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.

Ongoing issues in Billy Mitchell biography

Since late July, administrator Sergecross73 has taken a series of administrative actions that appear to me to lower the quality of Wikipedia's Billy Mitchell biography and present Mitchell in a significantly worse light than he'd otherwise be presented. Yesterday Sergecross73 closed five relevant discussions and removed them from the article's talk page. I've been planning to make further contributions to those discussions as time allows, and I'm wondering whether there's a way to have them restored to the talk page and reopoened. Thanks for your time. 208.53.226.179 (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Archiving discussions is a way of keeping the page accessible to users. Per WP:TALKCOND you are technically allowed to unarchive a discussion if you feel it was archived prematurely. However, if your goal is to promote more discussion, then you should probably let the old threads die and start a new thread for your comments. Also: make sure that you're not just tilting at windmills. If the previous consensus was against you, adding more commentary isn't going to change anything. Nblund ^talk 16:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, there's a lot of nonsense related to Mitchell and a few others coming from forums, etc. that are clearly not going to be included until reported in RSes (which given the type of comments being made -- no they will not). Mitchell is a controversal figure and we documenting the stuff that can be reported (removed high scores, etc.) but the discussions that were closed and archived were no longer about stuff that would be going on the main space page. Sergecross was fully right to archive those and restore order. --Masem (t) 16:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. And yes, there’s very little in active dispute after the page has been protected too. The IP just likes to talk circles and argue and cast aspersions. They refuse to suggest specific requests with specific changes, it’s most off-topic rambling and complaining. Every time, it’s “okay, make a request edit-request style about what it should be then”, and every time they refuse and keep complaining. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again to Nblund and Masem for your time. Since July, editor Wallyfromdilbert has made a series of revisions that seem to present Mitchell in the worst light he thinks he can get away with, and administrator Sergecross73 has taken a series of administrative actions to ensure that Wallyfromdilbert never has to clarify the reasons for those revisions or engage in any back-and-forth discussion whatsoever. Removing the linked discussion of apparent WP:NEUTRAL violations from the talk page is only one recent example. Per Wikipedia's protection policy WP:PP, temporary semi-protection may be applied to pages subject to edit warring only when all parties involved are unregistered or new editors, and not when autoconfirmed users are involved. Setting aside the fact that the page hasn't been subject to edit warring, the policy says explicitly that semi-protection shouldn't be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in content disputes. Sergecross73 has repeatedly violated that policy by using semi-protection to privilege Wallyfromdilbert over IP editors, citing a dubious or absurd pretext for doing so each time. Per Wikipedia's talk page guidelines WP:TPG, I'm tentatively planning to unarchive discussions of these matters that Sergecross73 has archived prematurely and make further contributions to those discussions as time allows. Does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, the page was first protected because this person (under various IP) were edit warring without a consensus for their change. The second protection came after this person, right after protection ended, forced their new proposal (more or less the same thing) into the article without consensus and was immediate reverted by another. The proposal not only has zero support, but was proposed and rescinded over the course of two days and zero input, so it was just continuing the same edit warring without consensus. The third and current protection is largely from IPs unrelated to this one and their blatant vandalism. Most of the subsequent discussions are just the IP coming up with bizarre theories as to why everyone is out to get him or the subject, when it’s as basic as what I outlined above. To be clear, I have made zero edits to the article outside protection, and have no views on the subject other than policies need to be followed. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: In the discussions you've removed from the talk page, you repeatedly indicate that you object to my initial contributions to the "Personal life" section because they consist of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflect a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach. As I've asked you no fewer than eight times in those same removed discussions, would you say the modified content I proposed also consists of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflects a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach? It's a straightforward yes-or-no question. Either you'd say it does, or you wouldn't. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. I did not object or revert you at any point. You asked for input as to why people objected to your additions. I gave some advice that it appeared disconnected from the subjects notability, and gave the advice that perhaps if you could tie your information into the subjects notability better, people would accept it. I did not object to your proposed compromise (nobody did, you rescinded it before anyone commented and never re-proposed it.) My comments on how you seemed to think you could “write whatever you want” was in reference to your repeated edit-warring. Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: No, your talk-page comments don't say others object to my initial contributions because they appear disconnected from the subject's notability. Those comments explicitly claim, in your own voice, that "it’s just completely disconnected ideas". And as I've explained to you over and over and over, I undid exactly one (1) revision to the article without attempting to improve the content. I only did so to call attention to the fact that Wallyfromdilbert and another editor were repeatedly obliterating my contributions while refusing to clarify their objections or engage in any back-and-forth discussion whatsoever, and I don't see how a reasonably honest and intelligent administrator could continue to construe that as "edit warring". 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Fundamentally false. The page history doesn’t lie:

• You made the edit
• An editor other than myself reverted per “ WP:TRIVIA WP:UNDUE because it has 100% of *nothing* to do with this subject”
• You added it a second time
• A second editor, still not me, or the first person, reverts you saying “ this family information is unnecessary trivia that is not relevant to a biography for Mitchell. as per WP:BRD, please gain consensus on the talk page before reinserting the content, especially when it has been removed by different editors“
• You add it a third time without consensus
• You are reverted again, with the comment “Please wait for consensus on the talk page before reinserting your content”
• I protected the page

It doesn’t get any more clear than that. That is textbook edit warring, with editors clearly expressing that your content was not important to the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: No, that isn't what happened. After a discussion on the talk page prompted me to spend nearly two hours of research improving the sources, Wallyfromdilbert completely removed those sources here, and another editor removed the text itself here. I restored the sources and added new, significantly improved text here. The second editor objected to my use of the word "fame" as a violation of WP:OR and removed all but one sentence of the new content, as well as an additional paragraph of previously included content, here. The sources he removed directly contradict his claim that the content "has 100% of *nothing* to do with this subject". A day later, after five intermediate revisions, I made another contribution of new, improved text and references. Among other changes, I replaced the reference to "fame" with an explicitly sourced reference to "semi-celebrity" status and an in-line citation. As you can see from the comparison here, your claim that I'd merely added the same content a second time is blatantly false. My edit summary noted that the information was reliably sourced and that there was a relevant discussion on the talk page. At that point, while refusing to discuss the matter further on the talk page, Wallyfromdilbert completely obliterated my contributions and instructed me to "please gain consensus on the talk page before reinserting your content". Not knowing what other options were available, I directly undid that one (1) edit without attempting to improve the content. My edit summary pointed out that my contributions of reliable sources had been prompted by discussion on the talk page, and that Wallyfromdilbert was removing and ignoring those sources, and that the other editor was refusing to join the discussion at all. The diff is here. You say correctly that Wallyfromdilbert reverted my edit again with another instruction to "wait for consensus on the talk page", and you say correctly that you immediately added semi-protection to the page, but your claim that my revisions were "textbook edit warring" is absurd. In the discussions you've removed from the talk page, you explicitly claim, in your own voice, that my contributions to the "Personal life" section are "just completely disconnected ideas". Would you say the modified content I proposed also consists of "completely disconnected ideas"? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

How can you say “that’s not what happened”? I just gave you direct quote proof through difs. It’s plain and simple. Two editors opposed your edits. I just tried to throw you a bone and explain to you why they disagreed with you, and instead of trying to understand, you just kept arguing with me all the time, no matter how many times I’d try to explain to you that I’m not the one you have to convince. It’s just been one long case of WP:IDHT. Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Your claim that I haven't tried to understand is untrue, and from my perspective you appear to be the one who's refusing to get the point. As you can see from the comparison here, which I'd provided in my previous comment above, your claim that I'd merely added the same content a second time in that revision is blatantly false. As I've explained to you over and over, I undid exactly one (1) revision to the article without attempting to improve the content, and I only did so to call attention to the fact that Wallyfromdilbert and another editor were repeatedly obliterating my contributions while refusing to clarify their objections or engage in any back-and-forth discussion whatsoever. I don't see how a reasonably honest and intelligent administrator could continue to construe that as "edit warring". In the discussions you've removed from the talk page, you explicitly claim, in your own voice, that my initial contributions to the "Personal life" section are "just completely disconnected ideas". Would you say the modified content I proposed also consists of "completely disconnected ideas"? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple unrelated editors have told you it’s best to keep the discussions archived, so this makes it rather clear that you’re more concerned about arguing and complaining than engaging in constructive discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As I'd asked above, does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I archive discussions because they ran for months and lead to zero constructive changes. They constantly devolve into arguing and off-topic ramblings. Furthermore, the IP addresses refuse to use the WP:EDITREQUEST system, and have a very hard time suggesting specific changes with specific sources, so editors rarely make changes on their behalf. It is their own fault that they never get anywhere. The messages were archived in hopes that more constructive discussions would come from it. The IPs have yet to learn that it’s rare to get new participation, or anyone reading it at all, when you add the twentieth multi-paragraph dissertation in a discussion thread. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: We agree that the discussions have often been driven off-topic by rambling comments, but we disagree about which of us is making them. My comments tend to be longer than yours mainly because correcting lies is more difficult than telling them. You keep pushing me to make formal edit requests, but you assure me that those requests will be "inevitably rejected" before you even know what they are. It really doesn't seem reasonable to trust you as the mediator of any discussion in which I'm a participant. Regarding your suggestion that I "have a very hard time suggesting specific changes with specific sources", let me provide this link to the proposed compromise that ultimately deprived me of the ability to assume good faith in our discussions. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I said that an edit request based off of that particular proposal would inevitably fail. And I stand by it - you wanted to make BLP edits according to social media handles and a free Intellius report. Those aren’t reliable sources. But there’s no rational reason why that comment should keep you from ever trying to use the system even once. That ludicrous reasoning. Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: No, I hadn't made any "particular proposal" there, much less a formal edit request, and your response assures me that my "WP:EDITREQUESTs" (plural) will be "inevitably rejected". Your claim that I wanted to make BLP edits according to social media handles and a free Intelius report is absurd. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

You’re missing the point. The general idea of me commenting on the fact that one singular thing you spoke about would not be successful as an edit request is not a rational reason to never try a single edit request at any point about any particular subject. Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: From my perspective you appear to be the one who's missing the point. When you level false accusations against me and assure me that my formal edit requests will be "inevitably rejected" before I've even made one, it really doesn't seem reasonable to trust you as the mediator of any discussion in which I'm a participant. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I have to ask, do you have a COI? Because the "proposed compromise" reeks of what someone with a COI would write. It's definitely not a good solution for the article whatever the problems it may have. (Hint, this is an article on Billy Mitchell the father. Not an article on how his son is the best American footballer in the world or whatever.) And since you chose to give it as your example of when you proposed changes but were rejected, you're making me and probably others think you don't actually have good suggestions for improving the article. (Although to be fair, you almost definitely had a point on the sister issue. But this seems to have been resolved since I find no mention of a sister in the current article suggesting that the genuine problems are being resolved and your complaints over them being ignored are largely without merit.) While you're not required to disclose a COI unless it crosses into WP:PAID territory, on a personal level I may be inclined to help someone with a COI if they are honest in some ways that's one of the cornerstones of BLP. But not so much when they chose to hide it, I just can't be bothered especially when the evidence suggests their complaints are mostly without merit. Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: No, I don't have a conflict of interest. I'm a history buff with a side interest in recreational coin-op. In November of 2015, the NBC affiliate in West Palm Beach ran a feature story on the parallels between Billy III's football career and Billy Jr's competitive gaming career. WPTV News reported, among other things, that Billy Jr had turned down an invitation to a gaming convention in Australia because he refused to miss one of Billy III's football games. As I've pointed out on the article's talk page, multiple reliable sources indicate that Billy III's football career is directly relevant to Billy Jr's biography and personal life, and no one has provided a clear, policy-based reason for removing that information from the article. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Two separate editors (not me) pointed out that his family has no real connection to his notability and objected to its inclusion. You have failed to persuade either, or garner any addition support from anyone else, that it is important enough to include. As such, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOCONSENSUS are the policies that keep it out of the article. And you haven’t opened another discussion about it since like ...July or August, so you have no right to complain. Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

To the IP editor, did you make this edit [1]? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Yes, Wikipedia had Mitchell's date of birth wrong for more than five years, and before I corrected it, I'd sent his daughter a direct message on Twitter to make sure I had it right. It's the only time we've ever communicated. Did you make these edits? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: The article included information about Mitchell's family for more than four and a half years, and that information was only removed after a discussion on the talk page prompted me to spend nearly two hours of research improving the sources. Would you say Wallyfromdilbert had a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of completely removing the information? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I was avoiding this discussion because I sort of predicted the reply and frankly couldn't be bothered dealing with it. 208.53.236.34 what you said is relevant to discussion over inclusion over certain content but I already read that before you replied and it made no difference. It's completely irrelevant to what I was getting at. I never said there could be zero mention Billy III's career. I simply said the content you proposed was excessively promotional and reeked of what someone with a COI would suggest. I gave you a hint, but was intentionally vague to see if you would get it but you didn't.

There's a big difference between mentioning his son's career, and mentioning how he is the best footballer in the world. Here's another hint, if you need 2 different sources to establish that someone is a kicker and punter, one of which also mentions the all-state part, and none of them reference the subject of the article in any way (from what I can tell), maybe this is a sign it's sufficiently irrelevant to encyclopaedic content on the subject. I'm not even sure where "all-finals, top-100 national prospect" comes from as I didn't see it in any of those four sources but maybe it's implied by something else said as I know next to nothing about American football.

In other words, maybe there's justification to mention something about his involvement in his son's career, but that's quite a different thing from trying to convince people 'his son is the best American footballer in the world or whatever' (as I said). Yes it sounds like his son was fairly successful at American football and I'm sure he was proud and happy about that, and did his best to support his son, but that doesn't mean such level of detail on his son's achievements merits inclusion in the article. Even the bit about "raising three kids" seems unnecessary. There's likely merit to mention he has children and how many. But it's not generally necessary to mention something like that, as people understand it from the fact he has children and the article doesn't say he wasn't involved in their early lives. Ultimately what you proposed is the sort of flowery language I expect to read on the blurb of someone's book or when they are a guest speaker or something like that, not in an encyclopaedic article.

