue on how DUE this is. It doesn't meet WP:BURDEN nor WP:ONUS if people are disputing its reliablity on a BLP matter. Soni, maybe you can explain since you originally raised that objection. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Removed my previous comment. Please see my comment at the end of this discussion with new proposed text.Historyday01 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I'll be frank and say I'm out of my depth on this one. I genuinely think DUE concerns are met with that wording, so if there's a deeper BLP related reasoning behind why they aren't, I don't know it yet. Happy to be informed correctly, if it's a case of me being not well informed. Else I think this wording is acceptable enough. Soni (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You had a problem with the sourcing itself. I did and a couple of other editors have agreed with removal per WP:BLPGOSSIP. To be clear, did you believe the reliability of those sources met wp:v but not WP:DUE originally? You had mentioned a heightened standard for BLPs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, did you believe the reliability of those sources met wp:v but not WP:DUE originally? That's more or less how I understood it. For a claim that's exceptional (the way it was originally phrased) these sources weren't enough. Since WP:DAILYDOT implies it's not an unreliable source, so to speak, but also not the most reliable?

For the claim phrased later Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019, with Zech later accusing Morley of emotional and verbal abuse I considered it okay because it met the threshold of being WP:DUE for me. The claims are made in a single sentence without implying either side's correctness. I considered Daily Dot to be a single source sufficient to support that claim (or similarly phrased).

That's pretty much the extent of how I understand it now. Sorry my BLP knowledge doesn't go deep enough, so I get the "BLPs should be held to a higher standard" but I don't know if this statement still breaks that expected standard. Hopefully that clarifies my stance and also where I'm confused on our usual way of doing things. Soni (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

What makes me doubt the seriousness of dailydot's article (besides having dubious strength as a source for wikipedia standards when it comes to contentious issues or claims: WP:DAILYDOT + Nociteboard) is their speculation about Taylor's involvement despite the fact that she was never named (appeals to speculative adverbs like "seemingly" - speculations are considered counterfactual fallacies: articles containing fallacies should be avoided - the writer also appeals to "weasel words"/"glittering generality": "Many are now accusing Taylor of being a hypocrite" WP:BLPGOSSIP). From how I perceive it, its tone and sentences are quite "gossipy", even more so considering that Zech's claims about cheating and alleged verbal/emotional abuse were never accompanied by any proof, screenshots, mention of a formal report or anything: claims require specific evidence.

Besides, as I said in a previous interaction, I think that if the claim is mentioned, the nature of it should be clarified. This was done only through social media, not before any authority (police or judicial). There are no charges or contentious situation legally reported by an article (as for example occurs in the article about Marie Avgeropoulos, where it is specified that the contentious situation involved charges that were later dropped by her boyfriend who had the injuries - this was also reported by outlets like the LATimes and People - it is worth mentioning that the latter can certainly be considered more reliable than dailydot, but even so the encyclopedia advises against using it as a source when it comes to contentious issues).

To summarize, I think that at least the nature of the claims (social media) should be specified in Zech's article where for now the claims are still mentioned. Without a clarification of this type, I think that the article in a first reading can give the impression that there were formal allegations.

I believe that for now this is all I can say about the solidity of the sources and the wording used in the article. Editngwiki (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. If I understand you correctly, the claims should be mentioned on Zech's page but not Morley's? Is that correct? Historyday01 (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01 I hope not. As I've said to you earlier, BLP or sourcing issues do not vanish just based on what article we're editing. If the sources are spurious enough to not support adding claims of abuse to one page, then they cannot be added to the other.

I think there's enough consensus of the same on this noticeboard to require removal. I will do so now (and we can re-add sections if there's consensus to add parts of it) Soni (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That is true, I suppose. Not going to repeat what I've seen in other comments, but currently there doesn't seem to be any consensus on this topic (I don't think), from reading this discussion. I'd be fine with having it removed from the Zech page for the time being until a consensus is reached. Regardless of the consensus decision reached on this topic, would it be ok to use the Daily Dot and Popculture.com articles as further evidence of Zech's bisexuality? The Daily Dot quotes Zech as saying "When he found out that I am bisexual, he was furious", while the Popculture.com article says "Zach claimed Morely [sic] was "furious" after she revealed she is bisexual". Historyday01 (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01 I saw a clear consensus, but I'm happy if someone else uninvolved (and not SPA, duh) wants to re-evaluate or formally close this. It looks unclear at a glance, but that's almost all because of back-and-forth threaded discussion after discussion on this, which only very involved editors have an interest in.

And while it's not clearly specified by every single editor (because the question being asked was slightly altered every few replies), this is roughly the stances from the messages I saw (apart from myself) -

• In favour of removal - Morbidthoughts, Editngwiki (SPA, well supported with policy arguments though), ScottishFinnishRadish, Zaereth, Kizo2703 (SPA)
• In favour of adding watered down text on either page - BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4, Lexaevermorewoods (SPA), Historyday01
• No clear opinion on this - Skywatcher68, Adam4R4O (SPA)

As I have an involved opinion on this, I did not evaluate policy backing behind each stance (WP:PNSD), but IMHO it still does not support adding the text. So yes, I did see a clear consensus (which I'm happy to be corrected on, if it changes/someone else wants to confirm it) Soni (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that's a pretty good run-down of the opinions at this point. I would say it is leaning toward not adding the text, but I'm not sure how SPAs factor in, when it comes to a formal closure. Historyday01 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• As for sexual orientation, I surprisingly cannot find a policy about that. But as before, I think primary sources are fine when noting it. So long as we're only noting down the bisexuality without getting into any other BLP issues, I think that'll be fine. Soni (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Great. As it turns out, I had already added the sources there, and one of those bots added the sources in for the sentence "Her bisexuality was previously confirmed in media reporting in July 2020". Historyday01 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  As for her sexuality, she mentioned it in these panels:

  2020, March: The Chicago Comic & Entertainment Expo (C2E2) - 4:30.

  2020, May: RWBY Live Stream GalaxyCon - 23:07

  2018, July: Montreal Comic Con - 5:20. It is mentioned by her coworker, Lindsay Jones ("Me and Arryn are bi").

  2013, June: RT Podcast Ep. 121 - 22:35. It is mentioned by Miles Luna, her ex.

  There are records that she has been openly bisexual since at least 2014 (via her old tumblr account @hazleapricot: screenshots 1 and 2 + more vaguely when she said she "is part of the LGBT community"). However, I have not found an article or interview from that time, but perhaps the video of the conventions will be enough, especially the one from C2E2 (2020). Editngwiki (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for providing those. Historyday01 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I found the method to close the discussion (Marking a closed discussion).

  Unless someone has something else to contribute, I guess we can proceed. Editngwiki (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  My understanding is that to close a discussion, we need an uninvolved editor, so no one here that has commented so far. Historyday01 (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Should also include Arryn Zech in this discussion, as it is the same topic/sources. The information has been disputed being included in Morley's article back when it first happened, it recently got added back in after Zech's page was created a few weeks ago. I added her into this discussion. And since we are here on noticeboard, while not on her page, Eliza Taylor's name keeps being added into the accusations, and she wasn't even named in Zech's statement. Some of those gossip sources inferred she might of been referring to her when she said "a girl", but BLP wise I don't think we should be including her name at all especially with lackluster sources. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps. I think the current compromise text (at the end of this discussion) I just added in works to clear up a lot of the issues with the previous text. This discussion is muddled by people like the OP who want to "balance" out the page by adding in subpar sources (like links to Instagram and YouTube), which are not acceptable in contentious issues like this. I would say that Eliza Taylor shouldn't be added to Zech's page. Of course, Taylor is on Morley's page, but shouldn't be connected to the accusations as current sources only speculate that Zech is referring to Taylor (who she doesn't mention directly), which isn't enough evidence to keep her there. I will say this whole discussion has been a learning experience... I suppose. Historyday01 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I think the current text on the matter in both pages is fine. It's brief, to the point, and not too detailed about the nature of the claims or Taylor's may-have-may-have-not involvement, just says clearly that there was a relationship and accusations without getting into the weeds. I feel reasonably certain that Morley's fans are still going to attempt to force their narratives in both pages regardless of how impartial we are or how much we do or do not mention or if we mention anything at all, and I don't think we should omit the topic altogether, so I think it's best to just have this brief summary and leave it at that unless better sources arise. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 17:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I came up with new compromise text at the end of this discussion, which I believe addresses the issues people are having so far in this discussion, by not mentioning the accusations at all. Since there was, apparently, too much disagreement about the previous text, I see no reason to even try to defend it. It just seems like a waste of energy on my part. Historyday01 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment@Discospinster, @–DMartin, @Skywatcher68, and @Editngwiki your comments in this discussion would be appreciated.Historyday01 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain how you chose this list of users per WP:CANVAS? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing because it's because we left comments at Talk:Bob Morley.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I see a lot of participants missing if that is the case. Should they be notified? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe everyone else I didn't mention in my previous comment is mentioned at the end of this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I just chose those on the talk page discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Not notifying everyone in the discussion is WP:VOTESTACKING Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I did not add those people to "stack" the vote, I just believed, incorrectly, that most of those in the talk page discussions were already here. It's as simple as that.Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• I don't really have any opinion here; I only stumbled into this while patrolling recent changes one day. I did ask Google about this just now and found at least one accusation that Zech has been lying; whether or not this has any bearing on recent edits, I don't know.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm. Well this supports the case for the compromised text I note in another comment. Historyday01 (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment As I stated on Talk:Bob Morley, I would be willing to reduce it to the following compromise text: Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019. I have since removed the following sentence, per the below discussion: Previously, his relationship with Zech had only been rumored. If this text was chosen, it could avoid us delving into the accusations (as it doesn't mention them at all), and it may address some of the other comments on here. If accepted, similar text could then be added to Zech's page. Historyday01 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  If two people were dating, and the only coverage was rumors until after the relationship ended, is it really biographical detail necessary in an encyclopedia? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  If all the page is saying is that they were in a relationship, I do not see that as controversial or violating ANY Wikipedia rules. Morley and Zech are notable figures, plain and simple. The least we can do is mention they were in a relationship, and then add warnings in hidden text telling people to add nothing else. Furthermore, adding something about the relationship would make it easier to push off the bad actors who are editing the pages of Morley and Zech more easily than getting into endless edit wars. So, in that sense, the compromised text would have further value. Historyday01 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Why even mention the second sentence? Has Morley confirmed the relationship? How are these sites ascertaining there was one beyond looking at her postings? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose, but I only added the second sentence because it is another source (which mentioned they were rumored as being together). However, I wouldn't be altogether opposed to getting rid of the last sentence. It appears that Zech posted about this relationship a LOT (including photos of them together, from what I've seen), but since she deleted her Twitter (I noted about the archived tweets on the Wayback Machine at Talk:Arryn Zech#Relationship with Miles Luna), and likely similar posts on Instagram (which is notoriously hard to archive, from my experience, apart from using sites like Ghostarchive or Archive.is, as the Wayback Machine isn't always good at saving such posts), so there isn't as much evidence on her side of the relationship. I would guess that would be the same for Morley. I haven't done a deep dive through his Twitter or any other social media, but if I have to guess, I would think he did the same as Zech and deleted his photos/tweets which showed her. Historyday01 (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  This all sounds incredibly gossipy and unencyclopedic. What is the point, and what am I supposed to learn about the subject by reading this? This just reads like the stuff of tabloids, not what one would expect from an encyclopedia. Zaereth (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ok. Saying "Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019" (the compromise text) doesn't seem gossipy or anything like that. Honestly, it seems like the blandest text possible, devoid of any controversy, and I'm not sure why anyone would have an issue with it.Historyday01 (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Personally I prefer @Soni's edit, and I believe the whole statement from Zech had many inconsistencies, and, at times, involved mind reading and super hearing. I don't think it's a reliable source, but I'm willing to compromise if it keeps it entirely on her page and not darkening others with accusations in which there's no legal resolution, since there seems to be no other resolution for @Historyday01. Lexaevermorewoods (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm. Well, as I said in other comments recently on here, I'd be fine with keeping it removed from Morley's page (where it is currently not present, as it was removed near the beginning of this discussion), and keeping it on Zech's page (since she is the one who made the accusations), where it currently reads as follows:

  Zech's relationship with actor Bob Morley ended on Valentines Day 2019, with Zech later accusing Morley of emotional and verbal abuse. Previously, Morley's relationship with Zech had only been rumored. Historyday01 (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  I searched for interviews given by both during 2025-2019 and neither names the other. Sometimes they made comments about a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" without giving specifics or names. The only article in which Zech is named says that the relationship was merely rumored. I have not been able to find a source that lives up to the requirements of the encyclopedia.

