Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Claire Danes

Collapsing outdated text below. This issue is ongoing at Claire Danes, which is now protected with the contentious version that violates WP:BLP.

Previous discussion

TolWol56 is currently engaging in an edit war on Claire Danes. Danes has been banned from Manila, but the article wrongly states that she has been banned from the Philippines based on a source cited in The Guardian, which is based off of the original 1998 CBS article. Upon inspecting the CBS source, it becomes clear that the author of the Guardian piece incorrectly reported on the events, as the CBS source clearly states that she was banned from Manila, but that the President thought she should be banned from the entire country. Furthermore, her comments are incorrectly represented, and the entirety of the commentary is less neutral than every source on the matter. Upon fact-checking this part of the article, I corrected the errors. This was reverted by TolWol56, who claimed I was "whitewashing" the entry about it. I informed this user I am not white, and referred them to the Code of Conduct, which they promptly deleted, and restored my revision per WP:BLP, since the historical version was factually incorrect. TolWol56 reverted again, referred to my edits as "rambling" and "whitewashing" again, and left an erroneous Edit War UW on my talk page. I have made a new entry on Danes's talk page, but given that what is currently written is misrepresenting her words, along with the ban itself being factually incorrect, I need some assistance on Danes' page to fix it so I do not violate any edit warring policies. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC) No BLP violation happened. To say that only "white" person can engage in whitewashing shows you have to work a lot on your vocabulary. Your claim that The Guardian provided misinformation is not going to fly because not just Guardian,[1], but other multiple sources[2][3] also said Claire Danes remains banned from the Philippines. Most of the news outlets happen to report only initial happenings and fail to follow up on the event. But Guardian, Times News, etc. are not like that. That's why you would need a really credible source to actually refute this information. You should continue the discussion on talk page instead of coming here with a non-issue. I note the paragraph was written after input from several editors during an RFC on talk page[4] like you were already told. TolWol56 (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC) You are misrepresenting the RFC, and again, this is a BLP violation because what is written is not true. That is why I have opened this section, to direct others to help fix it expediently. (Also, all but one of your sources are based on the CBS source, which says she's banned in Manila, your third source is a random news aggregate which has multiple errors in the small mention and is about an entirely different actor). I urge other editors and admins to head to Danes's page to assist. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC) The RfC concluded on 9 March,[5] the 14th March version[6] had the consensus wording and it remains the same to this day. You should avoid wasting people's time by showing your poor grasp of WP:BLP. TolWol56 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC) That RFC was over whether or not to include the event at all. I am talking about the accuracy and sources you are insisting on keeping. There are better sources, which I’ve provided you in the talk section. Why you refuse to acknowledge the issues with your sourcing is absurd. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Why on earth would you inform an editor you are not white when they said you were whitewashing? Your comment suggests your English language level is very high so it seems very surprising you're not aware what whitewashing means. Are you trolling or is your account compromised or something? This is one of the most bizarre BLPN threads I've seen in a long time and frankly I'm not surprised discussion broke down if you said something like that. Nil Einne (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Because the editor has been hostile from the jump, and I was extremely upset that my correcting misinformation from poor sourcing was disingenuously called whitewashing, when I would never do that considering my own lived experience. My hope was that the editor would discuss the merits of the information, instead of resorting to disrespecting me. I was wrong. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC) @SquareInARoundHole: Again what on earth does whether you are white have to do with whether you were whitewashing? Sorry but this is a completely dumb comment and doesn't help the discussion in any way. Again given your level of English I can only assume you know what whitewashing means in this context and it has jackshit to do with race and you've said nothing to suggest for some reason despite your good level of English you did not know what whitewashing means. And it's been pointed out to you by TolWol56 if you really didn't know so I assume if you really didn't, you'd know by now. Yet you haven't used this as an explanation, so I can only assume you always knew. And unlike some other terms in common use, whitewashing in this context deriving from the paint, doesn't have a racial or racist origins or implications (like say whitelist and blacklist), so it's not like it was even reasonable to be unhappy over the use of the term for that reason. It's no wonder the editor is hostile when instead of engaging in serious discussion about concerns over the effects of your edits, you make such silly trollish comments which have zero to do with the claim being made. I know nothing about your life experiences but ultimately if you want to be an editor here, no matter if you may disagree with the editor's view of the situation or tone, you need to be willing to discuss concerns over your edits seriously rather than just making silly trollish comments which have zilch to do with the concerns and don't help anything. And saying the effects of one or more edits is whitewashing is a not unreasonable in certain circumstances, as you likely disagree, just explain why you feel your edits were reasonable so you can actually advance the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC) In the hopes of finding a face-saving way out, let's assume that many people today have probably never read Huckleberry Finn and never actually looked up the term "whitewashing" in the dictionary. I mean it happens with "controversy" and "censorship" all the time, so why not whitewashing? But we now all know it has nothing to do with race. Also, neither does "whitelist", which is more related to the term "white hat" or "black hat", which is how you could tell the good guys from the bad in old Western movies. Bringing up race could have been deflecting, but let's assume it was a misunderstanding and move on. Ok, so now on to the sources. The guardian is a poor source because it is not about the subject, but only mentions the subject in passing, as an example. This is not secondary but tertiary source material, because they're just quoting sources from the original reports. Sources that only mention something in passing but are not about the subject are lousy sources, and I wouldn't use them. So, now lets go back to sources from the time, which are all about the subject and the event. In 1998, APN news reported, here, that Manilla had banned all Claire Danes --movies-- from being shown in Manilla. Claire Danes was not banned from Manilla, but they weren't going to show her films there, that's for sure. The CBS source here, reports that in 1999, Danes was banned from the Philippines by the President. There. Dispute resolved. It appears to be another simple misunderstanding or misreading of the sources, coupled with poor sourcing to begin with. EZPZ. Zaereth (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC) The CBS source (1998, not 1999), says "President Joseph Estrada of the Philippines, a former movie star, said he believes Hollywood actress Claire Danes should be banned from entering the Philippines for having disparaged the country's capital. "She should not be allowed to come here. She should not even be allowed to set foot here," Estrada said Thursday in reaction to a decision by Manila's city council Tuesday to declare Danes "persona non grata" and ban all her movies from being shown in the city." Can you clarify where it states she was banned in 1999 by the president? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC) I understand the term whitewashing to mean white people telling history in a way that makes white people look like saviors, heroes, and victims, while erasing or demonizing people of other races. I am familiar with this in my own culture. I personally would never say that to someone unless they were white. It felt like a disingenuous attack to distract from this editor's behavior (which from their talk page, appears to not be limited to this interaction with me). SquareInARoundHole (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC) Well, so much for saving face. I tried. Your understanding is completely wrong. Whitewash is a paint made of salt and lime which kills bacteria and mold. It just so happens that it's white in color. It was used for centuries for painting picket fences to keep them from rotting. Whitewash is rarely used anymore, although most people know it from Huck Finn tricking Tom Sawyer into finishing his chores by telling him what fun it was. If you simply look it up in a dictionary you'd find it means "deliberately attempting to conceal unpleasant or incriminating facts about someone or something." Republicans come here trying to whitewash Donald Trump's article while Democrats tried to whitewash Obama's. Sometimes black and white are just colors and have nothing to do with race. As Nil pointed out, trying to tie the two together makes you look very bad in this situation, and only hurts your case in immeasurable ways. (ie: You don't have to be white to come off as racist.) You can't make up your own definition for words, unless you don't want people to take you seriously. Zaereth (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC) It's what I've learned in school and culturally. I wasn't just making it up. Thank you for your explanation, I apologize for getting it wrong and thinking OP said something they didn't. I still wasn't doing what TolWol said I was, even with the proper definition. For context, here's some of where I got my incorrect understanding from: Whitewashing American History What Is Whitewashing — and Why Is It So Harmful? A New Meaning of 'Whitewashing' SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC) @Zaereth, @Firefangledfeathers, @Slywriter, @TolWol56: I've opened an RFC to discuss the paragraph. Would appreciate your input. Talk:Claire Danes#RFC - Claire Danes persona non grata resolution. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Wikipedia%3ABiographies+of+living+persons%2FNoticeboard&returntoquery=action%3Dedit%26section%3D18 "She should not be allowed to come here. She should not even be allowed to set foot here," Joseph Estrada said in reaction to Persona non grata issued by Manila Council. You are treating Estrada's statement to be something like "this resolution isn't enough, the ban should be extended to cover entire country". If he really meant something like that then I would like to hear the 100% predictable opposition from any Filipino official who commented on these statements, or the Manila Council replied "but we thought ban from Manila is enough". They didn't because it was already a countrywide ban. Esquire Magazine Philippines describes as "persona non grata" of the Philippines as: "If a person is declared persona non grata, he is barred from entering the country that issued that declaration. Local governments in the Philippines can also declare someone persona non grata through resolutions passed by the city council."[7] TolWol56 (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC) Again, that doesn't say cities can declare country-wide bans. Please look at Persona non grata, and any of the dozens of high-quality sources which state the declaration covers Manila. The President's statements were in support of the city council's resolution. He also does not state she is banned from the country. You are trying to force something to be true by ignoring nearly every single source on the matter. I do not understand your purpose in doing this. Wikipedia should be accurate, encyclopedic, and neutral. You are actively working against that. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC) My best guess after reviewing the sources provided is that SIARH is correct: Danes was declared persona non grata in Manila and her films were banned from the city. I think later passing mentions in RS have overstated the effect of the ban, possibly piggy-backing off each other. That said, my best guess barely matters. There's a discrepancy between reliable sources that should itself be mentioned in the article. I propose we either mention both possibilities in the article body or mention one (I vote for "banned from Manila") and explain the alternative in a footnote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC) That sounds like an excellent way to handle this. Zaereth (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC) Looking at 1998 newspaper archives, AP posted a story that is clear that Manila City Council voted to ban Danes and her movies. The President is also quoted as saying she should be banned from the country. The sub-headline of the newspaper articles is "Banned from the Phillipines" / "Person non grata in Phillipines", but the body of the articles never discuss that beyond the President's own statement, so I think Firegangledfeather's compromise of Banned in Manila with a footnote is reasonable or a wordy sentence that says "Banned in Manila and the President called for a national ban, but it is unclear if such ban was ever formally enacted."Slywriter (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC) @Firefangledfeathers and Zaereth:, how about "In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata in the Philippines by Manila City Council and the council also prohibited distribution of her films in the region." This line is supported by Far Eastern Economic Review, Volume 161, Issues 40-45,[8] 1998, which said the prohibition involved "her movies and declare her persona non grata in the Philippines." This way, we can avoid the said confusion about Manila/Philippines. TolWol56 (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC) As there is zero indication Manila City Council has this authority and the only attributable statement to the President says "should", this would be introducing a lie as compromise which is not appropriate.Slywriter (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC) @Slywriter: As a matter of fact, they have the authority: "If a person is declared persona non grata, he is barred from entering the country that issued that declaration. Local governments in the Philippines can also declare someone persona non grata through resolutions passed by the city council."[9] TolWol56 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC) I'm sure I'm not the only one that reads that as saying that city councils can declare someone persona non grata in their cities. That local governments in the Philippines could ban someone from the country as a whole is an exceptional claim, and I'd expect to see more coverage about it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "barred from entering the country that issued that declaration. Local governments in the Philippines can also declare someone persona non grata through resolutions passed by the city council" is unambiguous. The source is Esquire (magazine) addition from the Philippines. The magazine is WP:RS per RSN. TolWol56 (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC) What does CHR have to do with the Manila City Council(reread) or the President who said "should"? I'm well aware of what persona non grata means and also well aware of politicans making tons of statements that have no legal weight. The fact that no newspaper in 1998 or 1999 or 200p appears to have covered a formal declaration by the Phillipine government is significant weight against the President's statement being binding or that Manila City Council had any authority beyond city limits. This is approaching WP:SYNTH territory. In fact the CHR statement heavily leans towards it being only city.Slywriter (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC) @Skywriter and Firefangledfeathers: How about: "In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by Manila City Council and the council also prohibited distribution of her films in the region." TolWol56 (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC) I don't know Filipino law, but I would find it highly unusual that a city could overstep its jurisdiction and ban someone from the entire country. I could be declared persona non grata at a local bar, but they would not have the power to ban me from all bars. Any such ban is just a symbolic gesture as far as I can tell, because I'd bet dollars to donuts that she has no intention of going back there. But we need to not speculate, because speculation is a dangerous past-time. We can't look up the Wikipedia article on persona non grata and use that as proof that the ban was nationwide, because then we're moving from research into dangerous realm of synthesis. Just follow what the sources say and try not to read anything more into it. If sources disagree, then we should reflect that disagreement in the article. Zaereth (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC) @Zaereth: Let me have your comment on my proposal posted above at 20:01. TolWol56 (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC) No need to ping. I have this on my watchlist. I agree with FireFangledFeathers. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and that a city can declare someone unwelcome in that city doesn't mean they have nationwide power to declare someone unwelcome in the entire country. All persona non grata means is that the person is no longer welcome, and anyone in authority can make that ruling within the limits of their jurisdiction. Nothing said above indicates otherwise. Zaereth (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) I have already read that, this is why I proposed adding "In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by Manila City Council and the council also prohibited distribution of her films in the region." While we have reliable sources that say the ban is countrywide, there are others who say it is citywide, but none of them are calling out each other. According to WP:YESPOV, "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes but not engage in them'". Unless the so-called 'dispute' is covered in reliable sources, it would not make sense to describe it per WP:SYNTH. This is why I think that we should avoid mention of the "Philippines" and only "Manila", in that particular sentence. Now let me know about the proposed wording. TolWol56 (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC) The only dispute here is between you and Square. There is no dispute beyond that but if sources give conflicting information, then we have a duty to either reconcile the info or report both possibilities. For example, if a source says the first dogfight occurred during WWI, yet another source says it happened in the Mexican Revolution, then we could argue all day about what really defines a dogfight. I don't think it qualifies in the Mexican case, but it is found in sources and so we have both in the article. We're not describing any dispute. It is simply a matter of "Source A says this, but source B says that". The reader can come to their own conclusions. Zaereth (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC) Alright, so how about this? "In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by the Filipino officials. The restriction interpreted to be a ban from entering Manila or the Philippines also includes ban over the distribution of her films in the region." TolWol56 (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC) I had to unindent this, because it's going right off the side of my screen. That doesn't look bad, but there are flaws. The problem I see here is that the savvy reader will ask themselves, "Interpreted by whom?" Now, I'm not too invested in this, and the exact choice of wording should be worked out on the talk page, as it's not really a BLP violation. I mainly got involved because this was getting into a heated discussion about something totally off topic, when in fact SquareInARoundHole had some good points hidden there ... somewhere. And my bad for not thoroughly reading the sources from the start, but the point there was that the argument should be about sources and not each other. That all aside, what I like about FireFangledFeathers' idea is a simple footnote explaining the source discrepancy, because you can bet that if you don't this won't be the last time you have this discussion. As long as there are conflicting sources people will keep trying to "correct" the article. And this isn't a BLP-only problem. This is all just policy in general. You see it in everything from scientific and technical articles to religion and metaphysics. To give an example, in some books the fossil ancestors of the moose are under the genus Alces, whereas in many others the genus is listed as Libralces and Cervalces. Might as well explain right there in the article why this is, or it's just going to keep coming up. Same with modern moose. Over and over on the talk page, there's an argument about whether there is one species or two. All depends on what source you happen to have in front of you (and someday when I have time it needs to be sorted out in the article as well). The point being, if you don't explain why sources conflict, you will just keep having these same conflicts all over again. But wording and stuff, I mean, this is all talk page stuff where everybody, including Square, should hammer this all out in a collaborative way. Zaereth (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) Yes the words like 'interpreted' should be avoided and footnote should be used for explaining discrepancy. TolWol56 (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC) My main concern with this discrepancy is that very few sources claim that she was banned from the entire country, and none of them are more than a passing mention while talking about other events that all seem to be based on the same single CBS source which does not say she was banned by the president, nor that the ban was country-wide. Every single source that is actually about this specifically states that she was named a persona non grata by the city council, and ones that mention a ban specify Manila. I made an edit which specifically stated that it was a persona non grata declaration by the Manila city council, and added a footnote mentioning that some sources claim she was banned country-wide (and further briefly explained persona non grata in the Philippines), and @TolWol56 reverted that as well. Furthermore, @TolWol56 simply reverts every single edit (including style fixes and improvements to the sources), making it impossible to collaborate. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Anybody can be sure that The Guardian, Hollywood Reporter, Esquire, Far Eastern Economic Review, The Philippine Star, Kingsport Times-News and many others are not "very few sources" but a significant number. As already told by multiple users above that this noticeboard concerns only BLP violation and that is not the case here. If you have any questions related to this dispute then ask me on the article's talk page and not here. TolWol56 (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC) And yet, source analysis shows that the sources closest to the event do not mention a country wide ban, only a President's hyperbole. Though, I suspect the solution is simple, another RfC should be done as consensus can change and this thread shows far more opinions on the issue than the previous.Slywriter (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC) The current version of the article looks pretty good to me, though I'd like to clarify that the "Filipino officials" were the Manila City Council. The status quo has "The restriction involved a ban from entering Manila or the Philippines" which is good, but not perfect, as some readers will take the "or" as inclusive and wonder (maybe) why we don't just say "the Philippines". If we're going to present both options in the body text, we should explain the source discrepancy there too. Article is fully protected for another week or so, so we can hash out the details. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC) @Firefangledfeathers: At first I was proposing Manila City Council but then someone questioned if they have the authority. This is why I changed the wording to "Filipino officials". As for the source discrepancy, it is present in the note and I think that is enough? TolWol56 (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC) The question about authority was about whether or not the ban was country-wide. It is a clear fact that the Manila City Council issued the persona non grata declaration. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

