Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive345: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:46, 31 January 2023

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull

Keen is a women's rights campaigner who feels that trans rights and women's right can conflict

This page is very biased. I will give a few examples

1 Tommy Robinson - Far right extremist. No good evidence is given to show Keen supports Robinson.

2 Keen posed for a photo with Edgar J. Delatorre. There is evidence she knows who this man is or that she supports the Proud Boys or that she supports their participation in the January 6 US Capitol attack. This is undue weight

3 Her work is described as "Anti-trans activism". It would be more neutral to call it "women's rights activism"

4 Pink News. Twelve of the references are to Pink News, which is very pro trans rights organization.

5 Mridul Wadhwa. She is a TRANSWOMAN who works at Edinburgh Rape Crisis. It is entirely legitimate to object to a AMAB person in such an organization as it is a question of putting the interests of traumatized rape victims, who require a genuinely woman-only space, first. This acknowledged in the United Kingdom's Equality Act 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddykumar (talk • contribs) 09:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Paddy. What you've presented are conclusions, but not any sufficient argument to show how you reached them. 1) There are sources attached to the statement that Keen supports Robinson. What is wrong with those sources, or how they have been cited? 2) Do reliable sources mention that she posed in that photo? 3) What do reliable sources call it? 4) A reliable source is one that has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. That it has a consistent viewpoint does not mean it's unreliable. 5) Everything you said here is completely irrelevant. A person's identity has no bearing on their capacity to produce relevant news or commentary on any other person. If there's a reason to think that Wadhwa's statements are unreliable or her opinions insignificant, other than her identity, present that reason. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your succinct summary. To clarify for #5, Wadhwa was not even sourced for statements, a source reported Kellie-Jay Keen Minshull made unfounded and un-evidenced accusations about Wadhwa. Paddykumar repeatedly tried to add articles that didn't mention Keen or her statements at all to add their above justification for Wadhwa's harassment, motivated by their very clear opinion that centers for women who've been sexually assaulted should exclude trans women. For further context, they opened this discussion while ignoring an ongoing arbitration discussion here, which was sparked by their edit warring on this article. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I will develop points 3 and 5. I may come back to the others

3

I have found

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kellie-jay-keen-police-were-wrong-to-call-on-feminist-3sb6wnzrk

Here she is described as

"feminist YouTuber"

https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/06/gender-wars-trans-critical-activists-become-extreme

"savviest and most provocative gender-critical activists in the UK"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11185703/Womens-rights-campaigner-reveals-pro-trans-lobby-wished-CANCER-children.html

"Women's rights campaigner"

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fury-i-love-jk-rowling-22862840

"a feminist blogger"

https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/08/why-the-woke-war-against-women/

"Feminist"

5 Mridul Wadhwa

My point is NOT that as a transwoman, Mridul Wadhwa is an unreliable source. My point is that a critic can object to a man or a man who identifies as a women, a transwoman, in a job at a rape crisis centre for a legitimate reason. That is, that it should be a female-only space for traumatized rape victims. It is not "harassment" to raise a legitimate point, recognized in the exemptions in the United Kingdom's Equality Act 2010.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/women-only-jobs-are-allowed-says-ehrc-amid-trans-row-in-rape-crisis-centres-f85h9r2ng

Two sources are given in the Wiki article, Open Democracy and Eastern Eye

Interestingly, the EE article says, "Mridul Wadhwa, a former Holyrood SNP candidate, has been recently made

chief executive of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC). However, the appointment is not taken well by some feminists saying that the role is reserved only for women-only candidates and Wadhwa has no gender recognition certificate and has not undergone gender reassignment surgery."

This point is not in the Wiki article. I would point out that EE says, "some feminists". Not one feminist or "one prejudiced person", but "some feminists", so plural.

Hence, it is entirely valid for Keen to ask why the exemptions in the Act were not used to exclude this AMAB person from the EERC job.

So, why does Mridul Wadhwa appear under "Harassment of transgender people"?

Why not "Feminist activism", "Women's Rights Activism" or just "Activism"?

Why is the focus on Wadhwa as victim of harassment?

Why is the focus not on the rights of traumatized women using the service of ERCC? Paddykumar (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you engage in the DS case concerning you. As things stand, it seems a topic ban is being considered so unless you've already convinced someone there is enough of a problem that they will look into this on their own, there's no point any editor discussing this further when very soon you might not be able to take part. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I also suggest you engage in the DS case, or don't as you seem intent to shoot yourself in the foot and I'm not particularly inclined to stop you. Responding to your points:

3) The vast majority of sources use anti-trans. Probably because it takes an olympic level of mental gymnastics to call someone who openly said they'd rather lose abortion rights and see a return to traditional family roles than allow trans people to have rights a "woman's right activist" instead of an "anti-trans activist". Also, see the reliablilty of WP:DAILYMIRROR, WP:DAILYMAIL, and WP:SPECTATOR. Funny to note that your other two sources, The New Statesman and the Times, have a reputation for being anti-trans.

5) Mridhul Wadhwa is a woman, (a "trans woman" not "transwoman"), and not a man. You screaming repeatedly that you think it's ok to discriminate against her is your opinion, not a fact. Your opinion that trans women should be excluded from rape crisis centers is bigotry, pure and simple. No one is threatened by our presence, no harm comes from it, and we're at higher risk of SA than cis women. Now then, the opinions of other "feminists" have nothing to do with Keen's own statements on the matter, as you seem unable to grasp that. Furthermore, we don't call harassment of trans people "women's rights activism" since harassment of a trans woman is still harassment of a woman, at the most obvious. It has nothing to do with traumatized women at the ERCC since 1) trans women are a part of that category and 2) the harassment received forced the center to slow down operations, which doesn't seem particularly helpful to those traumatized women, who you seem to think without evidence are traumatized by trans women particularly.

In short, your repeated insistence that Keen is a "women's rights activist" have no bearing on reality and you constantly trying to argue otherwise is a waste of time for everybody. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: Paddykumar is now topic-banned. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not defending the subject, but it's probably prudent to take a good look at the sourcing in this article: heavy use of activist, far-left, and otherwise ideologically-biased organizations: Media Matters For America, Unicorn Riot, PinkNews, libcom.org, Workers' Liberty, It's Going Down, etc. There's a difference between summarizing the controversies that make a person notable and becoming a mouthpiece for opponents of the subject. Articles should not be whitewashed of criticism, but neither should they be laundry lists or running logs of every complaint someone has made or every event that watchdog orgs have made notice of (see WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:VNOTSUFF, and WP:RECENTISM). The "Let Women Speak U.S. tour" section is a particularly tedious and egregious example of WP:PROSELINE. There are also quite a few lengthy quotations in the article (probably too many, although they seem unfortunately to be in vogue on Wikipedia to mirror the newspaper/magazine sources Wikipedians cite): per WP:IMPARTIAL, "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." --Animalparty! (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Please note that PinkNews is not a notably biased source. Newimpartial (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm ignoring everything above Animalparty's comment here, but this comment does mention some serious issues that should be addressed. A lot of these seem to be WP:UNDUE sources, just the same if we were citing and quoting her supporters' websites. I don't know of any consensus that PinkNews is not a biased source, though "biased" doesn't mean "can't use". But PinkNews at least has a RSP entry and is used in other articles; these other sites don't seem noteworthy at all. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The article in no way relies on these sources extensively so "heavy use" is an overstatement.

Of 48 sources:

12 are Pink News

Each of the following are cited twice: the Byline Times, the Los Angeles Blade, and Women's Place UK

And each of the following are cited once: NBC News, Media Matters for America, Vox, LGBTQ Nation, Unicorn Riot, Gay City News, Insider, Yahoo News, Delaware Online, the Times, Blasting News, the Telegraph, the Washington Times, Outsports, the National Review, Open Democracy, Eastern Eye, the BBC, Leeds Live, the Sussex Express, the News Tribune, the Indypendent, New York Daily News, People's World, Worker's Liberty, Libcom, and Fox News. As you may see, some right wing sources in there as well.

Now, the sources with issues raised are Media Matters For America, Unicorn Riot, PinkNews, libcom.org, Workers' Liberty, and It's Going Down. I checked, and all these sources are used often or generally considered reliable. Even without these sources, the vast majority of the article would remain unchanged.

Most of the sources valorizing Keen and calling her anything other than an anti-trans activist either have a reputation for being right wing or are generally unreliable, often both, (ie, the Daily Mail, Spiked, Fox, the Christian Post, The Epoch Times, etc) TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Minor right wing sources should be removed along with minor left wing ones. If it's not mentioned in reliable mainstream media (including reliable LGBT-focused outlets), it's very unlikely an aspect is noteworthy or due. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Minor right wing sources should be removed along with minor left wing ones - is this assertion backed by anything with more on-wiki authority than The Crossroads Book of Etiquette? Newimpartial (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're disputing here. Are you saying that articles should include tiny-circulation publications and websites? Or that only one side's sources should be removed? What is your actual disagreement with what I said? What makes, e.g., "libcom.org" WP:DUE? Crossroads ^-talk- 01:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The question in my mind is whether each source is reliable and whether its inclusion os DUE in the context of other available RS. There isn't a circulation threshold for inclusion/use on WP, at least my my reading of the relevant policies, but your formulation above seems to propose some such arbitrary threshold - presumably based on your personal view of "minor" vs. "mainstream". Newimpartial (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Newimpartial why are you attacking Crossroads personally? Maine 🦞 04:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Elisa Rae Shupe

Elisa Rae Shupe Diff [[1]] I removed the edit made by User:Historyday01 because it was poorly cited (Twitter post) and the subject Elisa Shupe had objected to the reference being made. Twitter has since suspended Elisa Shupe's account and neither the source nor the objection remain visible. Historyday01 reinstated his edit.

I believe the edit violates the biographies of living persons policies because

1 - Challenged or likely to be challenged - was challenged by the living person - in hindsight it would have made sense to take a screenshot of the cited tweet and the objection.

2 - Using the subject as a self-published source: 2. it does not involve claims about third parties - the citation makes references to TERFs which is not a neutral term. As Elisa Shupe formerly de-transitioned and has now re-transitioned she has detractors among both transgender people and transphobic people which makes her particularly vulnerable.

3 - Avoid gossip and feedback loops - Placing the entire tweet in the citation amounts to gossip and is irrelevant to the article. It could be construed as provocative to replicate it.

Furthermore

4 - Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources - Twitter tweets are not a durable reliable source and the account in question is now suspended. --Sandvika (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sandvika, one of the other considerations here is verifying the authenticity of the accounts, both here and on Twitter. On the talk page of the article, there are editors both logged in and IPv6, who are claiming the identity of the subject of the BLP. As far as I can tell, this is an unverified claim. If Shupe wishes to authenticate the account then Shupe can contact WP:UTRS. Now, as for Twitter, they used to have a robust blue-check program to verify identity of notable people, but the new management has thrown a monkey-wrench in those works, and so potentially a blue check is rather meaningless, and Twitter itself has no way to vouch for confirmed identity of its users. That means that Wikipedia editors must verify Twitter accounts through out-of-band means, such as linking from another confirmed social media presence, or media interview. Elizium23 (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

For the record, if you want to re-verify a now-removed tweet, the Wayback Machine may have a saved version. Curbon7 (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, right, that's true. I use Wayback Machine ALL the time on here. But, often social media posts aren't saved on there, or are saved improperly, unfortunately. The Wayback Machine is much better when it comes to static webpages, rather than social media posts or YouTube videos.Historyday01 (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I continue to believe that tweets can be cited in very specific instances (more in non-bios than bios). The account does appear to be suspended, but I would say that that in this case, it is a relatively minor claim, so I don't see the harm in including it. Often Twitter is a shortcut on bio pages, and sometimes that is more the case than others. But with Twitter possibly disappearing in the next year, it is possible that it will not be a "durable reliable source" as it once could be, even though tweets, like Instagram posts, are ephemeral, and sometimes they can be gone before anyone has a chance to capture them. What I am saying builds upon what Elizum23 points out, that thanks to new management on Twitter, Wikipedia editors may have to "verify Twitter accounts through out-of-band means, such as linking from another confirmed social media presence, or media interview". Historyday01 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment. As I don't want to get in an edit war on this, but @User:Aquillion, as I understand from your edit here, you seem to agree with the arguments of Sandvika. Is that correct? I'm not sure I would call it "potentially contentious in a way that a twitter post probably isn't sufficient for", and am not sure I agree, it falls under WP:UNDUE, but am fine with leaving it out if it avoids an edit war between editors, and for that reason alone. As I have said above, I still believe that tweets can be cited on very specific instances, although that obviously has to be done carefully and encompass a minimum of the sources for a said page, as is my understanding.Historyday01 (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Dmitri Nossov

The article about Dmitri Nossov seemed to be a badly-written mess full of unverifiable information, so I removed some of it. The result still doesn't look too well. I'm not interested in whitewashing it; finding a balance is tough. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm the one who brought this to attention of TBF. My understanding of Russian doesn't exist; that said, the criticism section struck me as at least going against WP:GRAPEVINE. Perhaps some of our more knowledgeable editors could weigh in? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Joy Sunday

The article on Joy Sunday has incorrect biographical information. Her full name is Joy Sunday Okun (not Joy Okun Sunday as stated in the article). And her date of birth is September 25, not April 17. This information is not sourced, and therefore it is unknown where the original author got this information, but it is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emm9213 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Emm9213: I've removed the middle name and the birthdate from the article as I agree with you that none of the references mention either of those things (all the references refer to her only as 'Joy Sunday). The birth date you've supplied can't be used either, I'm afraid, as it would also be unsourced. If you can find it mentioned in a reliable source, feel free to add it back in, citing the source. As an aside, at the moment the sourcing for the article in general is not good: of the six sources, two are interviews with her and so are not independent while another two mention her name as a cast member in a production but don't add any other information. If you can find any better sources which are independent of her and discuss her in detail rather than in passing, adding them to the article would help improve it. Neiltonks (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yomi Denzel

Yomi Denzel This article was written by one editor only, throughout the year, and is clearly an advertisement article. Besides, the sources are very irrelevant or clearly orientated, with payed articles on unknown websites, most of the takes are unsourced... wikipedia is not a promotion platform

A cursory look at the article reveals that its sources include several mainstream French-language news organisations, including profiles of Denzel by Le Figaro and Radio Télévision Suisse. The text certainly looks as though it could do with some work, but if there are particularly problematic sources it would be helpful to point out which they are... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Dan Bishop

Someone has written libelous statements. For instance, he/she is making judgements that are defamatory (e.g., calling him racist and Transphobic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.81.67.130 (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Reverted and editor warned. In future, per our policy on unsourced defamatory content on living persons, please remove such information immediately if you are able to. You only need to make a report here if you cannot remove it yourself for some reason, for example if the page is protected, or other editors continue restoring the defamatory content. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Walter Benn Michaels

This [walter benn michaels] is a self- written auto- biography, not a biography. The subject is neither famous nor well- known; in fact, is not known at all. There are no actual sources cited for any claims. This subject has been guilty in the past of self- writing his "biography"; ought/ must be barred permanently from use again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmacinerney (talk • contribs) 17:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

To 2-edit spa. He is very well cited on Google Scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC).

