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.

Cenk Uygur

I need help with a sourcing issue on Cenk Uygur. I introduced an edit in the Political Views section that lists his current political views, and then source each political view with a YouTube video showing Uygur expressing the political view on his show The Young Turks. The edit has been repeatedly reverted by one user claiming there is a sourcing issue, leaving the comment "Entirely sourced to Young Turks YouTube, which is controlled by subject and lacks independent sourcing." In response I reference WP:BLPSPS which states "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Ultimately my argument is that when citing a person's political views, a video of the person expressing their political views is a reliable source. This appears to be backed up by WP:BLPSPS. Independent sourcing in this case doesn't seem necessary to me because the section is on Uygur's personal opinions, not what other people think his opinions are.

Here is a diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cenk_Uygur&diff=934340944&oldid=931464513. Can anyone provide their input? Cacash refund (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I've left feedback on the article talk page. IMO given the level of stuff you're covering, you really need some secondary sourcing to keep it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You need secondary sourcing, not Cenk's own words. You want to avoid fluff and spin that Cenk might introduce. We also don't want to list every single political position he's ever taken on every issue (that's what his personal campaign site is about), rather only what is notable. How do we determine what is notable? It would be what secondary sources discuss. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9 What about what secondary sources consider important questions to ask him regarding his views, as in an interview or debate? My take is if a news anchor or debate moderator asks him something, his answer is given the notability you refer to because the news anchor is an independent reliable source doing research in real time, if you will. Is it necessary for Uygur to state his views in an interview and then at a later point in time for another secondary source to analyze his views in order for his answer to be notable? Cacash refund (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE, content must be significant or noteworthy enough to include in an article (which is different from notability, as article content does not have to be notable itself, see WP:NOTEWORTHY). Interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources because they do not involve any analysis or discussion by an independent third-party. Secondary sources determine what is noteworthy, and primary sources have only limited value. However, you cannot add a bunch of liberal political views to the article sourced to primary sources, and then remove his previous conservative views because they are sourced to primary sources. That creates a biased article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

At the time that I gave new citations to the liberal views I believed them to be secondary sources, which is why I thought they were appropriate and the conservative ones weren't. To be honest I still don't know if what I think of as a secondary source necessarily is one after all this discussion. It seems even a direct quote is enough to sway what would otherwise be independent analysis into primary source territory. Cacash refund (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Generally, a source where Uygur or people close to him are expressing his views would be a primary source, while sources where unrelated people are discussing or analyzing his views are secondary sources. WP:PSTS provides a few lists of examples in the "notes" section that are helpful. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard

Can a candidate’s self-published site be used as a source for information about themselves in their BLP as long as the 5 criteria in WP:ABOUTSELF are met? There has been disagreement among editors on this point. Humanengr (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If primary sources are disputed, e.g., "alternative facts" about the age, you could need a better source or a rough consensus. She uploaded a "Merry Christmas" video on YouTube, remotely related to the "multireligious" topic.^[1] –84.46.52.210 (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thx for that. Can you address this objection by one editor:

”The inclusion of the word ‘multireligious’ in the sentence ’Gabbard was raised in a multicultural and multireligious household’ needs to be justified by contemporaneous sources (of which there are none) and is not supported by WP:CS.”

Humanengr (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting example. I guess you could argue it is to some extent " self-serving" per WP:ABOUTSELF. I'd be ok with it with a "According to Gabbard..." if there's no conflicting sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Humanengr, the cited reasoning is an irrelevant attempt to impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Xenagoras (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Be specific. We don't use self-sourced info if it's disputed by rs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Not 100% true. If the BLP is responding via SPS to claims laid out by RSes at them as attempting to refute them (whether right or wrong about that), it is probably appropriate to include the BLP's SPS briefly to stay neutral. (something like "The NYTimes accused Smith of being racist, but Smith refuted this in a following Twitter message." sourced to the NYTimes' and Smith's Twitter) On the other hand, where the controversy is started by a statement from a BLP on their SPS, and RSes dispute that, its likely better to frame it from the RS and not use the BLP's SPS to start. ("Smith's claims on being non-racist have been refuted by the NYTimes" only needs the NYtimes sourcing). This should not be taken as a rule, but that there is sometimes need to do so. What we do want to avoid are the self-serving claims, those that attract no coverage at all by RSes. Including those, outside of standard factual biographical material, would be unduly self-serving. --Masem (t) 17:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I think "self-serving" means WP:ADVOCACY. Xenagoras (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Original responder addressed the situation where there is dispute from RS on a fact in a self-published source about self. I'll open another request on the more specific point. Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The shorter summary by Snooganssnoogans is clearer. I dislike the US-centric "fact finding" about religious views and ethnic roots on the wrong side of OR and BLPCAT in BLPs. For multireligious I couldn't tell if that's a proper adjective, from my "DEnglish" PoV it's a red link. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd watch out and avoid personal sites as they likely have spin and fluff. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF is clear on this matter. If a self-published source contains an exceptional claim, it requires multiple high-quality sources. In this case, an exceptional claim led to this discussion and the multiple high quality sources do not exist to support the claim. Samp4ngeles (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Being raised in a multi-religious household is not an exceptional claim. According to a 2016 Pew Research Center study "[T]he number of Americans raised in interfaith homes appears to be growing. Fully one-quarter of young adults in the Millennial generation (27%) say they were raised in a religiously mixed family."[2] Gabbard is from the Millenial cohort.

If there were RS with specific fact allegations contradicting Gabbard, we could include both claims as indicated by Masem. But you have not yet identified any such specific statements from RS. Humanengr (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

At the moment the lede offers Hindu (given sources not checked, I believe it). The "Early life and education" section states "multicultural and multi-religious", but the given CBS source (text + video) doesn't support it (verification failed, or I need fresh coffee). While I trust that it's true, multi-religious is a red link, less elegant than your mixed, and not obviously relevant for this BLP. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Humanengr's explanation that being raised in a multi-religious household is not an exceptional claim. Xenagoras (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Fresh coffee. That 2019 CBS source states: "She comes from a multicultural, multi-religious family and, as a practicing Hindu, was the first Hindu elected to Congress." From this 2012 NY Times News Service piece:

Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat and an Iraq War veteran who won a seat in the House from Hawaii, is the daughter of a Hindu mother and a Roman Catholic father. She calls herself Hindu, a first for a member of Congress. Bui it is not quite that simple.

“I identify as a Hindu," Gabbard wrote in an email Thursday. “How­ever, I am much more into spiritu­ality than I am religious labels."

In that sense," she added,“I am a Hindu in the mold of the most famous Hindu, Mahatma Gandhi, who is my hero and role model."

Gabbard wrote that she "was raised in a multicultural, multiracial, mulitfaith family" that al­lowed her “to spend a lot of time studying and contemplating upon both the Bhagavad-Gita and the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament."

Today her spiritual practice is neither Catholic nor traditionally Hindu.

“My attempts to work for the welfare of others and the planet is the core of my spiritual practice," Gabbard wrote. “Also, every morning I take time to remember my re­lationship with God through the practice of yoga meditation and reading verses from the Bhagavad-Gita. From the perspective of the Bhagavad-Gita, the spiritual path as I have described here is known as karma yoga and bhakti yoga."

