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.

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[1] (removal of content sourced to Climate Feedback)
• Guus Berkhout[2] (removal of content sourced to Climate Feedback)
• Joanne Nova[3][4] (removal of content sourced to peer-reviewed publications, Science magazine, PolitiFact, National Geographic, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning InsideClimate News)
• Ian Plimer[5] (removal of Climate Feedback)

There is a consensus on the reliability of Climate Feedback, which the RSP list[6] 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 [7] and an earlier one [8]. 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[9] 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[10] - people can read the entire short discussion, but here's the first two comments:

"An editor[11] 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."[12] Climatefeedback.org has been cited favorably recently by sources such as Deutsche Welle,[13] Columbia Journalism Review[14], Axios[15], and the Guardian which referred to climatefeedback.org as "a highly respected and influential resource"[16]. 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 ([17] [18]), 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)

Update: The Myron Ebell thread is now archived. The Joanne Nova thread is still live and I hope editors here will give it some attention. There doesn't seem to be much interest so I won't continue with my plan to add separate threads in WP:BLPN about each article.Newslinger: since you used the word "yet", I'm not sure whether you intended to add something, or whether we're done with this sub-conversation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger: I guess you decided to not add something. The Joanne Nova thread is now archived. My other Joanne Nova revert has been discussed above. You have not tried to defend your claim about "most editors", which, as I indicated earlier, I believe is baseless. Re Ian Plimer, Snooganssnoogans re-inserted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:36, 11 February 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."[19] -- Yae4 (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Today I made a request on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for an uninvolved editor (I don't care if it's an administrator). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Beyond reproach. I reject the WP:CRYBLP campaign to remove reliable sources by the climate change deniers active here at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Climate change deniers: Again

Here in WP:BLPN, "RfC: Category: Climate change deniers" started in May 2019, closed in August 2018, established yet again that "Climate change deniers" was an unacceptable category. However, in WP:CfD, Category:Climate change skepticism and denial established via renaming a "Climate change denial" category containing about 170 BLPs (based on a quick count of this list).

I claim that this is effectively an override of the WP:BLPN decision, and therefore request: "override the WP:CfD decision". I ping the participants of each discussion.

WP:BLPN participants: LaundryPizza03 Slatersteven Anythingyouwant Peter Gulutzan Marcocapelle M.boli Pincrete KarasuGamma agr Milowent Guy Macon Hob Gadling Niteshift36 Masem Jonathan A Jones Bluerasberry Bodney Mangoe SemiHypercube JBL RevelationDirect Hanyangprofessor2 UnitedStatesian IuliusRRR Bus stop Newslinger Adoring nanny 24.217.247.41 Halo Jerk1 Guy Springee AReaderOutThataway Atsme Simonm223 Leviv, closed by GRuban.

WP:CfD participants (excluding those already mentioned): jps 67.187.30.225 PaleoNeonate CatCafe Crossroads Someone Not Awful Calthinus XOR'easter, closed by MER-C.

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Several people in that discussion noted "This category should not contain any biographies at all" and I mostly agree with that, however some small allowance should be made for people who self-identify clearly and publicly with that label. That is, where it is a term that a person applies to themselves, it would be appropriate. Where it is a term that someone else has applied to them, less so, and where it is a term that only Wikipedia applies to them is right out. --Jayron32 15:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced we can stop it: excluding well-known climate change deniers from a category of similar people feels like trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Category:American Christian Young Earth creationists exists, as do Category:Flat Earth proponents and Category:Conspiracy theorists. Sometimes being wrong is genuinely what people are best known for. Guy (help!) 19:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• I think the issue isn't so much with the existence of the category, but with ensuring only people who're known for climate change denial or scepticism are included in it. So long as their denial or scepticism is present in the article, and is adequately sourced, I don't see an issue. The problem is that editors sometimes try to use climate change denial as a means of smearing people, and add it to articles on the basis of little (or no) reliable sourcing. That's a much bigger problem than the existence of a category. Neiltonks (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree on that, though. Per WP:CATDEF, it is not enough to establish that a person to deny climate change to be placed in that category. Instead, it should be a defining characteristic of the person. If a person who is notable for unrelated reasons has once or twice made an offhanded remark that they don't believe anthropogenic climate change is a real thing, then they should NOT be so categorized even if that have made such statements. In order for any biographic article to be included in that category, it would need to be a defining characteristic of that person; i.e. one of the things they are primarily known for. --Jayron32 17:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  Jayron32, that is reasonable. Burt Rutan, for example, should not be in the category, but might well qualify in a list article where we can give context. Guy (help!) 12:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Per Jayron32 and Neiltonks, this additional discussion should lead to criteria when biographies should remain in the category or when they should be removed from the category. But that has nothing to do with the category which is not (primarily) about people anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I more or less agree. If climate change denial/skepticism is a defining characteristic of a particular living person, we should be able to include them within this category. If they wrote a book about it, or gave a TED talk about cow farts and modern ice ages, they should probably be included. If they only made an offhanded remark while being interviewed about their upcoming rap album, not so much. - MrX 🖋 23:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• I generally agree with Jayron32 that this category should not be used for any BLPs, with the possible exception of people who self-identify as such. If we are going to extend it then it has to be limited to cases where (1) it is a central characteristic of the individual, rather than a side issue, and (2) there is impeccable sourcing, that is multiple reliable sources (no blogs) and preferably secondary sourcing (if we are going to report in Wikipedia's own voice rather than reporting what some other individual thinks about one of their opponents). And as in previous discussions I remain appalled that we are applying this term to genuinely distinguished atmospheric physicists such as Judith Curry (former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) and Richard Lindzen (former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report). This is utter madness, and it's astonishing that we have to keep on returning to this point. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  Jonathan A Jones, Up to a point. The problem is that climate change deniers do not self-identify as such. They call themselves "skeptics" or whatever, and we don't use euphemisms.

  We describe "vaccine safety advocates" as anti-vaccinationists. We should do the same here.

  So if you mean that we can add anyone who self-identifies as a climate change skeptic to the category of climate change deniers, then yes, I agree. Otherwise I don't. Guy (help!) 12:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  No I don't mean that. Richard Lindzen has self identified as skeptical of some aspects of climate change, but any definition that classifies him as a "denier" is simply nuts. If you want to describe him, or indeed Judith Curry, as skeptical of certain nuances in the current mainstream then go right ahead, but tagging them with perjorative categories based on the flimsiest grounds breaks every core principle of BLPs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  Perhaps somewhat uniquely, Richard Lindzen is actually one of the few deniers who embraces the label: [20]: "Climate change and the Holocaust are not equivalent, but that does not mean there is no climate denial. For example, Richard Lindzen has publicly taken on this label because he believes dangerous climate change has so little validity that there is nothing to be skeptical about." jps (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• After the above discussion, I still think we should not have any biographies here (like I suggested in the CfD discussion). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

To Marcocapelle: If I cannot get acceptance for removing the category, I will reluctantly support removing all biographies, though 'm not sure whether you mean all biographies (living or non-living, individual or group). To editors who think there are exceptional articles where the category would be okay: can you list them? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• From what I see I agree with the opening rational. This certainly appears to be an end run around a strong consensus of the community and should be deleted like the RFC said. PackMecEng (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks PackMecEng and Jonathan A Jones, but so far we're not enough. I'm surprised that so few of the people I pinged responded. The administrator who approved the "denial" category refuses to discuss further. Nobody is going to go through 170 biographies and try to remove it. Unless somebody has a plan, they're stuck with it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You would think an RFC that had way more participation and broader participation would over rule local consensus but it looks like they want to fight it again. Sounds like the only recourse would be another RFC or perhaps ANI. PackMecEng (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• I see no justification for overturning the previous conclusion. The category is a magnet for BLP issues and needs to exclude bios. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, overturning the RfC and the earlier "109 BLP articles" discussion and the 2015 CfD is the worst part, although others have also mentioned the violations of WP:LABEL and WP:OPINIONCAT and WP:CATDEF and of course WP:BLP, and I've just read a mention of an even earlier CfD. But I don't see that we can fix it by having yet another RfC, or going to WP:ANI (at least three admins have seen the objection and not acted). I've removed a "do-not-archive-until" tag that I placed erlier on this thread, it will soon get archived. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

Jared Kushner – father made $2.5M donation just before Harvard admission

Is it a BLP violation to state in the Jared Kushner article that his father pledged $2.5M to Harvard University just before his son was admitted to Harvard?[21][22] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Normally reliable sources I feel. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Importantly, the sources relate a possible connection issue, so that part is not OR on WP's to include. If it were the case that one source said Kushner was accepted to Harvard, and a separate source said his father made that pldeg, but made zero connection to the acceptance, it would be begging the question for us to include that. It is only because the RS called that fishy does it make sense to mention and should be put in context, with attribution. --Masem (t) 20:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Both sources are listed as RS/P evergreens –84.46.53.231 (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it has to be attributed to Golden. - MrX 🖋 23:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The article currently states as fact ""Kushner was accepted due to his father's donations and history with the school." None of the sources listed explicitly make that claim, though they strongly imply it. Also the Golden article, which other sources depend on, is based on anonymous sources at Kushner's high school saying they were surprised he was accepted, not even making the factual claim that is in our article.. Please see WP:BLPGOSSIP which says we should avoid innuendo based largely on anonymous sources.--agr (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree that the current text fails WP:BLPGOSSIP? If so, please explain why. If not, I will remove it.--agr (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The current text properly attributes the connection. The text could be made more clear, but it's not a BLP violation for this public figure. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

agr is correct, Daniel Golden insinuated but didn't say, unless someone can find something that we're missing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a BLP violation and does not fall under BLPGOSSIP. References are reliable and its fitting for that page. The attribution is also correct. I see no valid reason for its removal. ContentEditman (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

ContentEditman Please tell us where in the Golden source the factual assertion in our article is made. As Peter Gulutzan points out it is just innuendo. Also note that even the anonymous sources Golden quotes do not make our factual assertion. They merely express surprise he was admitted. How is this not a problem under BLPGOSSIP?--agr (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Statements and conjectures are published when a writer takes the initiative to investigate, fact-check, and organize information. This is not directly verifiable, absent a statement from Harvard or associated persons, so the article attributes it to the writer. If another investigator takes on the project of looking into Kushner's academic or extracurricular credentials, they may discover that he invented a flying robot in high school and won a violin competition. Then, if that's credibly verified and attributed, we might have even more article content to draw on for this subject of his admission. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

What our article attributes to the writer is a factual statement that the writer does not actually make. As you correctly point out the claim made would be very difficult to verify factually. That is not a justification for including conjecture. --agr (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, can you point out where Golden explicitly makes the claim attributed to him in our article?—agr (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Please review the Golden book and the two articles cited in the WP article. There seems to be consensus here that the article text is an appropriate attributed representation of what's in those sources. Golden's view has been widely cited, so it is clearly noteworthy. If you would like to propose a tweak to the language, I suggest you do that on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I have closely read the two references. Neither explicitly make the claim in our article "...Kushner was accepted due to his father's donations and history with the school." The Vox article quotes extensively from Golden's book. In that excerpt, Golden says, again citing unnamed sources, that Kushner's father used political contacts to get Jared an interview with the Harvard Dean of Admissions. That cuts both ways. There is no claim, much less a scrap of evidence, that Jared's performance in his interview was irrelevant. In fact, the one named source that Golden quotes said “Jared was certainly not anywhere near the top of his class. He had some very strong personal qualities. He’s a very charming young man with a great deal of poise, the sort of kid you would look at him and say, ‘This is a future politician.’ It was an unusual choice for Harvard to make.” Those "strong personal qualities" could have swayed the dean. Using money and influence to get an interview is quite different from what our article asserts. In short, our article goes far beyond what the sources it cites claim. Your suggestion that I propose better wording seems to acknowledge that what is currently there is substandard. Would the weaker, but more e accurate sentence "According to journalist Daniel Golden, Kushner's father's donations and history with the school helped get Jared accepted at Harvard" be worthy of inclusion in a BLP?--agr (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, that is rather disappointing. Your ellipsis in the article text you quoted above omits "According to Journalist Daniel Golden". Your bit about him acing the interview is Original Research and kind of silly. It looks to me as if nobody's concerneed about a BLP violation so as I suggested, any improvements should be discussed at the article talk page. Improvement is always better than no improvement. I hope you come up with one that can get consensus. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, my point is that Golden does not explicitly make that claim. It is a BLP violation to include contentious material that is not explicitly sourced. I've repeatedly asked those who support inclusion of the current text to point out where in either source the claim is made. No on has. It is the current claim that is OR.--agr (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Amber Heard and Johnny Depp defamation case

Amber Heard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following the recent release of audio recordings in the Depp v Heard case, the Amber Heard page has been the target of vandalism and several edits that violate the neutral point of view rule. Some discussion on how/whether to mention the evidence in the article has been ongoing on the talk page.