The main author of the article appears to be guavabutter with this edit. I can find no particular reason to think that guavabutter has any connection to Michaels – of their 6000+ edits, that seems to be the only one that is about Michaels and they mostly edit articles related to Canada, whereas Michaels is apparently Californian. If you think that Michaels is not notable, nominate the article for deletion. If you think there is some editor who has an undisclosed conflict of interest, the conflict of interest noticeboard might help. I can't see any BLP issues with the article, and there clearly are sources cited, so I'm not sure what you want us to do at this noticeboard. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

As Caeciliusinhorto suggests, I have no connection to Michaels whatsoever. I actually don't even remember working on that page, as I often just fix up articles as I come across them (particularly when the subject is of relatively little importance to me). It may be the case that the subject has made their own undisclosed input to the article in the past, but upon a quick Google search, Michaels name does produce credible results from various academic/scholarly sources. Guavabutter (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I see you're not a fan of the subject: [2] and [3] Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The correct approach to have an article of this type removed would be to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion with your rationale. It is not something I would necessarily recommend. The relevant notability guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Pay particular attention to criterion 1a. The subject has an h-index of 32 and an i10 index of 67, which is reasonably high. He has two publications that have been cited over a thousand times each. I suspect it would be difficult to get consensus to delete. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Brian Heidik

I don't know what to say about the controversial material involving this subject. True or not, I couldn't find a reliable source verifying his supposed divorce and second marriage. Furthermore, the article was deleted once in 2017 but then re-created a month later. Furthermore, there have been criminal charges, but I don't know whether they are worth learning about. If they are, I wonder whether I must include a (then-)wife. Oh, and I created Draft:Brian Heidik, just in case. --George Ho (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Why did you make a copy in draftspace? Did you mean to draftify the article? You've created a WP:CUTANDPASTE situation that will need to be corrected, I'm just wondering what your intent is so I can fix it appropriately.

This article is a good example of why we shouldn't have standalone articles about reality show contestants unless they're notable for other reasons, and just redirect their names to the shows they were on. He's done nothing wiki-notable whatsoever since winning, and his incomplete bio has become a WP:COATRACK for every bit of controversy the celebrity gossip rags can dig up on him over the years. I've trimmed some of the unsourced info, and I would endorse deletion if this made it back to AfD. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to attribute Draft:List of Survivor (American TV series) finalists (seasons 1–10) (now rejected), which I also created. I'd be happy to nominate the article for deletion if willing. I'd be also happy to request deletion of the draft version I made if the mainspace one is either redirected or deleted. George Ho (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eirene (moon)

Second AfD on non-notable small moons of the Solar System, concerning five articles with concerning amounts of personal information about those who voted for the names, including Twitter handles. These informations were added by Wiki 2 contributor (talk · contribs), who made few other edits, shortly after the official names were announced by the IAU in 2019. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

What information is there on this article that concerns you? All I see is the twitter handle. Presumably the voting happened on twitter, in public, so the fact they voted for it is not in any way defamatory or controversial. Including their handles might not be relevant to the article but it's certainly not reason to delete the whole thing. JeffUK 09:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Ori Gordin

The information about (1) his parents and (2) his family is not cited. Since this article is about a living person, I believe that violates the Wikipedia rules for articles about living persons. The article was submitted for B class review and I have never encountered this situation. I'm not sure if I should remove the offending material. Djmaschek (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You should remove it. Per WP:BLPREMOVE, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that ...is unsourced or poorly sourced;" (bold mine). --Jayron 32 18:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You could also highlight 'contentious' and I don't think his parents' names and the number of children he has are contentious. There are sources available for at least some of it, it does need better sourcing but I don't think it needs removing immediately.. JeffUK 15:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, one is allowed to do either. If Djmaschek believes it to be contentious enough to require removal, they should remove it. If Djmaschek believes that it isn't contentious, they are allowed to do any number of things, including 1) doing nothing 2) tagging it with a cn tag 3) searching and finding a source for the material. There is no have to do anything. This is not a job, they are not being paid to do anything, there is no contract that compels them to do anything at all. If they want to improve the article, there are an entire menu of options, and we presume they are intelligent and thoughtful enough to make their own decisions regarding what is best. WP:SOFIXIT means "do what you think is best, and don't ask prior permission". It's up to Djmaschek how to handle the content, there is no requirement or mandates. My use of the verb "should" presumed that by they found the material contentious in some way; else why would they even ask the question. If they don't find the material contentious, then of course, there are any number of things they could do. --Jayron 32 19:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Woah there, you're the only one who mentioned that anyone 'should' do anything, I'm well aware of NOTCOMPULSORY. Djmaschek only referred to the material as unsourced, so I assumed they came here solely because it was unsourced, I'm just saying I *don't* find it contentious so don't find immediate removal necessary. JeffUK 20:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. When I said "My use of the verb "should" presumed that by they found the material contentious in some way; else why would they even ask the question. If they don't find the material contentious, then of course, there are any number of things they could do." what I actually meant was "My use of the verb "should" presumed that by they found the material contentious in some way; else why would they even ask the question. If they don't find the material contentious, then of course, there are any number of things they could do." I hope that clears things up. --Jayron 32 11:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Birthdate for Josette Simon

A representative for Josette Simon, logged in as TomDale90, has repeatedly removed the birthdate from her article, on the grounds that she does not want her birthdate public -- e.g. here and here. The birthdate is only approximate ("c. 1959") since the sources (here) says she is 16 in February 1976 without giving her birthday. Does WP:DOB apply, meaning that it's OK to remove her birthdate? The justification there is privacy, but with just an estimated year that doesn't seem to apply. See here for TomDale90's acknowledgement that he is her representative. The comment there is about using FreeBMD, which I think does fall under the privacy rule as well as being a primary source. However, a newspaper interview is a perfectly good secondary source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

As someone with a blatant COI, TomDale90 should absolutely not be edit warring about this, but should be confined to making requests on the talkpage. I agree that I don't see how a birthdate of "c. 1959" is a privacy violation. It's not specific enough to be used to access anything. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record a lot of sources (based on a quick google search) show 1960; so it being incorrect is a reason to remove it for now. As expected the sources aren't the best quality for celebrity birthdays, I'll see what I can find that stands up. JeffUK 09:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well that was actually quite easy, found 1960 on a lot of websites, and in a book, so cited it using the book and removed 'circa' JeffUK 09:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Mary Hayashi

My name is Mary Hayashi. I am a former politician and the subject of a Wikipedia page. I recently spoke with a company called Status Labs about improving the Wikipedia page about me. I did not hire them. However, soon after talking to them, a now-blocked user, who is associated with a large network of "sockpuppet accounts"(see sockpuppet investigation on RMS125 at Hotmail.com and [4]), added tags to the page about me alleging conflict of interest and copyright violations.

Maybe I am paranoid, but given the timing and the tags being added by a black-hat Wikipedia firm, it seems likely these tags were added to coerce me into hiring someone. In any case, I have never edited the page and neither has anyone under my employ or direction. In my opinion, the page unfairly emphasizes a shoplifting accusation by putting it in a dedicated section, so the allegation the page represents my point-of-view unfairly through manipulation is far-fetched.

In any case, can these tags be removed? They seem to falsely accuse me of misconduct, the alleged problems with the page are made-up, and the tags were most likely added with an improper motive. Humphrey444 (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the tags, as the sock didn't explain them, and I can't see any pressing need for them. The shoplifting section does repeat itself several times, so I think it could do with trimming, whether it then deserves a separate section is probably a factor of how much it gets trimmed. JeffUK 17:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I restored the copy/paste tag with the URL that it appears to be copying. I don't have the time to look into it or repair it at this time, but that tag seems legitimate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

There's more copyvio from that page, it looks like an IP copied it more or less verbatim here way back in 2014. It's been softened and paraphrased over the years by other editors and by revisions to the source page, but there is still material that is too closely paraphrased or identical to the copyrighted source. Some of it is lists of positions and appointments that probably aren't copyrightable, but there are also qualitative promotional statements that will need to be removed. It's going to need a more thorough review and a massive revdel, if any of the article can be saved. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Having now seen the source; I can see where the other editor was coming from in terms of it being a COI edit too; if it's a copy/paste of the subject's promo page it's almost by definition a conflict of interest. I think I will restore the tag for now. JeffUK 19:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

if it's a copy/paste of the subject's promo page it's almost by definition a conflict of interest. This is insane. People copy promotional text for all sorts of reasons (notably, fandom) that have nothing whatsoever to do with conflicts of interest. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

1. "Editors have an apparent COI if they edit an article about a business, and for some reason they appear to be the business owner or in communication with the business owner," It certainly seems to me that we have reason to suspect the person copy/pasting the subject's promotional bio onto a page (and then making an unsourced claim that the charges (for which she was ultimately penalized) had been dismissed) has some connection with the subject.

2. Someone claiming to be the subject has admitted to engaging with paid editors to edit the page and is claiming that those paid editors have edited the page either positively, or negatively, that's also a COI too.

3. I'm not insane, and I have a certificate to prove it! JeffUK 09:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Mary Hayashi is not a business. The person claiming to be Mary Hayashi has a COI, but has not edited the article. I agree that you are not insane and apologize if my hyperbole came off as a personal remark. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi All. Thanks so much for your prompt and thoughtful responses. I didn't realize anyone had copy/pasted content from my about page in 2014, legitimizing the copyvio tag on Wikipedia. That was during the height of a political campaign, so it's possible it was someone working for me. What's the best way to address the issue? I can email a Declaration of Consent[5] releasing the copyrights to my about page if that would suffice for now. Let me know. Humphrey444 (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not an expert in this stuff but my reading of WP:DONATETEXT is that you are correct about how to proceed: e-mail a DoC to permissions-en[at]wikimedia.org and then afterwards place the template {{Permission pending}} on the article's talk page. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Zeyda and the Hitman

An unregistered user has posted this at the user talk page about Zeyda and the Hitman:

I need this page deleted. It speaks about my family, and it is historically inaccurate. This film was loosely based off a family anecdote, but it is not true. It is very upsetting to my mother that this page exists.

Zeyda and the Hitman 2607:FEA8:3CE2:3900:293B:524C:1FE7:6309 (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that there's much I can do. Wikipedia is not responsible for the content of a film, but just desribes neutrally subjects that have been covered by reliable sources. You would have to say what is inaccurate in the Wikipedia article, rather than in the film. I have copied your reply to Talk:Zeyda and the Hitman, so you are welcome to comment there. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article defames my family. We do not want our family names mentioned on this article. How can I get the names deleted? Please help. 2607:FEA8:3CE2:3900:DC73:2FA9:1E76:E04A (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Could someone please look into this, as I don't have time now and know very little about films anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The IP seems to have removed the names of the real-life family. As their names were changed for the film and they are apparently not notable enough to have their own articles, this seems to resolve the problem. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Robert Kurzban

Robert Kurzban is a former Ivy League professor who resigned in 2018 following an investigation into accusations of impropriety. The allegations and the circumstances of his resignation were reported in local newspapers. An editor has been striking all mention of these facts from his bio, citing WP:BLP. I'd like to raise the issue here so that a consensus edit can be reached. Thanks! Nangaf (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

arelis uribe

I'm Arelis Uribe and all the information lately added is difamatory and untrue. I suspect it was written by someone wanting to hurt me. Please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.67.30.106 (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There's definitely a real issue at Arelis Uribe. Looking into it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Sona Patel

A request was filed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard by an IP editor stating that she is Sona Patel, and that the information contained in the article Sona Patel contains incorrect information. See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Unites_States_of_America. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I removed the info that was cited solely to medical board findings as a clear violation of BLPPRIMARY. I haven't looked into any of the other sources, except to see that they were all secondary sources. Zaereth (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

John Campbell (YouTuber)

I am concerned that this biographical entry violates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons policy. Even a cursory read will indicate that this article is neither balanced nor unbiased. It focuses primarily on negative aspects of Campbell's YouTube channel, selecting negative information and sources only, including reference to comedians (ie Jimmy Dore) and derogatory personal opinions (David Gorski) as sources. These are not balanced out by any of the multitude of sources available that have positive things to say about Dr.Campbell. The article also claims Campbell "was praised" (he still is) and has "veered into misinformation" (This is an opinion, not a factual statement: Campbell always lists sources for the information relayed on his videos thus placing the onus on the reader to research for themselves). The item focusses unduly on what Campbell has been criticized for, without recourse to what he has been praised for. An overall reading has the distinct feel of a smear campaign or attack piece rather than an objective biography.

Unfortunately, while I understand the concerns over potential vandalism of the page, it appears to have been locked or semi-locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.114.93 (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

If an individual is most well known for spreading misinformation, then their article will cover that. Wikipedia doesn't permit false balance between two ideas if one is more widely accepted by the medical community. Are there specific sources you feel should be included? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

While we can't create a false balance (we'd need coverage of position aspects to be able to do) I think there's far too much spent in the "critizing" space that is beyond necessary. We can exaplain in one section that his views on COVID, vaxxing, and alt cures are not supported by major medical experts, but the longish quotes to point this out are rubbing the salt in the wound. --Masem (t) 01:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between pushing a fringe narrative on things and actually publishing things that he must have known were false, like the videos on the UK Covid death toll, the deaths from the Pfizer vaccine, and the NEJM article. Examples like that are simple disinformation, and we should not hold back from stating that he has done this repeatedly. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Stating he has given out misinformation on various topic must be included, but "we should not hold back from stating that he has done this repeatedly" is RGW territory and we can't go there. Wikivoice cannot be judgmental like that. Identifying the criticism leveled at him is fair game, but we aren't layer it on too thick while trying to stay neutral. Masem (t) 23:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I'm concerned that this article opens WP to legal risk. This isn't a subject matter I feel strongly about, but I think that it is drawing so much attention (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myp1R6qa0fA&t=1s ) that it's unlikely to go without legal challenge. I'm not sure what safety checks and balances are in place to address such an issue. Altairah (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Such things should be ignored. Legal threats are both not to be engaged with and, also, should not be a consideration for how we write articles whatsoever. If an exception to that is made, it would be a member of the WMF themselves enacting an OFFICE action. Otherwise, legal considerations should be null and void. We should instead be following our own policies and standards for writing articles and following what the reliable sources write about the subject in question. Silver seren^C 22:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all 'applicable 'laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies [...]"

It would seem by our own standards that we are in fact required to consider any and all legal implications. Altairah (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A youtube video by some random guy, where we get a great view right up his nose, grousing about a Wikipedia page, is meaningless. Zaathras (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph states "but later veered into misinformation". This is someone's opinion, not based on facts. A review of Dr John Campbell's YouTube content would demonstrate to any reasonable person that it is well researched and provides important content for public discourse.

The article is quite slanderous and full of errors with political bias. Please open the page to editing so that these mistakes can be corrected. Zaddo67 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Please not accuse other editors of slander (see WP:NLT) or bias. Giant Snowman 22:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That random guy has nearly 300,000 subscribers, the video has over 200,000 views and 32,000 likes. I notice you are quite active on the JCY, and JCYT pages. Is this subject becoming a pet project for you? Altairah (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Views and likes are easily purchased and mean more or less nothing. It is unsurprising that antivaxer youtubers support each other. This link proves precisely nothing. MrOllie (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the YouTuber John Campbell, but after reading the article it seems he is only notable for misleading and/or false claims in regard to COVID. If he is notable for other topics, ideas, etc. that should be included as the whole article is currently about COVID-19 and that all of his opinions on the virus were wrong. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how an article where the second sentence says "His videos received praise early in the pandemic, but later veered into misinformation" would lead someone to believe "that all of his opinions on the virus were wrong." And I know the article has said this sort of stuff for a long time since I've read parts of it a lot of times sometimes from personal interest sometimes for other reasons especially its frequent mention at BLPN. But it is true that the subject seems only really notable for his COVID-19 Youtube videos with some initial attention early on and then I think even more attention from all sides later when his videos started veered into what's widely considered misinformation. Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Does/should ABOUTSELF extend to death confirmation via official channel?

