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.

BIll Ayers

There seems to have been an effort in the last few weeks to rewrite Bill Ayers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to emphasise his involvement in the Weather Underground.

In late April 2018[1] (arbitrary date} the article read:\

"William Charles "Bill" Ayers (born December 26, 1944) is an American elementary education theorist and a leader in the counterculture movement who opposed US involvement in the Vietnam War. He is known for his 1960s radical activism and his current work in education reform, curriculum and instruction. In 1969, he co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group with the intent to overthrow imperialism, that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings (including police stations, the US Capitol Building, and the Pentagon) during the 1960s and 1970s in response to US involvement in the Vietnam War."

In December last year[2] it read:

"William Charles Ayers (/ɛərz/; born December 26, 1944) is a former leader of the Weather Underground and American elementary education theorist. During the 1960s, Ayers participated in the counterculture movement that opposed US involvement in the Vietnam War. He is known for his 1960s radical activism and his later work in education reform, curriculum and instruction. "

But starting on the 3rd of March it beings to change , with the last sentence saying "He is known for his 1960s terrorist activity" instead. Then we get thisp[3] which adds "terrorist" to his short description and bizarrely calls Bill Ayres a "political terrorist" in the "For the" bit above the lead. Then we get an account making two edits (and more anywhere) throwing "domestic terrorism" into it in several places. This type of edit continues and even spills over to WP:ANI#Moderator Tarl N. abusing powers and reverting legitimate changes due to political bias with User:Bswastek complaining about User:Tarl N. Bswastek and User:Monomoystriper continue and are reverted by User:MiasmaEternal who then adds to the Weather Underground mention that it was described by the FBI as a domestic terrorist organisation (which is absolutely true, but the issue is where does that belong). An IP that I will notify removed this saying there was a consensus not to use the word terrorism, but I can't find that. User:Baseball Bugs reinstates the text, an IP (that I will notify) changes "described" to "classified", a term definitely not used by the FBI source[4] making it read that Ayers "is a former leader of the Weather Underground (a group classified by the FBI as a "domestic terrorist organisation")" rather than "described by the FBI as a domestic terrorist group"(I'll raise that issue at RSN) and I reverted them.

The current lead says (unless the last IP reverts me as they have elsewhere)

"William Charles Ayers (/ɛərz/; born December 26, 1944) is a former leader of the Weather Underground (a group which has been described by the FBI as a "domestic terrorist organisation") and an American elementary education theorist. During the 1960s, Ayers participated in the counterculture movement that opposed US involvement in the Vietnam War. He is known for his 1960s radical activism and his later work in education reform, curriculum and instruction."

Note that Ayers vehemently argues that his actions weren't terrorism. I'd like eyes on this article, particularly the lead, as I suspect this slow moving edit war will continue. Notifying the editors I haven't mentioned yet (mainly involved in reverts), and as I said, I'll tell the IPs on their talk page. User:Hammersoft, User:Markbassett, User:Nyook, User:Acroterion, User:CLCStudent, User:Tarl N., User:Zinnober9, and User:Galendalia. As is so often the case, what we seem to have is a number of IPs, all but two not editing regularly if ever at all before and accounts with very few edits doing this, with experienced editors reverting them. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I'm the latest IP, who reverted you (on the Weatherman page). There are at least two separable issues here. One is how to describe Ayers himself, e.g., is he a former terrorist. I was not involved in those edits, but I think it both obvious and well established that an implicated party like Ayers insisting his acts were not terrorism, although relevant to the article and worthy of inclusion, does not carry much weight compared to the opinions of others. The second issue, which has nothing to do with Ayers, is how to describe the FBI's categorization of the Weatherman group, i.e., did they "classify" it as terrorist or "describe it" as terrorist. The latter are (in my opinion) weasel words but this part of the question is dealt with in more detail at the RSN you just posted. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out at RSN, the description of the group as domestic terrorists is taken from an article written for the general public. As the disclaimer says, "the Department makes no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this site....The information appearing on this website is for general informational purposes only."[5] AFAIK the FBI has never charged members of the Weather Underground with terrorist offenses or designated it a terrorist group. Any attempt to claim they did is wrong.

There's also the issue of synthesis. Unless the same source says that Bill Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground and that the FBI described it as a terrorist group, it should not be used in the article.

TFD (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. There is also the issue of due weight since there aren't citations to secondary sources confirming the label. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have issue with -given these three lede samples - how this has morphed to be very non-impartial tone towards a BLP, which is inappropriate. The lede needs to start impartial with the most factual, least subjective and least controversial/contentious statements about a BLP unless the only thing they are known for at all is criminal related (which is not the case here, obviously). Once you get that said and done, as was the first example, then you can move into the contentious aspects they may be known for, here being the ties to the WU and its classification as a terrorist organization. This isn't about trying to incorporate Ayers' claim that WU isn't a terrorist organization, but more that regardless which way you take that, its still a contentious statement relative to other general statements you can make about Ayers related to his notability (education theorist, counterculture movement activist) and should follow those). --Masem (t) 17:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

At least part of the editing of the lede has been political - someone running against Obama, who has associated with Ayers, so thus changing the lede to reflect terrorism helps the campaign to say "associates with terrorists". I hear occasional flames of that nature, and within a day or two, see a spike in edits on Wikipedia. The goal seems to be getting the words "terrorism" or "terrorist" into the lede. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean, there's reasonable need to mention WU and terrorism-related activities, including the FBI's designation, in relation to Ayers. That's not an issue. What is an issue here, and at most similar cases, is the ordering to put these front and center before any discussion of more objective facets that Ayers was also known for, even if they weren't as notable as his WU connections. There's no requirement that the lede be ordered in terms of what makes a person notable. --Masem (t) 20:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

There isn't an "FBI designation." There's an article on the Department of Justice Website that refers retrospectively to the Weather Underground as "domestic terrorists" as well as a disclaimer for what's written in the article. TFD (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

These attempts to minimize the FBI categorization don't work, since there are numerous other documents up at their website (fbi.gov has a nice search box), the main ones being extracts from longer official publications elsewhere not subject to general DOJ disclaimers; plus early 70's FBI memoranda and testimony published in the Church Committee reports, also online; plus other FBI material in the books by Burroughs (Days of Rage)) and Arthur Eckstein that draw on more recently declassified archives. It is hard to find in all this stuff any FBI documents that discuss the Weathermen but do not refer to them as terrorists and a terrorist organization. I don't think I've seen even one such, though as I mentioned actually compiling and uploading the references would take some time. Older documents almost exclusively use "terrorist" to refer to what we (and the FBI) now call "domestic" terrorist, adding the prefix "domestic" only for disambiguation when both domestic and foreign groups are discussed in close textual proximity (such as the same sentence or adjacent ones). 73.149.246.232 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Bill Ayers was indicted by a Detroit federal grand jury in July 1970 (court document available on the US Congress site) for the violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States. I guess "terrorism" wasn't even officially defined until the Antiterrorism Act of 1990? Though the Weather Underground was described as an "urban terrorist" organization even in the US Senate back in the 1970s, the usage of the word 'terrorist' has probably evolved quite a bit. --Pudeo (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

We generally don't use terms of criminal designation without a conviction. An indictment (which was later dismissed) by itself isn't sufficient in a BLP. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In light of "We generally don't use terms of criminal designation without a conviction" the OJ Simpson article needs to be severely modified as he was never convicted. This would also mean, I think, that many other BLP pages need modified as how many are out there with sexual assault allegations that were never brought to indictment. So if this is the "standard", people better fire-up their keyboards as there's a lot of work to be done. As an aside, terrorism as a term/word dates back to the 1790s, and in the US legally but only generally to the late 1980s. The term has been applied retroactively in the press to many but they've usually at least been convicted of some crime that falls under the current legal terms. Ayers has not so the term isn't appropriate. His affiliation with the WU organization though is documented and should be mentioned and then it can be left to individuals to make their own opinion and hopefully reading. Since terrorism is on the WU article, that is sufficient. ToeFungii (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't go back and describe Bacon's Rebellion, the Sons of Liberty, Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, etc., as domestic terrorism, although they meet the classification. Besides, we need a reliable secondary source that makes the judgment, not a tertiary source on the Department of Justice website that contains a disclaimer. TFD (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, you might want to look here as Sirhan is said to be terrorist in 2008 Boston Globe article. Oswald's motives were never known as he died. You forgot about John Brown, but may want to look here where terrorist is used to describe him as well as Booth. I could give more examples, but I hope you see my statement is correct. And re-read what I said which was not to include terrorism with Ayers. ToeFungii (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What it tells us is that new concepts develop and some people use them retrospectively to describe the past: Jesus was a socialist, Spartacus was a communist, Caesar was a man of the left, Reagan was a neoliberal. Your source btw, a professor of English literature writing in The Atlantic. does not describe Sirhan Sirhan as a "domestic terrorist." And why would you accept this type of source as definitive when There are actual experts who write about these things? Why not quote a theologian on architecture or a poetry expert on quantum mechanics? Perhaps a physics professor on Shakespeare? TFD (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"Domestic terrorism" is not a new concept any more than "gay" is a new concept different from the older term "homosexual". It's a term the FBI used at least as far back as the late 1960's or early 70's when both domestic and foreign terrorism were part of the same discussion and the need arose for a separate term to distinguish them. Otherwise the FBI just referred to "terrorism" meaning the domestic kind. Later, as foreign-originated terrorism directed at US targets became more common, and the number of US domestic groups increased, "domestic terrorism" became a routine term. There is no retroactive interpretation involved such as calling Jesus a socialist or Reagan a neoliberal; if a group was "terrorist" in the older parlance, and domestically based, it is a "domestic terrorist" organization. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There are separate standards for public figures and other notable people. See: WP:BLPCRIME and the exception to it, WP:WELLKNOWN. In my opinion, the lede should look like a miniature scale-model of the body. The layout and weight should be identical. Aside from simply giving a quick overview for those who don't want to read the whole article, the primary purpose of the lede is to provide context for the rest of the article, and this is best done by giving info in the same order as the body. That's just the way the human brain best receives info, and makes it much easier to follow and comprehend, so I usually recommend that for all articles; like Honey or Glass, for example. Zaereth (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've BOLDLY edited the header to remove the LABEL as both UNDUE and contrary to BLPCRIME. The last year version looked much better as a summary, except I dropped 'counterculture' as not literally part of the article so not part of an article summary per WP:LEAD. It probably won't last, but here it is.

William Charles Ayers (/ɛərz/; born December 26, 1944) is an American elementary education theorist. During the 1960s, Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground that opposed US involvement in the Vietnam War. He is known for his 1960s radical activism and his later work in education reform, curriculum and instruction.

References

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

IP says that "BLPCRIME does not apply to the question of "terrorism"

Interesting that they are saying that at Talk:Bill Ayers instead of here. They wrote in response to User:Markbasset: "BLPCRIME does not apply to the question of "terrorism", which is not a US Federal crime but (in this case) an investigative and administrative classification used by the FBI. The language previously in the lede was that Ayers was a leader of the Weathermen, and that the Weather Underground was classified as a terrorist group by the FBI. Ayers wrote an entire book about the first, and the second has nothing to do with Ayers, it is an assessment of the Weatherman group that stands or falls independent of BLP's of group members.

Ayers is known, in roughly descending order of notability, for leading the Weathermen, being a fugitive (his autobiography is titled Fugitive Days), his connections to Obama in Chicago, and being an education professor/author. The last item has gotten orders of magnitude less publicity than the others, and is academic notability rather than general notability. To exclusively describe him as an educationist in the first sentence is some kind of joke and ledes of that flavor that avoid describing his past as a fugitive (from what?) or are evasive about the nature of the Weathermen will probably keep getting reverted. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 7:51 am, Today (UTC+1)"

Doug Weller talk 09:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Terrorism is crime committed for ideological reasons. It doesn't matter whether a specific crime of terrorism existed at the time, terrorist actions were illegal. So BLP applies. TFD (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but this illustrates the point that the word "terrorism" is not something well defined, and its meaning differs, depending upon how and who is using it, and how the readers themselves interpret it. Ultimately, it's the use of terror to affect political processes. Through most of history, terrorism was "top-down", meaning the governments used terror to keep the people in line. "Bottom-up" terrorism has been around a long time too but really got its big start in the Renaissance time, terrorism became a common staple of the Anarchists. Their motto was affecting political outcomes through the act of "deeds". The one common thing in all terrorism is this desire to affect politics through public opinion, and was very effective back then, especially when the political structure was already on shaky ground

The Thugs in Asia were commonly referred to as terrorists, and the Mongol authority's method of dealing with the Thugs was equally horrible. But what we understand as modern terrorism really began with the Nationalist movement beginning around the turn of the 20th century. This method began capitalizing on the media to spread its terror, and it is really the media machine which makes terrorism a much more powerful tool that it has ever been in history, and it's important to realize that governments can use it to their advantage as well. During the Cold-War era, terrorism was mainly attributed to communist states. But beginning around the 1980s it became more of a thing associated with Islam, and here is where the lines get blurry. What most outsiders don't understand is that, in Islamic states, there is very little to almost no distinction between politics and religion, so we tend to think of it now as being more of a thing done for religious reasons, but those reasons are and have always been political.

This is why there are so many books written about it, its history, and how best to handle it in the media, such as Terrorism and the Media: A Handbook for Journalists. The problem with terrorism is that the real enemy becomes ourselves. It is how we react to it that determines its effectiveness, but the common threads are both that it's politically motivated, and in the response it invokes. Guerrilla warfare is a good example. It's war if the response is a straight-out military campaign, but terrorism if the response is a covert one. It all depends, but we have to be very careful, as a media outlet ourselves, in just how we report these things. Zaereth (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of terrorism and its history having contributed to several Wikipedia articles about it. Indeed there is no agreed definition of terrorism, but all definitions share the same general view that it refers to criminal activity with ideological motivation. We don't usually refer to terrorism from above as terrorism but as terror, although some writers such as Chomsky say it should be called state terrorism. In any case the term terrorism is of recent coinage. No one referred to the Thugee as terrorists at the time and there is no mention of the term in the article about them. The term was however used when the Weather Underground were active, although it was not incorporated into U.S. law. TFD (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

True. The word itself actually comes from the French Revolution, but there have been groups throughout history that fit the definition. There were Jewish terrorists 2000 years ago trying to affect Roman politics, and if the word existed Jesus himself would probably have been convicted of it for merely turning over tables in a market place. (A crime he was executed for, or rather for the act of inciting political unrest.) I'm not saying we should or should not add it to the article. I don't know enough of the background in this case. If the media did back then, then it seems we should too. If someone recently wrote a book about it, retroactively calling it terrorism, then we should probably discuss their analysis. But I would not make it the first sentence in the lede unless that was all he was notable for. Zaereth (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of BLPCRIME is to protect low-profile individuals (who are usually only tangentially mentioned in an article). The policy does not apply to high-profile individuals, which Ayers is. But that is beside the point. You are correct when you later say Ayers's personal biography should not include sources that don't actually mention Ayers, but the issue is not "weight" as you suggest, connecting Weather Underground to Ayers in this case would require improper synthesis.

As a side note, I believe that Weather Underground is likely not covered by BLPGROUP, unless I imagine the organisation bigger than it actually is. Hence the fbi.gov source would be an acceptable, though sub-optimal, source about Weather Underground for different article. Politrukki (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Besides the point that terrorism is covered by BLPCRIME, I also point out that no police says that the lede has to be written from "most notable facet to least notable", it should be written in the order of most impartial information to least impartial, in a general sense, to keep an impartial tone to the article. This does not mean burying someone's attachment to violent activities; there's no reason Ayers' connection to the WU and its violent activities can't be in the second sentence of the lede, but they shouldnt be highlighted at the first thing a reader sees as they certainly are far from the most impartial aspect of Ayers. --Masem (t) 17:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I still think that when we mention the Weather Underground, that we use sources about Ayers, rather than sources that do not mention him at all. Per weight, any details about the group that are not mentioned in articles about him are not relevant. In particular the fact that forty years later, an article on the Department of Justice Website refers to them as domestic terrorists is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We should be more concerned with their development as a living person and less concerned with pigeonholing them for their initial noteworthiness. Bus stop (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

If this is in fact the uniform standard for BLP, then sure. I don't think that it is (see George Wallace as an example from the opposite site of the political spectrum, even though Wallace "developed" and apologized in ways that seem inconceivable for Ayers). If it were applied to Ayers, the development of his living-person notability has been primarily as an associate of Barack Obama, and that this attracted some national media controversy because of his initial noteworthiness, so the latter has to be explained anyway, which means dwelling to some extent on words like "bombing", "terrorism", or similar. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't care whether words beginning with "terror" are used for this or not, but it needs to be explained clearly and without equivocation what Ayers is notable for and (since that prominently includes leading the Weathermen) what the Weatherman group was and did. Most people reading Wikipedia these days are to young to recognize the group and it is disinforming them to obfuscate the fact that the main notability of the Weathermen was extensive bombing and chaos; that the targets struck were major US government facilities; that many people were injured and several died as a result of their actions, and that the scale of all this made it a huge national Big Deal at the time going far beyond bland euphemisms like "antiwar protest" or "radicalism". 73.149.246.232 (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Peter Nygård

• Peter Nygård (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just came across this BLP article, which appears to be a combination of a resume and an attack page. A careful review is needed, and I expect a great deal of rewriting. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

To give a idea of the problems, here's the lede:

Peter J. Nygård (né Pekka Juhani Nygård; born July 24, 1941) is a Finnish-Canadian former fashion executive, founder and former chairman of Nygård International, a company based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, that makes women's wear. He was rated the 70th richest Canadian by Canadian Business Magazine in 2009 with a net worth of $817 million. Nygård has been the subject of multiple lawsuits throughout his career. In February 2020, ten women filed a civil class-action lawsuit against Nygård, accusing him of raping them at his seaside mansion in the Bahamas and operating what they refer to as a "sex trafficking ring". In April 2020, the lawsuit was amended to include 36 additional women who accuse Nygård of sexual assault; 17 of whom are Canadian women. One of his accusers was only 14 years old when the alleged assault took place.