However the discussion isn't reaching a consensus, so I am bringing this issue here to hopefully get some third party opinions. As far as I am aware the two sides of the discussion can be paraphrased as (please comment if anyone feels misrepresented by this):

1. The evidence should not be mentioned until the trial has played out.
2. The evidence should be mentioned now, being careful to keep the mention neutral and well-sourced.

These two sides have been arguing on the talk page, but appear to be making no progress. The talk page is rather extensive; to ease discussion, here's an example of a proposed edit

--Birjolaxew (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Amber Heard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Johnny Depp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We need more eyes from experienced editors on this matter, and more opinions. The dispute concerns what has been described as leaked audio of Heard stating that she hit Depp. There have been concerns about poor sourcing and WP:Due weight. Also at hand is characterizing the matter as abuse. The discussion is at Talk:Amber Heard#Johnny Depp abuse. A permalink for it is here. And the issue is also going on at the Johnny Depp article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The Birjolaxew account beat me to reporting this matter. So I merged the section I started with theirs. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is time for this discussion to be moved here, as it does only seem to attract fly-bys from outside WP on the subject's talk page. I would suggest everyone venturing into this discussion please read the talk page discussion first, as it's gotten quite extensive.

I've followed this seemingly never-ending legal and mud-slinging saga between Depp and Heard closely since it began in 2016. Plenty of tapes, photographs, text messages, witness statements, etc. have been leaked to the media or published by the media from the public legal filings during these four years. The current article discusses none of these individually, and unless we want to have a separate article for this topic, I suggest we don't venture there as the list of evidence submitted by both sides is long. For the sake of balance, if the tapes that have currently attracted some media attention (mainly gossip rags like The Daily Mail and red pill Youtubers; arguably I'd say the attention has also been less than in previous leaks, which is strange) are mentioned in the article, we should definitely mention at least the tape Heard published during the divorce proceedings in summer of 2016, which also attracted plenty of media attention. I hope this also demonstrates how important it is to pay attention to the entire context of this case and not add hastily, or to single out one side's alleged evidence. If this case has resulted in something, it's in endless "shocking truth revealed!!"-type articles that attract plenty of attention for a couple of weeks.

This is what I wrote on the Talk page, and I think it still represents my opinion quite well: "When it comes to BLPs, we must be very careful about what is written in the article, no matter how much something is discussed in the media. The fact that the majority of people who so desperately want it included are people who normally don't edit WP at all / have shown no interest in the article so far is also not in favor of inclusion. When it comes to something that is this murky (in terms of the role of the media, the court case being ongoing) and polarized, we must err on the side of caution. WP should not be anybody's news source, especially not when it comes to celebrities. Hence, let's wait out until we know what the significance of these leaks is in the context of the entire case. [...] I think also the fact that most major news sources apart from DM seem to have stayed silent on these tapes is interesting. Yes, I know Newsweek and USA Today have had some coverage, but this case has been covered by pretty much all major news medias before, including such reputable sources that usually only publish celebrity news when it's extremely important."

To recap, I'm definitely not in favour of mentioning the tape for several reasons discussed here and in more detail in the original discussion, and think the best course of action is to wait. I am, however, starting to think that perhaps we could add something neutral here "Depp also alleged that Heard had been the abuser, and that her allegations constituted a hoax against him.", e.g. "Depp also alleged that Heard had been the abuser, and that her allegations constituted a hoax against him; his legal team also published alleged evidence of Heard abusing Depp". In this case, we probably should also add, that Heard's not only countered this by repeating her previous allegations and evidence, but they also published more of it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

What is a "red pill youtuber"? OnsceneBoos (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that some of Heart's evidence is already mentioned in the article: "Heard testified about the abuse under oath at a divorce court deposition. Evidence of the alleged abuse from her court filings was also published in the media."

I suggest we add something similar for Depp's evidence. Birjolaxew (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

We either mention nothing in regards to the on-going case or mention both sides. As it stands users such as TrueHeartSusie3 refuse to let any mention of the 87 videos published by Depp or the new audio recording stay in the article. This to me seems extremely disingenuous as if you read Heard's article now, you walk away with the distinct feeling the Depp is guilty and with very little information about Depp's side. OnsceneBoos (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

You can certain mention, broadly, that "evidence" has been presented by both sides, but it makes no sense from both BLP, NOTNEWS/RECENTISM and other factors to spell out what that evidence actually issue, just that "hey, here's the state of the court case so that WP doesn't appear ignorant of it going on". --Masem (t) 21:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the topic has gone dormant for now; the current consensus (of everyone except User:TrueHeartSusie3) seems to be that we mention the evidence in a similar way to how Heard's evidence is mentioned. Anyone have objections to adding it to the article (my suggestion is the edit linked in OP User:DIYeditor's suggestion below)? Birjolaxew (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Evidence of Depp's claim was later published in the media. Not sure about that, it is more like "purported evidence" but "purported" runs afoul of WP:WEASEL. "Claim" definitely runs afoul of it. Something more like Depp later presented evidence of his accusations to the media. That makes it more clear that he and his attorney are the ones vouching for the authenticity rather than sounding as if the media was more like the source of the evidence. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Your suggestion is definitely more accurately worded. I've updated my previous comment to refer to your version instead. Birjolaxew (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Birjolaxew, please re-read my responses here. I'm not against mentioning that Depp has presented what his team claims to be evidence, I'm against mentioning the tape snippets or any other specific piece of evidence, unless we then list all evidence on both sides. Please stop misrepresenting what I'm saying, it's getting very tiresome.

The article currently uses "evidence of the alleged abuse" in discussing the evidence Heard has so far presented. I suggest we use the exact same wording in mentioning Depp's alleged evidence, and place it where I suggest we place it in my first response here. This way we're being most balanced in representing this, IMO. I'm still not feeling 100% confident about this, given that the people who've brought this up are on WP almost solely for this reason (Birjolaxew, although you are certainly one of the more cooperative ones, you still made your account solely to force this issue), or belong to the MRA crowd, but if this brings peace to the article, then so be it.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I think the appropriate thing to do is to evaluate the action, not who's pushing for it. Ad hominem/Genetic fallacy doesn't help reach a solution (for reference my account is from 2015).

As for misrepresenting your view, I'm sorry if you feel that way. I won't waste more time arguing as I've grown tired of that over the previous few weeks of your vetoing, so as long as we can all agree with DIYeditor's suggestion then I suggest we add it to the article.

I personally think the most appropriate place is at the end of the relevant paragraph ("[...], but this request was denied. Depp later presented evidence of his accusations to the media."). Placing it in the middle of the paragraph would seem out of place to me, given that it happened well over half a year after what the rest of the paragraph describes; I would expect the events of the case to be described in roughly chronological order. Birjolaxew (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It is actually very relevant who is asking for changes. People who are here for one change only are often wishing to force their POV or are even working for someone who wants to influence WP's content. When it's mainly fly-bys driving a change, it rarely improves the article.

As for the placement and wording. 'Later' is not correct, Depp's team has been presenting what they call evidence pretty much since they sued Heard. Therefore the placement in the spot I'm suggesting is the most correct and neutral; placing it at the end of the para would directly imply it refers to the tapes. Furthermore, we should not mention Depp's evidence in a different way from Heard's if we want to stay unbiased.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Again, if you feel that a suggested edit is not worth adding then the appropriate response is to argue against it based on the merits of the edit itself. Ad hominem/genetic fallacy doesn't help reach a solution.

You seem to be forgetting that some of Heard's evidence is mentioned fairly specifically, e.g. Heard testified about the abuse under oath at a divorce court deposition. If we want to mention evidence from both sides on equal terms, then the suggested edit should be expanded to include similar descriptions of Depp's side. I do not feel that is necessary, but if you have other evidence from Depp's team that you feel is worth mentioning then please add it to the discussion so we can evaluate whether it is worth mentioning/adding as a source. Birjolaxew (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

And again, it is not irrelevant to wonder why someone who previously has no interest in WP suddenly spends so much time forcing the inclusion of one factoid. You'd know this had you spent more time on WP. As for what you are claiming to be evidence, taking part in a deposition as mandated by the divorce proceedings (in my understanding, Depp's legal team wanted the deposition) is not the same at all as mentioning specific evidence. Nothing is stated about what was said, or the video, text messages, witness statements, photos, etc. that Heard's team has made public. Had Depp given deposition instead of settled the divorce, it would be mentioned as well. I've already told you this in the Talk page discussion. No evidence on Heard's side is mentioned. Furthermore, you do realise that the divorce case and the current defamation case are two separate cases? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

There's a reason it's called a fallacy. You can certainly wonder what agenda someone has, and use that as a basis for further investigating the edit, but that in itself is not an argument against adding it. Ad hominem/genetic fallacy are not valid arguments.

Nothing is stated about what was said, or the video, text messages, witness statements, photos, etc. that Heard's team has made public. nor would anything of the like be mentioned by the suggested edit. I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make. Birjolaxew (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm simply answering your question. It's you who took it up once I pointed out your poor knowledge of the case, when I said the mention of alleged evidence on Depp's side should be mentioned in connection to when he started releasing it, not when these tapes were leaked. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I'm still not entirely sure what point you're making. If you have other evidence from Depp's team that you feel is worth mentioning, then please add it to the discussion so we can evaluate whether it is worth mentioning/adding as a source. Birjolaxew (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Have you read any of the articles related to this case prior to this most recent tape thing? You can look at any article since the time this case started in 2018, and you'll find mentions. Depp has released photographs, grainy CCTV footage of Heard in an elevator, and interviews with a doorman at their apt building; all of these were covered by the media extensively (especially DM seems to be doing this) at the time of their release, all with sensationalistic headlines. And those are just off the top of my head, there may have been more; as I've said, there's been plenty of mud-flinging in this case. Just Google it.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

In early 2020, audio recordings made in 2005 of a therapy session between Heard and Depp were made public. In the recordings, Depp accused Heard of punching him, of which Heard replied: "I was hitting you, it was not punching you". She later says: "I can't promise you I won't get physical again. God I fucking sometimes I get so mad I lose it." Elsewhere in the audio, Heard told Depp: "Just because I’ve thrown pots and pans does not mean you cannot come and knock on my door".

Sources:

• news.com.au, Australian news website [23] (originally cited with the above)
• The Straits Times, Singaporean newspaper [24] (originally cited with the above)
• The Hindustan Times, Indian newspaper [25] (originally cited with the above)
• USA Today, American newspaper [26] (newly found)
• Global News, Canadian news website [27] (newly found)
• Newshub, New Zealand news website [28] (newly found)
• The Express Tribune, Pakistani newspaper [29] (newly found)
• The National, Emirati newspaper [30] (newly found)

I added the above, which was removed by TrueHeartSusie3. What are your specific issues with my added text? The incident is receiving international coverage. WP:DUE is done and dusted. starship.paint (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC) - edited until 10:48

I agree that we really need to mention those audio recordings. We already cover the back-and-forth arguments, by Depp and Heard, about why fault lies on the other side. It seems editorially inappropriate to be ending that coverage prior to mention of the audio recordings, given the significance of their content. I have restored much, but not all, of the coverage and the paragraph now reads:

In early 2020, audio recordings made in 2005 of a therapy session between Heard and Depp were made public. In the recordings, Depp and Heard argued about the detail of previous altercations and Heard acknowledged "getting physical".