  Bearing this in mind, I agree that bringing this issue up can give the article a "gossipy style" that we clearly want to avoid here. Editngwiki (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, that is the one article I found earlier. Would it be ok to mention Zech's accusations on her page, but not Morley's? Because I would be completely fine with that compromise, and with leaving Zech out of Morley's page. Historyday01 (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

reference list
References

Comment: I think it would be in the best interest of all of us to conclude this discussion relatively soon, either toward removing or keeping the content, at least in the next couple days (I'm not sure how long BLP discussions typically run). I think it would do a disservice to keep this discussion dragging on. As such, @Discospinster, @WikiDan61, @–DMartin, @TimeTravellingBunny, @Kizo2703, @Lexaevermorewoods, and @Isaidnoway your comments in this discussion would be appreciated. @Morbidthoughts, I believe that's everyone from Talk:Bob Morley and Talk:Arryn Zech, but if I missed someone (that isn't already here), I apologize in advance for that.Historyday01 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note that multiple accounts participating in this discussion have few to no edits outside this topic (and not many edits overall). If there will be someone evaluating consensus at the end of this, I'd recommend taking that into account. Soni (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  That's true. Users like Lexaevermorewoods, TimeTravellingBunny, and Kizo2703 are single-purpose accounts.Historyday01 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be removed from Zech's site too, cause it's nothing else but gossip. Loud and clear.

And, since all of THEIR proofs of the relationship on SM are either deleted (Morleys' acct) or Zech doesn't have Twitter acct anymore, it's just hearsay. Kizo2703 (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I am suspicious about your reasoning since you are a single-purpose account, as you admitted yourself on April 6. You have also made strange legal threats in the past as well. Also your argument is illogical since Zech's accusations were posted on her Instagram, which is still active, and Morley still has a Twitter account. So I wouldn't call it "hearsay". Historyday01 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, was expecting this, but unfortunately for you, have I done something NOTRIGHT until now? Because I'm not the one who used questionable sources. I just sent screenshots of your texts. Did anything happened to anyone yet?

Zech's accusations were posted on her Instagram, but NO SINGLE POST they were in relationship. Same goes for Morley's Twitter account - no single post about them. Only rumors on third party accts. Sorry.

As of for me being a single-purpose account, yes, on this, my free time account. Kizo2703 (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

But, since you cleaned up Morley's site, do as you wish, as long as you don't touch it ever again.

However, given that we concluded that its gossip we're talking about, it should be deleted everywhere. Kizo2703 (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, another strange threat from you, which is per usual, considering you ARE a single-purpose account, falling in line with what is stated at WP:SPA. Who is this "we" you are talking about? Again, your argument is strange as it implies that people never delete posts from their social media accounts, even though people regularly cull their feeds. In any case, I don't expect any rational argument from you on this topic. Historyday01 (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment for closer: When closing this, if it is decided to not include these accusations of abuse in either article, could you note whether we should use the sources "The 100' Star Bob Morley Accused of Abusive Behavior" & "'The 100's' Bob Morley accused of abuse" even if we are removing the abuse allegations. I tried to remove them from page because of redundancy of her bisexuality being "confirmed" by media, but it was put back in with an explanation(on my usertalk page) that more media reporting is needed media reporting is better to confirm her bisexuality. I don't see the point of having a content/BLP discussion on my talk page, so I have asked for it to be done here on this noticeboard or on Arryn's talk page. For reference the linked article don't really report on her bisexuality so much as just quote her statement of Morley's alleged reaction to her bisexuality. Editngwiki (talk · contribs), brought up several examples of her bisexualities earlier in this discussion, but Historyday01 (talk · contribs) says it's better to use media reporting. There are examples of Zech stating it herself such as in the one Youtube Video. I say the quote that is already in article describer herself as "a bisexual" was enough, and if we need more(which I don't think we do) the youtube clip of her saying she is bisexual could be a second reference. I don't have an issue of mentioning her bisexuality, but I don't see point of removing the abuse allegation, but putting in multiple sources that literally have the abuse allegations in title, when it is completely unnecessary. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sigh. The YouTube videos mentioned by Editngwiki are nice, but I just don't believe they are sufficient on their own. If there were BETTER sources, I'd be more than happy to use them in the article, but the the articles on PopCulture.com and The Daily Dot seem to be the best sources on the topic. Adding more links and sources about someone's sexuality is BETTER than having less. Not sure how you don't get that. I am generally wary of using YouTube videos as sources and only use them, personally, as sparingly as possible. In some cases, where there are YouTube interviews, its fine, but I'm just not sure about those YouTube videos, as those moments are buried within the "RWBY Voice Cast Panel - C2E2 2020" (its over an hour long), "RWBY Live Stream with Lindsay Jones, Kara Eberle, Barbara Dunkelman, & Arryn Zech" (its over 50 minutes long), "RWBY (Ruby, Weiss, Blake, and Yang) Cast Q&A Montreal Comiccon 2018 Full Panel" (its over 41 minutes long), "RT Podcast: Ep. 221" (its over 1 hour and 43 minutes long). Is citing those long videos going to help users? I would say not, as they may have to muddle through a lot to get to what is cited in the text. I would argue the same goes for Zech's former Tumblr, a reblogged post and two screenshots from said blog here and here. I do not understand, for the life of me why any of those sources would be better than the articles in PopCulture.com and The Daily Dot. The inclusion of such links to YouTube and Tumblr would, as I understand it, run afoul of WP:BLPSPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, at minimum.

  Otherwise, I've observed some people try and add in YouTubers as a reliable source to some pages and began a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard back in July 2022 stating that YouTubers aren't usually a reliable source. So, I am very familiar with people using YouTube as a source. As for the rest of your comment, I felt that your edits on the page were renegade edits since the standard for sourcing someone's stated sexuality, from my understanding, is lower than the reported accusations, which are the reason this discussion began in the first place. I would NOT say the additional sources are redundant, but just provide more information on her bisexuality. I never said that "more media reporting is needed to confirm her bisexuality", although I admittedly did cause some confusion by using words like "support" and "proof". Instead, I said "media reporting ALWAYS helps in these cases [of someone stating their sexuality], rather than just interviews", which I still believe. I am glad to hear that you don't see "an issue of mentioning her bisexuality", and know there is an issue with having "multiple sources that literally have the abuse allegations in title", depending on the consensus here. Honestly, if I was to use social media as a source for Zech's bisexuality, it would be a challenge since Zech has rarely talked about her social media, and am not sure if citing the Instagram post which had her accusations against Morley would be any better than the current articles cited. Even worse, Zech no longer has a Twitter account, so what social media posts could you even cite?

  Trying to look through her tweets to find the "right one" which states she is bisexual would probably be a fool's errand to be honest. I even found one Tweet in which she reportedly said she is bisexual (if the Google search which said the text stated "'m bisexual I still cross my legs though when I sit but I love women and men and I find women of all types far more attractive then most men" had any validity) but it isn't even in the Wayback Machine or Archive.is, sadly. For many other people, it is relatively easy to find information about their sexuality. For Zech, it is a challenge as she seems to rarely post about being bisexual, and she no longer has a Twitter account (where people usually post these types of things, or at least they used to). Just thought I'd put this all out there for the record, as I'd say that WikiVirusC's arguments are wrongheaded in more ways than one. I will say that I've learned from this discussion to be even more wary about adding in "controversial" things to bio pages and will either not add those things in the future, or go out of my way to begin a discussion on said inclusion, so a discussion like this never occurs again. I am hopeful that the closing of this discussion will hold off any people vandalizing the pages of Zech and Morley as well. Historyday01 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Youtube or Youtubers wouldn't be the source, the source would be Arryn herself. The redundancy wasn't the source(s), it was the mentioning her saying she was bisexual twice. Anyways this isn't an issue about her sexuality or the sourcing I am bringing up, its a BLP issue about the accusations against Morley. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. I still feel like citing the Instagram post would have the same problem, as it could have the abuse accusations in the title. However, in theory, I suppose you could word the title of the Instagram post, using Template:Cite Instagram, to ONLY talk about her bisexuality (as writing the entire title of all of Zech's accusations in the title would obviously make the title far too long to be useful to anyone). Even so, I am very wary about citing the YouTube videos, and even more about the Tumblr (which has been deactivated). I mean, even WP:RSPSS states in their summary that "most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all", adding that "content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia". Furthermore, WP:YOUTUBE states that "many YouTube videos...are copyright violations and should not be linked...links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis" and WP:VIDEOLINK says that video links "must abide by various policies and guidelines" and be "carefully and individually evaluated for inclusion." Only the "RT Podcast: Ep. 221" video would fulfill that standard, as the "RWBY Voice Cast Panel - C2E2 2020" video was uploaded byFandom Spotlite which is not a verified official account, with the same being the case for the "RWBY Live Stream with Lindsay Jones, Kara Eberle, Barbara Dunkelman, & Arryn Zech" and RWBY (Ruby, Weiss, Blake, and Yang) Cast Q&A Montreal Comiccon 2018 Full Panel" videos, neither of which have verified accounts. As a reminder, for YouTube verified accounts it is affirmed that such channels are authentic and complete. Now, that doesn't mean that all the videos are great, and people/organizations which are notoriously awful could be verified, but it is something to keep in mind.

In the past, I used to be gung-ho about citing self-published sources and got angry when they got removed, but I've learned over the years that self-published sources should be used very sparingly. Otherwise, I am glad to hear that you don't have an issue with "her sexuality or the sourcing". While saying all of this, I still personally don't see an issue with citing the Daily Dot or PopCulture.com articles, with a caveat that if the consensus does lean in favor of removal (which it seems it is), then perhaps there could be some hidden text (on Zech and Morley's pages) noting to not re-add the accusation and citing this discussion or something, right near the article(s) cited. The same could be the case if the Instagram post by Zech is cited instead. I suppose, in retrospect, I am somewhat glad this was added to this discussion, but on the other hand, I feel that these discussions of reliability of sources might be better suited for WP:RSN, just saying.Historyday01 (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Include allegations, per comment in below section. (No one seemed to want to continue the discussion, so changing my suggestion for continuation to an include !vote)--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Argument for continuation of this discussion

Comment: I think I'm now very much in the minority, but I do want to make an argument that more discussion should be had here.

• As I understand, Zech self-published psychological-abuse accusations against Morley via Twitter and Instagram. A few mid-tier reliable sources picked those allegations up, including the Daily Dot [5], Girlfriend (magazine) [6], Distractify [7], and a few sources I haven't heard of, like DailyPlanet [8] (which included discussion of what appeared to be a response by Taylor, Zech's wife) and The Tempest [9]. Zech later deleted her self-published claims her Twitter, but her claims are still on her Instagram account. I understand there are a few side issues, like whether Zech also accused Morley's now-wife of abuse/an affair, but, as I see it, the abuse allegations are the crux, no? The key question is whether those allegations should be included.

I'm a little lost on the policy arguments. I seeWP:V mentioned ... but what, exactly, is the thing that needs to be verified—(1) that Zech tweeted/instagrammed what the third-party sources say she did, or (2) the alleged abuse itself? Given that many—most?—people are mostly talking about the reliability of the sources, it seems like the key issue is the former ...? Or, to put it as a question: If the New York Times had ran a short story simply reporting Zech's tweets, would the allegations, then, merit inclusion?