The fact you can't see this, and still couldn't even after a hint was offered along with everything else you've said in this thread is a good sign to me that despite your lack of a COI, you're tool emotionally involved to make a good editor here. Given your interests, there must be plenty of other articles you can edit. I suggest you move on to them. Once you get experience in how things work around here in situations where you aren't so emotionally involved, maybe you will be able to propose changes which aren't so terrible on this article.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Anyway regardless of any COI, if you want to make changes to the article, you should start off with making simply proposals for change on the article talk page. You need to give the actual wording you want, not just random stuff other sources say. But think carefully about the wording since ultimately if it's too promotional or simply too long, people are likely to just say so and not bother to work with you to fix it given how much time you seem to have already wasted on the talk page. Also make sure you have reliable sources cited in line and supporting whatever you are proposing. We clearly aren't going to use a Twitch livestream of an event as a sole RS for any information. It's pointless telling people there is a source but you didn't cite it, you need to actual cite this in your proposed change. In other words, your proposed change needs to be the sort of thing someone could just copy and paste into the article and be done with it. If it isn't, don't be surprised if your requests are mostly ignored given the aforementioned reason. Once you've learnt how to do this successfully, maybe you will be able to make more substantive proposals for change. Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Sincere thanks for your time. For the record, I've made formal edit requests before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:21, October 23, 2019 (UTC)

If it helps, and I sincerely mean this to help you, I have no idea what you all are bickering about here, and I think that may be a big part of the problem there as well. Normally I could go to the history and look for the disputed changes, and that would explain everything, but whatever this is has been going on slowly and intermittently for a long time, so that isn't going to work. All I can glean from this discussion is that you have a problem with certain editors that you seem to think is some sort of conspiracy against you. Do I have that right?

I'd suggest taking Nil Einne's advice, and tackle this one change at a time. Be very specific about what it is you want changed, what your reasoning is for making the change ( the problem), what your proposed solution is, and why. Especially keep that in mind when coming to a noticeboard like this for outside help, because the rest of us may not easily see what ever's got you all worked up. I'm no fan of archiving talk pages, because many of my ideas for improvements come directly from old discussions I've read and agreed with, disagreed with, or just contained questions I could answer (whatever starts my engine). But sometimes it's necessary just to stop the bickering. I'm not likely to scour through the archives, and if you un-archive them I'm not likely to read a long, convoluted discussion like the one above, so you may best to start over and spell it out carefully. Zaereth (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Thanks for your time. To answer your question, I'm not sure it's a conspiracy, but I mainly have a problem with an administrator, Sergecross73, who's taken a series of administrative actions to ensure that editor Wallyfromdilbert never has to clarify the reasons for his anti-Mitchell revisions or engage in any back-and-forth discussion whatsoever. Do you know whether Wikipedia has any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Outside of your own comments, which show you obviously have a very poor grasp of policy on general, what part of anyone else’s comments In this discussion would indicate to you that I’m not only in the wrong, but so wrong that I need my adminship revoked? Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Well, Wallyfromdilbert is still steadfastly refusing to discuss the actual substance of his anti-Mitchell revisions and apparent WP:NEUTRAL violations, but he chimed in here with this comment, presumably to discredit me personally by insinuating that I have a conflict of interest. That, among many other things, would indicate to me that you need your "adminship" revoked. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

While you're entitled to edit from an IP including one that changes frequently, if you're going to do so, you should expect confusion over precisely who in the discussion is you and who isn't. If you want to avoid this, I suggest registering an account. Nil Einne (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

208.53.236.34 The most recent edit request I can find for Billy Mitchell whether in the archives or page history seems to be in 2012 so I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. But in any case, I can only assume you weren't very successful with your edit requests or we wouldn't be here. Note that I wasn't simply suggesting that you make edit requests, but proposing a way to be successful at it.

Let me repeat, start with simple (yes I typoed simply) requests which lack excessive promotional language and which are clearly uncontentious. Make sure there are inline citations to reliable sources. Someone needs to be able to directly copy your proposal. Your proposed compromise is actually a decent example of the formatting; except as I said above it includes excessive promotional details about someone who isn't even the article subject amongst other problems making it unsuitable for the article.

As I also said above, I actually think the best solution would be for you to move away from this article for now. But if you genuinely want to stay there then I've given a suggested way forward. Further, if your so sure other editor's are a big problem, then demonstrating this by make simple reasonable edit requests and having them ignored should be easy. At the very least, if other editors are a problem but not holding up simple reasonable changes, then you're improving the article and dealt with a big problem arising from the protection.

As it stands, you're complaining about how terrible everyone else is, but then when any of us visits the article talk page we see a lot of problems coming from you. Like the promotional language issues. Or the fact that you seem to complain that content was removed for being unsourced, when it was as the only source was a Twitch VOD. and when people point this out instead of saying something like 'you're right there was a problem here's how I propose we fix it' with a simple proposal for sourced content, you instead start bringing up random other sources which were not in the removed content. In fact, in the end, you still seemed to be hoping someone else would follow up on it, rather than making a simple proposal to reinclude some relevant content, and you still seemed to not understand we weren't going to use details only sourced to the Twitch VOD. Even randomly quoting stuff some online non paywalled source said is not that useful, far better to make simple, carefully worded proposals for changes based on these sources. (If it was an offline source or maybe a paywalled one, there would probably be more merit to including quotations to discuss what, if anything, to include in the article based on them. Although even then someone would have to actually write the sourced text for our article and if no one else is doing so, then you will need to.) And I haven't even mentioned the off-topic comments like those on editors or fighting over past disputes. (Yes maybe others did the same thing sometimes, but the number and length of your posts means your role in that problem is hard to ignore.) So so it's hard for us to see what you seem to be seeing with your complaints about others.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there someone following the discussion on this noticeboard who can tell me whether Wikipedia has formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you really not see a pattern here? These discussions go on for weeks and you never get anywhere. You never persuade anyone of any misconduct. Everyone tells you that you’re going about things the wrong way. You ignore them. You keep arguing. You keep doing the same thing. And you keep getting no where. And you blame everyone but yourself. It’s unreal. You just don’t get it. I’ve been here 11 years and I don’t I’ve ever come across this strong of a WP:IDHT case as this. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Yes, I see a pattern here, but your claim that I blame everyone but myself is untrue. I mainly just blame you. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. See WP:TLDR. This noticeboard if for reporting and discussing BLP violations. I see nothing in this discussion that pertains to BLP. If you have a problem with certain editors, then I'd suggest taking it to an administrator's noticeboard, such as WP:AN or WP:ANI. Those are the types of places to report problem editors. However, if conversations there are as lacking in substance as here, then I highly doubt you'll gain any traction there either. Honestly, this is like watching an episode of Jerry Springer, where after about 2 minutes my ears are ringing and I can't change the channel fast enough.

Personally, I don't give a crap about accusations or insinuations. I might be inclined to help if you could convince me of whatever the underlying issue is here, but I've seen no attempt to do that. From what I can tell, this whole discussion amounts to, "Did not." "Did so." "I know you are but what am I?" My advice is, just let this section finally die and go the archives, because no one here is taking an interest. Prepare a proper, precise yet concise argument about whatever it is that is the cause of all this, and take it to the proper noticeboard. Keep in mind that your goal should be to convince others that your position is the correct one, not that everyone else is wrong or out to get you, because that just begins to sound like paranoid delusions. And if that fails, you can try mediation or even arbitration, but in the end, if your argument fails to convince others, you may just have to accept that consensus may well be against you. Zaereth (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Sincere thanks for your time and advice. As I've explained above, editor Wallyfromdilbert has made a series of revisions to Wikipedia's Billy Mitchell biography that seem to be presenting Mitchell in the worst light he thinks he can get away with, and administrator Sergecross73 has taken a series of administrative actions to ensure that Wallyfromdilbert never has to clarify the reasons for those revisions or engage in any back-and-forth discussion whatsoever. Removing the linked discussion of apparent WP:NEUTRAL violations from the talk page is only one recent example. If you want to see a few examples of the underlying content issues, following that link would probably be a good place to start. For the record, I believe the article's talk page would have been a better place for this discussion, but it's extremely discouraging when Sergecross73 arbitrarily closes and removes discussions there. I'm sorry if you've already attempted to answer this, but do you know whether Wikipedia has any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

To the IP editor: Please stop pinging me or making false accusations against me. If you have a problem with my behavior, then bring it to ANI or another appropriate noticeboard. Your behavior towards me is inappropriate, and you have already been warned about it. The only reason I have not brought you to ANI myself is because Sergecross73 has been trying to give you a chance. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Against my better judgment, I'm going to try one more time, although I have a feeling no matter how many times people answer your questions you'll just keep asking. You keep saying the same things over and over. "Wally made a series of revisions that seem bad and Sergecross seems to be helping him out." I get it. I don't care. This is the wrong noticeboard to report that stuff, so nobody cares. Removing an admin from adminship is called desysopping. It's a huge process that is beyond any of our abilities, but must be a community effort. I told you where to go and how to start the process and warned you that it will likely WP:BOOMERANG if you maintain this approach. Asking the same questions over and over is not going to get you any new answers. I think it was Einstein who said (something like) idiocy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. All you've given is your opinions what things seem, and expect us to go digging for the evidence ourselves. Sorry, I've got better things to do than your legwork. If you want anyone here to take an interest, first we need to know what the disputed revision is. Then you need to tell us what part of WP:BLP it violates. Then you need to tell us what you propose we should do to fix the problem. And you are best to present them one revision at a time, not all at once. If you just ask the same questions again I'll archive this section myself. Zaereth (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

208.53.236.34 I've left 3 replies to you inline above. I'm noting them here since I cannot ping you as an IP and it's been a while since the comments I replied to. Nil Einne (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Wang Zheng (pilot)

The "Lawsuits" section of this BLP about me Wang Zheng (pilot) violates several important Wikipedia policies by allowing contentious, poorly sourced material, much of which is original research and/or primary source content, some from court filings, all contributed by an interested/conflicted party, to be used by that interested party as the basis to smear me on Wikipedia. Please help me to stop it.

There are now five paragraphs of material in this section, ALL OF IT posted by the woman (or her proxies) trying steal my record and title, Chen Jingxian, in a 2016 around-the-world flight event that she lost (to me). There is a $160,000 cash prize that was awarded to me but which still has not been paid, and for which Chen has now applied, hoping she can cast the bona fides of my flight into doubt, to steal the prize and rewrite aviation history. Chen and her proxies should be disqualified from editing this page with respect to the issues that she is seeking to influence with her editing under WP:COI.

As an initial matter, some of the contents Chen has posted on the page is about lawsuits my husband is or was involved in, obtained simply by reviewing county court records. It is simply "outing" and smearing him based on allegations taken directly from county court records, which practice Wikipedia policy prohibits. Those references should be immediately removed.

The rest of the material concerns a supposed "controversy" about who is the first Chinese woman to fly around the world, a fact that is not in dispute by anyone else in the world except for Chen. Chen points to a supposed statement of event sponsor Wei Chen in mid-2018, saying that despite awarding me the event prize of $160,000 on November 1, 2016, at a public ceremony, he now wasn’t sure whether or not I’d actually flown around the world in 2016.

Chen is now dead and whether he made the statement or not will never be known. But Chen’s statement not only is hearsay and original research (it was only picked up in the Palm Beach Post because Chen’s lawyer repeated the hearsay statement to the journalist (who correctly reported it as coming from Chen’s attorney) but, in any event Wei Chen’s statement came almost immediately after my lawyers sued him, as a defense to a California lawsuit seeking to collect the event prize of $160,000, which Chen never paid. The Palm Beach Post article cited as the source, moreover, was written without any original research, relying nearly exclusively on statements and legal pleadings supplied by Chen and her just hired Boca Raton lawyer, who has no first-hand knowledge of the 2016 flight event or its aftermath. In fact, going to the PBP article shows that the statement is unverifiable hearsay being reported by Chen's boca Raton lawyer. It is hearsay upon hearsay, by definition unreliable, and no other media in the U.S. has reported it, unlike when I flew around the world and my flight was covered by the Palm Beach Post, Miami Herald, T.C. Palm (Stuart), U.S.A. Today, AOPA, Aero-News, FOX25, and others.

Bottom line is that Chen Jingxian is using Wikipedia and the Wikipedia platform to defame me, contrary to Wikipedia’s rules on BLP, primary sources, original research and protecting the privacy of individuals, by making it appear that I've initiated lots of litigation and am involved with my husband in fraud surrounding my world flight. Anyone can go through the supposed “reliable” sources to see that her claims originate with her and by her, and are then reported in a local news source by commissioning a writer to do her work. Other of the sentences are false and unsupported by any source and should be removed on that basis alone.

Below are the specific WP rules applicable to BLP I believe prohibit most or all actually of what is in the “lawsuits” section of my article, and take precedence over general principles like the LUC (which one editor relies on for not making any changes to the section).

WP:NOR No original research:

WP:BLP All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[

WP: SOURCES Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.

WP:BLPPRIMARY Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

WP:PUBLIC FIGURE If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.65.210.8.4 (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I think you're right about the court documents and will remove them momentarily. I see no reason for them to be in the article. They are not being used to clarify some mistake or oversight made by a secondary source. Per BLPPRIMARY I think they should go.

I'll take your word that you are indeed the subject. What I fear is that Wikipedia is being used to further this dispute, which is not what we are here for. If fact, that is your goal, which is contrary to our purpose, which is why COI rules exist. And given that the writing style in the article almost exactly matches your own, I'd say that there is good reason to suspect some COI on all counts. This is not a court so you can dispense with the legal jargon, like "hear-say". We are only concerned with reliable source-say.

