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.

Trump

Not a lovely topic I know, but on this page people are adding Trump's name to the list of "notable" participants. The most recent reference added was this piece from Newsweek. The article states "The veracity of the report and its sourcing have not been verified." I know it's all over FB right now, but until there's some very solid evidence of this taking place, I strongly urge others to monitor this popping up on WP. APK whisper in my ear 08:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's this as well. Taking a look at the edit history, it won't be a fun page to deal with if kept. APK whisper in my ear 08:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just found this mess to deal with. It's the guy 4chan claims they duped into circulating the report. Assuming they actually wrote it and it is a hoax. Already had to clear some vandalism so it might get ugly too. I've left a brief explanation, hopefully that will keep them at bay. Liberivore (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The case at hand is a clear case where Wikipedia should in no way whatever contribute to such "allegations" per WP:BLP on the first place, and may be a good reason to revisit the WP:RS status of those who presented such allegations as fact in any way. Collect (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is sadly a combination of a couple of issues. Whats not 'fake' is that Trump was given a briefing about Russia compiling compromising material on him (surprise). What is 'unsubstantiated and unverified' is the content of that compromising material. What the press are reporting are the unsubstantiated allegations that definately should not be in any article (at this time). Should at some future point the intelligence community confirm the nature of the material allegedly compiled against Trump, that probably would be pass inclusion after extensive discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should report the claims made by those who claim to have seen the dossier, as long as we make it clear these are unproven allegations. This looks like censorship to remove material a given politician does not like.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about having Trump's name under a section called "Notable urophiliacs". Is that what you're saying is fine as long as we say it's unproven? Because that's a massive BLP violation. It's not censorship, it's WP policy. If you're talking about reporting on the dossier in general, then yes, mentioning it exists on an appropriate page seems fine (as long as all of the unproven, derogatory rumors like urolagnia are not included). APK whisper in my ear 19:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to keep the unproven, derogatory claims out of Wikipedia pages as clear BLP violations - even if we weasel around it by reporting what someone else says the dossier says. There have even been several uploads of the entire 35 page document into Wikipedia articles, which I have reverted. Now someone has created an article which spells out all the unproven derogatory stuff and includes the 35 page document; it is at Donald Trump Russia dossier. I have nominated it for AfD and I have requested that the deletion be speedy since IMO it is a gross BLP violation to include this stuff here. This is not a matter of whether someone likes or dislikes Trump; this is a matter of adherence to core Wikipedia policies. --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a hell of a lot of unsubstantiated allegations on a number of pages. These include Clinton's rapes, Pizzagate, et all. The fact is we often report on allegations if they have received enough coverage to make them of note.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Wikipedia is not censored, doesn't mean we have to address the topic in a non-neutral manner. Healthy use of "alleged" and "unsubstantiated" and sticking to the facts as reported in reliable sources will allow us to discuss the topic without violating BLP. I don't see the problem with mentioning the contents of the dossier as long as we are clear about its origins. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 20:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, we can include anything that reliable secondary sources tell about content of this dossier. As about linking directly to this dossier (which is available all over the internet), I think it does not really matter precisely because it is available all over the internet. I would make a link simply for convenience of a reader. We do not claim that the content was "the truth" or highly reliable. It only matters that the content is highly notable and therefore arguably "due". But the source is actually credible. Otherwise no one would pay attention. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not make a link for the self same reason, precisely because it is available all over the internet. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I objected to was not just a link - it was an actual 35-page PDF posted in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we can opt to not include highly contentious BLP claims that may even be published by RSes, if the claim is extremely contentious at a personal level and lacking any supporting evidence. Case in point, during the Gamergate controversy, at least a handful of RSes republished several claims by one person (person A) towards another person (person B) that were not central to the main GamerGate situation. One portion of these claims were extremely contentious towards B that we opted not to include any mention of them because they were very much off-point from the topic. In this situation, the claims in the 35 page document are similarly contentious so we shouldn't have a separate article on that to begin with, and if we are to include any claims, they should be given in very broad strokes and avoid speaking directly about any highly contentious claim. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have the dossier, we have RS saying it is the dossier, we have Donny Tweeting about the dossier. I agree that we must be careful how we use it. It's contents must not be stated to be facts (so no including Donny on certain pages) but to exclude mentioning what Donny is accused of would make Wikipedia worthless as information about this subject.

Also what is it that is being objected to, the fact it contains unsubstantiated allegations? or the fact that the unsubstantiated allegations are unsubstantiated?.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of its contents and the veracity or appropriateness thereof, the "dossier" can not be on Wikipedia per WP:COPYVIO and WP:F. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:2017 Trump dossier by Christopher Steele — JFG ^talk 15:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we cannot publish the dossier, but that is not what is under discussion here. Talking about and and reporting what RS have said about is violates neither WP:COPYVIO or WP:F, or are we discussing just it's verbatim inclusion? Can we have a clear statement as to what we are discussing?Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just commenting on the verbatim inclusion of the document. Discussion of its contents based on commentary by secondary sources is certainly appropriate, while being mindful of WP:BLPVIO and WP:BALASP policies. Good luck with that! — JFG ^talk 15:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least for myself, no one knows who actually wrote the dossier with any type of confidence. It would be one thing if it was affirmed to have come from , say, the FBI, even if the claims were contentious, because then we could say "According to the FBI..." but at this point, the ownership of the dossier is a big question mark (they have an idea, but that's not confirmation). As an encyclopedic site, where we are not supposed to be a newspaper, and we take great care in BLP issues, it would be much better to wait some time to allow those evaluating the dossier to make their conclusions before we get too far into details about it; if it turns out it is fake (there's some aspect that this might be a 4chan prank), we don't have egg on our face; if its legit, then we can work that in using what is determined to be the most basic elements. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose to discussion of any details of the dossier involving Trump's alleged sexual activities/proclivities in any article until/unless their accuracy is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. I note that we do not permit discussion of a subject's sexual orientation unless they confirm it themselves, even if it is common knowledge and has been reported in reliable sources. As one recent example it has been widely reported in multiple reliable sources that Shepard Smith is homosexual. But the community has firmly rejected introduction of any discussion of his sexual orientation until such time as he confirms it himself. The existence of the dossier is certainly a fair topic and I don't think we could ignore that it reportedly contains allegations of a salacious nature. But that is about as far as I think we can go without severely undermining BLP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual orientation and Sexual activity is not the same thing. This is a total red herring.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have a point there. The former is not that big of a deal in the modern world. The latter in many cases still is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is all described in policy:

Not including the contentious primary source directly is fine per WP:RS, exactly as MelanieN said,
Please see this example: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." Note: it tells "allegations", it does not tell "the truth". So, yes, this must be included based on multiple good secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are we discussing

I think at this point we need to know what is being suggested, what do people support?

Blanket ban on all mentions of the dossier

Oppose per my above cmt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the existance of the dossier and specifically the role of Buzzfeed and others in reporting it are definitely fair game for some article. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly this has been reported, and is of noteSlatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The existence of the document and the associated reporting is not contested. Only its sources and the plausibility of the contents are in doubt. — JFG ^talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think anyone has suggested this.--MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the dossier at this time is not a reliable source, its existence and its contents are very notable and therefore should be discussed in appropriate contexts. Brad v 19:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. One might as well attempt to expunge the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; the impact of the document does not depend on its lack of veracity. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I do not think anyone was trying to ban all mention. PackMecEng (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Qualified inclusion must meet BLP standards. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Even if the document itself is unsubstantiated, the fact that Trump has been briefed about it by US intelligence remains, which makes Schrödinger's Dossier notable in it's own right, even if it doesn't exist like the basement in Pizzagate. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all of the above - we should treat this like high-quality sources treat it: i.e., report on the facts of its existence, and the basic claims that it makes, without implying that contested information is true, and quote/paraphrase/attribute the relevant experts/scholars' views. Neutrality^talk 02:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This would violate multiple policies and the very reason for the existence of Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This would not be in accord with Wikipedia policy.- Mr X 14:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ban would conflict with policy and amount to censorship. Untenable. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Violates policy. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ban on it having its own page, but we can mention it in other articles