On the other hand, a few users seem to be suggesting it's the alleged abuse that has to be verified. User:Editngwiki, for example, discredits "Zech's claims about ... verbal/emotional abuse" because they "were never accompanied by any proof, screenshots, mention of a formal report or anything". They point to Wikipedia:Claims require specific evidence, which is an essay about the claims Wikipedia editors make against one another ... so, not quite apt, and, I think, not an accurate description of how WP handles allegations. User: Kizo2703, relatedly, says the allegations are hearsay because Zech deleted her original tweets ... but that can't be relevant. Courts might reject hearsay, but Wikipedia prefers it—that's why we prefer secondary sources to primary sources.

I think this is a complicated issue worthy of more and—due respect to the participants (who have had to discuss several different aspects of this)—more focused discussion. Part of me would obviously prefer a stronger source—because more reporting than "picked up her tweets/instagram" would be nice. At the same time, ... while I'm not coming out one way or another just yet (I think I need to read the opinions of some more editors), I actually think WP:PUBLICFIGURE might advise in favor of inclusion? If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article Notice that inquiry says we should focus on the documentation of the allegation, not documentation related to the underlying charge. Maybe it's a close call, but I don't see any reason to think the various sources just copied each other—the Daily Dot relied on Zech's twitter (and took screenshots of the note attached to her tweet), while Girlfriend magazine relied on her Instagram, yet the quotations in the Girlfriend piece are present in the Daily Dot's screenshots. (And of course, when several mid-tier reliable sources report the same thing ... that surely adds to the strength of their reliability.) That said, one semi-confusing aspect of WP:PUBLICFIGURE is the term "notable"—as I've understood it, WP:NOTABLE doesn't usually apply to article content.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. I fully support keeping the accusations on each page (although I have come to accept that the consensus is on the opposite side, hence my recent comments accepting that reality). On the other hand, I also feel like this conversation is going in circles and going nowhere at this point, which is why, personally, I think a resolution would be better, even if it isn't the result I agree with. Zech didn't actually delete her claims, as they are still there on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CCMDmz8FPwF/. However, her Twitter account has since been deactivated. In terms of the sources you point out, people have grumbled about Girlfriend Magazine (it was originally included in an earlier version of the text), and as noted above, but the strongest ones were Daily Dot, Popculture.com, and Den of Geek. There's also an article in The Music which says Zech and Morley were rumored to be in a relationship. As for Distractify, I thought that was a pretty unreliable, and it is a bit tricky for the DailyPlanet as Taylor doesn't specifically mention Taylor. with the article saying "Taylor never officially mentioned Zech’s statement but still managed to break her social media silence." That was an issue previously in this discussion as the aformentioned articles had said Zech was talking about Taylor, but she never specifically mentioned Taylor, only referring to a "girl". A little skeptical of The Tempest here as their about page says "page not found". I can, personally agree that WP:PUBLICFIGURE favors inclusion, but sadly I don't think many agree with that. And, personally, I'm a bit lost in the policy arguments too. All I can see is that people don't favor inclusion at the present time. And I'm not sure if the closer will say there is a consensus here or not, because the number of SPAs contributing complicates any possible determination of consensus in this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the Music article really works—I think we should be centering on the abuse claims and, at least for now, not caring about just stating whether or not they were in a relationship—honestly I think the above discussion got a bit sidetracked on more minor issues that could be addressed separately. But I wonder if maybe this would be appropriate for an RFC.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with excluding the Music article, and only included it originally to support the assertion that Zech and Morley are in a relationship, but I admit that it isn't a great source for that. I also won't disagree that the above discussion probably did get a bit sidetracked on various issues. Some of that is likely my fault, but I was trying to make the best of a bad situation, as assumedly the consensus seemed against inclusion. However, I'm not sure if addressing the issues separately would be productive or having a RfC only because I am concerned that the discussion would be sidetracked by the same issues, as, likely, the same participants would be present, including some of the SPAs who contributed in this discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like more discussion is going to happen, hoping we can get a closure from the request I previously made. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I hope so as well. I would like there to be a closure. It seemed that Jerome Frank Disciple wanted to continue this discussion, but has made no additional comments since May 5th. Historyday01 (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no one else seemed to want to participate in the discussion, so alas. I'll update my comment to a !vote--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Lana Rhoades

There is back and forth at Lana Rhoades, an American porn star, with issues of WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPGOSSIP. The BLPNAME issue is whether the birth name should be published[10] while WP:BLPGOSSIP issue is whether she had a son with some undisclosed NBA player.[11][12] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I also removed, since it doesnt improve the article by stating the unnamed fathers profession, and cannot be proven. The cited source isn't a reliable source as far as I can tell, either.

As for the name, I am unsure how that one would work. I know her name has been released recently, but along with most adult performers, that doesn't mean much since every day sources release their public names as soon as they find them, and if ever there was a profession where someone values their privacy and tries to shield their private information from getting out, I would say it's the adult entertainment business.

Awshort (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Why exactly is the magazine Semana not a reliable source? Decades old magazine, a known history of top level journalism, and a large number of awards over the years for its work. Silverseren^C 00:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That article was deleted many times, never should have been allowed to come back from draftspace. Zaathras (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of reliable sources covering her and her life over years. Just because you don't like the subject matter doesn't make her non-notable. Silverseren^C 00:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Is there any indication that the birth name is contentious? Is her birth name something she doesn't want known? Otherwise, why wouldn't it be included? As for her son, she's the one that made the statement herself openly about her son and his father. Why wouldn't the general statement of hers, as attributed to her, be included? Silverseren^C 00:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Her birth name is in the subtitle of the Playboy article. That's the one source that's been completed agreed upon being a RS. I don't understand why it's contentious either. Mbdfar (talk)

Playboy may be reliable for their serious "articles" but not the text that accompanies their layouts which tend to be promotional.[13] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of that linked discussion. What part of your statement does it support? Mbdfar (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The bios that accompany the paid photoshoots are not independent or reliable. Several editors commented on that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mbdfar: perhaps the linked discussion is not the best discussion to illustrate the issue. However, I would interpret that Playboy thing as a sub-headline which means it's not reliable per WP:HEADLINES i.e. part of WP:RS. It doesn't matter if it's Playboy or the New York Times; or if it's on a living person's real name or whether the sky is blue. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I remember reading a news article years ago (can't find it now) which was all about the fact that people adding the real names of pornographic actresses to Wikipedia (often poorly sourced) resulted in their real-life harassment. For that reason, there should be serious discretion regarding the inclusion of their real names unless they are very widely known. As for the father of the child allegedly being an NBA player, meh. It feels like trivia, but I wouldn't strongly object to its inclusion either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with these concerns Tristario (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I've managed to find the article again, it was published in 2019 in Jezebel "Wikipedia Exposes Porn Performers to Stalking, Harassment—And Visits From CPS" . Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. WP:BLPPRIVACY With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public.

Are these conditions met? Tristario (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Her real name is openly mentioned at the beginning of a number of reliable sources covering her going back years. Such as this, this, this, this, and this, to name a few. I also see no evidence of her concealing it or not wanting it known, so this doesn't appear to be a BLP issue on that front. Silverseren^C 01:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

From what I just looked up, the vast majority of sources that discuss her don't use her real name. There are a few here and there that use it (mostly unreliable). I think I would rather have some clear indication that she would not object to her real name being publicly well known Tristario (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain which of the sources I linked would be unreliable? They're all well known newspapers and magazines. Silverseren^C 01:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't referring specifically to your sources, I was referring to the sources in my own review, although the WP:DAILYSTAR is unreliable. It's not just a question of if we have a reliable source, but whether the privacy considerations in the policy are met, which is a higher hurdle. I think we'd need it to either be clearly widely disseminated (which from my own review it doesn't appear to be) or to clearly be able to tell she wouldn't object to its inclusion. Tristario (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'm still a little confused. So the majority of sources you looked at, which you describe as unreliable, didn't mention her real name. But the multiple reliable sources I presented did use her real name. Shouldn't the latter be more relevant than the former? Silverseren^C 01:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant most of the sources I saw that did mention her real name were unreliable. Besides that, in english-language sources at least, it seemed the vast majority did not mention her real name. So I don't think it meets the standard of "widely disseminated" that we would want to have here. Tristario (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of the reliable ones you were looking at? I've found that she's covered far more in Spanish language sources than English ones. And the article currently reflects that. Silverseren^C 02:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

If we're mainly basing the conclusion that an American person's (who speaks english) real name is widely disseminated on its inclusion in spanish language sources then I don't think that meets the standard of "widely disseminated" we're looking for. Most of the sources I saw were unreliable, I'd have to go through them and figure out which are or aren't reliable. Tristario (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Language of sources is irrelevant to practically any considerations we made in regards to articles. Non-English sources are the equivalent to English ones for anything involving policy, including BLPNAME. Silverseren^C 02:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

per WP:RSUE we do actually prefer english-language sources. We need to take these privacy considerations seriously. Her name is not widely disseminated as far as I can see. Obviously if it were we'd also expect to see that reflected in english lanuage sources. Tristario (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Going by WP:BLPNAME, does not including the name detract from the article? In my opinion, no.

Going a step further into WP:BLPPRIVACY, can it be infered that she doesn't object to her real name being public? In my opinion, no. She still goes by Lana Rhoades, and even after retiring from her previous profession, she is using that title. She doesn't refer to herself by her real name, that I could find, on her podcast or in interviews. Other than a casual mention in the Playboy article, I can find nothing showing that she wants it out there.

I also see no evidence of her concealing it or not wanting it known, so this doesn't appear to be a BLP issue on that front. The fact that she herself hasn't mentioned it, chosen to go by it in appearences or interviews, or went by her birth name as opposed to her 'professional name' should give some indication that she does not want it known.

Back to my original point - how can it be reasonably determined that she has no objections to her name being out there, and why should it be included in the article? Simply stating that it was in newspapers from different countries answers neither of those things. Regarding the question you asked about why shouldn't it be listed what her childs fathers profession is, I tend to go with WP:ONUS - While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. It comes off as a tidbit of trivia which does absolutely nothing to improve the article in my eyes, since it wouldn't matter if the guy was an astronaut or a race car driver, since he is unknown and although it is stated by the source themself, it cannot be verified as being true/false on what job he has.

Awshort (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RSUE, when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. As you've repeatedly pointed out, English language coverage of her is almost entirely unreliable sources, with Playboy being one of the few exceptions (and which does state her real name). Meanwhile, the reliable sources in Spanish use her real name rather widely in general. Silverseren^C 02:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether the sources are foreign matters to me in terms of assigning weight on a privacy issue to an American subject whose popularity/notability is derived from her American work. American RS do not tend to cover the subject of pornography because of its sensationalist nature, and it is inappropriate to use the more relaxed standards of media outside of the United States to uhh backdoor this content. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that foreign language sources are more likely to be willing to cover subjects like pornography makes them have "relaxed standards", ie worse journalistic standards? Or what are you saying here? Because the fact that they cover porn actors doesn't make them worse in any way, nor less reliable, nor less journalistic in their coverage. Silverseren^C 02:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources foreign to the subject (with certain exceptions) should be given less WP:WEIGHT and is not a comment on whether the source is reliable in terms of its fact-checking.Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Where is that stated anywhere in policy? RSUE merely says that when sources of equal quality and relevance exist, we should prefer to use the English one as the reference so our readers can more easily read it. But that has absolutely nothing to do with WEIGHT or anything else. Silverseren^C 03:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It's how I interpret weight with respect to BLPPRIVACY/BLPNAME. No, I don't believe these foreign sources are of equal relevance to the subject. For example, the La Semana[14] the foreign source that was used as the backdoor citation to the NBA player issue is a straight translation of a WP:NYPOST article without credit.[15] Meanwhile, this "El Universal" article[16] that was cited in the article is based off of the Daily Star.[17] This La Republica article cited[18] is based on another Daily Star article.[19] This "La Nacion" article cited[20] is based off of this Daily Star article[21]. This La Nacion cited article[22] is derived from this American article[23] Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I would hesitate to cite any article, whether in English or not, that amounts to a rehash of a WP:DAILYSTAR article. The contents of such sources are probably WP:UNDUE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, especially if we're using the equal quality and relevance standard. I've looked at a couple of the cited articles (La Nación and El Universal) and they don't seem to contain any new reporting or analysis; they're basically churnalism from a deprecated tabloid. I would definitely not include a subject's actual name based solely on such sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

So should content sourced to these rehashes be removed since they are not intellectually independent from the Daily Star? It feels like source washing to keep them in. Every foreign article here that is not attributed to an author is suspected to be derived, and I'm amazed that these supposedly reputable foreign sources would not properly attribute their articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I would rather not use articles that are just rehashed from unreliable sources. We want to have solid sourcing for BLPs. And this seems questionable Tristario (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised her birth name would be omitted from the article; she uses it in some public contexts: Here, here, here are mentions in a then boyfriend's YouTube vlog (in the last clip, she even expresses a preference to be introduced just as Amara Maple). There are other WP:SELFPUB sources available for things like her son's name and probably for (can't find right now) when he was born and the speculation about the father's identity (indirect reference here). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, added birth name and DOB – sourcing could still be improved but WP:SELFPUB works well enough here. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I dont believe that multiple videos from a vlogger count as a reliable source, but I could be mistaken. Regardless, I think it is safe to assume that someone either currently dating, or who had previpusly dated, a professional of any sort who went by a stage name would refer to said person by their 'real name'. I can't honestly think Hulk Hogan walks around his house telling people to call him Hulk instead of Terry, or that rappers go by their performing name while in relationships, etc. With that being said, there has been nothing shown yet that she wants it out there, or has introduced herself as her real name.