I should add that as a cite. Humanengr (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe "multi-faith" is a better term. Gabbard has used that as well. Also see https://www.tulsi2020.com/about/about-tulsi-gabbard-my-spiritual-path. Humanengr (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, admittedly I'm rather paranoid with ethnic/religious info (example), but I have no problem with the Gabbard BLP or her Christmas + similar personal videos, not everything on her channel is self-serving campaigning. Apologies to Masem, a good place for my reply to Humanegr was occupied in an edit conflict, feel free to move this to a better place. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Given she is running for election, anything from her campaign site should be taken as self-serving, and should not be used unless confirmed by a third-party RS. --Masem (t) 03:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not including her campaign page as a cite, but you can see it is consistent with the material going back 8 years (and it elaborates more detail to show context). There are no RS that say she did not have a multi-faith upbringing. If there were, I would include both as conflicting claims per your earlier direction. I was mentioning the campaign page as an example of 'multi-faith' in lieu of 'multi-religious'. Humanengr (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Masem's assessment. Gabbard used the "multi-cultural, multi-religious" and/or "multi-faith" language at least twice during her 2012 campaign, as noted in the sources Humanengr mentions, which would have been self-serving and would have dispelled talk about her upbringing in the Science of Identity Foundation -- something that was local knowledge at the time. Broad claims by Humanengr about the number of Americans raised in interfaith homes do not apply specifically here and give no insight into Gabbard's religious practice in her early life. Furthermore, the sources from 2012 that Humanengr has dug up rely solely on statements from Gabbard herself and make no mention of her Science of Identity Foundation upbringing and therefore indicate a biased and self-serving nature. Beyond Gabbard's own words, there has been no secondary or tertiary analysis indicating a multireligious/multifaith upbringing. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The text that you yourself inserted into the Science of Identity Foundation article stated: "Butler has said of the SIF philosophy of Bhakti yoga, 'It does not conflict with Christianity, with Islam, with any bona fide religious system.'" There is no contradiction between that statement and Gabbard's description of having a multifaith upbringing. The meditation practices taught through the SIF are not incompatible with the way the Gabbards have described elements of both Hinduism and Christianity being present in their home.

You are doing OR on other people's private religious beliefs. Ignoring the fact that 'cult' is the first of the MOS MOS:words to watch, you declared your opinion as: “It would be accurate to describe SIF as either a cult-like Hare Krishna splinter group (see [3]) or a fringe yogic sect, primarily due to its virulently homophobic and Islamophic teachings” to which Ronz, responded: “Samp4ngeles, regarding cult-like, fringe , and virulently homophobic and Islamophic: No. I fail to see how those are verified by the source you indicate, let alone represent a neutral presentation of the best sources.”

Yet you are continuing to push the 'cult' identification about SIF and Gabbard. Note that, per the WP Cult article, Catherine Wessinger (Professor of the History of Religions at Loyola University New Orleans) "has stated that the word 'cult' represents just as much prejudice and antagonism as racial slurs or derogatory words for women and homosexuals. She has argued that it is important for people to become aware of the bigotry conveyed by the word, drawing attention to the way it dehumanises the group's members and their children."

It is inappropriate and offensive for WP to be used to push this 'cult-obsessed' agenda. Humanengr (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not OR -- it's just checking for RS. The 2012 article plainly says that the claims come from an e-mail Gabbard sent. And again, you're speaking in generalities with regard to Science of Identity Foundation not conflicting with Christianity, etc., while ignoring the the lack of secondary sources discussing Gabbard's actual religious practice in early life. And I have no idea how what you have just written about cults relates to this discussion, but these are baseless claims you are making about me pushing some sort of agenda and I ask you to be WP:CIVIL and take them down. Samp4ngeles (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, such material can be used. WP:BLPSELFPUB applies. Xenagoras (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

For those interested in bigoted attacks that Gabbard has faced regarding her private religious beliefs, see the sources cited here. Humanengr (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This is really grasping at straws. The Gabbards aren't mentioned anywhere in that article, and Gabbard was one year old when this article was written. I am providing a URL for anyone to read the actual article: https://staradvertiser.newspapers.com/image/276169995/ Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

References

 Comment: About "touting his support for single-payer healthcare", a quote from the BLP as of today: Is it only me, or is this out of line? My idea of neutral would be "supporting single-payer healthcare" with a wikilink. The HuffPost reference contains no "tout", but I can't tell if it is the RS/P red or variety, maybe an attribution to Jessica Schulberg would help (8 uses in the article namespace). The other The Santa Clarita Valley Signal source also contains no "tout". Both sources are not wikilinked in their references, NOTTIKTOK. –84.46.52.170 (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Mark Kostabi

Mark Kostabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bringing this here for review, an IP editor and a new user with one edit have both removed this content, with edit summaries of falsely sourced paragraph that is libelous and harmful and the new user claiming poorly sourced content which is misleading, harmful and libellous. I reverted both editors. I maintain the content is a significant life event for a BLP, reliably sourced, NPOV, he's well known, and has received sustained coverage through the years, 1991, 2004, 2010, 2012, 2018. Mentioned in this book as well. And the original article (June 1989) is still online, The Art Of The Hype, with a paid subscription. Should this content be removed or is it compliant with our WP:BLP policy? Left a note on the new user's talk page about this discussion. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Hi there. My primary trouble is that you replaced the content prior to coming here, such disputed content would be better left out rather than replaced if discussion is needed regarding BLP concerns. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't notice until today that this was already brought to this noticeboard. In addition to Isaidnoway reverting Lower Manhattan Art History Society (talk · contribs), Cullen328 and I also reverted this editor. Looking at the material, it can't simply be described as tabloid journalism. The book source is right there. It's my opinion that some material on this matter should be included in the article. That stated, per WP:LABEL, it is perhaps worth changing "homophobic remarks" to "remarks that were characterized as homophobic." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Govindaharihari, in that if a person is unsure about BLP compliance, enough to come here for advice, then they should probably err on the side of caution and leave it out until they're assured it's ok to restore it.