Support per my above cmt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support at this point. If it true out it is a fully legitimate document, that would be a potential to reopen, but that's crystal-balling. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Oppose I am in two minds, but this is very notable (look at the coverage. It would seem odd we have pages on far less notable subjects.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This document is just an element of the ongoing media/political circus about a purported Russian propaganda campaign targeting the US election. There's an article for that. — JFG ^talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose I initially felt this way, and in fact I was the one who nominated it at AfD. (And that is where we should be having this discussion, not here.) But based on the changes that have been made to the article to make it neutral and BLP-compliant, I now favor keeping it - while watching it closely to make sure it stays neutral and BLP compliant. (The article has been semi-protected due to an onslaught by IP sockpuppets, and that will probably continue to be necessary.) There is currently a lot about this subject in the article 2016 United States election interference by Russia, but if the "dossier" article is kept that can be trimmed down since it isn't really the same thing. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Currently there are several different places where the dossier is being discussed. It may be helpful at some point to consolidate this information into one article, per the usual rules surrounding WP:N, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Brad v 19:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We should not waste our time for discussing page that does not exist. This should follow normal procedures. If anyone wants to create such page, they can do it. Than it might follow normal AfD process, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The fact that an article might not be appropriate now does not foreclose the possibility that, as events play out, it might be appropriate in the future. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As long as it stays BLP compliant should be fine. At this point until shown otherwise it is notable. PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The Document contents are unverified and should not be included unless the Document can be verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If we go into detail about the facts of Schrödinger's Dossier in the article about Russian election interference, it would push the article prose well beyond the 50 kB mark where a split is usually warranted anyway. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, and on procedural grounds: this is an AfD question. Neutrality^talk 02:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a ban on policy grounds (it's notable, end of discussion), AND per the current snow keep at the AfD. Donald Trump Russia dossier is totally justified. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Neutrality and BullRangifer. - Mr X 14:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - even if there were no article, we cannot assume that it won't become notable enough for one (CRYSTAL). EvergreenFir (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is no good reason to ban this from having its own article if it's a notable topic on its own. If it weren't notable, standard rules would apply. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ban on actually repeating any of the accusations

Qualified Support per my above cmt. I think mentioning the doessier in Trump's article is acceptable. I also think it is not out of line to note that some of the unverified contents are of a salacious (or fill in your favorite euphemism) nature. But no actual details until/unless they are confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support per Ad Orientem. Broad statements, that the dossier discusses potential ties between Trump and Russia, is needed, but anything highly specific seems unnecessary under BLP at this point. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Oppose Again it seems odd if we discus the document, but not what it says. It all seems very Raputinesue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support – People who care to read the document can see a multitude of allegations of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russian operatives. Such stories can be mentioned, analyzed, supported or debunked when covered by secondary RS. The gratuitous golden shower smears can't, per BLPVIO. — JFG ^talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a ban on repeating any of the specific accusations. In fact I have revdel'ed some of the more outrageous and sensational claims as BLP violations, and will continue to do so unless this discussion tells me otherwise. However I do think general characterizations of the TYPE of allegation, as published by Reliable Sources, can be used. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified oppose The dossier should be considered a primary source. It is not to be used as a reliable source for any claims itself, but we can definitely summarize and reference secondary reliable sources that discuss the dossier. Brad v 19:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified oppose - We should, as reliable sources do, refer to the fact that the document alleges that Trump & his advisers have close ties to Russian intelligence operatives, and that Russia holds kompromat over Trump, but we should absolutely avoid referring to any of the specific salacious claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This contradicts BLP policy on public figures [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. My sense is that much of the resistance to including any of the accusations centers around the hotel shower incident. I just worry that a blanket ban on mentioning specifics from the dossier (as reported in reliable sources) would deprive us of the opportunity to report on the debunking of the claims. For instance, if discussing Michael Cohen's alleged August 2016 meeting with Kremlin representatives in Prague is off limits, then would we be prevented from mentioning that Cohen tweeted an image of his passport and said that he's never been to Prague in his life? [2] gobonobo ⁺ ^c 23:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not really sure how I feel on this currently, but feeling the need to comment. I was all for a prohibition on mentioning the specifics a few days ago when the only way to access the claims was by intentionally going to BuzzFeed and seeking them out or going to 4chan/reddit, neither of which is a reliable source. Then SNL happened, which seems to me to have broken the US media's informal gag rule on the subject. Its starting to be mentioned in other press now (Newsweek alluded to it when discussing SNL [3] ). I'm fine with having a waiting period, perhaps, as I had supported on the Trump page re: inclusion of the intelligence briefing story by CNN, but really, when what is arguably the most notable political comedy show in the US starts discussing the contents, you're fighting a losing battle in the long run I think. So I guess, I would have a qualified support at this time, with the recognition that pretty soon it will probably become next to impossible not to include them. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No reason to conclude this can't be handled under existing BLP standards/ And what would we do if someone writes a notable satirical song on the subject, or if an SNL sketch goes macroviral? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on just block quoting the document, but generalizations of accusations by RS should be okay. PackMecEng (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The Document contents are unverified and should not be included unless the Document can be verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Support - We need to adhere to BLP and only use information that meets RS criteria. Therefore we can use reliable secondary sources to describe the dossier and any allegations being made. We cannot use PRIMARY sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Support per Ad Orientem and MelanieN. Let's see where top quality print newspapers and periodicals go with it, and toe that line ourselves. As others have noted, WP:V and NPOV already provide a useful guide. Edit with caveat: it goes without saying that by refraining from restricting discussion of the allegations, we'd be relying on the maturity and resposibility of our WP editors to not write obnoxious nonsense like this. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support - Until the allegations, if true, are verified, it is certainly a BLP vio to repeat them. However, if they turn out to be facts, they should be reported as such here. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified oppose per all of the above - we should treat this like high-quality sources treat it: i.e., report on the facts of the document's existence, and report on the claims that it advances, without implying that contested information is true, and quote/paraphrase/attribute the relevant experts/scholars' views as to reliability/veracity, etc. It would be bizarre and confusing indeed to reference a document, yet give the reader no indication of what it actually it says. Now, I agree that very specific information may present undue weight problems - but that's a fact-intensive inquiry that needs to be hashed out on the relevant talk pages. Neutrality^talk 02:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a ban. We have good policies which dictate how we mention and quote unverified accusations, lies, rumors, conspiracy theories, unscientific nonsense, etc. If RS mention it, we MUST report it. It's just a matter of how we do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if a particular piece of content is widely discussed in reliable sources then per NPOV we need to cover it. Of course due care needs to be taken and the subject matter has to be approached carefully. But that's best achieved on a case by case basis which is why a blanket ban is counter productive (and contrary to policy).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Neutrality and Volunteer Marek. - Mr X 14:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as ditto MrX EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ban, but apply standard restrictions on how much can be quoted at a time in accordance with WP:COPYVIO. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you propose we treat this situation any different concerning COPYVIO, and if so, why? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think this should go under standard copyvio rules (don't quote more than a few sentences at a time, and give a footnoted source and the quote's speaker in the body). epicgenius (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per neutrality. We strive to use the best sources and if any of them lend credence or discuss specifics we should (I would like to say "are obligated") to discuss them in the leveled manner in which we treat any information. WP:RS trumps all. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see a lot of support for this proposal, but would it extend to repeating accusations currently listed in the article Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations? ^Falling_Gravity 08:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ban on stating any of the accusation (either directly or by implication) are true