This is still going on, or going on again. My position is as follows:

We have solid sourcing for the claim that the Manila city council declared Claire Danes persona non grata. There is not a shred of evidence that the city council proceeded to enact into law a ban on Claire Danes or her films. This is because it could not do so, either legitimately or practically. Manila is not a walled city with four gates; and I will be very surprised to learn that the Philippine Executive delegates questions of speech to city councils.

Nor did the Congress formally ban Claire Danes or her films, and no source says it did. Instead, what happened was the city council hit the credulous-foreign-reporter-jackpot. The resolution they passed was just censure. A purely political gesture, pandering to local opinion. They declared, "Claire Danes is banned, and all who sail in her", and the American press repeated it, without asking, "Wait, how does this ban work?", because it made good copy, thereby greatly amplifying it without costing the council anything. The president of the Philippines was happy to jump on board the publicity train, but doesn't seem to have been interested in spending any money or political capital turning the notional ban into a real boy. Since then, every reference in a puff-piece or vacuous listicle just repeats the original mistake, over and over.

None of the sources I have seen cited are much good, including the oldest ones. They all butcher the quotes that started the fire, quoting a condensed version stitched together by a wire-service reporter rather than going direct to the magazines. They repeat as fact that Danes's films are banned in the Philippines, when Danes herself claims only Brokedown Palace was affected, and there is independent reason to believe Terminator 3, Stardust, Me and Orson Welles, and The Family Stone—at a minimum—screened in the Philippines. It is perfectly obvious that all of the recent sources we have are garbage: for twenty years, not a single reporter has actually checked with anyone in the Philippines, preferring to take the last fellow's word for it, who was taking CBS's word for it, which was taking AP's word for it, which was taking the city council's word for it.

Conspicuously absent from the list of sources are serious-minded business or entertainment-industry reports about movie studios wrangling with the Philippine Dept. of the Interior or whatever agency would be administering the ban if it existed. If the ban was in force when Terminator 3 came out, and is in fact still in force now, why didn't the Philippines exact a price for the right to show that movie in its market? Why didn't the studio thrust Danes in front of a camera to make another, better apology? Not a peep. Because there is no ban; it's just business as usual. There is nothing to talk about in the serious press, because there is nothing to talk about.