That said, the warring editor is incorrect. Page Six of the New York Post may well be an unreliable source, I don't know nor does it matter. We don't use that as a source. But it was apparently reported by the Villager, the Washington Post, the book, etc., and those are reliable sources. The retraction of the apology is properly attributed to the Page Six article. Nearly all of that is direct quotes of the subject, and nearly all the opinions are his. I also agree with Flyer22 that we should probably not say "homophobic remarks" in Wikipedia's voice, because that is a judgment call, but at the very least we should attribute it to the source. And really, the same could be said for "significant backlash". Personally, I think that first sentence is rather redundant and we'd lose nothing if it were removed. Everything needed for the reader to make those same judgments is found below, so I would just nix that sentence. Zaereth (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22 Reborn's suggestion that we change "homophobic remarks" to "remarks that were characterized as homophobic." Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers

The editor Peter Gulutzan has since at least November 2018 repeatedly removed reliably sourced content on climate change denial / fringe rhetoric on BLPs by claiming that there is a BLP violation in covering inaccuracies made by prominent climate change deniers:

• Myron Ebell[4] (removal of content sourced to Climate Feedback)
• Guus Berkhout[5] (removal of content sourced to Climate Feedback)
• Joanne Nova[6][7] (removal of content sourced to peer-reviewed publications, Science magazine, PolitiFact, National Geographic, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning InsideClimate News)
• Ian Plimer[8] (removal of Climate Feedback)

There is a consensus on the reliability of Climate Feedback, which the RSP list[9] describes as "a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements." It's starting to get tiresome to deal with these reverts of RS content, so I'd just like to get confirmation here that there is no BLP violation involved in adding reliably sourced content about the accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you discussed the issue with the editor on the various talk pages? I think we need to be very careful with a claim like that one removed from the Ebell article. The claim in question, "Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC."" is true so long as there is one example of it being true. Absent the context in which it was made we shouldn't include such statements in Wikipedia voice. Such a definitive statement should include a link to the original claim as well as an attributed explanation to why the claim is wrong. I didn't review the other examples but this first one certainly doesn't support the view that Peter Gulutzan's edits are problematic. Springee (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. In fact Snooganssnoogans did start a thread on the Myron Ebell talk page, I hope that editors will look at my reply there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Taking the points in order:

(Ebell) On 30 November 2018 Snooganssnoogans started a thread on the Myron Ebell talk page beginning with the incorrect assertion that I had had said climatefeedback.org is not a Reliable Source. In fact I had said no such thing, I had said "Not compliant with WP:BLPSPS and WP:WELLKNOWN.", and on 30 November 2018 I replied on that thread with a full explanation about the cited author/editor, to which Snooganssnoogans did not reply. On 2 December 2018 -- without pinging me and without discussing my actual objections -- Snooganssnoogans started a thread on WP:RSN and got 2 editors to agree (one editor did not) that in general climatefeedback looked like an RS. On 3 December 2018 another editor re-inserted the contentious material in the BLP. I asked if others had opinions (nobody did), and I did nothing further. Would anyone like to finally address what I said?

(Berkhout) Once again, a WP:RSN thread Factcheck from climatefeedback.org as a source at Guus Berkhout. I participated, others disagreed, the material in question was re-inserted in the Guus Berkhout BLP, I did nothing further.

(Nova) Snooganssnoogans points to this edit by me on 12 September 2019 and claims it was about various wonderful publications -- which is false, as anyone who looks at the edit can see. The cited source was cup.columbia.edu, my edit summary was "Removed "Nova is known for promoting fringe views on climate science". Cited source refutes some statements in her guide, but does not say she is known for that. Poorly sourced material." Nobody disputed that (as far as I can tell), it was a fact that the cited source didn't say it, and the statement has not been re-inserted.

(Plimer) In this case my edit summary was "Additional source is not compliant with WP:BLPSPS, and also unnecessary, there is already a cite." i.e. I made no change to the content, so this doesn't fit with Snooganssnoogans's opening sentence that I "repeatedly removed sourced content". (In fact not only did I not remove sourced content in this case, I didn't "repeatedly" remove in other cases.) I believe it could be discussed on the appropriate talk page, and wonder what's wrong with that.

(consensus) I refer Snooganssnoogans to the essay don't quote essays or proposals as if they were policy. More seriously, the reference to WP:RSP (which most charitably can be described as having "limited status" the same as an essay) should not be brought into a discussion as if people who are referring to WP:BLPSPS (which is a part of a real policy) need to bow to it. In this case, I looked deeper at the claim that "most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source" and found that it was added by one of the 3 or 4 editors who thought it was not self-published, as opposed to 3 or 4 who thought it was. If someone wants to establish a consensus whether Climate Feedback meets WP:BLPSPS requirements, let's have a talk specifically about that (which as far as I know has never happened) and let's have it on the relevant page which is WP:BLPN (which as far as I know has never happened).

I would greatly appreciate a confirmation that Snooganssnoogans's points are without merit, because Snooganssnoogans has used the same points to accuse me of "tendentious editing". Regrettably an administrator (Bishonen) after 11 minutes agreed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Credit: The statement about "most editors" was made by Newslinger, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"The cited source was cup.columbia.edu". Just to be clear: this is a Columbia University Press book published by a recognized expert in the field of climate science. This kind of misrepresentation, one among many, amounts to WP:TE at this point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who looks will see that I did not say there was anything wrong with Columbia, I said the cited source did not support the statement in the Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(Question to all) Is Climatefeedback something should be treated like the Politifact? I don't recall the exact location but I think people recently concluded that Politifact should be treated as something similar to a think tank. Their opinions are often cited by others and often have WEIGHT. However, it was also felt that they aren't a source in and of themselves. Thus if Politifac says "Senator X was wrong..." that doesn't establish WEIGHT for inclusion. Weight would be established if CNN says, "According to Politifact, Senator X was wrong...". I think discussions around the SPLC have reached similar conclusions. If that same thinking applies to Climatefeedback then I think the Ebell content, as inserted way back in the day, didn't establish WEIGHT for inclusion. Stating a living person was "wrong" is something negative about them and thus the typical BLP concerns apply. That doesn't mean it shouldn't make it into the article but we really should be careful that we aren't over simplifying what might be a more complex claim. In general I would be uncomfortable with statements like the one in the Ebell article since it looks like a random sentence thrown in to discredit the person rather than true explanation of what is almost certainly a more complex position/claim by Ebell. - Disclaimer, prior to my responses here I was not familiar with Ebell. Springee (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative views, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism. — Newslinger talk 10:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment — Newslinger talk 01:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Describing WP:RS/P as some kind of WP:ESSAY doesn't match the effects of, e.g., "deprecated" on not logged-in users, for examples see WT:WHITELIST, WT:RSN, and WT:AFC. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What I actually said was: most charitably can be described as having "limited status" the same as an essay. That charitable description is the WP:SUPPLEMENTAL guideline: "In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I don't think that's a good summary of the consensus on Politifact. Here's the recent RFC [10] and an earlier one [11]. The consensus to me reads that Politifact is a reliable source for factual claims, equivalent to a high quality news source. The only exception is that their specific truth ratings of a statement ("True", "Mostly False", "Pants on Fire", etc), and any kind of analysis of percentage of false statements should be attributed as an opinion. Just wanted to note that, I don't really have an opinion on Climate Feedback Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Nobody expects the spanish inquisition here: The Hill in a "Politifact fail" video on YouTube four days ago. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

RRC, you are correct. It was the opinion part that editors felt needed to be cited by others in order to establish WEIGHT. Do we think that is the same case here? If CF says Jane Doe made a false claim [here], should that statement have WEIGHT by itself or does that claim need other sources to establish weight? Also, should we just quote the high level claim or should the details be included. Again, I'm concerned about what look like random, negative statements without context. In general I think labeling people as climate deniers is problematic given the extremely political nature of the public debate. Springee (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Peter_Gulutzan here. As I understand, we are supposed to present all views of reliable sources in proportion... and for bios immediately remove poorly sourced contentious material.