Strong Support per commonsense. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duh Core of BLP, NPOV. These are accusations of vague origin, they must be stated as claims and definitely not facts. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This would be a massive BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Only mention them as attributed and unverified allegations (unless later proven otherwise). — JFG ^talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Did this question even have to be asked? --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As per usual rules, we should only reference reliable secondary sources, which the dossier is not. None of these accusations should be repeated in Wikipedia's voice. Brad v 19:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Of course, as reliable sources have not stated them as true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would even support requiring a qualifier stating that the claims have not been verified should they be included. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support. There are accusations in the dossier that are plausible, even likely to be true. The first page of the dossier asserts that Russia has been trying to "cultivate" Trump and unsuccessfully tried to ensnare him with lucrative real estate deals. Common sense calls for treating statements regarding relatively routine political maneuvering differently from sensationalistic kompromat. Ordinary claims do not require extraordinary proof. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support It would be a clear unambiguous BLP and NPOV violations. PackMecEng (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The Document contents are unverified and should not be included unless the Document can be verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Support - Until the accusations, if true, are verified, it is against the very core of Wikipedia's policies to repeat them here. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support - this is really the only position that is consonant with our policies and guidelines. I do agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's comment. And of course, this would not prohibit us from including relevant analysis from relevant experts (i.e., "Professor John Doe, a scholar of Russian studies, writes that some of the claims are likely to be true and others false. Former high-ranking intelligence office Jane Smith says..."). Neutrality^talk 02:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- For future reference, I should further qualify—as others have below—that if the reliable secondary sources state a particular allegation as true, then we obviously should follow the sources. Neutrality^talk 00:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support - unless of course something else pops up and they do turn out to be uncontroversially true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support that we state they are allegations, but we do state them. We state what RS state. These are allegations, so we state they are allegations: "It is alleged that he hired prostitutes to put on a golden showers show to defile the bed which the Obama's had used." Now, was that so hard? We have plenty of very RS which document that that allegation is made in the dossier. That is only one instance. Other sources than the dossier also allege that sexual activities occurred and were filmed in other places than Moscow: "U.S. intelligence agencies warned Donald Trump about claims Russian operatives held potential blackmail information against him involving alleged “perverted sexual acts” during stays in Moscow and St. Petersburg, according to reports."[4] Note how "claims" and "alleged" are used? That's how we are required to write. We do not refuse to write. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "It is alleged that he hired prostitutes to put on a golden showers show to defile the bed which the Obama's had used" would be an obnoxious, childish, and wildly inappropriate bit of WP prose, and even mentioning it here as a joke is pretty obnoxious and childish. Please don't continue. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a joke, but practically quoting from RS. The prose is very accurate. Those are the exact allegations. Keep in mind the topic of this subsection: "Ban on stating any of the accusation...are true". No, we should never say such a thing "is true" without proof.
In this type of situation we may never know the exact truth, not because the allegations aren't true, but because the author and sources must be protected because their lives are in danger.
"Unverified" does not diminish the possibility that the allegations are 1,000% true. The degree of trust we place in the content is totally dependent on at least three things: (1) The impeccable reputation of the author; (2) The character and history of Trump, which makes this type of behavior totally in character; (3) Outside verification from numerous independent sources which say this is true, and that there are other witnesses and videos, including from other cities than Moscow.
We are supposed to say what RS say. They say that these are the allegations, so we are required to say the same. That's how NPOV works. It's about editorial conduct. Editors are not allowed to censor what RS say. We are required to faithfully present the content without diminishing or enhancing it. I have been here since 2003 and my fingerprints are embedded in the NPOV policy. I have also written an essay about this subject, so take a look: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified support - If the accusations are described as true by reliable sources, then we too can directly or implicitly write that they are true in articles. That is common sense and common practice.- Mr X 14:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support - qualification being that we already do not allow negative allegations to be claimed as true per BLP without caveat (e.g., specifying that they're allegations). However, should current allegations come to light as true as reported by RS, they no longer become allegations but merely statement of fact in which case we can say them as fact (so long as they're sourced appropriately). I fear this discussion generally assumes no single allegations will be substantiated, which seems dubious to assume. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support unless sources prove otherwise. Per BLP, there are no sources saying this is true now, though this can change in the future. If such sources come up, then this is invalid anyway. However, don't let this preclude mention of it at all. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If reliable third party sources corroborate the information we must report this. I understand the intention of this point, but it risks being misinterpreted to say that we may never state that any of the information in the dossiers is true even if explicitly mentioned in other reliable sources. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ban on including the actual text (either partial or in full) of the document

Support per my cmt in the above discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support at this point, yes, as per the ban on discussing any specific aspect of the document. At the level of broad claims, inclusion of any specific quotes is a problem. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Oppose There is some dispute an to it's copyright status, and we do include the text of other documents in other articles. If (however) this was a copyright issue this would change to support.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per WP:COPYVIO — JFG ^talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per BLP regarding unverified material - and regardless of its copyright status. There have been repeated attempts to upload the entire document, in PDF form. I strongly oppose that and will continue to oppose it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There may be contexts in which the dossier should be quoted, keeping in mind WP:NPOV, and especially WP:UNDUE. A blanket ban on quotes from the dossier is not helpful at this point. Brad v 19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per our BLP policy on public figures [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose barring brief quotations of the dossier as reported in reliable sources. Per policy, we of course won't be using the dossier as a source for claims, but, where appropriate, we should be allowed to include brief quotations of the text when reliable sources are doing the same. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 23:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be inappropriate to include the unverified actual text of the document at this time. Its a BLP and this material is unverified as true, and is a primary source that is not quoted directly in any reliable source, even the BuzzFeed article that just did a document dump. Copyvio issues are also a concern. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There may very well be circumstances where stating exactly what this document says is the best way to achieve encyclopedic goals. However, given that our NFC policy and general fair use principles require prior authorized publication, we should not cite the document directly, but only excerpts from it presented in reliable sources, and only when verbatim text is particularly useful, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support unless any of it gets verified beyond a reasonable doubt it cannot be included. PackMecEng (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The Document contents are unverified and should not be included unless the Document can be verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gobonobo and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Quoting a document does not imply truth, and a quotation with proper context might in some cases be the best way to achieve encyclopedic goals. We should of course be mindful of weight and quotefarm concerns - but a flat ban on quoting finds no support in our policies and guidelines. I think a good guidepost is this: Have the reliable secondary sources repeated the quote used? Neutrality^talk 02:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unwarranted censorship. If the allegations are mentioned in RS, we are required to include them, but must also make it clear they are unproven allegations, albeit from an impeccable source. The ex-spy is a highly respected expert who has an excellent reputation in the intelligence community. They consider him very credible. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - again, needs to be dealt with on case by case basis.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Neutrality, Volunteer Marek, and WP:NOTCENSORED.- Mr X 14:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blanket ban. Again, we cannot predict the future of the allegations, so preemptively banning them makes no sense. Moreover, there may be cases (however rare or nuanced) where quotation is appropriate. We have enough protection with BLP and LIBEL that any unwarranted or inappropriate quotations can be dealt with as needed. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. See my comment under "Ban on actually repeating any of the accusations" above. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only as much as WP:COPYVIO dictates. WP:QUOTEs are allowed, and any denying this right is in violation of policy. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No restriction of any kind

Oppose We can't ignore this. But it needs to be handled with the greatest possible care, and pending confirmation the details must not be repeated on Wikipedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is clearly a BLP/NPOV issue that has to be handled with care, so not having any restrictions is a problem. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More or less what all the above say.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Obviously. — JFG ^talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and while this may seem obvious, I"m glad to have it formalized here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia's policies are sufficient to address this, but yet we need to be extremely vigilant and enforce these policies consistently. Any new rule or restriction that specifically applies to this event would itself be an indictment of Wikipedia's existing policies. Brad v 19:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Its a notable topic that needs to be addressed in some capacity, but it is also a BLP and needs to be carefully presented. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As written, this carves a loophole in BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is notable, just needs to be presented with caution for all the BLP and NPOV issues. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The Document contents are unverified and should not be included unless the Document can be verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a very sensitive political matter and we must tread lightly about it. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No special rules or restrictions are necessary. Our existing policies are good enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We already have policies and guidelines that cover this type of material. There's no need to reaffirm them.- Mr X 14:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we already have restrictions, lots of them. Perhaps what is meant is "no special restrictions", but it's unclear. Regardless, the dossier and allegations are already subject to strong restrictions. What we need to do is make sure we enforce them. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a no restriction. See my comment in "Ban on stating any of the accusation (either directly or by implication) are true" above. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I'm treating this section as a ban on additional restrictions beyond those that apply generally to articles and topics under BLP. It is not neutral to level additional restrictions on content (not behavior) only because the topic is controversial. We must strive for neutrality and respect of WP:RS. Additional restrictions do not serve that goal. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I disagree with blanket restrictions here. Whether specific content should be added depends on whether it meets our policies and guidelines. If the dossier is discussed in reliable sources in relation to a topic, then so can we, in proportion to the WP:WEIGHT. This may not be easy; it seldom is with contentious topics. It seems totalitarian and antithetical to our principles to decide, without any reference to sources, whether the dossier should be discussed, and in what context. On the other hand, material that violates our policies and guidelines should not be allowed. But this has little to do with whether or not something appears in the dossier, and more to do with how it is covered in secondary sources, etc. For example, suppose that some of the items in the report are validated by reliable sources. Then it would be absolutely wrong to have a ban in place preventing us from reporting that content as factual. In contrast, it would be equally wrong to report content in the dossier as true if it is not independently verified by reliable news sources. As to the contents of the dossier, likewise our coverage should try to be neutral and proportional. I don't see any kind of banning as supportive of that goal, especially since this continues to be a developing story, and at this point we don't even have a completely comprehensive picture. Things could change at any time, and it's important that we remain flexible. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Note I know that number two maybe a bit broad, but you can still also vote elsewhere (and the at one is included just for completeness, I doubt anyone will vote for it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I know this is not AFD, my purpose was to try and find out what people are actually talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we now have an idea about what we are discussing. I will collapse those options that clearly have zero support.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I think this event (among countless others), show the need that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and there is no deadline to get content into WP. In a case like this, given how much BLP there is involved and that this is a story about the media itself (Buzzfeed among others), we absolutely should hold off on detailed coverage until we have better hindsight of the importance of this event. Editors on recent events are far too much in a rush to create articles or insert materials without considering that we have many other policies and aspects that weight heavier on content than having up-to-the-second content updates. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. We should consider introducing a policy or guideline imposing a 3-day cooling period before inserting detailed coverage of any sensationalist stories that happen to make the news. This is not censorship: such stories can be mentioned briefly, but hopefully we can avoid the "breaking news – NOTNEWS discussion – saucy details – BLP discussion cum revdel emergencies – article fork – AfD fight" cycle which wastes everybody's energy, readers, editors and admins alike. — JFG ^talk 17:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the discussion above, nothing of importance was decided. This is waste of time. All such matters should be discussed on the case by case bases on talk pages of specific articles. My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While everything similar to this should be case-by-case, there is a general lack of anyone working in these areas to consider NOT#NEWS and DEADLINE. We need that to be kept in mind when covering breaking, controversial information that we should sit and wait and not try to be up to the minute. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And consider whether any news story might have a chance to pass the WP:10YT. — JFG ^talk 04:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2¢, but I think what we need is vigorous enforcement of policy and guidelines, even if it means being deletionist or bitey when it comes to the dossier and allegations. To me, this is one of the "act first, ask questions later". We can always undo a deletion or restore an edit. But we cannot undo BLP harms or allow them to linger due to bureaucracy, wikilawyering, or indifference. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I've seen people acting on trying to at least take a conservative (cautious, not the political sense) and get set to ANI/AE by those that insist the information must be kept (not on this dossier issue, but several times over the past year). A lot of it has to do with left-vs-right politics, where because of the media's general left-leaning bias, that BLP issues favoring the left or against the right are said to be fine to include because they are backed by the left-leaning sources. This type of approach (that is, taking a much more cautious if not deletionist view) needs to be used alongside the caution that we don't need to be first to report breaking controversial events as they happen. --MASEM (t) 07:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I've seen some of what you refer to. I'm not one to buy into the "liberal media" narrative, but I've seen folks try to use media sources to justify POV and blp-violating edits (like trying to say the dossier is true, for example). That behavior is not acceptabled and what I meant by wikilawyering... they argue DUE (inclusion likely is warranted at times for divisive issues) but the wording is the real issue usually. I absolutely agree with you about the breaking news problem. Every politician's passing gas and every bureaucrat's burp seems to get news coverage these days. I'd almost like to see a guideline about a delay, especially with things like shootings where the initial reporting is invariably incorrect. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Rich

