Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AiasBigAndLittle (talk | contribs) at 21:26, 2 January 2017 (→‎Van Badham: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    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:

    Draft:Abudukeremu Kadier

    The user Abudoukeremu is persistently attempting to create an autobiography page. In total, he has created 4 AFC submissions, 3 of which were deleted and I put a WP:AUTO notice on the 4th. This issue culminated when he successfully blanked WP:AFC and replaced it with his autobiography. I am unsure of how to continue at this point. Any Ideas? -SilverplateDelta (talk)

    Julian Assange

    A number of users have been repeatedly inserting the accusation into the Julian Assange article that he has a relationship with the "Putin regime": diff. They've written an entirely new into the Julian Assange article devoted to this theme, based on a single source - an article published by the Guardian (article). This edit has led to a lot of contention on the talk page, and an edit war has ensued.

    In my view, this new subsection violates BLP in three ways:

    1. First, it is UNDUE, since of the countless articles that have been written about Assange over the years, it picks out one, and builds up an entire subsection around it.
    2. Second, the subsection seriously misquotes Assange (as does, unfortunately, the Guardian article as well). The response from the editors introducing this material is that the Guardian is a reliable source, but I don't think we should be so cavalier. In a case where a news article clearly misrepresents what the subject said in an interview, we should exercise some discretion. We're not required to include every piece of potentially libelous material ever published by any otherwise reliable source. The Guardian isn't above making mistakes, or publishing pieces that are inaccurate (and a reading of the original interview and the Guardian's subsequent piece on it shows the latter to be egregiously inaccurate).
    3. Third, the subsection is full of unencyclopaedic and highly POV language: "Putin regime" and "Russian state propaganda."