The Palm Beach Post article is actually a very well-written article. Very professional and neutral. Ironically, the one great source, while making a point about how passionate you and Chen both feel about this, really focuses on how ludicrous this all is to the rest of us. For example, to quote: "“This record and ones like it are absurd,” said Henry Holden, an aviation historian and author who established a website to chronicle women’s achievements in aviation. Desperate for notoriety, pilots are inventing ridiculous records, he said. “There are so many ‘firsts’ being claimed that it might get to, ‘The first woman pilot to wear purple socks in the cockpit,’” Holden said, crediting the joke to Captain Lori Griffith, a commercial pilot who was the co-author of two of his books." Unfortunately, that is the real story here, and that is what the article should reflect, not about who is wrong or right but in how ridiculous this all seems to those outside your little world. That's what the gist of the source says, so we should focus on that and not cherry-pick the trivial details we think makes it better or worse in court. Zaereth (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Zaereth for the attention to my request. I disagree with your assessment of the Palm Beach Post article since you focus on that it is "a very well written article." Whether it is well-written or not is beside the point. As you correctly point out, it is the reliability of the source that is what matters. When dealing with biographies of living persons moreover the Wikipedia policy makers stress over and over again the heavy presumption against inclusion of poorly or unsourced material -- especially contentious material, which is exactly what we are dealing with here. There is no evidence anywhere of my flight being a fraud.

https://www.wfmj.com/story/40989652/palm-beach-post-ignores-public-data-of-pilots-global-circumnavigation-flight-as-it-publishes-unsubstantiated-claims-from-court-filings

Only one person is saying so and that person is seeking to cash in on a $160k prize that was awarded to me in 2016 and which I sued for in 2018. If that is not a COI then what is? The Palm Beach Post article doesn't qualify as a reliable source standing on its own -regardless of the quality of the writing - because the article was commissioned by Chen and her lawyer, and the reporter based everything she wrote about on what Chen's lawyer told her, including the statement by Chenwei that he didn't know whether or not I'd actually flown around the world. What Wikipedia editors seem to do is give lip service to the WP policy that contentious material about BLPs should not make its way into articles and BLPs privacy rights should be protected when in doubt, i.e., that there is less harm in erring on the side of exclusion.

I agree that WP is not the place to further any real world dispute on the WP platform but that means the WP editors must apply WP policy to ban such prohibited uses. If you carefully read the "Lawsuits" section you will see that none of the material was supplied by me, and you can't say I'm using the section to further the dispute. (I'm winning in court -- read below) Who then is responsible for misusing WP to further her private agenda. The entirety of it is done by Chen and her proxies with the sole purpose and intention of casting me and my husband in a false light in the service of taking the prize and title from me. It will never happen, primarily because the "fraud" she alleges is pure fiction and also because her allegations were comprehensively repudiated by a Beijing Court who tried Chen's China case against me and recently decided 100% in my favor, rejecting each and every allegation of Chen's complaint, and entering final judgment dismissing the complaint.

https://www.finanzen.ch/nachrichten/aktien/record-setting-pilot-wang-zheng-wins-trial-verdict-dismissing-libel-suit-by-ninety-nines-china-governor-saki-chen-jingxian-102861980r

The fact is that the PBP article is poorly sourced, relying as it does almost exclusively on what Chen's attorney told the reporter. Even the story lead, reporting that I initiated the "legal battle," is false. In fact, Chen initiated the legal battle by suing me, my husband, and Sina Weibo in China, on July 17, 2017, four months before I sued her in New York. (Here is the link to the complaint in Chen's original China lawsuit - Document #42, the date is on the last page. Docuemnt's one and two show the date that lawsuit was filed, November 11, 2017, four months later.)

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=5rtBAtIXg_PLUS_16ElR56V6RRQ==&system=prod. So, for starters, the entire first paragraph constitutes unsourced material and must be taken down accord.

The article's author, moreover, is biased in favor of Chen, of course, since Chen's attorney commissioned the article, which was a hit piece on me, nearly exactly the same article Chen had a journalist in her hometown write in mid-2018, with the nearly identical title, as the original vector to put Chen Wei supposed statement about not knowing either I’d flown around the world or not into Wikipedia via a reliable source.

So the second paragraph of the "Lawsuits" Section has 2 problems -the first is that the lawsuit was decided 100% in my favor and second, but no less important, is that the lead sentence "Chen Wei, the first Chinese aviator to circumnavigate the globe, put up a prize. . . " for which there is no citation, is false.

The earthrounders.com registry of around-the-word flights shows that Jeffrey Ying is the first person from China to circumnavigate the globe. http://www.earthrounders.com/singles.php Accordingly, that paragraph too must come down.65.210.8.4 (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for coming around and trying to get this taken care of the right way. The page was originally written by editor(s) with a close connection to the subject (and little understanding of our policies) which meant it read as a puff piece rather than an encyclopedia article. It was later vandalized by editor(s) with an opposite viewpoint. I'd love to help you clean up that article and rewrite it from a neutral perspective. see WP:RS for what counts as a reliable source on Wikipedia. You can respond on the talk page; {U|Zaereth}} and I will see it and other editors will probably be happy to join in if you can show where reliable information is to be found. Hydromania (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound overly harsh, but I'm just going by the sources. By "well-written" I'm not referring to simply the grammar and prose but in the sense that it follows all the good practices of journalism. If you like, I can provide you with several very good sources on journalism and on assessing the reliability of sources. For example, this source, that you provided as proof of the Palm Beach Post's unreliability, is not a news article but an opinion/editorial piece. As such, it is not a reliable source for anything but the author's opinion. In addition, the PBP story it is supposedly trying to debunk is not even the same one as used in the article, and may well be another opinion piece from the PBP. (Every newspaper had op/ed pieces mixed in with the real news.) I don't know, but it is certainly not relevant to this discussion. I stand by my assessment of the PBP source that's actually used in the article. It doesn't take sides and is just reporting on the lawsuits more than anything else, so I highly doubt anyone paid them to print it.

I agree that the section does have problems. Lots and lots of problems. I don't have time to put much effort into fixing it right now, but have taken care of the most egregious BLP problems. None of the rest I would put into the urgent category. Zaereth (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It's actually not even an op-ed. It's a press release from someone's lawyer according to the labels. Nil Einne (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, despite what I said about the outside world, I do very much understand the level of competiveness that exists between pilots, as the SR-71 pilot in this very funny youtube video attests. I also understand the level of national pride involved, and so on, so I don't mean to make light of your situation. Understand that many, many people won't see it in that context. I don't doubt you were the winner, but that really depends upon how you define that all important "first". It's like the debate at Talk:Dogfight about who was the first. That all depends upon how you define a dogfight; by the technical or the general definition. I've watchlisted this article and when I have more time I'll work on fixing the issues. Zaereth (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

As with Zaereth, I find this dispute incredibly boring and the fact it seems to involve COI on both sides makes even less inclined to get involved. But I'd note that we need quality reliable secondary sources here on wikipedia. If the only thing you can present are press releases (both [2] and [3] are press releases) and court documents, you're not likely to be able to convince us to change the content. While you're right that some sources are fairly careless in their fact checking and rely too much on what someone involved told them, ultimately challenging an apparent reliable source is difficult without good evidence for its unreliability. And if the only thing you have is court documents and press releases, the best you can hope for is we agree to remove the info. We're not going to add any info not supported by reliable secondary sources, such as info only supported by court documents and press releases. If you want to help, find reliable secondary sources for us. Not press releases or court documents. Nil Einne (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

If I understand your comment correctly, you're claiming that [4] was "commissioned" (i.e. written for payment) by an involved party and their lawyer. I see absolutely no indication in the article that it is sponsored content, nor any indication that The Palm Beach Post allows sponsored content without clearly labeling it as such. Most importantly, there is a journalist given a byline for the story. Technically from what you said, I guess it could be suggested that the journalist was simply unaware of the payment, but this seems very unlikely. And for most journalists, participating in such an unsavoury scheme is a serious ethical violation. You've provided zero evidence for this. You've therefore come to BLPN and committed a serious BLP violation yourself. Please do not repeat this or I will ask for you to be blocked. As I said in my other response, time pressures and other factors mean that sometimes fact checking in stories is not as good as it should be, and I think it's acceptable to suggest such even though you're not going to get very far without evidence. It's quite something else to suggest a story is sponsored but not labelled as such. Nil Einne (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Zaereth for your follow-up, and Nil Einne for your comments.

Nil Einne, I read what you messaged me and I understand why you feel my description of the genesis of the PBP article goes too far. I agree that there's enough reason to get rid of these rubbish entries without going into that subject matter. I'm sorry if you feel that what I wrote violates some WP rule, I'm not even on the platform and am only reading the rules as they become applicable to the article about me, and I don't want to get bogged down in a dead-end. I won't pick up that issue again on WP. I also appreciate your expression of understanding of my point of view.

Just let me clarify a few things since I believe you've hit the main point with your comments on this page from day before yesterday. I have no interest is using WP to further the discussion of any real-world "litigation" I happen to find myself in, and I am not asking for WP editors to include more information "favorable" to me on this point. The evidence I've given you might be considered prohibited original research, or primary source material, or allegations from legal documents, etc., not sufficient as an in-line citation in a WP article but I'm not providing the material for that use. It's just real-world evidence of the real circumstances. Nowhere in the WP rules is there a prohibition against looking at facts in order to determine the reliability of a source. The ultimate point is whether the underlying factual assertion is verifiable, or not. I've read most of the rules concerning BLP and defamatory posts and I'm comfortable saying that I have every right as the subject to remove contentious material, poorly sourced, or defamatory material myself, without discussion, as the rules make clear, and the burden is on the editor who wants to restore it to prove their case. The burden is not on me to show that the offending posts should be taken down, although I think it is better practice to be in line with Wikipedians' way of thinking that there should be a consensus and to try and achieve a consensus in order to have a more effective, lasting resolution.

My point is that this "Lawsuits" section is so problematic it should just come down and that officially is my request. (FYI, the Beijing Court in Chen's lawsuit against me -- mentioned in the Lawsuits section -- after a trial in July before a three-judge panel, recently issued a 37-page decision and final judgment dismissing in its entirety Chen's complaint against me and against the blogging platform Sina Weibo. It was a 100% victory for me and the decision was harsh to Chen but I have no interest in seeing it written about here.)

The defamatory content was inserted by the very person who is litigating with me and my husband deliberately to smear us (my husband is a private person) and all or almost all of the "Lawsuits" content also violates WP policy (a) strongly disfavoring contentious, poorly sourced material and permitting its removal without discussion, even by the article's subject, and (b) "[A]n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute (legal or otherwise) with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." Previous editors' comments make clear that their efforts were a vandalization of the page.

As I said in the very first line of this post a few days ago, the entire "Lawsuits" section of an otherwise rather plain vanilla article is being used improperly by a party to litigation with me and my husband to bring a real-world dispute onto WP, and to be a bull horn to highlight her baseless, defamatory claims against me and my husband, falsely making us out as fraudsters and litigious ones at that. Wikipedia policy(s) expressly prohibits this and that is the main reason why this section "Lawsuits" should come down.

Secondarily, and independently of the primary WP policy infringement, there are three unsupported allegations in the section that must be taken down:

First, the quotation attributed to Chenwei must be taken down because it violates the WP policy: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people. Chenwei's supposed quotation is defamatory since it insinuates that my flight might not be bona fide, without providing any specific reason or evidence. Whether Chenwei actuallly made such a statement before his death in December 2018 will never be known. The facts underlying his statement not only are unverified but are unverifiable since they are contradicted by the October 16 to 26th WeChat transcript of his conversations with several individuals where Chenwei himself discussed the vetting of my flight and personally approved it.

Second, the claim that I and my husband "initiated a legal battle" (first paragraph of the "Lawsuits" section) must be taken down because the facts underlying the statement not only are unverified but are unverifiable since they are false, contradicted by Chen's own complaint filed in the Beijing, Haidian Peoples District Court, on July 17, 2017. (https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=5rtBAtIXg_PLUS_16ElR56V6RRQ==)

Third, the baseless accusation that my husband engaged in a conspiracy to defraud aviation history is unverified and must be removed.[30] It directly impugn's ones reputation to be labeled asone who has committed fraud. I, as a pilot, and my husband as a lawyer, have the right to protect our professional reputations against such scurrilous accusations and have the unverified, contentious content removed. Again, this is in accord with Wikipedia policy:

"Legal and other disputes . . . The biographies of living persons policy says: "[A]n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. . . . .

"Similarly, editors should not write about court cases in which they or those close to them have been involved, nor about parties or law firms associated with the cases. . . . .

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others."

I am satisfied that Wikipedia policy prohibits the use of the Wikipedia platform to protect people like me -- notable basically for a single event -- and my husband, a private individual -- from suffering real reputational and/or financial harm as a result of persons improperly looking to bring real world disputes onto Wikipedia for their own selfish interests, not those of the encyclopedia.

This subject matter may seem "boring" or the dispute narrow to some of you. Everyone is entitled to their tastes and opinion. In the big scheme of things perhaps it is narrow. For us, however, this is a personal attack on us, on our livelihoods, employment, status among our colleagues, status with financial institutions -- a real world issue with real reputational and financial consequences. Its proper resolution depends not only on the policies of the Wikipedia founders and other senior collaborators but on the proper execution and application of such policies by you and you brother and sister line editors.65.210.8.4 (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

This is another place where I'm going to suggest reading WP:TLDR. I'm not trying to be insulting by that, but, seriously, your replies are extremely verbose and difficult to parse through.