On February 25, 2020, Nygård stepped down as chairman of Nygård International, after their headquarters were raided in connection to sex trafficking claims.

References

Since no one has responded, I've trimmed back the lede, removing all mention of legal problems [6]. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

A brief summary of his legal troubles and especially his resignation from his company after the latest allegations should be mentioned in the leade. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Nick McKenzie

Nick McKenzie page has over months had non factual and libellous content repeatedly added to it by single purpose editor in breach of BLP and NPOV. Page was locked by admin but attacks by SP editor persistent and breaching BLP guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qldsydmel (talk • contribs) 04:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain why you removed this paragraph? [7] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of NPOV, there seems to be overuse of non-independent sources like McKenzie's own writings, his union, and his employer/newspaper. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Brendan Eich

It seems Brendan Eich invented 'opposition to same-sex marriage'. Apparently, opposition to same-sex marriage that existed before Brendon Eich was born, was created anticipating his birth. How astoundingly prophetic. Never knew that.

Sarcasm apart, Eich did not invent 'opposition to same-sex marriage' (quite obvious I believe) so it is illogical, petty, vindictive & bullying behaviour to mention the same in the infobox, whether there are citations are not. It is perfectly fine to do so in the article itself, with its own section.

An editor's views of this on the talk page (a response to some older comment) are "it really does appear to be the thing Eich is actually famous for in the wider world" and "it's not at all clear that Brave is something that Eich is famous for; if anything, it's the other way around: Brave's press coverage is mostly from it being Eich's next project" and "The claim is multiply cited to such sources, and the controversy appears to be that someone doesn't like this".

By that logic, one may as well remove javascript from 'known for', for i doubt any layman 'in the wider world' would know he was the prime designer of javascript.

As a matter of fact, one might as well apply the same logic to any low-key personality who has made significant but unknown contributions to tech/science/others and instead associate them with some inflammatory statement just because one disagrees with their views.

That makes no sense. Such comments may freely appear under personal life or controversies or have its own section - but appear in the infobox?

I am not denying Eich's stance here or asking for a 'benefit of doubt' or some other sappy thing. It is a well-cited controversy and absolutely deserves to be present. I would have added it otherwise. It is absolutely relevant enough to have its own section in the article. But is it relevant enough to be stated in an infobox?

Let us take this objectively. Unless it is a person who created an organisation that actively supported/opposed same-sex marriage, or actively campaigned in favour of/or against same-sex marriage, it is not logical or relevant to mention their 'social opinions' in the infobox. There are thousands of celebs who either openly advocate same-sex marriage or are against it or stay silent over the topic. Every famous person out there is known for some controversy or the other. It is as logical as mentioning 'known for smoking weed' or 'known for supporting same-sex marriage' or 'known for being straight' or 'known for being an atheist' in the info box of all celebs out there.

Carrying forward the logic of the editor i.e. , one might as well add 'known for adopting orphans' in Angelina Jolie's infobox or 'known for being gay' in Sir Ian McKellen's & Stephen Fry's infobox or 'known for supporting eugenics' in Nikola Tesla's infobox or 'known for opposing the gold standard' in Thomas Alva Edison's infobox. The editor stated in one of his comments that there are enough citations for his action, but there are more than enough citations for my examples too! Why aren't those mentioned, then? Simple. It is not because those points are not of note, but because it too shallow to mention those points, and not at all relevant for an infobox.

On the other hand, Angelina Jolie's close association with UNHC is of note (which is mentioned in the infobox) and McKellen's contributions towards LGBT rights including his founding of lobby groups is also of note (but not mentioned in the infobox). Had Jolie or McKellen only contributed to charity once or twice, it would be pertinent enough to be mentioned in the article, but not enough to be mentioned in the infobox.

But as opposed to Jolie's or McKellen's repeated participation in those activities, Eich's action, though widely recorded, did not involve repeated actions i.e. repeated donations and active participation in movements against same-sex marriages, as far as I have read. He resigned from Mozilla, allegedly due to the furore caused by his personal action, which again appears to have been done only once, from what I have noted. Also, the term 'allegedly', since the article itself mentions both sides of the coin instead of blindly attributing his 2014 resignation only due to his action from 2008.

This makes his opposition or support for same-sex marriages irrelevant. It is as relevant as someone contributing once to a LGBT lobby group (for public brownie points) and forgetting about it. Nobody would mention that in an infobox, so why would someone mention this?

Would one expect the infobox of a baseball player to contain information about his sexuality/sexual preferences? Or would one expect a rapist/murderer's musical preferences to be mentioned in an infobox? Unless it is pertinent to the person's profession or the reason for which the article is written/focus of the article, I don't think so. So unless the Editors are openly going to state that the article on Brenden Eich was solely written with an objective to target him about his outspoken action, which makes no sense (since it would mean wikipedia was used more as a directory to gauge support/opposition to lgbt rights which is not the point of wikipedia), I believe the comment 'opposition to same-sex marriage' has no place to be in an 'infobox'. The same may be freely mentioned in the article with its own sections as required, but it is neither of note nor is it logical to mention it in the infobox. It only appears to be a vindictive act, which is not the right attitude to have for an Editor.

For the record, I don't care either way about same-sex marriage, as I come from a culture where our 'gods' were 'gay' and are still fervently worshipped to this day, so kindly do not interpret my action as a biased one. I firmly believe I am as neutral as one can get in this regard. It is absolutely unfair to put a personal view in 'known for' and feels like it was done vindictively, with an ulterior motive to create an unnecessarily high negative image of him. Its not as if he invented opposition to same-sex marriage. Had he founded a group that opposed the notion of same-sex marriage, that would be of note. This is more optimally placed in 'personal life' or 'controversies'.

Kindly do the needful and resolve. 115.97.89.52 (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that opposition thing should be in the infobox. But can you explain by what token "known for" means someone invented that thing? To give an obvious example, you can fairly say Adolf Hitler is "known for" a lot of things. I don't think anyone would blink an eye if I said Adolf Hitler was known for extreme anti-semitism. Yet he clearly didn't invent extreme anti-semitism. Far from it. It existed millenia before he was born. George W. Bush is known for being president of the United States. He didn't invent the concept of being president, he wasn't the first. There was already a president when he was born. For all the problems with the US nowdays, I'm fairly sure there will be a US president long after George W. Bush has died. But George W. Bush is still known for it. In fact, in that vein, let's use H. D. Deve Gowda. He's known for being prime minister of India. You could add "for less than a year" or "unexpectedly became PM", but it's not necessary, he's known for all of that. There's a fair chance in 300 years, him PM is something that will be barely remembered. Yet for better or worse, it's still likely to be one of the things he is known for. I only skimmed through the rest of your message given how badly it started. Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on my message, though you did not go through it completely. Considering I scored only a 6 on AWA in GMAT, I suppose it is understandable that my message isn't very understandable. I hope this one will be readable enough and I hope you will go through it completely.

I completely agree with your stance that 'known for' does not necessarily mean someone invented something. That is also a point that I have covered in my long and detailed message, i.e. I have argued it from both sides. To quote myself, one would not expect a rapist or murderer's musical preferences to appear in his/her infobox, unless the person were initially a musician who committed the crime. But that is exactly what it is - a crime. Adolf Hilter killing Jews is also a crime. He is a war-monger and a mass murderer. But kindly visit his page and view the infobox. Is that mentioned there?? NO. What is mentioned there? His AWARDS are mentioned there.

Let us take that Editor's point of 'known for in the wider world' and ask - is Hitler known for his awards or for his mass-murdering? I didn't even know he had any kind of 'award' till date, frankly, and I can openly bet you $10,000 that I can ask randomly ask 10,000 people on the street and not find a single person who knew about that - unless its a history-phile or a Hitler-crank. So is it fair that Hitler's infobox mentions his awards, while the infobox of a positive CONTRIBUTOR to society mentions his social opinion? No, it is not.

It is not fair to mention Eich's personal opinion on the infobox. Mentioning it in the article is totally fine but not the infobox - not unless Eich was known for founding anti-LGBT right groups or ACTIVELY lobbying against LGBT with regular repeated donations to anti-LGBT lobby groups. But that is not the case here. It is not a professionally written infobox. It is biased and the editor's personal opinion is clouding his judgement. I believe the editor must not involve himself with Eich's page again, or at least accept his oversight and correct the infobox himself. 115.97.89.52 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

While this Hitler analogy is humorous and not even entirely unapt, it is essentially an WP:OSE argument. You are free to go to Hitler's article and argue that it needs a "known for" parameter. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your amusing but irrelevant insight. I did not cite the Hitler example, your colleague did. Had I not provided the aforementioned valid response, you would imagine the Hitler argument made by your colleague was valid. Since I was able to make a rational response, the example did not work for your personal views, and you are now deflecting from the topic at hand, stating something completely irrelevant, instead of providing a valid counter to my rational and logical argument.

My point is, it is not relevant for Brendan Eich's personal opinion to be present in his infobox. The fact that it is present in his article is quite sufficient. As a matter of fact, even Hitler's anti-LGBT views are not mentioned in the infobox. Yet, the article is clearly marked as a 'good article'. Eich's isn't - unless you choose next, to artificially get an award for Eich's article, just to score a brownie point against my valid and logical argument, for which you have not presented any counter. Therefore you may kindly relieve yourself from this topic, if you are guided only by emotion rather than logic. 115.97.89.52 (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You miss my point. Hitler doesn't need a "known for" parameter to his infobox but if he had one it would definitely be "genocide". Nobody knows who Eich is, so he needs one, and a large portion of the WP:RS coverage of him in the mainstream media has been about views on gay marriage. So that's what he's known for. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, my complaint was not that your message wasn't understandable or readable. So it's nothing to do with your GMAT score. My complaint was that I find your argument that Eich being known for "opposition to same-sex marriage" implies he invented the concept silly enough that once I read it, I couldn't really be bothered reading the rest properly. It may very well be the case that the rest of your commentary is easy to read and makes some very good points. I don't really know because you started off your commentary with a terrible argument. It's like when you encounter someone in the street and they yell at you "CORONAVIRUS IS A PLOT BY BILL GATES TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD", you're not going to pay much attention. Perhaps they actually have some good arguments about the economic cost of lockdowns vs the health benefits. Perhaps they have some good arguments about the risks of relying on philanthropy to do stuff which arguably should be funded mostly by governments. Whatever their good arguments, and however persuasive and smart they are, they mostly destroyed any chance people were going to listen when they started off with nonsense. Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

But Nil Einne, they scored a 6 on their AWA in their GMAT! How are you going to argue with brilliance like that? We should put them in charge.--Jorm (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Protip: Giant blocks of text, no matter how clever and erudite you think they are, don't get read by us simple folk. You would do best to be direct, as we are monumentally stupid. Either way, Eich is known for his opposition to same-sex marriage. It's a thing he is known for. If you want to provide sources that say otherwise (somehow?), you can do so, and then a discussion can be had.--Jorm (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

By far the most reasonable person I have met here is @Nil Einne, and I am at least thankful for that. Kindly ignore my earlier sarcasm. I suppose I tend to excessively utilize it when i see deflection, with the mistaken assumption that it keep things light. I request your opinion on what is the way forward. I believe my points have been made clearly and rationally. To put it in a nutshell, 1) Eich is not known for repeatedly campaigning against LGBT 2) Eich has not started an anti-LGBT lobby group nor has he repeatedly contributed funds to an anti-LGBT lobby group 3) There is no evidence that he has discriminated against Mozilla employees who are in favour of same-sex marriage or are homosexual. -- based on these, it appears to me that it is not at all pertinent to have the infobox include 'known for opposition to same-sex marriage', as the same has been included quite elaborately and sufficiently in the article, with its own section - which I believe is the fair way to present it. This is an article about a tech person that details his contributions to tech, as well as other things he had done, good & bad. However, as it is focused on a tech person, the infobox information in such articles has to focus on tech, unless it is of absolute note to state otherwise (i.e. if things were contrary to the three points made above & he was an active campaigner against lgbt rights etc). But even then, though Bill Gates is very well known for his philanthropy, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is not mentioned in his 'Known For'. 115.97.89.52 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

no worries @Jorm, cos I already am in charge here. you are only moving to the flow of my argument and responding only with deflection. i don't imagine you have the inclination read past this line, but if you do, whatever excuses any of you had stated here against my points have cleanly been countered by me, in a reasonably polite manner, all things considered. also, i see only ego's inflated with the artificial pride that you are wiki admins, talking without reading, because never did i once mention that there are "sources that say otherwise". I am quite annoyed & offended you would mention such a thing. In fact, I have repeatedly stated it is very apt to mention this information in his article and that I would have done it myself if it weren't there, but that it is not relevant enough to be included in the infobox. Yet the only points I see in response are "provide sources that say otherwise" and some deflection and some sarcasm - apparently when you are sarcastic it is perfectly acceptable while when I am, it is perceived as arrogance. Interesting. My point is, in case Eich had actively campaigned against LGBT or started some anti-LGBT lobby group, it would certainly be worthy enough to be mentioned in an infobox. However, this is not the case. I welcome you to share any sources that state otherwise. If that really were the case, I am prepared to back off. Assuming you can explain why Bill Gates, another man in tech, is not known for his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. And assuming you are prepared to read entire news articles when you aren't able to read a simple, structured, message. Oops, I'm sorry about the sarcasm. If you are capable of a healthy discussion devoid of deflection, I'll cut the sarcasm. Thank you. 115.97.89.52 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor you are deflecting again. You irrelevantly suggested I go argue about the Hilter article. Now you are justifying your irrational response. Your point that nobody knows who Eich is, is astoundingly arrogant. In fact, you even contradict yourself - if nobody knew who Eich is, how would they know about his opposition to same-sex marriage anyway? how would they know he designed Javascript? Might as well scrap the 'known for' parameter. And the fact that your argument is "Hitler doesn't need a known for parameter" is completely missing the point about notability and is only deflecting away from the question at hand - why must a personal view be present in an infobox? Eich is not known for repeatedly campaigning against LGBT and there is no evidence that he has discriminated against Mozilla employees who are in favour of same-sex marriage. Therefore, it is irrational to mention the same in the infobox and is more akin to 'crying wolf'. However, if you provide evidence that suggests that he is actively campaigning against same-sex marriage or had discriminated against Mozilla employees who were gay/supported same-sex marriage, I would be prepared to back off. Assuming you can explain why Bill Gates, another man in tech, is not known for his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 115.97.89.52 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Your entire thing comes down to 17,000 unreadable words that say "because I think so." Come back with sources and stop deflecting that there aren't any.--Jorm (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't irrelevant to suggest you take your complaints about Hitler not having a "known for" parameter to that article. You were running with that analogy and it didn't work. Hitler's infobox is correct, it doesn't have a "known for" and if it did obviously it would be "genocide" like I said. It was hyperbole to say nobody knows who Eich is. I meant in comparison to Hitler, whom everyone knows, very few people know who Eich is. So we offer a "known for" parameter. What goes in the parameter is based on how much coverage in reliable sources there has been. It doesn't matter if it's for a personal opinion. It doesn't matter if it was a one time thing. It doesn't matter how much more respect Eich deserves in your or my estimation for things other than gay marriage. If you google Brendan Eich a significant portion of the things that come up are relating to gay marriage. To me, implementing R4000 support in gcc is significant. To a web developer, Javascript is significant. To your average Joe, the only thing that would have made his name known, if anything, is the gay rights issue. I would suggest at this point making specific arguments based on the wording of WP:BLP rather than appealing to your own sense of reason or justice. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor, no as I stated, I did not choose Hitler and frankly, your comment definitely was kind of irrelevant, but lets forget that. For the sake of the civil discussion you are having here, which I very highly appreciate and thank, I would choose Bill Gates as an analogy. Hitler is not a good analogy as he is not a tech guy & infobox formats can differ. Bill Gates is a tech guy who is very well known for his philanthropy, work to eradicate malaria in parts of Africa, and of course, his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. When you google or bing or whatever for bill gates, you will get information about his philanthropy and his foundation, among the various results from the first page itself. You will also find articles about him being extremely wealthy, with Forbes & Bloomberg coverage etc, right from the first page. By your logic of 'significance is in search results', Bill Gates ought to be known for Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (which really ought to be mentioned in the infobox btw) and being the richest person in the world for years. However, neither are mentioned in his 'known for'. The same is applicable for Jeff Bezos who is currently the richest person in the world - check out the google & bing results which mention that extensively. Similarly, there is no mention of the various innumerable controversies Elon Musk is known for raking up. In fact, there is no 'known for' for Elon Musk. Isn't he known for anything? Heck, you'd need an entire page to state all the controversies Elon Musk is known for. All these are tech guys. Look at the differential treatment meted to these various articles. I am not using emotion here, nor do I particularly respect Brendan Eich nor am I in favour of how he had acted, however personal a choice that may be. I am using logic and rationality only. I don't understand why editors are looking at the issue as 'gay/non-gay' as that is not the point at all. It is about relevance. If it is not relevant that Bill Gates is known for being rich, despite the various results that extensively detail that, why should Eich's donation to a random lobby (whether it is gay/non-gay) be relevant enough to be placed in an infobox? The amount isn't even particularly big at all. How is that possibly notable? Objectively speaking, would this point have been made had Eich made a contribution towards supporting same-sex marriage? Would there be a comment 'supports same-sex marriage' in an infobox? Would it even be relevant? Are we going to catalogue a same-sex support/opposition parameter in infoboxes in future? Why would that be relevant? It is as relevant as stating political views, 'supports the democrats/republicans/labour', in the infobox. Considering the other tech people articles, I am surprised why such a no-brainer logical format has to be overridden in lieu of a controversy that is not pertinent to what he appears to normally do, i.e. give lectures & take classes, which appear equally frequently in the search results, right from the first page. As I said, things become relevant only when he actively & regularly campaigns against same-sex marriage. It is only a biased situation, otherwise. Kindly introspect for a while and revert at your convenience. 115.97.34.92 (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jorm, right back at you. You're also essentially only saying 'I think so', and in case you didn't notice, Wikipedia is only about opinions anyway, so telling me to go away because I don't share your opinion is not logical. Why don't you get back with sources that say he is an active champion of anti-same-sex marriage? If the 'known for' field can contain any information whatsoever, take a gander at Bill Gates and kindly explain why he isn't known for the famous Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, or for being literally famously wealthy, when a simple internet search about Gates will give you those results. Again, I am welcome to a civil discussion rather than arrogant deflection. I wonder if that is possible? 115.97.34.92 (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The reason Eich's opposition to same-sex marriage is noted as a thing he is best known for, is fundamentally that it's a thing that he is best known for. The infobox cites Eich's opposition to same-sex marriage being literally headline news in multiple solid highly-regarded mainstream Reliable Sources.