    The entire subsection is devoted to trying to insinuate a close relationship between Assange with a "regime," based on a single source (one which I strongly believe fails on basic journalistic levels). -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Are you seriously saying that Assange's relationship to Putin is "UNDUE"????
    2. The subection does not misquote anything. The subection is based on a reliable source, The Guardian. Some editors just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT what the Guardian wrote. So they are trying to remove it under the pretext that the Guardian "misrepresented" Assange. It didn't, but regardless, that kind of practice is just original research.
    3. This "unencyclopedic language" is straight from the source. There's nothing "unencyclopedic" about the term "Russian state propaganda". And wtf does that have to do with BLP? Is the Russian state a living person now? As for "Putin regime" that's also straight from the source, but I actually changed it to "Russian government" in the interest of compromise.
    4. A ton of other sources cover Assange's relationship to Putin and these can be easily provided, so it's sort of misleading to pretend that this is "only one" source. Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not having looked at the article, I think such a connection (if established) would certainly be due, so I don't think that's a good objection. Likewise "Putin regime" hardly seems problematic (and is not a BLP issue). As to the Guardian yes it can be iffy, and of course has an axe to grind wrt Assange -- I'd expect to see corroborating sources or at the very least to have any Guardian reportage attributed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Numerous commentators have remarked on what has been called the "symbiotic" relationship between Wikileaks and Russian intelligence, so it would hardly be undue to mention it. And as Alex states, there's no problem with "Putin regime" -- after all, the Russian government is a regime, and it is under the control of Vladimir Putin -- nor with "Russian propaganda" since every competent state engages in propaganda. I would argue for slightly less contentious ways of expressing these ideas but the wording isn't POV. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you have a problem writing about Poroshenko that he has a relationship with the "Obama regime"? This is highly loaded language, and strikes me as highly unencylopedic. But more importantly, can you show that the insinuation that Assange is connected to the "Putin regime" is actually widely reported in reliable sources? Numerous commentators may have made such insinuations in opinion pieces, but we're talking about reliable sources here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If reliable sources wrote about a "Obama regime" then yes, we would too. But they don't. Anyway, like I said, I've actually changed the "Putin regime" to "Putin's government" so this is beside the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not beside the point. "Regime" and "Russian propaganda" are still in the article. The larger point, however, is that you're edit warring to include contentious accusations against a living person. You and I know that the Guardian misquotes Assange very seriously, and the fact that the Guardian is usually a reliable source doesn't mean that we should follow them into what we know is potentially libel. I would say I'm surprised that that consideration doesn't give you pause, but I'm unfortunately not surprised. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Guardian does not misquote Assange at all, they just (very slightly) paraphrase the man's own words. And it's not libel at all, don't be ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Tosh! Pish! And Codswallop! - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then please explain how they "misquote" him (sic). I mean, it's a direct quote so that should be easy. Here, let me do it for you.
    Here is the Guardian, quoting Assange's interview:
    "“In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs and Kremlin critics, such as [Alexey] Navalny, are part of that spectrum,” he said. “There are also newspapers like Novaya Gazeta, in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn’t a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow. So my interpretation is that in Russia there are competitors to WikiLeaks.”"
    Here is the original:
    ""In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexey] Navalny are part of that spectrum. There are also newspapers like "Novaya Gazeta", in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn't a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow. So my interpretation is that in Russia there are competitors to WikiLeaks"''
    The only thing that is different between these two versions is that The Guardian added in the stylistic "he said" to break up the quote.
    Can we now drop this nonsense claim that Assange is being "misquoted"? I mean, it's staring you right there in the face. Using cute little words to assert disagreement doesn't make you any less wrong.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the issue. It is the line preceeding the quote in the Guardian article that is a problem, the one that goes "Assange, who briefly hosted his own talkshow on the state-owned television network Russia Today, has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime. In his interview with la Repubblica, he said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there.". The construction of that paragraph, to any accostumed reader, would mean that "has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime" is sourced by the la Repubblica interview, which in no way whatsoever makes that claim. If any editor on WP did that to try to source a claim as a fact by using a source that doesn't say it at all, would be removed promptly for improper sourcing. That a nominally-reliable source opted to do this means this one article should be considered suspect, and that the statement should be taken as a claim of one journalist, at best. (That said, there seem to be other RSes that also infer Assange has tied to the Russian gov't, so again, inclusion of some source as claims, not fact, may be reasonable.). --MASEM (t) 00:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a quote, so it can't be a "misquote" as asserted. What that is is a summary of his quote, followed by the quote itself (which allows the reader to judge for themselves). And you're completely off on the whole construction thing:
    First, the Guardian article says:
    "Assange, who briefly hosted his own talkshow on the state-owned television network Russia Today, has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime." - there's no mention of the la Repubblica interview up to this point.
    Then, the Guardian article says:
    "In his interview with la Repubblica, he said..." - NOW the interview is introduced to the reader.
    Then the Guardian goes on to say the part which you say is not problematic.
    So no, the construction of the paragraph does NOT suggest that the "close relationship with the Putin regime" is sourced by the la Repubblica interview.