The general consensus abkve has seemingly been to omit it. I agree with that, since nothing from her has shown she wants it out.

Awshort (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Awshort: The discussion above is mostly about the quality of various news sources. So yes, it is mistaken to dismiss the validity of the WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSPS sources in my edit. WP:BLPPRIVACY says: Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been ... published ... by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. Rewatch this clip for an example of that. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF applies to material about the publisher of the self-published source, which is not Lana Rhoades for any of the YouTube clips. Nor can we reasonably infer that Rhoades does not object to the contents of Mike Majlak's channel. Please find better sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

That seems like nitpicking to me; she is clearly involved in the production of the vlogs she appears in. I encourage you to rewatch in particular the timestamped clip in my last comment. If that doesn't suit you, though coverage of her is limited in traditional media as noted above, a search finds a mention of her birth name in Grazia UK, which seems reliable. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there a source actually published by herself where she indicates she's okay with people knowing her real name? Tristario (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Why "published by herself" and not sources of her but published as a collaboration? Seems like an arbitrary distinction. Located some vlog content in which she talks about her name: here ("Am-uh-ruh or Uh-mar-uh? That's the same name"), here ("It's Am-uh-ruh"). And two more clearly OK introductions of her full name here, here. If she objected to use of her birth name, it presumably wouldn't appear in this quantity. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 07:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hameltion: Why "published by herself" and not sources of her but published as a collaboration? @Sangdeboeuf: did a good job above of explaining the exact reasoning of why it seemingly fails WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:ABOUTSELF, but from your comments above, you seem to be saying a primary source is the same as a self published source, which is incorrect. A vlog that she appears on, published by someone else, would fall under WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Of major importance are two portions of that - First, # Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. and secondly, Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy.

Basically, there needs to be something showing she doesn't object to her name being out there, from her. See the following regarding YouTube being used as a RS here. The Grazia article was a brief overview of her, but also casually threw her name out there, which cannot reasonably be seen as 'she was okay with it' when she had zero input on that article. I think the comment you made above sums it up rather well though coverage of her is limited in traditional media as noted above, that her real name is generally not made public and reinforces that is should be left out in accordance with WP:BLPNAME.

Awshort (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if that's her real name rather than just another alias. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Then a footnote would solve any problem. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I get what you mean, but I disagree that citing the vlog for her name violates any of these policies. A vlog in which she appears is not some random primary source; I would treat it as similar to (e.g.) a reality TV show (which it basically is), where participants are aware that everything recorded may be aired. Nothing at WP:RSPYT discourages citing this kind of (quasi) ABOUTSELF content. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. A vlog that is self-published by a third party (i.e. Majlak) is not like a reality TV show on a professional network. The idea that these videos are published as a collaboration seems entirely made up. A person talking in front of a camera doesn't necessarily have any role in publishing the resulting material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Self-publishing concerns aside, When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it. Rhoades is notable mainly as a porn actress under a pseudonym, not her real name, and the Grazia piece doesn't really amount to wide dissemination of the name in reliable sources. Omitting the name does not deprive readers of any meaningful information, and including it has dubious benefits at best. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that her name should be on the article. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Redirect

• It was brought to my attention that a redirect from her birth/real name was created during the course of this discussion; I am not particularly familiar with how the potential BLP policy issues may relate to this redirect, but I wanted to note that the redirect currently exists and may be a relevant consideration during or after the conclusion of this discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

NiJaree Canady

Without WP:RELIABLE sources, there's been a lot of messing with the birth date. Some of it appears well-intentioned, but much of it is vandalism. This may need protection from WP:BLP violations. In the meantime, if anyone can establish the date with a WP:RELIABLE....2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Removed birthdate per WP:DOB. Seems like just petty vandalism in messing around with her age. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, since I reverted one of the changes and did some searching:

- This appears to have been happening because the article was created with the wrong birth-date - some people (or perhaps one person) at Twitter noticed and started questioning why a 23 year old Freshman was playing.

- NiJaree herself retweeted a tweet of someone saying that "She’s 19. The 1999 thing originated from Wikipedia and spread. That is nowhere on Stanford’s website.".

- That said, I don't think there is any public publishing of her birth-date, other than people on Twitter saying which date is correct.

– 2804:F14:80B6:3101:E4B9:E400:1C03:F0D3 (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Added DOB with sources attesting to her birthday and her age on date per WP:CALC. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elliot Page § Former relationships and other recent revelations

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elliot Page § Former relationships and other recent revelations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Gary D. Rhodes

The page dedicated to Gary D. Rhodes is a mess and does not follow the formatting of the majority of biographical articles on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the usage of sources is very poor and the majority of them are merely book and movie reviews. The article is written like a promotional piece for Gary D. Rhodes, and constantly includes positive reviews and quotes of his books and films with little other information. Additionally, there is very little information regarding Rhodes' personal life and history, and the section dedicated to that topic has instances of promotion-like information in it. The sources are also incredibly unreliable and it is hard to find the majority of them as no links are given and I have been unable to turn up anything after a long time of searching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaconut (talk • contribs)

Simon Ekpa

More interested eyes welcome. The guy is a, sort-of, prime minister, there are WP:BLPCRIME issues and passionate registered and non-registered editors. Interesting coverage in African media but hard to say what is ok-ish WP:RS and not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk • contribs) 11:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Sam Hyde

Hyde is a comedian who appears to be a performance artist who uses shock humor for satirical purposes based on the sources cited. I asked on the talk page why the individual was categorized under Category:Alt-right based on clickbait articles lacking evidence proving that he or his comedy group Million Dollar Extreme are alt-right, and I still have yet to be pointed to concrete evidence proving that this individual or his group are alt-right. The allegations may originate from a BuzzFeed News article that did not prove it's allegations, or they may come from Hyde's fans who are known to prank mainstream news outlets by making it seem like Hyde is a mass shooter every time a mass killing occurs, with Bill O'Reilly once claiming on Twitter that a mass shooter was "white supremacist Sam Hyde", and it seems that no one investigated the claims further and simply repeated them. I asked someone to either provide concrete evidence of Hyde or MDE being alt-right or to explain that the categorization is for another reason that is not actually calling this individual or his group alt-right and no one would give a reasonable explanation. So I'd like more people to give input on this because it seems to be a potential BLP confliction. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Just a reminder that no one is required to provide "concrete evidence" of anything. All that is required is that the information is sufficiently supported by reliable secondary sources. Frankly I can't be bothered getting in to the category issue. However I see no reason to think that pranks surrounding Hyde being a mass shooter have anything to do with why he has been called alt-right. Instead it seems far more likely it relates to things like him appearing in blackface screaming at a woman, allegations coded racist messages had to be removed from the show and him donating money to Andrew Anglin than asking a journalist who asked him about it if they were Jewish. Note while the last may be after most of the controversy it re-enforces the fact that whether for the shock factor or other reasons, Hyde does stuff that associates him with the alt-right noting that even if it was just done for shock reasons, Anglin still received $5000 and a journalist still had their possible Jewishness used against them. (As for your suggestion it wasn't Hyde who donated the money, well if no source has raised this possibility not even Hyde himself then yes our article will treat it like he is the one.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

About the "screaming at a woman while wearing blackface" sketch, I think the writer was referring to this video, which, unless there's another video that I didn't see, I don't think this description is technically accurate, because on my video monitor, it did not look like he was wearing blackface in this sketch, and he wasn't screaming at the woman. The sketch was that this character was breaking up with this woman and he has a vaguely ethnic accent. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, I have seen one stand-up performance where Hyde claimed to have Jewish ancestry, but I understand that this is probably a joke about people accusing him of being a Nazi and that stand-up performances aren't reliable sources. But I wasn't linking to any of these videos for sources, just to illustrate why I have doubts about the alt-right categorization. The same as my mentioning of how other comedians that are much more mainstream have made many of the same kinds of jokes as Hyde without being categorized as alt-right, such as Wonder Showzen or Eric Andre or Norm Macdonald. That doesn't have anything to do with sourcing, it's just how the balance of coverage is presented. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

These BuzzFeed and Atlantic sources are adequate for the characterization, but for the article's lead itself you could say something like (just for an example, this is not polished) "Sam Hyde is a comedian [...]. He and his content have been characterized by BuzzFeed and The Atlantic as alt-right" if there is some dispute over this, like if he denies being alt-right. I'm not sure that this aspect of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch has been firmly decided. From what I know about him, I don't think he would deny being alt-right, because part of his humor is that he doesn't usually confirm or deny when he is being serious. My personal opinion is that this is a completely accurate description of him (alt-right). I am not familiar with the standards for inclusion in categories. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that Hyde thinks that the media categorizing him as alt-right is funny because it reveals the absurdity of the people categorizing him as alt-right, because he probably thinks that people that people in the media do not understand comedy and that writers for these publications are out of touch with what most people see as comedy and that the writers for mainstream publications see performance art as being tantamount to white nationalism, and that such a categorization, to him, is a joke, because it reveals that people are willing to jump to such conclusions without evidence. Hyde mentioned in interviews that extreme racist content was used as punchlines in The Eric Andre Show and was widely understood to be ironic, and the underlying theme of part of Hyde's performance art may be left-wing people's biases against conservatives, similar to how Borat reveals other people's racist biases with Sacha Baron Cohen's ironic displays of anti-Semitism in character. Hyde even identified as being apolitical or disinterested in politics in one out of character interview. My concern is that categorizing him as alt-right might be fancruft because the perception of him as a white nationalist seems to me to be part of the joke, like the idea that if someone voted for Donald Trump and someone in the media proclaims that it makes them a neo-Nazi. I'm concerned this categorization is just contributing to the performance artist's joke about what he perceives as biases of organizations including Wikipedia, rather than what can actually be proven by evidence. Hyde might think it's hilarious that he would continue to be categorized as alt-right even after being featured in a multipart documentary on the Epic Meal Time YouTube channel where he trained a Jewish influencer, Harley Morenstein, for a boxing match, because his performance art plays heavily on people not getting the joke and reacting in a way that he considers to be proving his point. I'm thinking of Poe's law in regard to this categorization. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thinking Poe's law might apply to Hyde indicates to me someone who hasn't seen much of his material or isn't familiar with human expression, to be honest. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

How would you describe irony being taken at face value without taking into consideration the possibility of satire, since it's pretty clear that Hyde's stand-up and sketches are sarcastic? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"Getting" Sam Hyde seems to me to entail recognizing that he is more or less serious, as far as someone who is mocking a lot of things is serious. It doesn't matter what you or I think though, we have two WP:RS that say he is alt-right - they also recognized that he is more or less being serious and using comedy as a veil, in an attempt to be funny while doing so. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Shane Gillis, a mainstream comedian, hosted Hyde on Gillis' podcast. It's pretty clear from watching this that Hyde is not being serious. Your assertion that he is being serious is pretty comical considering the considerable evidence that he isn't being serious. And if having a source claiming that he is alt-right is the same as being evidence, doesn't that make Sam Hyde the shooter in every mass shooting where he is reported as being the shooter? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith here but what you are doing could be seen as Hyde-esque or "fancruft" as you termed it yourself. You could be seen as doing this "plausible" deniability joke yourself. He basically has this one joke, aside from the joke of being crude, abusive or insensitive. And certainly, sometimes he mocks himself. Sam Hyde knows, we know, the two RSs know, and his alt-right audience know who is primarily laughing at his jokes. He gives facial expressions meant to convey this which are not hard to "decipher" and not meant to be hard to decipher. I am dismayed that someone could honestly mistake that.