If you want to state I am using logic and rationality only, then the axioms for your logic should probably have WP:RS added to them - David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard, I note multiple irrational changes to Eich's page by another editor. I've been waiting for you to review the fairness of those changes before I post my response. Since you probably haven't noticed the extent to which the changes were made, I'll give you a few more hours before I post my response, since part of my response refers to these questionable changes. 27.4.114.222 (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

to add, other editors are welcome to review these changes too. 27.4.114.222 (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You are being vague, which makes it difficult to pin down what you're specifically concerned with. Parts of the original sourcing were poor. For a BLP, we generally require reliable secondary sources. Sources such as blogs or press releases do not fulfill that requirement. I replaced all primary sources with secondary sources and consolidated the sections "Proposition 8 controversy" and "Mozilla". It's clear that Eich's appointment as Mozilla's CEO triggered the media at large (ABC's "This Week", The Atlantic, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich) to hone in on Eich's political views, and it's very relevant to the "Mozilla" section that he resigned after 11 days. My intention was to improve the quality and flow of that section in a neutral manner.

Gerard is getting somewhere. You should read up on WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:SYNTH. If you want to make a point, it helps to drill into Wikipedia policies or precedent. I am personally on the fence about whether we should highlight Eich's political views in the infobox. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@Elephanthunter I was half considering not responding until the changes were seriously reviewed, but since your tone is civil, it would be rude to ignore your response. I shall consider a benefit of doubt to your actions. My response follows. It will be very long. Brace yourself:

1. "Sources such as blogs or press releases do not fulfill that requirement" - this is not always the case, especially when you go through Andrew Sullivan's page. And honestly, it makes no sense to consider press releases as a reference since it is an official publication by an organisation - but it doesn't matter for this discussion (irrelevant).
2. What I am primarily referring to is related to the link from CNET, a well known tech website, which was originally cited in the Eich wiki page but has since been removed, probably erroneously. Some Mozilla employees on y-combinator also referred to this article as the closest to what had happened at Mozilla. Of course, their comments are not of direct relevance to the Eich page itself, but CNET's article is definitely of note and many pertinent points removed from Eich's page can be cited with the same. The blog post by the Mozilla employee who identified as queer but supported Eich was removed from the wiki, but the same is also mentioned in the CNET article. It is the most rounded article I have seen reg. this issue, though the tone may / may not be agreeable to some. Kindly review the changes you have made, especially with relation to removing entire paragraphs, against the content in the CNET article.
3. Several sources including the CNET source highlight the fact that there were two separate controversies to Eich's appointment as CEO - one is internal politics and the other is external politics (for lack of a better term). Your passage reads 'half of the board stepped down' on Eich's appointment as CEO when in reality, only one person stepped down directly due to the fact and two others were planning to leave already, due to personal reasons/other reasons. This is only gas-lighting and not factual. Citing other publications that did not cover this issue properly, makes no sense and is against the same WP:BLP and WP:RS that everyone confidently cites but never follows. CNET has aggregated the history of his appointment quite well. Your passage needs to be rewritten to accommodate this factual information.
4. 1. I'm also in disagreement with the usage of your phrase "triggered widespread criticism", since the number of Mozilla employees as well as third-party developers known to have protested against Eich's appointment as CEO, combinedly appears to be less than a dozen, and the number of original articles (not copied/reposted content) criticising his appointment as CEO do not exceed two dozen at the very max (i.e. original content), as far as I've read. It is also in line with the link you had kindly shared (which essentially aggregated everything). The rest of the sources are just copy-pasted stuff, or are timed after his resignation, and are mainly written in response to anti-gay lobbyists condemning pro-gay lobbyists for forcing his resignation, or by some pro-gay lobbyists remarking this needn't have happened.
   2. Therefore, rather than "triggered widespread criticism", I would ideally use "triggered criticism" since it adequately conveys the fact that criticism did occur. In fact, the citations referred to in the Eich page do not list more than half a dozen Mozilla employees and a few websites and developers to be the ones who objected to his appointment. Additionally, there are no sources that state pro-gay lobbyists / other third-parties criticised Eich's appointment, as far as I recall, which is also stated in the publication you shared. At this juncture, I would like to add:
      1. this link from LA Times
      2. this link from washington post
      3. this link from zdnet
      ~ links from 3 reputable & well-established organisations in addition to the CNET link, to support my case that there were only a few employees who objected to his appointment while the majority was in favour, despite his donation.
   3. As a matter of fact, the CNET article I referred above also states that "Mozilla executives who worked with Eich ... drafted a letter asking for him to be sole CEO". This is prior to his appointment, before the proposition 8 issue was raked up, when the organisation was dealing with internal politics. In short, there were a sizable number of employees who wanted Eich to be CEO as opposed to the few that did not - there's no need to make assumptions here. Its clear as day.
   
   The above are a few issues I have with your rewrite. It is not written as neutrally as you would like it to. I believe it needs to be rewritten with the original content as a base, or better still, revert to the original content and make further improvements, as applicable. The contents of the publication you shared are quite good, but the CNET article covers the specific issue in question, a little better, and has to be more actively referred to, along with the 3 other links provided above.


5. My only argument with Gerard is about the infobox, not the rest of the article. WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:SYNTH have nothing to do with what should appear in an infobox and relate to the article's content in specific. Citing those is merely a deflection from the point of our discussion. Right from the start, I've been stating that the information already present in the article itself, need not (and must not) be removed, but the arguments put forth by Gerard, reg. the infobox 'known for' parameter, are quite shallow. I had already prepared a response to that, comparing articles by other tech persons who are well known for other things, but having noticed sudden massive changes to the Eich page, felt those changes had to be discussed first. Some of the passages removed & rewordings done changed the overall tone of the article and presented a situation that was factually incorrect. I also felt it would be a good opportunity to make certain observations, before posting my response to Gerard.
6. Currently, I am disappointed that Gerard has, as of this writing, not take the trouble to review your changes by comparing the version history, as I had done. For all the talk about WP:BLP and WP:RS here, the rules/suggestions prescribed there have exactly been ignored in the Eich page. The articles cited in the page are repeatedly only one-sided, blatantly duplicated (containing same or similar wordings) and are therefore, a biased selection and not in accordance to WP:RS. I do not know what to call this other than hypocrisy, when I am repeatedly referred to those regulations while the ones who refer me to it are not following it. However, I shall again give the benefit of doubt, assuming everyone including Gerard is busy. I am simply surprised a proper & thorough review was not done by Gerard for the changes you made, even though he clearly checked out the page after you made the changes, as evidenced by his edit history. I used to do these reviews every time a sizable change occurred in a wiki page, and always imagined it was the basic responsibility of an admin in the first place, to review the links so cited. I wonder if that is not the case any more.
7. Thank you for sharing the link to that publication. Perhaps I'll read it when I am free.
   • Interestingly, the Eich issue ended up creating an open-minded & liberal pro-gay group (who were against Eich resigning) and a narrow-minded & conservative pro-gay group (who wanted Eich to resign, while imagining themselves to be a progressive group, though in reality ultimately ending up as a pseudo-progressive group). Ironical.
   • The key here is that one has to encourage/stimulate others to like them, not force/coerce others to like them, which the narrow-minded group fails to understand even today. It is a hard up-hill rocky road, but nothing too different from wooing another person. One has to show the same enterprise when we love someone and want them to love us back - you never 'force' someone to love you.
   • It is nothing but a totalitarian situation if you are hounded for having differing views, and is not too different from the situation the LGBT community once faced. I would say nobody had the right to hound Eich, but had every right to criticise his action and donate against him in favour of same-sex marriage, using their own funds or via a kickstarter/indiegogo/gofundme campaign. The Eich incident is technically not a victory in the long run, and is proven by the fact that many employers chose to let go of same-sex marriage supporting employees well after the Eich issue.
   • Had the pro-LGBT community portrayed itself as a truly progressive, liberal and far more tolerant group of people than the anti-LGBT community, things would have been far better today, unlike this forced scenario where people around are forced to pretend, instead of truly live freely. People at two ends of a bridge need to meet in the middle, not drag the others to the other side.
   However, this is not the topic we are discussing, just my dumb self wishing for a better world, so kindly ignore this.
   I hope I am not roasted by either side for my lament. 210.18.163.98 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It's fine that you are writing this out. I'm glad that you view my response as civil and you are WP:AGF. Here are my responses to your items of concern:

1. Here you're arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is sometimes a valid argument, but doesn't apply when it comes to the rule involving primary sources in BLPs. There is clear policy about the use of primary sources in biographies of living persons which takes precedent.
2. I'm not immediately seeing any problems with using the CNET article by Shankland as a citation. It does appear to be well-written. I removed the paragraph containing that citation because the paragraph mistakenly applied the board's debate before Eich's appointment to the controversy surrounding his resignation. Specifically, and I can say this with certainty, no reliable source questions why Eich resigned. He resigned because of the uproar due to his donation towards Proposition 8. He resigned himself, via the call from Baker. Mozilla did not ask him to resign. They wanted to keep him. From the CNET article, "Baker said she didn't consider Eich's job a lost cause until he called it quits". The paragraph I removed indicated there were other reasons for his resignation, a claim which was not reflected with weight in any sources.
3. It's factually accurate that half of Mozilla's board resigned before Eich's appointment. Most sources outright say that the board members resigned in protest, or question Mozilla's statement that the resignations were unrelated. The CNET article is in a minority here. Still, it's possible I gave one view undue weight.
4. If you want the article to say "triggered criticism" instead of "triggered widespread criticism", I can get on board with that. As for going back to the original content? I'd strongly disagree, as it was full of primary source BLP violations.
5. You should WP:AGF just take my word for it that I was leading you in the correct direction with those policies.
6. I'm assuming Gerard did not revert my changes due to the fact that I was removing primary source BLP violations. All the content I added was well-sourced and well-quoted.
7. Maybe that's something worth mentioning in the article.

Hopefully my response is reasonable and we can work together toward a better article. --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought your edits were fine, and frankly were a long-needed cleanup of the article, the need for which had been long-noted on the talk page. But that's an editorial issue. For the sourcing issue on a BLP, your edits are just fine IMO - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter my responses follow:

1. The primary sources are only sensational in nature and do not follow the discussion in totality. The content written by them is largely copied across to/from the other editorials with minimal change. This suggests they did not conduct verification on their side and only went with what sounded hot, and did not bother investigating further. There is no evidence of investigative journalism presented, which makes their combined associations invalid - they're just copying from each other. You have 3 pages, from CNET, Washington Post & ZDNet which cover the issue decently, even though it is only after the issue was closed. Even if CNET & ZDNET were not considered reliable sources (which would be surprising considering they are not content from a company created yesterday), Washington Post went on to report what Mozilla had clarified. Further, other Mozilla employees seem to confirm the same things in their personal blogs, which counters the "united, nearly simultaneous message asking Eich to step down" argument that is put forth by what appears to be articles with a strong bias. While the employee blogs & tweets themselves may not be directly cited as sources, they correlate with what CNET, ZDNET, W-Post and Mozilla themselves, had stated. Therefore, as far as anyone is concerned, anything else should only be treated as speculation, which I believe is perfectly in line with WP:RS and corresponds with WP:BLP.
2. It is good that you find the CNET article to be fine. The salient point to note is, CNET, ZDNET and Washington Post all reported the 'sensational' news at first, during the peak of the furore, yet did some work of their own later on and posted those updates that I have shared. This essentially makes them more neutral than others, and will contribute to maintaining a neutral tone in the wiki page itself. The same was done by some other websites too, but some websites like arstechnica did not bother doing this. In this scenario, content from websites like ars are biased, and may at the most be used to cite that a few Mozilla employees had indeed protested against Eich's appointment.
   • I am not arguing about the reason why Eich resigned. I am not sure why there is a confusion regarding this point. I don't understand what statement of mine led you to believe I am questioning that point. The truth is nobody can say for sure why exactly Eich completely quit and anything published by third-parties may only be considered as speculation at this point. My argument is that combining the board of directors' resignations, with the protests by the few Mozilla employees reg. proposition 8 and Eich's ultimate resignation, is incorrect. These are unrelated situations as per Mozilla's own statement, as well as by the articles I had shared earlier. Assuming that these distinct events are related, using only unverified & non-trustworthy citations, is only sensationalism. Case in point, none of the articles currently cited in the Eich page have a direct comment from the Mozilla board or from the directors who resigned, that their resignation was due to Eich's appointment. There is no factual evidence to back the claims of those tabloids - if these were reliable, we would find search results where the two other directors spoke up stating otherwise, but since that is not the case, these tabloids must be considered as mere sensationalism and not as factual evidence. Mozilla themselves directly clarified that there was indeed one director who resigned due to conflict with Eich, while the other two were leaving due to other reasons. There is no evidence that the other two directors have claimed otherwise. Citing these sensationalist-sounding articles (that absolutely ignore Mozilla's official announcement) and combining the sections is an invalid action and is only speculatory in nature. My opinion is in line with WP:RS and WP:BLP.
   • In my view, the wording reg. Eich's resignation may sound like "The same week as Brendan Eich's appointment to CEO, Mozilla Board members Gary Kovacs, John Lilly, and Ellen Siminoff resigned. While it was initially speculated that the board members resigned due to Eich's appointment or the Proposition 8 controversy, Mozilla later clarified that Kovacs & Siminoff had already planned to leave due to personal reasons, while Lilly alone had resigned disagreeing with Eich's appointment as he desired for a CEO with experience in the mobile industry." - this is a far more complete phrase in my view.
   • As far as Eich's appointment is concerned, this is the end of one controversy and the start of another. The Board resigning controversy is separate from the Proposition 8 controversy. Mozilla's Mitchell Baker openly admitted that they omitted to discuss Eich's history with proposition 8 - therefore, the board members resigning has nothing to do with Eich's stance on the same. You can find the same in the CNET article. While this may or may not have been spoken with the intent to shield the pro-gay community from unnecessary flak, we can only go ahead with what has been stated by Baker and not indulge in idle speculation, like the rest of the article. I believe my view is well in line with BLP. While the article looks artificially cleaner with less sections, the fact that the resignation of the board members section is combined to the donation section now makes readers assume that the two were interrelated. This is only giving into speculation and this can be avoided by creating separate sections for 'Appointment as Mozilla CEO', 'Proposition 8 Donation Controversy' & 'Resignation & Exit from Mozilla'. The appointment section may at a later date be further expanded with how the filtering & choosing process at Mozilla had taken place, which would be of some interest, since Eich was not the natural first choice to the position, due to his less-than-average 'people' skills (refer CNET & the mozilla employee blogs). The donation section may further be expanded to describe the various view points, for & against, by mozilla employees as well as pro-gay/anti-gay groups. The exit section can cover details of his exit, the various mixed reactions from pro-gay & anti-gay groups, and Mozilla's apology & clarification etc.
3. I am not saying you should revert permanently to the original section and leave it. The format and content of the original can be used as a base for further improvement. As a matter of fact, considering all the speculation that is present in the current content, I'd say the older one violated BLP no more than the current one does. e.g. Eich was CEO for 9 days, not 11 days - his resignation was simply announced two days later in his personal blog. The Mozilla Directors did not resign in response to his appointment. That is only speculation and violates BLP, based on Mozilla official announcement which certain editorials did not cover (either ignored or vested interests).
4. Reg. that, I was waiting for David Gerard's review and am disappointed. It appears Gerard has some manner of interest in Eich, but deosn't take enough care to determine whether something is correct or not. It also appears to me that he imagines contributions from persons not logged in are by default incorrect/spam and need to be checked far more than changes by someone who has logged in. That is not in the spirit of an open-to-edit wiki. Either that or there is some manner of conflict of interest (i.e. he doesn't like me), which I hope is not the case.
5. Not really, its better off in a blog post. Not that anyone will care. Its an age of self-centredness and impatience. We tap a button to get a taxi, to get food, to watch a movie and to get laid. Similarly, the thought-process has irrationally been changed to something like "things should happen instantly and you should agree with me, else it is intolerance". To be honest, considering we are working with other humans, that very thought itself is what is more intolerant and irrational. Being angry at Eich is one thing and eagerly bashing him as a homophobe & marginalizing him is a completely different thing. Being objective and true to a standard is what should be followed. Notwithstanding his personal opinions, Eich has been a major contributor to how free the internet is today. While he certainly could have apologised & stayed on as CEO, he could have very well stayed on as CEO without apologising too, like many other belligerent people out there. The very law that protects LGBT people from getting fired also gives him a provision & protection to stay on. Yet he removed himself for the sake of Mozilla - which ironically ended up hurting Mozilla more. Of course, this is also only a personal opinion.