One thing you should understand is that BLP rules apply to talk pages, user pages, and every other space including mainspace. Posting court documents here, or unsubstantiated allegations against another living person, is a clear violation of that policy. Keep in mind that we are all volunteers here, and no one is bound to do anything they don't want to. This may be especially true where the parties involved appear to be litigious, because no one wants to be involved with litigious people nor their articles. Anyone in their right mind wouldn't want to touch this with a 10 foot pole. I took an interest because I have an interest in flying, but I am extremely cautious and, aside from being sick as a dog, I do have other things going on in my life that take priority at the moment. This is an article that gets an average of 6 views a day, so, while it may be important to you, it's just not the highest thing on my list at the moment. If I'm going to fix the issues I'm going to do it right, and sit down and look at every, individual source, and that takes time. Zaereth (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Zaereth, I'm sorry that you're not feeling well and wish you a speedy recovery.

Of course, I've no ability to force any Wikipedia volunteer to do something they don't want to do and that hasn't been my goal. My goal was to give Wikipedians the opportunity to reach consensus to take the "Lawsuits" section down. Taking it down by consensus would also perhaps reduce the likelihood of any edit war initiated by my "arch rival" in the future (such as we had in the past).

I've done this in good faith. I've also spent a lot of time in the back and forth that could have been better spent on other things. I think that the discussion has been valuable however since you and Nil Einne and Hydromania all agree that this Lawsuits section has lots of problems and I have a new appreciation for how WP editors think about the platform. The rest of the article has been edited by others in ways that are totally unobjectionable, and I don't think the article suffers from the deletion of the "Lawsuits" section. Basically, it reads like any other encyclopedia entry. Hydromania has offered to help rewrite the article and I truly welcome all edits to the article that in good faith are trying to make it better.

So thank you all for your thoughtful input.65.210.8.4 (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

please stop deleting the section. The fact that the subject's achievements are disputed is encyclopediac and sourced to WP:RS. a bunch of material which was in violation of BLP was deleted (material sourced to court docs, the subject's husband's name, etc). Please bring up further issues clearly and concisely and the talk page. I've requested reinstatement of WP:PP for this page. Hydromania (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm planning to do some work to this article. Not just that section but the entire article. I pride myself on working hard to do a good job on any article I work on, so I typically only work on articles in which I have some direct experience with and am fully able to interpret the subject matter. Some articles I'm fairly proud to have written most if not almost all of include Basic fighter maneuvers, Dogfight, Barrel roll, Tempering (metallurgy), Alloy, the physics of Honey or the process and metallurgy of Japanese swordsmithing. I'm not new at this. I have experience in writing that transcends Wikipedia, but I'm not even going to attempt it until I have studied all the facts involved. That's just the way I am.

I'm partly hampered by the fact that I don't read or speak Chinese, so I may have to get help with those sources. Before you volunteer, I mean impartial help. Mostly, I'm not seeing what you see a defamatory. Most of what I see makes your competition look bad rather than you, especially that last paragraph. I mean, suing for trying to change history. You can't tell me that doesn't sound totally over the top. Unfortunately, that's the sort of thing that attracts the media. and we weigh info by a preponderance of reliable sources. If the lawsuit is getting more media attention than the flight, that is likely the way we will record it too.

What really makes this all look ridiculous is that, even if the rules of the competition were poorly spelled out before it started, the default meaning of "first" is always "first to cross the finish line" as far as I know, not "first to cross the starting line". Why it ever came to this I don't know, but seems like the tale of the tortoise and the hare gone all Jerry Springer.

If I may help explain, you can't really think of policy as being laws to be argued in front of a jury. What makes Wikipedia so different is that its policies are flexible in order to account for different situations. Every rule augments every other rule, and in turn is augmented by every other rule. Trying to argue it like a lawyer never gets anyone anywhere. Instead, try to think of it as being one, giant equation, like you might see on some Einstein's blackboard. Every factor in the equation must be satisfied or the whole solution breaks down. And while BLP policy ultimately trumps all other policies, it still works in accordance with and is augmented by those policies. It usually takes a person a long time to really get the hang of how it all fits together. Honestly, I will try to get back to this as soon as I can, but I highly doubt consensus will turn toward removing the section if it is at all well sourced. Welcome to fame. Zaereth (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Completely regardless of any of the above, can an admin please take a look at this edit summary? The inclusion of an email address was possibly inadvertent. Can the edit summary be suppressed while keeping the edit intact? @65.210.8.4: if the inclusion was intentional, please state so and it won't be removed. Hydromania (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Katie Hill (politician)

This is already under WP:1RR, but BLP-watchers might want to keep an eye on the entry for Katie Hill (politician) if they aren't watching it already.The recent coverage of her could be complicated going forward: she's been a victim of a pretty massive invasion of privacy by unscrupulous outlets, but aspects of her story also raise some meaningful ethical concerns that will probably receive some continued coverage in reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 16:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that even the leftists haven't figured out whether to label her a victim or villain, although now they seem to be leaning more toward the former since she martyred herself by resigning. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Зенитная Самоходная Установка, your problem is that you want to reduce the entire saga into "victim or villain", and that you're referring to Wikipedia editors as "leftists". Neither is helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Jo Ann Jenkins - Proposed Draft

Hello, The Wikipedia article about Jo Ann Jenkins is rather sparse and barebones, so I have written a draft at User:JeffreyArthurVA/sandbox3. Can someone take a look at this draft and implement it into the article if you feel it is an improvement?

Please note:

• I am an employee of AARP, where Jo Ann Jenkins is CEO. While I don't know Jo Ann Jenkins personally, my employment presents a COI I want to be mindful of. This is why, per WP:BLPEDIT, I am coming to this noticeboard to request a review from uninvolved editors and ask one of you to implement it, rather than edit this BLP article directly myself.
• While Jenkins clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for a BLP (CEO of the largest nonprofit in the U.S., sufficient coverage in reliable media sources such as Bloomberg, CNBC), the Wikipedia article about Jenkins at the moment strictly lists the positions she has held. It fails to provide any context around what she did in these positions that were deemed notable and verifiable through reliable sources.
• In this draft I have taken care to write neutrally and source properly. The intention is not to promote; merely to note the work Jenkins has completed.

Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi and thanks. I think it's an improvement and good writing regarding policy. I agree that that utube screenshot does not really belong and probably should be deleted at commons. Others may have concerns regarding CV type additions, let's see if others comment. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your response. Regarding the photo, yes that screenshot does not really seem fitting for a Wikipedia article. It is rather blurry, the graphics are partially cut off, and it seems odd to use a screenshot of a video vs. an original photo. I am looking for a photo to suggest for this article, but want to take the time to obtain one that is properly licensed for CC use on Wikipedia. In the meantime, it seemed fitting to start by proposing a light cleanup of the article text with proper sourcing. After that I can help to find a more suitable photo. JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll say this, the draft looks far better than the current. The current article reads a lot like a resume. If I had come across it I would probably recommend it for speedy deletion for "no indication of importance". See, it's not enough to simply have your name published somewhere and a list of prestigious jobs to fall back on. A person needs to have accomplishments to speak of before they really have some importance to the reader. I see that you've helped correct that problem by adding some of her achievements, which makes the article suddenly have some interest for the reader. My suggestion is that the article should really focus on those and less so on the list of jobs. (It's interesting to know she worked with Reagan, but besides that what was significant about it?) That's what makes the story. I'd also be careful not to start sounding too promotional when referring to AARP. I think you've done a good job of that, but I'd be careful of phrasing things like "she became CEO to ensure the company meets its goals of..." That sort of thing goes without saying because it's the job of any CEO and starts to look like a plug for the company. Other than that I think you're off to a good start. Zaereth (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Zaereth and Govindaharihari, thanks for your input. I have updated the draft slightly at User:JeffreyArthurVA/sandbox3 to address your recommendations. You said, "my suggestion is that the article should really focus on (describing some of her achievements) and less so on the list of jobs." So, I expanded two portions of the draft:

• Under Library of Congress section, I added that Jenkins developed something called the "Library of Congress Experience" -- this was a set of tech modifications/improvements to the Library of Congress in order to improve the visitor experience--the most notable of which was the digitizing of the drafts of the founding documents of the United States. Before this people could just see the final drafts of the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution. The digitizing of the drafts meant that visitors could now compare the drafts to the final versions, seeing the corrections, debates and edits that Jefferson, Franklin and others made as they were shaping these documents. Prior to this, the drafts were held back for only authorized researchers to access, and this change allowed the general public to view them.
• Under AARP, I added some context around what Jenkins has accomplished as CEO. The Washington Post article about Jenkins explained that she had "fundamentally recast the organization's mission" as its CEO, but in the prior draft I stopped there and, as you pointed out, used this generic phrasing of "she became CEO to ensure the company meets its goals of..." I've corrected that to explain how AARP was originally created for American retirees--in other words, it was an organization for people who had ceased working entirely. When The Washington Post (and a few other reliable sources that are cited) described Jenkins as recasting the organization's mission, they are talking about how she noticed that Americans in their 50s and 60s today -- Boomers and Gen Xers -- are living longer than their parents' generations and as a byproduct of that, they also want to / need to keep working longer in life. Thus, Jenkins started introducing different benefits to help AARP members find jobs and pushed forward federal legislation (technically called the Protect Older Workers against Age Discrimination Act) that requires employers in the U.S. to treat age discrimination on the same level as other forms of discrimination. I've tried to describe this plainly as the intention is not to promote AARP in any way here; rather, I took your input and explained how Jenkins is notable during her CEO tenure largely because she took an organization that used to be strictly for Americans who were done working and introduced services / federal advocacy that was explicitly built for people who are working beyond age 50. And thus, during her tenure as CEO nearly have of the organization's 38 million members are working either part- or full-time.

With that, as you consider the draft to be an improvement, would you implement these changes into the live article? --JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• @JeffreyArthurVA: If there are no objections posted here I will do it in a couple of days. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai

• Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, this brings in WP:BLP mainly because of Sanal Edamuruku who is rather persecuted by some Indian Catholic figures. Questions: did Catholic clergy call this statue a "miracle" and "holy water"? Or just some tourists and locals? Was an apology "demanded" or "requested" and was it in exchange for dismissal of charges? Who had the power to dismiss those charges? Was it the Archbishop of Mumbai? Was it his auxiliary? Was it a parish priest? Was it an independent association of Catholic faithful? Was it none of the above and just some obnoxious change.org petition crap? Is this whole thing a tempest in a tabloid teapot? Why did it make the main page with a DYK? Inquiring minds want to know. Elizium23 (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

New Scientist and BBC are among the sources. Which statements about Sanal Edamaruku violate BLP ? MPS1992 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this the one where they found the broken toilet in the unrelated next door room? Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

MPS1992, thank you for the link to his own BLP. I have been able to piece together the story much better due to the PRI audio source. He is not so much persecuted as he made fun of Catholics and paid a heavy price for his sardonic wit. I have reformed the BLP and I will merge the changes back into the crucifix article at length. Elizium23 (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Right now, @Harshil169: is trying to make it look like Edamuruku is being persecuted for his sciencey sciencing of their science, rather than his mockery of Catholic Church and officials. Thjat's a BLP problem if I ever saw one. Goes against a WP:RS - Public Radio International story, which lays everything out quite clearly. Higher quality than Indian tabloids. Elizium23 (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I had already said that this was unpublished synthesis of source. Source doesn't say that blasphemy case was filed after and solely due to this reason. diff This editor even tried to find the good reason for blasphemy on talk page in miracle section and brought these and introduced in lead section. I just said to give it due weight here and introduce in aftermath section. It was written like Sanal has to face all these due to calling church as anti-scientific.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be instructive to consider here the state in which I first found this article. It was a disgrace to Wikipedia, and it had just been DYK'd up to the front page for a pretty much false assertion. The article needed a lot of work, and you're the WP:OWNer, fighting us every step of the way based on tabloid sources. Elizium23 (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

NO, I am not fighting as owner. I am fivhting as an individual because of unpublished synthesis and finding good reasons behind blasphemy cases. I saw what you did at Sanal Edamaruku's article. Was the case filled because he refused to apologis efor mockery? Of course, NO. But you still labeled it as reason by introducing word so in article.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, actually it was, and this is reliably sourced to the PRI audio story, which you are conveniently ignoring in your crusade to accuse me of bad faith. Stop accusing me of bad faith. All my additions are based on WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Your revert has introduced multiple factual errors in the article and they have to do with BLP. Per WP:BLPREMOVE I could remove them again and again without breaching WP:3RR but I will discuss them with you until you figure this out or get yourself blocked for WP:TE. The Archdiocese has no power to withdraw the criminal charges. They SAID SO in their statement. PRI relayed this info. You're ignoring it. Please revert your factual errors and remove them from the article because it is full of lies. Elizium23 (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

And yes, that is the very reason the case was filed. Because he refused to apologise. It is in the PRI story plain as day. He was asked to apologise on-air, he refused, and so they proceeded to file blasphemy charges because he mocked them not because he ran a scientific investigation, like 'your' article says now. Elizium23 (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that's a much better reason to try to get a person thrown in jail. 199.247.44.10 (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Jas Athwal

Jas Athwal

This page is a WP:BLP. Its subject is a politician who was shortlisted for selection as a parliamentary candidate but whose campaign ended in disputed and scandalous circumstances a few hours before the final ballot. At the time of writing he continues to lead his London Borough Council. Anonymous editors have inserted defamatory material: [[5]] namely:

• an unsourced and unsubstantiated allegation of corruption (in the 'Political career' section, sentence beginning "In September 2019..."). The editor has repeated this verbatim in the 'Criticism' section).
• an unsourced and unsubstantiated allegation of an extremely stigmatising nature which is not backed up in the sources they use (this is in the same passage as the allegation in the previous bullet point).
• both of these are incriminating but they have not been substantiated in reliable sources.

I have edited the page to include details of the suspension which are in the public domain, including reliable sources, and also details of criticism demanding that he stand down as Council leader as a consequence. I've tried to use the existing article structure to distinguish - and cross reference between - 'Political Career' and 'Criticism'. I've used both the article Talk Page and anonymous user Talk Page (which is to an IP address) to make the case for why I have done this.