We also need to be aware of WP:FORUM and WP:OR. Analyzing a primary source (youtube video) for what you or I think is earnestness or sarcasm is totally irrelevant here. We go by reliable sources. If we look at the shooter hoaxes, we can find RS coverage stating they are hoaxes. End of story. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I feel like you came into this discussion with a preexisting bias because you've been unable to explain how the sources cited prove that Sam Hyde is alt-right when there's literally no evidence that he is and plenty of evidence that he isn't? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Not seeing a problem with this. We don't need to get into whether comedy that "punches down" or otherwise bullies the already bullied is actually bigoted or "just satirical/ironic" (it seems to get the same laughs from the same folks either way, after all) to see that multiple RS have used the term "alt-right" here. It's certainly a valid conversation as to how meaningful the term "alt-right" is in 2023, granted (it's kind of melted into steaming pools of "anti-woke comedy," "masculism," and various forms of "far-right" like white nationalism), but these labels were used at a time when it did have a clearer meaning (which isn't to say clear -- it was always a grab bag of racists, sexists, trolls, and chaos monkeys united by fondness for extremism, Trump, and owning libs for the lulz). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

You don't see a problem with the fact that there's no evidence that Hyde is alt-right? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

When reliable sources directly contradict each other, it's worth getting into how to negotiate the perspectives. Once in a while when something in a publication we typically consider reliable is demonstrably false we might say the articles containing false claims cease to be RS. In this case, whether or not Hyde is truly "alt-right" is not the kind of thing that's falsifiable -- there's no objective measure. The question is whether we can verify that reliable sources call him that. Then, if there are sources which directly contradict it (not by failing to call him alt-right but debating whether he is) we can figure out the best way to present it (probably attributing both perspectives). This "there's no evidence" thing is just WP:OR though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe that if a reliable source says an uncontroversial statement like that Michael Jackson is a pop singer, it's sufficient enough to believe the claim, but I need more than someone's word to believe that someone is a white nationalist. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, sure, we need multiple people's words, but the label is alt-right, not white nationalist. It does raise the interesting question of how to handle labels that were used in one context, before the meaning changed somewhat. I know our article says alt-right=white nationalist, but that wasn't actually true in the early days of "alt-right", which included e.g. Gamergaters, for whom race wasn't even in the conversation (except in some cases as an extension of what later became "anti-wokeness"). I don't know. The sources are good for the label at this time, but you may want to open a discussion somewhere about the broader issue. I don't know how much interest there will be for distinguishing shades of terrible, but who knows. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how Hyde's most controversial material differs from the most controversial material of Wonder Showzen, Norm Macdonald, Andrew Dice Clay or the misogynistic wrestler character that Andy Kaufman played where Kaufman intentionally used anti-women language and played a wrestling heel as part of a performance where the offended audience reaction was the source of humor. It seems to me that Hyde is using his performances to provoke reactions from very pretentious and humorless people so that the reactions he gets can serve as a source of humor. And there were multiple people like Harley Morenstein and the Hollywood Reporter journalist that interviewed him saying that based on their spending time with him, they came to the conclusion that he wasn't racist or anti-Semitic. I feel that the news sources describing him as alt-right are unintentionally making themselves part of the joke or prank, that they're proving his point about the people he's trying to satirize, that people will make claims without evidence and that others will believe them without seeking proof. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's point of view, the difference is that reliable sources characterise Hyde as alt-right and don't characterise e.g. Andrew Dice Clay as alt-right. Unless you have evidence that either (a) the sources that characterise Hyde as alt-right are not reliable or (b) there are equally reliable sources which dispute this characterisation (neither of which you appear to have done so far) then there is no WP:BLP issue here that I can see. If you have questions about categorisation, I suggest you put a notice on a talkpage like WT:CAT pointing to this discussion or the one on Talk:Sam Hyde – people who watch that page will be better placed to weigh in on the question of whether putting Hyde in Category:Alt-right is in line with our general policies and practices on categorisation. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

My position is that the categorization of a person as alt-right, which is defined on Wikipedia as white nationalist, requires more than just someone's word, which is what I would call it if a reliable source published an article making such a claim without evidence, which is about the same as making a claim without a source. These articles present as proof, punchlines from sketches in a comedy sketch show which uses an anti-humor style, and an alleged donation to a lawyer in a defamation lawsuit defending a white nationalist (not the white nationalist himself, but a lawyer representing him) that Hyde never admitted to doing, that could have possibly been made by someone else in his name as a prank. The "evidence" presented in the articles published by otherwise reliable sources doesn't actually prove Hyde being alt-right. It's a strong allegation to make without doing research and backing up the claim. We have evidence that news publications have alleged that Hyde is alt-right, but not that he is alt-right. The sources prove that there are allegations against him, but they do not prove the allegations. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you don't agree with the conclusions drawn by the reliable sources has effectively no weight in discussions of how Wikipedia should write about Sam Hyde. Your going on about your interpretations of Hyde's performances and why they are more right than those of the sources at issue is not going to persuade anyone. Several people have now told you this; repeating the same talking points over and over without listening to what you are being told is a waste of everyone's time, including yours. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

How about the sources cited misrepresenting jokes made by Hyde? Justin Whang made a video pointing out that The Fader quoted Hyde out of context and made it seem like he joked about raping Lena Dunham in a podcast interview when Hyde was actually joking about provoking her so that he could hit her in self defense in the vein of the "he's coming right for us!" joke from South Park. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I can see no reason why a video by Justin Whang (who is, as best I can tell, just some YouTube person) would be considered a reliable source.

Even if he were reliable, a source saying that people have misinterpreted Hyde's jokes is not sufficient to support that he is not alt-right. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't pointing it out for a source to be cited, I was just trying to prove a point. And regarding the YouTube videos point, unfortunately since Hyde is a YouTuber, most of the people talking about him are other YouTubers and reliable sources covering his activity are hard to come by. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

You posted this same point the day before on the article talk page. The answer, that you should read WP:DUE and WP:RSUW hasn't changed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Kim Darroch

• Kim Darroch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new editor added a long section to the article attacking Darroch (and at least one other well-known Brit, James Cleverly). The new user has 8 sources, one to the Spectator, one to YouTube, one to the Washington Examiner, one to the Telegraph, and the remaining to the Express, not what I'd call the best sources, but I'm not an expert in this area. There is already a very brief mention of part of what the user has added in the Personal life section.

I reverted twice, essentially criticizing the sourcing, the nature of the edits per WP:BLP, and suggesting that such a dramatic addition needs to be discussed on the article Talk page. Nonetheless, the user has reverted me both times and then left a bunch of comments/questions on their Talk page, which I have not responded to. I don't intend to revert again. Nor do I wish to get into a discussion with the user. Instead, I'm taking the lazy way out and dumping it here in case someone is interested.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that The Sun (United Kingdom), who originally published the allegations, withdrew its story.[24] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The telegraph is reliable-ish, but it doesn't support the language they want to add. If the Sun has retracted the whole thing should be handle with care. The Sun isn't one to care about it's reputation, likely they retracted under legal pressure. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The Sun also said an inquiry cleared Darroch.(Guardian article) This is WP:BLPGOSSIP territory and we need to consider WP:BLPCRIME Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

As recently reported in The Daily Telegraph and the Spectator, Kim Darroch was never cleared by anyone. As they reported, that false statement was made by The Sun under pressure from the Counter Terrorism Command Police. The Sun article was removed because the CNN journalist was not served a right to reply letter as Kim Darroch was. It was right that The Sun article was removed. CSPNPC (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you approve the following?

===Allegations of Leaking US State Secrets to a Journalist===

It has been recently reported in the Daily Telegapgh, The Times, and The Spectator, that Kim Darroch gave US state secrets to a CNN journalist in exchange for sexual intercourse. The U.S. Government made a formal complaint to the U.K. Government about his crimes. Kim Darroch has never denied the allegations when repeatedly asked by the press. The CNN journalist had denied the allegations. His alleged crimes are now the subject of U.S. Congressional investigations and civil lawsuit at the High Court in London. It has also been reported in the press that British Civil Service and the British Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, are attempting to use counterterrorism legislation to block the press and the public from the High Court claim, which they want held in secret in order to protect Kim Darroch.

CSPNPC (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

CSPNPC (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Washington Examiner, and The Spectator have reported on this.

Do you approve of the following?

===Allegations of Leaking US State Secrets to a Journalist===

It has been recently reported in the Daily Telegapgh, The Times, and The Spectator, that Kim Darroch gave US state secrets to a CNN journalist in exchange for sexual intercourse. The U.S. Government made a formal complaint to the U.K. Government about his crimes. Kim Darroch has never denied the allegations when repeatedly asked by the press. The CNN journalist had denied the allegations. His alleged crimes are now the subject of U.S. Congressional investigations and civil lawsuit at the High Court in London. It has also been reported in the press that British Civil Service and the British Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, are attempting to use counterterrorism legislation to block the press and the public from the High Court claim, which they want held in secret in order to protect Kim Darroch.

CSPNPC (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

CSPNPC (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion made me think these are new allegations. But I see stuff in Michelle Kosinski with sources from 2020 which while not naming Darroch in our article, seem to clearly be referring to the same allegations and he's also named in some of the titles. The James Cleverly angle may be new, but that seems to be about it. As for the Cleverly angle, that seems to be complicated since the person making those allegations is the one accused of arrested for but then released without charge for leaking the cables. The cables had nothing to do with the allegations Darroch himself gave information to a journalist. Indeed it seems to widely accepted that was Darroch said in those cables was entirely appropriate and part of his job even if their leaking made his job somewhat untenable. And covering up information about such a leak especially details surrounding the investigation into the alleged leaker seems to be the sort of thing the UK government, for better or worse, normally try do to. Is there any RS reporting information about this who don't simply quote the alleged leaker but have independently alleged the government appears to be protecting or covering up Darroch's claimed wrongdoings instead of simply trying to cover up details about the leak of diplomatic cables? Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC) 07:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. Serious crimes are levelled at Kim Darroch in a High Court claim of leaking US state secrets to a CNN journalist that endangered the lives of Americans on North Korea and US operatives in Russia. Numerous sources have reported on this in the UK over the past two weeks - especially court reporters. It has been a major press headline, but given that you reject most of the sources as unreliable, or behind a paywall in publications that you do not subscribe to, there is nothing more to discuss. I used Wikipedia years ago when it was a free forum, but it is now institutionally biased. I should also add that I vote for left of centre political parties, but I have always been fair and unbiased. James Cleverly is weaponizing counterterrorism legislation to block the press and public from the High Court claim and bring it into is secret court. That is totally unusual and unprecedented for a case such as this civil claim. That legislation has only ever been used in cases involving terrorism and this is not a terrorism case. This is new and current information and Kim Darroch has never responded to the allegations when asked, but given that Wikipedia declares most of the sources on the right of centre to be unreliable, there is nothing more to discuss. Wikipedia is institutionally biased as has been widely reported in the press and this information will never be reported her. Please do not respond with hostile profanity. I accept that this information will never be aired in this forum. I wish you all the best. This was a learning experience, and I withdraw from attempting any editing to Wikipedia. CSPNPC (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@CSPNPC: WTF are you talking about? We do not reject sources behind a paywall. They are perfectly acceptable to use if they are otherwise RS. The Times is behind a paywall and is perfectly acceptable to use. You yourself seem to acknowledge this below so I'm not sure why you would make such a weird claim. Nil Einne (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

When I wrote the above, I was not aware that the unnamed civil servant who had been accused of being a leaker of the cables had been released without charge and apologise wholeheartedly for any false implications of this living person in my original statement. I have amended by statement above accordingly. However I don't think this significantly changes anything. The fact of the matter is the leak investigation seems to have been a perfectly normal investigation and the sort of things governments do all the time since it involved the leak of perfectly normal government communication that they nevertheless really to not want in the public domain. While it is understandable someone who was caught up in this investigation is pissed off about the effect on them, the government wanting to keep as much as they want about this investigation secret should surprise to anyone. There's zero reason to think it has anything to do with protecting Darroch, instead it's simply to do with the government protecting the government and their secrets. Again, I do not see how the claims about Darroch himself leaking stuff to journalists relate to this. If anything, the ferocity with which they investigated this leak sort of proves the opposite. If they had genuinely suspected Darroch had leaked stuff to a journalist, they would not have been anywhere this kind. They likely would have been equally ferocious in their investigation and Darroch might now be together with this other civil servant complaining about the government mistreating them. Nil Einne (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

References

@CSPNPC Well, I don't think your text summarizes those sources very accurately. Best I can tell, they reported that the civil servant who was wrongfully arrested is suing the two individuals in the gov't, and in his suit, claims they arrested him to distract from Darroch and the suit makes claims about Darroch. Although I did not find "in exchange for sexual intercourse" in any of the sources...where'd that come from? His alleged crimes are not "the subject of...civil lawsuit", the lawsuit is about the arrest. Closest I found to congressional investigation was "[U.S. government] launched an official investigation to find the source of the information". Investigating the leak is not investigating "his alleged crimes".