115.97.47.153 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard, I was hoping you would perform a fair & unbiased review of the article, but it appears to me that you are either disinterested to do so (in which case you should perhaps step back from managing edits on the Eich page) or you are too busy and imagine no mistake occurred. You have made two remarks that I disagree with. One is that the new content has no issues. That is contentious and you can read my detailed response to Elephanthunter above. The other is you claim that 'known for' must contain "fundamentally that thing that he is best known for" and there is nothing wrong in mentioning it, just because there are citations present. Also, you state that if I claim I use logic, it must be supported by WP:RS. My responses follow:

1. You felt there was no issue with the changed article. I hope you have referred to the response I gave to Elephanthunter. I observe the current article is less confirming to WP:BLP and WP:RS due to several incorrect facts cited from questionable & sensationally writted articles. Important & pertinent sources were removed, probably erroneously and the entire content diluted to present things distortedly. And apparently, these edits are fine in your opinion. I will assume it is a normal oversight from your side, since you're involving yourself in a ton of other articles, and hope you agree with the corrections I have suggested.
2. The Eich page originally stated that his resignation from Mozilla might not necessarily have been due to his action in 2008. There was also a phrase in the Eich page "Others at the Mozilla Corporation spoke out on their blogs in his favor". Both referred to a CNET article, which is far more balanced, has good coverage, and was probably accidentally deleted by Elephanthunter. You must have missed this change. Elephanthunter will be reviewing his changes.
3. As a matter of fact, Andrew Sullivan opposed calls to remove Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla and had extensively written on the topic in his various publications as well as his blog. This is accompanied by several citations in his wiki page which you can refer yourself. His blog is also linked there (and I wonder why it is valid to link a blog source there but not here). These comments are not mentioned in Eich's page, despite being related to the issue. They should be included.
4. You claim Eich is fundamentally 'known for' his stance against same-sex marriage and provide citations. I am not arguing with the citations, but I am arguing with the fact that you have interpreted 'known for' in your own convenient manner. I disagree with the notion that a tech person's 'known for' must contain 'non-tech' values and will provide supporting examples from wikipedia itself.
5. Using your same rationale, Bill Gates is fundamentally known across the world for being famously wealthy, to the point where he was covered extensively in printed newspapers for that sole reason. He is also known for his Foundation, his interest in bio-toilets and eradicating malaria. It is literally again, the headline in multiple solid highly-regarded mainstream Reliable Sources, to quote yourself. These are not mentioned in his infobox. Kindly do not comment I have to go argue about it in Gates' page, as I believe the page is quite fine, since the 'known for' param caters only to tech related contributions. The article is also rated 'good' and is a good standard to follow, unlike the Eich article where a non-tech information is present in a tech person's page.
6. Elon Musk is fundamentally known for Paypal, Tesla, SpaceX and his issues with the SEC and the unusual name of his new child - a 'known for' itself is not mentioned here. So does this mean Musk is known for nothing?
7. Jeff Bezos is also known for being very wealthy. His surpassing of Gates' wealth (ableit temporarily) was the headline in multiple solid highly-regarded mainstream reliable sources - but it is not mentioned in his 'known for'.There is a very extensive discussion about his wealth in the article, nothing more, nothing less. I'm fine with that too, as this is 'non-tech' information.
8. Tim Cook is known for being first (and only) fortune 500 company CEO to come out as gay, which created waves - but I doubt anyone edited his infobox to add 'known for being the first fortune 500 company CEO to come out as gay' or other irrelevant non-tech things. There is no 'known for' in his infobox either, despite the fact that this would be quite salient - but is that a problem? Not really, as it is a non-tech thing.
9. These high profile & extremely well-known non-tech facts of tech people are not mentioned in their respective 'known for' params, yet a non-tech item related to Eich is stated here. I believe the examples I provided above do relate to the 'world outside tech', i.e. the 'wider world', as per your own definition in Eich's talk page. Yet such important examples related to that same 'wider world' have been ignored. Both the Gates and Bezos pages also have a 'good' rating despite that.
10. The only evidence of Eich contributing against same-sex marriage is prior to 2010/11. There is no evidence he is currently still engaging in that, and obviously, it is not possible to find an article that does not exist. Perhaps he still retains the view that same-sex marriage should not be present, but for a tech page's infobox, that trivia is not relevant. If it is, the info about Gates, Bezos, Musk & Cook (etc.) are also relevant.
11. As a matter of fact, Sam Yagan of okCupid had also donated to political candidates who were against same-sex marriage. Though he later claims it was a mistake, it is not mentioned in his article at all, forget the infobox. There is no such mention in okCupid's page either. Bias much?
12. There are several other noted CEO's with wikipedia pages who have campaigned quite strongly against LGBT, spending millions of dollars, and yet their pages only have the relevant action as part of the article, not the infobox.
13. I do not understand why such differential treatment is present. It is not objective and does not follow the standard set by 'good' rated tech person pages, which do not include irrelevant non-tech activities in the infobox, even though they are CURRENT actions, as opposed to Eich's which is a past action. If you believe that just providing citations gives you the lien to mention such non-tech info in Eich page, the same should be applied to the Gates & Bezos pages - it would be unbelievably simple to provide over a dozen citations that focus exclusively on their wealth and describe it in detail. But doing so would be irrational. As examples from wikipedia already show, tech people should have tech-related info only, in the 'known for' field.

115.97.47.153 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you're not taking on board the fact that you've convinced nobody here - David Gerard (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard, since when did you represent everybody? People can take the time to review and respond, just like I had waited over 24 hours for you, thinking you would properly review things and respond. Kindly do not overlay your opinion onto everyone else's.

And I believe I have made several statements with citations that comply with WP:RS, WP:BLP etc. Which of those are you disagreeing with and what is the new excuse now? The fact that you aren't taking the trouble to discuss the article and are ultimately shielding yourself behind a paper wall, only displays the fact that you do not have any tangible arguments against my valid points, points that conform to BLP & RS much more than yours. The only thing you have are 'your feelings'.

115.97.89.201 (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That's great, thanks - David Gerard (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, @David Gerard. And despite my best at trying to assume good faith, I still see no objective feedback on what you have a problem with. It appears you are unable to suggest further improvements to what I have added. Perhaps your schedule is too tight to spend time on the Eich article. Others like Elephanthunter, DIYeditor and Nil Einne may have a view on how to further improve certain wordings, so as to not make things sound ambiguous. Great care must be taken to ensure the page does not present misinformation by quoting poorly written & unresearched articles, which might affect the reputation of living people, for the better or worse. What the Eich page needs is more objectivity & balance, and less speculation & sensationalism (which is what over half of the existing citations contain). In the meantime, thank you for your time, despite your pressing commitments. You may take a step back from the Eich wiki page at this point and let others take care of it. 115.97.89.201 (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I still see no objective feedback on what you have a problem with. I have stated a number of times that I have a problem with you removing extremely well-sourced claims from a BLP. Apparently you read that and went "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT". Though at least you've stopped trying to edit-war them out - David Gerard (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Where is the objective feedback lacking here, @David Gerard? For starters, I have not been removing extremely well-sourced claims from a BLP, it was Elephanthunter, with you commenting 'it is fine'. You have clearly not read through my comments & notes. Effectively, the one who is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is nobody other that you. We have a BLP here where poorly-written & sensational articles are cited as claims for important issues. The ones that have a more even-sided view of the issue have been removed. Yet your view is it is fine. That does not compute! It is only going to turn into an Attack Page next. And I'm far more experienced than you imagine to get into an edit-war, thank you very much. It is okay if you are unable to perform your duties neutrally/diligently on the Eich page. Others will be able to handle this. 27.4.120.95 (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter - thank you for the changes made, but I have some feedback on them

1. It is not only CNET that reported 'only Lilly left due to Eich'. The announcement was by Mozilla and the announcement was covered by ZDNET and Washington Post as well. Here's another link from BBC. Your own link from inc.com has a clarification at the bottom stating the same.
2. You have added further citations referring some editorials that use the word 'widespread criticism'. The number of employees & third-party developers who engaged in such criticism is still less than two dozen. Merely the fact that dozens of articles use the same term without providing a count does not make it factual. The only place a count is mentioned are in mozilla's FAQ and the various publications that reported mozilla announcement. There has been no counter-argument publication to the number provided by Mozilla. It certainly is disappointing that the majority of articles present are sensational in nature without any proper checking done, focusing only on selective reactions and largely ignoring the wide range of reactions across the Mozilla community. Citing these articles seems as valid as using a conspiracy theory article that states 'Obama's liberal policies made Eich resign'. It is also as logical as stating the flat earth theory in the earth page based on the millions of posts by flat-earthers across our blue marble. I recognise that wikipedia is neither factual nor the place to do investigative journalism, but at the end of the day, we are only abiding by what is sensational rather than straight-forward. 27.4.120.95 (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a very specific reason I used that CNET article. Consider these two hypothetical reports:

• Bob the unicorn left Skittles Inc due to his dislike of Skittles. We saw a tweet where Bob grumbled about how much he hates Skittles. A Skittles Inc insider even confirmed Bob's face gets all red when he sees Skittles. -- This is a secondary source, like the CNET article.
• Skittles Inc sent us an update: 'Bob left due to Skittles' -- This is a primary source, no matter how many news outlets report on it

You can read more about secondary sources at WP:SECONDARY.

As for your concern over the phrase "widespread criticism": A quick search revealed that multiple secondary sources use the exact phrase "widespread criticism", and there was sufficient evidence to indicate that it was not remotely sensationalism. There are three things you are not taking into account:

1. The Mozilla FAQ only refers to Mozilla employees, not literally everyone else in the world. There was a full-page anti-Firefox message on OKCupid mentioning the Eich situation, remember? In 2014 OKC had 3 billion monthly page views, of which 12% saw that message.
2. The Mozilla FAQ specifically says tweets on or prior to March 27th
3. Mozilla is a primary source, with clear ties to the situation!

Unless you have new information, it's my opinion this section is sufficiently balanced and well-written. --Elephanthunter (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@Elephanthunter,

• I am not arguing against using the CNET article. I'm saying CNET alone did not report it, and they certainly did not report it as their own creation. ZDNET and BBC also reported this as a regular article. Washington Post used Mozilla's announcement word by word, so you may ignore it. The Primary source here is Mozilla, and as per WP:PRIMARY, there is nothing wrong in using mozilla's announcement since it complies with "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Hence your phrasing "CNET later reported that of the three board members who had left" should be changed to "Mozilla later announced that..." etc. There is nothing wrong in using a WP:PRIMARY source where it relates closely to a BLP and as per WP:BLP & WP:RS, there is nothing wrong in referring to the BLP's blog also, if required. The specific phrase used in BLP is "Avoid misuse of primary sources", not "Avoid use of primary sources" - and this primarily relates to not using legal documents or Government records as citations, for the sake of privacy.
• I've noticed a general confusion regarding the use of primary sources by many editors. Here is the policy info for you: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." - in this case, there is no policy restriction for using primary sources. The only restriction in place according to BLP is WP:NOR i.e. no original research / original interpretation must be conducted by the wikipedia editor themselves, based on the primary sources. There is no argument that primary sources are the most reliable in most situations, unless secondary sources are able to refute the claims of the primary source with tangible evidence, and not vague words (like 'widespread', without quantifying & proving the spread was indeed wide). Since there are no interviews or comments from the directors who resigned, the various articles that claim 'the directors resigned due to Eich/Proposition 8' contain factually unreliable & unprovable hyperbole and sensationalism. These cannot be regarded as reliable sources. The cause for the directors resigning has been announced by Mozilla and reported by various secondary sources including CNET, BBC, ZDNET, The Verge, and others. I don't think there is any necessity for further discussion regarding this, so I ask you to kindly go ahead and change the phrasing as mentioned in the previous point. Let me know if you disagree and why.
• I concur that multiple secondary sources had indeed mentioned "widespread criticism" - which is also something I addressed earlier. Despite the sources using the term, they only repeatedly refer to the few Mozilla employees, a few third party developers and okCupid to support the usage of that term. This is hardly a substantial number by any manner of definition. The only widespread thing that happened was the widespread re-reporting of the criticism which is why you can see tons of articles containing the same twitter references of the same parties. None of them report anything beyond what was reported in the first two or three articles. None of the secondary sources reported a high number and most don't report any number at all. The only secondary sources that reported an actual number reported only low numbers. The only 'widespread' that happened here is the widespread media coverage. My next point will cover okCupid.
• OkCupid is a website and does not represent all its users. It is only an assumption and original research to consider that the billion viewers who saw the message all agreed with OkCupid. OkCupid did not make any announcement about the number of users who agreed with or disagreed with their action (e.g. by downloading & signing in from another browser shortly after their message). Claiming that the criticism is 'widespread' using okCupid's action as evidence is original research and unreliable. This applies to any other website also.
• Ultimately, the use of the term 'triggered widespread criticism' without any quantifiable value to back it, is only hyperbole, i.e. it is just a figure of speech used by the editorials for the sake of over-emphasising the actual thing. It is untenable. If you think I am incorrect, I ask you to please cite a link that states an approximate number of the comments/actions against Eich/Mozilla during that time. If the number is indeed high, I will not argue with you about the use of the term 'widespread'. I would like to suggest an alternate phrase 'triggered substantial criticism' which implies it was sufficient enough to be reported, which is the case here. I feel is a more neutral wording - neither too low nor too excessive-sounding.
• In contrast, tens of thousands of people had openly posted death threats and homophobic abuse in Mozilla's feedback website. A number of over 59,000 negative reviews has been clearly reported by PinkNews (an online news site for LGBT) and ZDNET. There is no such quantitative parallel reporting the number of people criticising Eich's appointment. Only the term 'widely criticised' is used without quantitative proof. There are also several tweets from the anti-gay community criticising the resignation by Eich. There were even some comments from the pro-gay community who expressed disappointment at Eich's resignation, including comments by Andrew Sullivan, Hampton Catlin, Emily Moulder and Justin Lee (among others). However, there is no mention of the criticism that had been expressed by tens of thousands on Eich's resignation, in the Eich page. This is a strange oversight.
• It was widely reported (incorrectly) that Eich was forced to resign by Mozilla, when both Eich and Mozilla mentioned otherwise. It was also widely reported (incorrectly) that 3 Mozilla directors resigned due to Eich's appointment, while Mozilla announced otherwise. You can find multiple headlines from reliable sources reporting that Eich had been forced to resign due to pro-gay marriage protesters. There are a number of publications mentioning this phrase, but that does not make it right. I haven't bothered sharing such links since Mozilla's official position on this is more salient than third-party speculations, however reliable those reporting organisations are supposed to be. We all know how irresponsible the media can be and are - just yet another example of how secondary sources can be unreliable. Using Primary reputable sources like Mozilla's announcement is far less controversial in this case. We are talking about a living person and as per verifiability, we must not rely on poorly sourced material containing unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion in a page, if it might damage the reputation of living people.
• This was a pretty serious incident and it makes no sense to dilute it into a sentence or two for the sake of convenience. The issue ought to be expressed in detail on the wiki page with reactions from all sides. Ignoring reactions from one group over the other is nothing but bias from the editor conducting the edits and not in line with BLP. Based on the information shared above, it is my view that the section presents a distorted view of what had happeend.