    And this is such silly splitting of hairs. Which, I guess, is why first the argument was "The Guardian is not reliable", then it became "This is undo", then it became "This is an editorial opinion" (it's not), and I guess now we've moved on to "Guardian misquotes Assange". Which it does not. This whole "The Guardian misquotes Assange" is such a bunch of hokey shit and ya'll know it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other than the ungrammatical heading, the disputed material is not a WP:BLP violation. "Putin regime" is a direct quote and is attributed, so that's not an issue. WP:DUEWEIGHT would be a reasonable concern, as the entire section depends on a single source. Fortunately, as others have pointed out, other sources are available to support that such a relationship probably exists.[1][2][3][4]- MrX 18:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the original interview that the Guardian writer references for his that Assange has ties to Russia as fact, where there does not appear anything in Assange's own words from the original interview to imply this, there is a BLP problem without careful attribution. I do find in the added text under debate that the added commentary about the seemingly lack of freedom of press to be soapboxish and unnecessary. Basically, thus claim seems like something that can be covered in existing sections and not called out as explicitly as it is in the added text. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you're doing original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not original research to evaluate news sources for reliability or bias. If news article A references the "original" source of news article B to come to a conclusion (one that is certainly contentious w.r.t. to BLP) not explicitly stated in B as to come to state as a fact in A, we should attribute it as a claim to news source A, not as a fact. This case is representative of far too recent behavior of editors that want to stop any type of "intelligent" evaluation of news sources that are throwing out questionable/contentious facts (particularly towards BLP) by going "but these sources are reliable!". Reliable sources can be biased at times, and we are allowed to use consensus to evaluate such biases to stay with NPOV and BLP. We are not to be blind to the larger problems of the media, but it can be rather convenient to hold this view that "reliable sources are always right" to push forward a specific view or deny inclusion of other views. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this isn't stopping "intelligent" evaluations of news sources, it's to stop editors from making up shit because they "evaluated" a source and decided it was against their POV. What you wrote is basically an excuse for ignoring no original research based on some idiosyncratic WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. At the very least when presented with an iron clad reliable source, the burden of proof is on those who wish to argue "this reliable source is wrong". And this should be met by presenting alternative reliable secondary sources which contradict the initial one, not just "I think otherwise and my word is law!" as some are trying to do here.
    Also, "bias" and "unreliable" are not the same thing. A source can be biased AND be reliable. In which case you can still use it but it needs to be attributed. Which it is in this case.
    We have rules like WP:NOR and WP:RS because that's the only thing that gives Wikipedia credibility as an encyclopedia. You start letting people make shit up on their own or throwing out reliable sources nilly willy you basically wind up with a glorified message board and the whole thing falls apart. Those are policies for a reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're starting from the assumption that reliable sources never can be questioned. Our policies on NPOV (and which extend to BLP) enable editors to debate if sources are problematic for a given topic, such as independence, bias, and plain mis-reporting of clear facts.
    It should not be questioned that stating that Assange having very close tied with the Putin government or administration is a contentious statement and which will be nearly unlikely to be verified by any non-government agency, and certainly not any member of the press themselves. When the Guardian article introduces this as a fact and then follows it up pointing to the Italian interview in a format that undeniably says "this is my proof", and that the interview can be verified to not contain that fact in any of the words Assange said, that's a major point of doubt we should put to the Guardian article. That type of proof would fail in any other academic system on earth, including WP's. To that end, the Guardian article at best should be included as a claim to the Guardian to be within NPOV and BLP on this highly contentious claim, and absolutely not as a bare fact in WP's voice. That's what WP:POVYES guides us to do, and even more important for a BLP to take the more conservative/middle-ground option. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem has put this better than I could have hoped to. I would only add that evaluating sources may be research, but it is not "original research", as meant by that term of art. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Perhaps I'm being naive here, but I think that this may be premature, as there's still a lively discussion going on at Talk:Julian Assange (albeit with certain sides seemingly stonewalling or perhaps deliberately not hearing certain arguments of their opponents). I've also left a message at User talk:Snooganssnoogans (the user who originally added in the offending section) to invite him to join in the discussion there, as I still hold out hope that he might be a normal Wikipedian who's willing to work with other editors on consent in good faith. We'll see. (as a side note, this is the reason why I edit rarely these days - fighting battles with very obstinate people who constantly wikilawyer you gets tiresome) Esn (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For regime vs govt see WP:SPECIALSTYLE. VM has turned a problematic Guardian piece (please read the Assange talk page, I can't repeat all the arguments here) into an entire section which paints Assange as a Putin "regime" stooge, a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. The only evidence offered comes from that piece: 1) Assange had a show on RT (like Larry King, Ed Schultz and others) 2) Assange praised Trump and the Russian media landscape. You can't turn #1 into a whole POV-coatrack section about Assange's "relationship" (wtf that means) with Putin. #2 is arguably The Guardian's editorializing because it does not reflect what Assange said (again see talk). VM insists that Guardian's "summary" of what Assange said to La Reppublica takes precedence over direct quotes from Assange, which he considers inadmissible because he does not appear to get that WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and WP:NOTGOODSOURCE. I am not foreclosing on the possibility of a section about the "relationship", but this is a very bad start. Regardless of what the "mainstream view" appears to be (and conventional wisdoms differ), it's no excuse for such a lazylow-information edit in a BLP. Otherwise, you'll end up filling the encyclopedia with poorly sourced hoaxes and tendentious nonsense, just because it buttresses what you consider to be the "mainstream view". Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    " VM has turned a..." - First of all, I'm not even the one who added that text, it was another user, but I guess you were too busy blindly hitting that revert button to have noticed [5], [6], [7].