Your sources don't support your content. You are not summarizing them from a neutral point of view. So no, personally, I don't approve of your "following". Schazjmd (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Schazjmd, The claimant is suing for "misfeasance in public office" and has named Kim Darroch in the High Court claim. Did you read The Daily Telegraph Article behind the paywall? Did you read The Times article behind the paywall? Did you listen to the entire Spectator podcast, with the journalists? CSPNPC (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Schazjmd, Do you approve of the following. I can also refer you to the public High Court documents, which are currently a matter for public record:

===Allegations of Leaking US State Secrets to a Journalist===

It has been recently reported in the Daily Telegapgh, The Times, and The Spectator, that Kim Darroch gave US state secrets to a CNN journalist in exchange for sexual intercourse as alleged in a current High Court Claim in London, UK. The Claimant is suing for “misfeasance in public office” and has named Kim Darroch in the claim. The U.S. Government made a formal complaint to the U.K. Government about his crimes. Kim Darroch has never denied the allegations when repeatedly asked by the press. The CNN journalist had denied the allegations. His alleged crimes are now the subject of U.S. Congressional investigations and civil lawsuit at the High Court in London. It has also been reported in the press that British Civil Service and the British Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, are attempting to use counterterrorism legislation to block the press and the public from the High Court claim, which they want held in secret in order to protect Kim Darroch.

CSPNPC (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

References

CSPNPC (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

You sources don't support your words. It has not been reported that Darroch gave away secrets for sex. It's been reported that that is a claim made in a court case. The two are very different. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I will amend the text. CSPNPC (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested, Do you approve of the following amended text address your statement above:

===Allegations of Leaking US State Secrets to a Journalist===

It has been alleged in a High Court claim in London that Kim Darroch gave US state secrets to a CNN journalist in exchange for sexual intercourse as alleged in a current High Court Claim in London, UK. The Claimant is suing for “misfeasance in public office” and has named Kim Darroch in the claim. The U.S. Government made a formal complaint to the U.K. Government about his crimes. Kim Darroch has never denied the allegations when repeatedly asked by the press. The CNN journalist had denied the allegations. His alleged crimes are now the subject of U.S. Congressional investigations and civil lawsuit at the High Court in London. It has also been reported in the press that British Civil Service and the British Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, are attempting to use counterterrorism legislation to block the press and the public from the High Court claim, which they want held in secret in order to protect Kim Darroch.

CSPNPC (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

References

CSPNPC (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't see the Times article, and you should drop the Spectator and Washington Examiner (see WP:RSP for prior discussions on why). So going on the Guardian and the Telegraph, cutting everything they don't mention and condensing it gets. A court case in May 2023 alleged that Darroch had an affair with the CNN journalists Michelle Kosinski and that he leaked intelligence to her. Kosinski denies that they had an affair, or that she received classified or sensitive information from Darroch. The U.S. congress is also considering hearings into the claims. There's definitely no needs for all the legalese ("High Court" and "misfeasance in public office" etc) and anything that is not related to Darroch directly (for instance the UK government potential use of a closed defence). Even then others may object on WP:BLP grounds, I'm not the only one you would need to convince.

Also no need to keep posting the references. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I seriously question if it's DUE for a BLP, considering we have only two sources and they're careful to state that the allegations come from the court case. In other words, they won't even go on record as stating that it's true. Woodroar (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I just read the Wikipedia list of reliable and unreliable sources. It is clear that most publications on the left of centre are deemed reliable and those on the right of centre are deemed unreliable. This is clearly a partisan website governed by people on the left of centre with a clear bias against publications on the right of centre. Kim Darroch is on the left of the political spectrum and so he is protected from any critical information of any kind on this website. Indeed, I will probably be suspended and blocked for saying this. CSPNPC (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You're mistaken. One of the sources you're trying to add it the Spectator. According to RSPS it's mostly opinions pieces. The link you're trying to add is this https://www.spectator.co.uk/podcast/has-kim-darroch-rocked-the-special-relationship/ . I showed the URL since the URL itself is enough to cause concern. Checking out the source, sure enough it says (emphasis added, grammatical error/typo from source) "Freddy Gray is joined by Steve Edginton, video comment editor at the Telegraph and host of the Off Script podcast to discuss curious case of Sir Kim Darroch.". This is clearly a podcast discussion piece. I don't give a fuck whether the source is left wing, right wing, or whatever wing. Such a source is totally unsuitable for a BLP. You need to learn this quickly if you're going to continue to edit BLPs. You're free to have whatever opinions you want about Wikipedia, I don't even care if you mention them occasionally. But editing BLPs inappropriately is not acceptable. I'd note that the Telegraph and the The Times are both somewhat right-wing, only the Guardian is on the left. Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do not use profanity. There is no excuse for such hostile language. The Spectator is one of the oldest continuous journalist in the world founded in 1828 and it is highly respected. You are simply the Wikipedia systemic left-wing bias. As a published author who does research for a living, I can assure you that The Spectator is reliable. We will just have to agree to disagree, but there is no excuse for your use of profanity. CSPNPC (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@CSPNPC: if you use Wikipedia to harm living persons then yes there is an excuse for profanity. That is completely unacceptable any editor who does so or tries to do so can fuck off. If they can't stand a little profanity but think it's acceptable to fucking harm living persons with their edits then all the more reason they can get the fuck out of Wikipedia. And again you're missing the point it does not matter how old The Spectator is nor their political leanings. What matters in this instance is do they fact check their claims and stand by them? They clearly do not since they are not presenting these claims in their own voice but simply as the opinions of the people writing or talking for them. That is not in any way reliable for Wikipedia. If the Spectator was willing to stand by their claims then sure, we could consider them but they aren't so we don't. For the same reason, while The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, the BBC, Sky News are reliable sources (and only one of them can reasonably be considered left wing while 2 or maybe even 3 can be considered right wing, but I digress) we only use their actually articles and reporting. Opinion pieces, editorials, opeds etc even from these RS can only be used in limited circumstances per WP:RSOPINION which is almost never for a WP:BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I have never used Wikipedia to harm a living person. I merely reported what has already been reported in the press and I have been researching the subject matter. It was my understanding that profanity was a violations of Wikipedia community standards. At least it used to be. I have already told you that I will not attempt to edit anything on Wikipedia again. I agree with Jimmy Wales when he publicly regretted what Wikipedia has turned into. It used to be a free forum, but it is no longer. CSPNPC (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@CSPNPC: if you use Wikipedia to harm living persons then yes there is an excuse for profanity. That is completely unacceptable, and any editor who does so or tries to do so, can fuck off. If they think a little profanity is a big deal but don't care that they're harming living persons with their edits then all the more reason they can get the fuck out of Wikipedia.

And again you're missing the point. It does not matter how old The Spectator is nor their political leanings. What matters in this instance is do they fact check their claims and stand by them? They clearly do not, since they are not presenting these claims in their own voice but simply as the opinions of the people writing or talking who they've chosen to republish. While this involves some degree of legal responsibility and requirement for fact-checking, it's not in any way the same as that required and expected when a source is explicitly making a claim as part of their own reporting and journalism. So that is not sufficiently reliable for Wikipedia.

If the Spectator was willing to stand by their claims by carrying out their own reporting and journalism and writing article in their own voice of their reporting and journalism, then sure, we could consider them. But they apparently aren't and instead are content to publish opinions pieces, so we don't. And at the very least the source you are trying to use is a podcast of a discussion between two journalists rather than a piece of journalism or reporting by the Spectator, so even if there are some pieces of journalism from the Spectator that we can use, clearly this isn't one of them.

For the same reason, while The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, the BBC, Sky News are reliable sources; we only use their actually articles and reporting/journalism. Opinion pieces, editorials, opeds etc even from these RS can only be used in limited circumstances per WP:RSOPINION which is almost never for a WP:BLP or for any statements of fact.

Despite your continued attempts to make this a left wing vs right wing issue, there is absolutely nothing stopping The Spectator carrying our their own reporting and journalism, as the two or arguably 3 right wing sources of the 5 I listed earlier reflect. (Noting also that only one of them is even left wing.) If you think it's left-wing to engage in journalism and reporting and publish content based on that; and right-wing to just publish opinions without bothering with all that tricky stuff, that sounds like a you problem not an us problem. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no excuse for profanity and it used to be a violation of Wikipedia community standards. I have not harmed a living person. I have simply reported what has already been reported in the press and in a court of law. I have been researching this matter for a long time. As I said, I will not attempt to edit anything on Wikipedia ever again. Please leave me alone and let it go. CSPNPC (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Darroch was hired by a right wing government, has spent most of his career working for a right wing government, was made a Lord by a right wing government, and is now being defended by a right wing giverment. I have literally no idea why you believe he is on the left wing, he's not and never has been. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Darroch was not hired by a right wing government. The British Civil Service and Diplomatic Service is independent of the elected government. They are appointed and promoted internally within the Civil Service. The politicians have no right to interfere in that process. All of Darroch's diplomatic appointments were came from the Diplomatic Service selection process and there were no politicians engaged in that process. There are no political appointees to the Civil Servants and Diplomatic Service. Kim Darroch was diplomat when the Labour Party was in power before the Conservatives, but the Labour Party did not appoint him to those diplomatic roles either. You do not understand the British system.