• ClimateFeedback should be treated as an opinion blog site with recognition that the opinions come from credentialed academics (if verified). It carries some weight, but it's not the "supreme court" of climate change sources.
• My search for Myron Ebel at Duck Duck Go says most sources call him a director of a center at an institute, or head of the transition team, etc. Calling him a "denier" is a derogatory term, and cherry picking a particular source is not neutrally representing more than one source(s) available.
• Even the particular cited source (6 above) does not call Ebel a "denier."
• The source's opinions should be attributed as such, if you want to describe claims as "false" based on them.
• Factual accuracy and editing of material on Climate Feedback site: I spot checked this article looking at links to bios. Martin Singh's bio link gives a 404. This is a negative indicator regarding editing and reliability.

-- Yae4 (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yae4: but if you searched for "Martin Singh, Postdoctoral Research fellow, Harvard University:' you would have found this. He is now at Monash University[12] which is probably why the link no longer exists. So the fact that page was removed is not a comment on the Climate Feedback site. The site has been discussed at WP:RSN[13] - people can read the entire short discussion, but here's the first two comments:

"An editor[14] insists that Climatefeedback.org is a self-published source run by nobodies and that we can't use it as a source for statements such as "Myron Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC." Climate scientists note that past climate models have accurately predicted subsequent rates of global warming."[15] Climatefeedback.org has been cited favorably recently by sources such as Deutsche Welle,[16] Columbia Journalism Review[17], Axios[18], and the Guardian which referred to climatefeedback.org as "a highly respected and influential resource"[19]. It would be good if the RS noticeboard could clarify once and for all whether this source, which other RS cite and describe favorably and which rely on assessments by actual experts, can be used as a RS, so that editors who want to scrub this source and related content from the pages of prominent climate change deniers will stop doing so (or conversely, be allowed to do so). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"Hard to argue against Deutsche Welle, Columbia Journalism Review, Axios, and the Guardian. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"*Generally reliable. With published editorial and advisory teams, a clear methodology ([20] [21]), and multiple endorsements from established reliable sources, Climate Feedback appears to have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required of a generally reliable source. — Newslinger talk 10:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)" Doug Weller talk

None of that is relevant to the specific objections I made about the Myron Ebell cite, and I never said that climatefeedback.org is run by nobodies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: I have no idea why you are telling me this as I thought it was obviously a response to the post above mine by Yae4 Doug Weller talk 16:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: It was about me as well, you quoted from the WP:RSN thread that I'd mentioned, starring Snooganssnoogans's claim re what I'd said, and I have no idea why. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, The fact that Singh's listing is out of date since around January 2017, or 3 years ago, and he reviewed 2 articles in 2019, including November, but they didn't update his info' is no reflection on their editorial performance or factual accuracy? With all due respect, I disagree. It's not a huge error, but it's an indicator; big errors start with small ones. His comments also struck me as being much too long, as compared with others, which is why I clicked. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

^This is a strange criticism of a RS. This well-regarded fact-checking website comprised entirely of recognized experts is unreliable because one author did not update his author bio on the website (moving from a postdoc to a tenure-track job) and because his comments are long. You do realize that author bios are usually written by the authors themselves? This applies to the author bios in peer-reviewed academic publications, as well as the folks who write op-eds for RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not here to exchange snarky insults. I stand by my original, concise list of comments above. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

To clarify my last comment ^, I did not see all your edits of your previous comment until after I replied.

So it might be good to review Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_own_comments: "even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes."

Also, referring to the heading here and at User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan#Tendentious_editing_on_climate_change_topics a review of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages: "Keep headings neutral" also seems appropriate. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans has accused me of tendentious editing at least four times (15:38 11 January, 16:00 11 January, 03:55 15 January, 14:19 15 January), and if that's accepted then Snooganssnoogans's request is taken care of. Incidentally Snooganssnoogans's claim "comprised entirely of recognized experts" is not an opinion I could agree with. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable. We are in a situation analogous to that with alternative medicine: the specialists who critique climate change denial typically do so in venues dedicated to the subject of denialism, because denialism itself is not a live controversy within the field. You don't publish papers in professional climate literature saying that $RANDOMDENIALIST is wrong because (a) it's obvious and (b) it does not advance the field of climate science. So we have a number of venues, of which this is one, where specialists gather to critique a specific aspect of pseudoscience. Obviously that critique necessarily personalises things (X is wrong to say Y is hard to discuss without naming X as the source of Y). That means we have to be careful not to slip into hyperbole, but the content linked above, doesn't do that. The only thing I would do is WP:ATT everything. Guy (help!) 15:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Include. Climate Feedback (RSP entry) is not a self-published source, just as the similar Science-Based Medicine (RSP entry) was determined not to be self-published in a 2019 RfC. InsideClimate News won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2013, and is not self-published because it has a sizable editorial team. The guideline on fringe theories makes it clear that "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." Climate change denial is contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change, and is a fringe theory because it "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". In-text attribution is appropriate in some cases, and I would reword some of the text to focus the criticism on the people's claims, and not the people themselves. — Newslinger talk 01:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I made five points on a talk page post, one of which was about InsideClimate News, I've withdrawn it. It's disputed whether Snooganssnoogans's edits have always met WP:BLP requirements, and whether Snooganssnoogans's requests or accusations are laudable, but not (as far as I can tell) whether pseudoscientific views should be pushed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You've made some reasonable points, so I've taken a closer look at each of the edits listed in Snooganssnoogans's first comment in this discussion:

1. Myron Ebell (Special:Diff/871394198): The text in the article is consistent with the the Climate Feedback fact check, but in-text attribution of Climate Feedback would be appropriate, and the text should also state the year Ebell made the statement (2018). Something like 'In a 2018 Newsnight interview, Ebell stated that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC", which was described as "factually inaccurate" by Climate Feedback.' would be fully BLP-compliant. It doesn't look like Ebell responded to the fact check.
2. Guus Berkhout (Special:Diff/919740851): This looks fine to me, since I don't consider Climate Feedback self-published, as explained in my previous comment. The text includes Climate Feedback's negative evaluation of the letter, but doesn't describe Berkhout or the other signatories with negative terms. However, the text could use some copyediting, and there's a typo in "scienctists".
3. Joanne Nova (Special:Diff/929091011, Special:Diff/915352813, Talk:Joanne Nova § A recent edit)
   • I agree that "known primarily for promoting pseudoscientific views on climate change and the harms of smoking" should not be used to describe the Heartland Institute, since Powell's book does not directly say that. The main article might have more supporting sources, but I'm not sure if they're relevant in the article on Nova. Alternative phrasing, such as "a think tank that opposed the Kyoto Protocol", would be better-supported and more relevant.
   • "The book argues that temperatures have not increased" is imprecise, as Nova's handbook states that "the world has not warmed since 2001". The text should add "since 2001".
   • National Geographic is one of the sources used for the text "The book promotes the myth that there is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more will not have an impact on temperatures." The magazine links to a UT News piece, which refers to a "myth" that consists of two claims: the CO₂ saturation claim, and the water vapor claim. Nova made the first claim in her handbook, but was silent on the second claim. I'm undecided on whether this is a potent enough counterargument to justify excluding "myth" from the text. There is probably some way to rephrase this unambiguously.
   • 'Her blog is described as "skeptical" of climate science.' isn't well-supported, since the cited NPR opinion piece doesn't explicitly mention Nova, but "a number of active bloggers".
   • There were other changes in those edits. No comment on these changes, since I didn't examine them yet.
4. Ian Plimer (Special:Diff/935260217): As I don't consider Climate Feedback self-published, I would keep the citation. The article text is unaffected.