The claim that Danes is banned from entering Manila is risible; do they have roadblocks set up? The claim that she is banned from entering the Philippines is unsupported. The claim that her films are banned is no better supported, and must admit (explain?) numerous significant exceptions. So: we have a set of claims which are poorly sourced and which are the subject of active contention, right here and now. It is my position that WP:BLP demands either a fairly exhaustive outline of the facts, the claims, and all the caveats—which I would oppose on WP:UNDUE grounds—or a conservative statement of only those facts known to be true. My proposal:

"In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by the city council of Manila in reaction to comments she made in interviews following the shoot of Brokedown Palace."

In its current form (which may not last long (and, sure enough, has been reverted before I am finished writing the present wall of text)), this is supplemented with the complete Premiere and Vogue quotes, in footnotes.

Now. To the counter-arguments. Several editors are unsatisfied with anything less than the full-throated claims that Claire Danes is banned, either from Manila or from the Philippines, and that her films are banned in either Manila or the Philippines. But they seem unable to grapple with the issues. One problem appears to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy, or perhaps an inability to distinguish quality reporting from regurgitation. I think at least one editor believes that if a publication appears in green in the perennial sources list, everything it prints is automatically reliable. I have also noticed that the other side is quick to insinuate racism, whitewashing, and bad faith. I am told I am pushing a pov; but Claire Danes means nothing to me. I was pinged because I was in the history, but that's only because Danes has a name ending in s, and I gnome pages into compliance with MOS:'S.

The claim is advanced that it is impossible for many sources all to be wrong. Has that been your experience? One person might be wrong, but if twenty people say it, it must be true? We are told that Danes hasn't won an Oscar because she is a racist; that the discussion of the "ban" needs to be at least as long as paragraphs at The Beatles, Jerry Vlasak, and Michael Savage, because Danes is more popular than those figures, or less popular, take your pick; that it's okay to get this wrong because it's a work in progress; that Cracked is a serious source. Wikipedia guidelines and policies are cited willy-nilly, one after another; a big scary discretionary sanctions alert box appears on my talk page, along with "you have been told"; the paragraph needs to be longer, but if we write out Danes's offensive quotes in full or mention her age at the time, it's too long, it's bloated, it's a quotefarm. The whole thing is exhausting, and it's meant to be. I am supposed to throw up my hands and move on. If you feel my summary of the counter-arguments is light on substance, that is how I feel about the counter-arguments. Believe me, I wish there were more of substance to report.

Last time this issue was brought up here, this noticeboard didn't exactly cover itself in glory. The discussion hadn't started before it got bogged down in arguments over the semantics of "whitewashing". I will say I think SquareInARoundHole was quite right to detect the insinuation that their edits were racially motivated, though I think it was a mistake to say, "but I am not white". Let's try to keep our eyes on the ball, this time.

I feel I have been pretty patient; I feel SquareInARoundHole has been extremely patient. I'd like to see some support from the community for the principle of caution detailed in WP:BLP.

"Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Regulov (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Regulov, I have opined and included evidence the ban does not extend to streaming, if it exists at all.Slywriter (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Regulov: not a single reporter has actually checked with anyone in the Philippines, preferring to take the last fellow's word for it, who was taking CBS's word for it, which was taking AP's word for it, which was taking the city council's word for it.

What's worse is that the city council stated they did not have the authority to ban her from entry, and at least one councilor doubted their authority to ban her films. The tertiary sources don't include that, and the other editors are ignoring the secondary sources in order to prefer the most wrong tertiary sources possible. This went from "We will ban Claire Danes's films from Manila." to "Claire Danes was banned from the Philippines." The fact that this has been so hard to correct over the course of several years on her article is absurd, and of course, it's increasingly frustrating that we are being accused of challenging the content under BLP and Wikipedia standards with bad faith and personal opinions. This should be the easiest error on Wikipedia to correct, and yet, here we are, having to ask for administrative intervention. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Update: I don't believe the RFC is enough at this point. Regulov, in good faith per WP:BLP, decided to boldly enforce the policy and removed the contentious material. I added the quotes from the magazines in the citations. This was all reverted, claiming it was the editor's personal opinion, and not a legitimate concern under BLP policies. The standards seem to clearly state we need to fix Danes's article immediately. It is concerning to me that editors are synthesizing a narrative and cherrypicking subpar tertiary sources (bypassing every single secondary source) to stonewall a status quo that is verifiably false. I am trying my best to be brief here and not bludgeon the process, but I'm learning how to properly raise concerns and I'm hoping this is a better outline of my concern.

The violation of BLP is as such:

• Per WP:BLPSTYLE:

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects.

Status quo uses only tertiary sources, two of which are only passing mentions in articles about other events/people and one is a random citation in a college thesis about the portrayal of female criminals in movies, which briefly mentions she was unwelcome in a citation, despite an abundance of reliable secondary sources, and even superior tertiary sources which actively contradict status quo. These are all listed in the RFC.

``She is declared persona non grata. All her films will be banned,″ said councilor Kim Atienza, the principal sponsor of the resolution and a son of Manila’s mayor... Councilor Julio Logarta, one of the three who voted against the resolution, said the ban was a curtailment of freedom of expression... Logarta also questioned the council’s authority to ban movies.[10]

Claire Danes is persona non grata in Manila, Philippines, after the City Council voted 23-3 Tuesday to ban her films.[11]

Manila's city council on Tuesday banned all movies of Claire Danes... "She is declared persona non grata. All her films will be banned," said councilor Kim Atienza, the principal sponsor of the resolution and a son of Manila's mayor.[12]

But Danes went "overboard" in Premiere, Atienza claims, and the Manila city council will discuss next week whether to ban all of the thespian's films... "She painted a surreal picture of Manila," Atienza said. "Those are irresponsible, bigoted and sweeping statements that we cannot accept. We cannot stop her from coming back because that is a diplomatic decision. But we can stop theaters in Manila from showing her films."[13]

After the publication of two interviews in which 19-year-old Claire Danes said unkind things about Manila, the city council voted 23-3 this week to ban her movies... "This resolution is in fact abridging her rights," said opposing city council member Julio Logarta. "Most of what she said is true." Logarta doubted that the council has the authority to enforce a ban.[14]

There's also evidence the persona non grata is also no longer in effect:

Claire Danes has apologized for those not-so-nice comments she made this year about Manila, and now all is swell between her and the Philippines...Her movies were banned, but they’ve been brought back now that she sent the city council an official letter of apology.[15]

She has apologized many times. Clare Danes was young and careless then and has matured to be more responsible and retrospect in her observations. Clare is very welcome if she wants to.[16]

There is no actual reporting that any of her films weren't shown in Manila (or the Philippines for that matter) because of the persona non grata, but there is reporting that several of her films were screened in the region, including (but not limited to) Terminator 3, Stardust, and The Family Stone.[17][18][19][20] Me and Orson Welles was also reviewed in the region. [21]

• Per WP:BLPGOSSIP:

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.

Status quo relies on tertiary sources previously mentioned, the crux of which weasely provide false authority that a ban on Danes from entering or her films being screened in the Philippines was still in place. "as far as we can tell" is weasling.[22] Two of them are about Dan Brown and state that the president of the Philippines banned Danes from entering the country in 1999, despite that this is verifiably false.[23][24]

• Per WP:BLPREMOVE:

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that... relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards.

Because status quo violates those two BLP standards, Regulov was correct to remove it, as I, and others, had done before, regardless of the RFC.

Further, status quo is violating WP:PMC, in that it is misquoting Danes. The misquote is from a reliable source, but is a regurgitation of the original misquote from 1998. The actual quote is still readily available (I work in archives at a publication and obtained the quotes from the respective 1998 magazines, you can also find these in libraries, etc).

Actual passages from the magazines:

The shoot was plagued with malaria and hepatitis outbreaks, and had to be shut down for several sick days. "It was just so hard," Danes says, now comfortably ensconced at a Beverly Hills lunch joint, where she's gobbling up a plate of extra-rare ahi. "The place just fucking smelled of cockroaches. There's no sewage system in Manila, and people have nothing there. [We saw] people with, like, no arms, no legs, no eyes, no teeth. We shot in a real [psychiatric] hospital, so takes would be interrupted by wailing women--like, 'Cut! Screaming person.' Rats were everywhere." - Spines, Christine (October 1998). "Claire and Present Danger". Premiere. p. 66.

Danes's first film without her mother was shot in the Philippines this past winter. It was, she says, "utter hell to make. Manila is such a ghastly place." - Van Meter, Jonathan (July 1998). "Perfectly Claire". Vogue. p. 118.

SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

David M. Sabatini

There is a discussion going on at Talk:David M. Sabatini#Ongoing lawsuit about how or whether to include material about ongoing lawsuits filed and counterfiled by Sabatini and a junior former colleague. One particular issue: an IP editor (and also some other editors in the article history) would like to source material about the lawsuit to the substack of Bari Weiss. The page is currently protected. I am not entirely certain that I have handled the situation correctly, and would like input from experienced editors. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

the living person in question has been accused for sexual impropriety and sacked. but he is now suing his employer for unjust dismissal etc, arguing that the whole thing was false etc. This lawsuit is widely known, and covered in Barri Weiss substack.

now, Substack isn't a "source".

But we ended up having a BLP defaming it's subject by omitting to mention that he sues his defamers. it's utterly bizzare IMHO Jazi Zilber (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Wearing my admin hat, biographical articles need to be sourced to a very high bar of reliability. Bari Weiss's Substack is nowhere near the neighborhood of an adequate source for contentious material about a living person, and if it is being used as such then WP:BLP is being violated and I or another admin can help correct that. MastCell ^Talk 17:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that it isn't just substack that is a possible source for the counter lawsuit, see the Talk page that is linked for other sources. The problem is that the way the article is currently worded it stands as if Sabatini was not disputing the allegations.