27.4.120.95 (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it should be in the infobox, it is misleading to say that a thing Eich is known for is opposition to gay marriage. He is known in that context for being a prominent tech CEO who lost his position due to something about gay marriage. Among proponents of Proposition 8 neither the amount he donated nor his effect on the outcome are notable. Part of the controversy concerned Eich's donations to Tom McClintock, presented in the article as being connected to the latter's support for Prop 8, but McClintock's extensive BLP doesn't even mention Proposition 8. The OP's comparison to Tim Cook is apt: Cook isn't known for being gay but for being one of the first examples of a CEO of an iconic giant corporation, who is known to be gay and it would be misleading to say he was "known for his homosexuality". 73.149.246.232 (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Ebi

Ebi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Ebi article has had repeated edits from the individual in the biography of a living person's article self-promoting with puffery/marketing lines that were unsourced. Chances were given to obtain citations with requests to original editors. The editors came back instead and wiped out all of the updated and actually sourced references with a backup of the old WikiPedia article containing only their uncited material. The page is being used for marketing and not an objective biography. Edits should be required to adhere to WikiPedia policies. There appears no other updated information for this subject individual.

Woah! I support User:Roxy the dog's edit on this article. While the original article could use better sourcing, and is a bit flowery (not unusual in popular icon style singers from the 70's), calling a BLP a drunken pervert and traitor in the lead referenced to what appears to be a blog and a now taken down youtube clip is a violation of BLP. I reverted it back. This singer appears to have appeared recently at a concert that has received backlash on twitter for nationalistic/political reasons hence the rush to demonisation. Mentioning the fact it happened, sourced to newspaper reports in the body of the text may be appropriate, quoting from tweets calling him a traitor is not. Curdle (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Connelly

Hi, The music video "Space Age Love Song" by A Flock of Seagulls (1982) on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcMh6GZoFC8) use Jennifer Connelly's 1991 movie Career Opportunities. It's not an official video and could not be (since the movie was made 9 years later. So, this item should be removed from her music videos. Thanks and regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdem Lemon (talk • contribs) 21:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Erdem Lemon, that YouTube link is probably a violation of our WP:COPYVIO policy - are we using it in an article somewhere? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot the link. It's on Jennifer Connelly's biography, under music videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdem Lemon (talk • contribs) 13:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Erdem Lemon, OK, I understand now. Well, I don't have any view on whether or not it should be listed on her page, that's not really a BLP issue so much as a simple question of content - feel free to remove it if you think it's wrong, or discuss it on the article talk page. What we mustn't do is link to YouTube channels like that, which as I said are probably copyright violations. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Birthdates of BLPs

Having a bit of a content dispute at Keidrich Sellati. Basically, there are multiple sources, including his personal Twitter, that confirm that his birthdate is October 22, 2001. However, this has been removed by several over-zealous editors. While I recognize that articles are supposed to source controversial information, the overwhelming majorities do NOT have a reference for the birthdate, or its implied in another source in the article. Not all of the sources might meet RS, but I see that the majority of sources do say the same, and I have seen Twitter used as a source for certain information in other articles - I think there is even a cite tweet template. He isn't a minor anymore, if that is a concern, that is if we believe what the sources claim of course. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I've witnessed many an edit war over the years stemming from unsourced birthdates in BLPs. Here's what I have to say about this issue: if no reliable sources exist, then don't add a date. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that. Certainly don't reinstate the date after it's been removed unless you have solid reliable sourcing backing it up. That would be a BLP violation and should be taken seriously. As for twitter, per WP:TWITTER it should be fine to use as a source for date of birth, as long as the tweet is something along the lines of "I was born on the 22nd of October in 2001", or "today I am turning X". Such a tweet doesn't seem to exist however. Sro23 (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, your argument that because other articles aren't referenced means that it's okay to do the same here is complete BS analogous to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Sro23 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

While you may have seen many articles with no source for the birth date, some of us have seen many article subjects complain about incorrect and poorly sourced dates in their articles. If you have a Twitter source, you should provide a specific link to the tweet. I read on the talk page that Vulture is considered a reliable source. If this is agreed, then you can use Template:Birth based on age as of date. If you can find a reliable link saying when their birthday is, the combination may suffice for a full date of birth. For more thoughts about self-described birthdays, check out the leading quote in our autobiography guideline. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not an autobiography, I'm not Sellati nor do I know him. Rockawy (a film he was in) wished him a happy birthday on October 22, 2018. And I'm not trying to use the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument per se, though I see how that could be interpreted. To use kind of a random example Matthew McConaughey says his birthdate but does not immediately cite it. I took it as a convention that we don't need to add a ref after the birthdate unless it is controversial. That is the case for the overwhelming majority of actors, sports stars, politicians, etc, so it makes sense to take it as a rule of thumb, no? Either that, or go around removing birthdates from thousands of articles. Also about the sourcing, I've seen Serienjunkies used as a source in several German wiki articles, which I thought had more stringent sourcing requirements than the enwiki. Perhaps not enough to establish notability at an AfD debate, but should be good to establish something relatively uncontroversial as date of birth. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is simply a core policy and that won't change. If you haven't read it recently, it may be worth another look. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll add that if the subject just tweets "Thank you for the birthday wishes", that's not enough to confirm the exact date as that can be posted anytime including after the birthday. Similarly, if the subject only wants to post their month and day, that isn't going to be useful without a second source to confirm the year. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

If the celeb tweets about it as with Crystal R. Fox https://twitter.com/Only1CrystalFox/status/1181954573189169157 that can definitely firm it up. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This is fairly simple. You need a good, reliable source in order to list just the year in which he was born. In most cases, the year alone is good enough. Seriesjunkies is not a reliable source for this information. It's basically a German equivalent of Netflix, and probably get their info from places like IMDB (who often get theirs from people like Wikipedia), or other questionable sources. I would look for this in a magazine, newspaper, book, or some other good RS.

In the case of the full date, this requires multiple RSs; enough to demonstrate that the subject does not object to us including it in his bio, per WP:BLPPRIVACY. Twitter is not a reliable source in this case, especially from someone wishing him a happy birthday on a certain date, because that just becomes synthesis. And the subjects of articles are often not reliable for info on their own birthdates anyhow. I should know, I've been 28 for many years now. I would only consider including the full date if found in multiple RSs, but at least one good RS just to list the year.

And I very much agree with going around and removing unsourced or poorly sourced dates from all bios. That is a great plan, and I would be grateful if you could start immediately. Zaereth (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would wholeheartedly disapprove of mass removing of birthdates to prove a WP:POINT, honestly. To use one example, the last featured BLP in the main page, Paul E. Patton, has a birthdate that is note cited in the lead. And I suppose none of you have actually read the tweet anyway, since he isn't claiming to be a certain age, he is receiving birthday wishes from someone who would know, the director of the film he is in. Heavy at least confirms he was born in 2001. And IMDB doesn't list his date of birth, so serienjunkies didn't get it from there, nice try. FX confirms he was born in Colorado. Honestly the WP:Burden is to prove why you keep removing information that is sourced, while not to the New York Times, to at least a website with a decent reputation. And many websites have the same data, so you'd have to have a reason they are all wrong. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh, you should try actually reading the policies. BURDEN says exactly the opposite of what you said. The burden is on you to provide a reliable source. Lack of reliable sources is plenty of grounds for removal per BLP, which trumps all other policies. Plus the wholesale removal of unsourced or poorly sourced birthdays would help make those articles comply with policy, which is a great reason to do it. All BLPs should comply with BLP policy, and the fact that some don't is no excuse.

Paul Patton, for example, has a good RS, right there in the personal life section. Information that is sourced in the body doesn't need to be sourced again in the lede, since the lede is a summary of the body. And I said Seriesjunkies likely got their info from "places like", so that comeback is moot. Many websites get their data from other questionable sites, which makes them unreliable.

And taking some birthday wishes and judgiung for yourself that it means that day was his birthday is the very definition of synthesis, which is a violation of policy. This is not rocket science. Simply find a reliable source and add away, but be sure it complies with policy or it will likely be removed. Zaereth (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

From my interpretation of BLPPRIVACY, if someone posts something like "today is my birthdate" (although you'd still have the year problem) or especially "I was born 27 May 2000" from a verified Twitter account that is used for publicity purposes (and don't seem to mostly just used for communicating with family and friends), that would be enough to satisfy BLPPRIVACY concerns. You may still dispute over whether the date is accurate. (Which can be complicated. While nominally we're supposed to trust reliable secondary sources to fact check, my gut feeling is that fact checking of birthdates is often limited. And where it does arise, it's often only in response to a dispute, especially over the year. I'd add that fact checking can be difficult in some places where birth records are kept private until death or some other such milestone.)

Now if someone is simply wished happy birthday and they respond "thanks for their wishes", that does not comply with BLPPRIVACY. I'd add I'm doubtful even putting aside lying, you can be sure it's accurate. There are timezone issues combined with the fact even putting aside lying for privacy (and often these will simply be lies for omission) if the tweet is simply Happy Birthday X rather than "Today is person X's birthday, so happy birthday X" or something it's questionable if simply acknowledging birthday wishes is a "lie by omission". While people sometimes say early birthday wishes or happy belated birthday or whatever, for most people, especially if they know each other, if someone wishes them a happy birthday a few days late or early, I don't think they're necessarily going to say "my birthday is actually in Y days or was Y days ago". They're just going to say "Thanks for the wishes". No one may be intended to mislead anyone. It's just that others are reading too much into what are are partly private communication between 2 people. While this probably isn't that likely in tweets by the publicity department (or whatever) for a movie or whatever, once you have to start analysing such complexities you're getting into real WP:OR territory.

BTW, the timezone issue can also easily mean a day wrong even if people were explicitly trying to wish it on the right day. For example I currently live in NZ. If someone in the US tweets on the morning of 27 May US time "happy birthday" and my birthday is the 27, there's a far chance my birth day is already passed as far as I'm concerned. However I understand timezones and I'm not going to consider they were late. Alternatively, in recognition of this maybe someone would tweet at me on the morning of the 26 May in the US. Again, I'm not going to consider this early.

I regularly remove birth dates when they come up here on BLPN, or I otherwise notice they're poorly sourced. For BLPs, if the person isn't highly notable, I may not even bother with WP:before since ensuring BLPprivacy is met takes a fair amount of effort. For highly notable people I may have a quick check and if the date is all over the internet I may not bother or may just tag it. Nevertheless even for those cases I'll defend anyone who removes the date unless our requirements are met. Birth date issues aren't uncommon here on BLPN occasionally someone is saying it should be removed; but more common I think are cases where people are edit warring over 2 different dates when neither of them is sourced or it's an edit war over adding and remove. A lot of times when you investigate these edit wars it's clear that no one ever provided a good source let alone sufficient sourcing to comply with BLPprivacy.

It is unfortunately true that a lot of people don't seem to understand how strict our requirements are for birthdates, and so we do get it a lot of poorly sourced or unsourced additions. Which often don't even comply with basic sourcing requirements for a BLP and which tend to lead to a lot of OSE arguments when someone removes a date. BUt I'm not proposing a mass removal campaign nor do I think it's a good idea. However I will definitely support any specific removal when our requirements are not met.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

On the flip side, you can also see Talk:Peter Bocage, for how I've tried to handle a case where BLP is long past. You can see in that case, I even advocated that it would be fine to reveal details from a birth record on the talk page since it could help with the hunt for sources. There is no way I'd ever advocate that for a BLP, if you look into my history here you'll see I'm very fierce on applying WP:BLPPRIMARY. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If you are going to quibble over time zones and the precise date, fine. I'd be cool with using the month of October. But there are several sources, granted not the highest quality but still count for something regardless, that use October 22. If this were a case where there were two different birthdates, I'd agree we should only use the best sources. But this is different. In news articles, generally they use the age of the person unless there is a reason for listing the birthdate. That said, someone's date of birth is not some secret information, and we shouldn't remove them from articles on privacy concerns like, say, home addresses or phone numbers. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: You need to read WP:BLPPRIVACY. If a borderline notable subject requests a DOB be removed for privacy reasons, then we should oblige. And if the only sources you can get are low quality, then we should absolutely remove the DOB. The world won't end if one article is missing a subject's exact date of birth. Sro23 (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Virtue signalling & Joe Biden

Are these tweets enough to include Joe Biden here? Doug Weller talk 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree this is unjustified. This is just political disagreement rather than a good example of virtue signalling. Bus stop (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I retract the above. Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's coatracking the current political situation onto the topic for no reason. The topic stands fine on its own without, presuming nothing else comes out of the Biden situation. --Masem (t) 13:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t agree that this is merely political disagreement. But, makes no sense to place in that article just because Brit Hume used the neologism. Particularly since he used it incorrectly. I think it does belong in the Brit Hume article, where it already is but could be expanded. O3000 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This is "merely political disagreement", Objective3000. You can't say that Brit Hume "used it incorrectly". Language is used whatever way a speaker uses it to achieve a desired effect. Virtue signalling is precisely about seizing upon something which is ostensibly "virtuous" and assigning to it a problematic motivation. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, even on Hume's article (I've not followed this story at all), how far has it gone in terms of a controversy? If all that's been pointed out is basically what's on Virtue signalling and what's on Hume's page, there's really not much to the story to include per RECENTISM. We need to not get hung up on day-to-day events like this with BLPs involve. Even if it is something larger, how much is this affecting Hume? He may have set a stone in motion then, but that doesn't necessarily make it relevant to his page. --Masem (t) 14:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, as disgusting as it was; it's just typical Fox and and recentism at this point. O3000 (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Kill it! It's absolutely UNDUE in the Virtue Signalling article. This is a great example of taking an article that impartially describes a concept without using controversial examples being coatracked by an addition of an unneeded example with a highly partisan angle. This harms the article and should be removed and salted. Springee (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is "highly partisan". But I think it can remain in that article. It is actually well-written. Both sides of the issue are presented: "A number of Twitter users replied that in this instance virtue signalling was the same thing as setting a good example, and many others gave reasons why Biden's mask-wearing might have been a sensible precaution. Hume was not deterred by those replies and continued attacking Biden the next day..." Bus stop (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

My gut reaction on any article like this is that the examples should be things that jump to mind when the term is mentioned long after the fact. Ideally it should be cases where it's not just an accusation from one side, but is widely recognized across the spectrum of viewpoints. Something that happened within the last week shouldn't be included no matter how strongly someone here felt at the time. In an election season these sort of accusation is tossed around so willy-nilly that they quickly take over the article. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to add that the article is weak on examples that the Biden case sticks out as plainly inappropriate, as if it were the only example anyone could think off— or worse, that someone wanted to criticize Biden and used a discussion of virtue signalling as a coatrack for that. Mangoe (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I found it to be completely absurd to take 1 Fox News guy's commentary and blow it up into a giant example of the subject matter. Well-written or not, it gives serious undue weight to a mild criticism. ValarianB (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Mangoe—I don't think "virtue signalling" is ever clear cut. You aren't going to have "examples ... that jump to mind". I think this is a good "example", not because it exemplifies the concept, but because a journalist felt the term could be applied to wearing a face mask to prevent coronavirus. Its timeliness is a plus. Bus stop (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Only it was a journalist opinion mocking. Is everyone wearing a mask Virtue signalling? Or, are they following the law and observing safety rules. I realize that DJT is trying to call wearing a mask "political correctness". Let's not echo that. It's a quite poor example. O3000 (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Now lets not politicize the discussion. If it is well-written, it does not have a political message. If it is well-written, it is about the use of language, specifically the term "virtue signalling". I am merely arguing that in a well-written form, it is worthy of inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Even if its well written, its a pointless addition as it only explains a random use of "virtue signaling" in the real world, the only example on the page and one that is highly politicized and weakly sourced (in that while using RSes, the numbers supporting it are few). That's not good enough reason to include just an example, given how the article goes to lengths to explain broadly how the term has been used since 2015. Just doing a quick google search, this specific incident is so minor relative to any other past single events I can find on virtue signalling that calling it out is very much UNDUE - and calling out those other events outside of broad strokes that are already made is also undo; the issue is not with singular uses of the word but its broad implications so focusing on any single use is wrong. --Masem (t) 19:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You call it a "random use". All uses are random uses. Is there a repository of authenticated uses? When an average person in a non-medical setting wears a face mask they are liable to being accused of virtue signalling. A handkerchief over the face or another sort of non-medical-grade face covering is designed more to protect others than to protect oneself. The "virtue" in that is the selfless concern for other people. This example is quintessentially "virtue signalling". It would be a shame to remove it over political concerns. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we look at what uses are called out 2, 3, 5 or more years beyond events and see what events get highlighted, if any. Pulling a current event as a choice example is very much random selection. Either you need to document them all (which for "virtue signaling", absolutely not there's far too many and becomes a BLP minefield) or you wait for good summaries to describe how its been used. That's usually the problem with neogolisms that tied to BLPs. --Masem (t) 20:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I read the diff in which it was added, and it's very jarring. If a condensed version fit smoothly into existing text as an illustrative example of some part of the concept, it might make sense, but shoehorning a separate section in that just exposes right/left acrimony is out of place. Schazjmd (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem—there are no WP:BLP concerns here. Yes, Doug Weller presented this here. The core question is whether there are WP:BLP concerns with that material in the Virtue signalling article, and I don't think there are any, primarily because it is written in a well-balanced manner. Biden simply wore an anti-coronavirus face mask, as is broadly recommended by virtually all authorities. Bus stop (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it's completely undue in the context of the article, it's not a particularly good example, and it's not particularly well sourced either. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You have not mentioned it being a WP:BLP violation. Is it also a WP:BLP violation, in your opinion? Bus stop (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