An earlier edit war was resolved by restricted to signed-in editors - I think this would be helpful here. TrabiMechanic (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

At WP:RFPP I have requested semi-protection of the article. MPS1992 (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The unsubstantiated allegations are continuing from the same anonymous IP address - this now qualifies as an edit war so I am going to report TrabiMechanic (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It's now been semi-protected for two months. MPS1992 (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Steve Huffman

I (and it appears others, per older talk history) am of the opinion that the Steve Huffman comment controversy needs its own section with a heading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steve_Huffman

This will bring it in line with what appear to be Wikipedia guidelines, and consistent with other articles, such as Matt Lauer, or for someone in a similar line of work, Mark Zuckerberg. Both Lauer's and Zuckerberg's articles have scandals/controversies broken out under bolded headings per Wikipedia guidelines. For some reason certain Wikipedia editors are resisting this change on the Huffman page and I'd love some unbiased eyes to tell me why Wikipedia appears so inconsistent.

1. The Huffman article has a major controversy currently sandwiched between two fluff PR lines one of which was added per a paid Wikipedia editor's request. This seems odd given that it was major news, as 5+ urls are linked in the talk section of the page. It is especially vexing given that the scandal in question was Huffman concealing negative comments about him personally.
2. Lauer's page and Zuckerberg's page have controversies broken out in the manner described under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism. My goal was to apply the same logic to the Huffman article, per the "Approaches to presenting criticism" article under Criticism. I named the section the controversy in question as it was covered by numerous sources, but it seems others disagree.
3. In the event we are applying article criticism inconsistently (Huffman resistance to edits vs Lauer pages no notification and no edit wars), shouldn't we be extra sure we are being up front in the event of a scandal regarding obfuscation?
4. If adding a controversy section without talk first, is such an affront to the wikipedia editors I appear to have wronged, why are none of them reverting the Lauer page changes as well?

Siihb (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I realize that someone advised you to bring that matter to this noticeboard. That was not good advice. This page focuses on violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policy, and not having such a header is certainly not a violation. The matter is best considered in current discussion at the talk page of the article, where your stance does not seem to be getting traction.

As a more general note, the they-should-be-fixing-Lauer's-page-before-they-do-anything-here argument is very problematic. There are many, many BLPs on Wikipedia, and because of the nature of the project, many of them will be imperfect at any given moment. That does not mean that you get to choose a particular page for being the last page to be fixed, nor to require volunteer editors to jump through hoops on other pages before they are allowed to edit the one in question. I suggest you shift away from that line of argument in your attempt to find support. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. This is my first and only dispute. Myself and others have now typed 300 books of words all because 1 editor thought they have full control to revert an edit that broke no Wikipedia rules and simply broke a scandal into the heading it deserved. Additionally, I am not the first or second or even third editor to take issue with the content of that page, or the breaking out of this heading. Serious question, if I go an edit the Lauer page and the Zuckerberg pages to be in line with the Huffman one, am I going to get into an edit war with people on the other side of this argument? I don't care about the breaking out of the data as much as I care about the site having some level of consistency because right now it seems like its being used as PR. Doubly so given that the page in question has actual paid content on it. Siihb (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It is quite possible that if you edit the Lauer or Zuckerberg pages, you will find folks who do not agree with your edits. This site is too large for everything to be handled by a single group of editors, and even if it were, the situations, while perhaps of some similarity, also has their differences. (But yes, an editor has the ability to revert an edit that does not break specified rules; reverting an edit is part of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle that makes up much of Wikipedia editing.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I planned to point out that in addition, comparisons between articles are always fraught anyway since the content may not be comparable. But then I noticed Siihb is indef blocked. Unless either they manage to appeal successfully which doesn't look hopeful or someone else shares the concerns I think this discussion can be considered done. Nil Einne (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Cho Min

Irrespective of the scandal she was mixed up in, I'm not convinced that this person has any genuine notability in her own right. The article for her father Cho Kuk already has a brief section for the scandal and I think that's probably the best place for it. PC78 (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Any article that starts by saying the subject is ‘the daughter of....’ is in trouble! I don’t think she’s notable in her own right, and the scandal is WP:ONEEVENT territory. Delete and merge anything useful into the article about her father Neiltonks (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

John Delamere (footballer)

• John Delamere (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two issues here - one is COI editing from a named account and now various IPs, and the second is BLP-related - should the sourced content about his career being hindered by issues with discipline/alcohol be included or not? I say yes as it's important for his career and biography, IPs disagree and are removing it. Posting here for wider input. GiantSnowman 14:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the stress on the "he was a drunk"-type stuff would need far stronger sourcing and a far stronger claim to relevance in this stub. The source cited is not about Delamere, but about an en passant remark about an author's future "stories." Thus it is not a "reliable source" for the BLP in the first place. Collect (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Both better sourcing and impact. Just saying it was marred but not with explicitly how it was the case is really not sufficient for inclusion as that makes it sound like speculation than anything concrete. Not knowing the career, I would expect this to be something on the order of "His alcoholism caused him to miss several matches in the YYYY season." or something like that. --Masem (t) 16:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we need a Dutch speaker to help with the sourcing for this - @Cattivi:? GiantSnowman 20:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Although, as both of you note these are brief sources - but they both mention the issue, showing its obvious importance? GiantSnowman 20:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In 1984 Delamere was fired by SVV for several reasons. The main reasons were, he didn't accept a part-time job offered by a sponsor and he (and Paul Giles, no reason to believe he was a drunk) didn't accept the housing offered by the club. Yes he liked his drink, had a poor disciplinary record ,sometimes missed a training and apparently he still had some bills to pay in Zwolle, but the club knew this and accepted this. They didn't question his performance on the pitch. All this can be found in this article [6]. In 1981 Delamere didn't play in this match, because the club suspended him after he missed several training sessions and in March a 3 game suspension for three yellow cards [7] That was normal at that time. Cattivi (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cattivi: - many thanks! @Collect and Masem: as can be seen above, his alcohol and disciplinary issues are well known and documented covered by multiple reliable sources. Does this change your view? GiantSnowman 09:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Nope. WP:BLP is quite clear, and third hand quotes from a person writing gossip-level material is unlikely to pass muster. The Yellow Card event is likely documentable, I think. Collect (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple sources all mention this. You are whitewashing the article. GiantSnowman 14:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Elise Stefanik

The claim about troop reduction at Fort Drum is not supported, nor even mentioned, in the proffered source. Footnote 37 for the last paragraph in the section is thus wrong. The source does contain the quoted sentence in the first paragraph, which uses the same footnote number, 37. I would also like to know if "28" means "28,000". Might this simply be a typing error? Or two? The offending footnote in its context:

Defense Stefanik with Defense Secretary Ash Carter in 2015

In a July 2015 profile in The Washington Times, Jacqueline Klimas noted that Stefanik was the only freshman on that year's conference committee for the defense policy bill, a position accorded to her "because of her extensive experience in foreign policy - working in the George W. Bush administration, prepping Rep. Paul Ryan for his vice presidential debates and listening to commanders at Fort Drum in her home district." Jack Collens, a political science professor at Siena College, told Klimas that Stefanik's prize committee position signalled that party leaders wanted Stefanik to be part of "the next generation of Republican leaders."[37]

Stefanik united New York House members "to spare Fort Drum from drastic cuts." Instead of a planned reduction of 40,000 troops, Fort Drum ended up losing only 28, making it a standout among stateside Army bases.[37] Chrisrushlau (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

David Stringer

The sources cited in the article on David Stringer do not show that Mr. Stringer is a convicted child molester. He was arrested and charged, but never convicted and was given "probation before judgement" in a Maryland courtroom.

I have written a new entry for Mr. Stringer, but cannot get anyone to answer me on the Talk:David Stringer page. Please advise.

Anita Cohen COHWILL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cohwill (talk • contribs) 22:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I made a few changes to better reflect the sources. Note that the David Stringer is not a reliable source for this type of information about himself. The Arizona Republic presents the information about the resolution of his case this way: "While Stringer claims he never was convicted, court records show he accepted a plea deal on some combination of charges and was sentenced to five years of supervised probation." [8] We should probably be careful about using the word "conviction" if the sources do not also use it. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Aja (drag queen)

Aja (drag queen) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'll be honest, I don't know if this post is necessary or at the correct venue, but editors might be interested in Talk:Aja_(drag_queen)#Subject's_Tweets_about_this_article, which outlines a series of Tweets made by Aja (drag queen) about their Wikipedia article. They claim there's a lot of incorrect information and question who is editing the page, which has caused some vandalism and recent edits to the article. Can some folks please come take a look and share any thoughts or concerns? Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Jack

Accurate, well-sourced biographical information often deleted from page. Jimmy Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarrieXJones (talk • contribs) 12:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Alexander Dvorkin‎

On September 20, an anonymous participant added to the article a link to a video clip on Youtube made by a private person Konstantin Nikitin (here his says: ″This is my personal channel, with videos that match my personal position, which owes nothing to anyone.″ — Russian: Это мой личный канал, с видео, которые соответствуют моей личной позиции, никому ничем не обязанной; and in brochure Ordinary Anti-cultism by Sergey Ivanenko — the forth of the Dvorkin's opponents on the video (6:13) — about Nikitin we khow that: ″Appendix. Konstantin Nikitin Religious Freedom Watch correspondent www.religiousfreedomwatch-ru.org Some Data on FECRIS (Federation of European Centers of Study and Information on Sectarianism)″, and this website is Scientology attack-page) from videos specially made by Oleg Maltsev's henchmen with people, most of whom are opponents of Dvorkin and have a biased opinion about him. I canceled this edit referring to WP:NOTCATALOGUE. However, a month later, on October 29, 2019, participant Nicoljaus made a cancellation of my cancellation. I know this participant on the Russian Wikipedia, where he has already received an indefinite block, including for edits wars. Tempus (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t understand why the WP:NOTCATALOGUE rule was mentioned, when in fact Tempus just didn’t like the content of the video. Comment about "inappropriate content" would be fine.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• • That's right. Wikipedia editor Tempus is a supporter of strict censorship in favor of the Russian government. That is why he removes any critical expert authoritative opinion against the government of the Russian Federation. In Russian Wikipedia, he is engaged in constant squabbles, demanding to ban all his opponents forever. He achieved this in relation to me and Nicoljaus. Now he has come to the English Wikipedia, here he wants to introduce censorship, he wants to destroy any free thought and ban all those who disagree with him. As an example of disgusting and destructive activities of the editor of Wikipedia Tempus.Wlbw68 (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you strike everything you just wrote. I don't know how things work on the Russian wiki, but over here, personal attacks and aspersions like that don't fly. 199.247.44.74 (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• • • • There was no slander and personal attacks on my part. There was only a statement of facts.Wlbw68 (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
        • ″There was no slander and personal attacks on my part.″ — Well, everybody can another ″only a statement of facts″. One example from User talk:Nicoljaus#ruWiki:

          Вы наверное помните словесную эквилибристику Темпуса, когда он в лучших иезуитских традициях защищал Дворкина, не давал внести информацию в статью, изобличающую автобиографическую ложь Дворкина, и при помощи админов банил оппонентов. Лгать везде и всегда, тех кто сопротивляется этой лжи банить при помощи не менее лживых чем Темпус админов. Вот такие нравы и такая свобода теперь в ruWiki. Wlbw68 (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC) — English: You probably remember Tempus’s verbal balancing act when he defended Dvorkin in the best Jesuit traditions, didn’t let him enter information in an article exposing Dvorkin’s autobiographical lie, and with the help of admins he banned opponents. Lying everywhere and always, those who resist this lie are banned with the help of no less lying than Tempus admins. Such morals and such freedom are now in ruWiki.

          And another fresh example:

          Вы почитайте обсуждение этой статьи в руВики, там же настоящее хамство от Tempus, в обсуждении других статей руВики такое же хамство Tempus-а, вместо ответов на вопросы – пушинг, вместо обсуждения – забалтывание темы. — English: You will read the discussion of this article in ruWiki, there is a real rudeness from Tempus, in the discussion of other articles of ruWiki the same rudeness is Tempus, instead of answering questions - pushing, instead of discussion - blabbering the topic.