— Newslinger talk 10:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This thread isn't about whether to insert that material (it already is inserted). It's about Snooganssnoogans's request. (Update: I removed some unnecessary words in that last sentence before there was a reply.) I want to discuss the edits, but does anyone object if we do so on separate threads? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I added a thread related to the first accusation, my revert on Myron Ebell. I'd like to do one at a time. I think that "what should be in the Myron Ebell article" belongs better in that thread, and "should the Snooganssnoogans request be supported" belongs in this one. Some people have suggested that there should have been attribution (meaning there was an WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV violation too?), but I didn't bring that in because it is part of the WP:NPOV policy not the WP:BLP policy. And, as stated, I regard talk about WP:RS guideline as unnecessary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Adding a couple more observations about Climate Feedback (aka Science Feedback and Health Feedback): It's a little early to claim good "reputation" for accuracy when they only had the notability tag removed last April related to Facebook, and a few months later were censured for a review of a video on Facebook: "The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories."[22] -- Yae4 (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

List of YouTubers

Some expert input about the Stefan Molyneux entry on the List of YouTubers could be helpful, a "discussion" (not really) on the Talk page was inconclusive. –84.46.53.207 (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux substantially uses YouTube. For instance: "One of the alt-right’s biggest YouTube stars — Stefan Molyneux — is Canadian, but you’d never know it, because he talks almost exclusively about U.S. issues." Bus stop (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, the OP proposing "remove" blanked the talk page section after my reply, and I interpret that and your reply as "keep". The BLP issue is the characterization as an Anarcho-capitalist podcaster, writer, and public speaker. Known for his advocacy of libertarianism, anti-feminism, and support for Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the alt-right, is that as it should be based on the BLP?
And is BLP/N suited to discuss a blpo=yes list issue? –84.46.53.255 (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, that list is an utter mess, with very few sources, so it's entirely possible someone make take a hatchet to it one day. I'm not planning to do so myself. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but the entries with sources—or red/no wikilinks—are actually the worst. It's one of those simple "bring wikilink + rationale per list rules, get entry" lists. Minor issue, I still haven't figured out what the rules are, who does the cleanup, etc. Not planning to volunteer, the unprotected blpo List of sex symbols with "known to be not good enough" rules is more fun for IPs with a cleanup mission. –84.46.53.255 (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Well I didn't notice we had red links or black entries (no links). I've remove all except for those where the channel or whatever was a blue link, or where they were part of a group where at least one was a blue link. Probably some of those I kept should be removed as well, e.g. Ewan Gotfryd who's work doesn't seem to get key mention in any of those links. Likewise where people are part of a group and one of them is a blue link. (Frankly, I think in at least some of these, the blue link probably came about in questionable circumstances.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

V. A. Shrikumar

• V. A. Shrikumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP requested that the above be semi-protected at WP:RFPP and I've done that. If anyone has a moment, please try to work out what is going on. In particular, some editors like adding "Menon" to the name, and some like to remove it. The image was also recently changed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, from what I can tell, Menon (subcaste) is more of an honorific, and not part of his actual name, so I would say leave it out. From what I can see, looking at the most recent revert, the user in question seems to be adding mostly puffery, some bad grammar, simplistic yet uncommon names (ie: "ad films" instead of "commercials", or a list of marketing tasks instead of simply saying "marketing"), and for some weird reason they like to change everything to the present tense. I think page protection is likely the best thing. Zaereth (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael McCain

Michael McCain

"As CEO of Maple Leaf Foods, McCain's handling of the 2008 listeria outbreak with frank and open communications made him a role model for crisis management.[[23]]"

This is overly promotional content with a dead source. According to policy, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Statement should be changed to reflect a more neutral tone, or at the very least have a verifiable source.

Bleepenvoy (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed the promotional line. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Disagree it was promotion. The Globe and Mail is a reputable paper, so a comment like this in his obit in that paper is not really promotion. As for being a dead link, a quick Wayback visit and edit added the archive there. Editors should be always checking archive.org for replacing dead links. If that source wasn't recoverable that way, I would agree the removal was fine. --Masem (t) 00:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Also found one academic paper reviewing the crisis management, as well as the fact the Canadian press named him business newsperson of that year for the handling. Definitely a notable facet of this person. --Masem (t) 00:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would ask that the "role model for crisis management" bit be placed in quotes as it's still the opinion of a publication. So long as it's sourced and not stated as fact I have no further qualms with it. Bleepenvoy (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It's on the border of needing quotes. There are likely more sources that can back that up, as the event and aftermath towards McCain's leadership and honest seems very well documented. --Masem (t) 06:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of maintaining a neutral, disinterested tone, I attempted to incorporate that sentiment without stating it as fact. Bleepenvoy (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:COISOURCE having a lot of trouble considering the widespread conflicts of interest that exist here. Talk:Michael McCain expands on my concerns. I don't think it would be responsible or objective to relay potential PR intervention without expanding on these potential conflicts, and that seems beyond the scope of the article. I think it's best to be cautious here for the sake of being a neutral source.Bleepenvoy (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Note that per Wikipedia:Link rot, you should not generally remove content simply because the link is dead. This applies even if you looked for an archive and cannot find one. You should normally only do so if you have genuine doubts that the source verifies the content. If you cannot find a replacement link, it's generally best to simply keep the citation intact and leave it for someone else to deal with. This example actually perfectly illustrates why. Even if the source was not on archive.org, it is on archive.is which is no longer banned for their historic spamming [24]. More importantly "a reputable paper", let's remember that the paper part is still true. The Globe and Mail remains a physical newspaper. Considering the significance of the person, I think it's quite likely that either this exact story, or a very similar one was published in the actual newspaper. We have the author and date and title, so it's easily possible that we already have enough for a citation to the physical newspaper. We do not require sources are online, so even if this is only cited to the physical newspaper, that's perfectly fine. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Grandmaster Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj

Grandmaster Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj - This page contains many false informations. The cited weblinks are misrepresenting. The cited weblinks of awards are false. The page should be deleted or rewritten completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classical Arun (talk • contribs) 05:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

{{rewrite}}, {{PROD}} and {{AFD}} exist, pick what you need, the article name with a title is already odd, therefore I haven't read the page. Caveat, better don't pick PROD or AFD until this BLP/N entry is archived, about a week after the last reply. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Also discussed in the teahouse, Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj is a redirect. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Bohdi Jones and TicTok account for Tokpolitiks linked as same person in content but not sourced.