I ran into an interesting situation recently at the article Fucking Trans Women, which contains a very brief biography of its author, Mira Bellwether. Bellwether died a few weeks after I wrote the article; this was officially announced by her partner through the latter's Twitter on the 25th, and on Bellwether's official GoFundMe (https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-mira-bellwether-survive-stage-4-lung-cancer) on the 26th. I saw no provision of policy or guidelines that would allow for citing either, and so held off (and reverted a few who added the death) until it was reported in Autostraddle on the 27th. This delay was significant enough that Autostraddle's editors mentioned it when naming the obituary among their favorite pieces of the year.

The Twitter post, that's solidly third-party, but should I have been allowed to cite the GoFundMe? That's not a rhetorical question. I see the case for and against. On the one hand, ABOUTSELF is about self. Once someone dies, they cannot make statements about themself (at least not in any way we can verify). On the other hand, if someone has designated something as an official channel of theirs, and that channel then says they have died, it seems reasonable to treat that as a moderately reliable source at least for that limited purpose, as an extension of their public persona. Hacks and hoaxes are a concern, but no more so than when the subject is alive—there's always a nonzero risk of either of those, which is part of the trade-off of ABOUTSELF. Furthermore, secondary sources reporting deaths of online figures are often just going off of the official statement anyways. (In this case, neither Autostraddle nor the one other RS obituary seem to have interviewed any family members or such.) And most significantly, I think, in some cases we just might never get an RS obituary. Eventually enough time passes that BLP (including BLPSPS and BLPPRIMARY) no longer applies... but honestly I think what happens in practice on such articles is people do cite the tweet or Facebook post or whatever, and no one notices or cares because these tend to be low-visibility articles.

So like I said, I really don't know, but would like to hear others' thoughts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I can see a case for gofundme.com WP:ABOUTSELF per "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" in this case, but I'd consider that a local consensus issue (be bold and see what happens), sort of "place-holder" in the hope that a better source will appear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I'm not convinced ABOUTSELF should be use for this sort of stuff as I've articulated before even if we put aside it's hopefully not self if talking about the subject's death. This recent case [6] IMO illustrates why.

I acknowledge that often media we treat as reliable secondary sources (or even legislative chambers) don't do a much better job as the much more famous case of someone faking their own death partially illustrates but this isn't unique to deaths and there's a reason IMO why we still generally rely on what they report within reason. As I've mentioned before, our hope is they at least consider whether they do need check depending on the circumstances and just as important, if reporting incorrect information is legally risky etc. And while their legal analysis for themselves may not hold to us, I do think we're much less likely to make a mistake when we rely on them then when we rely on random editor opinions.

I don't hold any weight to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS especially in this case. Yeah we have a lot of crappily sources articles but we shouldn't allow let alone encourage it when it comes up. Definitely it's very common that someone comes to say a subject died without any or with an insufficient source and all we generally do on BLPN is do a quick search and if there are no better sources tell the, sorry but we need to wait until there are better sources. Sometimes none even appear especially for people of very low notability (sports people is a common case IMO) or who were a small flash in the pan a long time ago. I don't think there's any harm in simply not mentioning a subject's death ever because we lack sources.

Actually my thoughts here are very similar to those on DoBs which I just got into a discussion about them elsewhere. Anyone with any experience at BLPN has probably noticed how far a lot of our articles stray from our DoB requirements. Heck you even get edit wars over DoBs that sometimes make it here and involving semi-experienced editors where the correct solution is to simply remove the DoB since none of the sources meet our requirements. I don't see an easy solution to the DoB problem other than fixing it when we come across it since plenty of editors think it essential biographical information and so allow it without sourcing sufficient even for general information let alone for DoBs. I definitely would not support relaxing our strict requirements for DoBs. I'd say the same for any problem we have stopping poorly source deaths in articles.

(Although because of our requirements and the tendency to fake DoBs to fake ages especially in certain fields, you do get the complicated case where sources linked to the subject have a date which is potentially incorrect but sources which suggest a different date are insufficient. In that case I can understand why editors are unhappy with us keeping the possibly incorrect date. Of course as an IP kept telling us in the past months it can even happen where RS generally present this likely incorrect date as well, in that case while editors can feel however they want, there is good reason why we stick with it.)

Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS and "staff" profiles on self-published websites

Hello. Very frequently on BLPs, I see "staff" and "affiliated" profiles on organizations' self-published websites used as sources for BLP subjects. WP:BLPSPS notes "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." which appears to prohibit the use of these sources for BLPs. A couple examples on one BLP, whose subject is affiliated with both Carbon Management Canada and National Research Council Canada [7][8]. I've asked similar on the Help IRC who multiple helpers likewise pointed out these sources shouldn't be used, but how do others interpret WP:BLPSPS? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this should be managed on a case-by-case basis. The website of a major, internationally recognized university that lists the person as a faculty member? No problem at all. The website of an non-notable organization that claims them as a member? Probably not. The National Research Council Canada has it's own level of reliability, so its membership lists should be so treated accordingly. --Jayron 32 17:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Staff & affiliated profiles are almost certainly authored by/under the control of the subject. The BLPSPS prohibition should not be interpreted to forbid their use. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Further: the (uncredited) author and the publisher of [9] are clearly not the same, so it's not a self-published source in any sense. Nothing published by the NRC-Canada is "self-published" in the sense of BLPSPS. It seems that you (Saucysalsa30) completely misunderstand the point of BLPSPS -- it's about "don't use RandoDude420's blog as a source in a BLP" (because obviously), not about independence / self-serving stuff (that's separate, in the next section WP:BLPSELFPUB). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"Staff & affiliated profiles are almost certainly authored by/under the control of the subject."

Hi IP, interesting point, could you please clarify this statement or where this information derives from? Example: an organization I have affiliation with has a profile on their website of me and I have no control over it. This may be a misunderstanding of WP:BLPSPS on the basis of this assumption. Jayron32's view is more nuanced. Either way, such sourcing is primary. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Concepts like "primary" and "secondary" and "SPS" and all of that are meant to guide analysis of sources, not to determine an outcome of how one must proceed naively or blindly. Real humans still need to ponder and consider and think and weigh competing ideas and make decisions on how to weigh various factors when making decisions on what kinds of sources are OK for using with what kinds of Wikipedia information, all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in this area are meant to inform you not of what conclusions you must reach, but rather on the various factors that go in to making those conclusions for yourself. All reliability really means is "Can I trust this source to be accurate in what it says?" and ALL of the guidance Wikipedia gives us are various ways to assess that. The National Research Council Canada gives all of the hallmarks of a scrupulously reliable source for the kind of information in question. If all we're asking is "Is the NRCC's own website reliable enough to determine whether or not a particular person is a member or affiliate of said council", then yes, it certainly is. That's my assessment of it. The argument that the NRCC wrote its own website, and therefore cannot be trusted to accurately report its membership on said website, well, that's just silly. It's a highly respected organization managed by the government of a major world power. We can trust that when it says someone is affiliated with it in some way, they are. --Jayron 32 05:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The word “profile” can mean two different things. In my first post, I was referring to short biographical sketches of the kind often labeled “our team”, or your first link (CMC), or the brief resumes found on university faculty department profiles. These are almost always written by the subject or based on material provided by the subject, and the subject can generally update them (by contacting an internal website person and saying “hey this is out of date, can you add …”). Such things are the subject of BLPSELFPUB, not BLPSPS. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's so simple as that. While for simple publication record and other career stuff I'd imagine there is no prepublication checking I aso suspect in most cases since it's on the university website they'll likely take some responsibility for it. So if someone's university profile says they got a degree from Baruch College and a MBA from NYU and a person emails the right people with strong evidence questioning this, they'll probably look into it and remove it if it's incorrect maybe also open a general investigation into this person if they remain on staff. (To be fair, getting through to the right person may sometime be hard.) But while many hosting services do have their own ToS, AFAIK they often do not extend this sort of stuff. E.g. Facebook has their infamous real name policy but I think if you claim you have a degree and MBA you don't, they're not going to do anything about it. So too Twitter. Even Blogspot and similar. (Not sure about LinkedIn they may take action.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. In contrast to these examples, there are many orgs that are little known or of no repute that would have to be taken at face value which would not be ideal. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's also worth considering whether it is WP:DUE if no secondary sources have made note of it. --Aquillion (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Great point! I hadn't considered that. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

William Figg

William Douglas Figg Sr. (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Could I get some more eyes on this? Figg (probably) meets WP:N but the whole tenor of the artice has a promo/copyvio/coi whiff and a (Maryland) IP is edit-warring to retain unsourced content. Bon courage (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it reads like a resume. Kind of a wordy resume, but a resume nonetheless. There are a lot of telltale signs that this article was written by the subject, or someone very close to the subject. I'm not seeing much in the way of notability. I mean, we have a lot of primary sources yet it doesn't look like any secondary sources have decided to write about him, except for a campus newspaper. It looks like it will need a lot of clean up, and possibly (once reduced to what is found in the sources) there may not be much left. Zaereth (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that they're notable, not finding significant coverage in a quick google and there isn't any currently on the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The IP isn't the only odd actor, the creator is a SPA and I'm seeing a long history of problematic IP edits. On deeper investigation we are almost certainly dealing with bad faith editing from the subject. Note that the IP travels with them, for example the IP registered to the University of Buckingham which made the unsourced addition that the subject was now studying at the University of Buckingham. [10] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Alba Baptista

ScottishFinnishRadish dealt with it. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, the Chris Evans stans are out in force vandalizing her page again. I fixed one issue but y'all know they're persistent. Can it be protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:457F:1BC0:7D5D:163C:A7DC:77C7 (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted and protected for two months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Joaziela

Regarding these edits: [11], [12],

and these replies: User talk:Joaziela#January 2023, Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#swastika-armband, User talk:GizzyCatBella#Nazi Ukraine historical negationism in Anti-Ukrainian sentiment plus Joaziela contributions at Talk:Anti-Ukrainian sentiment

// Timothy :: talk 17:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue Please describe the issue - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat the content, but I think above mentioned article contributions are poorly or unsourced additions of serious claims to a highly visible page. I think Joaziela's replies also contain poor or unsourced material about a LP and their replies show a strong POV they are unwilling to let go despite multiple editors responding to them. // Timothy :: talk 17:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Material is sourced (it did happen), however, the way Joaziela composed it, is problematic from NPOV point of view and in my opinion, it’s WP:UNDUE. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue

Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada without taking part in discussion, with no explanation you deleted the information, it’s look like propaganda, Wikipedia is not a place for such a behaviors. You said that it’s poorly sourced, the official statement of Ukrainian parliament it’s poor or 3 websites articles from 3 different countries that I put are poor... Facts are that Commander-in-Chief promote Stepan Bandera, it was officialy promoted by Ukrainian parliament, that been international scandal mostly in Poland and Islael, because Bandera is a part of Volhynia genocide of 200 000 Jews and Poles, and they deleted it, but in internet nothing disappeared and also censorship and propaganda shouldn’t happen on Wikipedia, it’s like historical negationism this shouldn’t happen Joaziela (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Joaziela The bottom line is you need consensus for your desired additions and you don’t have it right now. (see talk page of the article) - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Joaziela also seems fond of making personal attacks in their replies. // Timothy :: talk 17:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBellaabout it weight, imagine some German general or maybe minister of defense is taking selfie with Hitler picture, then Bundestag put it on it's Twitter. Would it be a huge scandal? Yes, it it as well with Ukraine so yeah it very wort mentioning Joaziela (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The coverage of the incident was narrow because the picture was quickly removed, and the photo was not posted by Zaluzhnyj himself but by someone from the Verkhovna Rada. We don’t know who posted it. Look, this happened, it was a minor incident and I don’t think it’s worth mentioning it in the BIO article. That’s all. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Again German analogy: “Federal Ministry of Defence (Germany) publish selfie with Hitler portrait, this been retweeted by Bundestag official account” it was for a long time at Commander account, then also at parliament, official ones. When it’s get to some serious people it get removed. But also what the difference how long it was there, important it that Commander took the photo with war criminal and publish it and it was also published by parliament https://twitter.com/Dispropoganda/status/1610003321288548352 and the coverage wasn’t so narrow, maybe also it was narrow it down, because before it was the same guy that had something swastika-like and it’s really not making good PR for Zaluzhny, but Wikipedia it’s not about creating good PR for anyone (during war or not), but publish facts, and the fact is how it’s stays and made international scandal and if you still don’t get it please get back to German analogy Joaziela (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Once again to emphasize enough: it’s scandal enough that he took selfie with genocide criminal, publishing and than promoted by parliament account are just huge unbelievable further scandals and any try of silence it is genocide denial and historical negationism Joaziela (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, enough, you don’t need to repeat yourself (please) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

So please discuss on topic Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada on content, substantively, not attack me. From what you write I understand you mean that Bandera is not a war criminal and selfies with him are okay, you didn’t put any of arguments for that claim. Instead again you decided to attack me on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Joaziela and personal attacks really please stop bullying me and discuss on matter in talk, not on me Joaziela (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Quote - you mean that Bandera is not a war criminal and selfies with him are okay - I didn’t say that.🤦🏻‍♀️ - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

After my “Germany analogy” you said in that discussion only: “Bandera is not Hitler (not even close)”, with emphasis on underscore on “not even close”.

Not even close mean opposite, opposite to war criminal is hero. And because there are some opinions like that in Ukraine. Even gives Bandera Hero of Ukraine order (you might again say “quickly removed”). And you didn’t participate in discussion on subject, but go with crusade against me personally creating 2 discussion topics- I might understand it like you also think Bandera is a hero and it’s nothing wrong with Commander of Ukraine army taking selfie and publish and later parliament. I ask you in discussion what you mean by that, you have to admit only saying “Bandera is not Hitler (not even close)” is little disturbing, because war criminal is close to war criminal, of course proportional, but genocide is genocide Joaziela (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of a communication breakdown here. Are you using Google Translate or something? I'm not commenting on the specific issue that has you all worked up. However, I do think there is a lot of meaning being lost in your translation. For example, the phrase "not even close" does not mean "opposite". "Not even close" is an idiom, which means "used to to highlight a large disparity between someone or something and the other people or things concerned." For example, "A wolverine is not even close to a bear." It doesn't mean they are opposites. It simply means there are great differences between them.