BLP? Probably not. But let me pose this - a reader comes to our article to learn about virtue signalling, in what way is their knowledge enhanced by a passage about a cable news pundit saying a presidential candidate did it? If was a single exchange in an interview. ValarianB (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's trivia. A Google search for "virtue signal" site:foxnews.com returns 1,040 hits. Like many right-wing sources, they use it all the time. Black Kite (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

We should not be discussing this question here at WP:BLP/N as this question does not involve a WP:BLP violation. This is a question that should be addressed at Talk:Virtue signalling. Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

ValarianB—you ask "in what way is their knowledge enhanced by a passage about a cable news pundit saying a presidential candidate did it?" Their knowledge is enhanced by showing them an example of the caustic use of the term, in a contemporary instance. A key quality of the idea of "virtue signalling" is its capriciousness. It is a two-edged sword. It is a benefit as well as a liability. You are arguing to remove a perfectly good example of the capricious nature of the contemporary use of the term "virtue signalling" based on an imagined political dimension of the incident depicted. This has nothing to do with Trump or Biden, though they both are mentioned. Wikipedia isn't a dead thing. It is enlivened by the inclusion of relevant uses of the term that is the subject of the article. What is described is an instance in which someone wore a face mask, as is near-universally recommended, and they were depicted by an onlooker, Brit Hume, as doing this for ulterior purposes. I find the knee-jerk reaction to remove eminently valuable material from the Virtue signalling article to be the problem here. And it is incomprehensible why this is even being discussed on the WP:BLP/N page. Where is the WP:BLP violation? Bus stop (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BLP violation -- to comply with BLP we must make sure biographical material complies with NPOV (including, due), and with NOR. This BLP use in the virtual signaling article is undue/nor (for the reasons outlines by Black Kite and Masem). Were the point to convey that virtue signalling is a rhetorical 'double edged sword' of elastic meaning (or no meaning, at all), the proper and only way to do that is not through random BLP's, it is through experts (linguists, cultural historians, rhetoricians) saying and analyzing directly that per WP:V's direct requirement. The lesson here is don't use living people to imply rhetorical points. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Alanscottwalker—you haven't even said which living person is being violated—Trump, Biden, or Brit Hume. And contrary to your assertion we don't necessarily need explanations from "linguists, cultural historians, rhetoricians". Bus stop (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

BLP policy is that all living people are covered, anywhere on the pedia And, since you are trying to impose an importance on these BLPs in this topic, you need expert reliable sources to directly make your argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The sacrosanctness you are assigning to living people is over the top. Where is the violation of WP:BLP? Who is being violated and how are they being violated? WP:BLP is not an across the board ban on reference to living people. If you can't put the supposed violation into words specific to an instance and specific to one or more people then we should assume the posited WP:BLP violation does not exist. Bus stop (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If you seriously do not understand how much weight we give to protecting the interests of BLP on en.wiki as well as across all Wikimedia projects per m:Resolution:Media about living people, you probably should be staying far away from anything dealing with BLP articles. --Masem (t) 23:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Frederika Alexis Cull

This article was, I believe, previously mentioned here, but archived with little or no comments. I tried cleaning things up a little- removing unnecessary detail about her parentage and trivia about her tattoos- but it keeps getting restored to someone's preferred version. Also, in the edit-box text are all these hidden messages, "DO NOT CHANGE THIS" and "DO NOT EDIT," that type of thing. I tried putting some discussion topics on the talk page to no avail. Honestly, this is not really my forte, so I'd appreciate it if someone else took a look. Thanks! Ditch ∝ 16:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't read or speak Indonesian, but the Google translated pages don't come close to verifying most of those claims. Plus the sources all appear to be celebrity tabloid sites, which we probably shouldn't use to support claims about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I took a pass through to strip out the most obvious cruft. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Good work. The current version is acceptable to me. But I imagine it will be reverted in the next day or two. If so, perhaps some sort of page protection would be in order? Ditch ∝ 22:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Multiple experienced editors are now collaborating on the talk page, along with 6-month auto-confirmed protection. Thanks to all! Ditch ∝ 22:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

yeah, I put 6mo autoconfirmed on it as disruptive editing on a BLP, because it's been semi-protected or full-protected multiple times in the past. IP/new editors can of course propose stuff on talk - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Death of George Floyd - Inclusion of Officers' histories

Death of George Floyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Perhaps I'm off base on this, so I thought it best to seek wider input before continuing. Over on Death of George Floyd#People involved, there have been edits to include the fact that one officer was involved in 3 shootings and another accused of excessive use of force which resulted in a settlement (see [8]). The material is sourced well.

My concerns (stated in more detail here) are that these details are WP:UNDUE for an article about this one event and go against WP:BLPCRIME.

Drmies disagrees with me (which I completely respect) and Kire1975 has said this is WP:CRYBLP. Given these oppositions, I thought I'd seek more input. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Its definitely excessive right now, innocent until proven guilty (even though they have been fired and the video evidence is pretty strong against them). It is begging the question of their guilt based on their past in Wikivoice, and even if you had "As noted by (RS), Officer X had been involved..." its still coatracking past events that we don't know yet are fully relevant. Likely they will be tried, and if that is key in their trial then can be mentioned. --Masem (t) 20:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That is my (eventualist) view as well. If it's linked to this event in the course of a trial, then it's fair game. But until then, it should be excluded. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Since Floyd's criminal record has also been published in WP:RSs I think you should either include all of their backgrounds (Floyd's and the officers'), or none. Which way that should go I don't have an opinion at this time. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Take out Floyd's too. The only past crime that should be mentioned was what the officers were responding to in approaching Floyd in the first place ("forgery in progress") and why they opted to detain him ("under the influence", "physically resisted arrest") which is a valid part of the story. I mean, the limited bio details in this article [9] is about all we should be going into at this point until we know about how their pasts (victim and suspects) affected the incident. --Masem (t) 20:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm still sort of of two minds about this. I can see EvergreenFir's point, of course, but then again it is impossible (for me) to watch the video and not think that any previous histories of violence on the part of the violators are relevant. As for Floyd, Mases says "the only past crime...", but there was no past crime: there was a suspicion of a crime, at best. I have no doubt a whole bunch of people are digging through Floyd's archive to figure out if he'd ever spat on the sidewalk or whatever, but none of those things matter unless, maybe, all of those things were known by the officers who allegedly killed him (I suppose I have to say "allegedly" here). And these things will show up in the article which, I just saw, is now semi-protected. But, it is true, if reliable sources start claiming that the men's past is relevant here, we will follow suit, and no doubt a criminal investigation will bring all this to the surface as well. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Houston Chronicle says Floyd has a record (at least one violent felony conviction) in Texas. If RSs are associating the backgrounds of the officers or Floyd with this incident by mentioning them in relevant articles then I think it tends to say we should as well. However, there is no rush at this time. For balance again I think we should include include the law-enforcement-related background of everyone involved or none of them. While clearly it is distasteful to contribute to the possible re-victimization of someone who was "allegedly" (as you say) victimized already, we are not here to right great wrongs, just report what is considered relevant by the RSs. I'm not sure I see a BLPCRIME reason to exclude the criminal history but maybe there is? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Painting Floyd and the officers with the same brush, as an all-or-none proposition, ignores a very important point: Floyd was a victim of the officers' actions. The law-enforcement histories of perpetrators of a violent act are, for obvious reasons, generally more relevant than the victim's law-enforcement history.

WP:BLP actually addresses this very clearly, in WP:AVOIDVICTIM: When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced... This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Simple mention in reliable sources isn't sufficient to justify inclusion here, under the circumstances. This is an area where policy is crystal-clear, and we just need to follow it. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It does say "living individuals" but maybe we can assume "recently deceased" is implied? Why does it specifically say "living individuals"? Cause of death hasn't been established, so as clear as it may be to us or the media from the very disturbing video that he was killed by the cop kneeling on his neck, I think we should avoid saying he was the victim of another's actions either. If it becomes an issue in the media over the long term that he had a criminal history, would we include it in the article at that point? At some point BLP no longer applies, correct? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

BLP is taken to apply to the recently deceased as well, see WP:BDP. The time period is roughly six months to two years from death, depending, the idea being that someone's death is not like a lightswitch, suddenly allowing for all the contentious claims that we'd not have allowed while a BLP to be loaded into an article. --Masem (t) 18:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that the officers' prior records as police officers are relevant—including any commendations or discipline—since they're public officials who appear to have been exercising the same authority and doing the same jobs during Floyd's death. If they had been disciplined during a prior career as, say, used car salesmen, that would likely be irrelevant (ditto for if the article was about a bar fight in which they'd allegedly been involved while off-duty). No idea whether Floyd had a criminal history, and if so what it may have been, but it seems unlikely that it would be relevant—unless it's shown to have something to do with his death, the reason he was apparently under arrest, or somehow involved other people also involved in his death. But the current information about Officer Chauvin in the article seems inaccurate and poorly sourced (one source cited for "three shootings" mentions one and an auto accident and isn't from what appears to be a RS). And when it comes to past officer-involved shootings or accusations of misbehavior, it seems essential to include the dispensation of those (whether they were found justified and/or whether the officer was disciplined). In terms of settled lawsuits, it's important to note whether there was any admission of wrongdoing. Tambourine60 (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The officers' histories are likely to be relevant at some point, but we should wait until we have information from the investigation (NOT THE MEDIA) to know why they are relevant. The media are speculating the violent events in the officers' past to justify events but that's not what we can do, and we need to stay far from that. And that's definitely why we can't include Floyd's background because that has no one bit of iota to the events here. --Masem (t) 19:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Include all parties' histories - The reason we know about these people's past conduct, at all, is because reliable sources are reporting on it. That shows that the RSes think the histories are relevant to the event. And, of course they are; both the police officers' and the victims' histories--especially the officers' disciplinary histories and the victim's criminal history (if any), as well as the history of police brutality in the police department--are all directly relevant to this article about a man who died in police custody. So long as it's well-sourced (and it is.. NYT, WaPo, WSJ, etc.), we should follow the sources and include it. We, as editors, shouldn't decide what's relevant; the sources should. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, we follow the emphases of reliable sources—but with several very well-defined exceptions. This is one of them. Again, WP:BLP is quite explicit about this ("When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced... This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.") In this situation, policy mandates that we go a bit further than simply saying "it's sourced, so include it". WP:BLP is a fundamental policy which can't be overridden by a local consensus. More to the point, "Include" comments which fail to engage with the actual WP:BLP policy and its stipulations about victims aren't valid in determining how to apply policy here. MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Nothing in AVOIDVICTIM or BLP policy says not to include a victim's criminal history. It's just not addressed. It says don't include everything, and of course no one is arguing for the inclusion of everything. But if you read five articles about the event from top quality sources and all five mention the races of the individuals involved, then we should include the races. If all five mention that the police officer had 18 prior complaints, then we should include that detail, too. If all five mention the victim's prior criminal history, then we should, too. BLP doesn't say "ignore the sources", and there's a wide gap between "everything" and "directly relevant details". Below, BK says to exclude unless "directly relevant", and that's the whole question: are these histories directly relevant or not? How do we decide? We decide by examining the sources. My !vote is to include whatever history is included by the consensus of the best sources. That doesn't mean everything, but it doesn't mean we censor things either. My !vote does not violate BLP policy. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
      • The underlying principle of BLP (and to that end, the recently deceased) is "do no harm". Criminal histories are harmful, period. So their inclusion should automatically be avoided, even if sources go into great depth, unless there is a pressing need that fundamentally aids in the understanding of the article, and by omitting it, we are making it harder for the reader to understand the article. At this point, it is clear that the only questions about Floyd's past is the events of the few hours beforehand to lead to someone calling the cops on him, period. --Masem (t) 17:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Thats a tautological principle. Everyone agrees criminal histories should be excluded unless there is a pressing need that fundamentally aids in the understanding of the article, which is just another way of saying "unless it's relevant". The whole question is whether there is a pressing need that fundamentally aids in the understanding of the article (or whatever formulation of "relevant" we want to use). And how do we decide if there is a "need" or if it's "pressing"? By following the sources. The only question is: do the RSes consider there is a pressing need that fundamentally aids in the understanding of the article? BLP doesn't say otherwise. For this reason, BLPCRIME doesn't really say anything. It just says don't include irrelevant information. That's good advice for all articles, not just BLPs. In fact the same thing is said at the ONUS part of V policy. It's said again at NOTEVERYTHING. "Include only relevant info" is really just common sense. The question is always, "is X relevant"? The answer is: I'm not sure yet, but if it is or if it becomes so, we should include it. Case in point: that the officer and the victim both worked at the same place once--is it relevant? Should it be included? Not yet IMO because we don't have a consensus of top quality RSes, but I could very well see that in the future, if it's widely reported, that piece of history may become relevant. Or maybe not. Either way, the way to decide whether to include the prior employment overlap is by following the sources. Not by deciding what we, as editors, think is relevant or important about the case, but by examining what sources think is relevant or important. Another example: lots of editors are voting for changing the title to "killing" on the explicit basis that they watched a video and the video "clearly" shows a killing. Well, that's OR. We should use "death", "killing", or "murder", based entirely on what word the RSes use, and not at all on what our impression of a video we watched is. Sure, BLP policy in general calls for a stricter standard of "relevance" for BLP content than for non-BLP content. That's a good principle. Still, whether the parties' histories (or any part of them) meets the stricter BLP standard of relevance is, nevertheless, to be decided by examining RSes, and not by editors' OR. We always follow the sources. It's a pillar. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
          • I would make the comparison of criminal histories similar to the same logic we use for non-free media as outlined at NFCC#8 which is a two-pronged test. Here, I'd make it a three-prong test: 1) is the criminal history sourced to the best quality RSes and not to primary sources or weak RSes? 2) does the criminal history increase the reader's understanding of the victim's involvement with this event (in the recent Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, this might be a yes given that the event dealt with people who had knowledge of his past history, but in the case of Floyd, there has yet to be any proven connection between the officers and Floyd) and 3) does omission of the criminal history harm the reader's understanding of the event?
          • To give a hypothetical of what I mean by #3, take a case of a person that had served time after convicted of a violent crime but since released. He has a known history with local police. An event where he is attacked and killed in a event around a non-violent routine check, no weapon involved, but only because the cops mistook his actions that they react in self-defense because they might believe he had a gun. All that supports the condition that we'd need to include the past criminal history of my third test, because without that, we aren't giving the fair reason why the cops reacted in self-defense.
          • But that condition does not all exist in Floyd's case. No known connection between officers and victim, and everything that the videos show is based on the information on the call (there was no identification of Floyd by the call) and what the officers saw there. Nothing about his history drove their actions (that we know of yet). As such the condition for #3 fails because can omit this and there's no change in how the reader understands the situation. That's what "no harm" needs to be about. Just because the press is free to go about it, we take a lot more care in all facets of BLP and do not simply repeat what the press does. --Masem (t) 18:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Masem—I don't understand how you can refer to readers' "understanding of the article". Some readers might not be interested in knowing of any blemishes that might be on the records of the involved officers but other readers would be interested in being apprized of this information. Bus stop (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
          • We're not here to answer all the questions a reader has. We aren't the last stop for all information. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 18:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
            • The "purpose of an encyclopedia" is not to mislead. Clearly we want to know if the involved officers have problematic histories in their employment as police officers. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
              • Only if (as we know now for one of the officers) the officiers are convicted of a crime related to this. Omitting information to protect BLP per "do no harm" is not "misleading", particularly since we're using sources that likely are giving that information. Again, we're not the last stop of information, and if a reader needs to learn more, we're giving them plenty of sources to find that out. But what is on our pages we have to curated to protect BLP as a core policy and that might mean holding back information the press freely talk about. --Masem (t) 19:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
                • Editors don't determine what constitutes a "reader's understanding". That is the province of the sources that we use to support the article. WP:BLP does not exist in a vacuum. You refer to "do[ing] no harm". This is always weighed against the prominence of information in the best quality sources. Sometimes we are shooting ourselves in the foot by deliberately omitting relevant information that is prominently found in the best quality sources. That we are preventing "harm" is dubious. As you point out "we're not the last stop of information". Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude victim's criminal history; it's off-topic to the nature of his death. See also: WP:AVOIDVICTIM. I'm undecided on the police personnel's records. It may be too soon at this point; the investigation has just started. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Include. To me it seems perfectly fine to document the backgrounds of all participants, using restrained language, and only when those backgrounds are prominently found in good quality sources. This sounds like censorship, self-imposed, to purposelessly omit information that is readily available elsewhere. The language that we use is very important, provided the requirement is met that the information is prominently found in multiple good quality sources. We should not elaborate on problematic details found in a person's past but we should not be purposely keeping the reader in the dark about facts surrounding this incident that reliable sources demonstrably consider relevant to a full telling of the delineation of this case. Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Again, these "include" comments focus on sources but ignore the stipulations of WP:AVOIDVICTIM, and thus don't really have a bearing on how to apply policy here. As for "censorship", see rule #1. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    • MastCell—let us unpack this. It would of course be majorly problematic if we were discussing the potential inclusion of minor facts about the people involved in this incident. But that is obviously not the case. WP:AVOIDVICTIM cautions us not to include "every detail". Do you understand that to mean that we should not include any details? If so, I would have to disagree with that. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Definitely Exclude victim's crimial history (if any) - we have a policy WP:AVOIDVICTIM for a reason - unless any of it is directly relevant to the incident. I am also undecided on the police personnel records - again, I think they would have to be directly relevant (i.e. they had been cited for a similar incident in the past). Black Kite (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude Floyd's history as not relevant. But, include Chauvin's history. There's a connection being made with Amy Klobuchar, who as Hennepin County DA failed to prosecute him back in 2006, which is relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, now that Chauvin's been charged with third-degree murder [10] it is very likely his past incidents of violence on the police force will be highly relevant at the trial. I'd wait until a trial actually starts as the case develops to make sure its added in context, but... --Masem (t) 19:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude (too soon), I agree that the BLP conservative approach is to exclude until their backgrounds are made essential in the official inquiries themselves, or by later historical reviews. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude the dead person. Include the person under arrest for murder And close this. O3000 (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude the victim (Floyd), include the person arrested (Chauvin). Include the other cops if/when they are arrested. --Shadybabs (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Shadybabs—Wikipedia is not trying to be a moral beacon to the world. Why would we exclude background information for George Floyd but include background information for Derek Chauvin if the majority of good quality sources include background information pertaining to both George Floyd and Derek Chauvin? I don't think an integral purpose of Wikipedia involves the righting of great wrongs. The purpose of Wikipedia involves reflecting the best quality sources addressing a topic. Bus stop (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW , I think there's enough support here that we should discuss some type of codificiation at BLP (if its not already clear), which I will open there. --Masem (t) 00:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• We have this notice-board to iron out disputes. Beyond a certain point "codificiation" creates more problems than it solves. Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Bureaucratic codification stultifies the mind. We should rely on judgement as much as possible, while providing guidance. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - there is also a discussion about his criminal history taking place on the article talk page, which can be found here His criminal history keeps on being added to the article, and has been removed by multiple editors, including me. I also included a link to this discussion on the talk page of Floyd's article. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude any criminal history of Floyd unless directly related to his death. Include police officers' job histories—both good and bad—as they're public servants and were on duty and exercising the powers of their offices. And be sure to specify outcomes of any complaints, lawsuits, etc. Exclude arrest and charging of Chauvin per WP:BLPCRIME, which states: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." As Masem points out: "to protect BLP as a core policy" sometimes requires "holding back information the press freely talk about." Tambourine60 (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The victims Criminal history is still in the article, despite having been removed more than once. Can someone removed it (I would but that would mean an edit war)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC maybe? That would freeze the state of it... I assume this is as good as an RfC; I haven't seen MelanieN offer commentary here though. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I think (EXCLUDING this one) there are about 3 threads active on this issue. Yes one RFC might be a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now started the RFC [[11]] Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Rohan Shah