          I didn't think that a similar style matches the rules Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. And everybody must know about your block-log and an indefinite block. For example:

          08:17, 1 июля 2013 Shakko (A) заблокировал Wlbw68 на период 3 дня (запрещена регистрация учётных записей) (неэтичное поведение) — English: 08:17, July 1, 2013. Shakko (A) blocked Wlbw68 for a period of 3 days (account registration is prohibited) (unethical behavior)
          13:13, 22 июня 2014
          Sir Shurf (B,Ar) заблокировал Wlbw68 на период 2 недели (запрещена регистрация учётных записей) (оскорбления) — English: 13:13, July 22, 2014. Sir Shurf (B, Ar) blocked Wlbw68 for a period of 2 weeks (account registration is prohibited) (insults)

          Do you want me to call these administrator and bureaucrat of the Russian Wikipedia, so that they speak here regarding these bans?--Tempus (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Please, Wlbw68, you really need to stop. "Comment on content, not on the contributor"--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

In addition to YouTube, this video with text was published on the site [9]. Sure, this is a partisan source, but there is an interview with more than a dozen of Dvorkin’s critics. I think it well represents the views of his opponents and the essence of their claims; and it's also pretty fresh (2018). Can external links with criticism be present in articles? Well, I’m watching an article about Ron Hubbard, and there is an external links to the Bare-Face Messiah website and the website "Operation Clambake. Undressing the Church of Scientology since 1996". Any objections?--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• ″Sure, this is a partisan source″ — This is not only ″partisan source″, this is a source which finance by Scientologists. Here (with some additions — one, two, three, four/here I said about Konstantin Nikitin/, five/here I added information about Oleg Maltsev's henchmen, who try to use Wikipedia as tribune and a source for their targets/) I collected facts about it. ″Well, I’m watching an article about Ron Hubbard, and there is an external links to the Bare-Face Messiah website and the website "Operation Clambake. Undressing the Church of Scientology since 1996". Any objections?″ — I think you will read (perhaps with great pleasure) about Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia, especially section about Arbitration Committee ban. --Tempus (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Well, Dvorkin for sure get paid from schismatic Moscow Patriarchate, some of his opponents (supposedly) get paid from new religious movements. That's why it's called the "partisan source", what's the problem? Even Hindus complain about Dvorkin, there was an international scandal in 2017 [10]. Yes, Scientologists are bad guys, and it’s understandable why you keep talking about them all the time, but the criticism regarding Dvorkin is much broader.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• ″www.about-dvorkin.ru (01.02.2017)″ — O, yeah, ″perfect″ source! Circle is closed! Tempus (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, sorry. Damned Scientologists from Human Rights Without Frontiers have occupied Google search results [11]. Well, then this article "But three years ago, he caught the attention of anti-cult activist Alexander Dvorkin, a man human rights groups said harasses members of any religion that competes with Russia's Orthodox Church". Or is Newsweek also Scientologists and there was no conflict with Hindu?--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC) upd: 11:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• ″Oh, sorry. Damned Scientologists from Human Rights Without Frontiers have occupied Google search results [12].″ — From one of the Oleg Maltsev's websites:

  Фильм «Защитите свою совесть» является совместным украинско-бельгийским продуктом при сотрудничестве общественной организации «Кавальер», международной организации «Human Rights Without Frontiers» и газеты «Нераскрытые преступления». Отдельная благодарность директору HRWF Вилли Фотре (Бельгия). English: The film “Protect Your Conscience” is a joint Ukrainian-Belgian product in collaboration with the public organization Cavalier, the international organization Human Rights Without Frontiers and the newspaper Unsolved Crimes. Special thanks to HRWF Director Willy Fautre (Belgium).

  The same text on the website of this ″public organization Cavalier″, which at one time created ″an interview with more than a dozen of Dvorkin’s critics″ (as you a said above). And now from Oleg Maltsev's offical biography:

  One of the requirements of the methodology was the need to compare the data with another science. Since modern psychology and psychiatry does not include the implementation part, it was not possible with them to compare the science of Psychosomology. Therefore, Oleg Maltsev took a decision to compare “Psychosamology” with the teachings of K. Castaneda and Scientology, which actually had an implementation part in their structure. Afterwards, there was conducted the comparison of the axes of three sciences, and the science of “Psychosamology” surpassed Scientology and the teachings of K. Castaneda by all criteria. In addition, a comparison analysis showed that Castaneda’s teachings are the basis of therapy of Scientology. In the course of comparing three sciences, Oleg Maltsev made a scientific discovery and derived the formula for success in business. There was established a direct relationship between the psycho-psychiatric state of a person and his purchasing power. This relationship was derived from a comparison of the structure of Scientology and teachings of Castaneda.
  ld are based on the fact that people have to do something. However, in a certain period evolves a new systemic doctrine, which claims that you need to do something with someone and then there will be an opportunity to achieve certain results. For this reason, Scientologists have created standard working procedures based on the teachings of Castaneda. Today these standard procedures are sold for a price higher than the cost of the original teachings of Carlos Castaneda. But even in such a case, Scientology enjoys a higher demand among customers. This is due to the fact that a person perceives only those goods and services that are perceived by them, and not those that bring actual benefits. This is how the economic dependence on the psycho-psychiatric state arises.

  Tempus (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• From one of the Oleg Maltsev's websites -- This look like Conspiracy theory. HRWF was established in 1989.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• ″ Well, then this article "But three years ago, he caught the attention of anti-cult activist Alexander Dvorkin, a man human rights groups said harasses members of any religion that competes with Russia's Orthodox Church".″ — So, very funny, that ″a man human rights groups″ .... [drumroll] HRWF (12.01.17). ″HRWF was established in 1989.″ — And the film was created in 2015. That is, by this time both Willy Fautre and his organization already exist. Besides Fautre was the paticipant of one the video (″an interview with more than a dozen of Dvorkin’s critics″ as you a said above) by Oleg Maltsev's front organization Cavalier and front ″newspaper″ Unsolved Crimes. Tempus (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• So, since authoritative media refers to the work of HRWF, I think their work has received recognition and should be considered as a RS. So Maltsev’s cooperation with this organization is more likely in his favor. You've come to the point that everyone around works for Scientologists, including Newsweek.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• ″So, since authoritative media refers to the work of HRWF, I think their work has received recognition and should be considered as a RS.″ — No, because you foget about Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Who is the author of anonimous text? Anybody. --Tempus (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• The collective author is HRWF, of course. You still begin to remove editorial articles from refs.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• There is no objection to this. Criticism is more than fair, scientific and objective in this video. It needs to be added.Wlbw68 (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• After this (User talk:Nicoljaus#ruWiki) dialogue, it is not surprising to see such hot support.--Tempus (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Comment on content, not on the contributor"--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"Aleksandr Dvorkin, is Russia‘s most prominent "anti-cult" activist and he lacks academic credentials as a religion specialist." - said United States Commission on International Religious Freedom ([13]). This seems to be consistent with what many critics in this video have said. But I'm afraid Tempus will say that this is also an organization of Scientologists.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• ″"Aleksandr Dvorkin, is Russia‘s most prominent "anti-cult" activist and he lacks academic credentials as a religion specialist." - said United States Commission on International Religious Freedom ([14]).″ — This is political organization, which also criticized. Does any author of this Annual Report is a religious stidues scholar to give such an assessment? I don't see anyone. Tempus (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Does any author of this Annual Report is a religious stidues scholar to give such an assessment? - If you doubt the credibility of this organization, you can go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This is a federal government commission and, at the first glance, this is more than enough. --Nicoljaus (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• • • • Everything is simple here. There is a person – Dvorkin. And on the one hand there is an objective, sharp criticism of this person from many authoritative experts from an independent authoritative source. And on the other hand, there is a desire from Tempus to remove this information, he declared this source unauthorized and bad. But this source is by all indications more than authoritative. There is no reason to delete this source. For me personally, this is a deja vu of Russian Wikipedia in relation to sources and information. The objective fact of Russian Wikipedia is that there is no scientific and neutrality at present. No need to repeat this on the English Wikipedia. Here we can go further. And put this video in the form of text from quotes indicating the authors in the article "Dvorkin" in a special section of the article "Criticism of Dvorkin".Wlbw68 (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• I removed an external link to a blatantly unreliable source that was more attack than criticism. It's fine to included actual criticism of living persons but they need to be cited to high quality, reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The same is true of external links about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Greetings. Thank you for your opinion. Unfortunately, there is not enough argumentation - please tell a couple of words why this source is "blatantly unreliable." It would also be nice if you would not only delete any criticism ([15], [16], [17], ), but sometimes replace the remote link with yours, which you consider reliable. Then we will all see the difference.--Nicoljaus (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC) upd:07:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• The source is unreliable because they're an advocacy group, which almost never meets our requirements as discussed at WP:SOURCE. Contentious claims about living persons "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", even if it's only found in an external link. As for replacing criticism with reliable sources, I don't know enough about this person to know where to start. I just have a lot of experience evaluating sources and (usually) know an unreliable source when I see it. Woodroar (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Not so fast. Only poorly sourced content should be removed. The biased/opinionated/advocacy sources are actually allowed per WP:RS. For example, publications by human rights organizations like Southern Poverty Law Center can be used, especially on the human right issues, like here. I do not know how reliable Human Rights Without Frontiers might be (first diff by Nicoljaus), but this is not an outright poor sourcing. The subject may even qualify as a "public figure". My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

They can be, absolutely. But RS also says that biased sources still need to meet the normal requirements for reliability. The SPLC is probably the best example of a reliable source. They're widely cited by mainstream reliable sources, they have an editorial process, they issue retractions, etc. (Of course, you'll still find editors who'd prefer in-text attribution for SPLC claims, or that we should cite them only in tandem with other reliable sources.) On the other hand, we've never even discussed the HRWF at RSN. They're cited by a small number of mainstream news outlets, but it's a tiny fraction of cites to the SPLC and it appears that many of those articles are simply republished HRWF press releases. I'm not finding any retractions. In fact, the HRWF seems to release their articles as PDFs which are difficult to retract. They have 3 actual staff members, 6 "independent consultants" as experts, and 8 correspondents (some of whom are anonymous). They have a janky Wordpress site. That source in question is particularly poor, like saying Dvorkin is "regularly accused of hate speech" and that his organization "is a pawn in [the Orthodox Church's] strategy against religious pluralism". Actual reliable sources would give context to those statements (by linking to stories about his previous hate speech, for example) and tone down the rhetoric. I've seem amateur video game websites that look more legit than the HRWF. But I get it, they're a tiny NGO and they'd rather put their money towards doing good things. That's admirable. But by and large, mainsteam reliable sources aren't paying much attention to what they're doing and that's a sign that we shouldn't, either. A "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is a requirement for reliability. If, as you said below, there are plenty of reliable sources covering Dvorkin‎, why the fight to source claims from a poor-quality advocacy group? Woodroar (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

They're widely cited by mainstream reliable sources The link you deleted ([18]) was cited by Newsweek ([19]). Isn't that a mainstream reliable source?--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Well...maybe. Reliable sources can use unreliable sources in ways that we can't, for example by citing self-published sources about other living persons. As My very best wishes noted below, Newsweek is listed as generally reliable at WP:RSP. However, that page also says "From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times; its articles from this time period should be scrutinized more carefully." (International Business Times is considered generally unreliable at RSP.) The Newsweek article was published on 2/6/18, during this time. Personally, I think the Newsweek article looks sound. They cite plenty of other mainstream reliable sources, they do their own original research—something else that reliable sources can do but we can't—and it's very in-depth. So if you worked to build consensus to include the Newsweek source in the article, I'd support you. Assuming that no contrary information comes up about this article, of course. Woodroar (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Woodroar: In other words, although the article in Newsweek is most likely a reliable source, the external link to HRWF is still unacceptable. Did I understand you correctly?--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct. HRWF really isn't acceptable per WP:BLPEL and WP:ELBLP. Newsweek is probably reliable in this context, but if we're going to use it in the article it should be as a source. The external links section in a biographical article is more for things like the subject's official website, or perhaps a social media account if they don't have a website. Or we can link to IMDb for an actor, to a sports hall of fame for a retired athlete, etc. It's also important to remember that WP:EL says to minimize the number of external links, and there's no policy saying that we need to have an external links section at all. Woodroar (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• I am afraid the BLP concerns are a little misplaced here. According to NewsWeek, Theological professor Alexander Dvorkin wrote a document suggesting yoga could cause uncontrolled sexual arousal and homosexuality in detention centers, leading to riots...[20], a claim vigorously supported by the infamous Yelena Mizulina [21]. And of course Dvorkin has a long history of targeting religious minorities in Russia [22], just as targeting LGBT people [23]. But it does not mean the sourcing need be sloppy. There are numerous RS about the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks! I totally agree that your sources are much more reliable, although an article from Newsweek was also rejected by Tempus as a reliable source ([24]. But they only mention Dvorkin on this or that issue. I think in the section “external links” we need a link to something like a review or summary. I would be very grateful if you take the time and find such a link.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Newsweek is fine, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Jack Posobiec

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

---

The biographical section for this page is currently in dispute for neutrality (see: Talk:Jack_Posobiec). There are questions regarding balance and neutral point of view in the presentation of the biography of a living person. A particular point of contention is a disputed association of the subject with the alt-right. Credible, reliable sources indicate both an association and a non-association, but so far, any edits to include sources who categorize the subject as non-associated are reverted. Ihuntrocks (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Content in that article is determined by consensus on that article's talk page. Settle the matter there. Maybe you should try a different approach than bludgeoning and edit warring. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Thank you for your response. The talk page has been updated to reflect the NPOV dispute for the page. It has also been suggested by both an editor and separately by an admin, to seek discussion and comments elsewhere. If you would like to add to the discussion on the talk page, your input would be welcome. Feel free to also participate on the NPOV noticeboard. Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The NPOV dispute tag has been removed less than 24 hours after being added while discussion is still active on NPOV noticeboard and Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. The edit summary associated is simply "Not buying it," which doesn't seem to satisfy the criteria for removal in the when to remove guidelines. Sources used currently in the article are disputed under several Wikipedia guidelines, as is the tone of the article. At present, an insufficient number of people have joined the discussion. Clarification is requested. Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The talk page NPOV dispute section has now been closed with an incorrect assertion that I have "dropped" the dispute. It is possible that this issue (NPOV on page) will require an RfC from uninvolved editors. Ihuntrocks (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Administrator note I have re-opened the talk page discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Edison Divorce Torture Plot

Edison divorce torture plot-this article is highly inflammatory, slanderous, grossly inaccurate and cites weak sources. It should be extensively edited or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett47 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• I trimmed a lot of the non-NPOV material and a lot that violated BLP. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• With this edit, Brett47 saw fit to remove 19 reliable sources, added an advocacy group website in their stead, added an editorial/OR about one of the convicted men, and whitewashed the name of another convicted man from the article. After BubbaJoe123456 readded it, he repeated the whitewashing. Those edits, plus the one to this noticeboard, are his only contributions here. StonyBrook (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Quackwatch as a source on living person articles, is Quackwatch a SPS?

There has been a discussion about Quackwatch being used on articles for living people. [25]. User Bilby says Quackwatch should not be used on articles of living people because it is a self-published source [26], and has removed Quackwatch as a source from some articles.