I don't see anyone here that is arguing with you. So why are you arguing with them? As far as I see, they are saying that the way you worded it is not good for an English encyclopedia, and I agree. (Maybe good for Russian Wikipedia, but not for English, because it sounds emotional and unprofessional.) As far as I can tell, everyone is saying that the information probably does deserve mention, but we need to be more careful to say it properly in English, and we need to follow the WP:NPOV policy and give it proper weight. That all needs serious discussion to figure out. You need to go to the article's talk page and discuss it like civilized adults, and not get so emotional about it. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the last point made by Zaereth about going to the article's talk page (with a caveat: Russian Wikipedia is generally good-quality and no more emotional and unprofessional than us). However, we can't blame Joaziela for being emotional and invite them to discuss on the talk page since they were the ones who opened a discussion there; the editor who reverted them didn't reply on the article's talk page but opened no less than two threads here and at WP:AN/I. So being a bit upset is not at all surprising in these circumstances... It's clear that there was no BLP violation: the edits were likely UNDUE, but the sources were adequate and the wording not offensive. This discussion is over the top. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wat, wat, wait. You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Russian Wikipedia is emotional or unprofessional. I'm saying that the way Joaziela phrases things, like the omission of things like articles and prepositions, these things are perfectly good syntax in Russian, but when too literally translated into English it then comes off as emotional and unprofessional. Without any vocal tones or facial expressions, all we have is the connotations of our words to convey emotion, so even in fluent English the emotions are exaggerated by the reader, so we have to be very careful when we choose our words. This tends to happen a hundred-fold more when translating something too literally from another language; the emotions often come off far, far stronger than intended. Zaereth (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You're right! sorry for my misunderstanding about ru.wiki. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

No problem. The thing to keep in mind is that it's a two-way street. It's quite likely that Joaziela is reading some hostility in the above replies that was also never intended, so I think it's important for everyone to take that all into consideration, on both sides. Wars have been fought over simple miscommunications. (That's the reason dictionaries were invented in the first place.) Everyone can all work together if we just stop letting the language barrier work against us. Zaereth (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Really, please don’t patronize me. Yeah, I’m too emotional woman who don’t speak English, is payed by Putin to edit Russian Wikipedia (sarcasm). I had to admit I get little to emotional (nothing to do with being a woman) and answered to quick from phone. And I don’t know the language- the Wikipedia jargon. That my biggest sin for sure.

@TimothyBlue and @GizzyCatBella focus on opened a thread on BLP and ANI to roast me not discuss at topics talk at all.

“Not even close” matter: it is encyclopedia, not a feuilleton. It’s not place for idiom, rhetoric and jokes. We only writing, you had your miscommunication above and you been communicate. @TimothyBlue and @GizzyCatBella don’t used topic, but created new thread personal about me. I could feel attacked and censored.

Attention! I really gonna play rhetoric big: “Not even one Israeli died in the Holocaust” (sic!) and technically it’s true, The Holocaust till 1945 and you could be citizen of State of Israel only from 1948. But if you read such a thing you would think you read Holocaust denialist.

David Irving belief even that Hiter knew nothing of the Holocaust, some Ukrainians have positief feels for Bandera. But common sense and international consensus is that Hitler knew about Holocaust and Bandera is involved in killing Jews and Poles at Volhynia.

Genocide it’s not to joke about. Bandera had Volhynia genocide, as Hitler had Holocaust. @GizzyCatBella could go idiom “not even close” again, but it’s not competition how is “greatest genocider by numbers”! Some will say that Hitler is also not even close by numbers to Mao Zedong- but genocide is genocide, not a competition.

But the matter is lack of communication, not participate in topics talk, delete someone’s work without arguing and roasting on creating BLP and ANI.

If you assume my syntax and passport it’s not Russian, Ukrainian or Polish, but really it’s encyclopedia and there shouldn’t be any national point of view and surely no genocider competition, but also no historical negationism and denial. More dialogue on subject which is again here Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada with a lot of sources and again another for of proposed text. Not roasting by starting new thread Joaziela (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Listen, Joaziela, I don't know your gender, nor do I care. I'm not sure why you are bringing it up, but it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I'm not patronizing you. I'm saying that you do not seem to be understanding what we are saying, as indicated by your replies. For example, your tendency to argue with people who are agreeing with you. I am saying one thing and you seem to be misinterpreting it as something completely different. It's called a a communication breakdown. We are talking right past each other, not to each other. Zaereth (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This goes beyond undue weight and is verging into disinformation and demonization. Maybe you’re not familiar with the subject, but on the other hand all the info is in Wikipedia.

Bandera did not commit the massacres of Poles and was not a “genocide criminal.” He was not a Nazi party member. He was not Hitler. He did commit terrorist acts in Poland before the war, and he was also a freedom fighter because he tried to establish a Ukrainian state for which the Nazis put him in a concentration camp, and the Soviets assassinated him. He was an extremist, but he was one of few Ukrainian figures with agency because the genocidal extremist Nazis and especially the genocidal extremist communists outlawed and murdered any Ukrainian community leaders that didn’t already have an underground network when they started the war by destroying Poland.

He’s a controversial figure in Ukraine, and one thing Ukrainians do is use him to bait the “Ruscists,” because it gives them conniption fits. After the 2014 invasion there was an “I am Bandera” campaign that a lot of Ukrainian security services participated in because they were sick of being labelled “LGBT Jewish Nazi drug addicts” by Russian propaganda.

If you refuse to understand the context, don’t expect other editors to humour you. —Michael Z. 22:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're responding to, but I'll assume it's me. I don't know the context, and I don't see that it really matters at this point, because the disputed sentence is: "On January 1, 2023 posted a selfie with a portrait of Nazi Ukraine hero Stepan Bandera (celebrated the 114th anniversary of the birth of ultra-nationalist and antisemite whose followers engaged in a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Jews and Poles during World War II as Volhynia genocide), retweeted by Ukrainian parliament Verkhovna Rada account, deleted after strong international criticism." is practically nonsensical. It comes off as bordering on patent nonsense. What is it supposed to mean? Who cares? It should have been deleted for the simple fact that it makes no sense. That needs to be fixed before we can ever get into discussions of context, disinformation or weight. I should be able to tell what this means by simply reading it, without having to click on all the wikilinks and go reading up on all the background information. As written, it's just gibberish. As such, it's not really a BLP issue, but I was hoping to help those involved see that nobody seems to be communicating properly with the other. The replies are, as they say in Latin, non-sequitur --They do not follow. This is the English Wikipedia, so contributors at least need a competent understanding of the language to be able to contribute and hammer out solutions. Zaereth (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I was responding to Joaziela’s comment starting with “Once again to emphasize enough.” I find their argumentation objectionable because they repeatedly decry “historical negation” while at the same time investing themselves in revisionism by continually falsely demonizing Bandera as “genocidal.” A debater conducting themselves thus should be disregarded. —Michael Z. 23:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's like Benedict Arnold. Is he a traitor or is he a hero? It all depends on who you ask. Americans would say traitor, while Canadians would say hero. (Mexicans would say "Benedict Who?") Who is right? That is not for us to say. We simply report what is found in reliable, secondary sources. We do this, not indiscriminately, but by weighing all the sources against each other and apportioning the article accordingly. It's really very mathematical, dealing in percentages and all, and you can picture it as something like a pie chart. And we try to do this all with a neutral (non-passionate) tone, meaning we don't use a lot of emotionally charged adjectives and adverbs to describe these things. (Third-person objective mode.) We don't need to get into matters of who is right and who is wrong. This is not a place to carry on these disputes. We just report them. Zaereth (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Was Benedick Arnold a fascist leader and convicted terrorist? 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zaereth 🤫 - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Not for me to decide. Check the sources. These discussions need to be about the sources and not our own personal conclusions or judgments. Zaereth (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zaereth I just asked you a simple question. It was you who compared Bandera to Arnold (🤦🏻‍♀️), not me 🙂. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Is your point that it’s okay to spread lies about Bandera but not Arnold in discussions? Because that is the point being discussed. No one said they’re the same. (Or maybe they both committed genocide, eh?) —Michael Z. 03:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac what do you mean spread lies about Bandera? What are you talking about ? GizzyCatBella🍁 03:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac Oh, I know what you mean.. because Bandera was in German jail while his pal from his organization was slaughtering thousands of civilians, (mainly woman and children 🤫), then Bandera has nothing to do with that genocide. Got it. 👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac you said above - because he (Bandera) tried to establish a Ukrainian state - what kind of Ukrainian state 🤫? GizzyCatBella🍁 03:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Please allow me to clarify. I have no freakin' clue who Bandera is. I haven't bothered to look at his article yet because there is no point in getting that far into this discussion at this stage. Therefore, there is no way I could be comparing Arnold to him/her. Perhaps there is a third possibility; something else I'm comparing? I see no need to dig that far because this is a very simple fix at this point. This is all about a nonsensical statement that Joaziela added. Deleting that statement was the right thing simply because it was patent nonsense, meaning that all the words are understandable but when put together like that they are unintelligible. Now I have no dog in this fight. I am here solely because I monitor this noticeboard, but I see no problem here that is anything other than a simple content dispute at best, and therefore this is not the place to work it out. I was trying to help, but it's just talking in circles. Zaereth (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zaereth 👍🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella I got your number. Someone who shows up to openly defend any lies as long as they shit on Ukrainians and anything Ukrainian as “Nazi” and “genocide,” and then throw in some ha ha, wink wink, smiley smiley. —Michael Z. 04:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Striking at the request of @user:GizzyCatBella. I apologize to them and to the community for this personal comment made in anger. It was inappropriate and hurtful. —Michael Z. 18:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not some open forum for people to come soapbox about their personal opinions. If you have sources that show these are "lies" then great. Please discuss them and we can add it to the article. If others have sources saying they are not lies, then great, We can add that to the article too. Nobody cares if you judge them to be lies. Nobody cares if I judge them, or any other Wikipedian. We are nobodys, so the world doesn't care what we think about this subject. All people are doing here is giving a lot of talk but saying nothing of substance. At this point, I think someone should just close down this discussion, because it has gone off the rails and is completely unproductive. Maybe this is a good candidate for Arbcom. Seems like an area where some discretionary sanctions are warranted. Zaereth (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zaereth You said you know nothing about Bandera. If the subject sparked your interest, here is a straightforward recap, worth reading.- GizzyCatBella🍁 05:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The text article is not a problem. @Joaziela and @GizzyCatBella are knowingly repeating disinformation in discussions, including these notice boards. It has the effect of normalizing the false demonization of Ukrainians as “Nazis” and committing “genocide.” It contributes to this becoming a haven for hate speech. —Michael Z. 15:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac - ''GizzyCatBella knowingly repeating disinformation" Please strike it or back it up with a diff. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella please strike or delete your innuendo supporting Joaziela’s falsehoods and I will alter my responses accordingly. —Michael Z. 15:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac diff please - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ll not indulge you by rehashing and bargaining over the details. Please just strike or delete the offensive language. —Michael Z. 16:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac This is important detail. You accused me of:

I’m asking you to back your serious accusations with diffs, so I can understand where I was knowingly misinforming and spreading lies. You refuse. So now what? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Annette McCarthy

ISPs have been adding her death although this is based on a dubious Reddit post. This led to the page being semied. Now experienced editors are trying to add her death. More eyes would be appreciated to determine whether or not her death can be reliably added. Thanks. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that the origin of this was a Reddit post? On the contrary, McCarthy's friends seem to have been posting about her death on Facebook and Twitter for days now. Hollywood exec/producer/voice artist Steve Lee (who was her best friend) here for example, but there are plenty. Nobody seems to be refuting reports of her death. The Polish film news site that I cited on her page isn't the strongest, but it does pass WP:RS and we should be aware of unconscious bias – the language doesn't matter, it's still a report of death. McCarthy was a supporting actress with a career that flatlined some time ago. I wouldn't expect Deadline, the Hollywood Reporter etc. to pick up on this, and for that reason I think we need measure our expectations on how widely it will be reported beyond a few corners of the net i.e. social media posts, Twin Peaks fan sites, some minor film and TV publications. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the first reporting of her death. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The origin of this doesn't appear to be Reddit at all. Lynchland posted an in memoriam for her here and they said the news was broken on the Instagram page of Annette McCarthy's son. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The Reddit post came before the Lynchland post. It was posted earlier on the 8th. Lynchland didn't post until 11pm. All I am saying is that with BLPs, we need to be 100% sure that the person has died. The problem with relying on SM is that people will post having seen something like the Reddit post (or even having seen it on Wikipedia!) saying RIP, and these things spiral. Some RS even pick up on those posts. That why caution is always best. If others feel that there is enough for us to report her death, I am happy with that. Let's see what others think. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You're digging this hole deeper and deeper. Here is the Instagram post from her son. Reported before the Reddit post (look at the time stamp), and he says his mother died the day before. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not a matter of digging. It's a matter of being absolutely sure. The Reddit post was the earliest I saw. The Insta post is indeed earlier and should be sufficient. As I said, if others are happy that the various SM posts are sufficient verification, that's fine. I just wanted other opinions. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely on twitter of facebook for anything, and especially anything of this nature. That goes for reddit too. It may be posted by friends and family, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. I think that's how Elvis faked his death. (That's a joke, but the point still stands.) It could be a hoax or some sick joke, but if the friends and family really wanted to make it "official" they could just as easily submit an obituary to the local newspapers. Newspapers won't post an obit without doing some fact checking to at least be sure the person is really dead. Unless a death is reported in a reliable, secondary source then I would strongly suggest erring on the side of caution and leaving it out. We need to be very certain that the reports are not exaggerated. It can be a very traumatic experience to find out you've been declared dead on Wikipedia before your time, but there is no harm whatsoever in having an article that simply hasn't reported a death for lack of good sources.

One thing, however, that I don't think a lot of people realize, is that newspapers don't automatically print obituaries for people when they die. It is up to those family and friends to submit the obit to the papers, so in many cases we may never have a source that acknowledges a person's death. In such cases, I don't think we can acknowledge it either, but if those friends and family are making a big deal of wanting us to report it, then my suggestion to them would be to submit an obit to the newspapers. EZPZ. Zaereth (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd note that the issues here seem very similar to #Does/should ABOUTSELF extend to death confirmation via official channel? except in this case the people are posting on their own profile/channel/page rather than on something nominally representing the deceased. Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Annette's Facebook page is here. She last posted in December and the content suggests she was living with cancer. I imagine this caused her death. It's looking doubtful that anymore obituaries will come given that her son stated in his Instagram post tribute that they are seeking to shun publicity around her death. Very sad, but some families have very private ways of grieving. In my opinion, the sources currently being used for her death are sufficient but we have nothing which gives the cause. Maybe this will come out one day via a Twin Peaks related channel, so worth watching out for. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Kenneth Einar Himma

This is a pretty clear vanity biography. He was apparently an associate professor at a university for a short period and then became a lecturer in legal philosophy at a law school. But he doesn't show on the law school's faculty and adjunct faculty pages, and the link is dead. Is Wiki going to include every former adjunct lecturer in America? His first claim to being published is that he has opinion pieces published in the Seattle Times. He also is on advisory board for a number of non-notable publications in his field. There just does not seem to be anything truly notable about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.88.234 (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Aga Syed Mohsin

My request is regarding the wiki article Aga Syed Mohsin about a prominent religious and political leader in Kashmir (India). From past one month approximately someone is constantly editing this article by adding local abusive words. We tried to re edit the article and we succeeded to remove those derogatory words however those words can still be seen in the search panel.It is emotionally draining to see that a person like him who had always tried to help people, can disturb somebody's mental health to an extent that every morning they'll make sure they use whatever dirt their minds have accumulated during their entire useless life to defame him. I believe the Wiki team will look into the matter and protect the page from further editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyedaMoosavi (talk • contribs) 11:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Olivia Wensley

Hello,

I'm the subject of the "Olivia Wensley" page and there's reference to libellous claims made by two of my political opponents.

I believe the inclusion and the emphasis on my Father in Law in the article is unfair - I'm not linked to him professionally whatsoever. I had no involvement in his businesses, and was in high school at the time and didn't know him.

I was the subject of a smear campaign concerted by two of my opponents, this was later proven to be based on misinformation.

Further information here https://crux.org.nz/crux-news/lewers-mayoral-campaign-shown-to-contain-serious-misinformation-police-involved/

Last line - I never "retracted" my comments re suing for defamation and libel due to a smear campaign. I absolutely reserve my rights and still have grounds to sue if I choose to.

I note that some of the recent contributions seem to be linked to an IP of a party who is involved with one of my opponents in the campaign.