This reeks of bias by omission, hence why the discussion was started in the first place that there should be a mention of the lawsuit fighting these allegations.

One of the sources being quoted for the sexual allegations even contains' the information of an ongoing countersuit (source number two): https://www.science.org/content/article/prominent-biologist-david-sabatini-out-mit-after-breaching-sexual-relationship-policy

However the phrase: "Sabatini has filed a defamation lawsuit against the Whitehead institute" is currently not being added because apparently the substack article, which is an invalid source, is the only considered source? There are other sources for it and it should be added as it removes the bias of the section and restores factual balance. 2001:9E8:361D:3300:7C03:A4FF:FE0E:E796 (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

exactly. the BLP is used upside down to DEFAME the LP subject of the article. bizzare. Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Teal Swan and Barbara Snow

Hello, I concern regarding one source used on pages for Teal Swan and Barbara Snow (therapist) Here is the source:

• https://gizmodo.com/weve-launched-an-investigative-podcast-about-a-controve-1826416613

The source has been mostly used on Barbara Snow's page and this is the only source for creating an entire section. My concern is that while there is no consensus regarding Gizmodo on controversial topics, it is still used for sensational and controversial information placed on Wikipedia. There are other concerns too, which I listed below (copied from my prior correspondence with another editor but we haven't reached consensus):

• The source is a podcast with the information presented as a show with the focus on "sensationalism".

https://gizmodo.com/weve-launched-an-investigative-podcast-about-a-controve-1826416613

• It is not understood how the information leaked about the relationship of Teal Swan and Barbara Snow (if there was any sort of information, which I honestly doubt) based on the fact that the relation between a psychologist and a client is confidential:
• https://www.apa.org/topics/ethics/confidentiality

Couldn't it be the case of a leaked information about the client without her consent? Even if it is a small chance that it is, doesn't violate Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons?

• Finally, please, check this table of sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Here is on Gizmodo: There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements.

Since this source of Gizmodo topic is a radio show with a lot of controversial topics, don't you think it is unethical to use that source without adding more reliable ones? To me it looks like Gizmodo publishes this type of shows to attract more public with "sensationalism". I can't see how it is a proper source for Wikipedia if there is no consensus.

I also believe that it might be a violation on WP: BLP Teal Swan. Other concern, is that while the topic is controversial, only one no-consensus source used for information, which is mostly sensational. There is a need for a second objective opinion of other editors to review the source. --Onetimememorial (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The information has been removed and should not be reinstated without consensus to do so. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Strongly Support Inclusion It is not at all controversial that Barbara Snow was Teal Swan's therapist. Could you elaborate on which statement you feel is controversial specifically? Gizmodo interviewed Teal Swan directly, and from Swan's own mouth she confirms unabashedly that her therapist was Barbara Snow. Gizmodo covering controversial topics does not make it unreliable. The New York Times also covers controversial topics. Teal Swan is a pop culture phenomenon. I disagree that the coverage by Gizmodo is sensationalist. Controversial and sensationalist are not the same thing. Snow and her relationship with Swan are an important part of both their stories, and should be mentioned. Epachamo (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Both Swan and Snow are controversial figures. Further, what was removed was well beyond confirming a patient-therapy relationship.[25] Interviewing Swan does not verify things on Snow's end. This issue needs coverage by multiple reliable sources under WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:REDFLAG, and Gizmodo is not one of them for controversial topics per WP:RSP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The assertion made that Gizmodo is getting information from leaked sources is ridiculous, since Gizmodo says where they get their information. It is from publicly available records, from interviews with Swan herself and from a statement by Barbara Snow in their podcast. You can read the primary sources that Gizmodo used right here. Gizmodo did a fair job summarizing the points. Gizmodo being discounted because they cover controversial topics is also a bit ridiculous. The New York Times also covers controversial topics. Referring to Gizmodo as "sensationalist" is ad hominem. Do you have a source that says that Gizmodo is sensationalist? This independent site found that while Gizmodo leans left, its factual reporting is "high". It is I am befuddled that putting this paragraph is considered controversial. Onetimememorial has yet to list what "information" is specifically found controversial and in need of multiple sources. On WP:RSP, it clearly does NOT say that Gizmodo can't be used for controversial statements, it just says that there is no consensus on whether or not it should be. Once Morbidthoughts, or Onetimememorial can articulate what they find controversial, then I recommend going to WP:RSP and asking the community if Gizmodo is a valid source for whatever specific thing is considered controversial. Epachamo (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about leaked sources. Reread WP:PUBLICFIGURE again, " If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."! Not only do I not believe that Gizmodo is an RS for these matters (allegations of sexual abuse and the ensuing investigation that looked into Snow's history) because of WP:RSP, you haven't supplied any other RS to even establish this incident should be given any WP:WEIGHT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: YOU didn't say anything about leaked sources, but the original poster did, and was who I was responding to. It is pretty clear from reading both your and Onetimememorial's comments that neither of you bothered to even look at the source in question, so I'm unclear how you are making the judgement on how much weight should be given or whether it is reliable. Re-read WP:RSP and you will see that it never says that Gizmodo is NOT a reliable source, just that consensus hasn't been established. And for heaven sake, I beg once again, please, oh please, state what specific item you find controversial. Is it just the allegations of sexual abuse and ensuing investigation that looked into Snow's history? Then why are we blanking the entire section? Epachamo (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Naw, I looked at the source. The WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS is on you to make sure everything complies with our policies, including obtaining consensus. Two editors have already given you their opinion that the disputed material doesn't. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not the number of editors, but the strength of the argument that matters on Wikipedia (see [[WP:NHC]). Could I please ask you to tell me which statements you find controversial? Do you find this statement controversial: "Swan said of Snow, "I still consider her to be one of the best psychologists that I have been to. ... When I started telling her the stories about what was going on with me and childhood, she literally just started crying. It was actually the first time I had a therapist cry." Any objections to adding it back in? Epachamo (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I object as to why any of those statements should be given weight. We can keep going around in circles, but you haven't obtained consensus. You want to get more opinions about this, start a WP:RFC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

If a number of editors agree with an argument, and you're alone on the other side of the argument, perhaps you should consider that it is you who are incorrect? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't intend to pile on here, but yes. Given the fact that we're dealing with people who tend to be controversial in and of themselves, I think we need to be extra cautious when it comes to BLP policy, and what we have here for the claims advanced doesn't meet that bar for me. Happy Friday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Kamahl Santamaria

• Kamahl Santamaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, would it be possible for a more experienced editor to check the recent edits on Kamahl Santamaria? He's been in the New Zealand media a lot recently with news outlets circulating allegations of sexual harassment. Someone added sourced content on these allegations and they were deleted by a random user whose only contribution to Wiki seems to have been this deletion. The deletion might have been justified--I don't know--but thought it would be good if someone else could have a look at it. (I first asked this question at the helpdesk and a user also noted that the reason stated for removal implies legal threat) Cameron.coombe (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this edit is problematic because it comes very close to violating no legal threats.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Cameron.coombe, please don't use phrases like "random editor". The rumors came from IP editors. ianmacm, the libel comment is out of line (but not blockable, in my opinion), but the rest of the edit summary is actually quite correct. The question, as I said elsewhere, is whether the sources are strong and reliable, and whether they are correctly represented. And really, this is a matter for the talk page first. For next time, if there is any doubt, REMOVE the content from the article and discuss the matter on the talk page, pinging all involved editors, and imploring them to not mess around in article space. Get the article protected if need me. But we MUST err on the side of caution. And if talk page discussion is not helpful, or if we're already edit warring, then take it to this board. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both. I thought it'd be best to come here first rather than the talk page as I had no idea what I was doing. I don't edit very frequently and I noticed this history so I thought I'd ask somewhere where more people had an idea of what they were doing. Cameron.coombe (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Stuff (along with the NZ Herald) is one of NZ's two major online media outlets and is a solid source. We can be sure they ran this article past their lawyers before publishing. This has all the appearances of a COI edit. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

That may be so, but every news outlet has its op/ed pieces that are not reliable even if their actual news stories are. This is true even if they're the NY Times or the BBC. Reliability is not simply measured by the source's publisher or author, but for the particular information it gives among other things. This source is an op/ed, because it gives no actual facts to support its conclusions (its "understanding"). In fact, the only facts it gives contradict its conclusions. This is not a reliable source for the info in our article. Zaereth (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

How is that an op-ed? It's a straight report, based on information it obtained presumably from a TVNZ employee. I have no idea what the "contradiction" is you're referring to. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Real news reports don't give their understanding, that is, their own theory (aka: opinion). Especially without giving any reason as to why they think this, without a shred of factual information to back up their theories. (Notice how they're always careful to say "Stuff understands" every time they cross that line?) The only facts they give is that they reached out for comment and got the cold shoulder, and any public statements said he left due to a family emergency. Those facts contradict their theory, which itself was given no basis in fact. It's not too hard to tell the difference. It's basic journalism 101. Zaereth (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It might also be worth pointing out that your own statement presumes facts not in evidence. Zaereth (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no "theory" or "opinion". It is obvious that they have a source within the organization whom they want to protect, and that they consider the information reliable enough to risk legal action by publishing it. It's their job to get past the bullshit and publish the facts as best as they can determine them. If we can only accept public statements from the organization as reliable, then we're playing their spin doctoring game. ("Journalism 101". See I can be patronising too.) Subsequent events have confirmed that "family emergency" was not just spin doctoring but an outright lie, and that several complaints were made about this person during his time both in TVNZ and in Al Jazeera. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Is Karine Jean-Pierre a conspiracy theorist?

Karine Jean-Pierre replaced Jen Psaki as the White House press secretary a couple of weeks ago, and became thereby much more interesting to a small group of our editors, including IPs. (The article is currently semiprotected, but only for 48 hours.) There's edit warring and general disagreement about two 2020 tweets by Jean-Pierre alleging that Republican Brian Kemp stole the 2018 gubernatorial election from Democrat Stacey Abrams. Do these tweets make Jean-Pierre a 'stolen elections conspiracy theorist'? is the question, with accusations of 'whitewashing' against editors who think not. The problem is really that too few editors are discussing, and both article and talkpage could really do with more eyes. Bishonen | tålk 20:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC).