I would welcome users editing in further detail but I think we need to be careful about our coverage becoming gossipy in tone. AGK ■ 11:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

AGK, the significance is simply your opinion. If you've followed this case, you'd know this is not the first time things like that have been leaked, by both sides. There is also a chance the tapes are edited or taken out of context, as they are only snippets. With the publication of the second one, this seems to be the case. If we mention these tapes, then we need to mention all of the other evidence as well, in which case, we need a separate article. As for the above list of sources, I'm questioning whether they are even all RS, and secondly, it still does not change the fact that there's no need for WP to prioritize inclusion of these tapes in detail over all the other mud-flinging that's gone on for the past four years. If we prioritize these tapes, we are actively taking a side. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

EDIT: About the above sources, all of them simply repeat what DM said, with their only source being DM. Just another reason why we should definitely not include this.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Regarding your edit, that's not entirely correct. USA Today source has independently verified the integrity of the recording, which Global News also references in their article. The USA Today article would certainly fulfill WP:RS, with the rest of the articles mostly supporting WP:DUE Birjolaxew (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, the integrity of the recording has been independently verified by Depp's lawyer. I.e. not a neutral party. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

The edit should obviously attribute the recording to Depp's team. That doesn't change whether it's Daily Mail or USA Today that leaks it. But your argument that it should not be added to the article because the source is Daily Mail does not hold when USA Today, a WP:RS, has independently verified that the recording is sourced from Depp's team, and thus a relevant part of the case. Birjolaxew (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

They're still getting all of the interpretation of the tape seemingly from DM, aren't they? In any case, this does not change the fact that there is no good reason to prioritize the mention of these tapes on WP. We're going around in circles. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

The reason is WP:DUE, as has been mentioned a few times in this thread. Birjolaxew (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

In what way? What is special about this piece of evidence? Why should we mention it and not others? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I do not agree with this wording for a few reasons:

1. It doesn't attribute the recording to Depp's team. That is an important aspect of mentioning it, so as not to take sides.

2. It (unnecessarily, imo) goes into details about the content of the tape, which is not done for other evidence of the case.

I think the wording suggested by DIYeditor is more fitting. Birjolaxew (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Note: Report filed at WP:AN3#User:TrueHeartSusie3 reported by User:AGK (Result: ) (diff). AGK ■ 19:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Now that an admin is involved and warnings for edit warring have been handed out, can we please work towards a consensus. So far the most agreed upon solution seems to be that DIYeditor's wording (Depp later presented evidence of his accusations to the media.) be added to the article. The only question remaining is where to add it. Suggestions so far:

• Immediately after mentioning Depp's claim (in middle of paragraph). I will let TrueHeartSusie3 explain the arguments for this.
• At the end of the paragraph, after Heard's response to Depp's claim. The argument for this is that the tape (which so far is the only source that's been suggested for the edit) was released well over half a year after the claim was made (and Heard's reaction), so adding it in chronological order seems reasonable.

Please do not continue arguing about other aspects, unless you have new arguments to add. This discussion has already been ongoing for several weeks, with little progress. Birjolaxew (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

As I've said above: "I am, however, starting to think that perhaps we could add something neutral here "Depp also alleged that Heard had been the abuser, and that her allegations constituted a hoax against him.", e.g. "Depp also alleged that Heard had been the abuser, and that her allegations constituted a hoax against him; his legal team also published alleged evidence of Heard abusing Depp"." ... "As for the placement and wording. 'Later' is not correct, Depp's team has been presenting what they call evidence pretty much since they sued Heard. Therefore the placement in the spot I'm suggesting is the most correct and neutral; placing it at the end of the para would directly imply it refers to the tapes. Furthermore, we should not mention Depp's evidence in a different way from Heard's if we want to stay unbiased."

A couple of links demonstrating that the tapes are not the first 'evidence' Depp has released:

• USA Today, already referenced in Heard's article
• E! News
• Daily Fail
• Daily Fail #2
• Daily Fail #3

Note that I'm not saying we should use those sources, I'm simply linking them to make my point that these tapes certainly aren't the first 'sensational evidence' leaked by Depp. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Sounds reasonable. Can we officially agree on updating the article to mention that Depp has published alleged evidence too, with wording similar to that used for Heard's evidence? My suggestion (with insertions highlighted):

Depp also alleged that Heard had been the abuser, and that her allegations constituted a hoax against him; his legal team also published alleged evidence of Heard abusing Depp. In response, Heard said that Depp's claims are not true and repeated her allegations and alleged evidence, maintaining that Depp was abusive towards her. (potentially repeated her alleged evidence of abuse or repeated her allegations?)

I'll also note for transparency that I have started a new section on the talk page for some WP:NPOV concerns I have regarding the existing paragraph, although those shouldn't block the resolution of this discussion. Birjolaxew (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there are two ways to take "evidence", one is a statement of fact (that the evidence does in fact indicate what is alleged), the other already implies that the evidence is purported. We need reliable secondary sources to support a statement of fact, but I'm not sure if the use of the bare word "evidence" isn't going to be taken by the second meaning of evidence, that it is a claim. "The defense attorney presented his evidence" does not imply in Wikipedia's voice that the evidence does factually support the allegations of the defense attorney. That said, I think this is a case where WP:WEASEL may fail, because if someone is making allegations using alleged in connection with that does not seem biased. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. I am not a native speaker, so I am generally ready to accept whatever is the norm; perhaps his legal team also published evidence of Heard allegedly abusing Depp. In response, Heard said that Depp's claims are not true and repeated her allegations and evidence, [...] is a more fitting wording? Birjolaxew (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll state that I think we do not need to go into any details of a case that is 1) lacking its own standalone page (And for good reason) and instead being covered on individual BLP pages, and 2) is based on celebrity gossip and 3) is based on BLP material from questionable sources (even if RSes are affirming that). That Heard and Depp have a legal battling claiming the other of an abusive relationship is all en.wiki should really be saying right now as any deeper gets us into gossip (even if it is gossip recorded during courtroom proceedings). If the case closes and specific facets of evidence are very important to the verdict, then we can talk about those in light of what the verdict was. But while the case is in trial we absolutely need to avoid acting like celebrity rags like TMZ and Daily Mail. Wait for the case to close and then you can figure out what might make sense to include. --Masem (t) 23:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Masem - the tapes are important independent of the case. Source - The Jakarta Post - petitions to remove Heard have garnered traction. Furthermore, Heard herself has done activism against domestic violence, so the tapes themselves are very relevant on whether she herself is a domestic abuser - which at this point, we should not call her that in Wikivoice. Readers can judge for themselves. starship.paint (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It is absolutely not our place to be arguing "Heard claims to be against domestic violence but these tapes say otherwise so we have to present that." Not one iota. Wait until the trial is over, allowing reliable cover to judge if the tapes were valid and important and how that impacts Heard. There is no deadline to get this information into our article. --Masem (t) 01:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@TrueHeartSusie3: there's no need for WP to prioritize inclusion of these tapes in detail over all the other mud-flinging that's gone on for the past four years - yes, there’s a need, the tapes have already made their impact of their own by boosting the petition to remove Heard, as I posted above. It’s unrealistic to think of discussing four years of mudslinging here, and there seems to be no prior discussion of the case at the noticeboard. Previous discussions were on her sexuality or arrest. Your logic just requires you to block the first piece of content, as I demonstrate below: starship.paint (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Content A successfully blocked
• “Let’s not add Content B because we didn’t add Content A”
• “Let’s not add Content C because we didn’t add Content A and B”
• “Let’s not add Content D because we didn’t add Content A, B, and C”

This should not how we work here. At this noticeboard, we can discuss “Content D” on its own merits. If there is consensus, we add it by itself. If you think “Content A, B and C” are equally important and should be added, just add them. If there is a dispute on “Content A, B, and C”, we come back here to discuss. You can’t force us to litigate all the previous mudslinging in this very discussion. starship.paint (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Birjolaxew, I did not revert you. I restored a part of the sentence, as you had deleted the bit that said Depp originally accused Heard of faking abuse in order to get more money in the divorce. This was not under discussion here, and there's no reason for you to change the meaning. Please revert back to my changes. I think we're all starting to get tired of this. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

EDIT: If you're having an issue with my edit because I accidentally deleted the "Depp denied Heard's allegations", fair enough, I overlooked that bit, and I'm fine with it being in, but as I said, there's absolutely no reason for you to change the rest of the sentence, and it most certainly has not been discussed here. FYI, it's also custom to first get a consensus, not just wait for the discussion to quiet down. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

User:TrueHeartSusie3, as I mentioned in my edit note, please join the discussion on the talk page where I proposed changes (and argued for them) a few days ago (I also linked this in one of my replies above). Given that no one has responded yet, I assumed no one disagreed. Birjolaxew (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Andy Ngo

Andy Ngo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So we have two questions here which have arisen out of a talk page discussion, first is whether or not The Daily Dot (relevant article Andy Ngo slammed for doxing a minor (updated) [31]) is a WP:RS in this situation. The argument centers on whether doxing is part of or related to internet culture. This is key because according to the entry on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources "The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture.” My proposed text based on this source is “In January 2020 Ngo doxed a 17 year old who had sent Ngo a photo from the July 2019 incident in which Ngo was assaulted with a milkshake. Ngo later boasted about the doxing on Twitter and linked the minor to a mass killer without providing any evidence.”

The second question is whether, if yes it is a WP:RS in this context, it satisfies WP:VERIFY and WP:WEIGHT? Those are the challenges that have been made to its inclusion by Springee, I will simply quote their argument rather than risking offense by paraphrasing: “For content to appear in an article it must be Wp:VERIFY and have WP:WEIGHT. To meet the standards of WP:V the content needs to be sourced to WP:RSs and that it accurately reflects the source. Per the ONUS section of WP:V it's noted that verified doesn't ensure we have WEIGHT for inclusion. That is the policy that says coverage in a RS doesn't ensure inclusion. In this case we don't agree if the Daily Dot is a RS for the content in question. Even if we did agree on that the question of weight hasn't been answered.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Doxing is definitely tied to Internet activities, and Daily Dot would be an RS here, but the second point on UNDUE is what I'd agree it should probably not be included if the only source reporting on it is Daily Dot. BLP articles are not meant to be scarlet letters that document every bad thing a person has done that can be documented, but a summary of the broader concerns. If multiple sources noted this doxing incident, like several of the other facets on Ngo's page, then that would be fine, as there likely would be criticism of why this was a bad thing or the like. --Masem (t) 17:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe that @Kyohyi:@Calton:@Springee:@Loksmythe:@Shadybabs: are all the editors who have been involved, please feel free to tag any additional editors I may have missed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The best way I can sum up my stance on the content is, why do we care? Why is this encyclopedic? Why does it merit inclusion? We aren't a news aggregator, just because a source printed it doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. If there were multiple sources, we could possibly paraphrase something, but right now we've got a single source. Further, the single source isn't a particularly in depth piece, and is mostly quotes and paraphrases of an interview with the minor. To me, it looks to be WP: BLPGOSSIP. I think more, and better sourcing would be required to include this event. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Kyohyi, because Ngo tries to portray himself as a journalist, but all the evidence shows him to be a vicious troll with dubious ethics and a - to put it charitably - careless approach to factual accuracy. Guy (help!) 10:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a desire to spread the truth. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Kyohyi, in that Ngo presents as someone wanting to spread the truth, but actually does the opposite according to reliable sources, yes. Guy (help!) 00:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

If only some authoritative sources actually said that then you'd have a point. However, novel synthesis and mediocre sources aren't the standard for BLP's. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition to questions of WEIGHT, I'm concerned about the quality/neutrality of the source. Consider an important question. Was Ngo aware that this person was a minor at the time? The DD doesn't address that question which seems to be critical in cases where such information is being held against him. DD might be seen as a RS for internet trends but this is crossing over from simple trends to descriptions of threats and harassment. The teens actions might be considered a criminal threat given he seemed fully aware of the history between antifa and Ngo. Regardless, as was said, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not an aggregation of news snippets. Springee (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Michelli

I am writing about a BLP issue on the Joseph Michelli Wikipedia page. In November 2018 a notice was left on its talk page asking why something was added to the lead of the page despite the lead being short and the item added being only a small part of the page – diff. A follow up on this notice asked if anyone would have an issue here with removing it a month later here diff, and no one responded. After three more months, with no contestation, the content was removed (see here diff). Nearly a month later User:Edwardx re-added the content with the edit summary “Essential to qualify the "best-seller" status of the books”.

It seems odd that they could not respond on the article talk page for five months, and then a month later, returned to revert the change. No user had tried to remove the small section in the body that claims that one of his books had been purchased by his employer to boost its best-seller status, however replicating this single sentence in the lead a) is not consistent with a lead covering the full content of the page in general (it is a small part of the page), and b) seems to be an intentional BLP violation as it appears that the user wants to leverage this one sentence to cast aspersions about the rest of the author’s books, as is seen in their edit summaries. Can someone please explain to me why this user is allowed to revert changes of having it in the lead 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 times, especially when it is a passage that they themselves added (see here: diff), when no other editor has expressed a need for it in the lead on the talk page or otherwise. Again, this does not appear to be about the removal of the material in the body, rather, to be about it being flaunted in the lead in a fashion that clearly violates BLP, in highlighting a single negative item over the rest of the page with edit summaries that specifically state that the goal is to raise suspicion about the author’s other works: “Essential to qualify the "best-seller" status of the books”, which states specifically that the user believes that the incident should be used as original research to dispute the legitimacy of all other books.