I have blanked Rohan Shah, as I found no revision worth restoring after multiple users' disruption. Perhaps someone can do better. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I've found a past version that looks like something to work from. I trimmed it a bit and am assuming that everything else in it is actually verified. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Titania_Ltd

Jack Buckby

☁ Jack Buckby is a former far-right activist who has published a book that criticizes the far right and tells his story of being in the far right/BNP as a teenager. In the past two to three years the content he produces has changed dramatically. A section in his Wiki biography about him being a critic of the far right, which he is, has been repeatedly removed.

This is a contentious page as Buckby has a lot of critics but it doesn't change the fact that he has published content critical of the far right on his website, on his Twitter (a lot on his Twitter, in fact), on other websites, in his latest book, in videos, and in interviews.

If his Wiki bio says he frequently publishes content critical of Islam, when he hasn't published anything about Islam in several years, then surely it should also show that he is critical of the far right. It is also surely important that this page details his history in the far right (which it does) but at the very least tells readers that in recent years he has become critical of the far right - simply for the sake of accuracy and giving readers the most up-to-date information about this person.

My skills on Wikipedia are limited. I take an interest in this page to build my skills but I am still struggling to resolve edit wars and have attempted to engage in Talk with the users removing the sentence but it has failed. One user has claimed a source used was commissioned by Buckby but provided no evidence this is true. I don't want to cast aspersions but I think there may be some level of personal/political grievance coming into play on this controversial page.

I hope you can help me come to a fair conclusion on this by making sure his criticism of the far right is documented without removing any of the current content describing his past in the far right. Rosswikieditor (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

I'm one of the editors who previously removed a lot of claims that were sourced to unreliable sources - we have harsh BLP sourcing policies for a reason. In particular, extensive slabs of content that were self-sourced, sourced to Amazon promotional pages or unsourced were removed. I also put a few sentences into past tense just now, fwiw.

It's a tricky one. For one thing, he really was active on the far-right, and this is well documented. For another - and someone else noted this on talk - his ideas on what constitutes "far left" are not those of someone who's left the far right behind. So we really need to go to the solid sourcing.

Is there coverage in anything like a third-party WP:RS-level source? Alternately is there a good, single, statement, e.g. on his website, about where he's at now, that would fit WP:BLPSELFPUB? - David Gerard (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Buckby's book 'Monster of Their Own Making' is based entirely around a strawman argument, namely, that the principal reason young working-class men join the far right is because of the actions of the far-left.

Buckby's book ignores the wealth of academia, research and expertise in this field. He repeatedly misdefines the 'far-left' as what most rational political commentators would simply refer to as mainstream liberal political principles. This is clearly evidence that he is still sympathetic to far-right views as it is a common argument put forward by the far-right/alt-right commentators. He posted a video yesterday asserting that journalists for the Daily Mail were part of the far-left media.

He is banned from travelling to the USA because of his associations with far-right groups in the past. Until this ban is overturned I think it is impossible to assert that he is a redeemed character.

2.25.195.68 (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I am responding to :@David Gerard:David Gerard. I appreciate your constructive input on this! I think it's important to avoid getting emotional or personal about this topic as some contributors are. I am certainly no fan of this person's politics, whether he is still opposed to Islam etc or not.

I have pulled the following quotes from his website. It seems pretty clear to me that he is a critic of neo-Nazis and the extreme right.

“There is a very real far right presence in the UK. It’s small, but it is growing again, and it is drawing in young people. I got out, but not everyone does.” - https://www.jackbuckby.co.uk/2019/05/11/187/

“I’ve been disturbed to see other young men who’d been in my situation – some of whom I’d known personally – getting gradually sucked in to the most dangerous fringes of politics. Some have even planned terrorist attacks.” - https://www.jackbuckby.co.uk/2019/05/11/187/

“As a former far-right activist, I have seen how young men are radicalized, how they find a home and a community in the extreme right, and what issues motivate them. I joined the largest white nationalist movement in recent British history as a teenager in 2008, and over a period of years was groomed by Britain’s most famous neo-Nazis to become a future leader of the movement. Following years of conspiracies, harassment, racist paranoia, and violence, I escaped and became the man I am today. I can’t say the same for my former friends. Far-right extremism is misunderstood, but it is very real.” - https://www.jackbuckby.co.uk/2020/02/28/the-futile-crackdown-on-the-far-right-is-creating-terrorists/

EDIT: Just a quick update about a comment made by the previous anon user. I just watched the video they referenced where they claim he called the Daily Mail far-left media and he didn't say that. I heard him talk about left-wing media but he didn't say the Daily Mail is far-left. I'm not sure why that's relevant anyway but just wanted to point that out.

Rosswikieditor (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

The point was that Buckby went on a tirade against the 'left-wing media establishment' and its treatment of Dominic Cummings. This is classic alt-right/far-right commentary; the media have overwhelmingly criticised Dominic Cummings, from across the political spectrum. The Daily Mail is objectively not a left-wing publication, nor is, for example, Piers Morgan, but they have been extremely critical of him.

For Buckby to dismiss this as a 'left-wing' media tirade is evidence of his far-right views, insofar that he is putting himself to the right of the Daily Mail. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The trouble is, we need a high-quality source to say this ... and Buckby isn't on their radar any more - David Gerard (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

David, you make it sound like you are purposely trying to frame Buckby as far right. Is that the case? You say you "need" a high-quality source to say he is far right to confirm it, yet you aren't addressing the articles, videos, book, and interviews Buckby has done in which he criticizes the far right.

Did you see the quotes I gave you above? Rosswikieditor (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

Rosswikieditor seems to constantly miss the point; just because someone says they are not far-right, does not make it true. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree Buckby is no longer on the major news source radar, this is why it is important to ensure that his cynical false reinvention is not credited on his biography until there is actually substantive evidence he refutes far-right ideology. He and his wife still constantly indulge in the alt-right online. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. We can use the subject's own sites for certain types of info, but not for info such as this. And it's not always the case that they may be lying or anything, but the one person in the world who any of us cannot possibly be objective about is ourselves. In fact, the self is the person any of us know the least, and the entire field of psychiatry is founded on that principle. (Just watch Dr. Phil for a few minutes, and you'll see how little his guests are self-aware.) I would even be dubious using facebook to say someone was the producer of a newspaper, and was suggested below, because who of us here haven't fudged our resume a little.

But more than that, what Ross is encouraging us to do is look at all the evidence and draw our own conclusion. Does he fit the definition of far-right, not back then but today? Well, that depends on the definition, which varies drastically depending on who you ask. Someone on the far-left will likely see anything two inches to the right as being far-right, and visa versa. (Honestly, I've never seen much difference and don't know where the line is drawn, as both sides are just as hypocritical.) We Wikipedians are not qualified to make that judgment. Find a reliable source that says he's a born-again leftist, and we can add it to the article, but if he's no longer in the headlines then it's likely that nobody cares. Drawing that conclusion from the evidence is a perfect example of WP:SYNTH. Zaereth (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I am seeing a lot of emotion and political bias from the anonymous user. This user has just removed an accurate assertion that Buckby describes the far right as dangerous and real. This is something Buckby says in his work. It is not an opinion - it is a factual statement reflecting what Buckby has said.

If we are at a point where an anonymous user with heightened emotions and anger, who continually makes false assertions because they disagree with that person politically, then Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. At this point, we are allowing this page to be defined by the emotions of a dedicated and emotional anonymous user who repeatedly removes information they do not like. They claim rules have been broken but they have not. They claim Buckby has called the Daily Mail left wing when he has not. There are so many false assertions being made by this person that it is hard to keep up.

This sentence was just removed by the anonymous user:

"In his writing, Buckby argues that the nature of the far right is misunderstood by liberals and conservatives, but that it is "very real" and dangerous."

This is accurate. It is true. And it fits the WP:BLPSELFPUB guidelines. However, the anonymous user claims it breaks the biographies of living persons policy. They have not demonstrated where - because it doesn't.

Why is this person not being reprimanded for repeatedly removing accurate content? Rosswikieditor (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

Also, it is extremely scary that people are advocating on Wikipedia that because a person is not in the news cycle, it is fair to portray them as something they are not. If a person changes what they do, if they say something different to what they used to say, it is inaccurate and morally reprehensible to portray them as something they are not just because they aren't in the media.

Wikipedia should display the truth, and it does so very well on the Jack Buckby page. It displays all of his far right activity. It should also reference the fact that, today, he writes extensively about the far right in articles, talks about it in interviews, and wrote a book on the topic. Political opinions and emotion shouldn't come into it, nor should the asserttion that "he and his wife engage with the alt right online." First of all, that's a big assertion to make and one that, even if true (and from what I see on his social media, it's not), it doesn't represent Buckby and doesn't change the fact that he calls the far right dangerous.

How can we move forward with this, without the constant vandalism and attempts at portraying him a way that suits the political opinions of a user that doesn't like Buckby? Rosswikieditor (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

"Rosswikieditor seems to constantly miss the point; just because someone says they are not far-right, does not make it true" - Actually, if a person constantly criticizes the far right, writes a book criticizing the far right, does interviews criticizing the far right, then it means they aren't far right. In Buckby's case, as he has written about extensively, it means he left the far right and considers them dangerous. As he has written repeatedly, but which you think should be ignored because you don't like him and you think he deserves to be misrepresented because he isn't in the news any more. Rosswikieditor (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

No it doesn't fit BLPSELFPUB. This is not info about himself. Wikipedia is not a platform for people to spread their messages. We need to find this info in reliable, secondary sources. If we allowed every thing a person posts on a blog or facebook or whatever to be included in their article, it would be chaos. We Wikipedians should not be cherrypicking quotes or making analyses of their arguments. We let reliable sources and experts do that, then we report what they say. We don't do the original research of a journalist and dig this stuff up ourselves. The answer is simple; find it in a reliable source.

Furthermore, we report info that is significant and notable. If no RS is picking up on this, then why should it matter to me, the reader? Unless some source finds this significant enough to write about it, then it's really just trivial information.

And your final statement is based on a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent. That is what we Wikipedians call synthesis, which is a type of original research and a violation of core policy. Removal of the line was the correct thing to do. Zaereth (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

We should be able to make a simple statement that "Jack Buckby says that he has left the far right, and considers them dangerous" or something cited to his own writing, that fits all prongs of WP:BLPSELFPUB - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If he says that, then that may be different, but that's not what I'm seeing here. Ross seems to want us to view the evidence and make that conclusion, and frankly the IP's arguments tend to mirror that; same but opposite. I view this as being similar to the hundreds of people who come here saying, "I was married to that person but no longer am" or "I was dating that guy, but now I'm seeing this one." We're not facebook and don't need to keep up-to-date info on what people are doing in their lives. We don't say "so and so was a movie star but is currently working at McDonalds" unless it's reported in an RS somewhere, and is somehow part of what makes them notable. But if he actually says it, then perhaps there is a valid argument for including a brief statement per SELFPUB. Zaereth (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

To Zaereth , if a person is not accurately defined today by what is published on Wikipedia, and by sources from years ago, then the reason it is of interest to the reader is because the Wikipedia page is wrong. It's really that simple.

As David Gerard says, it does fit all the prongs of WP:BLPSELFPUB if we make a simple statement that says Buckby has left the far right and considers them dangerous. The anonymous user above just removed a sentence that did precisely that. It said: "In his writing, Buckby argues that the nature of the far right is misunderstood by liberals and conservatives, but that it is "very real" and dangerous."

This is accurate and simple. It isn't promoting Buckby, it's not indulging him, it's a simple statement of fact that makes the page accurate. It also doesn't negate his history and maintains all the information on the page relating to his previous far right activity. Rosswikieditor (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

It is synthesis, plain and simple. You expect me to draw a conclusion from that, and I won't. Otherwise, it is just him soapboxing on Wikipedia. Look, an encyclopedia is supposed to be timeless. We record notable people and things. It doesn't really matter what they do today, unless what they do is noteworthy. What really matters is what they are notable for. If he made a change to better himself, then great, but why should I care? It's only notable if someone notices, and that someone should be a reliable source. If you can find in his own site where he actually says, "I am not far-right anymore" or some such thing, then you may have a good argument for including that, but I personally tend to take a very hard stance when it comes to primary sources. (And I use primary sources all the time, such as flight manuals, but never without secondary sources to back them up.) Zaereth (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It will be timeless if this Wikipedia entry describes how he has left the far right. Buckby describes how he has left the far right in a book published by Post Hill Press and distributed by Simon and Schuster, on his websites, in interviews, and in articles. I have also offered three quotes in which he describes how he has left the far right, and in which he criticizes the far right, above. Please scroll up and see those quotes. One of those quotes was used to produce the simple one-line explanation that the anonymous user removed. The list above is also not exhaustive; there are several other quotes in which he says he has left the far right.

If this Wikipedia entry is to be timeless, it cannot portray him as something he is not when he has been very vocal about his leaving the far right, and his criticism of the far right and the people he believes embolden the far right.

In the line that was removed by the anonymous user, it described Buckby's stance on the far right and how he believes they are dangerous & real, now that he has left the far right. Rosswikieditor (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

This reminds me of the Bobby Beausoleil case, where fans of his argue that he has changed. He is no longer a murderer and his article should describe him as being a musician. But he is and will always be notable as being a murderer, and nothing is ever going to change that. Now he got a little notability for his music, so we include that in his article, but he will always and forever be know for what he did as a youth. That is what he is notable for, and that is what the readers care about. If the subject really wants Wikipedia to pick up on this, then he should work to make himself notable for his change of heart. He has the power to do that, but we can't. I looked at your quotes. Unless I missed something, they're all from his personal website. You say there is a book that describes this. Perfect. That sounds like a reliable source. Why don't you just use that? Zaereth (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I find a quote from his book and reference the book? That could be done, I have a copy, but it would result in a sentence extremely similar if not precisely the same as the one that was removed by the anonymous user. And, the moment I add it, the anonymous user will remove it again. I am avoiding adding anything new because the anonymous user just removes it and that person isn't being reprimanded for vandalism, and I'll end up getting my account kicked. So somebody either needs to stop this person constantly removing things they don't like, or add this new sentence themselves.