I've been subject to harassment by these people for months now and it seems to be continuing even though the election is over.

I'd really appreciate if someone could please make the article more balanced and fair.

Many thanks! 🙏 Olivia — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliviaWensley (talk • contribs) 22:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Ms. Wensley -- I have gone ahead and changed the line about retraction, as I agree that was not what the source actually said. I am afraid I have bad news insofar as it appears to me (from afar) that your Father in Law was, in fact, an issue in the campaign rightly or wrongly. I think the relationship needs at least a passing mention, but it is certainly possible others disagree with me. I also need to do some more reading, but will continue as I am able. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

For a start you need to find a better source than Crux, which has recently been quite heavily censured by the Media Council in QLDC-related matters (see paragraph 21 near the end of https://www.mediacouncil.org.nz/rulings/andrew-tipene-against-crux-publishing/ ). But the other thing to consider is whether you really want Wikipedia to have an article on you. Mayors of Queenstown tend to not be notable enough for Wikipedia article - the last Mayor of Queenstown to be notable enough was Warren Cooper, who was also a former Cabinet minister. A quick hunt in Google tells me that a good proportion of articles about yourself also mention your father-in-law. If you'd rather there wasn't an article about yourself on Wikipedia, you may nominate the article about yourself for deletion from Wikipedia - note that this is no reflection upon your character, just that your achievements don't yet warrant a Wikipedia article. Daveosaurus (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Paul Dunmall .external link to webpage

The website link to Paul Dunmall is fraudulent and possibly dangerous in terms of spam etc. It is listed as pauldunmall.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dunmall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:CA81:8801:24D8:B06B:408B:8516 (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed url. In future, if you encounter something like this, feel free to delete it yourself, stating why in the edit summary. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Armenian sentiment

I would appreciate it if someone could review the probable BLP problem in the Anti-Armenian sentiment article. The IP and then one user continue to restore extraordinary claims about a living person. The concerns that sources do not support the assertion and lack the needed credibility to back extraordinary claim against living person (See the Talk-Page). A b r v a g l^(PingMe) 16:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I have already warned this particular user elsewhere that their editing may be construed as WP:NATIONALIST given the consistent promotion of Armenians and denigration of Azerbaijanis. This appears to be an WP:ADVOCACY/WP:SPA issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. Any suggestion on what actions I should take? A b r v a g l^(PingMe) 16:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a BLP issue, as there has been a conviction in this case. However the sources used don't seem completely reliable, and the details of a single case is likely WP:UNDUE in that article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there was conviction. However, Is it not BLP issue to claim something that is not supported by the conviction and sources? A b r v a g l^(PingMe) 22:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Verbatim from one of the sources There they got acquainted with a man; and during the conversation it was found out that his mother is Armenian. Subsequently, the accomplices kidnapped, beat, and robbed this man. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Again I don't believe the inclusion is due, or the sourcing that reliable. But it is supported by those sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Anna Paulina Luna#Conspiracy theorist category

There is a discussion that may be of interest on this talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Matt Schlapp accusations of groping

I would like some feedback from the BLPN community on the Matt Schlapp article and a recent accusation made against him originally published by the Daily Beast [13]. My concern is we have a staffer who claims that Schlapp groped him. A number of news sources have reported the claim. However, my concern is that adding what is nothing more than an accusation to the article seems to violate NOTNEWS and BLPCRIME. Currently this only exists as an accusation. No criminal investigation has been reported nor has anything else become of this issue at this time. A discussion on the article's talk page does include a list of sources that have said the accusation was made but they basically just say, "The Daily Beast published a claim that..." Is it reasonable to keep this content out a BLP since it is currently only an accusation with no other evidence or official action etc? BLPCRIME makes it clear that if someone isn't a public individual we should keep this sort of content out. Where is the line when we are dealing with a public individual? In a case where it is unclear if the accusation will amount to anything is the best practice to keep the content out until it is shown to pass the 10year test? If no news sources follow up on this accusation would we add it 10 years from now (ie showing it passing the 10 year test)? Article talk page discussion here [14]. Springee (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Responded at the talk page. Thanks for bringing this up. On the broader question "Where is the line when we are dealing with a public individual?", I think we just have to follow BLPPUBLIC, and look for "a multitude of reliable published sources". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Arthur Graaff

This page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Graaff - consists of fabrications, distortions and half-truths. Books are mentioned that don't exist, the mentioned sources tell a different story than is presented by the compiler of this page, all kinds of family claims are made which are simply not true, and so on and so on.

I suggest that a Wiki veteran who knows Dutch checks every sentence on this page to make the necessary corrections.

The main compiler, "Webnetprof" has a very bad record at nl-wiki, where he is banned indefinitely. See: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Blokkade_Webnetprof https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Logboeken?type=&user=&page=Arthur+Graaff&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.95.90.103 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

User:86.95.90.103 Could you please give an example of something on there that you feel is a distortion, fabrication or half-truth? considering this edit by the IP user [[15]] I would be very reluctant to take their concerns seriously without strong evidence. JeffUK 17:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

IP 86.95.90.103 - Bit far-fetched 'comment' ('C'est le ton qui...'). Remarkable in view of the many refs, esp. of the last few days. The Rembrandt-book and the encyclopedia refs don't worry me, neither do the refs to well-established persons/institutions such as Beate Klarsfeld, NYT, Deutschewelle, Yad Vashem or the Simon Wiesenthal Center a.o.. A quick look shows the blockade is from 2013 - looks like digging up old skeletons - don't disturb the dead. Please refrain from undocumented blanket accusations. 2A02:A450:2D2C:1:25E2:317:A86B:7385 (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A few examples:

"In 2012, then German president Gauck recognized Graaff's campaign to get Dutch war criminal Klaas Carel Faber, living freely in Germany, back to prison in Holland.[1]" Note 1: "Interview mit der niederländischen Tageszeitung „Volkskrant" anlässlich des offiziellen Besuchs in den Niederlanden ('Interview with the Dutch daily 'de Volkskrant' in connection with the official visit to the Netherlands')" (in German). 5 May 2012. Retrieved 30 December 2022.

Arthur Graff isn't mentioned at all in that source.

" and had several other relatives who were anti-fascists, among them an uncle who was murdered in the Dachau concentration camp in April 1945.[2]"

Note 2: https://www.oorlogsbronnen.nl/tijdlijn/Christiaan+Graaff/86/3446

Arthur Graaff isn't mentioned at all in that source. In fact: the poor young man wasn't Arthur Graaff's uncle; he was a very distant relative, as can be seen here:

https://www.droog-mag.nl/2020/ag/christiaan-graaff.html#no

https://www.droog-mag.nl/2020/ag/Kwartierstaat-van-Christiaan-Graaff.pdf

https://www.droog-mag.nl/2020/ag/Kwartierstaat-van-Arthur-Graaff.pdf

"Two distant relatives from then Southern Rhodesia, the brothers Dewhurst and Stafford Graaff, fell in action as voluntary pilots in the RAF combating the Nazis. [3]" Note 3: https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/2952915/dewhurst-graaff/

Yes these two were not relatived to Graaff at all. See: https://www.droog-mag.nl/2020/ag/familieclaims.html#RAF

Then: "He is known for successful campaigns to end the remembrance of Nazi war criminals on the largest Nazi cemetery in Europe (Ysselsteyn 2021), to end an exhibition promoting Nazi design in 2018"

No nazi celebrations or remembrance services were held on that particular military war cemetery, which isn't a Nazi cemetery, just as CWGC cemeteries were RAF bomber crews rest, aren't "war criminal cemeteries". Arthur graaff also didn?'t end a Nazi design exhibition. That particular exhibition in the Design Museum in Den Bosch was even opened on Mondays, because it attracted more audience than expected: https://dtvnieuws.nl/nieuws/artikel/tentoonstelling-nazi-design-in-den-bosch-ook-maandagen-open

The Yad Vashem claim is not substantiated; and yes: Arthur graff attracted some limited international press attention - but that doesn't mean that his actions were succesful. 86.95.90.103 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Take notice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:A450:2D2C:1:25E2:317:A86B:7385

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1C02:10E:A600:4C74:E0AE:AE1E:7E5A

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.117.253.102

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1C02:10E:A600:BC2B:EA24:7378:C634

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1C02:10E:A600:C8F2:15AA:766A:F978 *

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1C02:10E:A600:B0D3:75CF:EB96:566F

All these different IP-addresses were - with one exception - only used to add misleading information on the Arthur Graaff page. Information that can only originate from the subject, who confessed in the past that he uses "Webnetprof" as an alias.

The one exception is this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Boere , where https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1C02:10E:A600:C8F2:15AA:766A:F978 added:

"The editor of the Dutch WW-II-site Nieuws-wo2, Arthur Graaff, covered all court sessions, interviewed the judge and prosecutor, and wrote a blog about the trial, called 'Aken Blog'. His father, a former Nazi-prisoner, lent him his car, and paid for the travel and lodging^[1]

This ""Dutch WW-II-site was a very marginal thing, hardly worth mentioning. 86.95.90.103 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The article was originally written by user Webnetprof who has admitted he is Arthur Graaff. I have made several edits, correcting and removing things that had source references that did not support the article text. Several of these have since been undone. I don't want to get involved in edit war, nor do I want to spend the time on this article that is full of lies, exaggerations, half-truths, and fantasies. Advice on how to proceed is welcome. Wammes Waggel (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Even ignoring the CoI issues, there are significant problems with the Graaff biography - notably a great deal of unsourced content, including some claims about legal proceedings. Given the issues raised here, I wonder whether it might be wise to at minimum draftify the article, and remove all the unsourced negative/positive content. As for anything that actually cites a source, it probably needs looking at by a Dutch speaker. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of Dutch, and corrected/removed several statements citing a source. However, Webnetprof et. al. have undone at least part of my edits. So that does not help. Wammes Waggel (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Graaff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

References

^ Arthur Graaff (23 March 2010). "Aken Blog" (in Dutch). Nieuws-WO2.tk.

Josette Simon

See this recent discussion. TomDale90, who is a representative of Josette Simon's, has been told of the COI and BLP policies and is now asking if the year of birth could be removed from the lead and infobox, and just left in the first paragraph of the body. Quoting their talk page: it is very common for actors to want to keep birth date info private because we know from experience that it can and does interfere with casting opportunities so there are real world reasons other than security for wanting to keep the info private. If we just have the birthdate in the Early Life section, the information is there for people who want it however it would not show up on the first page of Google in the little paragraph. Would that be possible?

I'm sure this is true, and I can see that doing this would not completely remove the information, but I see nothing in WP:DOB that talks about this, and I can't see any policy justification for removing it. I have little experience with BLPs, but I would guess this has come up before. Are there any prior discussions about this? I would imagine a lot of actresses who pass 30 or 35 would like the same thing done to their articles. As far as I can see the answer is no, but I'd like to cite precedent or policy in telling Tom that. Pinging Hemiauchenia and JeffUK who commented in the earlier discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

As someone who is quick to remove uncited DOBs and YOBs, I can't think of a WP-good reason to do this considering the cites, lead and infobox is how we do it, prettymuch. IMO removing from there would be to go further than WP:BLPKIND. It would not, in the general or specific, improve WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to not remove it from the lead, Simon's age is not particularly important to the article and excluding it from the lead won't harm readability. Nothing in any policy says we must include any particular information; as the subject has specifically mentioned it's causing harm for some reason and is only asking for a small compromise of moving it down from the lead to alleviate that percieved harm; I think it would be the kind thing to do. JeffUK 15:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know about BLPKIND, but I agree this doesn't seem like too much to do, since the information stays in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I empathise with the age discrimination concerns by the BLP subject, but at the same time, I'm not sure how much removing her age from the lead of the article will actually effect the employment opportunities of the subject. I don't feel strongly one way or the other about the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've removed it from the lead and infobox as there seem to be no objections. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

She is widely known 'in the business' to have joined Blake's 7 in 1980, shortly after leaving 'Central', followed by prominent busy periods on stage TV and film in the '80s and early '90s. So practically everyone in casting is going to know within about 12 months her DoB anyway. Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the main difference is that people putting "Josette Simon" into google now see "Josette Simon OBE, is a British actress" rather than "Josette Simon OBE, (Born 1960), is a British actress", The tradition of having to report everyone's age as soon as you mention them is a bit of an anachronism in my opinion. JeffUK 10:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Grigori Grabovoi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Grabovoi. The author asks to urgently delete this page from Wikipedia.

It is necessary to inform Followers involved in Wikipedia to delete this page, since according to the rules of Wikipedia, the listing of surnames does not apply to the tasks of Wikipedia.

It contains libelous and very inaccurate information about the character of Doctor Grigori Petrovich Grabovoi.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayitright22 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I know nothing about whether there are any BLP issues with this article, but I do know that the penultimate sentence of this post is unacceptable. Nobody's team gets to write their Wikipedia article, per WP:NPOV. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Sayitright22 (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Grigori Grabovoi is full of legal threats as well. Also edit summaries in the recent history of the article, though those are in Italian for some reason. MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

And he has been falsely accused for many years of something he didn't do... Sayitright22 (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The page has now been blanked [16] and a G10 speedy tag added by User:Chicca70, who has only edited no other pages than the Grigori Grabovoi page and its talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sam Hubbard

Please remove the last sentence in the 2022 section of this article. It is racist and inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.209.196.186 (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That was routine vandalism that has been reverted. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Chris DeRose (author)

User CatBearMouseLion, who apparently has no interest in any other page, has twice vandalized this page in recent days and violated Wikipedia's policy on living persons.

First, it's a violation of neutrality. The long litany of edits are uniformly negative, and where accompanied by a citation do not support the sensationalist, scandalous summary provided by the editor.

For example: the article is edited to describe DeRose as an "interim" clerk of the superior court, rather than "clerk." There is no such thing as an "interim" clerk. Here's the clerk's website: "Chris DeRose became the Clerk of the Superior Court for Maricopa County in March 2018." https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10/637075068667370000

Accusing someone of lying about their job title is potentially defamatory.

The editor insists on the colloquial, negative introductory line that "DeRose has run for office at least three times, and failed all of those times." That's not in Wikipedia style, not neutral, and it's not appropriate for an introductory paragraph.

The editor dismisses a positive book review from Human Events by attacking its ideology (unsourced) and ownership by the same publisher as DeRose's first book (also unsourced). Suggesting the reviewer published a false book review because of a common corporate ownership of an otherwise unrelated entity is potentially defamatory.

These are but a few examples of the potentially defamatory, viewpoint negative, and unsourced claims.