Can someone other than the sole editor arguing to keep this content in the lead explain why it is appropriate to isolate one sentence and incident (with no further press coverage other than the single source used, as it is a miniscule part of his overall media coverage), in a thin lead paragraph? Or otherwise, is it possible to have a request for comment on the entry’s talk page to find a consensus? Personally, I don’t see how it should be in the lead at all given the overall balance of the content.2605:8D80:405:1E12:F40A:4E81:562:7308 (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That article is a lovely advertisement. Every book has a convenient sales link and promotional blurb. Well done! Guy (help!) 10:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I just checked and there is not one sales link. Either way, tag it as an advert then, not my point. Are you saying there is no BLP issue Guy? Or is this the wrong venue for this request. I guess there are others if nobody can take this seriously... 2605:8D80:405:1E12:F40A:4E81:562:7308 (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem arises because the lead engages in the WP:PUFFERY of referring to his "Best-selling books" (the unqualified term "best-selling" is puffery because there are so many different sources for sales figures with categorization that it is made meaningless; listing on a specific sales chart, which is generally done below in the article, carries more weight.) By casting that as a vital factor to his notability, the way that this has been achieved in at least some cases becomes immediately relevant. So the article has problems, but no, the inclusion of that statement in reaction to the best-selling claim is not a BLP problem. And that someone noticed and handled the problem months later is not a problem either; we are not working on a deadline. I will note that the puffery problem does not come as a shock when one recognizes that the article was made by Authorinterest (talk · contribs) as their sole publicly-viewable contribution to this project, and that name suggests some conflict of interest. -Nat Gertler (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I have now taken a pass at the article, removed both the claims of best-sellerhood and of the trumpedness of same from the intro. Removed some other boasting not appropriately sourced as well, among other changes. I welcome more eyes on this; I sometimes wield a scalpel when a hatchet is what's called for --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

McKibbin Street Lofts

AnonKibbers Continuous to add information concerning a Lawyer, David Brody, stating the Lawyer is a "slumlord attorney" later after it was pointed out the article never made mention that the Reference called him an slumlord attorney" AnonKibbers changed it "who has a history of harassing tenants." Both of these as they do not provide RS that state this are both violations of BLP. The Reference from the NY times that AnonKibbers is using never says Brody harassed the tenants. --VViking_TalkEdits 19:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

More evidence of David R Brody harassing tenants:

AnonKibbers (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Heston Blumenthal

I am concerned about the article Heston Blumenthal. User:Bookscale is adding text that is connecting him to a case of staff underpayment. But Blumenthal was not involved in the case as he did not operate or owned the resturant. It was later readded in a slightly watered down version. To my opinion, it is still a case of being guilty by association, inappropriate en not conform WP:BLP. The Banner talk 22:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be nice if User:The Banner discussed things or bothered editing the article himself instead of just complaining here or reverting things. The sentence added in the article is contained in a section on restaurants that HB set up in his name and the material about the Australian restaurant was already there. Until the edits I made, the article read as if the restaurant was still open (which is no longer the case). The underpayment issue has received significant media coverage in Australia over the past few months, HB himself has been named in media coverage, and it's a well-established fact (do a Google search!) that the restaurant closed after an underpayment issue. I've added that HB had not been a shareholder in the business for a decade at the time of closure so it's clear that he was not operating the company at the time of closure (which is sourced), but he was involved in the restaurant's establishment. Bookscale (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

There is still no evidence that Blumenthal was actively involved. The Banner talk 23:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have tightened the wording, adding the findings of a Court on the wind-up and have added a source citing the operators of the company that at the time of closure, HB himself was the chef patron and was "integral" to its operation. Bookscale (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Bookscale

Because other editors have tried to revert my edits again, the contentious material is the material deleted on this diff.

As far as I can see, everything in the material is sourced. If it can be better written, happy for that to happen, but I don't understand why it can't be included. The Melbourne outlet is already mentioned in the article as it was a restaurant set up by him, and it still had him as the chef patron and someone integral to operations at the time of closure. I've removed contentious words like "scandal" etc. and concentrated on the Court findings as reported in the newspaper article. Bookscale (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, everything in the material is sourced

Whether everything is "sourced" is utterly irrelevant if the material doesn't belong in the article in the first place. I notice that you had to essentially be forced to include -- almost as an afterthought -- that Blumenthal has nothing to do with operating this Australian restaurant, and hasn't for ten years. Due weight and importance are more important than whatever individual references you Google up for individual facts, and putting them together to imply something not stated directly is called "original research" around here. So unless you have reliable sources that SPECIFICALLY and directly assign responsibility or connect Blumenthal to what was going, rather than passing mentions or you trying to connect the dots yourself, Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons -- and common sense -- means that this stays OUT. --Calton | Talk 06:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Calton, there is no need to be rude, and to add things in bold and all caps. I was not "forced" to include the additional claims, I revised the wording myself to exclude any potential issue with it. There is no original research in my edits. Some points to make are:
  • There is a section in the HB article about the Melbourne restaurant. As it currently reads, it implies the restaurant is still open and trading. That is inaccurate and needs to be changed.
  • There are plenty of sources verifying the closure of the restaurant in February 2020.
  • There are plenty of sources verifying the reasons for the closure (including findings by a Court). It has been a major issue in the Australian media for the last couple of months.
  • I added a source that he was the chef patron and integral to its operations (from January 2020, at the time of closure). It did not say or imply any link between HB and the reasons for closure, and none was intended.
  • My edits were merely to say that the restaurant had closed and why, not to link him. Bookscale (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Still no proof that Blumenthal was actively involved. The Banner talk 09:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
      • There was no intention to claim he was involved. Anyway, this came out this morning. Requests made for him to pay the workers, and discusses a A$1.9m a year payment to his company for use of name and IP. Bookscale (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• • • Calton, there is no need to be rude...
      • And I wasn't, so take up that issue with someone else.
    • You haven't even read what I posted above, have you?
      • Strange, I thought you were AGAINST rudeness. But yes I have, and it's bogus. See below.
    • I was not "forced" to include the additional claims, I revised the wording myself to exclude any potential issue with it
      • Really? Yes, you were.
    • There is a section in the HB article about the Melbourne restaurant. As it currently reads, it implies the restaurant is still open and trading. That is inaccurate and needs to be changed
      • Then change it.
    • There are plenty of sources verifying the closure of the restaurant in February 2020.
      • So? Relevant to the restaurant, irrelevant to Heston Blumenthal.
    • There are plenty of sources verifying the reasons for the closure
      • So? Relevant to the restaurant, irrelevant to Heston Blumenthal.
    • I added a source that he was the chef patron and integral to its operations
      • No, you added a source that says, in passing, a claim made sometime within the last three years by the restaurant itself that Blumenthal was "integral" to the restaurant's operation, without the slightest suggestion of WHAT that is or whether Blumenthal himself even knew.
    • It did not say or imply any link between HB and the reasons for closure
      • Other than placing this claim next to all the reasons for closure, no.
    • My edits were merely to say that the restaurant had closed and why, not to link him
      • Of course not. I mean, just inserting all of that into Blumenthal's biography AND saying Blumenthal was "integral" to the failed restaurant's operation implies nothing whatsoever -- if you have no understanding of English language syntax, transitions, logical structures, and writing style.
    • There is no original research in my edits
      • See previous statement about original research. Let me highlight the appropriate text from the page:
      • Wikipedia articles must not contain original research...This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply [emphasis mine] a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
      • Note the words "directly related" and directly support". You have done none of that. So, again, unless you do so, Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons -- and common sense -- means that this stays OUT. --Calton | Talk 10:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
        • It has now also spread to Dinner_by_Heston_Blumenthal#Melbourne. The Banner talk 13:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Calton and The Banner, and oppose adding this content, which is filled with innuendo and false implications, to this biography of a living person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

There does appear to be a decent case for the inclusion of this information, the most recent version [32] would appear to satisfy WP:BLP but still needs some work. The sources are reliable and directly link Blumenthal to the closing so I don’t see how we can exclude all mention of it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Help me out here: what in the sources "directly links" -- in either verb or adverb -- Blumenthal to the closing or even in the operations? --Calton | Talk 01:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson, Category: American conspiracy theorists

This category was added two days ago, I reverted and Objective3000 reverted me. There is no source that explicitly calls Tucker Carlson a conspiracy theorist. This is a violation of BLP. Also doesn't meet WP:DEFINING and WP:LABEL. See Talk:Tucker Carlson#Category:American conspiracy theorists for more insight.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Technically, you have a point. But:Tucker Carlson Tonight is a highly viewed show on Fox News with 3.2 million viewers in 2018 and 2.8 million viewers in 2019. Among all viewers 25-54, he ranks second in viewership to The Sean Hannity Show on Fox. Reliable sources state that he regularly hosts conspiracy theorists and regularly pushes conspiracy theories himself.[33][34][35][36][37][38] RS tend to avoid the term conspiracy theorist itself preferring to say pushes conspiracy theories, probably because the origin of any particular conspiracy theory is often unclear. But, let us look at the purpose of Wikipedia categories. As per WP:CAT, The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics. Well, as Carlson has a show with millions of nightly viewers that regularly invites conspiracy theorists and pushes conspiracy theories itself, this would seem to be of interest to anyone looking for information on this subject. Wikipedia’s WP:purpose is to provide a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. Toward that end, WP has grown to some six million articles. But how do you find what you are looking for with six million articles? Cats are designed to improve navigation. IMO, this categorization on this article aides navigation on this subject. O3000 (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

There are several problems with O3000's arguments. First, none of the sources call Carlson a conspiracy theorist. Per DEFINE the label should only be used when this is a defining characteristic of the person. Second, there are a lot of articles about Carlson. Just finding a few that suggest at conspiracy theorist isn't sufficient. This is especially true when all the provided sources are left leaning. HuffPo, Media Matters, Salon and even the commentary aspects of the Washington Post are all left leaning. Even then none are calling Carlson a conspiracy theorist. Finally, if Carlson is a conspiracy theorist then why isn't that a major part of the article? If the Wikipedia article text doesn't support the label, why should it be added? Springee (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Washington Post is a highly respected source. If you have problems with that, or other sources, take it to WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You previously made that argument and I replied with sourcing saying that there paper leans left. Not hard left but left leaning. And the WP didn't say Carlson was a conspiracy theorist only that he was repeating claims that the WP writer said are conspiracy theory. Springee (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Realistically we should not have any category based on any term listed WP:LABEL, and if there is a need to do so, they really should be named something like "People considered conspiracy theorists" and where there is no question from the article text that they are one, since you cannot source category inclusion. Based on the discussion on Tucker's page, he would not qualify for this category since repeating theories does not make one a conspiracy theorist. --Masem (t) 14:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point about LABEL. Perhaps it could be renamed to something inclusive of promoters resulting in a more informative navigation tool. O3000 (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean it is reasonably fair that if you're on a page where someone is more likely known or recognized as a conspiracy theorist their their actual profession (someone like Alex Jones in this case), you'd want to likely navigate to see others in a similar situation. But because of the inability to source categories and BLP requirements, we have to be a bit more impartial with naming and with whom gets included. I think there was a similar discussion around climate change skeptics too, I can't remember where. But if we're talking about Carson here, "conspiracy theorist" is not one of the first things that comes to mind so I'd be careful in including him. --Masem (t) 14:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As you say, the category shouldn't be a LABEL anyhow. So, perhaps it should be changed. And while doing so, it might make sense to change it to something more inclusive as those interested in conspiracy theorizing may be interested in one of the top shows both promoting conspiracy theories and regularly inviting numerous conspiracy promoters and theorists. O3000 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what Masem is saying but O3000 I think we need to be careful about using this as a bit of an end around the BLP concerns. Once the category becomes "people who interview people who are talking about what others consider to be a conspiracy theory" where does it end? Would we include all who said Trump was colluding with Russia during the election? Even if we change the name we need to be careful about a broad scope. Springee (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, inclusion in a category , since we cannot source that at the category, must be patently obvious from the article on the topic, and there should be no doubt, in the case of a category for people considered widely as conspiracy theorists, that that's clearly obvious from the entire article. People that dabble in such theories should definitely not be included. I'm looking at who's already included in the above cat and that seems far too wide a net for his. --Masem (t) 16:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The category name is a problem for multiple reasons. One is LABEL and how to go about determining who should be added. Another is exclusion of folk who are very prominent promoters with huge audiences. (Although it was argued from early on that it include theorists who actively attempt to defend ideas currently included in articles under Category:Conspiracy theories, which would include Carlson.) We can’t call it “Prominent promoters of conspiracy theories” as such adjectives aren’t allowed. There is a need for a wider discussion, and the article TP probably doesn’t have enough active editors. O3000 (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