Unless mainstream reliable sources are asserting she is a conspiracy theorist, no. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, with the caveat that they can't be sourced to WP:RSOPINION. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Not every opinion should be in an article. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

There are, in fact, multiple sources referring to her claims as conspiracy theories and as false. Wikipedia should not sugarcoat on behalf of those who seek to undermine democracy by denying the legitimacy of elections; not all opinions are equal and valid, and claiming elections are stolen are among those that are invalid. Toa Nidhiki05 21:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

of course Raffensperger would call a Biden appointment a conspiracy theorist. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Toa just re-reverted me to restore wikivoice statements about false claims and conspiracy theories. The Mediaite entry at RSP says "marginally reliable", which to me reads as "don't use this for contentious BLP claims". The Henry Herald is the local paper for a tiny city. Unless there's more reliable sourcing, contentious claims based solely on these two is a deep enough NPOV problem to also be a BLP problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

TheWrap should be reliable. Their story. I've just added another ref from the Independent Journal Review, which is a member of the News Media Alliance. There's no reason to imagine Mediaite just made up a direct statement from Psaki, and their story was republished by Yahoo news:

Psaki told Mediaite “We all agree the 2018 election in Georgia is settled. And we’re also all concerned about voter suppression issues, including the President. Kemp won and she sees that tweet as having oversimplified the problem.” Addressing the 2016 tweet, Psaki said that Jean-Pierre “has affirmed that Donald Trump won in 2016, too. Like so many of us, Karine was concerned about the U.S. intelligence community’s unanimous finding that Russia intervened to help Trump. But he won.”

YoPienso (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Toa Nidhiki05, I totally feel for you--"Really a shame to see editors defending conspiracy theories here - I expect better". By the same token, in the same edit summary you said, "Revert unexplained removal of content", even though your reverters, two of them (meaning you don't have consensus for your edits), said "ouch! I'm partially reverting just to remove the "unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories", which is a BLP vio. I think the rest of my changes were improvements, but those can wait for consensus at talk" and "Don't use this for contentious BLP claims". So riddle me this. Two editors revert you, and explain what they are doing. You, on the other hand, offer "Rv whitewashing", and a clear violation of AGF by way of some personal accusations. And on top of that, which part of "if it's contentious, don't put it in article space" is not clear to you? Drmies (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I stand by everything I said. It's embarrassing that editors are so insistent on not reporting what sources say about her claims - which is that they are both false and conspiracy theories. There's no justification for it and I expect better. Toa Nidhiki05 23:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

If we are going to call someone a conspiracy theorist in wikivoice, it should be a claim made across a vast number of RSes, otherwise it must be both attributed and should be weighted on inclusion per UNDUE. For example, we fairly can call Alec Jones a conspiracy theorist as that is a very common descriptor in RSes. This doesn't appear to be the case for Jean Pierre, cherry picking from a few weak RSes, so absolutely not. --Masem (t) 23:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Saying someone promoted a conspiracy theory isn't the same as saying they are a conspiracy theorist (no tag was added to the article), but the idea that the 2016 and 2018 elections were rigged is absolutely a conspiracy theory. Toa Nidhiki05 23:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

That is still a contract if RSes routine do not state that those claims are directly about the conspiracy theories -- that's original research to take what was said and call it a conspiracy theory. And if only a few sources with questionable reliability are making that call, that's probably not important for us to pick up on. BLPs are not for trying to highlight every negative thing said about a person. ---Masem (t) 23:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

These sources are in no way sufficient for negative claims about a BLP. As outlined at WP:RSP, The Wrap is reliable for "entertainment news and media analysis" (which this isn't) and there's no consensus about its reliability on other subjects. And there's no consensus about the reliability of Independent Journal Review, either. The Yahoo source is just The Wrap again. Controversial/negative claims about BLPs require impeccable sources, and often several of them. Woodroar (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, The Wrap is a poor source in this case, not up to BLP quality. --Hipal (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

She should not be labelled a conspiracy theorist unless a vast number of RS are calling her that, which does not appear to be the case here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Did User:Masem and User:Hipal read the article? or just this noticeboard? KJP is not called a conspiracy in wikivoice; that allegation is clearly made by Brad Raffensperger. Also, it's the attempt to give Psaki's defense of KJP that is being reverted, not the allegation. (Psaki explains that KJP now accepts the electoral results.) YoPienso (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Now that I look closer, the Henry Herald source is actually a press release from Raffensperger himself. So it's an WP:SPS, absolutely unacceptable for claims about other living persons. And that's why we generally don't trust tiny local papers like this. Woodroar (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

And the author of second source, which is Mediaite, also writes for The Daily Caller, deprecated for publishing false news (the article itself. Doug Weller talk 10:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• No, per Masem. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• WP:REDFLAG, WP:BLP, and if consensus says include, then it's WP:INTEXT. An opinion is still an opinion even if multiple news sources publish it, especially in the echo chamber. Isn't it generally accepted that when a political opponent claims an election was stolen that it's automatically a conspiracy theory? Regardless, it's an opinion until it is proven to be factual. Atsme 💬 📧 17:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Absolutely no. Even if RSs say she is, and I suspect it would not be a significant number of them, this sort of thing doesn't rise to the level where we should be applying such a LABEL. Even if we did have a lot of RS claiming this, it is an inherently subjective claim and thus per LABEL and BLP guidance we would only include this as an attributed claim (even if she 100% believes the election was stolen AND we have strong evidence against her claims). Springee (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana

There has apparently been long-term massive deletion and content removal made by User talk:HiChrisBoyleHere and the history of the article. He deletes major references and replace it with instagram link as his reference.--Canny Yeohmanly (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Caryn Ann Harlos

J. J. in PA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly adding BLP violations and blanking content from this article without edit summaries or sources [26], [27], [28] and has not responded to my messages on his talk page. There is no source for the added claim that the removal was retroactively made "void", and no reason given for removing the results of an election she willingly participated in. The subject of the article has herself been pushing a revisionist view of history since she re-won her position, and made a legal threat against me on my talk page for and accused me of "silencing" her on article talk for removing the unsourced claim. The only RS we have for the event, Reason Magazine, only says she "re-won" her position. It doesn't support the idea she was never out of it in the first place, although she very much would like that to have been the case. In fact, it says she had been "booted". This is of particular concern to WP:BLP not only because it includes unreferenced information about Harlos, but also because it totally invalidates the tenure of another living person—John Wilford. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

A link to a video of the event is included in your talk section and posted here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OzfcEepE0o

31:00-42:00. The footnote indicates that Wilford acted as secretary. J. J. in PA (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

A YouTube livestream of the convention is a primary source. Primary sources are not allowed for contentious claims about living people, please see WP:BLPPRIMARY, especially not to override a reliable secondary source such as Reason. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Just reverted again, once again without a source or edit summary. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense, the record of what happened is the best possible source - you are relying on non-expert opinion on what happened. I am the subject the article and refusing to accurately report what happened and what my actual position is in the party is defamatory. I do ask for dispute resolution and administration assistance. I never made a legal threat. I don't believe in defamation as a legal cause of action. It is obvious that Tartan357 has some kind of personal vendetta here I am not interested in. I don't sue people. (COI: I am the subject of the article). 2601:285:C180:FF90:6529:E3FF:C6A4:B122 (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Reason magazine is listed at WP:RSPSS as a generally reliable source. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party official records is a reliable source. It is accepted by the FEC. Don't be ridiculous. 03:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC) 2601:285:C180:FF90:6529:E3FF:C6A4:B122 (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

You even removed the out of order part, there is absolutely no excuse for that. Wikipedia is not the place for your personal vendettas.03:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:C180:FF90:6529:E3FF:C6A4:B122 (talk)

Please read WP:PSTS. An organization writing about itself is a primary source, and cannot be used to verify contentious claims about living people. The only RS content we have to go off of is from Reason:

Mises Caucus favorite Caryn Ann Harlos, who was booted by the LNC from her elected secretary position over Mises-related faction fights, re-won her elected position Saturday as well.

― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a tough one. WP:V says Reason is the only usable source, but in doing so we are only telling half the story. The Primary documents are readily available in a google search and show a clear sequence of suspension, suspension upheld by Judicial committee, and subsequent nullification of previous motions at the Convention. The later two happening well after the Reason article was written. While nullification does not mean Wikipedia can not cover it and in fact, the suspension should be covered but our policies are creating a potential BLP violation by not allowing a balanced and accurate presentation of the facts. I would cite WP:IAR as a reason to use Primary documents to accurately state the 3 motions (with zero commentary).Slywriter (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

My problem is primarily with wiping out Wilford's term in the succession box as well as deleting the results of the special election. That is a BLP violation regarding Wilford. His political opponents won and then tried to rewrite history, which we should not allow. Simply stating they nullified it is something else. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

THANK YOU. This is my objection - and the succession box is about official positions, not people's opinions on official positions, and in the official records of the Party, I have been Secretary since 2018. YES, the period of time when John Wilford served should be noted! I never said otherwise, but THAT should be in a footnote, not me. I am being denied an accurate representation of what the Party itself holds to be the succession of its officers because some editor here has it in his head this is "revisionism." Surely the Party is allowed to say who it's officers have been. I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone here even arguing this, and although I know that Wikipedia allows people to not identify themselves by legal names and I am fine with that, I feel like this particular editor is someone who potentially has a political vendetta against me, and perhaps should not be editing my article. I understand this is tough and things get rambunctious, but as a the "living person" who is the subject of this article, I literally have suffered the real life consequence of having my professional life damaged by what happened to me, and all I want is my proper titles recognized and a NPOV account of what happened.Carynannharlos (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