    Second calling it a "problematic Guardian piece" is just a weaselly way of saying I JUST DONT LIKE what a reliable source says. Who says its "problematic"? You? Sorry, not your call. It's a reliable secondary source and just because some random dude on Wikipedia decides it's "problematic" doesn't make it so. I could remove any thing I want from Wikipedia under that kind of bullshit excuse.
    Also saying "mainstream view" is contradicted by "conventional wisdom" is... an oxymoron, or, completely illogical, or... it just doesn't make any freakin' sense. And please don't try to pretend that you're saving Wikipedia from "poorly sourced hoaxes and tendentious nonsense" when in fact you're edit warring to remove actual reliable sources from articles. That's sort of the opposite, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a BLP issue. It is enough to look at refs by MrX and others above to realize that the claim is well sourced and therefore is not BLP violation. Crying "BLP" in such cases is a clear sign of POV-pushing. My very best wishes (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The edit sucked and the sourcing was laughable, and that is a BLP issue. Weak sourcing is weak sourcing, regardless of whether or not it is used in supports an alleged "mainstream view." Even if we agree on what that view is, the "noble lie" is not acceptable. Edits are judged based on what's in them, not by "what's out there". VM should write a decent section and that's the whole damn point. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) The sourcing was The Guardian. If you think The Guardian is not a reliable source you can take it to WP:RSN. You might get some laughter over there then. The section is already "decent", wtf that means, as it's based on reliable secondary sources and covers an issue which is very pertinent to the subject of the article. Stop making up random rules and criteria that don't exist.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How come? NY Times and Washington Post [8][9][10] are very good RS. "Sucked" is not going to convince anyone, just as your "yawn" [11] . My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For the edit to be properly sourced, you have incorporate these sources into the actual edit. How hard is this to understand? Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We have established that there are multiple RS that supports the claim. Therefore, this is not an unsupported/poorly supported claim, which might be a BLP issue. How hard is this to understand? My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For BLPSOURCES to be satisfied, those sources need to be actually referenced in (and actually & directly support the text as included in) our article. Simply existing somewhere in the ether (or kind of maybe talking about the same thing) is not sufficient. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sure, please use more sources that are actually exist. What's the problem? Fix it instead of talking on various noticeboards. This is not a BLP issue. My very best wishes (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations). This is core policy - Wikipedia 101.
    I'll also add that there is no way to "Fix it", while maintaining the information as included, if no source directly supports that information; and that BLP mandates removal. contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Challenged or likely to be challenged). - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • BLP violation* - The issue is compound. Firstly, The Guardian column[12] clearly & demonstrably misrepresents Assange's comments in La Repubblica[13] - it is not a simple, nor an accurate, summary. Secondly, the text being editwarred misrepresents The Guardian - it is not a simple, nor accurate, paraphrasal. Consequently, The Guardian column is not a reliable source for the text as included. Thirdly, the whole section, as written, has NPOV issues, particularly w.r.t DUE & IMPARTIAL, which is a BLP issue.
      * NOTE: BLP does not start and end with BLPDELETE. Verifiability through reliable sources is necessary, but not sufficient. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. The Guardian column does not misrepresent Assange's comments, clearly or unclearly. It's a slight paraphrase, that's all. You don't get to second guess reliable secondary sources. Because that's original research. The text does not misrepresent The Guardian either.
    And to say that "The Guardian is not a reliable source because it is being misrepresented" just betrays a fundamental ignorance of what makes a source reliable. And of course it's not "UNDUE", I mean, I can't see how you can argue that the relationship between Putin and Assange is not important with a straight face.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We do get to second guess sources, even those which are considered normally reliable, and that's not original research as meant by that term; it's part of the normal editing process - evaluating sources for reliability in the context of the information for which they are being used as references.
    The Guardian column does not misrepresent Assange's comments, clearly or unclearly. It's a slight paraphrase, that's all. Bollocks! The text does misrepresent The Guardian, as discussed here.
    Editors are invited to examine the text from the La Repubblica: "In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexey] Navalny are part of that spectrum. There are also newspapers like "Novaya Gazeta", in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn't a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow. So my interpretation is that in Russia there are competitors to WikiLeaks, and no WikiLeaks staff speak Russian, so for a strong culture which has its own language, you have to be seen as a local player. WikiLeaks is a predominantly English-speaking organisation with a website predominantly in English. We have published more than 800,000 documents about or referencing Russia and president Putin, so we do have quite a bit of coverage, but the majority of our publications come from Western sources, though not always. For example, we have published more than 2 million documents from Syria, including Bashar al-Assad personally. Sometimes we make a publication about a country and they will see WikiLeaks as a player within that country, like with Timor East and Kenya. The real determinant is how distant that culture is from English. Chinese culture is quite far away".
    and compare that with the "summary" from The Guardian, which we used as the basis for the inclusion in our article: "In his interview with la Repubblica, he said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there.",
    and the editwarred text itself: "Assange has said that there is no need for whistleblowing in Russia because of the open, competitive and "vibrant" media environment he claims exists there." It is not a reasonable conclusion to suggest that these latter two are a paraphrasal of the first; or even of each other. Yes, The Guardian goes on to include a partial quote of Assange's interview answer; but that is not the text that we chose to reference in our article, and not the information that we chose to include.