Content added linking Bodhi Jones to a TicTok account are only based on the looks of the person and has not been sourced proving they are the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles E Hampton II (talk • contribs) 12:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparently you fixed that, and BLP/N (this page) is for WP:BLP issues, where folks found no consensus on the talk page, e.g., disagree about the BLP policy. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think he's notable anyway. Taken to AFD. Neiltonks (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Reece Webb-Foster

Please review the edits of @Luke Mills1996: at Reece Webb-Foster - he claims to be the subject's brother and makes edits every once-in-a-while which go against RS in the article. GiantSnowman 20:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

There’s literally a link saying he plays for Droylsden and all edits are right and you can drop the “ he claims “ bullshit because I am. Who are you to make edits about a member of my family when you don’t even know him or anyone from my family? Read the article mr Wikipedia page editor on a power trip and stop spreading the wrong information about my brother! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Mills1996 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

And here’s the link proving I’m right about who he plays for. Stop lying on my brothers page.

https://www.footballdatabase.eu/en/player/details/243924-reece-foster — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Mills1996 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Luke Mills1996, if you have a conflict of interest because you are related to the article subject, then you should probably be using the article's talk page (Talk:Reece Webb-Foster) rather than directly editing his page, especially if you are making edits that have been contested by other editors. Others have already directed you to WP:COI. You should also read WP:CIVILITY, which is the Wikipedia policy on how to properly interact with others in a respectful and considerate manner. Note that editors here cannot simply take your word for any fact on here. We have to be guided by the reliable sources, and if they contain incorrect information, then the article's talk page is the appropriate place to resolve those types of concerns. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Wally's right. We have no way of knowing who you really are, but for argument's sake I will assume you are who you say. It still doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter if you are the subject himself, we need reliable sources to back up your claim.

From what I can tell, Steeton, Haworth, and Keighley are all part of the City of Bradford; something like Hollywood and Beverly Hills are to LA. This stat site says Keighley, while others simply say Bradford. Several newspapers and magazines like this article from the Keighley News say Haworth (it's even in the title of the article in this one). If you are indeed his brother, then you should have access to sources which contradict this info. If this is a mistake, then you and your brother should take that up with the sources and have them run a correction. Only then can we change the info. Zaereth (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Luke Mills1996: for consideration of the above comments. GiantSnowman 20:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the talk page with your COI and this BLP/N info. Simplified, nobody cares if you are an enthusiast, brother or "himself", everything works. And of course you can fix obvious nonsense and vandalism. However, with a WP:COI, you cannot add facts only you know, if reliable sources are wrong you have to accept it, or suggest your evidence on the talk page, where others can check if that's good or boils down to your say-so. –84.46.53.30 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you for the most part, 84.46..., with the exception that the subject just has to accept mistakes made by reliable sources. However, Wikipedia is not the place to correct them. While the brother has no standing, the subject most certainly can and should contact the offending newspaper, magazine, or stat website and request that they print a retraction or make a correction. Any good RS will want to correct their mistakes publicly. Once that's done then all anyone has to do is bring a copy to the talk page and we can correct it here. But the only one with the power to make that happen is the subject.

I have a feeling that Mr. Mills may be taking this a bit too literally. I've never been to Bradford, but let's just hypothesize that my parents live in Haworth, but for some reason I happen to be born a few miles away at the hospital in Steeton. Maybe it's the nearest hospital, I don't know. But I never lived in Steeton a day in my life. Would I be Steeton-born or Haworth born? And the bigger question, does it really matter? If I come from Mountain View, Stuckagain, or Spenard, am I not still from Anchorage? As a possible compromise, perhaps we could just say Bradford and leave it at that? And the one question burning in everyone's minds, is GiantSnowman bigger than Snowzilla (snowman)? Zaereth (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Norman Shetler

This article states that Norman Shelter was born in 1931 and served in World War II, but that is impossible, he would not have been 18 until 1949, four years after the war ended. Either he was not born in 1931 or he served in the Korean war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.222.76 (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If ever I saw a candidate for WP:Articles for deletion it's this one. The only sources are music academy schedules and advertisements. And a quick google search yields no reliable sources. There's no way to verify any of this, nor to establish notability. Zaereth (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Change to BLP policy to allow omission of identifying details when a BLP is in danger of physical harm

Following an ANI discussion on protecting the identity of the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower, I've proposed a change to BLP policy to allow for the omission of identifying details when a BLP is in danger of physical harm. I'm putting it up here to elicit further comments from interested editors: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proposed changes.

Thanks. François Robere (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTATABLOID is useful here. Not a tabloid & not a newspaper. Potential harm far outweighs any benefits. Bleepenvoy (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Jay Maynard

Jay Maynard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discospinster constantly reverting sourced material from Jay Maynard article without comment, even as far as to remove the edits from the system entirely. Refuses to address the reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.50.12.149 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It is being reverted because it's not referenced by an independent reliable source. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Delhi gang rape

• 2012 Delhi gang rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk page discussion thread Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape#Naming the juvenile convict

I would like BLPN contributors to share their opinion on the dispute, whether Wikipedia Article should name the "unnamed" Juvenile convict in this case.

• Past consensus among several editors is to not name the juvenile accused.

WP:BLPNAME Policy is very clear on this.

WP:BLPNAME : Privacy of names Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. This is the single event where this juvenile is was discussed. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. The juvenile has not been named in any public documents official case records, court documents, news articles. We have only 1 RS India today article based on initial reports and India today since then has not named the subject in any of its news articles. An Article from same publication IndiaToday from 2017 about this juvenile does not mention the subject's name. The name has been intentionally concealed, as a court case involving juvenile. Using "juvenile suspect" like the reliable sources instead of the claimed name does not result in any loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Other than a news media, there are no secondary sources or scholarly journals or work of recognized experts that name the subject.

• the name of the juvenile has not been officially revealed in a public forum and has been kept confidential since the the law necessitates that a juvenile’s identity is not to be disclosed. The name thus floating on social media is mere speculation. Source - AltNews.in (A fact checker site)

• based on above quote from Altnews, clearly it is inappropriate to use an unconfirmed name in the Wikipedia article.
• There are real life based security risks of using this name, on the subject who completed his sentencing in 2015 and was released, and others with this name. As seen in the Altnews article above, there have been open public calls to harm the subject or others with this name. Any young man with that unconfirmed name is a target who can be lynched by mobs in India and that is a very big and possible risk. Especially since there are frequent cases of mob lynching happening in India.
• Reliable sources just refer to him as "the juvenile convict" or "juvenile" and IMHO that is what wikipedia should also be using. Naming him will be violation of Wikipedia's policies WP:BLPNAME that prohibit the naming in such a case.
• So considering all these reasons, IMHO there are strong reasons for not adding this name into the article, but Binksternet disagrees. thoughts ?
  