The BLP policy is being cited in this edit, but that BLP argument makes absolutely no sense to me. The removed material is longstanding, there's no consensus whatsoever to remove it, so the editor in question seems to be imagining some "conspiracy" that somehow triggers the BLP policy. More eyes requested, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the editor might be prevailed upon to explain how BLP applies. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially the argument is that by including details of the reward offered by Burkman, it is publicising/bringing attention to the conspiracy theory that the search/reward for the killer is a smokescreen designed to cover that he (allegedly) leaked documents (a criminal act) to wikileaks and was then (allegedly) assassinated by Hilary Clinton. The BLP issue being a)it implies he was acting illegally, b)Clinton was acting illegally, c)Burkman etc are acting illegally. Its conspiracy-nutjobbiness all around.

I generally reject that argument as its certainly relevant that an extremely large reward has been offered for info on the killer. The conspiracy crap can easily be completely left out of the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some arguments that his family are not involved in the reward, which in light of this (see video of Burkman and Rich's parents near the bottom) are a bit out of date. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question did not remove any conspiracy crap at all. The mere fact that Burkman offered a reward is no more suggestive of a conspiracy than that the D.C. police offered a reward (or that Wikileaks offered a reward).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know, but the argument is that including the reward leads onto it. Dont look at me, I think its a silly removal too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a completely implausible argument, and an abuse of the BLP policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a pretty elaborate theory and reminds me of the sort of logic conspiracy theorists use. I do not see how Burkman offering of a reward for "providing information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person(s) responsible for Seth Rich's murder" is acting illegally or alleging that Hillary Clinton has. TFD (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not neccessarily all of the above, some people go with just one tinfoil hat, others use the entire roll... Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be refreshing some day in the future if editors who bring questions here for community discussion would start by presenting a balanced and reasonably complete summary of the issue.

We can start sorting this out as a community when all the facts and views are clearly and neutrally presented. I'll try some of that but not all, as it's a long story: A young man was murdered in the course of what the Washington DC police call a botched robbery attempt around 2 AM in an area of DC where there has been a recent spate of street crime. The victim was employed at the Democratic National Committee in DC. Shortly thereafter, out of the blue, Julian Assange of Wikileaks was being interviewed on European TV and stated to the amazement of his interviewer that Wikileaks would double the standard reward of the DC Police for information leading to the conviction of the killer(s). Assange then went on to make some crafty remarks about how Wikileaks protects its sources. According to RS coverage, this stoked conspiracy theories and what one account called "tinfoil hat" Reddit chatter about how the Clintons had plotted the crime. There is no evidence or any credible suggestion to link the crime to the victim's employment at the Democratic Committee. Subsequently, a Republican lobbyist and provocateur, host of a Newsmax podcast stated that he would offer an even larger cash reward, along the lines of Assange's. The statements of these two, unrelated to the crime, are being used (according to numerous RS) to insinuate the Clinton conspiracy theory into the narrative. In the process, they are suggesting that Mr. Rich betrayed his employer and possibly committed criminal acts sharing privileged DNC information with Assange. The stuff about the "rewards" -- assuming the grantors even have access to these amounts of cash -- has nothing to do with the topic of the article (the murder) and WP does not detail the statements of unrelated parties when they smear living or recently demised victims of crime. There is ample policy to support that, and the burden for inclusion cannot be demonstrated, hence this excursion to BLPN. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, User:SPECIFICO, the edit in question did not remove all of the info about rewards, for a very good reason: we already had an RFC about that. The issue now is why it's okay to mention some rewards but not others.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the sources that say Burkman is promoting Clinton conspiracy theories. Then I would like to see sources that say his $105,000 reward money is promoting Clinton conspiracy theories. As an aside, this source [6] has text and a video that shows Burkman and Rich's parents are in agreement with using the reward money to solve this case. Here is one quote "The Rich's, who live in Omaha, Nebraska, are in D.C. to bring attention to a $125,000 reward. $100,000 of that reward has been put up by Burkman". I might not believe the text by itself, but the video clearly shows them in agreement (for lack of a better word). Also, Rich was shot on July 10 - seven months have passed. If the family were in distress BLP applies from up to six months to two years. But the family is not in distress about Burkman's reward. I doubt BLP applies to Seth Rich, who is deceased. Additionally, I think this reward is a small item compared to larger issues surrounding this topic. The reward money as bare factual information is of minimal importance. If some editors were actually trying to add conspiracy theories then that would be a different matter altogether. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You would need a source to say that Burkman was doing this in order to stir up a conspiracy theory. Even if that is his motive, there is no reason not to mention his offer. Also, the D.C. police have not called it a "botched robbery." When asked if it was a botched robbery, the chief said maybe. That gets reported as police saying it was "possibly" a botched robbery. TFD (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, the family sharply repudiated Burkman's ploy at the outset. Now, with dwindling public attention, their only hope of shaking loose any unreported public knowledge is to take advantage of his showmanship and access to the media. Is it a deal with the devil? I wouldn't go that far, but it doesn't change the views they and their family and Seth Rich's friend earlier expressed to RS. After all, Pres. Obama was willing to ally us with so despicable a character as Putin in order to get the historic Iran nuclear deal done. These are the choices people make in extreme circumstances. We can't infer that Obama and the Rich's endorse Putin and Burkman. None of this changes the BLP issue or the UNDUE/off topic issue. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please clearly explain, with specific reference to that policy, how BLP applies to the information removed in the edit linked by the original poster. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained it roughly a dozen times in various threads, so I'm willing to accept the fact that I am an inarticulate wretch. Therefore I will let someone else take a shot. SPECIFICO talk 01:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think SPECIFICO's position is that Burkman's offer was made to promote a conspiracy theory that implied Rich had leaked DNC documents, which would be a breach of trust and that people in the DNC ordered his murder. By mentioning the reward we would be helping to promote the conspiracy theory. There is some merit to the argument. The media held back on the Trump Moscow hotel story because it was derogatory and unsubstantiated, just as the claims about Rich and the DNC are. Where I differ from SPECIFICO is that I do not think editors should make that call because they are not journalists and should accept the media's decision to report stories following "Balancing aspects." TFD (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall that the family sharply repudiated Burkman's offer (or "ploy") at any time. Could you please provide sources that show this is so. I think you are referring to WikiLeaks and mis-remembering. Burkman has the family's support as shown by this source [7]. If they had a problem with Burkman in the past, it is not relevant to "now". Equating Obama's relationship with Putin to Rich's parent's relationship with Burkman is spinning yarn, is probably a false equivalence, is not related to presenting sources and not presenting policy based arguments. Well, maybe there are sources that equate Obama and Putin with Rich's parents and Burkman. If there are please produce them. Even to claim this is a BLP issue, sources are required to back up that argument.---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I left notes about this BLPN discussion at the article talk page, and at User talk:Volunteer Marek.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The discussion above is rife with all sorts of theories and assertions. Would an editor supporting the removal, on the basis of BLP, please make a clear articulation of how that policy applies. It is suggested that at a minimum such articulation would require:- reference/quotes of relevant sections of the BLP policy (what applies); description of the content removed (to what it applies); a link between the policy secitons & the content (how it applies). Absent such, it is difficult to make a determination on inclusion or exclusion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will restore the info, because no one has articulated why a BLP exemption plausibly bars mention of this reward but does not bar mentioning other rewards.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know better than to do that. You recently came within a hair of a TBAN for this kind of stuff. Let this thread arrive at a consensus. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment above (the one in which you said "I'm willing to accept the fact that I am an inarticulate wretch"). It seems that User:Volunteer Marek does not want to come here and explain why removal of one reward is required by BLP but removal of two other rewards is not required by BLP. I would not want to defend such an odd position either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what did the rest of my comment say? Oh? Cherrypicking isn't really effective when it's so easy to see the comment you misrepresent. I know that WP is a full time job for some folks, so you may have a distorted sense of time. In general, these noticeboards are intended to allow the community to come together and comment. Anyway since the burden is on you for inclusion and since there is a BLP violation in the content if you do make good on your threat to edit war it back in, you're not really helping resolve the issue, are you. The purpose of these boards is not to replay the talk page. It's to get thoughtful fresh input -- something you are not in a position to do. SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP compliant - Assuming that the statements above from SPECIFICO, Only in death does duty end and The Four Deuces are an accurate reflection of the case for BLP violation (I have no reason to doubt that they are, and I thank them all), it is difficult to reconcile this position with the policy itself.
In summary, the position articulated is that "conspiracy theorists" have used (continue to use?) the reward offer as "evidence" for their conspiracy theories; that, based on this (mis)use, information on the reward offers should be suppressed; that this is despite the reward offers being well sourced to, and (apparently) broadly covered in, reliable sources. Even assuming that this is true, BLP policy does not mandate suppression of well sourced information on the basis of potential misuse by "tin-foil hattists". The information removed in the edit provided by the original poster is limited to simple facts of reward offers, and does not include any mention of any conspiracy theories themselves. The information also appears well sourced - to a local TV affiliate of ABC News and to Newsweek.
Looking through WP:BLP, I am unable to find any section of the policy which provides a basis for removal or suppression of the information - there is no apparent issue with writing style, sourcing, or privacy. I am happy to comment further if solid policy based arguments are put forward; but without a clear articulation of which parts of the policy are considered to form a basis for removal, and how they are considered to form that basis, removal per BLP is not supportable. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to ask yourselves "why does this article on a sad but routine crime exist" you'd be led, as if by magic, to the right actions. I won't hold my breath.Dan Murphy (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the question were "should this article on a sad but routine crime exist?", my inclination, both personal and policy, would be to answer in the negative. The article is at AfD. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Why does this article exist?" Because people like to read/hear about murders and news organisations like to write/report about them because it makes them money. Since WP for the most part is based on what is published, that we have an article about someone who was murdered at a sensitive time (even if totally unrelated) and was widely covered is not a surprise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No BLPVIO – When the victims of the alleged BLP violation (Seth Rich's parents) publicly support the reward, it is not the job of WP editors to speculate on their motives. I see no merit in the argument that mentioning this reward factually and neutrally somehow would trigger vast conspiracy theories in the minds of readers. Quite the opposite: arguing vocally against inclusion draws undue attention to such theories! — JFG ^talk 09:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sippenhaft and Donald Trump