What is the consensus on this? This is the first time I have seen someone describe Quackwatch as a self-published source. User Bilby says "Quackwatch is a self published and partisan source. While it is reliable on scientific matters, under BLP policy we are not allowed to use an SPS to make claims about a living person." Is this right or not? The problem is that Quackwatch is being used on hundreds of Wikipedia articles for living people. I would hate to see Quackwatch removed from these articles, as it would take a lot of time to find replacement references. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I will not comment on SPS, but will on "partisan", it may well be. The problem is that it is by experts in the fields it tackles. Thus I think that "partisan" is a non starter.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm ok if consensus has changed, but Quackwatch is listed on WP:RSP as "Quackwatch is a self-published source written by a subject-matter expert". Barrett does have an advisory committee, but according to Barrett that committee numbers "1000's", so I assume that they don't have direct editoral control. It is fully owned by Steven Barrett, although about 11 years ago it was managed through a non-profit he set up. Barrett says that some (most?) articles are reviewed to check scientific claims, but not all articles are reviewed [27], and that news articles are not usually reviewed prior to publication. I checked the list of recent articles, and all are authored by Stephen Barrett. As far as I can tell, Barrett publishes it himself, writes the articles, and uses his community of advisors to check scientific claims, but ultimatly is the author and the one in editorial control.

From my reading, it is a self-published site that gets input from advisors and is written by a subject-matter expert, which seems in keeping with WP:RSP. On scientific issues it should continue to be seen as written by an expert and used under WP:PARITY, and as a respected expert Barrett's opinion on issues and people are valuable and worth mentioning. But in terms of factual statements about living people presented without attribution, I see it as a good quality self published source, but ultimately still self published. - Bilby (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

All news media are published by themselves SPS means the person writing it has also published it. Thus an article by Barrett on Quackwatch Would be an SPS, an article written by someone else published there would not be.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

But we list is as an SPS, as such it is not (according to policy) admissible to use in a BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I have yet to find a recent article written solely by someone other than Barrett. No article listed under "recent articles" on the site was, but I'm open to the possibility that some are written by other people and would not, in that case, be self published. - Bilby (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Just on the above, I've found some articles with someone else as the author. So far all were published between 15 and 20 years ago, but in that sense those articles wouldn't be self published. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm uncertain why Quackwatch is being treated as an WP:SPS. However, assuming it is, my question is how strict the blanket prohibition on using reliable expert WP:SPS sources for BLPs is. I know there is a carve-out on WP:SPS for WP:ABOUTSELF (vexatious though it may be). Is this another place where there is an exception? No questioning that Quackwatch is published by experts. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

We did have a series of RFCs about a year ago on this, with apparant consensus being that we don't want to make an exception to BLP for fringe topics [28]. - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• My take on BLPSPS is to make sure that there is some type of editorial control on the source to make sure that this is not one person venting on a BLP without any serious fear of repercussions. The editorial control means that a serious accusation has been vetted to affirm (to the source's best knowledge) to be true or likely to be true. (That still might turn out wrong as recently happened with the NYTimes, but editorial control also means they redact statements and issue erratas to fix that). We assume that that editorial control does not exist at an SPS. (It's also why BLPSPS allows only the BLP's own SPS to be used to back claims about themselves and only about themselves, they are the only person they can talk with authority on).

So that question now turns to whether Quackwatch is an SPS, and while it seems to meet that, the fact that 1) it has a volunteer network of experts in the field to review quasiscience/medicine claims with the site owner then writing that information up, 2) does appear to have some type of process that while I would not call "editorial", is there to make sure that their volunteers are not slandering BLPs per [29], and 3) has often been cited in mainstream sources as a reasonably expert source, means to me that it should not immediately be taken as a BLPSPS, but I would strongly recommend not have it as the only source pointing out a BLP of quackery, because of the fact that most of the volunteer experts are anonymous at QW. I would find it hard that in relation to a BLP, QW would be the only such site. --Masem (t) 14:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I take issue with removing Quackwatch because there is a larger picture here. If we start removing reliable skeptical websites like Quackwatch from Wikipedia because it is apparently a self-published source, then this will also effect other valid skeptical sources. Robert Todd Carroll owner of a website Skeptics Dictionary which is similar to his book The Skeptic's Dictionary. Have a little search for the Skeptics Dictionary (skepdic.com) on Wikipedia. The source has been used many times on articles for deceased and living people in relation to their pseudoscientific claims. Are you saying we should remove this source as well? Brian Dunning's Skeptoid website is also used many times on Wikipedia in regarding to living people's claims. I do not believe we should be removing any of these sources. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

We have polices for a reason, and they apply to all. Ask to change policy, do not ignore it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

So are you personally going to remove Quackwatch, Skeptic's Dictionary and Skeptoid from hundreds of Wikipedia articles of living people? I think not! 81.147.137.6 (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Mostly they won't be being used incorrectly so it won't be a concern. - Bilby (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It's usually fine. Attribute it. Make sure it is about FRINGE claims. Take care with it's use. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• We've been through this before. Quackwatch is self-published, and self-published sources are not allowed on living persons per WP:BLPSPS, even if written by experts in the field as permitted by WP:SPS. (And note that "expert" means an expert in the field under discussion, not a generic scientist.) If you want to change the policy, please go to WT:BLP, but bear in mind that a relatively recent effort to change it failed. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• It should be treated as an SPS if the publication belongs to the single moderator (Stephen Barrett). However, some usage on BLP pages is fine, as on page Jim Laidler, where the subject (Laidler) has published something on Quackwatch. Besides, I do not see it used on many BLP pages. My very best wishes (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It is being used on quite a few BLP pages. I just counted about 38 pages (that was only a few minutes looking). I think we are all in agreement that it can be used if Stephen Barrett is not the author of the said article. For example, one popular article on Quackwatch that has been used on BLP pages is Jack Raso's Dictionary of Metaphysical Healthcare. If Stephen Barrett is not the author and the said author is an expert, then there should be no problem using Quackwatch on BLP pages. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you check that many of these people are no longer living? If so, that could be checked, but a lot can depend on context. If this is clearly a defamatory claim by the moderator with regard to a living person, then yes, such claim should be removed per WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

81.147.137.6, using Quackwatch as a source for living people is a policy violation. The only exception is if the author of the Quackwatch source is the subject of the BLP. That is the sole exception to BLPSPS, namely that you can be used as a source about yourself even if self-published. Otherwise no: not articles by Barrett or by anyone else. BLPSPS is part of a core content policy. Also pinging Bilby. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That was what the last RFC determined. - Bilby (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have the link to RFC or any previous conservations about this? Users still do not know what the consensus is on this even though you have explained it here, I didn't know about it either. It be worth making this more public so future users know about it because I am sure this will be raised again in the future. Thanks 81.147.137.6 (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, the key is in your words here: "But in terms of factual statements about living people presented without attribution, I see it as a good quality self published source, but ultimately still self published."

It should not be used "without attribution". Barrett's opinions are the opinions of a notable expert and can be used, but with attribution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Often QuackWatch is the best source on the subject in question, as good sources when it comes to alt med are often few and far between. If used it should of course be attributed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Doc James and BullRangifer: no self-published sources can be used about living persons. WP:BLPSPS is part of core content policy. Ignoring it may have legal implications for individual editors and for Wikipedia. It's not a question of attribution. It's whether there is an editorial process, a fact-checking process, a publisher willing and able to take legal responsibility. All those issues inform and curtail what organizations can publish about living persons. This editorial structure is entirely absent when it comes to SPS. That's why we don't allow them in BLPs, unless it's the BLP subject talking about themselves. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• The source is peer reviewed. It is published by Quackwatch. So not really self published. No different than using a paper published by Richard Horton in the Lancet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Quackwatch is owned and published by Barrett, so yes, if he publishes articles he wrote himself on a website that he owns and is the editor of, then he is self publishing. The Lancet is published by Elsevier, not Horton, and Elsevier in turn is owned by RELX. Lancet has a peer review process through which only 5% of papers are accepted, most of which are rejected in house and don't make it to the full peer review stage - if they do they are reviewed by at least three experts in the field. According to Barrett, Quackwatch articles may be checked by another person depending on the topic and how coinfident Barrett feels about the material, and most news articles undergo no peer review. I don't see that the two are comparable. - Bilby (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• And even the WP:ABOUTSELF carve-out in WP:BLPSPS isn't carte-blanche if a self-published statement about a subject was seen as unduly self-serving. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• I would take that to mean about the person themselves, but would not apply it to other content in an article about the person, such as the work and claims of the person. If that is not clear in the policy, it should be made clear. We always handle content and person(s) in articles differently, just as we do in talk page discussions (discuss the content, not other editors). This is where we need to use some common sense.

As to legal liability, if we are REpublishing claims made on the internet, even false and libelous claims, we are covered by a legal ruling which involved Stephen Barrett himself (the irony!): See: Barrett v. Rosenthal. Only the original publisher can be sued. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are good sources when it comes to alt med few and far between? Could it be that the content is not notable (in which case policy says it should be excluded) or that more reputable publications don't want to attach their names to the kind of statements that QuackWatch makes? Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Зенитная Самоходная Установка, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources. This is the policy that enables us to cover these fringe topics. See my outdented comment below about this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This might be more an aside, but I'm getting the impression from those that really want to keep QW that there seems to be a need to make sure that WP calls out on people that are engages in pseudo-science/alternative medicine/etc. - the stuff at the FRINGES - to remind readers this stuff is FRINGEY. When there is clear scientific-based claims (MEDRS/SCIRS) to demonstrate the FRINGE, that's fine, but I'm reading between the lines here and it looks like there's a drive that even when the FRINGE factors aren't covered in MEDRS/SCIRS sources, that there's a need to make sure to call out the apparent FRINGE (eg in this case, using QW as the key source). I clearly understand that when there is something proven to be FRINGE by MEDRS/SCIRS sourcing that we make sure that that's well established to avoid giving readers the impression that the FRINGE may be true. But we seem to be dealing with cases here of suggested alternative medicine/etc. where subject-matter expert editors on WP can see the suggested science is FRINGY ("Eat nothing but chocolate to lose 50 lbs in a day!") but no appropriate RS has commented on that, outside of something like QW. At that point, is it really our place to try to make sure that this is identified as FRINGE, or should we be waiting for more sources to do that? I mean, we should be very wary of also including claims that are not backed by MEDRS sources, that's one thing. If a person is notable for this hypothetical chocolate diet, but we lack MEDRS to support it or refute it - outside QW - we may not be able to treat it as FRINGE and only as asserted claims. (Which to that end, UNDUE tells us it is inappropriate to go into excessive details about said claims). That is, we should consider what sourcing gives us to be able to distinguish between appropriately-sourced disproven FRINGE and yet-validated asserted claims, and from reading comments about, QW should only be the source making that distinction. --Masem (t) 14:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

If a Fringe source cannot be identified as fringe except through reference to Quackwatch or other WP:SPS sources, WP:FRINGE would suggest the page should be deleted. I know there's a strong sentiment against "wikipedia is silent on this issue" WRT quacks and pseudo-medical cons, but otoh, an encyclopedia is not a clearinghouse of all information everywhere, and not every quack needs an article here exposing their quackery. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that if the only facet a BLP is notable for is a yet-proven-or-disproven FRINGE concept like a fad diet, then we are better off not covering it per MEDRS. But there will be cases of people already notable for other things that then add in this type of fad diet or other PSCI concept to their resume, which gets covered in non-MEDRS reliable sources. Do we remain completely mum on that? I don't think we can, but we can keep the nonsense to a minimum by inline attribution and only making the very top level assertions. "Dr. Smith later introduced his all-chocolate diet, which he claimed helped to stimulate the body to consume fat and lose weight." -- and nothing else until at least some MEDRS stepped in to call it bad science. Using QW for that purpose seems wrong. --Masem (t) 14:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources often applies to the situations where QW is good to use. Many alternative medicine subjects are so fringe that they are ignored by peer reviewed and other mainstream sources, but QW and a few other RS will still examine and comment on them. This helps us stay true to our mission, which is to document the "sum total of human knowledge." Unfortunately pseudoscience, quackery, and scams are part of that reality, and we should not leave a hole in our coverage because the big name university sources don't comment on some of these fringe issues which are very notable in fringe sources we can't use, and which cause death and suffering to so many. QW serves us quite well by bringing a science-based mainstream POV magnifying glass to the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

But again per WP:V, if something is not covered by good RSes, we should not try to coerce "poor" sources to make that inclusion, and to me, that would include trying to disprove quack science. And if what Bilby says is true about QW being not seen as an RS from a previous RFC, then we can't QW as the only source disproving quack science without violating BLP. --Masem (t) 14:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Masem, I'm not sure where they get the idea that "QW being not seen as an RS from a previous RFC". Most RfCs about QW have rated it a RS, sometimes to be used with caution, and sometimes to be attributed, but never an unreliable source we can't use. I suspect a misunderstanding or an exceptional situation due to a specific misuse of QW. No source is reliable in all situations, and all sources are unreliable in certain situations.

There is a lingering misunderstanding about QW created by an ArbCom case filed against me by a fringe medical person who came to Wikipedia with the sole purpose of attacking me. They were indeffed. The ArbCom decision contained some unfortunate wording which implied that QW was an unreliable source. Much later we got that wording changed to remove the slur. Follow the links here: User:BullRangifer#Vindicated_regarding_AE_case_and_Quackwatch!