And I want to be clear, I don't think the results of the (now declared to be a false one) special election should be wiped out. That should be part of the NARRATIVE in the article. But it should not be part of the succession box. All of the facts of this unhappy affair (and I cannot even believe that justification being given here is that someone's political opponents won - that is like the definition of political contests) should be in the narrative. This is an incredibly dark period of Party history that cannot be forgotten or wiped out. But in the official succession story of this Party, I was the secretary for the 2018-2020, the 2020-2022 terms, and now for the 2022-2024 term. I was wrongfully denied my seat for a portion of the 2020-2022 term as declared by the delegates. Carynannharlos (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• (Disclaimer: I am a member of the Mises Caucus, so I cannot be considered a truly neutral arbiter, but I've always been able to separate my personal values from my Wikipedia editing, so make of that what you will). That said, I am in conjunction with Slywriter's opinion. Per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." As long as it is worded very carefully, I would say that the body nullifying her removal is straightforward enough that a primary source isn't the worst thing in the world. Regarding the concerns about Wilford, Harlos did not hold the position of secretary for the months she was removed, so even though her removal was later nullified, the standard practice would be to still split her tenure and consider her successor for the original tenure and predecessor for the new one to be Wilford, as he was acting de jure at the time. Curbon7 (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree completely. Stating, without analysis, that the removal and nullification took place is important to communicate historical changes in party leadership. Stating that she was still recognized as secretary in some official way at the time she was out of office is the problem—that would be historical revisionism. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Literally NO ONE is trying to remove references to Wilford entirely. He SHOULD be mentioned *in the article* but you are making false claims about the Party itself in the succession box. I have been declared to have always been the Secretary, I get you don't like that, and I am not upset you don't like that, but to claim that the FACT that I was declared to be Secretary is "historical revisionism" is to be blunt, defamatory revisionism. Just like I said before, that is like claiming someone who was wrongfully in prison and then exonerated was in reality guilty while they were imprisoned rather than wrongfully in prison. Plenty of people disagree with later exonerations, but they don't get to use Wikipedia to continue to claim that person is guilty because not doing so would be "historical revisionism." I have been Secretary since 2018. That is a fact of the Party, and today I will have an official statement from the Party Chair. If that is not a reliable source, that is insane. Also there is no biography of Wilford, so there can be no BLP violation of him - the article is about ME, not Wilford - by not recognizing my rightful title, you are committing a BLP violation against ME who is the actual subject. I am going to give another hypothetical to prove my point. Say at some point in the future, someone is declared to be elected President of the United States but a later court case finds this was not the case (either do to election fraud, miscounting, or for whatever reason), would we say that person was the ACTUAL President of the country in listing the names of the Presidents in the history of our country? No we would not. Yes, he would have been thought to have been so for whatever period of time, but he was not in fact actually President. It is exactly that same thing here. The Party is governed by its bylaws the same way the country is allegedly governed by the Constitution. The bylaws determine rightful officers and my removal was declared to a continuing breach of the bylaws. I was always Secretary. You denying that is the only historical revisionism going on here. Carynannharlos (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If the wrong person was doing the job of the President of the USA for 6 months, we would definitely write about that and include them in the appropriate lists, though I'm sure there'd be some kind of footnote. MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

We also have precedent for this, as this happened quite frequently in downballot races in the US throughout the 1800s. For example, consider the case of Horatio Bisbee Jr. and Jesse J. Finley, wherein every election between 1874 and 1882 was overturned. Curbon7 (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes absolutely should be written about, but they were not the XXth President if null and void. Again, on this point, I can live with it as is as the opening paragraph has been corrected but the official position of the Party that the article is supposed to be about is that I was always Secretary. No matter what some wikipedia editor might think. I thought we were supposed to writing the FACTS of the organization not our opinions on what they should list. But in finale, I can live with it as is. The escalation of the dispute happened when the original editor kept reverting the fact that the decision was voided in the narrative portion. I am not going to get apoplectic over the succession box, I do think the footnote should be clearer once I have the official letter from the Party, but in the interest of resolving this dispute and moving on, I will not argue about the Succession box - I understand the reasoning and can live with it. Carynannharlos (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of this dispute or interest in discussing politics, but for the record, just to help you understand. Wikipedia is written in accordance of what reliable sources can verify, and per WP:PRIMARY, we prefer third party accounts to avoid self-serving or biased accounts or autobiographies. We allow for first party accounts, but only for the most basic, non-contentious content. We allow Nickelback to tell us what year they formed. We don't allow them as a source of how good or popular they were. So the issues you're debating - it's nothing personal, nor is it anything so silly as "not caring about facts", it's merely how we handle things third party sources are preferred as a means of keeping things neutral, and as a metric for whether or not something is worth covering to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Nickelback is objectively terrible. Everyone knows that. Besides that however, I still feel like my point is not being understood (likely my fault) - It is a fact that it is the Party's position that I remained Secretary - it doesn't mean that their position is correct or anyone has to agree with it. One can report the facts of a biased opinion without agreeing with the opinion. Going back to Nickelback, if they said they were the greatest band on earth, the fact of their statement can be reported - they said it - without endorsing the content. But as I said, I can live with the wording now as is - this all started with an edit war I did not ask for, and I want to be sure that it doesn't start back up as I have little interest in constantly monitoring my wikipedia page. Carynannharlos (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If that's your take away, then you're probably missing the point. My point is, if you want it (or anything) in the article, you or someone is going to want to find a third party reliable source that corroborates what you're saying. That's how the website works. You can argue or disagree all you want, but you're just going to to keep falling into the same roadblocks and disputes if you don't change your approach, because that's how the website works.Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I already said I am fine with it as it is now. No idea why you are keeping up a dispute that has been resolved. This is my first and only dispute here in over two decades, I am not a regular, and do not intend to be. I run an LP specific wiki where I spend my time. Carynannharlos (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I generally chime in whenever I see someone start up with misguided "I guess Wikipedia doesn't like FACTS" type arguments when it's really just that they don't understand how the website works. My attempts to get you up to speed have, for whatever reason, seemed to have upset you, so I'll leave you be. Best of luck. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Text sucks to convey emotion. I am not upset. Quite the contrary, the edit war is resolved. Carynannharlos (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

A different editor edited the succession box overnight with a version I think can make everyone happy. It lists the term filled by Mr. Wilford but notes the later voiding - so his tenure is recognized and the voiding is recognized. I think this is a good compromise.Carynannharlos (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Clayton Morris

I can't see evidence that he was convicted of anything but the lead says he was. There's also unsourced material about YouTube, 3 year old material about the families intention to fight allegations (written in the present tense), etc. Doug Weller talk 11:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed that, and the "exiled" part from the lead. Looking for for sourcing now, but there's certainly a lot of people he's upset. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The article is pretty bad right now, as it's basically just an attack piece. The only details in the article are about lawsuits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish not terribly surprising. I guess more detail on his life would help? I looked for discussion of his YouTube Redacted site but couldn't find any. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd probably nominate it for deletion if they weren't a public figure, as the only in-depth coverage I could find seems to be about the real estate issues. I'm not sure about removing the copyright lawsuit. He sued someone else, and there was coverage of that, but the only coverage of the ruling is primary court documents. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Anna Freeman

I recently came across Anna Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which started off under a different title. To comply with MOS:GENDERID I removed the one reference which has the possible dead name in the title, it doesn't mention Anna Freeman anyway. I also removed the link from a (now I guess unneeded) disambiguation page. Do we need to do anything about the authority control links? One of them, the Czech Republic library, only mentions the possible dead name so it seems to me it probably should be removed. The VIAF mentions both names but I assume we normally keep those? Note that because the article started life under the possible dead name, this may suggest the subject was notable under it. However the sourcing at the moment is so poor that frankly it's not clear to me she's notable now, but I know very little about the notability of classical musicians. Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I came across the article from a thread at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#May 31 which I'm avoiding directly linking. As a regular at the RD, I'd prefer someone else to evaluate if anything needs to be done about it given MOS:GENDERID. Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Lelling

Hello - Section 2.3, recently added to this page, is argumentative and unsupported. The same substance was previously removed by a Wikipedia moderator (Nil Einne) in Feb 2022. (I should note that I am the subject of the entry.) As public sources reflect, I announced the cited case against Prof. Gang Chen in January 2021, but I left the U.S. government a month later, on February 28, 2022 (https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/united-states-attorney-andrew-e-lelling-announces-departure). I was not involved in subsequent events (the case being dismissed, etc) and knew nothing about them. The cited sources do not support the contentions in this section - for example (none of this is libelous or defamatory - merely incorrect and unfair criticism):

 - "The handling of the case was widely criticized, as it appeared to criminalize normal academic activities, and the "China ties" Chen was accused of hiding was evidently an MIT collaboration with a Chinese university, which appeared in the news at the time."  The cited article (n.27) (1) says none of this beyond noting the school's collaboration with a Chinese university and (2) the article is an announcement MIT - by the school employing the professor who was charged (that is, it is not a reliable news source).  Finally, the charges against the professor were not based on MIT's collaboration with another school.
 - "MIT president Rafael Reif soon released a letter regarding the case, and pointed out the obvious mischaracterization in the indictment."  There is no support for "obvious mischaracterization," and again the cited source (n.28) is not a news source, much less a reliable one - it is an open letter from the President of the school.
 - "No apology was issued by FBI or Lelling regarding the handling of the case."  When the case was dismissed, I had been gone for over a year and had nothing to do with the decision to dismiss it - the reference to "apologizing" is inapposite, and there is no citation, since this is basically a criticism by the writer.
 - "Chen later came forward and revealed further details about the extent of the mishandling of the case,[31][32][33] indicating that the prosecuting team led by Lelling deliberately hid multiple pieces of obvious evidence that would have negated the charges all together."  The cited sources (n. 31, 32, 33) (a) do not support that I "led" any team, do not support the assertion that any evidence was "hidden," and do not support that any evidence "obviously" exonerated Prof. Chen; and (b) are all statements by the person prosecuted himself, or opinion pieces published on his behalf (again, they are not even technically neutral news sources or other reliable source material).