Talk:Sippenhaft.

At Sippenhaft 3 editors are in favour of including from the following source

John Fund, Trump’s Call to Kill Family Members of Terrorists Is Quarter-Baked, National Review December 18, 2015,

information in that article citing directly D Trump's idea not only terrorists but also terrorists' kin and family should be killed. The article on sippenhaft deals precisely with this notion. The source likens Trump's position to that of sippenhaft.

The minority say that to liken Trump's position (kill terrorists' kin) to that of sippenhaft (kill or punish criminals' kin), even if reliably sourced and used with attribution, is a BLP violation. Is it? Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand a bit, on why it might be a potential BLP issue is that the article only includes actual cases of Sippenhaft, not proposed. So in a way, if you include only Trump's statement as a proposed usage of Sippenhaft into an article of actual usage, then that might be BLP and UNDUE. And besides, even if it's not BLP, it should not be in the article since the article is only actual usages and including proposed is off-topic. We don't include every proposed statement made in history and we shouldn't start just for Trump. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You also did not include the required template on the article's talk page. Failure to do so might be seen as trying to hide the discussion from certain talk page participants. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean when you say "the article only includes actual cases." Who decided it includes only "actual" cases? It appears the consensus of editors is that the article should include both proposed, as well as practiced ("actual"), cases of Sippenhaft, and that what constitutes a "proposed" case and what constitutes an "actual" case, and whether each case should be included, needs to be decided by the normal consensus process, not because two editors (SJ and Bradv) arbitrarily decided that only one "kind" of Sippenhaft should be included. Nobody on the talk page suggested that we "include every proposed statement made in history" -- that is a strawman. The consensus is only that a political candidate, who is now the chief executive of the most powerful country on the planet, and has the power and authority to implement the policies he so passionately advocated during his campaign, merits inclusion. Ijon Tichy (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to rehash talk page arguments. As I pointed out to Nishidani many, many times, if he wants to include the Trump section (regardless of BLP issues) he should follow procedures, namely dispute resolution, mediation, and RFC. A 3-2 is not a consensus. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed text would be a WP:BLP violation in my estimation because Trump's campaign statement is not an example of sippenhaft. Also, citing only one source would be WP:UNDUE.- Mr X 12:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is something very odd in all of this. Not only myself, but the very editors who monitor I/P pages with an ethnonationalist defensiveness, editing exclusively in the interests of the image of one party to the conflict, have no problem in listing every remark threatening Jews collectively on the pages related to those people. If Hassan Nasrallah states that Israel: "is a cancer that must be eradicated.” we put in on the page,-I'd be the last person to object- and do not secondguess the source by defensively arguing:’it’s a BLP violation since there is no evidence he would treat Israelis as a surgeon treats cancer cells.' If Dov Lior declares:’ Jewish women should not use sperm donated by a non-Jewish man, and a baby born through such an insemination will have the "negative genetic traits that characterize non-Jews", . .Gentile sperm leads to barbaric offspring". we put it on his page, and don’t try to censor it. What's so special about the president of the United States?

Wikipedia documents scrupulously, when neutral, important statements made by people who direct the affairs of the world, threats or otherwise, because they are part of the notable public record.Attempts to introduce rationalizations to exclude such comments are nothing but tokens of editorial partisanship, wishing to cleanse one kind of political figure’s image, while (invariably) dredging up muck (truthful muck) to stick on the other side. I don’t care what political, ethnic profile a public figure has: if (s)he states (verifiably) something that is widely reported and criticized, it goes into the record irrespective of the costs to reputation or the potential political spin this might lend itself to.

I go by reliable sources. If the source is reliable - no one contests that Trump said what he said- and the source states that (a) the kin of terrorists should be killed (Trump) and (b) the notable (conservative) political analyst notes that this is an example of the doctrine of kin liability, which in German and more broadly (in discussions of the practice in North Korea/the Soviet Union, totalitarian regimes etc., is called sippenhaft), then I add that view. It is not our task to say whether 'Trump's campaign statement is not an example of sippenhaft' - that would be an example of an editor making a subjective (and flawed, in my view) interpretative challenge to what a reliably sourced commentator states. Editors do not have a right to challenge the putative veracity of what reliable sources say, unless the interpretation is demonstrably unfactual. Trump said: 'the kin of terrorists can be killed'. Sippenhaft involves punishing the kin of people deemed culpable of some act'. The terms are identical, and the commentator's gloss is not an extraordinary claim. As shown on the talk page, German sources reporting Trump's remark naturally said it was what they call 'sippenhaft'. (Sie nehmen damit eine ganze Religionsgemeinschaft und die Angehörigen einer Religionsgemeinschaft in Sippenhaft.)(2) or Silke Mülherr, Malala verurteilt Trumps „Kommentare voller Hass“ Die Zeit 16 December 2015, which relates sippenhaft implications in other remarks by Trump regarding Muslims collectively.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you are saying—particularly the part about censoring comments just because he is the president. However, there are several reasons why this statement doesn't fit in the article.