QW is generally a RS for alternative medicine, fringe health claims, and quackery subjects. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know where the RFC that SarahSV/Bilby have mentioned is linked, and I think its necessary to see that to comment further. --Masem (t) 17:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Here the link from above to the RFC: [30]. The issue seems to be that a WP:SPS is not appropriate on a WP:BLP regardless of whether it is otherwise a WP:RS, with no consensus for an exception for WP:FRINGE topics. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I never knew about those RfCs. They were both withdrawn. A quick scan of the page shows that QW was only mentioned in a positive manner, but I may have missed something. The bottom line is that the RfCs were withdrawn, so the previous RfCs about QW still apply, and there is no exception made for BLPs. The same rules apply to QW as to all other RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the rule is that a RS that is a SPS cannot be used on a BLP. The same rule applies to QW. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The way I read that close and discussion, it basically means there's no concensus to "weaken" BLPSPS for FRINGE-related topics. Which is what I suspected and echos my point above about whether we are supposed actually call out fringy stuff that no real RS has actually called out fringe. And leaves the question if QW is an SPS or not. My guy from everything I read says "yes", but again, it can be used if other RSes have already called out the quackery. --Masem (t) 18:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

...are not allowed on living persons... @SlimVirgin:, you're the only person using that phrase. What does it mean? --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

...cannot be used on a BLP. @Wallyfromdilbert:, you use similar wording. What does that mean? --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

See WP:SPS: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The phrasing is awkward and ambiguous. You mean that such sources cannot be used about a person who meets BLP criteria? --Ronz (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, what do you find awkward about it? WP:BLPSPS says (bold in the original): "Avoid self-published sources: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. 'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs." SarahSV ^(talk) 20:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I asked for clarification for what you wrote. Your response doesn't help in the slightest. Your phrasing isn't what I'd consider grammatically correct, but at best is awkward and ambiguous. Do you mean that such sources cannot be used about a person who meets BLP criteria? --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, I'm not sure what you mean. We're talking here about living people who have biographies on Wikipedia or who are mentioned in other articles. When writing about those people, we must not use self-published sources, unless the source was written by the person in question. In other words, if someone is writing about themselves, it does not matter whether the source was self-published, but otherwise it is not allowed. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The phrasing that you used, that I quoted, was unclear. You've now clarified it to my satisfaction: Such sources cannot be used about a person who meets BLP criteria. If you'd like further clarification from me, let me know. --Ronz (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• QuackWatch is a reliable source, cited by government websites and other authorities. it is not solely the work of one person, and even if it was there is no blanket prohibition on use of self-published sources in biographies - if we applied a "no third party self-published sources" rule and decided that QuackWatch is self-published we would arrive at the absurd situation where Null's claims could be repeated from his own mouth without rebuttal, since the reality-based community largely ignores him. We are being lectured on policy by User:Зенитная Самоходная Установка on the basis of their whopping 2,131 edits, and they came here because they read about this on Gary Null's website. Which is also where the earlier nontroversy was stirred up. Null tried to sue WMF to have this material removed a decade ago, the case was dismissed. He's recently started sending legal threats to editors. The cynic in me would think he has a publicity drive coming up and wants to purge Wikipedia of reality-based commentary on his activities.

M Quacks and charlatans hate QuackWatch. They have been demanding its removal from Wikipedia for as long as I've been here. The normal policy is to ignore them. I suggest we apply that now. Guy (help!) 23:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Quackwatch is self-published. It's not a question of us deciding that. It's Stephen Barrett's website. Whether it's a single or group blog makes no difference. You write that without it "Null's claims could be repeated from his own mouth without rebuttal". But can those claims not be ignored instead? I've noticed this a couple of times with Holocaust denial. Wikipedians add their claims in detail, then use self-published sources to demolish them, because no Holocaust historian has addressed the details they're writing about. But there's a reason they don't bother, just as there's a reason scientists don't bother to demolish the claims under discussion here. By reproducing them, we're arguably spreading them, then we need SPS to demolish them. Is there not a way of writing the bio with non-SPS reliable sources only, perhaps a much shorter version? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

So basically you want to make an ad hominem attack against me, and then argue that we need to disregard BLP policy because it's more important to right a great wrong by exposing quackery, than it is to uphold a high standard of integrity and accuracy when it comes to biographies. What about Blackstone's ratio. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The difficulty lies in writing about ideas viewed as harmful when there are few sources. Do we let a bad idea stand (e.g. no one died at Sandy Hook or Jews did 911), or do we use whatever sources we can find to make clear they are false? With the two examples I've given, there are lots of sources, but when you go off the beaten track you find fewer. You're then left with an ethical dilemma of how to present the information fairly and accurately. People do the best they can. I'm not familiar with the subject of this BLP, and I deliberately haven't looked in any detail, because I'm trying to respond to the principle not the particular. But it's hard not to notice the wide range of topics he covers. It would be difficult to have developed expertise in all those areas. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

To me it seems like Quackwatch sits in a sort of gray area when it comes to being an SPS or not. However, I also think that policies, including WP:FRINGE, explicitly prohibit "the absurd situation where Null's claims could be repeated from his own mouth without rebuttal". FRINGE states: "Proponents of fringe theories have used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Policies discourage this: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. Attempts by inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as sock puppetry in AfD discussions, are prohibited." and WP:BLPBALANCE: "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all". By my reading, taken together the policies are pretty clear; if a fringe position has not generated enough notability to be covered by reliable sources, it has not generated enough reliability to warrant mentioning it in an article, as doing so so without rebuttal would certainly give the idea undue weight. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

So basically what's going to need to happen is that Gary Null meets Jimbo at a cocktail party and makes a compelling case to him that his biography unfairly portrays him as a quack and therefore needs to be drastically truncated or deleted. But maybe those two don't attend the same cocktail parties, so such a chance meeting wouldn't happen, and even if it did, it's not like Gary is a celebrity.

Isn't there a Wikipedia:BLP ombudsman around here? No? I guess Jimbo is the de facto BLP ombudsman, since he's the only one who really has the clout to go against the administrative establishment in cases like this. If you really want to ensure the highest standards for BLPs, there has to be someone with authority to take action even in the absence of community consensus to enforce the BLP rules; and that would have to either be someone appointed by the WMF, or some elected position, or someone designated by the ArbCom, or something. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That's extremely unlikely. Null has in any case already tried to have this material removed through legal action and the case was dismissed. Guy (help!) 22:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Зенитная Самоходная Установка, Guy is right. That is extremely unlikely to happen, especially from Jimbo:

Wikipedia does not cater to what Jimmy Wales calls "lunatic charlatans":

Quote: "No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't." — Jimbo Wales, March 23, 2014

We do not allow advocacy of fringe points of view, so the fact that fringe believers don't like these articles shows that we must be doing something right. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

So are we now going to re-write wp:sources, because that is where people will go to check on a sources admissibility?Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Well...QW does seem to be pretty unequivocally self-published. When I looked into it, I expected to find that it was a registered non-profit with some type of definite governance structure. Apparently it used to be, and they've now dissolved that bit in favor of being openly a personal website. So I'm curious to what extent we actually need to cite it. In the case of the first reference in Gary Null, as it turns out, we don't need to cite QW at all. We can instead cite a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper, who themselves quote Quackwatch verbatim. Voila. We actually improve the sourcing of the article by citing a secondary source, which presumably has vetted the SPS for relevance and accuracy.

The second citation, well it already has two books supporting it.

As for the third citation, hmm. Looks like we can instead cite Science-Based Medicine in their piece here. They actually do seem to be an established organization with a diverse board of editors and contributors, all of which seem to have a lot of fancy acronyms next to their names. A Yale clinical neurologist, a surgical oncologist, some pharmacy and anesthesiology. Seems to check out fairly well.

So I guess my question is, what bit of content are we actually arguing about?..the bit that is only supported by QW where no better source is available? GMG^talk 12:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

That for me is the issue, why are we using an SPS when we do not need to, what function does it serve. It looks like a reverse of "I don't like it", and that seems to be it, Garry Null does not want us to use it so we must use it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't care at all about this Null fellow, and little about Quackwatch, but the integrity of Wikipedia behooves us to attempt to find sources better than just one man's website. (I should note that I do deprecate the usage of Quackwatch, as one man's website does not notability make.) — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

We can surely debate the merits of the principle behind WP:PARITY, and I surely have had occasion to do so. It's probably been a year or more since I needed to drop an RfC on the issue, something to do with blogs and external links IIRC, though I'd be hard pressed to even tell you what article it was about. But what we should be able to all agree on is that PARITY ought not be an excuse to use poor quality sources out of convenience rather than necessity. If we want to cite crappy sources out of convenience, well, RationalWiki is that-a-way, and this ain't it. GMG^talk 12:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A point to consider for those worried about FRINGE PSCI topics getting far too much coverage without the ability for using QW to call out its nonsense, in that WP:BLPSELFPUB exists too - excessive coverage of the details of a PSCI theory on a BLP would be "unduly self-serving". And even if there are normally-good RSes covering the PSI nonsense without calling out that nonsense (which becomes hard to believe), we can certain limit how much in the medical claim area is said by relying on WP:MEDRS to keep any non-peer reviewed claims - outside of high level summaries - out of these articles too. We can't call out quackery if we have to rely only on QW for that, but we can clearly limit how much of that quackery gets into WP. --Masem (t) 13:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• No - Does not fit the definition. ∯WBG^converse 18:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Winged Blades of Godric, what definition are you using? Quackwatch is run and (it seems) written by one person. There's no professional editorial oversight, no one who can say (with authority) "No, we're not going to publish that on this website." SarahSV ^(talk) 18:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• SarahSV, there is professional oversight, so your "No, we're not going to publish that on this website" statement is really bizarre and reveals you know little about the website. It's not a blog or a wiki. It's true that Barrett writes many of the articles, but there are probably more by other subject experts, and then there is also the fact that it's the largest database of documents, books, legal rulings, etc. on the subjects of medical history, quackery, health care scams, dubious practices, official government reports, reports by consumer protection agencies, etc., and much of that is only available at QW.

That massive amount of material is not written by Barrett. So if there is any question about SPS, it would only apply to articles written by Barrett, and you have no idea how many people helped gather that information, proofread, and give input, on those articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• And, we might as well stop using Gorski's articles over SBM. ∯WBG^converse 05:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• SBM is published by the New England Skeptical Society, rather than Gorski, so I don't think that is a concern. - Bilby (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a thread over at RSN now, can we please not discuss this in half a dozen different forums?Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, Quackwatch is not a reliable source for BLPs (and probably most everything else) per WP:BLPSPS. It is self-published and it appears to lack independent editorial control. WP:USEBYOTHERS is weak. It is cited by publishers like the New York Post, AlterNet, the Daily Beast, Fox News, and Time. Although less of a concern, there is no evidence that the editorial process is independent of the commercial interest of the site (referral income from medically related products/services). On background, the owner of Quackwatch is a Psychiatrist who has not practiced medicine for 26 years.[31] Even if this blog were not self published, the principle that, if something is noteworthy enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, it will have reported by other reliable sources, applies.- MrX 🖋 11:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed move

I wasn't aware of this discussion when I posted the question at RSN, but now that I know about it, let be say that BLPN is the wrong place to talk about whether a source is a SPS. I propose that we move this discussion to the correct venue now, leaving a link here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I wholly agree.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hong Kong protests need eyes... again

This time it's the insistence in certain quarters to causally link the protests to a specific number of suicides in an infobox based on the word of some dubious media outlets. Suicide is multi-faceted and muckrakers at local online news outlets should not be treated in wiki voice as being able to diagnose an explicit causal connection. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this relating to the 2019 Hong Kong protests article? It always helps to link to the relevant article when raising things here.

Personally, I think what's currently in the article is OK, including the infobox as this is now cited to The Guardian, which is certainly not 'some dubious media outlet', it's well-respected. However I've added the article to my watchlist so that I can keep an eye on it. Neiltonks (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian is being misused there as a citation though; it says that protesters have claimed 9 suicides were caused by the conflict in HK, it does not say that 9 suicides were caused by the conflict in HK as used in the infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

David Siderovski

Came across this David Siderovski BLP in the natural course of reading wikipedia. It reads like a resume with no cited reliable sources (just links to the subjects own work). The article was created on August 5th 2017 and edited that day by an account called "dsiderov" make it very obvious this is an autobiographical article. Looking up the IPs of the anonymous edits shows them originating from WVU, the subjects institution. Not that doing those things a violation but it supports the idea that this is an auto-biographical article. The included photos are very very strange as well.

In summary this article doesn't meet Notability and Reliable sources requirements for BLP in my opinion. This also is a clear Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Searine (talk • contribs) 18:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Whether an autobiography or not I can't say. There are usually telltale signs of that in the writing style, but I'm not seeing those here. However, this article is sourced entirely to primary sources, of which like 90% of those are his own research papers, along with a smattering of university profiles. The total lack of secondary source coverage seems to put notability into question. Mostly, the article has little to do with the subject but serves as more of a showcase for his research. At best, I think it needs a lot of work. At worst, lacking any secondary source, this may be a good candidate for AFD. Zaereth (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I removed the content that was sourced to primary sources or the article subject's own work and seemed more promotional than relevant or important. It looks like it was all initially added by Dudley143, who has only edited this page and may want to respond to the discussion here. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Linda Fiorentino

Hello. I was just contacted by a user called "Linda Fiorentino Really" over at User talk:CapnZapp#LINDA FIORENTINO and would like your help in figuring out what to do.

The page Linda Fiorentino has seen several coarse attempts at removing facts well sourced to Washington Post and more. As you can see from the Talk page and history several IP accounts have also been involved. One even claiming to be a relative of the article subject. But now the user involved claims to be the subject itself.

I don't know the details of the procedures to verify your real-life identity, clean up your own page and so on; so hopefully you will investigate and be in touch with user "Linda Fiorentino Really". In order to not raise false hopes, I just responded I've asked for admin assistance. Hope I'm doing the right thing.

Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Gudrun Kalmbach

I am Gudrun Kalmbach H.E. and want to add my large collection of books MINT (Mathematik, Informatik, Naturwissenschaften, Technik), Vol. 1-40. It is available in the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Frankfurt/M and the Bayerische Nationalbibliothek Muniche, at the TU Muniche and in the USA at Kansas State University, library Prof. Pascal Hitzler. Single volumes are available at many universities in the world which are interested in my MINT documentation as editor. I have no url for this, but many volumes are found under http://mint-wigris.bplaced.net which you accepts with its url Kalmbach H.E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.40.69 (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)