    And to say that "The Guardian is not a reliable source because it is being misrepresented" just betrays a fundamental ignorance of what makes a source reliable. No source is reliable for a thing which it does not say.
    I mean, I can't see how you can argue that the relationship between Putin and Assange is not important with a straight face. I don't (but thanks for the strawman); I argue that Ben Jacobs' views, as expressed in The Guardian, are, in isolation, and in an article which covers the whole of Assange's life, undue. I have no issue with an inclusion of information on the alleged relationship between Assange and Putin (and his government), provided it is well sourced and policy compliant. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait. You say "The text does misrepresent The Guardian here" and the link to... a comment by me. I have no idea how that is suppose to support your assertion that the Guardian is being misrepresented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. It was discussed there, and acknowledged there, that the text from The Guardian and the text as included in our article are not congruent. It was suggested that one is a paraphrase of the other - which is nonsense - there is a clear change in meaning. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ryk72:: Could you please point out specifically which of Assange's comments in "La Repubblica" have been misrepresented in the Guardian article? It is not clear, so a demonstration would indeed be helpful. - MrX 00:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my concurrent reply above. Essentially, Assange does not say "there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there", far less "there is no need for whistleblowing in Russia because of the open, competitive and "vibrant" media environment he claims exists there". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that helps. My interpretation is that the Guardian did not necessarily misrepresent Assange's comments, but that they drew a conclusion from his comments. Assange's comment "In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics... So my interpretation is that in Russia there are competitors to WikiLeaks, and no WikiLeaks staff speak Russian, so for a strong culture which has its own language, you have to be seen as a local player." could easily be interpreted as there being no need for Wikileaks because of open and competitive debate in Russia. Whether that was his intended meaning is not clear, but it's certainly very plausible.- MrX 01:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrX: I am inclined to agree that the assessment that this is The Guardian columnist's conclusion is the only one which can be reasonably drawn. If the text, "In his interview with la Repubblica, he said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there", is taken as a simple statement of fact, then it does misrepresent that interview (because Assange does not make such a statement; he has not directly said that). If it is taken as a conclusion, then, by policy, it needs to be attributed as such. Our article text, as editwarred, however, included a version of this text as simple statement of fact.[14][15][16][17][18][19] The The Guardian column is not a reliable source for such an inclusion as a simple fact; and the inclusion of such, based on that column, is in violation of BLP. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ryk72: Yes, I agree that that statement should be attributed to The Guardian.- MrX 23:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone please explain why this is being discussed in two venues simultaneously? The discussion should be moved back to the relevant article talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Another point to add is in reading the NYTimes article that has been linked: "Among United States officials, the emerging consensus is that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks probably have no direct ties to Russian intelligence services." If you are going to include anything from the Guardian and these other sources, this statement absolutely must be included too, as the US gov't is going to be more authoritative than any journalist opining on the apparent connection between Assange and Russia. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, provided that the Guardian part is included, I agree - the New York Times line should be indeed be included as long as the Guardian text is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, arguments are merely being replicated here. Could you please take this to the Assange talk page where other editors who are unaware of the fracas here can assess the arguments and policies. There's absolutely no point in the same discussion coming to two different conclusions. This idiocy is spilling into user talk pages and noticeboards. If you want to wage a war, keep it constrained to the appropriate territory. It isn't as if you have no idea of where it's taking place, and where consensus needs to be reached. Incidentally, writing walls of text and trying to make them look smaller by using "small" mark-ups doesn't stop a wall of text from being just that. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "Russian state propaganda." exists. How to describe it neutrally? The Russian way of misinforming? Xx236 (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Guardian has retracted the controversial statements on Assange's supposed relationship with the "Russian regime," so this discussion appears to have become moot now. I do think, however, that this episode does illustrate that we should exercise a bit of caution when approaching sources that make these sorts of accusations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to add this [20] (yes, The Intercept is not necessarily an RS, but the point that the original interviewer even declared the Guardian as falsifying his interview with Assange is a key point). A core walkaway is that we at WP cannot blindly assume BLP-controversial statements from even the best RS that have no backing from the sources they claim to use (or a complete lack of sources) should be considered only as claims and only thus included following BLP and UNDUE with proper attribution. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! Props to the editors that caught that before Glenn did. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that Greenwald piece sort of underscores how shoddy of an outlet the Intercept is. And one's views of Assange are completely irrelevant to that fact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And to be perfectly clear, what the Guardian did was remove the "close connection to Putin's regime" sentence and tweaked the wording slightly in another. It's sort of ridiculous to act like this is some great admission of guilt or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Its evidence of shoddy reporting that can happen to all RSes (arguably, more frequently as of late). They presented a highly controversial statement as fact against a source that we as editors could check and when checked did not show any support for that statement; at that point, we should be treating it as a claim and thus in appropriate balance per UNDUE and keeping in mind issues around BLP. This is what we're supposed to do as WP editors - we simply don't take RSes as infallable but make sure that if we're going to include a controversial statement about a BLP that make sure it is not treated as a fact if there's no evidence or data to back it up. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree. Volunteer Mareks simple assertion that .. "we follow the sources" is far from correct within WP:Policy and guidelines and even more so within WP:BLP Govindaharihari (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, my "assertion" that "we follow sources" pretty much IS Policy and guidelines. In particular WP:RS and WP:NOR. Not sure why you're linking to a page which describes how "policies and guidelines" are written on Wikipedia.