1. This isn't a generic article about kin liability or collective punishment. It is specifically referring to the German concept of sippenhaft.

2. The source you have provided (John Fund's editorial) is the only source that compares Trump's statement to sippenhaft, and it doesn't even make a direct comparison at all. The word sippenhaft is mentioned only once in the editorial, and it's in the context of Nazi Germany, not Trump. If this really is a straightforward example it should be trivial to find multiple sources for this comparison.

3. This article includes exclusively real examples of Sippenhaft or kin liability—Trump's statement is merely a proposal. Not only has it not happened yet, but it's very unlikely that it will—Trump says a lot of stuff that is completely preposterous and will never happen.

4. I think that all examples of kin liability that are not connected to the German concept and German usage should be removed from this article. Perhaps there should be a generic article about kin liability, or perhaps these examples should be moved into collective punishment. Either way, it is my contention that they should not be here. Brad v 15:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the BLP violation? That Trump's views have been compared to Sippenhaft? Unless there is any doubt about what he meant - advocating collective punishment is certainly within the definitions of Sippenhaft. I wouldnt include it based on one source however, as that hits UNDUE. I cant see any BLP violation here though if it was. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joe/Bradv. We come here for third opinions. I don't think it salutary to rehash the talk page here. Third parties will read it, and make up their minds. I'll just note that sippenhaft means 'kin liability', and the page deals with this in several historical contexts, not just Germany (b) I gave you the German links which clearly supplement what the National Interest commentator stated: in German reportage, Trump's remarks were naturally identified as sippenhaft(ung), in prestigious centralist newspapers like Die Zeit, underlining its relevance. You have misread the paper: it clearly contextualizes Trump's views as sippenhaft (c) the distinction 'real example'/'stated belief' has no basis in wiki policy as both of you have been reminded often. (d) as long as the page stands as it is, the fourth objection is hypothetical. In any case, no intelligible case, in my view and that of several editors now, has been made to show why what Trump stated cannot be noted here because it violates his rights to privacy or whatever as a living person. This, as I showed, would mean 99% of I/P articles alone are in violation of WP:BLP, and no one, of whatever political persuasion, has noticed it. Now, can we just wait for further external independent input?Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you're the one posting paragraphs. You will notice my comment up above, asking not to rehash the talk page. And again, I've asked you not to call me Sir Joe. And again, you need to stop insulting others with your claim of why people edit.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have more neutral external comment please. So far MrX says it is a WP:BLP violation, while Only in death does duty end says it is not.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides treading into forbidden BLP territory, the article itself violates WP:SYN. For example, a North Korea prison camp is mentioned as a "modern" example of Sippenhaft, but the source does not make the comparison. Well, we cannot do the same thing WRT Trump. (I intend to revert that material once this issue is settled.) Now if a modern reliable academic source made a connection between Trump's supposed policy and Sippenhaft, then that particular source might be acceptable in a Trump-policy related article. But the topic of Sippenhaft is the historical practice, not un-sourced modern analogies; especially when the analogies have political motivations. We cannot let Sippenhaft be used to criticize (or praise) Trump in Wikipedia's voice. – S. Rich (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one of the published sources that directly calls Trump's views Sippenhaft [8] Here is another [9] SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC) These two sources directly cite Trump's policies in discusion of Sippenhaft so they can be cited to resolve any concern as to SYNTH or OR. Trump is a public figure who has discussed the issue extensively and there is no BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the sources do not directly cite Trump's policies in discusion of Sippenhaft. The "Welt" source mentions Sippenhaft in discussion of a proposed ban on Muslim immigration. The "National Review" mentions Sippenhaft in discussion of terrorists and "take out their families". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(The following is copy-pasted from SPECIFICO's user talk page - Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I believe that editors are claiming that no RS connects Trump to Sippenhaft and that the disputed content is therefore SYNTH and a BLP violation. However I believe that the two sources I cited do explicitly link Trump to Sippenhaft, so that they can be used to rebut the SYNTH claim. At any rate, as a public figure who's spoken at length on this topic, I don't think Trump could credibly claim that these sources are libeling him, so I see no BLP violation. Feel free to copy this to the board if you think it helps clarify my remarks. SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not necessarily seeing a BLP violation here. Would editors opining that there is a violation be able to describe, with reference to the policy, that violation? I do consider that there is merit in the suggestion that an inclusion at Sippenhaft, on the basis of only the sources mentioned thus far, would be undue. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --As a non involved editor,I would state that the inclusion of the disputed content is not a BLP violation .But, I would strongly object to it being included in the article without something of the sort of a RFC, since I too find it to be WP:UNDUE.Winged Blades^Godric 14:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if editors claiming it is WP:Undue clarified why noting on the sippenhaft page that sources identified Trump's twice repeated (Dec.2015/March 2016) assertion as an example of the notion is undue on that page, rather than correlated with the topic of that article. This has nothing to do with Trump per se, but with sourced documentation of the use of the term sippenhaft to define killing or punishing the kin of people deemed criminals.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to state my position clearly for Nishidani above: 1. I do not think its a BLP violation if reliable sources have compared Trumps statements to Sippenhaft - even a fairly tightly defined Sippenhaft covers his statements. 2. It may be an UNDUE issue on any Trump-focused page to include Sippenhaft material - Presidents make a lot of statements, not all of them are worth covering on their biography. 3. I dont think it is an UNDUE issue at all on the Sippenhaft article that the leader of the biggest Democracy on the planet holds those views. Its certainly relevant and encyclopedic that a current (democratic) world leader does so, regardless of who it is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the biggest democracy on the planet? Narendra Modi might be sad to be so overlooked. :) - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually irrelevant that it is "the leader of the biggest Democracy on the planet". What matters is the distinction between what is and what isn't. In my opinion Sippenhaft is not language. In my opinion Sippenhaft is an act. Were the United States to at some future time institute Sippenhaft, at that time this issue should be revisited. Bus stop (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE is mostly a 'is this relevant?' test. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to include?

We appear to have consensus to include with the direct sources cited. Is this correct? SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say there is at least rough consensus, likely clear consensus, for "not a BLP violation". Given the concerns about UNDUE, consensus for inclusion seems less clear. NOTE: I have opined in this discussion, above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an instance of Sippenhaft. "You have to take out their families" is a reference to an act, that if carried out, would constitute Sippenhaft. But it has not been carried out. Bus stop (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a BLP violation to say "Trump has suggested carrying out Sippenhaft" (even with attribution), as Trump has never actually said that word. It would not be an issue to say "Trump has said 'You have to take out their families', which (some commentators) have compared to Sippenhaft", since it reports what Trump actually said, and then attributes opinion on what that means to a commentator. The question left on the topic is how much of this view point (the comparison to Sippenhaft) is appropriate per UNDUE/FRINGE, which falls outside the BLP arena. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct about attribution. It's certainly not UNDUE and has nothing to do with FRINGE. Trump has repeatedly explained his policy in this matter. The term Sippenhaft is not widely discussed and therefore it's to be expected that there would be fewer reports that use this term. However the sources are respected mainstream sources, not marginal ones as one user claimed. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we report celebrity dating?

Is reporting when a celebrity is dating another celebrity (or for that matter, non-celebrity) appropriate content for the Wikipedia articles for those individuals? I'm thinking no. I don't think a encyclopedia is the right place for such tabloid reporting. It's also something that's likely to become outdated and inaccurate.

I'm not talking about long-term non-marital relationships like the one between Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel, which has gone on for decades and resulted in children. I'm talking about the kind of dating reporting that is usually reported on blogs and in tabloids.