I understand that people have strong feelings on these issues, but the recently-added subsection is argumentative and factually incorrect, and I had no connection to the underlying events surrounding dismissal of this case. Thank you for your review of this matter. SMaturin99 (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Much of the section has now been reduced with the weight being cited to the NY Times article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, I am not a "moderator" although there's no such thing on Wikipedia anyway. The reduced section is far better than that which I removed. I think it's still complicated by the fact that while the source and IIRC some others do mention Lelling and include critical commentary of the case, it's a general thing rather than explicitly linking Lelling to the problems or discussion his role in depth, indeed the NYT only mentions him twice I think and one of them is relating to him now. However maybe the implicit criticism is enough to warrant inclusion, as he was in charge of something which even he later agreed was problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Beyond sources which more strongly link discuss the involvement of Lelling in the case, as always sources primarily discussing Lelling which mention the case would IMO help to resolve WP:UNDUE concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. The author (WaldenLi) who added the problematic section has now removed the new language fashioned by Morbidthoughts and re-inserted his original, argumentative and unsupported, text. I respectfully ask that the entry be revised again and that WaldenLi be blocked from making further changes. (I should note that I am the subject of the entry.) I suggest one additional change, which is to insert "allegedly" before "singled out" in the new text - the law enforcement initiative (the "China Initiative") that is the subject of this subsection was not designed to target people based on ethnicity, but I acknowledge the arguments of those who say it must have been. Thank you again for the time spent on this issue. SMaturin99 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne, it may be better to shift the section to Lelling's role in the China Initiative rather than focus on specific cases like Chen.[29][30] WP:BLPCRIME most likely requires this since many of the cases were dropped.Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Patrick Constable

• Patrick Constable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aislingrose18 conveys an ostensible request from Constable to remove a reference to a positive drug test and subsequent ban. I'd initially reverted, thinking the sources sufficient, but upon further consideration, I worry they may run afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY. We just have a table from UCI and a press release from Sport Integrity Australia, two primary sources. Even if this survives BLPPRIMARY scrutiny, I think it raises the question of the ethics of including such material on a page that essentially exists to turn some links blue on some tables of competition results. So I've self-reverted for now, and bring this here for others' thoughts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Elite Canadian Championship Wrestling

Elite Canadian Championship Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would appreciate if someone could look at Elite Canadian Championship Wrestling. I removed a large amount of unsourced content--mostly about living wrestlers and managers--and the edit was reverted a few times by User:Mr. C.C.. I left a detailed message on their talk page explaining that it was a BLP violation to continue to reverted edits in order to add back unsourced content about living people. This editor responded that they are working on adding sources, and that it is also my responsibility to add sources the article. This editor has also added various "under construction" tags, but then does not edit the article until the next day, threatening they will report me I keep removing the tags or the unsourced content (they appear to be gaming the system with the "under construction" tags). I have also suggested this editor move the unsourced content to their sandbox while they look for sources. My concern is removing the vast unsourced content about living people that remains in the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced claims again. Mine was the fifth time because you've had to remove them four times already. I also left Mr. C.C. a discretionary sanctions notification and have no issues asking for sanctions if this continues. Woodroar (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Entire content under Elite_Canadian_Championship_Wrestling#History is unsourced. 106.213.247.85 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is the fifth time that Mr. C.C. has restored unsourced claims about living persons, many controversial or negative, at Elite Canadian Championship Wrestling. Mr. C.C. has been warned and been given a discretionary sanctions notification. Admin intervention would be appreciated. Woodroar (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I checked other paragraphs too under Elite_Canadian_Championship_Wrestling#International_success which are mostly unsourced.

Elite_Canadian_Championship_Wrestling#Alumni includes lists of mostly non-notable wrestlers. 106.213.247.85 (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Since User:Mr. C.C. seems to be incapable of stopping edit-warring to re-insert this mostly unsourced and BLP-dubious material, I have removed it myself and p-blocked them from editing the article for six months. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I had no hope that he would cease edit warring. This has solved the biggest problem and now rest of the issues can be discussed at Talk:Elite_Canadian_Championship Wrestling#Sourcing issues. 106.213.247.85 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Can Yaman

"found guilty due to an incident during which he insulted and threw a glass at Selen Soyder, his co-star in the 2016 series Hangimiz Sevmedik.[9][10]"

This is libellous entry which has been several times previously evaluated and sources of the info checked. The source is tabloid press and not the actual court documentation and court outcome. The info is incorrect. Following source checking the information was deemed previously libellous and removed and the contributors who were repeatedly entering the entry for defamatory purposes had been block from contribution to the page and also the page was put under protection. Please check the the talk history for this issue previously experienced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.210.131 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Given the number of sources which say that he was fined 7,830 lire for the offence, even if these are tabloids (and they don't all appear to be), why are they repeating the same "false" information. What in your opinion was the court outcome? Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Mikey Walsh

Author wikipedia page has been targeted by online by online vandalism, false reasons of mass deletion and mass removing of articles, including Wiki approved images

Please provide evidence of anything removed improperly.Slywriter (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

please excuse as not familiar with functions of Wiki. the User:Thurlow0391 has made multiple changes in the last hour, removing several cited articles, removing the profile image that was wiki approved. adding a cite from a far right blog, and claiming that the author themselves has created the page as their reason for mass deletion. so many cited articles removed it has triggered an article requiring notable sources. the vadndalist removed all of them. have undone most of their vandalism but they come back and redo it again. page would probably be helpful to have a kind of lock to stop the targeted vandalism 89.241.224.16 (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism on page from User: Thurlow0391 deleting large amounts of cited links and information based on what appears personal opinion/vendetta of Mikey Walsh have undone their changes but they are quick undone again. they have also triggered a speedy deletion of the page based on a lack on cited information, which they are accountable for deleting. suspending of user, undoing their changes and a lock on this page would be very helpful Charmainetstone93 (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I repeat please identify and show actual policy violations. You not liking their edits is not a policy based reason. Content must be sourced and verifiable.Slywriter (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This is at least the fifth time Walsh's biography is discussed on this forum. I think only this discussion about film adaption is relevant. I objected using Politicalite, which 89.241.224.16 describes as "a far right blog", and removed it in January, but the source has been restored by two different users ([31], [32]), and is currently in the article. Politrukki (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Bernard Donoughue, Baron Donoughue

Bernard Donoughue, Baron Donoughue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of recent edits were made on the basis that he has died but I cannot find it in the media and there is no source, that I can see, in the article. I don't want to screw this up and he is not a young man ... could an experienced BLP operator please take a quick look? Thank you. DBaK (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't find anything, not even any twitter comments (y'know, the usual RIP stuff). It's been nearly a week since the supposed date of death, there would be something. Death must have a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The death of a lord would definitely be reported on to some extent, so it's doubtful at this point. Curbon7 (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the speedy responses. I really appreciate the experienced eyes taking a look. With best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Tejasvi Surya

Tejasvi Surya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please help to resolve 2 questions,

1. Subject is a member of Indian parliament. An editor is removing and suppressing information about his criminal cases, should this information be added? There are multiple reliable sources (national newspapers) discussing his criminal cases. (see Talk:Tejasvi Surya#Police book trespass case against Tejasvi Surya) (Source: Police book trespass case against Tejasvi Surya )

2. There were protests by Human rights org during MPs overseas visit, leading to the cancellation of the subjects talk. Discussed at Talk:Tejasvi_Surya#Protests in Australia against Surya covered by international newspaper in detail. "Indian MP visiting Australia appears to equate Muslim conquest of India with Holocaust". the Guardian. 3 June 2022. Retrieved 5 June 2022. but once again, this user is suppressing the mention in the article calling it WP:UNDUE. --Venkat TL (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• One-off coverage about the things that haven't affected the person's career are simply WP:UNDUE. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Abhishek0831996 (1) where is this rule coming from? (2) this is not one off ok. Venkat TL (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Bronze Age Pervert argument about stating his real name

See bottom thread at Talk:Bronze Age Pervert I didn’t link to it as it mentions a name and I don’t know if it’s correct. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Ruja Ignatova

Ruja Ignatova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm a little concerned about some of the claims that are being made on the page. There are several anonymous editors making claims that appear, to me, to be poorly sourced. In particular, the name of her husband doesn't seem to be reported by most reputable sources but is being listed by some, in my opinion, poor sources. I don't feel particularly competent to assess the quality of the sources and I don't have a huge amount of experience working with BLP. My reading of WP:BLP is "If verifiability is in doubt, remove" but I'd appreciate a second (or third) opinion.--Hazel77 ^talk 20:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed that mainly because of WP:BLPNAME. We don't name family members unless they themselves are notable enough to have their own article, and we most certainly don't link their name to sources about alleged criminal actions as if they are wikilinks in disguise. Zaereth (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Is the widely published name of a home a BLP violation?

The New York Times, Business Insider, the Associated Press, Atlanta Magazine, and others [33] [34][35][36] all report the name of Kelly Loeffler's home as being Descante. Is is a BLP violation to include this name in the article? This is not private personal information per WP:BLPPRIVACY: it is not a cause of identity theft, it is not contact information, it is not original research, it is not self-published. Reywas92^Talk 00:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, multiple users have removed this on BLP grounds. Rather than edit warring, a WP:RFC on the article talk page could get you more eyes over 30 days to gain a consensus for inclusion or exclusion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

At first glance, I don't see what the BLP vio would be, but I also don't really want to start digging through all these source trying to come up with a theory. It's possible that it may be, but what part of policy does it specifically violate? What is your theory? The bigger question I would have is, what does it matter? I mean, were not talking about Graceland here. Why is it important to know what someone named their property? What specifically does this tell the reader about the subject? Unless there is some significance to it, it seems like boring trivia that would better be left out as irrelevant or pointless to the story. Zaereth (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe the objection (WP:BLPPRIVACY) is the name and the city leads to the postal address easy due to Google[37] given the low value of inclusion. This is a good faith objection that should be resolved by consensus for inclusion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I should ask @Bishonen: to confirm though. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I'd have to agree with Masem below. She's a public figure, and as such the expectations of privacy are much lower. But that still doesn't answer the question of why it needs to be in the article. That's a question that should be answered to the reader within the article, because information should be able to demonstrate its own significance, or else it's just trivia. But that's better worked out on the talk page, at an RFC, or maybe at DRN . Zaereth (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what it's doing at this board — did I call the name of the house a BLP violation? (Checks. No.) I removed it for the practical reason that it made it easier for bad actors to find Loeffler, just as you surmise, Morbidthoughts. Of course it's published elsewhere, but Wikipedia is widely read, and why should we risk triggering a reader to go look? Especially as it's uninteresting trivia. Bishonen | tålk 07:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC).