    There's also a broader context here - that Guardian article kicked up a storm of whining in the internets, with all kinds of far right websites and/or JA fans complaining that it was "misrepresenting" the interview. As a result it looks like the editor told the author "just remove that one sentence and tweak the other so that they'll leave us alone". The point is that 99% of the article did not change and the "amendments" made were minor. It's still a useful article and it can still be used in Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy does not say we blindly follow sources (if we do, we simply become an echo chamber for the loudest voices), and we use editorial discretion to identify controversial claims, and avoid stating controversial claims as facts, and to apply appropriate weight to claims and opinions, particularly on a BLP. The results of what happened here doesn't make the Guardian article unusable, but it should be taken that much of what it says are controversial claims, not facts, and thus on a BLP article, should be considered how much we should actually include, and if we do include, 100% make sure its labeled as a claim to the Guardian and make sure that counter-statements from other RS (like the NYTimes article that notes the US Govt found no ties between Assange and Russia's gov't) are given their appropriate due weight too. Arguably in light of what had to be done on the Guardian article, it seems inappropriate to call out a whole section to address the potential of Assange/Russia ties, but a paragraph elsewhere seems in appropriate weight. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though 99% (less, actually, but that's not really important) of the Guardian article remained unchanged, the controversial statements that were being cited in Julian Assange were removed. So for the purposes of how the Guardian article was actually being used in Julian Assange, everything relevant was retracted. That's important, and it should serve as a cautionary example of how we should treat otherwise reliable sources. Marek, you can have your guess as to what happened in the Guardian office, but it may well have been that an editor took a closer look at the article and at the original interview, and decided that the article was incorrect. Given that the La Repubblica interviewer pointed out the false "instrumentalization" of her interview, I think the latter scenario is the likely. But whatever happened, we shouldn't be so cavalier about including controversial assertions about BLPs, especially when the sourcing is weak, and the source appears from a spot check to be completely wrong. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Volunteer Marek states that only "far right websites" took umbrage with Ben Jacobs's lies about the la Repubblica interview—taking Assange's commonplace reference to "opportunities for change in the United States" created by Trump's election and turning it into "praise for Trump" (who Assange actually describes as "part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities"), twisting Assange's praise for Russian dissidents into a deranged suggestion "that Russia is too free and transparent to need whistleblowing"—but la Repubblica's original interviewer, Stefania Maurizi, publicly stated that she was "furious" over Jacobs's distortions: "I am completely furious with how my interview with Julian Assange has been distorted"; "this is completely false: Julian Assange never ever declared that in my interview." As Greenwald notes: "The absolute last person anyone should trust to accurately and fairly report on WikiLeaks is Ben Jacobs, unless the goal is to publish fabrications that will predictably generate massive traffic for The Guardian. (Recall, for example, Jacobs's belittling Manning's confinement and torture: "And the world's tiniest violin plays a sad song." There was never any evidence for Jacobs's extraordinary claim that Assange "long had a close relationship with the Putin regime" besides "eight interviews (by Assange) that were broadcast on RT (in 2012)" and in which Assange steadfastly refused to peddle the Russian line on Syria: "Practically speaking, Mr. Assange is in bed with the Kremlin, but on Tuesday’s show he didn't put out ... Unlike RT, Mr. Assange supports the opposition forces in Syria. He took Mr. Nasrallah to task for supporting every Arab Spring uprising except the one against Syria and asked why he wasn’t doing more to stop the bloodshed."—Alessandra Stanley, The New York Times, April 17, 2012; "Assange's questions were grounded in support for the Syrian opposition forces and were hostile to the Assad government: exactly the reverse of the Russian government’s position, which has maintained steadfast support for Assad. ... The media attacks on Assange's show reflect far more about the critics than about him: they assumed that he would slavishly serve the agenda of his benefactors because that’s what American establishment journalists largely do. It’s pure projection."—Glenn Greenwald, Salon, April 18, 2012. It was an egregious violation of WP:BLP to create an entire subsection at Julian Assange specifically devoted to characterizing the subject of the article using the same inflammatory terms Ben Jacobs did in a single throwaway sentence, which was false on its face and has since been retracted. If Volunteer Marek truly cannot see the issue and remains convinced that the only people opposed to the propagation of fake news about Assange are alt right extremists, that reflects badly on him and his judgement—not on his critics.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "Volunteer Marek states that only "far right websites" took umbrage..." <-- since this is so completely and utterly false... I didn't bother reading the rest of this comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right—I almost forgot about all those "JA fans" on "the internets," who joined with the so-called "far right" to "whine" about fairly and accurately representing the views even of people the U.S. government disagrees with—what losers!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your amendment and retraction. Also... you know, the irony.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally, I choose my words a bit more carefully when composing an article (especially a WP:BLP) as opposed to merely venting on some talk page—but I can appreciate that you may not feel the same way.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So what you're saying is that you don't care when you misrepresent what others are saying in content discussions? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a slight paraphrase, that's all. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Nazanin Fara