CatBearMouseLion obviously has a personal interest in going after the subject and should be prohibited from further vandalizing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buryjunk (talk • contribs) 23:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Buryjunk I think you would do well to read WP:OWN and ~~WP:Conflict~~ Wikipedia:Consensus, I note that despite claiming the other editor has 'only an interest in that one article' you neglect to mention that you created it and barely edit anything unrelated to DeRose either. Please engage with the other editor in the talk page, assuming good faith, rather than accusing them of having a 'vendetta'. Courtesy ping to User:CatBearMouseLion JeffUK 08:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Ivan Katchanovski's "false theory" on Georgian snipers

Based on this source [17] the article Ivan Katchanovski claims that In 2018, Katchanovski promoted a false theory that Georgian snipers had orders from Maidan leaders to shoot Maidan protestors. This theory was also promoted by Vladimir Putin. The template:Failed verification I added has been repeatedly removed by two users [18][19][20]. Is this WP:OR? And is it compatible with WP:BLPRS? Note the following:

The text of the source doesn't mention Katchanovski. It deals exclusively with the The Putin Interviews by Oliver Stone.
However, the source contains the picture of a tweet by Oliver Stone, in which Stone re-tweets a tweet by Katchanovski.
In that tweet, Katchanovski does not present a theory on the Georgian snipers. He writes Another #Maidan #massacre #Bombshell : In #Israel TV #documentary, two more #Georgians state that they had orders from Maidan leader to shoot both Maidan #protesters and police in order to boost protests and overthrow Yanukovych #government in #Ukraine + link to a no longer available youtube video.
Is tweeting a video by an Israeli TV a sufficient ground for being reported on Wikipedia as the "promoter of a false theory shared by Putin"?
For those who want to go really deep into the matter: Polygraph.info (a fact-checking website produced by Voice of America, not yet listed at WP:RSP) claims here [21] that they've debunked an interview made by an Italian journalist to three alleged Georgian snipers who claimed responsibility for shooting protesters in Kyiv at Euromaidan. In a 2022 self-published paper [22] Katchanovski mentioned 7 Georgian snipers; probably three of these snipers are the same ones who were interviewed in the allegedly debunked report by the Italian journalist. So with a nice WP:SYNTH we are combining the tweet re-tweeted by Stone and published by Polygraph.info, the "debunking" investigation by Polygraph.info and the 2022 paper by Katchanovski to state in wikivoice that Katchanovski, ~~by presenting his paper at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,~~ by tweeting in 2018 a link to a video that no editors has yet been able to watch, has "promoted" a theory concerning 7 Georgian snipers, three of which according to Polygraph.info had lied in an interview; and we are also stating that that theory is shared by Putin.
Final note: the article on Katchanovski presents a controversial theory of his under the heading "False flag theory". That theory has supporters and opponents, it may be WP:FRINGE or not. In any case, that theory is not the Georgian snipers theory. The two theories are different and possibly even incompatible (according to the first one, the massacre was made not by Georgian snipers but by far-rigt militants).

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC); edited 03:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you seriously disputing that he promoted this conspiracy theory [23]? His entire researchgate page is devoted to this garbage. Volunteer Marek 01:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. If you want you can open a thread at WP:FT/N and we discuss there about that. Because here we're discussing something different and the source you just shared is not helpful. The source you shared says something about the Georgian snipers that is incompatible with the thesis we are now attributing to Katchanovski through the nasty WP:SYNTH I explained above. The source says:

A retired Georgian general claimed that Georgian snipers linked to Mikheil Saakashvili, ex-president of Georgia, and senior members of his party and the government were involved in the Maidan massacre.16 Janusz Korwin-Mikke, a Polish presidential candidate alleged that Maidan snipers were trained in Poland.17 However, none of these politicians provided any evidence in support of their claims. And no such reliable evidence has been provided by the governments and the media in Ukraine, Western countries, and Russia

So if you want to support the nasty SYNTH on the article and make it somehow more compelling, more justifiable, then you need to find a different source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That "theory" was discussed already in this section of article talk page. It was debunked according to Polygraph and BBC publications (cited in the linked discussion). Yes, according to Polygraph.info that theory was promoted or supported by Ivan Katchanovski. But this is easy to check. As quoted in the linked discussion, Ivan Katchanovski himself recently presented this "theory" in Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Montreal, September 15-18, 2022. My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Gitz, we are either doing a WP:OR or a WP:SYNTH. We need a source that clearly states that Katchanovski's research was debunked (and especially how it was debunked).

Also, I don't understand that allusion to Vladimir Putin, if there are contacts between Katchanovski and Putin let's bring in the sources, otherwise we are just reporting allusions on a BLP, which is a very serious thing. For example, John Mearsheimer, like Putin, thinks that the reasons for the conflict in Ukraine are due to NATO's enlargement to the east.[24] Would you dream of writing in Mearsheimer's article that he thinks like Putin (and imply that there is complicity between them)? Please, let us try to maintain some professionalism and care in the BLP.

I am in favour of removing the whole sentence. Mhorg (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Since @My very best wishes says according to Polygraph.info that theory was promoted or supported by Ivan Katchanovski. But this is easy to check, could he please provide a quotation from Polygraph.info (or from any other reliable sources, really) saying that Ivan Katchanovski promoted or supported the "Georgian sniper theory"? By "Georgian sniper theory" I obviously mean the theory that was allegedly debunked by Polygraph.info and the BBC. If the BBC publication MVBW refers to is this one [25], then it doesn't mention Katchanovski. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Using multiple sources to verify statements, such as that Ivan Katchanovski authored, supported or presented the false flag theory which includes "Georgian snipers" is not WP:SYN or WP:OR. To the contrary, we must use multiple sources to properly summarize views by living people per WP:BLP. Also, if someone promotes a theory, there is nothing wrong with using 3rd party RS (such as BBC analysis in this case) that say the theory was debunked/supported/whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Combining multiple sources to support unverifiable statements is the definition of WP:SYNTH. Your claim that according to Polygraph.info that theory was promoted or supported by Ivan Katchanovski. But this is easy to check is groundless. I've therefore removed (again) the contentious and unsourced/poorly sourced material per WP:GRAPEVINE [26]. If this removal is inapporopriate, any uninvolved editor can revert it and explain their reasons here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I don't understand why you, Volunteer Marek and Adoring nanny don't edit The Putin Interviews article to include the results of Polygraph.info's investigation: the source is entirely dedicated to Putin-Stone and doesn't even mention Katchanovski! I've already made this suggestion pn the article talk page [27]. Why do you insist so much on having this content in the article on Ivan Katchanovski? The only answer I could give is against AGF and I'll keep it to myself, but really, the amount of time wasted in these petty editorial squabbles is staggering. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You say "Combining multiple sources to support unverifiable statements". This is not the case. To the contrary, the fact that "Ivan Katchanovski authored, supported or presented the false flag theory [of Maidan massacre] which includes Georgian snipers" (that is what I said) is 100% verifiable. It can be verified by quoting his own publication (as in this section [28]) and it can be verified by quoting secondary sources about his work as linked in the same and another section on talk [29]. This is not WP:OR. This is just the opposite.My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh wow, I haven’t seen this particular bad faith argument before. “Youre using multiple sources to cite something so by definition that’s SYNTH”. Jeez. Volunteer Marek 19:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
cite something? I don't understand what you mean. My point is: please, don't combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Are you saying that this hasn't happened in this case? Well, then please tell us which source explicitly states that 1) In 2018 Katchanovski promoted a theory that Georgian snipers had orders from Maidan leaders to shoot Maidan protestors; 2) That theory is false; 3) that theory was also promoted by Vladimir Putin. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you seriously misunderstood the meaning of verifiability and WP:SYN. For example, Ivan Katchanovski himself said in his publication that "7 Georgian self-admitted members of Maidan sniper groups ... stated that their and other groups of the Maidan snipers ... received orders, weapons, and payments from specific members of the Maidan leadership and former Georgian government leaders and commanders to massacre both protesters and the police in order to stop a peaceful agreement that was to be signed by Yanukovych and Maidan leaders.". This is a 100% verifiable (and verified) statement. But is it "the truth"? No, it is not because the claim about "Georgian snipers" was soundly debunked in the publications by Polygraph and BBC. The Polygraph does refer to/makes a links to twits by Stone and Katchanovsky. But can we use the article in BBC [30] to debunk the "theory" about "Georgian snipers", even though this article does not mention Katchanovsky, but only fake "testimonies" he cited? Yes, we can - for as long as we simply say that the BBC article debunked the theory of "Georgian snipers" that appears on the page. We are not going to say that "BBC article criticized Katchanovsky" because it did not. My very best wishes (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The Polygraph does not refer to Katchanovsky: why do you say such a thing? And you reasoning above nicely shows the dangers of WP:OR and SYNTH, especially when editors are eager to jump to conclusions. Let me ask you two simple questions: how many Georgian snipers, 7 or 3? And why does IK's tweet (re-tweeted by Stone) speak "two more #Georgians"? Why 2 more? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You say: "The Polygraph does not refer to Katchanovsky" Here is link to the source (one that you just removed from the page again [31]). It refers to Katchanovsky by making a link to twits by Stone and Katchanovki, exactly as I just said above. The link is just above the words "However, Polygraph.info already debunked this claim". References, figures and links provided by RS are important part of RS. But you was told about this already multiple times on article talk page. The quotation above say "7". If he was saying someone different before, this is not surprising. Claims by proponents of false conspiracy theories frequently contradict each other. My very best wishes (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Polygraph does not refer to Katchanovsky. It contains an image: the picture of a tweet by Oliver Stone. In that tweet Stone is re-twitting and commenting upon a tweet by Katchanovsky, which by the way contains an entirely accurate information (he says that the Israeli TV has published a documentary about two more snipers stating that they had received orders to shoot). The guy who (according to Polygraph) promoted a false theory on the Georgian snipers is not Katchanovsky, but Oliver Stone (and Putin):
Putin told Stone that Georgian snipers had been present on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, the central square in Kyiv, “completely ruling out” the possibility that ousted former president Viktor Yanukovych could have used force against the civilian population. Stone himself had previously repeated this claim on social media. However, Polygraph.info already debunked this claim, initially made by an Italian journalist who blamed the Euromaidan killings on Georgian mercenaries operating under the direction of former Georgian Prime Minister Mikhail Saakashvili
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

No. When a reader looks at the online publication, he can see the statement by Katchanovski directly in the publication online as an image, without even making any additional "clicks". It is a part of the online publication, and an important part that serves as a proof of statements made by Polygraph. Hence, as follows from the Polygraph publications, Katchanovsky supported this theory. But of course the linked quotation on Twitter is not sufficient to understand what exactly Katchanovsky was claiming. One needs additional RS for that, and it is exactly what quotation on article talk page has provided [32]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a comment on the embedded tweet: I'd describe this as a quotation and not an image. Its text is part of the searchable text of the article, and it names IK. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is more of Katchanovski pushing this conspiracy theory [33] [34]. The fact that this particular conspiracy theory is inconsistent with his other conspiracy theories is besides the point - conspiracy theories rarely make sense or have logical consistency. Here is someone else describing Katchanovski [35] In closing, I’ll note that there are a lot of other dubious claims made by Katchanovski that I haven’t addressed. For example, he takes seriously the claims of some Georgian ‘protesters’ who supposedly ‘confessed’ inside Russia – to Russian authorities – that they were the snipers.. Now, it’s true that this isn’t Katchanovski’s “main” conspiracy theory, he just throws it in along with all the others, basically trying to muddle the waters. But the fact that he’s pushed is definitely verifiable. Volunteer Marek 20:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it? Apart from anything else, could we use The Daily Sceptic as a reliable source? or would it fall under WP:UGC and WP:BLPSPS? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If I were you, I would use more balanced language, especially when you are speaking about a living person. I personally do not care who was shooting during Maydan events, but when I did this, I found many publications about that "conspiracy theory".

Normally, if many publications can be found via google scholar that discuss "conspiracy theory", that means that theory is not a conspiracy theory (unless this view is being massively criticized by these publications).

Well, let's see how much of criticism can be found in these publications.

The first publication in the list was cited 61 times. Unfortunately, many publications were authored by Katchanovsky himself, which is not good. Some other publications are theses (which I also exclude). I analyze only the articles authored by other scholars (not Katchanovsky) and published in peer-reviewed journals, and my goal is to figure out if they support or debunk Katchanovsky.

First article is: Volodymyr Ishchenko (2016): Far right participation in the Ukrainian Maidan protests: an attempt of systematic estimation, European Politics and Society, DOI:10.1080/23745118.2016.1154646. The list of journal's editorial board members dispels any doubts in a quality of this publication. The author says:

"Those few authors who tried to prove significance of far right involvement in Maidan protests were usually doing meticulous reconstruction of the most important events of mass violence based on publicly available evidence. Probably, the best example is the work of Ivan Katchanovski who worked through vast amount of published videos, audio-records, witness accounts about 20 February 2014 events known as ‘snipers masscare’ and pointed to involvement of Svoboda and Right Sector activists in a possible false flag operation aimed"

Does the author (Volodymyr Ishchenko) say Katchanovsky's theory is a conspiracy theory? You are free to check this publication and find any claim that may be interpreted in that vein, but I was unable to find this claim.

Unfortunately, I have no access to Marples' article [36] If someone can drop a quote from it, that would be interesting to see.
The "Lay adjudication in Europe: The rise and fall of the traditional jury" article is irrelevant: it just cites the article by Katchanovsky as a source for a totally unrelated fact.
The publication in INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL THOUGHT, a international peer-reviewed journal published by Taylor&Francis (its editorial board can be found here, says

"the detailed research of Ivan Katchanovski shows quite convincingly that the deaths were the work of right wing agitators."

You are free to continue digging through this list, but the information found by me is quite sufficient for the conclusion that Katchanovsky's theory is by no means a conspiracy theory. It is quite possible that it is a minority view, and it may be possible that some new scholarly publications debunked this theory. However, the evidences presented on this talk page (for example, a reference to some government supported web site) are unconvincing.

By saying (without an ironclad evidence) that the living person is engaged in conspiracy theorising, you are discrediting the project as whole, and that is not what we all want. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have access to this article either:

Marples, David R. (2016-03-16). "Russia's perceptions of Ukraine: Euromaidan and historical conflicts". European Politics and Society. 17 (4). Informa UK Limited: 424–437. doi:10.1080/23745118.2016.1154129. ISSN 2374-5118.

However, in 2014 David R. Marples criticised Katchanovski's paper here [37].

Editors acrive on the talk page (not me) have compiled a list of sources and also written a paragraph, later removed, on the reception of K's theory. For your convinience, I post it here:

The analysis in this paper was cited favourably by scholars including Free University of Berlin's Volodymyr Ishchenko,^[1]^[2] Richard Sakwa,^[3] Cambridge University’s David Lane,^[4] Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira,^[5] UQAM's David Mandel,^[6] and Stephen F. Cohen,^[7] and by former diplomat Jack Matlock^[8] as well as The Nation,^[9] Jacobin,^[10] and Jyllands-Posten.^[11]. Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by scholars David R. Marples (who called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"), University of Calgary's Bohdan Harasymiw, Taras Kuzio and Serhiy Kvit, as well as media outlet The Bulwark.^[2]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]

Among those who apparently accepted K.'s theory, the most surprising is Jack Matlock, former US ambassador to the Soviet Union and an academic at Princeton. Amon the notable authors: Richard Sakwa (Emeritus Professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent), Stephen F. Cohen (Professor Emeritus of Politics at Princeton University and New York University) and Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira (Professor of Political Science at São Paulo University, named "Brazilian Intellectual of 2005" by the Unión Brasileña de Escritores, awarded the Order of Rio Branco, the Order of May, and the German Cross of Merit), plus a few non-notable readers at Cambridge and Frei Univerisitaet Berlin (Ishchenko).

My personal view is that Katchanovski's theory is minor but not WP:FRINGE. Sooner or later a discussion at FG/N might be necessary, because we cannot leave the main articles Euromaidan and Revolution of Dignity in the poor conditions they are in now: with regard to the massacre they are a disorderly and unintelligible collection of news reports, all published in the immediate aftermath of the event (i.e., in 2014). We don't even report the findings of the 2015 report of the International Advisory Panel on its review of the Maidan Investigations.