99% sure that for relatively famous PUBLICFIGUREs, you can search and find their address rather easily, named home or not. What we do not want is to give the exact address (city at most in terms of detail), unless the home itself is actually notable. --Masem (t) 01:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't see this being a BLP issue for a PUBLICFIGURE, particularly with the quality of sourcing (Times + AP to start). I also don't see any immediate privacy issues, compared with , say, if Samuel Alito's home was named in the wake of the potential abortion ruling from SCOTUS (and that's a stretch). For a relatively unknown figure, however, this would be something to be concerned about including, but definitely not the case for Loeffler. --Masem (t) 00:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Enlightenment comes from considering why personal information should be included in a BLP article. Exactly what encyclopedic information is provided by naming a person's house, other than leading crazies to politicians' doorsteps? @Reywas92: You will be blocked if you post that information again without the support of an RfC on article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Really, you're going to threaten me with an effing block about something that's been sourced on the article for two years? This is not personal information, it's public information about a public figure, not something Wikipedia needs to be protecting. Is the New York Times leading crazies to DESCANTE and politicians' doorsteps because they published this? The name is not the same as Kelly Loeffler's address, which actually is listed as personal information under WP:BLPPRIVACY. Utter bonkers to think that people would be going to this (no-longer-a-politician's) (fenced-off) house just because of this. Moreover, the WP:STATUSQUO is with the information, and an RFC should be needed to remove it. Reywas92^Talk 01:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO is an essay (see that yellow box in there?) while WP:BLPUNDEL and WP:ONUS are explicit policies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Disputed content in a BLP is treated with a much higher degree of scrutiny, and we generally err on the side of caution. Keep in mind that while BLP works with all other policies, but it ultimately trumps all other policies. That means leaving the disputed content out until consensus is achieved to include. Getting mad isn't going to help your case any. It will only hurt it, and edit warring is never a good way to sway others to your point of view. This is all counterproductive to your goals. As an encyclopedia, we are here to provide a summary of all knowledge, not all knowledge. The very nature of summarizing means cutting out all the boring details and whittling it down to the raw essentials; the nitty gritty. The question is simple. Why should I, the reader, care about this little tidbit of otherwise seemingly useless information? I'd equate it to her favorite cereal, name of her first dog, or her weight and height. Reading it makes me think, wtf? Why am I reading this? What is the point here? Zaereth (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I really don't see how that edit helps not 'lead crazies to politicans doorsteps', since the linked citation lists the name of the estate. Cononsense (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The point is that anyone with an "interest" in a person will read the Wikipedia article but may never see the dozens of other websites that mention the subject. For example, there are several articles about abuse victims where easily discoverable personal information is not in the article. The reason for that is as mentioned above, namely that knowing stuff like where a person (WP:BLP) currently lives has no encyclopedic value (WP:DUE). It does have gossip value, but this is not a gossip site. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Background = Kelly Loeffler talk page thread Personal life (re record residential Atlanta real estate deal, Update. Bishonen did not mention WP:BLPPRIVACY, I and another editor did, I also brought up WP:BLPUNDEL, subsequently others have done so too. I'm glad to see more people agreeing WP:BLP should be followed, but not hopeful that the slightly misleading header will be fixed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This is being talked about by reliable sources. There are multiple reliable sources discussing the connection between the home and the person in detail. The name is widely publicized. It is not an address. The mansion itself would easily pass WP:GNG.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Great. But just because something is found in reliable sources doesn't automatically make it worth including. Lot's of sources discuss what Kim Kardashian had for breakfast this morning, but that's trivial information and not worthy of an encyclopedia. Everyone seems to be avoiding the simple question: why is this important for the reader to know? Seriously, as an outsider who has never heard of the subject before, my mind can easily be changed, but no one is making any argument as to why it needs to be there. The more interesting question is, why is it so important to you? Zaereth (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not. But if you could create an article for the mansion then we'd normally link to that article anyways!Lurking shadow (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Could've, would've, should've. It still doesn't answer the question of why it needs to be in this article. I mean, seriously. I'd like to know. What is the point, because that's what the reader will be asking themselves. If information cannot demonstrate its own importance then its not information at all. It's just useless filler. Zaereth (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If a notable person owns a notable residence I would like to know that and there is clear public interest (and encyclopedic value) in that. Thats clearly not what our BLP protections are for. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it a notable residence? I see no indication of that from reading the article. I mean, I've heard of Graceland and the Ponderosa, but I've never heard of whatever this place is called. To ask it another way, did the story lose anything by removing the name? Or does it read just the same? As an analogy, does the name of a rape victim add anything to the article of a convicted rapist. Or would it read just the same is we simply use a generic term like "victim"? In general, names like these are meaningless to the general reader. Nobody cares about a faceless name. Unless there is a good reason, what is harmed by omitting it? I know it's not a BLP question; that's already been established to my satisfaction (albeit not to everyone else'). But I am curious since nobody seems to be able to answer what is a very basic and simple question. Could it be that it's not necessary? Zaereth (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If you want to make the argument that it's not interesting or necessary, that's fine. But instead people removed it because it was "leading crazies right to politicians' doorsteps" with implications of BLP issues, which has no basis. Reywas92^Talk 21:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

yes, it seems much more like a DUE issue than a BLP issue. I'm wondering if this residence is locally famous. I know for example, of some famous residences where I live (washington d.c), which may be situationally due in articles, but I would struggle to name anything in atlanta. Cononsense (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps that's a valid argument, and also one I'm willing to give serious consideration. But to me, I'd be asking the same question if we were talking about some trivia being added to the capacitor article. Honestly, at this point, for me, it's just a deep curiosity about human nature, because it always fascinates me when people want something so badly yet can't tell anyone why. It's one of those human oddities that comes up ever so often, especially around anything political. Personally, I'm pragmatic, and feel that information is only as good as the results it produces. As someone who's been trained in encyclopedic writing since long before the internet was even a dream in someone's mind, I like to think I have a certain knowledge on what is expected from them. If there is a good reason to include, then wonderful, I'm all for it. If there is not, then it's just useless filler which will only annoy the average reader. The goal should be to give the most information in the fewest words possible, so anything we can cut that is unnecessary is a good thing. If there is a concern of revealing someone's private address, then I am very sympathetic to that concern, especially since there is no "overriding public need", as the SPJ would put it. But my real fascination at this point is why is such a simple dispute over such a tiny, insignificant detail being so blown out of proportion? Zaereth (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

A google search for "Descante" without mentioning the BLP returns immediate results solely for this residence. If thats not a notable residence I don't know what is. Its sale to the BLP subject was the largest single family property transaction in Atlanta history, you can argue thats only of regional significance, but its hard to argue it isn't significant and its impossible to argue that the purchaser of such a property has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The ownership or creation of a notable residence is a significant accomplishment of encyclopedic value, for example an encyclopedia entry about P. T. Barnum would be remiss if it didn't mention Iranistan. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

When I google "Descante" the first two hits I get are about a California company named Descante Design, the third is realtor.com about the house without mentioning the purchaser, the fourth and fifth are references to Portuguese and Spanish dictionaries. So much for the claims re googling. As for the claim that the purchaser had no reasonable expectation of privacy, my idea of "reasonable expectation" is that editors here on WP:BLPN will concern themselves with WP:BLP. It says no "contact information for living persons", it says remove "personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc.", it does not say to ignore "good-faith BLP objections". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Adam Bakri

Looks like nationality warring--subject has self-identified as Israeli-Palestinian, but there seems to be an effort to expunge half of that. More eyes, and page protection if necessary. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:3597 (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:ETHNICITY, the lead should mention his nationalities (preferably citizenship) over ethnicity but with the support of RS. How do RS generally describe him? Does he hold an Israeli or Palestinian passport or both? Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Paul Pelosi

Paul Pelosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a unique situation involving WP:PUBLICFIGURE. A person who is now a public figure, Paul Pelosi, was charged with a crime way back in 1957, when he was not a public figure. The event was reported at the time in just one local newspaper, the San Francisco Examiner. My attempt to add this information to the Palosi article has been reverted because WP:PUBLICFIGURE asks for "multiple reliable third-party sources". In the past week, after Pelosi was charged with another driving offense, the 1957 charge was unearthed, and was widely reported in conservative media, most of which are blacklisted at WP:RSP. Mainstream media did not report it, perhaps because Paul is married to Nancy Pelosi. The incident happened--way back in 1957--when it was just another car accident involving a teenager. Do we follow common sense and exempt this one from the strict requirements of WP:PUBLICFIGURE? Your input at Talk:Paul Pelosi#David Pelosi would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Jerome Laxale

There is a current discussion on this page with another editor who is wanting to include exhaustive detail about a story that is just allegations at this stage and reported by mostly tabloid sources in conservative media. I have been accused of censorship and sanitising the information, but am merely wanting not to place undue weight on a story that does not warrant more than a passing mention at this stage as its mostly gossip from anonymous sources published from only one side of the political spectrum. Would appreciate some more input or contributions to the discussion to help establish some consensus as to the right way forward here, given the history (and future risk) of edit warring on this page.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I have attempted to clean up some of the language to make it concise and clearer. In general, each contentious detail that is to be included must be supported by multiple reliable sources per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Great work, I agree with your changes, thanks.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)