    Nazanin Fara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Not notable, unsourced. Xx236 (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Harvey Karp

    Harvey Karp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am Dr. Harvey Karp. I have read the policy on living biographies and have requested help on my talk page. I understand I am supposed to request help here too. Please edit the bio to accurately describe the arc of my career and help make it more balanced by including published studies about my work. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr harvey karp (talk • contribs) 21:40, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

    Thank you for addressing your concerns on the talk page and here. Can you provide a list of published works that you would like incorporated into the article? Meatsgains (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck through my previous comment - I see you provided a list on the talk page. Meatsgains (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeff Berwick entry used for promotion, marketing, and vanity

    The entry @ Jeff Berwick is being used for promotion, marketing, credibility, and vanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.15.12 (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Professor Watchlist

    I'm concerned that this article is going to be used as part of this watchlists attack's on academics. I'm not sure what the solution is but eyes on the article would be a good idea. It might need some sort of protection. I've reverted the addition of one name but in turn have been reverted by an SPA IP. Doug Weller talk 06:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there's any consensus to use Wikipedia as a place to rehost this site's hit-list, and I've reverted the IP and will open a discussion on the article talk page. Just as we don't list everyone on other partisan or interest-group lists, such as the SPLC's "anti-Muslim list." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kamala Kanta Dash

    Kamala Kanta Dash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This profile has verifiable sources. The Citations are from credible sources like Monash University, Australian National University, Carnegie Council, Hindustan Times, Pioneer Newspaper, Art of Living, Telegraph Newspaper, Orisaa Post Newspaper and Orissa Diary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Debadattaindia (talk • contribs) 12:29, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

    Van Badham

    The above article Van Badham is being targeted by persistent abusive vandalism. Editors reverting the changes are abused via talk/messages. Vandalism is being restored at (eg) 1:00 a.m. AEST so subject cannot undo for several hours. Attention of more experienced editors / admins would be appreciated.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=757987019"