We probably do need a larger discussion on categories that are based on subjective labels, if/when they are appropriate, how to name them and what are minimum requirements to populate them. I personally am very much against being more inclusive in these; these type of categories should be for the cases that are clearly obvious where there is near universal agreement in sources that they consider the label applicable, but that itself is part of the larger discussion that needs to be had. As to where that discussion should be had, I dont know if that's a VPP or elsewhere. --Masem (t) 16:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Masem, please focus on the current issue we have with this article. Objective3000 seems trying to change the direction of this thread. See his irrelevant comment about the WaPo. We have now a problem with Tucker Carlson article, let's stick to that. If I reverted O3000 I would probably be reverted by him or MrX. Could you remove that category since it is libelous and it is not sourced and was recently added?. Thanks. We can discuss the category afterwards.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Objective3000 since you agree, self-revert yourself. I don't want to be accused of breaking the 1rr restriction.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, what I agreed to is that the entire category is a problem -- not that it doesn't belong in this one article. O3000 (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This is disruptive. You don't have any arguments. An admin has told you that it shouldn't be there.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Masem, this editor is refusing to remove this recently added category even though it is potentially libelous.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a 1rr on that page. Am I missing it? Springee (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

No there is no 1RR although it is under DS. Hope you're not suggesting that that's a good reason to editwar. This thread is only four hours old on a Sunday. O3000 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) even if there isn't, I would probably be reverted but this article is under some restrictions. I would make this incident as a reference in a case in an arbitration committee report if such behaviour from these editors continued. BLP is not a joke.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any comment on the wider problem brought out by Masem before you bother arbcom because I made one revert? Or, would it be easier to just get a rope and find an oak tree? O3000 (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I said if you continued this type of disruptive editing. This case shows that there is absolutely no reason to add that defamatory category in a BLP, yet you are still refusing to remove it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It has already been removed and there is absolutely nothing disruptive about my edits. I want to solve the larger problem brought out by Masem. As far as defamatory, I don't know that conspiracy theorist is any more negative than conspiracy promoter; which he undoubtedly is as per RS. O3000 (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't notice it was removed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

While I opposed inclusion, I don't see anything wrong with O3000's article or talk page actions. In good faith they restored an edit they supported and offered a edit summary to support the change. When the talk page discussion came up they made their case. All disagreements were civil. Of course the best way for these disagreements to play out is everyone agrees with me in the end. Absent that ideal outcome ( :D ) a respectful disagreement without any edit warring is certainly acceptable. Springee (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP, Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (Emphasis is NOT mine). Objective3000 should have looked if sources support the category and made the case in the talk page, not me, because the edit was added recently and was challenged. O3000 also refused to self-revert even after he agreed that there is no source that call Tucker Carlson a conspiracy theorist.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As MrX posted: According to Wiktionary a conspiracy theorist is "One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory." According to the sources, Carlson is well-known for doing all those things. Inclusion is a matter of editorial judgement. But, if you want to take me to ANI or AE, you know the way. O3000 (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say I want to take you to there but I was referring to the restrictions of the article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• For the categories issue, there was a discussion before that concluded that such categories should not be used in individuals or organisations articles Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories:

Consensus for a unified approach to these categories; most support to ban individuals & organisations. This has been a lengthy discussion but both the general trend and the BLP policy incline against the inclusion of individuals and organisations.

This is why Category:Anti-Semitic organisations was removed. However, when I tried to argue in Talk:Houthi movement about this and started a RfC, they all said that the RfC is old (from 2011) and no body is following it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP problem here, but I do agree with @Masem: that we should not be labeling people and the better approach is to say instead that he promotes such theories. We should discuss categories elsewhere, but it's well documented that Carlson does promote debunked narratives on his highly-regarded talk show. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I agree - we should rename the category. But to what?

• People identified as conspiracy theorists?
• Promotion of conspiracy theories?
• Conspiracy theories (people)?

We should avoid weasel words, because this will only be for people who are identified with the promotion of specific, identified conspiracy theories. Birthers, for example. Guy (help!) 00:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know a good answer to that. A related issue keeps coming up at Racial views of Donald Trump where "views" is referring to everything from a nasty tweet to alleged violations of law. Even mention of the word "racism" at that article gets some editors claiming it's too close to labeling Donald Trump a "racist". Only one letter away, maybe? SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I had started a pre-RFC drafting at WP:VPP for this, but it has been pointed out there that we specifically have WP:SUBJECTIVECAT which says these categories should not exist as they are based on subjective assessment. But I have a feeling there's more subtly here involved in that. --Masem (t) 00:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Categories are navigation tools to help readers research areas of interest. In this case, readers who want to know about conspiracy theorists are presented with a list for further reading. But if we add everyone who advocates conspiracy theories then the list would become unwieldy and useless for navigation purposes. TFD (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Riley Reid

An editor, Morbidthoughts, at this diff reverted the removal of information about this BLP (Riley Reid). The information there had been removed because it was sourced a non-reliable website, (Reidlips.com). Since the website is third party to the subject of the article, the text in question, per WP:BLP, doesn't belong in the article about the subject.

In his revert, the editor was following up (thus, supporting) the argument made here that "'Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves' as long as they don't involve third parties" , and claims the website in question is run by the subject of the article and that the subject is talking about herself ("she operates her website so the information is coming from her"). The claim is essentially that, based on the website qualifying under that exception, the source is reliable. The editor, however, presents no supporting evidence that Riley Reid operates the website nor that the information is coming from her. It's only his claim.

The fact is that the same website, at this page, shows Riley Reid as one of dozens of other models that the site covers. Clearly, this is neither Riley Reid's site nor is she talking about herself thru this website.

The editor's claimed here "That's a way too strict interpretation of BLP. This information should not be contentious". I believe the BLP policy is clear about this.

I have undone the edits once again and invited the editor that if he still feels the source is valid per WP:BLP, he should make his case here. I have also advised him that he has the WP:BURDEN of proof, and should not re-enter information from the website until his interpretation of the BLP policy has been resolved here in favor of restoring the information. Mercy11 (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Evidence that the site genuinely belongs to Riley Reid is easily found with a quick look at the porn trade press, (like this AVN promo press article for example). The subject is openly promoting herself and a relaunch of the website. If reasonable doubt about authenticity is put the rest, the site is an acceptable primary source within the limits of WP:SELFPUB. The contested material is basic background stuff, that can be sourced elsewhere.[39] It may be porn kayfabe, but there are no extraordinary claims here. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• The key phrase of BLP you are trying to apply is "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This information on where she lived should not be considered contentious and it's obvious (WP:BLUE) to me that REIDmylips.com is her site considering she's in every scene and the bottom of the site shows that the site won a PERFORMER Website of the Year. The point is moot now because I can't tell where the information is on the website since the redesign. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It's too bad that javascript does not seem to be archivable on archive.org Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• I do think there is a concern with using reidmylips.com for biographical information. It is also a sales site. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Dean Morton

Political statement injected in biography summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjmur (talk • contribs) 04:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

There's been some vandalism of the article but this has been dealt with by other editors. Neiltonks (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Conrad Black

Page

Conrad Black (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is the following statement implicit synthesis?: "In 2018, Black wrote a favorable biography of President Donald Trump; on May 15, 2019, Trump granted him a full pardon."

My reading of the text is that it implies that Black was pardoned because he wrote a flattering book about Trump. While the sources juxtapose the two events, none of them explicitly say that Trump pardoned Black because of the book. In fact they also mention that Trump and Black had been business and political allies long before Black was prosecuted or Trump became president.

YoPienso says, "The sources do make an explicit connection, but do not explicitly say Trump pardoned Black because Black wrote that book." I don't know what that is supposed to mean. The connection is that Trump pardoned Black because of the book, whether it is stated implicitly or explicitly.

TFD (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Putting the two sentences together with a semi-colon implies B follows A, so either the sources explicitly called out the pardon as in return for the favorable book, or that sentence needs to be split up to avoid the implication. --Masem (t) 20:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

My preferred version was to say "In 2018, Black wrote a glowing book about Trump. In 2019, Trump pardoned Black." Which is how all RS covered the pardon. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The lead isn't reflecting what the body is saying. I don't think Snoogan's suggestion addresses the concerns either. The body attributes the implication, "Many news sources linked Black's recent book and his long friendship with Trump to the pardon.". The proposed sentence does imply in Wikivoice that the favorable book is why Trump pardoned Black even though it could be the long time friendship, the cumulative effect of other favorable articles or something else. The SYN concern could be addressed by making it clear in the lead that this is an allegation of quid pro quo. The allegation does seem reasonable for the lead. Springee (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Side note, why does the article say he was convicted of fraud and that it went as far as the US Supreme Court but doesn't actually say what he was convicted of doing? Wouldn't that be the logical thing to start with? Springee (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, it's pretty much the analysis that every RS offers, so I guess it's fine. Guy (help!) 00:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The text in the body, which incorporates mention of the implications with inline attribution to sources is fine. But in the lede or wherever it may be presented without sources, editors need to very careful avoid wording that suggest they were connected events as fact. There's ways to mention both without noting the possible tie, or one may also consider what might be UNDUE for the lede (the full pardon would be appropriate but because of the tenacious book connection, I don't know if that even needs to be named). --Masem (t) 00:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Black has written many books, the most well known of which were flattering biographies of the late Quebec premier, Maurice Duplessis, FDR and Nixon. Only one of them is mentioned in the article, the one about the Quebec premier. There's no reason to mention the Trump book in the lead. Guy, while it's fine to cite analysis, it's wrong to state it as fact without in text attribution. TFD (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, maybe because only one of them is a man with a deeply shady history who subsequently pardoned him for crimes? Nixon is a good comparison: it's not hard to write a book that is generally positive about him he created the EPA, for example). It's rather harder to find anything admirable about Trump. Guy (help!) 14:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

None of the others could have pardoned Black because they were dead. But le chef, who presided over an era called "the Great Darkness?" If he ran the U.S. you'd be begging for Trump to return. TFD (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

JzG, can you please refrain from giving us your biased, non NPOV opinions, this is not the forum for such and should be removed, thank you.--Malerooster (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Somali Outlaws

Page

Somali Outlaws (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

New article alleging criminal activity by an ethnic gang. It relied on allegations from three and eight years ago; those allegations are reported as factual, but there is no mention of any convictions. I have cleaned it of those but more watchers would be appreciated. Kablammo (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

B-Complex

An edit conflict on the pronouns and name reference Bi-gender artist B-Complex. The article is being reverted repeatedly between an un-cited use of "he/him" pronouns, and cited use of "she/her" pronouns as the latest self-identified gender (MOS:Gender_identity) in interviews, and a cited discussion of use of "they/them" pronouns due to lack of direct statement of preference and other expressions of Bi-gender identity as non-binary ("Call me Matia, sometimes"). A general need for eyes on this topic seems merited since an edit with summary "he is a man + source" with the following interview (Interview) as citation for "However, he does not intend to undergo gender reassignment surgery" was made and is still in the article due to reverts and the article's contents are clearly not in support of the gender assignment in the edit. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)— Antisymmetricnoise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

IMO this is the wrong venue for this content dispute. MarnetteD|Talk 20:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am new and have read but not fully understood many of the guidlines, in the header of the talk page it says "If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBT noticeboard, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard." Edits on this page are repeatedly violiting the guidline including the pronoun changes. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Offtopic, but I feel having a noticeboard specifically related to BLP/Bio related to specific concerns of transgender, gender identity, deadnaming, and the like may be worthwhile as these problems tend to differ from the usual BLP problems. --Masem (t) 23:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Well there is the LGBT Noticeboard board on which a post has been made about this but it does not really have the conflict resolution speed required for BLP issues where having the wrong content up can mean direct offense in for gender identity issues. So yeah it would be nice to have a place to get more urgent action, then again if the talk pages and BLP's are not working for this sort of thing it makes sense to just go straight to conflict resolution. Most Gender pages already have discretionionary standards for administrators so it's just a matter of getting the gender properly sourced then preventing reversions that don't provide new evidence or arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antisymmetricnoise (talk • contribs) 01:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

As of today there is continued edit warring that between me and another user. But the other user is not engaging on the talk page and dispute resolution requires extensive discussion on talk before proceeding. How is this sort of BLP undo war best prevented other than trying to get more eyes from this noticeboard? 128.40.76.3 (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos -- should use of "ridicules" and other unsourced material remain in the lead?