DBigXrayᗙ 18:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Publishing this individual's (alleged) name in these circumstances would absolutely be contrary to WP:BLP. It should not be done. MPS1992 (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Do no harm. –84.46.53.192 (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Tapon Mahamud Jony

I am someone who is a big fan of a broadcast crew member 'Tapon Mahamud Jony' and I made an account on Wikipedia with his name. I have watched all of his interviews and attended his award-winning ceremonies. I once met him and told him about my interest to publish an article about himself and so I asked him to provide me some references where he was nominated for awards and achievements. Indeed it is an autobiography and all references are reliable. Please guide me on what changes are needed to publish this article about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapon Mahamud Jony (talk • contribs) 11:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tapon Mahamud Jony: See this simple guide on how to write articles that won't be deleted. You need independent references by other people, not him. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tapon Mahamud Jony: Since you aren't actually Tapon Mahamud Jony, I also suggest you ask for a rename per WP:REALNAME. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Myron Ebell

Snooganssnoogans inserted this: Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC." Climate scientists note that past climate models have accurately predict subsequent rates of global warming. I reverted. Guy re-inserted (citing an additional source that didn't mention the claim). Other people who commented specifically about the Myron Ebell edit or the revert: Springee, Yae4, Newslinger. Should the inserted text be in the article? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• No. I reverted Snooganssnoogans's edit here with the edit summary "Not compliant with WP:BLPSPS and WP:WELLKNOWN." The cite is to this post on a website named "Climate Feedback" by Scott Johnson -- not a climatologist, just an editor who has a Master of Science degree (so does Ebell, big deal). There is no evidence that the post was subject to any editorial control, which is natural, Johnson's the editor. All that Johnson has done is say Ebell made an inaccurate statement based on excerpts from comments of threefour other people -- that do not mention Ebell at all. For each, Johnson says "This comment is taken from an evaluation of a similar claim." I concluded it's a self-published non-expert opinion, hence not compliant with WP:BLPSPS. As for WP:WELLKNOWN, I was referring to the words "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." I see no other sites that claim that Ebell said that and that it's false, so it's non-compliant with that too. Whether it also is non-compliant with WP:RS and WP:DUE looks probable but I didn't see a need to bring them up. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional details re the author: According to Climate Feedback Scott Kyle Johnson's title is "science editor" and he has a masters in hydrogeology from University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is a "geology instructor" for Coconino Community College, and also "part-time faculty" for Northern Arizona University Online. I am unaware of any scholarly articles. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The comments above are deceptive and disingenuous in a way that has now become Peter Gulutzan's trademark when it comes to climate change-related content. The source is not a blog post or whatever by some random called "Scott Johnson" or whatever it is that Gulutzan is now suggesting. The source is Climate Feedback, an acclaimed and recognized fact-checking website, and the claim in question by Ebell is reviewed by four recognized experts in the field of climate science (the editor for the particular post is Scott Johnson). The claim made by Ebell is a typical climate change denier claim that Climate Feedback has reviewed before ("The rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC"), so the reviews by the four recognized experts are re-used reviews from similar statements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Seriously? He said it on BBC Newsnight. How much more public does it have to be? Guy (help!) 23:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• No. Ebell did make the statement, at about 5:11 in the Youtube video linked to at Climate Feedback's "claim review" page. The Independent article does not contain the quote being discussed here, although it does have other quotes from the show. My web news searches did not find any other source with the statement.

The statement has zero specifics - over what time period? which prediction out of hundreds or thousands that have been run? It is a statement that can be true or untrue depending on those details, which were not said.

Climate Feedback is known, but hardly "acclaimed." An "independent" review contained several criticisms, including one instance of "non compliant" and several instances of "partially compliant" with the IFCN code of principles.[25][26][27] They also were investigated found to have used two reviewers who "had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards..."[28]

So, we have a statement that was made on a show, an article criticizing the show for even having that guest (but not containing the quote), and only one source - a review website that has problems complying with their principles, and only re-ran an old set of criticisms of a statement that is so vague it could be true or false. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Given the dates and specific comments related to IPCC, it is not OR to determine that the comments in question in 2018 are related to this report "Global Warming of 1.5 ºC" Now yes, that's still a big report so its not easy to say specifically what model is being compared here, but we can clearly id what he was commenting on. --Masem (t) 01:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

We just don't really know. Maybe he refers to Figure 11.25 of the IPCC ar5 report, where the observations do indeed appear lower (i.e. slower rate of rise) than most predictions [29] (Thanks Judith Curry Climate Models for the Layman, p. 13). [30] But really, this is OR. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

There's more than enough detail in what he is stating in the video from BBC [31] to accurately ID it as the 2018 IPCC report. But you are right about which figure or date set within it he may be referring to to be able to be able to compare. He's also not giving any of his own date, just saying "the rate is actually lower than IPCC". --Masem (t) 03:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You come here to emphasize how the website only partially complied with some of the ICFN's criteria after sifting through International Fact-Checking Network's assessments of Climate Feedback which are full of praise and which conclude that Climate Feedback should be accepted into the International Fact-Checking Network (and Climate Feedback is currently a verified member of the International Fact-Checking Network)? Per the IFCN, Climate Feedback had five instances of partial compliance. For comparison's sake, FactCheck.Org has four such instances[32], and the Associated Press FactChecker has five partial compliances and one non-compliance[33], yet these are indisputably RS. Furthermore, this quibbling over partial compliance is irrelevant: Climate Feedback was accepted into the International Fact-Checking Network, and it was showered in praise by the IFCN assessors. Your comment is incredibly misleading (come on, don't sift through primary sources that are full of praise and omit all the praise, and misleadingly tell everyone about the minor quibbling found in those primary sources) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comparisons. They are useful. I would expect a Climate/Health/Science Feedback's blog/site using credentialed "experts" to stand heads and shoulders above typical journalists, but they don't, which is disappointing. Yes, I am critical. With some exceptions, promotion at Wikipedia takes care of itself. I came here with relatively fresh eyes, and scanned the reviews. Yes there are positive things said, but "full of praise" and "showered in praise" are exaggerations. To my eyes, many or most of the positive compliments were offset by suggestions for improvements (which may be expected from reviewers). -- Yae4 (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Since I know little about the subject of the article I will offer just some general comments. First, it's not clear if this single sentence hanging out by itself is DUE in the article. The previous discussion established that it was reliably sourced but not it's WEIGHT. Typically if you have a long article and you have a single fact like this it's probably not DUE. If another article about the subject mentions this same fact/interview/claim then I think there is WEIGHT for inclusion. Really, how would excluding this single, by itself sentence change the reader's understanding of the Ebell? If it doesn't then it probably isn't due. Second, we need to avoid phrasing like "falsely claimed" as it can imply he knowingly lied. Is it possible Ebell was both sincere in intent but incorrectly read the data? Could his answer have been true if he was perhaps he was thinking of a different/older set of models/data? Do we know? As a personal example, I've talked cars with people who were incorrect yet sincere at the same time. They might be certain a particular car had a 6spd auto vs the 8spd it actually came with or that a particular feature was available in 2006 when the model first launched in 2008. That doesn't mean they are trying to lie or deceive. Describing their incorrect facts as "falsely claimed" could imply deception. I suspect we have all seen similar things happen on contentious talk pages. Someone (of course never me) thinks they are restoring long standing text but in fact are restoring a relatively recent edit. Both editors start a back and forth certain they are returning things to the consensus text. Both can't be right. If A describes B as "falsely claiming to have restored the consensus view" I can see B taking that as "B is knowingly lying". However, the phrase, "incorrectly claimed" or "mistakenly claimed" doesn't impugn B's integrity, only their understanding/knowledge of the facts. The policy debate end of climate change is certainly an area where there are a lot of passions and strong POVs. We really should make sure we pick very neutral language vs language that is technically neutral but still can be reasonably be interpreted as "we want to call this person a liar in Wiki voice". Springee (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Ebell's answer could have been true if he was thinking of a different/older set of models/data -- and I think the older the better, if his point was that the IPCC had sometimes had models that didn't quite fit data over a long term. For example, Zeke Hausfather in a different blog (one that actually mentions the IPCC as opposed to the one that Scott Johnson picked) compared projections in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR) of 1990 with 2016, thus: "Despite a best estimate of climate sensitivity a tad lower than the 3C used today, the FAR overestimated the rate of warming between 1970 and 2016 by around 17% in their BAU [Business As Usual] scenario, showing 1C warming over that period vs 0.85C observed. This is mostly due to the projection of much higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations than has actually occurred." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Reproducing my comment from the previous discussion:

  Myron Ebell (Special:Diff/871394198): The text in the article is consistent with the the Climate Feedback fact check, but in-text attribution of Climate Feedback would be appropriate, and the text should also state the year Ebell made the statement (2018). Something like 'In a 2018 Newsnight interview, Ebell stated that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC", which was described as "factually inaccurate" by Climate Feedback.' would be fully BLP-compliant. It doesn't look like Ebell responded to the fact check.

— Newslinger talk 05:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

​​​ Did you watch the video? Ebell couldn't respond because they cut him off, and refused to let him say more to explain. This is similar to what is happening here at Wikipedia, at some articles and "discussions" BTW. And why would Ebell then bother to explain something that was only noticed at a review site that needs to increase their number of reviews (publish or perish)? Also, among the cricisms of Science/Climate/Health Feedback was some difficulty in commenting on reviews.

Re: Previous discussions, I note this review site has been discussed a few times, without particular consensus. [34][35][36][37]

Question: This source is used twice in Climate Feedback's article, apparently supporting credibility and accuracy. Isn't it a blog post ("blogposts" tag at bottom)? If so, this looks like a double standard here (as I was recently advised not to use NYTimes blogs as a source). [38] Plus, the author, Dana Nuccitelli, "has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis." "He has also blogged at The Guardian," Is this the kind of qualifications needed? (because I was recently informed being an engineer with 40 years experience was not). [39]

I see that Snooganssnoogans added that Dana Nuccitelli quote re Climate Feedback 4 days after I had said how bad Scott Johnson's Climate Feedback post was. In a WP:BLPN discussion of Dana Nuccitelli's Guardian blog, four editors agreed that it can't be used for BLPs. But the Climate Feedback article is non-BLP so nothing can be done there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This is again an astounding misrepresentation. You're falsely claiming that the Guardian article is a blogpost?[40] There's a "blogposts" tag at the bottom because the subject of the news article is literally climate denial "blogs". How could you possibly skip over the entire content of the article and find some tag at the bottom, and then come here to claim it's a blogpost? First, you misrepresent the IFCN's assessments of Climate Feedback, which were full of praise and which resulted in Climate Feedback being accepted into the IFCN. And now this? And days ago, you were adding Daily Caller content and climate change denial rubbish to the Climate Feedback page? Apparently, to you, Climate Feedback is not a RS even though it was accepted into the IFCN with open arms, and a Guardian news article is an unreliable blogpost (when it's obvious not), but a far-right conspiracy website like the Daily Caller and the climate change deniers at Accuracy in Media are? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

​​ I asked a question. For why, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Guardian: "Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article."

Could an admin apply some of those "discretionary sanctions" I was warned about? I'm getting tired of these Ad_hominem attacks. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright, my apologies. That appears to have been a mistake. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Finally, "Sarphan Uzunoğlu wrote: They need to publish more often to meet IFCN's standards. Otherwise, methodologically and in terms of non-partisanship and transparency, they are a reliable organization who is recognized by many international news outlets and scientific actors. I suggest to accept them but give them feedbacks regarding regularity of their content publication regime." One could argue this "quote check" may have been done simply to "publish more often." I also agree using editors who are less qualified than the reviewers is questionable. Taking reviewers from a pool of volunteers also calls into question whether they actually have a "staff." -- Yae4 (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. We have a reliable source saying it, so we can quote that. Four top experts are quoted in the source as saying the opposite of what Ebell says. The credentials of the editor do not matter. If the source were a highly regarded newspaper quoting four top experts, would you complain that the journalist wo wrote the piece is not a top expert? Second-guessing the reliable source, speculating about who meant what, is also disingenious special pleading from PROFRINGE editors. Ebell's job is to claim that the climate experts are wrong, and that is exactly what he does here. Consequently, the experts say that he is wrong, and the experts are reliable sources published in a reliable source. This complaint has no leg to stand on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - The cited sources are fine, and special pleading from well-known climate deniers should be, well, denied. Everyone knows what Myron Ebell is at this point and trying to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• I'm going to agree with what Newslinger has said and suggested as text: its basically a better-wording issue to frame who said what, rather than to flatly say "falsely claimed" without any in-line attribution, given the slight bit of doubt over Climate Feedback. But otherwise the sourcing and statement are appropriate, the rewording takes the claim out of Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 17:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette

Need some assistance on whether this is considered part of WP:TWITTER (via WP:V) and thus added to the article or shouldn't be added at all. Since this is a BLP, I am coming to you all for guidance. A discussion has begun on the talk page of the article. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:27 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)

It is a verified Twitter account, so little reason to question that it is a self-published claim and would be appropriate for BLP, if the Twitter message was more direct about that. The linked tweet is way too vague to make the claim, but I may be missing context here (clearly the replies to it are taking it as what is being claimed). That's the only issue I see, that right now we'd be engaging in OR to jump from that tweet alone to this claim. --Masem (t) 19:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The twitter account descriptor also includes "Ace.", which at this point (lacking some sort of adjective like "guitar ace" or "World War I flying ace") isn't that much fuzzier than "gay" these days, so that's not particularly unclear. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If that is the only context, I'd be extremely wary of it. It's clear from a quick google search she certainly falls outside "heterosexual", and she's been tied to asexual before, but I'd not 100% sure if that can be used, I'm not familiar with that use of "ace" (though clearly it exists, we document that), but I can see other ways for that statement to be taken too. I would think with her being a celebrity, we'll have an RS that will re-affirm that was the intent... --Masem (t) 19:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Asexuality is sometimes called ace (a phonetic shortening of "asexual") (pulled from the first sentence of Asexuality#Definition,_identity_and_relationships). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:05 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not disagreeing: this is the Occum's Razor reading. But BLP I feel requires something a bit more than Occum's. --Masem (t) 20:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing, I was just pointing out since there was some confusion on the usage of "ace". Again, I am willing to look for alternative sources and say she is current sitting on a dog house or in a Sopwith Camel pretending to be a World War I flying ace as NatGertler pointed out. We could just comment out the mention of this...for the moment, while we look for backup sources. So, when people go to add it in, they'll see it's there, but also see a note that we are looking for backup, reliable sources. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:18 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)

Occam. Other than that, I reckon thhat more conventional and easier to interpret sources will be popping up soon, -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)