The specific issue that raises this for me (although my interest is in general, not just these articles) is the reported dating relationship of singer BoA and actor Joo Won: "In January 2017, it was revealed that BoA had been dating actor Joo Won since mid-2016." Leaving the issue of whether PopCrush is a reliable source, is this appropriate Wikipedia coverage? TJRC (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such relationships should only be included if the couple at the center of it have affirmed they are in such a relationship with a reliable source (which does happen). We absolutely want to avoid media speculation that because X was seen with Y at a dozen-some places, that X is dating Y (something tabloids readily jump on). --MASEM (t) 00:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working consensus has been that (1) well-sourced reports concerning current relationships maybe included, but (2) non-current/defunct relationships should not be included unless of demonstated significance to the subject's life or career. Having deleted hundreds upon hundreds of such claims with very few objections, I admit that there are a few articles where attempts to have such fancruft expunged have been unsuccessful, but over the long run the principles have held quite strongly. A few years back, when a similar discussion spilled onto Jimbo Wales' talk page, he declared that chronicling the "twists and turns" of celebrity "relationships" was not part of an encyclopedia's mission. I'm not really thrilled about the "currently dating" exception, but I suspect that allowing well-sourced information of that type is generally harmless, while debating such claims on a case-by-case basis would not be productive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm that the general practice (when noticed) is as Wolfowitz says. Current reliably sourced relationships are generally included. Past/Ex relationships unless specifically relevant are not. If the ex-person is non-notable, you can generally remove the name in most circumstances anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note For the umpteenth time, "celebrity gossip" is intrinsically rumour, and is not encyclopedic, nor of any long-term value to readers and users of any encyclopedia. It is the bane of BLPs, and is a mine-field at best, and, in my lone opinion, should be excised utterly. Collect (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair it is not always rumour. Quite often there are primary sources where celebrities confirm details of their relationship. And a professional biography of a person would contain details of their spouse if their relationship led to children or there was some other relevance (charitible foundation work etc in both their names being one example). I agree however the vast majority of 'X is dating Y' stuff should just be punted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussion. From the varied inputs here, it sounds like there is not a Wikipedia-wide consensus on whether to exclude the "who's dating who" information, provided it is reliably sourced; so I guess it's on an article-by-article basis. Although I don't think it belongs -- I do not view it as encyclopedic content -- I seem to be the only one seeking removal in the two articles I mention, so I'll step away from the issue there. TJRC (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lhota

(Please feel free to move this to any other more appropriate Noticeboard, COI, NPOV, etc.) I have tried to work along with the user (both at User talk:JoeLhota and User talk:Lindyharmony) to help him understand the conflict of interest in editing his own biography. At first I thought it was a fan for the use of phrases such as "Use Mr. Lhota's proper name, not his nickname." as an act of deference, when WP:COMMONNAME suggests the article say "Joe" everywhere except for the beginning of a BLP when we always give full names. I've incorporated quite a few of their requested changes, but have tried to draw the line a few times. E.g. the individual does not want to be called a politician, but that is unfair to the encyclopedia that someone who was a major candidate for one of the most high-profile positions in the US, Mayor of New York, not be listed as a politician, or as a compromise "former politician". The user also has been removing well-sourced data, quotes from interviews, and references left-and-right and adding things like LinkedIn profiles. I don't want to keep fighting this user and a few times let it sit for a day (the 17th and the 19th) in the hopes that another disinterested party would come along and take up the mantle. It seems for the most part the user is, perhaps in good faith, seeing this as "his page" which is why he is focused on refactoring it as more of a prose resume and less of a biography, so it will fit his image of how he wants to be presented rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. JesseRafe (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the article to the last good version.For such blatant baseless POV pushing section deletions etc. revert the edits and if the behaviour continues unabated report the user for edit warring.Winged Blades^Godric 10:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudine Longet

Is it appropriate that "murderer" is listed as an occupation for Claudine Longet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grizzopks (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good old SNL sketch, but not exactly a reliable source. Dumuzid (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Bergstedt

In the article Axel Bergstedt about my person is used much libelous tabloid jornalism. My children are suffering bullying in the school because of the articles in wikipedia in four languages. So I think, it should be the best to delete the article or to delete the harmful parts. As you can see, someone changed in november the portuguese wikipedia writing a hateful article, and hours later the articles in spain and english were changed, too. The articles are full of lies and mistakes. Still today there is no accusation against me. No website of mine were deleted, no picture were deleted. I am reporting about raped girls in some muslim countries, what they call "pedofilia", but still today google and microsoft didn´t delet any picture in my blogs. So it´s only for revange and hate that someone is writing such a libelous article about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel Bergstedt (talk • contribs) 10:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the BLP implications here, it's an English Wikipedia article with zero English sources. I'd say nuke the article on that basis alone. Let a more appropriate language community fisk the sourcing. Just a thought. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed an inappropriately-titled section that contained incomprehensible (in English) accusations like "Brazilian police also found issues of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.", lacking inline citations to most of the specific accusations. User:Fbergo has reverted the section back in, commenting in edit summary that the information comes from "brazilian and german news groups [sic]". Last month Fbergo was edit-warring names and ages of living non-notable minors (at time of the mentioned incident) back into the article, using "RVV" as his justification. I think page protection or some other measures might be necessary. MPS1992 (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All information in the article was properly sourced. The pedophilia section was backed by news sources by major brazilian media group Grupo Globo, in portuguese (as the crime occurred in Brazil) and by a major german newspaper, Die Welt. I will no longer revert your edits, have fun protecting the privacy of a murderer (Redacted) who keeps ISIS beheading videos on his personal notebook. Fbergo (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've copy-edited Axel Bergstedt and checked the sources. What is there now is well cited. The accusations of paedophilia have not yet been proven and anyway needs far more WP:RSs per WP:BLP, and anyway accusations should not be introduced until proven in court (WP:BLPCRIME) so I have not reintroduced them — Iadmc ♫^talk 17:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Angra

Can someone help to make this living person's biography more neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.49.198 (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Nicholson

Bruce Nicholson This article is poorly written although it is not inaccurate. It also needs updating. I would rewrite the article as follows: Bruce Nicholson (born 1948) is a visual effects artist who has won 2 Academy Awards for The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), and also nominated for Poltergeist (1982). Nicholson was born and raised in Los Angeles, CA and entered the film business in 1974 after attending film school at UCLA and Sherwood Oaks Film School. He was hired at ILM to work on the original Star Wars (1977) after working at a small optical effects facility, Ray Mercer & Co. He remained at ILM for 19 years, and then went on to work for Sony Imageworks, Digital Domain, Rhythm & Hues, and Tippett Studios as a Compositor and Visual Effects Supervisor on nearly 50 films. He currently teaches Visual Effects at Academy of Art University, and is actively engaged in independent filmmaking. Nicholson is married to the Set Decorator Gretchen Scharfenberg.

sources: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0629785/?ref_=nv_sr_1 https://admin.academyart.edu/myProfile?18

I can provide a picture, but don't see an attach icon. Please advise. Thanks, Bruce Nicholson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnichols6 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see the article is unprotected and that means you are free to directly incorporate the sought edits in the article.

As to your sought-after edits, the language is pretty neutral and encyclopedic, if I assume them to be factually correct.But here in Wikipedia, IMDB is seldom used as a reliable source and generally in biographies we like every statement to be sourced to a WP:RS as far as possible.Thus, it would be better if you could find some indepent reliable sources(newspapers etc.) discussing about you or your work and then accordingly add and cite statements to the article.

Also, assuming (from your username) that you are the subject of the article you intend to edit, I will advice you to go through WP:COI before venturing in the task.

As to the question of attaching the photograph, WP:TEAHOUSE is the appropriate place to get help on such issues(and many more).Winged Blades^Godric 09:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Sarsour

A lot more eyes and perhaps an admin may be needed. IPs are being persistent. We have an edit war going on at the article Linda Sarsour in which badly sourced claims are returning over and over due to a Reddit discussion, YouTube video and then a political blog. The information cannot be verified and is based entirely on a set of social media "tweets" that do not qualify as RS and do not support the inflammatory claims being made.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts.I have watchlisted the article and will check back frequently for any violation.(Non-admin).Winged Blades^Godric 09:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that a primary source (such as a verified twitter account - assuming it was verified) is a reliable source for the views of the owner. It may be undue, or description of their views may be incorrect, but if Person A says 'I support thing' we can state person A supports 'thing'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Salam_(Taliban_governor)

Hi,

This article mixes up Abdul-Salam Hanafi, a Taliban governor from the 1990s, with Abdul-Salam Baryalai, the current Taliban Qunduz shadow governor. They are two different people. Hanafi sits on the Taliban political shura at Pakistan (see UN sanctions reports which are filed yearly), and Baryalai operates at Qunduz. Most of the information here pertains to Baryalai. Hi,

This article mixes up Abdul-Salam Hanafi, a Taliban governor from the 1990s, with Abdul-Salam Baryalai, the current Taliban Qunduz shadow governor. They are two different people. Hanafi sits on the Taliban political shura at Pakistan (see UN sanctions reports which are filed yearly), and Baryalai operates at Qunduz. Most of the information here pertains to Baryalai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A21F:F435:2C9A:D1A9:DD7A:5F69 (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a serious enough issue.Maybe you can provide some sources(the U.N. Sanction reports you mention etc.) here, so that the articles could be bettered and the alleged mix-up removed.Winged Blades^Godric 12:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, the article is about Hanafi and all the informations best to the information available to me is the same as in the article and is about Hanafi.Can you please refer a non-correct line about Hanafi in the article.Winged Blades^Godric 13:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And info about the other one--Baryalai seems to be scanty at least in English media.Winged Blades^Godric 13:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Robertson (footballer, born 1986)

David Robertson (footballer, born 1986) and David Goodwillie were found in a civil case to have committed rape.