Somewhere in my sandboxes I have a few notes/sources on this (I should ask VM's help to find them

). In re-writing the section I believe we should follow and expand on the balanced approach of D'Anieri, Paul J. (2019). Ukraine and Russia : from civilized divorce to uncivil war. Cambridge, United Kingdom. ISBN 978-1-108-48609-5. OCLC 1097455586.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

There is considerable speculation concerning who was shooting at whom on February 20. There have been allegations that a “third force” was shooting at both sides, trying to spur on the conflict, from high in the Hotel Ukraina, overlooking Instytutska Street and the Maidan. Some point to Georgians, some to Ukrainians, and some to Russians. The chaos of the day and the intense efforts at disinformation that have ensued have made it impossible to disconfirm these theories. The most sophisticated effort to address the issue, carried out at Carnegie Mellon University, found conclusively that at least some of the protestors on Instytutska Street were killed by Berkut forces on the ground

Final note. I believe all this is off-topic here. Katchanovski's theory is that the shooting were coming from the Maidan-controlled buildings. If he is right, the question "who was in those buildings?" remains open. One possible answer is "Georgian snipers". The text of the article now says that he in 2018 he "promoted" the theory of the Georgian snipers by sharing a tweet that Oliver Stone re-twitted and a newspaper published. It is nonsense and should be removed

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Marples https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2016.1154129 does not mention IK in the body. There is a passage describing The Russian version of events in relation to the Maidan, which includes this sentence: Other reports focused on the actions of the Berkut police against demonstrators as an ‘anti-terrorist' campaign (the same term later used by the Ukrainian government to describe the attack on separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk regions) – armed extremists were shooting police officers, aiming for the head or throat, innocent people were murdered, women were humiliated, buildings and cars destroyed. Next to aiming for the head or throat is a footnote, which says: This accusation finds support in the paper by Katchanovski (2015). The full reference for that is: Katchanovski, I. (2015, September 3–6). The ‘sniper massacre’ on the Maidan in Ukraine. Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA. In other words, in this text Marples barely mentions IK in passing, and does not help us determine if this is a conspiracy theory or true. It does help us know that IK is seen as in line with or echoing Russian propaganda. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It is also not "surprising" that Jack F. Matlock Jr. would endorse IK, even if only in passing. Read the last paragraph of his BLP. Like Sakwa, he consistently follows the Russian narrative. In other words, support for IK follows partisan lines.

I also don't think we should give weight to Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira here. He had no relevant expertise on the Maidan, Ukraine or criminal investigations of crime scenes, and again should be seen as taking the anti-Western partisan line. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

His theory is not only about "Georgian snipers" or directions of shots. Also, it is not only about something he published in 2015. He continue promoting his theory today. As he claimed most recently, i.e. in 2022 (cited in this section, this is a false flag attack theory, according to which some unnamed "Maidan leaders" gave weapons and payments to the snipers to prevent "a peaceful agreement" between themselves (sic!) and Yanukovich. My very best wishes (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

references for 'Ivan Katchanovski's "false theory" on Georgian snipers'

References

^ Ishchenko, Volodymyr (2016-10-01). "Far right participation in the Ukrainian Maidan protests: an attempt of systematic estimation". European Politics and Society. 17 (4): 453–472. doi:10.1080/23745118.2016.1154646. ISSN 2374-5118. S2CID 156830359.
^ ^a ^b David R. Marples (2014-10-23). "The Snipers' Massacre in Kyiv". Current Politics in Ukraine. Retrieved 2022-06-19. reprinted in Euromaidan Press
^ Sakwa, Richard (2014-12-18). Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-85773-804-2.
^ Lane, David (2016-10-01). "The International Context: Russia, Ukraine and the Drift to East-West Confrontation". International Critical Thought. 6 (4): 623–644. doi:10.1080/21598282.2016.1242084. ISSN 2159-8282. S2CID 157373994.
^ Moniz Bandeira, Luiz Alberto (2019). The World Disorder. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03204-3. ISBN 978-3-030-03203-6. S2CID 239319086.
^ Mandel, David (2016-01-02). "The conflict in Ukraine". Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe. 24 (1): 83–88. doi:10.1080/0965156X.2016.1171011. ISSN 2573-9638. S2CID 156126251.
^ Cohen, Stephen F. (2018-01-03). "Four Years of Ukraine and the Myths of Maidan". The Nation. ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved 2022-09-30.
^ Matlock, Jack (2022). "Ukraine: Tragedy of a Nation Divided" (PDF). Krasno Analysis. On February 20, 2014, demonstrations in Kyiv, which up to then had been largely peaceful, turned violent even though a compromise agreement had been reached to hold early elections. Many demonstrators were shot by sniper fire and President Yanukovich fled the country. Demonstration leaders claimed that the government's security force, the Berkut, was responsible for initiating the shooting, but subsequent trials failed to substantiate this. In fact, most of the sniper fire came from buildings controlled by the demonstrators.1 See Ivan Katchanovski, "The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: Revelations from Trials and Investigations," NYU Jordan Center News.
^ Golinkin, Lev (2016-02-18). "The Heartbreaking Irony of 'Winter on Fire'". The Nation. ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved 2022-11-26.
^ "A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War". jacobin.com. Retrieved 2022-12-07.
^ Larsen, Poul Funder (2018-02-21). "Historisk massedrab i europæisk hovedstad er omgærdet af mystik". Jyllands-Posten (in Danish). Retrieved 2022-12-15.
^ Taras Kuzio (2017-04-11). "Umland needs a more balanced approach". New Eastern Europe. Retrieved 2022-06-19.
^ Kuzio, Taras (2019-01-29). "Ukraine "experts" in the West and Putin's military aggression: a new academic "orientalism"?". Головна сторінка eKMAIR (in Latin). Retrieved 2022-06-19. ([pdf https://www.cicerofoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Kuzio_Western_Experts_on_Russian_Aggression_Ukraine.pdf])
^ Serhiy Kvit (2019-06-13). "Ukraine in the struggle for independence in the age of post-truth". KyivPost. Retrieved 2022-06-19.
^ "What Really Happened in Ukraine in 2014—and Since Then". The Bulwark. 2022-04-13. Retrieved 2022-06-19.

Zawe Ashton

Zawe Ashton. this article has been the subject of increasingly repeated vandalism. changes have been made to the subject's full name including "Social Climber", "Attention Seeker" etc. Unsourced and nonfactual information regarding the subject's published works and career have also popped up on occasion. I'd like to request semi-protection for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbardlett (talk • contribs) 04:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Kbardlett. It's possible that an administrator might see your above request and decide to protect the page, but it's better to make such requests at WP:Requests for page protection. Pages can only be protected by administrators and they only do so when there's a good reason for doing so as explained in WP:PP. FWIW, I'm not an adminstrator, but I don't see any real need to protect the article this time. Most of the disruption seems to have been five edits made by a single account on January 9 over a 30 minute period. The edits were reverted and the article has been unedited since then. Page protection is generally done when there lots of disruptive editing over an extended period of time involving multiple accounts. Page protection is not really done for short bursts of edits by a single account who never shows back up again. FWIW, the article was protected for a week around this same time last year and the administrator who did so is named Ohnoitsjamie; so, it might be best to ask them about this before actually making a request for page protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

kbardlett: there was a short vandalism spree on the article on January 9th, which was all quickly reverted. The edits prior to that were a month ago. Based on that low vandalism rate, admins are very unlikely to protect the article. I've added it to my watchlist, since the more editors there are who're watching an article, the quicker any vandalism will be picked up and reverted. Neiltonks (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:American dissidents

I'm not sure which noticeboard is right for this but I wondered whether people think [this is a valid category? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest raising the question in CfD. Overall, I'd say the entire parent category is inherently problematic. --Soman (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Now being discussed at CfD Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Cliven Bundy

The Cliven Bundy page contained the following sentence:

"Bundy has participated in, and had links with various related movements, including anti-government activism, (which opposes federal government involvement in favor of state and local governments) and the sovereign citizen movement (which holds that people are answerable only to their particular interpretation of the common law and are not subject to any government statutes or proceedings)."

A pretty dubious sentence for a variety of reasons. Foremost amongst them the fact that the sentence is unsourced. But the reason I removed the sentence entirely is because:

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. 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—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

I removed the unsourced sentence and have been persistently reverted by two editors accusing me of wiki-lawyering, trolling, being informed by "am radio", "whitewashing" Cliven Bundy, and being a "nazi". My view is that this is a clear and unambiguous violation of the letter of BLP, and that I thus have a responsibility to remove it. I invited both editors to either 1) open an RFC, or 2) provide a list of sources for the claims and labels in the quote so that we can attribute them, but they have declined, preferring to accuse me of bad faith.

Please discuss how to best address this. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you joking or what? Bundy is anti government. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/antigovernment - there are thousands of sources about Bundy being anti government. Vizorblaze (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Vizorblaze, if you continue with your course of action, I do not think it will turn out well for you. I am urging you to express your concerns and ideas on the Cliven Bundy talk page. And please, for your own sake, read BLP, especially the portion I quote above. Adding BLP-violative content to the same article a half-dozen times, while accusing me of bad faith and calling me a troll and a nazi are not productive ways forward here, and that behavior reflects very negatively on your desire to contribute here in a serious, grown-up manner. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Then get with the waiting for a third party and stop the idle banter. This isn't a forum. Oh, I guess since you are in an edit war with the third opinion... wait for a fourth opinion? Vizorblaze (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Stop accusing other people of ignorance of a policy you don’t understand either. Dronebogus (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop forum shopping already. All I’ve seen is you arguing with Valjean, one of the longest active and most respected editors I know, about being ignorant of a policy they helped create. Dronebogus (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If this sentence were in the article body the lack of citations would be a serious concern. However as it's in the lead, so long as it's a fair and impartial summary of the body, it doesn't need sourcing per wp:citelead. While disputed BLP claims should normally stay out until consensus to include is found, in this case I would assume those citations are in the article body. This, so long as the body text sports these claims this is not a BLP concern. Springee (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Several editors have undone the deletes and restored the longstanding consensus version. It is minor and well-known information based on properly sourced content in the body of the article. It is not sensitive BLP information that comes anywhere close to a BLP exception to allow edit warring. See edit warring noticeboard thread. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Because they immediately delete unfavorable content from their talk page, it looks fairly clean, but an examination of the actual talk page history tells a very different story, one of an edit warrior who is constantly being warned and getting in trouble. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Without making any firm statements about this article one way or the other, I will note that the statement appears in the lead section of the article in question. Lead sections, which are a summary of the body, do not usually need direct in-line citations, if the information the lead is summarizing is well cited in the body of the article. So, for example, if there is well-referenced text in the body of the article that establishes that Bundy has participated in anti-government activism (and even if the body doesn't use those exact words, if there are events which Bundy has participated in that could reasonably be called such), then it's fine to summarize that in the lead. The lead is a summary, and summaries don't need to exactly quote every word or sentence that they summaries (else they wouldn't be summaries). If there is clear, well-cited information in the rest of the article that makes it clear that Bundy has done something, then the lead can summarize that he has done that thing without needing a separate citation in the lead. This is fairly standard practice. Of course, if the body of the article does not contain any information about any such activities, then the lead shouldn't mention it. I don't know which situation applies here, but the basic principle is that the lead section should only summarize what the rest of the article says, no more and no less. --Jayron 32 15:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

James Lee Purnell Jr.

This gentleman has died. Not sure how to edit wikipedia for this.

https://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/2021/12/29/worcester-mourns-loss-activist-former-commissioner-james-purnell/9042933002/ 12/27/21

https://www.delmarvanow.com/obituaries/sdt052491

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/name/james-purnell-obituary?id=32016591

https://www.lewisnwatsonfuneralhome.com/obituary/james-purnell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordplay7 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I've done a minor update to the article, noting the details nof his death. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Greg Rothman

Would some more editors mind taking a look at Greg Rothman? There's a discussion started at Talk:Greg Rothman#Political career, current first paragraph, but a user named William G Rotham starting showing up a few days ago and began removing content. Assuming that this is the subject of the article or someone connected to the subject, it would probably better if some non-involved editors experienced in BLP articles about politicians took a look at the relevant content and assess whether it complies with BLP. I've restored to the content since it seems (at least at first glance) to be reliably sourced, but feel free to remove it again if that's not the case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, here's my take. First, not really a BLP issue but rather an NPOV one. I think, given the size of the article, that we're likely giving this thing too much weight. Given the level of sourcing in the article (assuming that it's representative of the broader range of sources), I don' think we can simply get rid of it for reasons of undue weight, but I certainly think it should be trimmed down quite a bit under those criteria. There are a lot of unnecessary details there which are just filler. The current version reads:

"In 1991, Rothman was charged with conspiracy to commit forgery, a misdemeanor. He pleaded guilty in March 1994 and was sentenced to 5 months' probation, a $2,000 fine, and 160 hours' community service. Rothman was 27 years old at the time. The conspiracy charge arose from a campaign mailer attacking William F. Kane, a candidate for county commission; the mailer included a bogus return address and was falsely attributed to an organization. The conviction was later expunged, and Governor Ed Rendell issued Rothman a pardon in January 2011. Rothman said in 2015 that he had learned from the mistake and took responsibility for it."

We don't need to say things like "he was charged with..." when pleading guilty to it already implies that he was charged. I think that listing the sentence is superfluous, and so is listing his age at the time. (If people want to know how old he was, the dates are listed; they can do the math if they really care.) The details of the charge are really quite confusing. (I mean, what exactly did he do wrong? Is it that he made personal attacks, that the address was bogus (whose address?), and what does "falsely attributed to an organization mean? I read the source and it was just as ambiguous.) I think the details themselves are rather confusing and also superfluous. Lastly, "months" and "hours" are already plural, so no need to try to make them possessive by adding an apostrophe at the end. I would change it to read something like this:

"In 1991, Rothman pled guilty to the misdemeanor charge of conspiracy to commit forgery. The conviction was later expunged, and Governor Ed Rendell issued Rothman a pardon in January 2011. In 2015, Rothman said that he had learned from the mistake and took responsibility for it."

Newspapers like all that filler, because they literally have space to fill, but as an encyclopedia all we need is the nitty gritty. I think that keeps all of the important points and whittles out all the fluff, and reduced quite a bit of the weight to what may be a more acceptable volume. Zaereth (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That sounds better to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

William G Rotham has been editing again and removed your suggested text claiming "bias". I reverted that edit but he has removed other text about the election.--76.14.122.5 (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

BLPvio against groups (soldiers)?

The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group.
— WP:BLPGROUP

Is this quote, in Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, a WP:BLP problem?

"When we surrendered Lyman, we slaughtered everyone out there, f**king khokhols [a derogatory Russian term for Ukrainians]... We raped them, slaughtered them, shot them. In Lyman and Torske, we just walked around shooting everyone. All the men who were younger were taken to us out there, and the women, young ones: they were all f**ked, slaughtered, shot."^[1]

References

^ "Russians killed and raped civilians as they fled from Lyman, admits soldier in intercepted call". Ukrainska Pravda. 9 January 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2023 – via Yahoo News.