More right of centre papers are reporting on this issues than left of centre papers. Wikipedia declares most left of centre publications to be unreliable and that has been widely reported in the press as evidence of systemic bias. Darroch has taken political position since retiring from the Diplomatic Service that are left of center. CSPNPC (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand British politics quite well, and the civil service. Darroch is hardly left of centre, if you mean his comments on Trump then I'm afraid to tell you that many on the British right wing left the same way about him. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I was not referring to Darroch's on Trump. My post was about his alleged criminal behaviour and nothing to do with his comments on Trump. I personally agree with his comments on Trump. Indeed, he has my totally sympathy until I read about the alleged criminal behaviour. To be clear, I am left of centre, but I am fair and I am well read. I do not believe in censorship from the left or right. This used to be a free forum and not one of systemic bias. Darroch has taken a number of left of center positions and since leaving office as as I do myself. That does not excuse censorship or not reporting on allegations of criminal behaviour which is the subject of a High Court claim. CSPNPC (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

So I did some checking and the best I can find is that he pro EU, hardly something confined to the left. Honestly I have no idea why you think he's left wing. As to the rest there is no censorship, well I guess you could say WP:BLP is a form of censorship as it limits what can be said about living people but that is applied to all article subjects. It doesn't matter who he is, allegations are nothing more than allegations and there inclusion in a Wikipedia article is always handled in a careful way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, I have been researching this subject mater longer than you have, and if you read his autobiography or any of his published works, you will see where he stands politically. He clearly and quite openly has supported Labour politicians. Regardless, I am now disinterested in Wikipedia. It is not the open and free forum it was. It has been occupied and locked down by people who label very reliable sources as unreliable and other sources reliable based on personal preference and political bias as has been widely reported in the press. CSPNPC (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way all I can say is that tabloids aren't used in articles about living people, be that the Express, the Mirror, the Daily Mail or the Daily Star. That's something that applies in all cases regardless of the individual. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on British government or Government but would note that while it might be true that as part of the civil service, the Government does not generally get significantly involved in his career or decide which roles he has, I'm pretty sure this is simply not the case for his final role i.e. as an ambassador. Such an appointment would need at least the tactic approval of the Government. This was after all ultimately why he had to leave. While personally I don't see any way he could have survived long term once the cables leaked because while his communication was perfectly ordinary and reasonable, it's the sort of thing not intended to be public and especially not when it concerned the current president. Even more so since it concerned Trump who is notoriously thin skinned. One of the reasons the government and Government were so pissed about it leaking. So it leaking simply made his role impossible. But multiple RS and our article make it clear that ultimate what ended his career was not the leak itself but that Johnson did not support him. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is The Times article. If you cannot see past the paywall. I can cut and paste the contents of the article here. I am a subscriber to The Times:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/terrorism-laws-misused-to-spare-diplomat-kim-darroch-hh8z50szp CSPNPC (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SPECTATOR for how Wikipedia views it. Theroadislong (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I read that earlier. It is further evidence of systemic bias at Wikipedia against right of centre publications. CSPNPC (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

No, you cannot cut and paste the contents of an entire article here, as that would be violating copyright and thus against Wikipedia rules. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me of that. Well, I guess that most behind paywall articles that are referenced as sources here on Wikipedia, are not actually properly assessed by Wikipedia editors. Perhaps all pay for view subscription publications should be removed as sources? CSPNPC (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Requiring sources to be free to access or even online at all would utterly gouge our sources, not only of periodicals, but especially of books. So that idea would seem to be a nonstarter. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It's one of the perennial proposal that never gets anywhere, see WP:FUTON. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's possible to abuse the use of paywall/offline sources, like with much else, WP is WP:USERG after all. But I have hope that those who sometimes use such refs, like myself, usually do it ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The reality is large percentage of claims even when the sources they rely on are not behind a paywall, are not checked. This is why it is imperative editors accurately report what sources say. Any editor who persistently misrepresents sources is likely to be quickly blocked or banned for this reason. While the Times is behind a paywall it isn't that hard to obtain access so checking stuff sourced to the times isn't a big deal, it's far easier in fact that a a number of books and even older newspaper articles. While it is not acceptable to copy the whole article, it is often acceptable to provide certain limited parts of an article (like one or two sentences, maybe also a whole paragraph) in the talk page of an article, if there is some dispute or doubt over whether the our text accurately represents what the source says. It is going to be very rare that you need that much text to prove that the source supports the text in our article. If there is some fear that additional important context is being missed then yes that gets a little more difficult. It may be the editor questioning our use of the source does need to obtain the whole source, WP:WPRX is one option although if one editor already has access then potentially just privately exchanging it might be another. Or sometimes just asking for someone with access to confirm that the source does not say certain things is enough. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• I should note that this material is also present at Michelle Kosinski, although that article does not name Darroch. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  I mentioned that above already. Note that while Darroch is not named in the body, he is in the headline of at least one of the sources we cite i.e. you can work out it's referring to him simply from our article. It may have been mostly missed by editors except the OP, since while I intended to post it to the bottom, I made a mistake and posted it to the middle. The thread is a bit of a mess especially with the OP continually posting their proposal in various places. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thinking about this some more, it's even more nonsense than I originally considered. The claim is made "that false statement was made by The Sun under pressure from the Counter Terrorism Command Police" but I don't see how this makes any sense. I don't know that much about the British media, government and legal environment but I know enough to know that you do not need to do anything remotely like that.

  If The Sun asked the government about the allegations and the government told The Sun we investigated these claims and cleared the person, then The Sun would have little choice but to publish this statement. There is absolutely no reason why the Counter Terrorism Command Police or anything remotely like that would need to get involved. Their lawyers would tell them they need to publish these claims simply because it's something the government told them which provides important context to the story. Them failing to publish this, would likely put them at strong legal risk for defamation and while The Sun might not be the most careful of publications I'm fairly sure this is a case given the people involved etc, that they will take care to at least publish the claim. Even if they do fail to publish the claim, then all it takes is for Darroch or someone to get to their lawyers to write to The Sun warning them of an impending lawsuit due to their failure to publish the government saying that Darroch was cleared.

  Note that the government may be lying about Darroch being cleared, that is whatever and not particularly important. The point is if the government is willing to "use counterterrorism legislation" to get The Sun to publish a false statement, there is zero reason to think they wouldn't simply have gone the much easier route and lied to the Sun about an investigation i.e. forced The Sun to publish a false statement simply by making that statement in such a way that The Sun would have no choice but to publish it without getting the Counter Terrorism Command Police involved. (I mean the Sun could even say "we we informed by the government that they investigated these claims and cleared" the person involved or something similar and the Sun themselves wouldn't really have published anything false.)

  Yes the Sun could have asked for details of this investigation, but the government could simply have told them "for reasons of XYZ, we cannot provide details". Yes The Sun could have also published "the government refused to provide details of this investigation" but there's no reason to think anyone would particularly care if the Sun said this. And yes maybe The Sun could have tried to use the freedom of information act to obtain details, of this investigation but again there are lost of routes the government could use to stymie this attempt (perhaps including counterterrorism legislation) plus if the government does it's a very long process, so again why on earth would they force The Sun to publish something when there are far simpler routes they could use?

  And frankly even this lying route is a little too complicated. Far simpler for the government to do what they and governments all over the world do if they want something kept secret but need to placate the public. Set up an investigation, put people in charge who you know are not going to do a proper job, hint in various ways such as via the terms of reference they are not supposed to do a proper job or frankly just get someone to directly tell the investigators in private what you want the result to be and then get an investigation which did actually clear everyone and do not have to lie to anyone about anything. Frankly I'll be blunt, this sounds like a wacky conspiracy theory which makes no sense since like all such theories, it proposes an excessively complicated chain of events and ignores the way government really operate which achieve the same goals in a far simpler manner and without the need for any of the wackiness.

  Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  P.S. I have to say some of the reporting on this is just silly. [25] Are we really supposed to be surprised that the police emptied everything when searching an apartment looking for evidence? Or that they didn't tell the target of an investigation they were being investigated and apparently lied about investigating something else so they could get permission to walk through the apartment? Or that they just after arrest, they wanted to watch the person in their apartment including while defecating presumably to make sure they weren't disposing of any evidence? While perhaps some of the other claims if true may be going to far, other ones just seem to be completely ordinary police tactics in a lot of countries including the UK and don't seem in any way surprisingly unless you're one of the people who believe weird stuff like the if you ask an undercover officer if they're the police, they have to tell you. Not pleasant sure, but not surprising and frankly people normally beating on about being 'tough on crime' should expect. Yeah I get human interest reporting and all that, but still some of this just seems silly when you consider normal and well known government and police behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Your assessment is ill-informed and not accurate. I have already stated that I will not attempt to edit anything on Wikipedia ever again. I have been researching this subject matter for a long time and my research is not based on your Google searches. Please just let it go. CSPNPC (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Gilmer McCormick

Last night I removed a date of birth that had been added to Gilmer McCormick along with the accompanying citation to "State of Kentucky. Kentucky, U.S., Birth Index, 1911-1999. Center for Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Kentucky, U.S." I posted an explanation on the article's talk page, quoting part of WP:BLPPRIMARY about not using public records to support assertions about a living person.

Tonight I found that my removal of the date and citation had been reverted and my post on the talk page had been removed. I have restored both changes, but I don't know how long they will remain.

The edit comes from an IP address, so I can't discuss the situation directly with the person. Does anyone have any thoughts about what to do in this situation? Eddie Blick (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Teblick While you can't ping them, it is possible to attempt discussion: User talk:99.245.174.5. It seems likely the IP discussing there is the same person, since that's also about DOB. Per the WP:TPO edit they obviously know you attempted to discuss, so if they continue, I'd ask for a block at WP:AIV. Ping @C.Fred if you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks for the mention. I've added the article to my watchlist, —C.Fred (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I appreciate the feedback. And thanks, @C.Fred, for keeping an eye on the situation also. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This is the ip of Cobretti1 who was perm blocked for constantly using birth indexes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

If that is so, block away. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Report at AIV went stale.[26] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The IP address is still at it.[27][28] Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Joey Gibson

The lead of Joey Gibson (political activist) was changed last month[29] from "right-wing activist" (based on Reuteurs description and which stood for at least two years) to "far-right provocateur" (based on OPB description). I changed the WP:LABEL back when I noticed it and was reverted by Beyond My Ken without an edit summary. What is the appropriate label here? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Since BMK is still reverting without discussing I've reverted them. IMO if they do it again without comment they should be indefinitely blocked until they learn how Wikipedia and especially BLP works. That said, as the founder of an alt-right group which our article does acknowledge, it's IMO no big deal. Still we should be going by what most sources say not a select few. Nil Einne (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

BMK's edits on Gibson were previously discussed on BLPN.[30][31][32] They should be blocked from this article at least. You want to comment, Hipal? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Although BMKs source isn't very good the Guardian twice describes him as far right [33] [34], Washington Post has ring wing extremist [35], the Independent has Right wing Activist in the title but leader of a Far Right group in the body [36]. There also appears to be no end of sources calling Patriot Pray far right, so I don't think it's a BLP issue to say the leader of a far right group is far right. bMK should stop trying to editwar and just use better sourcing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Well our article already says he founded the "alt-right group Patriot Prayer" in the same sentence so I think the nature of Patriot Prayer is sufficiently described. I disagree on your point though. While it's not such a big deal in such a case, it's of course possible that the founder of a alt-right or far-right group is not themselves considered alt-right or far-right. So we do need sufficient sources which describe Gibson as far-right and not simply Patriot Prayer. If all we have are sources which describe the group they founded as far-right, then we can call the group they founded far-right but cannot describe the individual as far-right. The concerns are not as great as they are when there is no association, but they remain there since we're making a flawed WP:OR assumption. Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

But there are reliable sources calling him far right so my second point is only a matter of discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes but you said "There also appears to be no end of sources calling Patriot Pray far right, so I don't think it's a BLP issue to say the leader of a far right group is far right." It is not a BLP issue to describe Joey Gibson as far right if there is sufficient sourcing which describe Joey Gibson as far right. But it is a BLP issue, a more minor one sure, but still a BLP issue, if we're calling him far right because sources describe a group he founded as far-right. This is BLPN so we need to be clear about when we can and cannot describe someone as X. We can describe someone as X when we have sufficient sourcing which say they are X. But we cannot do so simply because we have sources which describe Y which they founded/hosted/were a member of/supported/whatevered as X. An exception may be made for cases where being a member of Y is defining for X, e.g. of someone founded a Christian or Muslim sect or whatever it's perhaps okay to say they are Christian or Muslim. But this doesn't apply to things like wide political ideologies. Nil Einne (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @ActivelyDisinterested that there is probably enough to label him "far-right." I mean, we have sources that call him far right and say he founded a far right group, that seems enough for the label. I also think activist is better than provocateur (better encyclopedic tone). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe trimming the lead would get rid of the problem. Changing is an American right-wing activist[2] and the founder of the alt-right group Patriot Prayer to is the founder of the far right group Patriot Prayer. This removes the label while being easily referenced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That seems fine. Frankly I'm one of those who think we label people too much when it isn't necessary because the rest if the text is more meaningful, and our tendency to do this has gotten progressively worse. Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe these are editor tendencies to WP:RGW for subjects they don't like. For example, in this article, Patriot Prayer, and Cider Riot, editors were quick to update the details of the criminal allegations against Gibson and his group from the May Day brawl,[37] but crickets chirped when Gibson was acquitted in July 2022 without an update for months which causes WP:BLPBALANCE issues.[38][39][40] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Kenny Omega#LGBT paragraph in Omega's personal life section