Milo Yiannopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

With this and this edit respectively, GergisBaki (talk · contribs) added "ridicules" and "transgender people" to the Milo Yiannopoulos article. But these aspects are not sourced, and "ridicules" is his personal POV. There isn't even a Transgender section in the article. That was removed, as made clear in this section on the talk page. So the "transgender" part doesn't even summarize the article per WP:Lead. Because of this, I reverted and noted why I on the talk page. In addition to that, the article is under WP:Discretionary sanctions. When one edits (or attempts to edit) the article, the edit notice clearly states, "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." I challenged GergisBaki's edit (including taking the matter to the talk page where I pinged him), but he reverted anyway. And when warned on his talk page that he should revert, he ignored it and made this edit, where he engages in more POV editing by removing "political commentator." I took the matter to ANI (permalink here), but because the discretionary sanction warnings did not come until after the editor's revert, he apparently gets a pass for reverting in that regard. It, however, is not a pass as far as BLP compliance goes.

Thoughts? This might turn into an RfC. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos called Islam a 'barbaric, alien' religion. Is that criticism, or ridicule? I'd say it's closer to ridicule. It's not like Yiannopoulos has the credentials to be considered a serious student of any religion, let alone a serious critic. - Nunh-huh 00:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, and like I stated at ANI, "Yiannopoulos not being considered (by many) to be a good person doesn't mean that editors should get to repeatedly violate BLP at the article about him. And I get the feeling that editors continue to let BLP violations happen there just because they don't like Yiannopoulos." We should not let our personal opinions about BLP subjects affect our editing of their articles. WP:BLPCOI clearly states that "editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." We have the WP:Verifiability and WP:BLP policies to follow. Not to mention...guidelines like WP:Lead as well. What is the point of including "transgender" in the lead if there isn't even a section on that lower in the article? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Characterizations of an individual's words and actions are best not expressed in Wikipedia's voice. To avoid misinterpretation, they should not only be cited but have in-text attribution. The way to deal with provacateurs is not to rise to the bait, but to describe their words and actions in objective terms and quote others in matters of opinion. Kablammo (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

GergisBaki, this is in response to your edits. Kablammo (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't suggest we violate policy in any way, and you have no idea what my personal opinion of Yiannopoulos is. I said nothing about including transgender in the lead (in fact, it should not be). So I think you probably should direct your remarks to someone else. Wikipedia is characterizing Yiannopoulos comments re: Islam in both versions. In one version, it is saying that characterizing a religion as barbaric and alien is a criticism, and in another it is saying that characterizing a religion as barbaric and alien is ridicule. The latter is more correct. Other formulations are of course possible. He "expresses his disapproval of Islam by calling it barbaric and alien". "He says that Islam is barbaric and alien." "Alien" is a criticism only if one is a bigot or xenophobe, and "barbaric" is a value judgement not a "criticism". - Nunh-huh 03:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, I never stated that you violated BLP. I never stated that you mentioned anything about "transgender" in the lead. My question in the title of this thread is "Should use of 'ridicules' and other unsourced material remain in the lead?" I clearly addressed "transgender" as one of the unsourced items. I have no idea what your personal opinion of Yiannopoulos is? Besides your latest comment, I got an idea just from you stating, "It's not like Yiannopoulos has the credentials to be considered a serious student of any religion, let alone a serious critic." And I was not criticizing you for that viewpoint. Since you stated that and "Milo Yiannopoulos called Islam a 'barbaric, alien' religion. Is that criticism, or ridicule? I'd say it's closer to ridicule.", I was stating that it matters not what an editor personally thinks is ridicule. What matters, like I and others in this thread have stated, is what reliable sources state. Use of "ridicules" is obviously POV. But if enough reliable sources use that term with regard to Yiannopoulos's opinion, it can be due for us to use that term. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

If you think it's debatable that Yiannopoulos is a religious critic, present your sources stating he is. - Nunh-huh 02:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sighs. You very well know I wasn't arguing that. You haven't helped at all. And your commentary in this thread was/is completely unhelpful. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ridicule, mockery, insults, and the like are all forms of criticism, and we can always neutrally describe someone making these types of statements towards a group as criticism without having to evoke in-prose attribution. But to the point of the OP, sources must be there to support that. If the article has nothing about Milo making statements about transgender individuals, then it should not be mentioned in the body and definitely not in the lede. This is BLP 101, and the editor seems willingly ignoring the numerous warnings about this. --Masem (t) 04:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Any material which isn't either sourced in the lead or the article needs to be removed. I don't think there is any need for an RfC about that. So for the transgender stuff it has to stay out until and unless a source is provided. I see there is one source which mentions transgender issues in the article [40], but it's an interview so is difficult to use it for anything like that without WP:Syn. Until and unless a source is presented, I don't think we can discuss whether it's fair to use the term 'ridicules' in relation to transgender people. IMO it's not possible to discuss this in the abstract. If most sources talking about someone says they're known for ridiculing transgender people, I don't think it's a BLP violation for us to also mention that.

Adding something to the lead which isn't discussed in the article is sloppy writing, although unfortunately common and I've potentially did it on occasion. IMO it isn't inherently a BLP violation depending on whether the material belongs in the lead, and has an inline citation in the lead. There is a greater risk of it being a BLP violation since readers may not be able to read in the article more details of the context of what is stated in the lead but still I wouldn't say it's always a BLP violation.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that the discretionary sanctions awareness requirement for arbcom discretionary sanctions is set by arbcom. While I guess it is theoretically possible for us to forcefully change it by amending arbitration policy, practically that's never going to happen. While there are a few ways editors can be aware, the main way is by giving them alerts. You have to give the specific designated alert. Simply mentioning it isn't sufficient.

My suggestion is don't be afraid to give alerts. Yes you do have to do some basic checking to ensure that the editor isn't already aware but you get an edit filter warning to help you. I know some editors feel that editors giving such alerts when they are in a dispute with another editor comes across as retaliatory or using the alert as a warning which it is explicitly not supposed to be, IMO it's better than opening a case to get someone else to give an alert.

Editors can of course be sanctioned outside the DS regime, but since the DS regime is so much simpler, many prefer to just let it be dealt with that way.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I stand by ridicules as a NPOV summation of RS; Milo's article titles include "Would you rather have feminism, or cancer?" and "birth control makes women unattractive and crazy." That is ridicule, not merely criticism.

As to transgender people, Milo has made his view clear, calling trans women sexually confused men and potential sexual predators. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/milo-yiannopoulos-transgender-people-truth_n_58a84dcae4b07602ad551487

I am not sure why we think criticizes is more neutral than ridicules, but I am willing to discuss this matter further on talk and on this thread before reverting. GergisBaki (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

GergisBaki, per the sanctions, it's a good thing you reverted yourself here. To repeat, "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." Per what Kablammo, Masem, Nil Einne and I stated, you shouldn't be looking to revert to that at all without first having reliable sources that address the viewpoint that Yiannopoulos ridicules, without transgender material first being covered lower in the article, and without obtaining consensus for your changes. And there is no RfC on this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: GergisBaki seems to have gotten the idea for "ridicules" from the Mike Enoch article, which he recently edited. "Ridicules" was added there by the BugsyBeaver account. I haven't yet looked into the BugsyBeaver account to see if there is a connection between it and the GergisBaki account. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Mike Breen (pastor)

I'd appreciate more eyes on this for several reasons. There have been long term issues regarding promotional content, and it's largely sourced to the subject's own publications and blogs, hence the notability tag I've placed. A recent section appeared so poorly sourced in its criticism that I removed it quickly, and wonder if it rises to the level of defamation, to be rev/deleted. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The current sources in the article are not enough to meet WP:BASIC as they are not independent. This article is the only thing I could find. If no additional in depth coverage by independent sources is found, AfD would probably be the best option. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

There are several books referenced by the article and at least two of those are from respected presses Ashgate and Baker Academic. Independent sources are not only those things that are found online.Jahaza (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You are right, I did miss those. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Does it matter if the books are written by the subject of the page and not biographies? I'm not sure they'd be fact-checked on biographical details. 184.57.187.56 (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it definitely does matter that as many sources used as possible be independent of the subject. Sources relied on for notability, definitely need to be independent.Jahaza (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Chris Noth

As detailed at Talk:Chris Noth#Redlink editor treating this as a fan site, an editor who began on Wikipedia less than a month ago has added problematic content to the "Personal life" section of Chris Noth. (Issues of BLP, including tabloid rumors, non-encyclopedic tone, fannish trivia, Manual of Style, punctuation and grammar and more.) A quick comparison is his edit here and the section as it was immediately before. (Or this and this, if that's most immediately visual.) A disinterested third-party editor, having read the discussion, suggested notifying the BLP Noticeboard.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm the third party. The stripped-down version is much preferable. Right now there are references to tabloid reports and a baby's heartbeat. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • And frankly, a quick look at the theater section finds similar minutiae. Too much, and he received 'glowing' reviews for a 'lauded' performance. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

    Plus he garnered accolades. EEng 20:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

    I posted the exact quote below: "Noth received glowing reviews as petty criminal "Teach" in David Mamet's play Amercan Buffalo at the 2005 Berkshire Theatre Festival.[44][72] Noth's performance was lauded for being compelling in its menace while also connecting with the play's humor.[72][73]" and said the wording can be changed and asked for suggestions. As mentioned, "glowing reviews" was a direct quote from the ref and I can change it to "good reviews", etc.-Khawue (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

    • I have addressed the false claims of WP:BLP and WP:MOS violations. It was mentioned that the abuse claims were in a tabloid report by WP:RS but it was also documented in the WP:RS with an official statemnt from Noth. The "heartbeat" of the first baby was addressed in media reports as I mentioned in the discussion. "Glowing reviews" is a direct quote from the article from broadwayworld.com and is backed by other sources. I have also been shortening sentences as I go.-Khawue (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
      • If you think that quoting Broadwayworld directly validates WP:PEACOCK language, you've made the case for me. Wikipedia may not be your venue. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Correction, broadway.com https://www.broadway.com/buzz/11269/chris-noth/, it was backed by other sources showing the reviews of his performance American Buffalo which I included and referenced and proved that he received good reviews in my two very brief sentences about that play. I can change the word "glowing" to something else if it's problematic but there is no violation of policy or for you to personally attack me "Wikipedia may not be your venue."-Khawue (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
          • Again, that's not a personal attack. There are publications for which I'm not well suited, and others which pay nicely for my contributions. It's a recognition of appropriate tone. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
            • So you made the claim ""Wikipedia may not be your venue." based on use of broadwayworld.com to which you have a personal opinion but which I did not use. I linked to you the actual article and again mentioned repeatedly there were other sources as well lauding his performance. So I can change the word "glowing" to something else. What else? -Khawue (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
              • Sorry, there's a WP:OWNERSHIP issue here, and I'm not in the mood anymore. You're acting as a gatekeeper to your writing, and it's not worth the energy. Good luck, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                • Moving the goalposts -Khawue (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                • I was genuinely asking about the issue "and he received 'glowing' reviews for a 'lauded' performance". Here are the exact sentences, "Noth received glowing reviews as petty criminal "Teach" in David Mamet's play Amercan Buffalo at the 2005 Berkshire Theatre Festival.[44][72] Noth's performance was lauded for being compelling in its menace while also connecting with the play's humor.[72][73]" I am open to changing and also acknowledge minutiae which I have said I am willing to make more concise. I had tried to provide different POV to the different performances, etc. and delete extra details as I go along. I provided sources to disprove repeated claims that I violated MOS:SAMESURNAME, removed sources confirming his son's birthdate, etc. does not mean I oppose to making changes. I addressed uncivil blanket comments made and was civil, trying to address each specific issue. -Khawue (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                • Also, with regards to the baby's heartbeat, I mentioned in the talkpage that it was reported in the media & it's significance leading to involvement in fundraising and that there were also reliable sources reporting the abuse allegations, even if they mentioned a tabloid. I have intended to trim the details down. I just tried to address the claims that the former was only mentioned by Oprah and the later is only tabloids. I intended to include involvement with charities. -Khawue (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Khawue seems to have a mental block against understanding what all these other editors are saying. The fact that not one other editor agrees with him is not sinking in. For example, all we need to say is, "He had a 3-year [sic; should be "three-year"] relationship[14] with model/actress Beverly Johnson that began in 1992[132] and ended in 1995.[133][134]." That's the plain, straightforward, pertinent fact.