I don't know how big the group is that is referred to as "we". The quote is from a recording of a phone call released to the media by Ukrainian Security Services. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Wait, so Levivich thinks that we cannot include info on Russian forces committing rape, despite the fact that this is covered in hundreds of reliable sources and in fact is the very topic of the relevant article because ... it's ... a ... BLPVIO ... against ... "Russian soldiers"? Wow. ... .... ... Wow. Volunteer Marek 21:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No, Marek, I do not think we cannot include "info on Russian forces committing rape", obviously. I'm talking about this particular quote, which says a specific group of soldiers at a particular place and time committed specific war crimes. Levivich (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

So, you think that quoting Russian soldiers talking about raping Ukrainians, sourced reliably, is a "BLPVIO" against "Russian soldiers". This specific group, of these specific soldiers, whoever they may be, are reported to have committed rape. What in the world does this have to do with BLP? Volunteer Marek 21:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

"John and I just walked around shooting everyone." Would including that quote in an article be a BLPvio? Yeah, probably, as to John. The question is whether "soldiers surrendering Lyman" is too large of a group to implicate BLP or not (and whether that is the relevant group). Levivich (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Who's "John"? Volunteer Marek 21:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

That's an example, like for any named person. "[Some living person] and I just walked around shooting everyone" would be a BLP issue if we included such a quote in an article, would it not? So replace "[some living person]" with "[some group of people]", and, per BLPGROUP, it might be a BLP vio or not depending on the size of the group and other circumstances... a case-by-case analysis, as quoted above. Levivich (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP says to 'Seriously consider not including allegations about people who are not in the public eye,' not that they must be excluded at all costs. I'm normally VERY conservative about this rule, but I would say that a published confession by the accused would convince me to include their name in an article. This being 'an anonymous soldier' makes it even less concerning for me. JeffUK 13:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe BLP would apply to "Russian forces", it's just to large a group. However I'm not impressed by the source, a Ukrainska Pravda article citing the Security Service of Ukraine telegram channel doesn't seem weighty enough for such a quote. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Then Levivich can take this to NPOVN or RSN and raise it there and spare us all the embarrassment of having to take this query seriously. Volunteer Marek 21:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe Levivich is wrong on BLP here, but WP:AGF that it's a genuine question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not saying this IS a BLPVIO, I'm asking the question. Levivich (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I've already raised the WP:DUE issue at the article's talk page. Levivich (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll throw the question of the reliability (all the way down) of the quote as others have already raised, which should be decided first, but on the assumption that reliable sources validated the quote came from a Russian force, I think the size of the group there is far too large for this to be taken as a BLP violation. Masem (t) 21:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the strangest BLP request I have ever seen. As about sourcing, yes, it never hurts to check. This is publication by the SBU, and here is a couple of additional publications in other news sources: [38],[39]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The second news source [40] is marked as opinion (Мнения) from a website called "CensorU.net" that is probably not an RS. Levivich (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Censor? It's been getting used as RS. I defer to MVBW though. Elinruby (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This is "censor.net" (meaning "censor - no" in Russian or Ukrainian transliteration), a news website by well known Ukrainian journalist Butusov. But if you need more sources, yes, sure. Here is publication by Dmitry Gordon, certainly an RS. Here is publication by Ukrainian Independent Information Agency. There are dozens publications about this particular intercept. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Those look good. Levivich (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course I also listened the audio. You think this is terrible? The soldiers are having fun debating their entertainment, pretty much as in good old times [41]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not supposed to cover up groups' well-documented and widely reported atrocities. Our "BLP" policy does not require us to whitewash groups of soldiers when their wanton crimes are visible to the world. This should apply just as much to Russians in Ukraine as much as it does to the Brits in Derry whose butchering made Bloody Sunday (1972). Maine 🦞 19:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME does require us to exercise caution for individuals who are accused, but have not yet been convicted of a crime, advising that editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured (emphasis from original text). Unless and until the Russian soldiers relevant to this discussion are convicted by a tribunal, it seems obvious to me that BLPCRIME would apply.

However I do recognise the point you have made elsewhere several times now with regards to how several points of WP:BLP interact with WP:NOTCENSORED. There is a balance somewhere to be struck between these two policy points. But for the sake of caution, I lean more towards the BLP policy having precedence in these sorts of issues. This is perhaps particularly true in the case of war reporting, where initial reporting can be unreliable and subject to propaganda points by all involved parties in a conflict.

That is not to say I disbelieve the accusations. These soldiers (both the Russian group, and Bloody Sunday's Soldier F) are accused of reprehensible and atrocious crimes. Because of where I live and grew up, I am probably more familiar than many editors with what it was like to live in Northern Ireland during the tail end of The Troubles, and that will colour my opinions with regards to actions taken by all involved parties. However none of those relevant to this discussion have yet been convicted of those crimes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday's soldier F at least admitted that he shot and killed Michael Kelly (who was a 17-year-old child at the time) among four others. Whether that is murder remains a legal question: Soldier F claims that he only shot people with bombs or guns.

The Russians have not admitted their atrocities. Maine 🦞 20:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

When people start throwing around emotionally charged buzzwords like "censor" and "whitewash" my eyes usually glaze over, and I tend to just ignore those comments. The dictionary definition of the word "censor" rarely matches how people use it on Wikipedia. That said, the BLP policy about groups is meant to protect individuals rights, as in cases where mentioning crimes committed by a group or organization can be easily traced to the individuals who take part in that group or organization. For example, if Joe Schmo's Corner Bistro is involved in criminal activity, it can easily be traced back to Joe Schmo and his staff of 5 1/2 people. If, on the other hand (hypothetically speaking), McDonalds was involved in some criminal activity, it would be a much bigger story and subsequently much harder to point the finger at any one person. Here, we're talking about the Russian Army --one of the largest armies in the world-- and I highly doubt the Russians are going around naming all the soldiers in their ranks so we can tell who's who. I appreciate Levivich coming here to ask the question, but I don't see anything per BLP policy that would require the omission of this information. Other policies, such as RECENTISM, sure, maybe there are some good arguments there. It's hard to trust anything coming out during wars, because both sides are always engaging in propaganda. It's in hindsight that the true nature of events become clear. But that's a discussion for a different noticeboard. As far as BLP policy goes, unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem relevant in this case. Zaereth (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

While you are correct that Soldier F has admitted to killing one of victims, UK law has the concept of lawful killing, so whether or not he is guilty of murder has yet to be decided and so he is afforded certain protections (ie presumption of innocence in the legal system, WP:BLPCRIME) due to being accused of a crime. It is after all, entirely within the realms of possibility that either the district court will find there not to be sufficient evidence for him to face a Crown Court trial, or that the Crown Court will find him not guilty.

As for the Russian soldiers, depending on many future circumstances, the ICC may hold war crimes tribunals, and during those proceedings many soldiers may face criminal charges. But for now, I think it probably is a BLP violation to say that a specific group of soldiers comprising of no more than a platoon (ie around 50 people), at a specific time, and in a specific place committed a crime. But because this quotation seems to be about a much larger group, it's probably not a BLP violation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

FWIW of course it wasn't the whole Russian army that surrendered Lyman, but it was more than a platoon, I'm not sure what the figures are, but I think it's thousands. I think the point above about identifications of individuals in groups is a good one, and probably what tips me in this case: I'm not sure there is any way to identify any individual implicated by this quote, so it's probably not a BLPGROUP issue. That said, I agree with BD's comment about the intro, below. Levivich (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the curative measure for such a statement is to change the introductory wording, "Ukrainska Pravda reported an intercepted telephone conversation" to something like "Ukrainska Pravda reported what was claimed to be an intercepted telephone conversation", or the like. The current wording is somewhat ambiguous (intercepted by who? by Ukrainska Pravda?) and appears to validate the accuracy of the interception in Wikipedia's voice. BD2412 T 21:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Ashu Marasinghe

My attention was drawn to this article because of the effort to delete it by some new editors on the article talk page (the article is currently protected). As I looked the article over, I was left with questions about whether or not it should be present on Wikipedia because of the allegations against the article subject which are pretty horrific. The article was only written when these charges went public so he was not considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia article before this scandal. I'm not sure about the quality of the sources which I think would have to be gold-plated to be in an article whose main feature is allegations of criminal and sexual misconduct. I just wanted to get opinions from editors more familiar with BLP articles to see what you all think. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I will just comment that the article is at least very likely violating WP:BLPBALANCE in that it's giving a dispropportionate amount of weight to those allegations. A quick search finds that he's received coverage in sources for plenty of other things that aren't that Tristario (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the article should probably just be deleted but I'd question the claim "so he was not considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia article". Wikipedia is woefully incomplete especially when it comes to lowish notability subjects coming from developing places where English is not generally the native language. Sri Lanka being a former British colony and so with a reasonable level of English is better than most, still I wouldn't assume the absence of an article means the subject was not notable. This is important here since WP:POLITICIAN suggests the subject of that article is presumed notable. While a list MP is probably less likely to automatically have sources than an MP who had to directly fight and win an election themslves, and it's possible our notability guidelines don't account for this that well because very few major English speaking countries have such things. Still although I very rarely participate in AfD, I'd be very surprised if you can get a stub deleted of an MP for any major countries or even more minor developed ones with enough interest e.g. NZ even if the article has no sources to demonstrate meeting GNG unless you can demonstrate enough of a source search which might be difficult with a place like Sri Lanka if you aren't familiar with their sources and language. So IMO any attempts to be stricter with MPs from developing countries is very likely to re-enforce systemic bias unless you can demonstrate very good reasons to treat them differently. However I don't think the solution to this systemic bias is that we only add more minor MPs from developing countries when they get into a major scandal hence why I'm fine with deletion. (In other words, we recognise yes this person is presumed notable and it wouldn't be surprising or unusual to keep a stub on this person in ordinary circumstances so maybe if we had stubs and especially if we had okayish articles on a reasonable percentage of Sri Lankan MPs it would be okay to keep a slightly better article on this person. But since we don't better to just delete this even if we would keep it if Wikipedia was better. Rather than well we didn't have an article before so this person can't be notable.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

[1] Arthur Graaff (23 March 2010). "Aken Blog" (in Dutch). Nieuws-WO2.tk.

[2] Ishchenko, Volodymyr (2016-10-01). "Far right participation in the Ukrainian Maidan protests: an attempt of systematic estimation". European Politics and Society. 17 (4): 453–472. doi:10.1080/23745118.2016.1154646. ISSN 2374-5118. S2CID 156830359.

[Marples-3] David R. Marples (2014-10-23). "The Snipers' Massacre in Kyiv". Current Politics in Ukraine. Retrieved 2022-06-19. reprinted in Euromaidan Press

[4] Sakwa, Richard (2014-12-18). Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-85773-804-2.

[5] Lane, David (2016-10-01). "The International Context: Russia, Ukraine and the Drift to East-West Confrontation". International Critical Thought. 6 (4): 623–644. doi:10.1080/21598282.2016.1242084. ISSN 2159-8282. S2CID 157373994.

[6] Moniz Bandeira, Luiz Alberto (2019). The World Disorder. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03204-3. ISBN 978-3-030-03203-6. S2CID 239319086.

[7] Mandel, David (2016-01-02). "The conflict in Ukraine". Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe. 24 (1): 83–88. doi:10.1080/0965156X.2016.1171011. ISSN 2573-9638. S2CID 156126251.

[8] Cohen, Stephen F. (2018-01-03). "Four Years of Ukraine and the Myths of Maidan". The Nation. ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved 2022-09-30.

[9] Matlock, Jack (2022). "Ukraine: Tragedy of a Nation Divided" (PDF). Krasno Analysis. On February 20, 2014, demonstrations in Kyiv, which up to then had been largely peaceful, turned violent even though a compromise agreement had been reached to hold early elections. Many demonstrators were shot by sniper fire and President Yanukovich fled the country. Demonstration leaders claimed that the government's security force, the Berkut, was responsible for initiating the shooting, but subsequent trials failed to substantiate this. In fact, most of the sniper fire came from buildings controlled by the demonstrators.1 See Ivan Katchanovski, "The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: Revelations from Trials and Investigations," NYU Jordan Center News.

[:9-10] Golinkin, Lev (2016-02-18). "The Heartbreaking Irony of 'Winter on Fire'". The Nation. ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved 2022-11-26.

[11] "A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War". jacobin.com. Retrieved 2022-12-07.

[12] Larsen, Poul Funder (2018-02-21). "Historisk massedrab i europæisk hovedstad er omgærdet af mystik". Jyllands-Posten (in Danish). Retrieved 2022-12-15.

[13] Taras Kuzio (2017-04-11). "Umland needs a more balanced approach". New Eastern Europe. Retrieved 2022-06-19.

[14] Kuzio, Taras (2019-01-29). "Ukraine "experts" in the West and Putin's military aggression: a new academic "orientalism"?". Головна сторінка eKMAIR (in Latin). Retrieved 2022-06-19. ([pdf https://www.cicerofoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Kuzio_Western_Experts_on_Russian_Aggression_Ukraine.pdf])

[15] Serhiy Kvit (2019-06-13). "Ukraine in the struggle for independence in the age of post-truth". KyivPost. Retrieved 2022-06-19.

[16] "What Really Happened in Ukraine in 2014—and Since Then". The Bulwark. 2022-04-13. Retrieved 2022-06-19.

[17] "Russians killed and raped civilians as they fled from Lyman, admits soldier in intercepted call". Ukrainska Pravda. 9 January 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2023 – via Yahoo News.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[1]

@@ Line 355: / Line 355: @@
 :::::::::::::::Please allow me to clarify. I have no freakin' clue who Bandera is. I haven't bothered to look at his article yet because there is no point in getting that far into this discussion at this stage. Therefore, there is no way I could be comparing Arnold to him/her. Perhaps there is a third possibility; something else I'm comparing? I see no need to dig that far because this is a very simple fix at this point. This is all about a nonsensical statement that Joaziela added. Deleting that statement was the right thing simply because it was patent nonsense, meaning that all the words are understandable but when put together like that they are unintelligible. Now I have no dog in this fight. I am here solely because I monitor this noticeboard, but I see no problem here that is anything other than a simple content dispute at best, and therefore this is not the place to work it out. I was trying to help, but it's just talking in circles. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 03:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 ::::::::::::::::@[[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] 👍🙂 - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 03:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
-:::::::::@[[User:GizzyCatBella|GizzyCatBella]] I got your number. Someone who shows up to openly defend any lies as long as they shit on Ukrainians and anything Ukrainian as “Nazi” and “genocide,” and then throw in some ha ha, wink wink, smiley smiley.&nbsp;—''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]]&nbsp;[[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 04:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
+:::::::::<strike>@[[User:GizzyCatBella|GizzyCatBella]] I got your number. Someone who shows up to openly defend any lies as long as they shit on Ukrainians and anything Ukrainian as “Nazi” and “genocide,” and then throw in some ha ha, wink wink, smiley smiley.&nbsp;—''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]]&nbsp;[[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 04:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)</strike> <small>Striking at the request of @[[user:GizzyCatBella]]. I apologize to them and to the community for this personal comment made in anger. It was inappropriate and hurtful.&nbsp;—''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]]&nbsp;[[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 18:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)</small>
 ::::::::::Wikipedia is not some open forum for people to come soapbox about their personal opinions. If you have sources that show these are "lies" then great. Please discuss them and we can add it to the article. If others have sources saying they are not lies, then great, We can add that to the article too. Nobody cares if you judge them to be lies. Nobody cares if I judge them, or any other Wikipedian. We are nobodys, so the world doesn't care what we think about this subject. All people are doing here is giving a lot of talk but saying nothing of substance. At this point, I think someone should just close down this discussion, because it has gone off the rails and is completely unproductive. Maybe this is a good candidate for Arbcom. Seems like an area where some discretionary sanctions are warranted. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 05:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 :::::::::::<small>@[[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] You said you know nothing about [[Stepan Bandera|Bandera]]. If the subject sparked your interest, [https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/ukraine/2023/01/ukraine-stepan-bandera-nationalist here] is a straightforward recap, worth reading.-</small> <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 05:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)