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kenny Omega#LGBT paragraph in Omega's personal life section. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Dave Morin

At this link you will see where an ip address inserted a lot of extremely negative statements that are not reflected in the sources. Per BLP policy, I'm going to revert it, but really I think this needs more eyes in case I miss something, so I thought I would mention it here. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Ben Roberts-Smith

Ben Roberts-Smith could do with some more eyes on it. The recent loss of a defamation case over media allegations that the subject committed war crimes is being aggrandized into the label of 'war criminal' in the first sentence of the lead - a phrasing that is not really used in most sources and seems like overreach/teetering on BLP vio territory. I can't even find a single biography on Wikipedia about a criminally convicted war criminal that has the label of 'war criminal' in the first sentence, so IMO this page has shot out the far side of undue. I tried to dial this back a bit, without diluting the substance of the defamation case/allegations in question, but the effort was shot down. Any further input welcome. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This is interesting. WP:BLPCRIME would presumably require a conviction in a criminal court to be labeled a criminal. In this case, a civil defamation case against news media has failed and RS would be more emboldened afterwards to declare him a criminal without an actual criminal conviction. The burden of proof in Australian civil trials is different to (military) criminal trials. Should a dismissal of a defamation civil trial equate to criminal conviction? I think not. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Justice Besanko wrote a lengthy judgement in which he not only found Ben had not been Defamed, but also that the allegations were substationally true. Besanko further found that Roberts-Smith committed murder and violated the rules of war, that is he is a war criminal which can be said without requiring a conviction as there is a legal judgement saying exactly that. I invite you to read the judgement and to perform a Google search using the following boolean: "Ben Roberts-Smith" and "war criminal" where upon one can find RS after RS that refers to Ben Roberts-Smith as a war criminal. AlanS^talk 07:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

BLPCRIME requires a conviction; whatever that means in Australian court. Is that satisfied here? I don't think so. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPPUBLIC is unambiguous on this matter "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." AlanS^talk 09:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Except it's not [un-]ambiguous at all. Nowhere does it say it overrides WP:BLPCRIME. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, you're making a huge leap. "substantially true" is not "true". You are turning the balance of probabilities into a criminal conviction, which it is not. Just because a handful of over-eager media outlets have been sloppy with their language, does not alter the fundamental reality that "substantially true" is not "true". At best, from this judgement, you might be able to say that Ben Roberts-Smith is probably a war criminal, or better still, in the right words: that the claim that he is is substantially true. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Substantially true is true, hence having the word true in it. If it wasn't true it wouldn't have the word true in it and Justice Besanko wouldn't have handed down a judgment that the newspapers not only told the truth but that Ben Roberts Smith had committed murder and broke the moral and legal rules of military engagement.

Ps, I didn't write ambiguous, I wrote that WP:BLPPUBLIC is unambiguous. Its meaning is crystal clear. It could not get any clearer if it tried. AlanS^talk 10:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously I meant not unambiguous. It was a typo. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Use any dictionary perhaps. Substantially = mostly [41]. It's the linguistic equivalent of more or less, and a far fucking cry from 100%. I sincerely hope the confusion is not over people not understanding this word. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to note concern with the use of the phrase "... and disgraced his country." in the lead. In my view, this is not a objective fact and seems to be conjecture, so should not be included. Would appreciate more thoughts on this.Carter00000 (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This concerns me as well.

Additionally there are a number of actual criminal investigations ongoing into this case. If we call him a war criminal noew what do we do if he's subsequently charged and tried in a criminal court - we can't conviect him before a court does. 37.245.77.82 (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC) sockpuppetAlanS^talk 13:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we please have an admin compare this IP to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Orchomen. AlanS^talk 09:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPPUBLIC is unambiguous on this matter "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." AlanS^talk 09:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

None of that says WP:BLPCRIME just goes totally out the window with unusual civil rulings. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"disgraced his country" is incidentally just the opinion of the judge, not an actual judicial finding. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"disgraced his country" is reported by reliable source after reliable source. Here's some sample sources here, here, here, here here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Google using the boolean "Ben Roberts-Smith" and "disgraced his country" and you can find those sources and many, many more.

Per WP:BLPPUBLIC, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." AlanS^talk 10:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, it's reliably reported that the judge said it. That doesn't mean it becomes some sort of fact. It's still a subjective opinion, in this case of the judge. Countries don't have objective states of honor or dishonor. It's also never going to be MOS:OPEN material. Even if you think it is worthy of inclusion in the lead, it's low priority. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Having checked several of those sources, I have not yet found one which says in its own voice that Roberts-Smith "disgraced his country"; they are quoting his claim in the lawsuit that Fairfax Media defamed him by portraying him as having disgraced his country, which is a completely different thing. Unless several reliable sources are reporting this as objective fact, we absolutely should not be putting it in Wikipedia's voice. The current state of the article, quoting the judge's summing up finding that Roberts-Smith "disgraced his country" in the body seems wholly appropriate. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not at all happy with the description of BRS as a war criminal in Wikipedia's voice in the first sentence. WP:MINREF is unambiguous: Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons must have an inline citation. WP:LEADCITE makes it explicit that this includes within the lead (Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead). Currently there is no such citation – and our article doesn't even describe him as a war criminal in Wikipedia's voice in the body! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's also a breach of MOS:LEAD and WP:DUE at present, since nowhere in the actual body is the label of 'war criminal' actually substantiated, so there's nothing justifying it being presented as akin to a second occupation. It's a mess. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I have tagged as citation needed, but even that's questionable: WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BURDEN arguably mandate removal until a source is provided. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Well I did, but got reverted (again). I contemplated going straight to ANI to get some administrator eyes on it, but thought I'd tap up the noticeboards first, though at this rate, given the lack of common sense all around... Iskandar323 (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The lead references quite a few sources that refer to him directly as a war criminal. performing a Google search with the boolean "Ben Roberts-Smith" and "war criminal" locates many more. AlanS^talk 11:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't be hard for you to add a reliable source as required by policy then. Per WP:BURDEN it is incumbent on people arguing for inclusion to provide sources supporting disputed statements, and per WP:BLPREMOVE unsourced or poorly sourced statements about BLPs should be removed immediately. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a bunch of them that say exactly that the next sentence over. Certainly the idea of bundling citations would dictate that in order to keep things tidy we keep them as is especially when the citations cover two sentences? You wouldn't suggest duplicating a large portion of the citations from the next sentence would you? Another user has already put in a tag for excessive citations, if that's your position perhaps you might want to head to the talkpage and shift their position. There's already discussion in the talkpage on that very issue. You'd see quite a lot of activity. AlanS^talk 12:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Might I also point out that there is extremely active discussion on this in the pages talk and I find that the user who brought it here not mentioning this as almost an abuse of process. If anything this sort of thing is more of an RfC issue if they felt there was an impass. AlanS^talk 11:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Come on, bringing an article with potential BLP issues to the attention of the BLP noticeboard is clearly not an abuse of process. That's the whole point of the BLP noticeboard! Maybe Iskandar should have mentioned the talkpage discussion in their initial post, but if you thought it was so important you could equally have pointed to it in your first reply rather than your eighth. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I thought I was clear on the point of not mentioning that there has been very active talkpage discussion, not bringing it here being the issue. obviously this noticeboard exists for a reason. But in general I think this could have been better handled by way of RfC if they really felt an impass had been arrived at and infact another user mentioned this.AlanS^talk 11:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It is if they've first brought it to another noticeboard and only brought it here after not getting the response they wanted. That is forum shopping. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Noting that AlanS has opened an RFC relating to the issue discussed above on the article talk page. Carter00000 (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes I have, I'm surprised others haven't opened up RfCs sooner on other topics. I'd point out that the RfC I've opened up is not on the topic of "war criminal" but on the topic of "disgraced his country" as attributed to Justice Besanko. AlanS^talk 13:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be an assumption here that B R-S is a "public figure", but who would have heard of him if he had not been accused of crimes and had responded by suing his accusers? I can't find a clear statement of this anywhere, but there is not supposed to be a catch-22 where someone barely known to the public suddenly becomes a public figure by being the target of an accusation or even by being convicted of a crime. Otherwise BLPCRIME would assume that all high-profile trials turn the accused into a public figure, but it doesn't. Zero^talk 13:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

He had already quite a bit of profile in Australia prior to the accusations due to being Australia's most decorated soldier, being on a speaking circuit, father of the year, quickly becoming general manager of a TV station after leaving the army, etc. He was already a public figure, the civil trial and the accusations weren't what made him so. AlanS^talk 15:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

His wikipedia page was created in 2011, we didn't get the war crimes allegations until 2017. So yes, clearly a public figure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTABLE != WP:PUBLICFIGURE. WP:LOWPROFILE has some handy examples. I don't know what the situation in this case is, but being notable has nothing to do with being a public figure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

He was Australia's "Father of the Year" etc etc etc and has engaged in incessant self promotion... There actually aren't many figures more public than this one, he has gone above and beyond when it comes to seeking media attention. Note for example these one or more interviews in the capacity of a media personality [42][43][44] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, certainly looks to be a public figure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Note that this is a duplication of the question that Iskandar323 posted on the NPOV noticeboard yesterday Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Ben Roberts-Smith‎ and would appear to be WP:FORUMSHOPing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  There was simply no response, other than yourself, and you were already present on the article talk page. That's not a forum; that's a graveyard - unless you think you are a forum into yourself. I assumed that either that forum is not very active, or no one found the thread relevant. Unlike this forum, which in hindsight was probably the more applicable one in the first place. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  You're supposed to give it a week or more to elicit responses, not 24 hours. How can you know that its a graveyard if you didn't wait to find out? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  If you think a BLP violation is being committed, you should not really sit on it for a week. Avoiding potential BLP violations is policy, not the typical casual content dispute. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  You didn't sit on it for a week, you were reverting before any of the discussions were even opened. That argument covers reverting, it does not cover forum shopping. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a borderline abuse of process. Because consensus isn't going the way they like in Ben Roberts-Smith talkpage they're trying to game editors from elsewhere into piling on. Yet they haven't taken up the suggestion of an RfC? AlanS^talk 15:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The view that "disgraced his country" is just an opinion of the judge and of no weight is incorrect. It is a finding of the judgement that the imputation was made by the reporting, and the Besanko J ruled, as a matter of law, that the news organisations successfully met their burden of proof to defend it as being substantially true to the civil standard. The phrase "substantial truth" is defined by the Defamation Act as meaning "true in substance or not materially different from the truth." This finding is a central part of the judgement, that numerous imputations were substantially true and thus the claims made were not defamatory. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Avtar singh khanda

I need clarification for posting avtar singh khanda as terrorist and crminal in your post we sikh will sue you for posting wrong information for our sikh warriors misleading information may result in lawsuit against wikkipedia 2605:8D80:32E:7E17:4904:8BD4:5A4C:275C (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have an article on Avatar Singh Khanda. He is mentioned in the article Amritpal Singh, but not described as a terrorist. Where are you seeing this description of Avatar Singh Khanda as a terrorist, IP? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

They can't respond while being blocked for making legal threats. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Jess Nevins BLP AfD

I put up an AfD for a living person named Jess Nevins. It currently has absolutely no responses so I thought it'd be appropriate to put it here and see if anyone with an interest in comics, genre fiction or librarians wants to have a look and see if they can find reasonable grounds for notability that I missed. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Please read the notice at the top of the page; pumping AfDs is not really what this page is for. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Scott Henshall

Article appears to be written by the subject of the article, as such, it is very biased and not purely factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdeleBBB (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Scott Henshall. Looks like the worst of the promotional stuff has been dealt with but the article could still do with work if anyone is interested in contemporary fashion designers. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)