I do not "have a mental block against understanding what all these other editors are saying". You specifically made some false claims which I addressed. I am accepting that the amount of details can be reduced. I can understand this as well as address personal comments about me and incorrect facts.-Khawue (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The specific false claims I mention above which I addressed in the talk page and disprove. Below is a new specific issue being discussed and you can see I am participating in a civil way and trying to address specific details and not make blanket statements.-Khawue (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The rest of this is tabloidy rumor-mongering — which absolutely violates BLP — and tangential, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, non-encyclopedic content consisting of public figures cautiously giving fluffy, inconsequential statements. I can't believe Wikipedia contains this:

In January 1996, New York Daily News reported that they broke up a year ago and a story that he used to beat her had surfaced in a supermarket tabloid. Johnson could not be reached for comment.[134] A few months later, Noth said the relationship "gave me some inner knowledge about myself and about people" and "changed my idea about what love is. So even though it was a very painful experience, it was a very enlightening one."[14] In 2009, a tabloid reported that in 1995 Johnson filed charges against Noth for abuse allegations similar to those that she was suing another ex for. Criminal charges were not brought against Noth who stated, "There is no basis to the claims Ms. Johnson made back in 1995."[135] In 2012, when asked if she was once romantically linked with Noth, she replied, "that was many years ago. I can't think back that far. But yes, he was an old boyfriend and a great guy."[136] In July 1994, she only had praise for him, saying "besides being terribly handsome and a brilliant actor, he's terrific with [my daughter] Anasa."[137] There was no abuse mentioned when she wrote about him in her 2017 memoirs.[138]

What do experienced BLP editors think of that blockquoted passage?--65.78.8.103 (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And I think overall that this editor is treating the Chris Noth Wikipedia page as a fan site. I've been pointing out significant issues in the "Personal life" section, but this editor's multitude of fannish edits bear examining.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You can see in the talk page and my talk you repeatedly had issues with MOS:SAMESURNAME, claiming that there were no WP:RS for Orion's birth, etc. and I showed sources showing otherwise in the talk page and my own talk page where you also posted. I have no opposition to discussing the passage below and breaking down the details.-Khawue (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

: shortened revision:

In January 1996, New York Daily News reported that they broke up a year ago and a story that he used to beat her had surfaced in a supermarket tabloid. Johnson could not be reached for comment.[134] A few months later, Noth said the relationship "changed my idea about what love is. So even though it was a very painful experience, it was a very enlightening one."[14] In 2009, a tabloid reported that in 1995 Johnson filed charges against Noth for abuse allegations similar to those that she was suing another ex for. Criminal charges were not brought against Noth who stated, "There is no basis to the claims Ms. Johnson made back in 1995."[135] In 2012, when asked if she was once romantically linked with Noth, she replied, "that was many years ago. I can't think back that far. But yes, he was an old boyfriend and a great guy."[136] In July 1994, she only had praise for him, saying "he's terrific with [my daughter] Anasa."[137] There was no abuse mentioned when she wrote about him in her 2017 memoirs.[138]

• I think it's pertinent and tangible that New York Daily News tried to contact Johnson about the allegations and Noth's quote on the relationship, acknowledges there was a significant conflict. Then his official statement about the abuse claims.
• Then her statements in 2012 are pretty clear and concise, and that she did not mention abuse in the 2017 memoirs, it's significant to mention that.

I attempted to show different POV, to be precise but I can see that certain details can be reduced.-Khawue (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sentence about 2009 revised without mention of the tabloid story, directly from the ref:

In January 1996, New York Daily News reported that they broke up a year ago and a story that he used to beat her had surfaced in a supermarket tabloid. Johnson could not be reached for comment.[134] A few months later, Noth said the relationship "changed my idea about what love is. So even though it was a very painful experience, it was a very enlightening one."[14] In 2009, another ex of Johnson's was suing her for the abuse allegations she made against him and he wanted Noth to testify. Criminal charges were not brought against Noth who stated, "There is no basis to the claims Ms. Johnson made back in 1995."[135] In 2012, when asked if she was once romantically linked with Noth, she replied, "that was many years ago. I can't think back that far. But yes, he was an old boyfriend and a great guy."[136] In July 1994, she only had praise for him, saying "he's terrific with [my daughter] Anasa."[137] There was no abuse mentioned when she wrote about him in her 2017 memoirs.[138]

-Khawue (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the point of all this. It's written like a newspaper. I mean, "Johnson could not be reached for comment." Why is it written like Wikipedia is trying to contact this person? It reads like OR, which is a newspaper's job, not ours.

If this is to be added to the article, then it really needs some encyclopedic value. How does this fit into the overall story? What am I supposed to be learning about this person from reading this? How has it affected his life and career? In other words, what is the significance of this information within the context of the overall picture? Just because something was reported in a newspaper somewhere doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion. We need to be able to demonstrate that the info has encyclopedic value, and that it is not just gossipy material, and then we need to put that into balance with the rest of the article. Unfortunately, this all appears to me to be the latter with no indication of the former. It's really all just "He said... She said... Nothing really came about from it, and nobody ever said anything about it again." There's just no point. Zaereth (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2020

The newspaper was not able to get a comment from Johnson. "Johnson's modelling agent, Bryan Bantry, was unable to reach her, and her publicist Jimmy Hester did not return calls". It was a notable widely reported event in their relationship. Noth did say that it impacted his performance in Law & Order: The Unofficial Companion p.119 https://books.google.com/books?id=LWpVPgAACAAJ

"In the third year...I was at the time also in a very crazy relationship [with model Beverly Johnson]...There were a few times when I was a mess." -Khawue (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus to revert to the previous version of the "Personal life" section? Not a single editor here agrees with Khawue's version. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I have just replied above to Zaereth.-Khawue (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

What don't you understand about the fact that Wikipedia cannot report rumors that someone beat his girlfriend?--65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

He made an official statement denying the abuse claims in 2009 in the midst of the lawsuit by her ex. "There is no basis to the claims Ms. Johnson made back in 1995." It was not just rumors that those claims were made.

Shortened revision, clarifying newspaper unable to get comment from Johnson:

In January 1996, New York Daily News reported that they broke up a year ago and a story that he used to beat her had surfaced in a supermarket tabloid. The NYDN was not able to get a comment from Johnson.[134] A few months later, Noth said the relationship "changed my idea about what love is. So even though it was a very painful experience, it was a very enlightening one."[14] In 2009, another ex of Johnson's was suing her for the abuse allegations she made against him and he wanted Noth to testify. Criminal charges were not brought against Noth who stated, "There is no basis to the claims Ms. Johnson made back in 1995."[135] In 2012, when asked if she was once romantically linked with Noth, she replied, "that was many years ago. I can't think back that far. But yes, he was an old boyfriend and a great guy."[136] In July 1994, she only had praise for him."[137] There was no abuse mentioned when she wrote about him in her 2017 memoirs.[138]-Khawue (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is not a BLP issue, but a content dispute, which is why nobody else has bothered to jump in. That said, the onus is on the one who wants to include to demonstrate why it should be. The general idea is that contested material should stay out until consensus is achieved one way or the other. This does three things: 1.) it keeps bad, poorly written, or possibly policy violating material off of mainspace until everyone is sure of its quality and compliance, 2.) it helps the readers by keeping the article stable instead of rapid changes taking place, and 3.) it gives incentive for those involved to discuss it and try to reach a compromise. (It's the anticipation of a reward that motivates, whereas actually receiving the reward has the opposite effect.

Personally, I think the writing poor and the info is just gossip, and unless the questions I asked can ghet answered satisfactorily, then I think it needs to go. And the above answers only increase my feeling that this is just gossip.Zaereth (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

My focus was on the statement "Criminal charges were not brought against Noth who stated, "There is no basis to the claims Ms. Johnson made back in 1995."" Which to me made it more than just a rumor that allegations were made. Reliable sources were used for the refs. The book which quotes Noth about the impact of the relationship is published by Renaissance Books.-Khawue (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that does not link to the publisher but here are the authors of the book which was written in cooperation with the cast member. I can send you pages from the book. https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/life/2019/04/29/tribute-late-free-press-writer-susan-green/3615853002/

https://www.criticsatlarge.ca/2018/10/kevin-courrier-1954-2018.html

New York Daily News is very widely read. How would you improve the writing? -Khawue (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Full quote from the book: ""In the third year, I already knew. Ed and I went nose to nose a lot. I was at the time also in a very crazy relationship [with model Beverly Johnson]...There were a few times when I was a mess." The book was also referenced in Law & Order

The references used in the paragraph:

• Rush, George; Molloy, Joanna (January 2, 1996). "LESS-THAN-MODEL BREAKUP DRAGS ON". New York Daily News.
• Lee, Luaine (April 24, 1996). "Television: Law and Order fans remain loyal to Noth". Life & Times. The Windsor Star. Scripps Howard News Service. p. B.6 – via ProQuest Global Newsstream.
• "Noth Tangled In Ex's Lawsuit". Contact Music. WENN. February 26, 2009.
• Williams, Kam (April 5, 2012). "HEAVENLY BEVERLY". Entertainment. Los Angeles Sentinel. p. B1 – via ProQuest Global Newsstream.
• Capuzzo, Mike (July 3, 1994). "A beauty tames the beastliness of fashion fame". Style. The Philadelphia Inquirer. p. H2 – via ProQuest Historical Newspapers. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)
• Johnson, Beverly (2017). The Face That Changed It All: A Memoir. Simon and Schuster. pp. 220, 224, 240. ISBN 1476774439.</ref> -Khawue (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ref not used in the paragraph but mentioned above,

Courrier, Kevin; Green, Susan (1998). Law & Order: The Unofficial Companion. Los Angeles: Renaissance Books is distributed by St. Martin's Press -Khawue (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're quite picking up what I'm laying down. I'm referring to the way the suggested material is written. When I asked, "Why is it written like Wikipedia is trying to contact this person?" I mean, we shouldn't be stating that in Wikipedia's voice. If sources tried to contact her, then say so, but the way it reads it gives the impression that Wikipedia is doing the investigation.

Same with the information itself. You know, an entire article can be speedy deleted if it demonstrates "no indication of importance". This doesn't mean that the person is not important, but that we, the readers, cannot tell from the writing just what is important about them. It's no different with this kind of information. As written, there is no indication of importance. But you can't just cite a single line in a policy like you can for speeding an entire article. For this you have to look at all the policies as a whole, the most directly involved one being WP:WEIGHT. And this is especially true for a celebrity, where gossip like this is rampant. For the normal Joe Blow, WP:BLPCRIME would apply here, but for a celebrity, we need to demonstrate some serious significance and impact, and then balance that information with the entire article (meaning not just weighing your sources against the sources used in the article, but against all sources out there about this subject). I hope that helps, and good luck. The article talk page would be the best place to discuss this, and RFC is always around the corner if consensus can't be reached. Zaereth (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Zaereth Okay the way I read it it was that the NYDN was not able to contact her, not Wikipedia, due to the NYDN cite being at the end of the sentence "Johnson could not not be reached for comment" and the first sentence which was "The New York Daily News reported..." Maybe it is also harder to see that here without the linked refs.