Could someone establish the proper way to describe and flag this in the article. Some people seem to downplay it as 'personal life'.

Media coverage is rather different. [10]

is there a balance between blp and minimising sexual assault/rape vis a vis the victims of said rapes? Sumbuddi (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is very dubious to use the term "rape case" in this example because it is based on a civil trial, rather than a criminal action. The Scottish legal authorities determined there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction. Also, Goodwillie has had other incidents in his personal life that have been widely reported (two convictions for assault) so it would make no sense to use "rape case" as a collective term for all of these items. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? legal case "A legal case may be either civil or criminal." it's a rape case. there is no other legitimate term for it. Also you reverted to the rather misleading 'personal life' heading on David Robertson. I am not really sure what your point about insufficient evidence is. The two men have been found by a court of law to committed rape. Very specifically I find that, in the early hours of Sunday January 2, 2011, both defenders took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and because her cognitive functioning and decision making processes were so impaired, she was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her. [11] per Lord Amstrong. Ergo they are rapists and should be described as such. The fact that a named judge has ruled in a court of law that they are rapists is far more persuasive than an administrative decision not to prosecute. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"They are rapists and should be described as such." Is O. J. Simpson described as a "murderer"? No, because he hasn't been convicted of murder. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From what our article says, in that civil cases here that there is no need for the plaintiff to have strong evidence as to file damages on charges of rape, this is far from what we would normally use to call somebody a rapist. If it were a criminal charge, yes, but civil courts aren't the same. I do believe that it is reasonable to describe that the civil case and the resulting fine should be described as leading to retirement all in the lede, but you can't call him a "rapist" on the civil court charge. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the burden is certainly different as between criminal cases and civil. In criminal cases, the burden is the familiar "beyond a reasonable doubt." In civil cases in the UK, the burden is usually described as a "balance of the probabilities" (often called "preponderance of the evidence" in the U.S.). But civil cases involve findings, which are legally binding in certain ways (though civil cases are not binding on criminal cases). Here, the judge explicitly found that "they each raped her." [12] I am not sure this demands we call the two in question 'rapists,' but I think saying 'civil cases don't count' is a bit too pat. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? The courts can say that "they each raped her", and award £100,000 in compensation, but you feel that Wikipedia should be held to a higher standard? That's bizarre. Also the situation here is that they were never brought to criminal trial. So we cannot directly compare this with OJ Simpson, who was found not guilty in a criminal trial. There was an administrative decision here not to prosecute. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To both Dumuzid and Sumbuddi: the issue I see is the subtle difference between saying "A (civil) court ruled he raped her" and "He is a rapist", and this has to do with how a term like "rapist" or "murderer" is a label that has to be used with care. Someone convicted in criminal court of being a rapist means that a great deal has gone into the investigation before that sentence as to favor the innocence of the defendant, so subsequently calling that person a "rapist" is a non-controversial because of the court's decision. On the other hand, the same situation in civil court, which moreso favors the presumption of the plantiff, the level of investigation is far far lower, especially here with the lack of the need for Corroboration in Scots law in the civil suit. So while the court found them guilty and charged them a fine, applying the label "rapist" is controversial because the civil suit has a very low threshold to levy the decision against the defendant and the true nature of events is far less clear; WP should always play a very conservative (middle-ground) tone very much in particular around BLP. There's no contest to the statement "A civil court ruled he raped her", but it would a BLP/Label issue to jump from that to say "He is a rapist" because of that. If this was all criminal court, it wouldn't be an issue. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's exactly what many reliable sources are saying. [13] [14] [15][16] Sumbuddi (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Especially around BLP, we don't repeat contentious statements verbatim. We are better in how we handle these types of claims to BLP. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you could get less contentious than a judge making a ruling in a court? The judge said they raped, ergo they are rapists. There is no other definition for rapist. Sumbuddi (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best approach here is actually first principles -- forget what the judge said and the differing burdens of civil and criminal court. Let's see what the reliable sources call them and go with that. Just a thought! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given how some of these same sources are lashing out at the judges that ruled about the Brexit and labeling them as criminals (see here), no we should not follow RSes on contentious labels, at least in the short-term. Five, ten years from now, it makes sense to see how they are looked at with time between events, but news today is far too sensational on breaking topics to rely on them for justifying contentious labels, particularly when the labels are being applied in the wake of breaking news. We have to take a middle ground here. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, but when taking that middle ground is pretty much WP:OR, then I'd say we need to be a bit careful. I confess that I cast a jaundiced eye on any advice that begins "no we should not follow RSes." Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a middle ground against what RSes say is policy per WP:YESPOV and BLP. There is no OR, not contested statement, in stating "he was charged in civil court of committing rape". --MASEM (t) 16:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but I think "found liable for committing rape" would be a better descriptor. But I would agree, simply by following the RSes here, that your formulation is better. As applied, I don't think there's a difference between us here. My concern is that it would seemingly be your stance that if 99% of sources described the two as "rapists," we should somehow resist that appellation. As usual, I'm drifting off in to theory land, so feel free to ignore. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I feel that given that this case has apparently ended the career of both men, then the incident belongs in the introduction. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting ahead of yourself in respect of Goodwillie. Robertson has retired, but his career was basically winding down anyway (he was playing in the semi-professional fourth tier of Scottish football). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwillie has been dropped. [17] Sumbuddi (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he has, as a temporary measure pending further consideration. We don't know yet what the effect of the case on his career will be. Even if Plymouth decide to terminate his employment, he may seek to continue his career elsewhere. So we can't say at present that it's "career ending". Jellyman (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting in this context that Plymouth presently have a player (Luke McCormick) who was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit irrelevant, because there's no word for that offence. Simple conclusion: using "A civil court ruled that he raped her" is fine, but using the word "rapist" is not; it would have been had it been a criminal court, but it wasn't. I realise that seems completely illogical, but it really isn't. Civil actions depends on the balance of probabilities not proof as a criminal trial does.Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor quibble -- civil courts depend upon proof as well, just to a different (and lesser) standard. Both are with the mindset that perfect epistemic surety just isn't in the cards. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Nnaji

The Awards and Nomination Section was accidentely removed durring Edit, Please Help Restore Nnaji's Award and Nomination Section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britenydaniels (talk • contribs) 20:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been already

Done. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trans man

Editor Gamerrx is continually (re-)inserting an unsourced addition to the list of notable trans men (1, 2, 3), despite being warned. Edit filter log activity suggests there may be a language difficulty. Funcrunch (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I reported this here because it's not clearly vandalism, and as I've already reverted twice I don't want to risk violating 3RR. The edit filter log does suggest the subject is a living person. Funcrunch (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's some major outing and BLP concerns here. WP:WTAF applies as well. I've reverted and warned. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Merced

Person does not meet notability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:500:965:E4B0:7F55:264F:AB2 (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Create an user account and go the WP:CSD /WP:AFD /WP:PROD way. Winged Blades^Godric 08:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Gershenson

My participation in this conversation was initiated by an OTRS ticket (VRTS ticket # 2016072910017261), I am not a frequent enwiki editor and am not overly familiar with policy here.

The subject of the article feels that the page is being used to attack him with unsupported claims. I tend to agree, the person or people who are adding accusations of impropriety are using a single blog post (which appears to be the only post on the blog) as support. There has been quite a lot of discussion on the talk page about whether or not this blog post is a valid source, I contend that it is not. I would appreciate it if editors who are familiar with Wikipedia policies around BLP and verifiability could take a look at the article, the talk page conversation and the blog post itself and take whatever action is appropriate. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Already removed. Watchlisted. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beat you to it ;) Allegations were sourced to a wordpress blog which is (even without looking at it) unsuitable for contentious info in a BLP. This will not gurantee they will stay out - if there are better sources out there, but I am not looking for them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since when a leaked document on a blog post is not a reliable source? Moreover, such a source has contributions from both parts, thus legitimizing the issue that should be mentioned in the WIki article as informative of the potential misleading actions of certain scientists. In particular, it is a very grave offense to purport the title of Professor, if it is not awarded. The blog post now has a screenshot of Dr. Amy Brand, director of MIT Press, acknowledging the issue and legitimizing the claim that such a letter exists and was sent to MIT Press. Thanks. Here the blog post: https://scientificmisconduct.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/carlos-gershenson-and-tom-froese/ One of the arguments is that the blog post title is "Reporting worldwide scientific wrongdoing" and only one post is in there, I do not find this offensive or fishy, it tells that either this blog post was designed for this purpose, of that it is the first of more posts to come. It is obvious that the website has been created by colleagues of the accused that fear retaliation from Gershenson as it is common in science to be reviewed by peers, etc. Wiki editors should be concerned to reflect truth and not to conceal it. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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