Yes I see with WP:WEIGHT "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." So we would try to balance out the size of description in how much detail we give it with the entire article. As mentioned, I can see I added more details to try to get a balance of POVs and the details can be trimmed. I think there is significance/notability in that it was widely reported, e.g. TV Guide volume 46, 1998, "relationship with Beverly Johnson ended publicly and badly" and an official statement was made by Noth to address it. (Also significance for Noth personally with his quotes about how the painful relationship changed his perspective and was a factor impacting him during Law & Order but I think the focus is more on the notability). So maybe this shortened version has the appropriate balance:

• A claim that Noth abused Johnson was reported by the New York Daily News a year after the relationship ended[134] but criminal charges were not brought against Noth who stated, "There is no basis to the claims Ms. Johnson made back in 1995" in 2009 when Johnson was in a legal dispute with another ex over abuse allegations.[135] Johnson spoke well of Noth interviews in 2012 and in July 1994,[136][137] and no abuse was mentioned when she wrote about him in her 2017 memoirs.[138] -Khawue (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Edited: 00:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can allege anything against anyone. Unless charges are brought, that's all they are. This is absolutely a BLP issue when Wikipedia is broadcasting denied, unproven claims that someone beat his girlfriend. Denied and unproven claims are rumors. This section as written is like some WP:TABLOID magazine. And "in 2009 when Johnson was in a legal dispute with another ex over abuse allegations" is pure WP:SYNTH trying to paint Johnson as a serial accuser. Not a word of this gossip-mongering belongs in Wikipedia. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• All this alleged beating crap is way outside an encyclopedia's purview, and it does cause considerable WP:BLP problems. At least five editors have weighed in on this unambiguously here and at the article talk page. None of this is of lasting importance. A revised version was posted by IP 65, and was promptly reverted. As I wrote two days ago, there is a WP:OWNERSHIP issue here. Yes, Zaereth, it's time to honor consensus on reverting the personal life section, and to making necessary changes to the career, as well. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Zaereth said above that this is not a WP:BLP, not is it WP:SYNTH to say "in 2009 when Johnson was in a legal dispute with another ex over abuse allegations", this was directly from the article. Noth made the statement when another ex was suing Johnson over abuse allegations she made against him in 2009. Can shorten to if that is a concern (but it is not WP:SYNTH)
  • A claim that Noth abused Johnson was reported by the New York Daily News a year after the relationship ended[134] but criminal charges were not brought against Noth who stated, "There is no basis to the claims Ms. Johnson made back in 1995" in 2009 when Johnson was in a legal dispute with another ex.[135] Johnson spoke well of Noth interviews in 2012 and in July 1994,[136][137] and no abuse was mentioned when she wrote about him in her 2017 memoirs.[138]

These two editors are saying it is BLP.

-Khawue (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the above incident was a significant aspect of the relationship that is addressed in a brief, factual, and neutral way with statements by both parties, the official denial by Noth and statements by Johnson. Does not imply guilt in any way. I would like some input from admin on this. Let's start with this one. Then let's discuss the separate issues separately. There has been mischaracterization of me and what was said and done. Discussion first to avoid edit warring.-Khawue (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I am closing the above admin help request, because no issue requiring administrative tools was mentioned. However, if Khawue continues to fail to accept consensus, administrative action may become required JBW (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Every editor here except the one in question is in consensus, for varying reasons, that this material should not be in Wikipedia. Given this consensus, I'm going to revert to the previous status quo. If Khawue chooses to ignore consensus and WP:OWN the article, then this needs to be escalated to WP:ANI. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like that won't be necessary. Another editor has independently removed the contentious content, and [User:Khawue|Khawue]], quite responsibly, is following consensus. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like to continue discussion about all the issues but separately e.g. abuse claim in the relationship with Johnson, early relationships, etc. I have been doing revisions to the sentences about the allegation throughout this discussion and would like to continue from my last statement above below the Admin help template. 65.78.8.103 & 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 object and I shortened again in response to 65.78.8.103. -Khawue (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If we're going to nickel and dime this over every inappropriate edit [41], then this ridiculously lengthy discussion over an open and shut content matter will end up at ANI. This really doesn't need to drag out over multiple noticeboards, but the disruption is considerable. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Not inappropriate to restore brief references to reviews about the performance. It is common to have these to provide context. Can try to limit, change language. Yes let's discuss each issue separately instead of numerous as the same time.-Khawue (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, he originated that role in the world premiere of Farragut North (play) and reviews should not be omitted for such a significant role. There are smaller roles where maybe no reviews, but not for roles like this which receive a lot of press attention.-Khawue (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Admin help is welcome. I did not WP:OWN the article, you made that accusation above after I replied with the exact article and quote against your claim "he received 'glowing' reviews for a 'lauded' performance" and I asked you for suggestions. I provided sources for my arguments and always said I was receptive to discussing the details and working to reduce them. -Khawue (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is most certainly an ownership issue. No, it's a timesink to explain Wikipedia policy re: every edit, each sentence. It's your responsibility to read the guidelines re: WPBLP and WP:PEACOCK. We're not Time Out NY or Playbill, and their content is not ours. Time for a tutorial is running out here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, I do see this as lurching inevitably toward ANI. An editor can't use being new as a defense and continue editing disruptively. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No, the disruptive editing was not on my part. I did not inappropriately use content from Time Out or Playbill nor was this ever and issue that was raised. I welcomes Admins to help with this.-Khawue (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Sri Bhagavan

Biased reporting is being done by editors User:Csgir and User:Prodigyhk on this page, editors (having pro bias) are blocking my edits to this page (without an explanation) despite being made by me and others in good faith and referencing objective sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govindaharihari (talk • contribs) 19:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment - User:Ronyrockford moved the page name from Sri Bhagavan to Kalki Bhagwan without a Move discussion and is undoing edits that does not match their narrative. The editor's prime objective is to add the term "Godman" in the lead sentence and the link https://tat-tvam-asi.org/bhagavadpadas-profile/ as a reference in a later paragraph, even though it does not have any content about Dr Sankar, the subject's childhood friend, introducing the subject to Jiddu Krishnamurti. The editor also reached out to my Talk page to issue a veiled threat of "escalating this issue" if I didn't explain why I undid their action of adding the above mentioned link. Csgir (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

John Dalrymple, 14th Earl of Stair (Potential Vandalism/Incorrect Information)

John Dalrymple, 14th Earl of Stair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Dalrymple, 14th Earl of Stair

The problem in "Arms" section: " Crest: A Rock proper Supporters: On either side a Stork holding in its beak a Fish all proper Motto: Firm " Why I believe this is wrong: This appears to have been vandalized, as the usage of "proper" is not very formal, and I doubt "Firm" is the true motto. However, I was not sure what is correct to put, so did not edit myself. Thanks for your time, sorry if this was improperly filed or what not.

Have a good day.

If the concern is incorrect information, the issue is best raised at Talk:John Dalrymple, 14th Earl of Stair. It doesn't look like vandalism; just checking the motto, it has been listed as "Firm" since the coat of arms was added to the article 6 years ago. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing obviously wrong with the use of "proper" which is a technical term in heraldry. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Lack of references

The article Tangella Madhavi has only a single reference. Shouldn't the article be deleted unless it meets the minimum criteria of three reliable sources? Also the topic seems to have notability issues. If the article is deleted for the meanwhile, I can work and redraft the entire article with more sources in my sandbox. Please ping me to notify about your reply DishitaBhowmik 09:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I saw a few sources available when searching around earlier. (Are other sources possibly available in Hindi as well?) I don't see the need to delete the article and go through the whole AFD process if you're about to expand it. Jahaza (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Fredi Marcarini

I am sorry if this is the wrong place to do it, but I just wanted to note that the subject of the article, Italian photographer Fredi Marcarini, died in the night of January 10th, 2020, from a heart attack, in Nova Milanese (province of Monza, Italy). (source: Fredi Marcarini's Facebook page). https://www.facebook.com/fredi.marcarini/timeline?lst=1331367279%3A689834523%3A1582326511 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.199.116 (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Natural News

• Natural News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Arthistorian81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BLP issue: defamation and character assassination of Mike Adams indirectly through attack of his website, Natural News. Sources not neutral, mainly opinion based blogs etc. Defamatory quotations directed at Adams sprinkled throughout article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthistorian81 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you have any specific and real examples, instead of generalized moaning?--Calton | Talk 07:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

User:MPS1992 has made several changes whose WP:ES seem like they are in accord with the original comment here (how's that for WEASEL/AGF!). I undid one of them, as it seemed to attenuate what is a strongly supported position. Some others also seem to write off as "blog" posts from potentially credible voices but I haven't had time to look in depth. Would be useful to get more eyes there. DMacks (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It is unclear how action could be taken on this complaint. No editor is mentioned and no diffs were provided. The filer has never edited the article they have reported. The lead of the article does contain harsh criticism of the founder of the site, Mike Adams (attributing 'conspiracy theories' and 'pseudoscience' to him) but the material is sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: this noticeboard is not for review of editor conduct, so there is usually no specific need to mention editors. Or even diffs. I see that blocked editors QuackGuru and Jytdog have both made numerous edits to the article. Material like this and this and this primary-sourced material is unhelpful in an article about a different topic, for the reasons explained. And that's before even looking over more than a third of the article. It's probably that kind of thing that provokes the "generalized moaning" mentioned above. MPS1992 (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I would guess that The filer has never edited the article they have reported because the article has been indefinitely semi-protected since sometime in 2016. So they would not have been able to edit it, before posting here. MPS1992 (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Prince Mongo

Prince Mongo is a negative BLP even after this edit by another editor removing unsourced negative content. .It is under construction in mainspace.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Elliot Fletcher

Please could someone review recent the history of Elliot Fletcher? Subject has apparently made good-faith attempts to remove some personal information, which has been restored. If consensus is to remove it again, some revision-deletion may be in order. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Markus Persson page written in an incredibly negative manner

• Markus Persson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page for Markus Persson contains intensly inflamattory materials citing media websites that have poor reputations when it comes to fairly representing issues (ex. the guardian). The controversies section is written in a biased manner. It only explains negative statements that Persson allegedly said or wrote. There are other controversial matters like Persson's opinion on the efficacy of Voxel technology that could interest readers. Or the conterversial nature of his Minecraft userbase being split half and half when deciding if the moon should be round or square (he ended up doing a mix of both). The wikipedia page is biased to inflammatory issues. Persson's opinion on those matters are irrelevant to readers. If it wasn't biased it would also have some positive things that Persson has said or done.

I believe donald trumps page is written in a less inflammatory style. Even it doesn't have a conteroversies section.

Following Persson before the release of Minecraft was an extremely exciting activity that the article could discuss more. It doesn't really mention that Persson is (or was) a blogger. Persson has contributed to the world; to children and to technology, an astounding game and vision that created a new community. Many found inspiration through Persson. This page is an absolute disgrace to Wikipedia.

Markus Persson#Controversies

--65.255.181.151 (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard

Page

Tulsi Gabbard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is this weasel-wording?:

"[Tulsi Gabbard] was raised in part on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler, who founded The Science of Identity Foundation, and whose work she said still guides her."

Per the Manual of Style, "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated."

I think that unless it specifically says what part of the teachings Gabbard was raised on and how his work still guides her, that it doesn't say anything meaningful. It reads more like an opinion piece than an encyclopedia.

TFD (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Two points: As written, it seems wrong, but the version in the current version of Gabbard's article, which is not the same, is worded differently to avoid the problem.

Second, alot rests on sources as this all at first blush appear to be unduly self-serving and not appropriate per WP:BLPSPS-- but this all appears to be information drawn from a NYtimes piece - perhaps in her words but still as reported by NYTimes, and thus, at least in the version in the article presently, is fine. --Masem (t) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• The material quoted by the OP is from this New York Times article. The article says

  In a race with a lot of history-making candidates, Ms. Gabbard lays claim to many potential firsts — she would be the first female president, the first American Samoan, the first from Hawaii, the first surfer, the first vegan.
  
  She would also be the first Hindu. She was raised in part on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler, who founded The Science of Identity Foundation, and whose work she said still guides her.
  
  “Muslims have imams, Christians have pastors, Hindus have gurus, so he’s essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor,” Ms. Gabbard said. “And he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me that have provided me with strength and shelter and peace.”
  — [42]

The text in the Gabbard BLP is

Gabbard was raised in part according to the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler.

The material in the article is backed by two other sources: [43][44]. I would also note that our style guide does not extend to the New York Times. - MrX 🖋 16:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not whether it is sourced, but whether it is weasel-wording. There may be an issue of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing too. TFD (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If the statement by Bowles is a paraphrase of the quote from Gabbard that follows, it introduced ambiguity and vagueness where there was none in Gabbard's original. If it is not a paraphrase of what Gabbard said to her in the interview, it's Bowles's opinion presented without evidence or attribution. Humanengr (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Gabbard'w statement doesn't say very much either except that Butler explained some meditation practices to her. It's not possible to take a passing reference to someone and infer much. TFD (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_J%C3%A4msen

Jan Jämsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article doesn't have any references in it and I've tried looking for them, but couldn't find any beyond trivial mentions and listings. I find the subject to be non-notable as per WP:NBIO, can an experienced editor look into this? Thanks. FelixtheNomad (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Jeanette Wilson

Jeanette Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone has created a malicious and libelous Wikipedia page in my name. I have emailed about it but no one has got back to me. The page was created by a member of the Good Thinking Society and contains views about me of Good Thinking Society members.( previously called the Skeptics Society) Several Wikipedia rules have been broken: Conflict of interest through a previous relationship with me Poorly sourced references Clearly not neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace11111 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

You mean the Wikipedia article is about you? The article was created by User:TheYarnBender at 07:12, 24 December 2019‎? It may take a while for you to get an email reply, as the service is staffed by volunteers? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)