As David Gerard said, referencing his website fits all the prongs of WP:BLPSELFPUB. It is not making Wikipedia his soapbox, it is just accurately representing what he is, what he does, and what he says. And, with respect, this guy isn't a murderer. If he is writing books about how he left the far right and articles about how he left the far right, then it is only right that this is at least referenced. Wikipedia is meant to portray accurate information... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosswikieditor (talk • contribs) 23:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It does --possibly-- if he actually says it somewhere. In not a single one of your quotes does he actually say that about himself. If it did, then I could probably see adding a line that says "He says he's no longer far-right" or something to that effect. In other words, if he is actually talking about himself as the subject of the sentence. That is not what you have posted in any of your quotes. He's talking about the far-right, not about himself. You are asking me to make the conclusion that he left the far-right from that evidence, which is synthesis. Find a quote where he actually says it and maybe there's a valid argument for including under SELFPUB. Zaereth (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I really grow tired of Ross insisting that Buckby has left the far-right. There is not one iota of evidence out there that suggests this. He has written a book that misdefines who and what constitutes the far-left and also talks about a very small faction of the far-right that intimidated him out of that aspect of the movement.

Buckby is a narcissist and lacks the self awareness to truthfully identify himself. He used to call himself a ‘Culturist’ instead of a nationalist to make the term more palatable. Until Ross can find a mainstream news source that picks up on Buckby’s change of heart then I personally see this discussion as over. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are wrong on that. In one of the quotes above he describes how he was groomed by Neo Nazis and how he escaped. I have his book in front of me. 50% of it is autobiographical and describes his journey into the far right, and his journey OUT of the far right. He has spoken about this at length in several articles but, importantly, in this book.

Here it is: “As a former far-right activist, I have seen how young men are radicalized, how they find a home and a community in the extreme right, and what issues motivate them. I joined the largest white nationalist movement in recent British history as a teenager in 2008, and over a period of years was groomed by Britain’s most famous neo-Nazis to become a future leader of the movement. Following years of conspiracies, harassment, racist paranoia, and violence, I escaped and became the man I am today. I can’t say the same for my former friends. Far-right extremism is misunderstood, but it is very real.” - https://www.jackbuckby.co.uk/2020/02/28/the-futile-crackdown-on-the-far-right-is-creating-terrorists/

1. He says he is a former far right activist. 2. He says how he was groomed by neo nazis. 3. He says he escaped but many other young men didn't.

His entire book focuses on this topic and explains how he left the far right and disavows racism and anti-semitism. This is relevant information on a page that describes his far-right activity in the past and I'm not going to give up on this one because I am shocked that this is being ignored. It's no wonder people think Wikipedia is biased because this is shocking.

I don't understand why you are ignoring the huge number of references, including an entire book, that show Buckby criticizes the far right and not longer associates with the extreme right - all the while, this anonymous user is removing content and resorting to insults. How does this make any sense?

This person wrote a book about how he left the far right, has written articles warning about the far right, and yet an anonymous user who resorts to insults and emotion to get their point across (and thinks they are the arbiter of truth and get to define what the far right is) is not being reprimanded for edit warring?

This discussion isn't over. I understand the anonymous user wants it to be, as demonstrated by their emotional rant and insults, but it isn't over at all. Rosswikieditor (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

On page 210 of this book, in reference to the far right and his associates as a teenager, he says he left the far right. This is yet another important reference, and one of many in the book - the book which is about how he left the far right. I included it in the sentence that the anonymous user removed, claiming the accurate information was "vandalism." It is not. Rosswikieditor (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

Listen, whether you believe him or not, whether you agree with him or not, he wrote a book about his journey through the far right, and his story leaving the far right. Reflecting this on his page accurately describes who he is and what he does. You don't like him, clearly, but that doesn't really matter. Your emotions don't matter. It is true, and for some reason it is being ignored. Rosswikieditor (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

Frankly I find IPs argument to be very uncompelling as well. Like I said, It's basically a mirror of yours. It doesn't matter if he's a narcissist, or whatever else you or the IP thinks about him. All that matters is what we find in reliable sources, which determines the significance (weight) of the info as well as what the subject is notable for. It doesn't matter one iota what he is not notable for. All that really matters for Wikipedia is that the information passes all of our policies. Zaereth (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ross, how many words does Buckby dedicate in his book to Ann Marie Waters, Tommy Robinson or Liberty GB? 2.25.195.68 (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth, as David Gerard says, simply noting that he details his journey out of the far right in his book satisfies WP:BLPSELFPUB rules. It's not making it a soapbox for him, it's just referencing the most recent information about Buckby. If this article is about his far right history then, logically, it should at least reference what he says in his most recent work. Otherwise the page is inaccurate/out of date - and as you say, it should be timeless.

I am shocked by how much emotion/vitriol has been allowed to go on here. And that things are just constantly removed without any reprimands.

I have added a sentence that references specifically what he says in the book. First you say that if he says he left the far right then it is right to be used. I present that info and you say he didn't really say it. Then you say the book should be referenced, I should you how he says it in the book and you say no.

Come on. All this page needs is a reference to his most recent work, citing his book (a reliable source which complies with WP:BLPSELFPUB) and the page is done. But the anon user keeps removing it without reprimand.

Rosswikieditor (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

The answer is 0 words Ross2.25.195.68 (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

How can you say he talks about his journey out of the far right when he doesn’t talk about being the campaign manager of a far right politician 3 years ago? 2.25.195.68 (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to say I am quite shocked that so much emotion and vitriol from somebody who is injecting political opinions/disagreements into this has been allowed. Rosswikieditor (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

No emotion intended, just getting frustrated that you keep repeating that his book is proof he has left the far right when it is nothing of the sort. Sorry that this has upset you, but the integrity of this article must be upheld! 2.25.195.68 (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You are damaging the integrity of the article and that is clear by the names you have called the person in question, and the insults. You can't call someone a narcicist and fire insults at them and then claim you're being impartial. I'm a guy who read his book and who doesn't even agree with him.

You might not believe he left the far right because you might still consider him far right, but you aren't everybody, and you aren't the arbiter of truth. Buckby wrote a book describing his journey out of the far right. I'm sorry you get so angry abotu that, but it is fact. And it is a fact we can reference because he has said it many, many times over. Whether you like it or not, Buckby has criticized the far right on many documented occasions and done so in a 300-something-page book. The integrity of this article is impacted when you claim to be doing the right thing by injecting your political feelings.

I have interacted with some very nice people here on Wikipedia. You have been extremely rude. Rosswikieditor (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

Ross please try to not be so emotional, this is Wikipedia not a politics forum. I am defending the article from your vandalism; you have failed to provide a credible source for your assertion Buckby has left the far right. His book is not it, his book does not mention his work with Tommy Robinson, Rebel Media or Ann Marie Waters. It barely touches on his time in Liberty GB.

I’m sorry that your admiration of Buckby has caused you to get so wound up. Please stop vandalising the page with baseless claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.195.68 (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The book and the articles he has written crticizing the far right are indeed sources that show Buckby criticizes the far right. That is quite evidently true. I am confident that other editors will see for themselves what happened here and fix it in the coming days. I wish you all the best. Rosswikieditor (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

Ross, it’s sad to see you dedicate so much time to try and make something untrue appear true. I really hope you find a more fulfilling purpose in your life and learn from this experience. All the best! 2.25.195.68 (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

My own two cents here... It looks like someone is trying to use a self-published source (inherently not reliable, except for quoting their own statements) establish something as fact, rather than summarizing from a reliable and independent source. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and should only be summarizing what secondary sources say, unless something is patently obvious (like the sky being blue) and completely non-controversial. In this case, we have a very subjective topic for a controversial BLP (which has EXTREMELY strict policies surrounding reliable sourcing). He may or may not consider himself associated with any particular political persuasion, but from Wikipedia's perspective it simply doesn't matter. If there is reliable, independent sourcing that says he's changed political positions, then we have something to work with. Synthesize something from a self-published source, where there's argument about what his own perspective is regarding what constitutes far-left or far-right is not what Wikipedia is for. Also, accusing people of vandalizing and edit warring is also highly inappropriate and could very well lead to being blocked, please stop. Waggie (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well said, and thank you for finding the words to put it so eloquently. Zaereth (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, well said. When a reliable, independent source can confirm he has changed political persuasions then the article should be amended accordingly. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I might have a look later and see if I can put together an understated and acceptable sentence of his description of his views per WP:BLPSELFPUB. I too am sceptical as to how changed he actually is - but WP:BLPSELFPUB is for this sort of situation after all, and Wikipedia does pretty much err in favour of the living subject within reason, even if it might be argued that some don't deserve it - David Gerard (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not think that his book satisfies the test for WP:BLPSELFPUB;

· It is unduly self-serving. Having read his book, he does not bring up his recent associations with far-right figures including Tommy Robinson and Ann Marie Waters. Buckby clearly does not view these people as far-right. This undermines the assertion that he is a 'vocal' critic of the far-right. Granted, he is a critic of a particular subsection of the far-right, namely, violent antisemites which have forced him out of the spotlight in far-right/alt-right circles.

· The book does involve numerous unfounded claims about third-parties; 'fake' conservatives, 'the left', the media etc.

· There is reasonable doubt to its authenticity. Throughout it makes little reference to empirical research on far-right extremism and in fact, Buckby often rubbishes it. His book is a diarised autobiography documenting when he joined and subsequently left the BNP, not evidence of him being a counter-extremism researcher or a vocal critic of the far-right. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

yeah, I'd be looking for a clearly-quotable statement about himself with "I" in it - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It is no wonder people call Wikipedia biased. You are choosing to define somebody by your own personal opinions because you do not agree with him. You have ignored several statements in which Buckby explains how he left the far right, and in which he criticizes the far right. Whether you agree with him or not, whether you like him or not (which the primary, anon user here doesn't given the insults and rude language they have used) doesn't change the fact that he criticizes the far right and left the far right. If his sources show he criticizes the far right, then he criticizes the far right. That is a fact.

Is is not unduly self-serving, it is simply an accurate portrayal of truth. If he criticizes the far right (which he does) then....he criticizes the far right. But you don't want to include that and, not only that, you don't even want to acknowledge that he calls the far right "very real" and dangerous. Why? If that is the truth then that is the truth whether you agree with him or not.

Anon user claims the book includes unfounded claims about third parties, which is interesting. Unfounded? Where? When? You mean - you don't agree with the claims, right? You are not an arbiter of truth.

There are several very clear quotes, David, (which Include "I") in which Buckby describes leaving the far right and criticizes the far right. But you don't appear to want to use them. Rosswikieditor (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

Hi Ross, could you please address the fact that Buckby doesn't mention his associations with Ann Marie Waters and Tommy Robinson in his book which supposedly proves that he is a critic of/has left the far-right. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Our personal opinions do not matter, nor it does matter what his associations are (or whether or not he mentions them). What matters is what independent, reliable sources say. All this argument and sniping is going to get nowhere. So please stop it, both of you. If there are some clear quotes with "I" in them, then provide them and maybe they can be included if we can determine subjectively to meet BLPSELFPUB. It's that simple. Waggie (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologise Waggie, what I have misunderstood is that I thought it was useful to bring to Ross's attention that he will not find an independent reliable source saying that Buckby is a critic of the far-right.

I don't see this as my personal opinion when it is demonstrably evident that he has not really left his far-right views behind. I did believe his associations matter when Ross is claiming that Buckby's own publications establish that he is a vocal critic of the far-right. His associations show that his own publications on the matter are not reliable.

I now appreciate that this is irrelevant for the purposes of his Wikipedia biography and I agree with the other editors above that if a clear quote does demonstrate he has renounced his far-right views, then it should be included. I won't hold my breath and neither should Ross. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm hereby admitting failure to find even a usable "I" quote, short of buying Buckby's book just to go fishing for a quote, which I'm not going to do. (Looked through the first few pages on the Amazon preview and couldn't see one.) Given he still in 2020 advocates a pile of views usually considered far right, I'm not holding out much hope - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

No "I" quotes? Then I guess that's evidence that rules out him being a narcissist ... but please don't put that in the article either. Zaereth (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a fairly confusing discussion. IMO while we can sometimes use someone's website per WP:SELFPUB, it's problematic when it's something like someone claiming they left the far right. If there are quotes from his book these would be far better. It sounds like no one else has his book or wants to look in it and this is understandable. User:Rosswikieditor since you have access to his book, can you find these quotes and present them somewhere either here on the article talk page? Be prepared to provide more details if needed.

Although I'm always reluctant to include what someone has written about when it hasn't been picked up by secondary, personally, since the article clearly discusses his involvement with the far right, I'm leaning towards including some quote from his book disassociating himself from the movement, if it can be found.

This doesn't mean we should claim he has left the far right in Wikipedia voice, but if he wants to claim he did and if someone was willing to publish such claims (it sounds like it was a real publisher rather than self publishing or a vanity publisher), I'm leaning towards including them. A media source would be better since a media source is more likely to analyse such claims and at least would help allay concerns we are just cherry picking one thing he said. But it sounds like an issue is he's fallen off the radar of most media. And I feel that in a contentious case like this, a direct quote rather than summarising what he said would be better. Especially since it's coming directly from his book rather than from media discussion of what he said.

BTW, what is the book that's being referred to? The only book I see named so far is "Monster of Their Own Making, How the Far Left, the Media, and Politicians are Creating Far-Right Extremists" but this sounds more like book aimed at criticising the "far left, media and politicians" than one aimed at criticising the far right. If he wrote a book mostly aimed at criticising the far right and it's been covered in sources, it would be good if this book is at least mentioned in the article.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking into this a bit more, I wonder if one of the issues is he's has another "change of heart" or whatever you want to call it. It sounds like the book "Monster of Their Own Making" was released in April 2020. Assuming there wasn't some weird publishing history where it was written long ago and only published now, I guess this means the other book Rosswikieditor keeps referring to that the subject wrote aimed at criticising the far right was written and published months or more ago. Maybe for a time the subject was mostly a critic of the far right, but is now returning to mostly criticising the "far left, media and politicians" and perhaps that's why they're associating with far right figures again? Nil Einne (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi Nil Einne a lot of my work is based on researching the far-right and I have actually read his book 'Monster of Their Own Making, How the Far Left, the Media, and Politicians are Creating Far-Right Extremists'. There are quotes within where he does disassociate himself from certain subgroups within the far-right, namely the violent protestors, the BNP and anti-semites which he was involved with in his teenage years. However, you are correct the book focusses mainly on criticising the "far left, media and politicians". Buckby fails to criticize or acknowledge his far-right activities after leaving the BNP and as such, to use this book as evidence of him leaving the far-right is problematic. He has cherry-picked from his own history and presents himself in a misleading manner. I don't think Rosswikiediotr is referring to another book, he is referring to a series of articles which he published in the run up to the book's release. Again, these focus only on him leaving the BNP several years ago and do not acknowledge his associations with contemporary far-right figures i.e. Tommy Robinson, Ann Marie Waters and Paul Weston etc. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Trina Robbins

• Trina Robbins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am Trina Robbins, making these corrections: I alone produced and edited "It Ain't Me, Babe Comix", NOT with Willy Mendes, although she was a major contributor. Because of Wikipedia's misinformation, when people write about me, they repeat this error. Also, I was never married to Kim Deitch, and my daughter is named Casey Robbins, NOT Casey Deitch. I am very, very tired of Wikipedia spreading misinformation about me. In case you don't believe that I am who I say I am, please message me on my Facebook page. I will provide my phone number and my address so that you can come to my door, ring my bell, and see for yourself that I am Trina Robbins. Now please correct those errors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2F70:4D30:5D51:34F3:7890:4113 (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on what is published about the subject in reliable sources, not on what the subject claims about themselves. Accordingly, we won't make changes based just on the request of (somebody purporting to be) the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The It Ain't Me, Babe Comix claim cites two sources. I don't have access to the books, so I can't directly vet the source, but there are solid references. —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The spouse claim has been removed because it's based only on an interview with the other party, and that's not acceptable per WP:RS. As far as the child...with no sourcing, she's been removed entirely. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That's incorrect - that's precisely why we have WP:BLPSELFPUB - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks C.Fred. I was gonna do the same. Not only is the marriage claim an interview with the other person, but it is such a rare thing I could only find one copy on worldcat. There is no way to use that for verifiability. The daughter should never have been named anyway, because she's not notable enough to have her own article.

The other bit is a problem. That info is sourced to what we call a reliable source. The information is located here , so you can read it for yourself. Wikipedia didn't make this up, and we rely on what the sources say. What our article says is exactly what the sources says. Now, neither say who was responsible for producing or editing, but that you both were involved, which you seem to agree with yourself. I don't have access to the other source for this info, but the one says what we say, and you can click the link and read for yourself.

As the subject here, you have the ability to contact the source and tell them they made a mistake. Any good source will want to correct their mistakes, although with books that may be difficult. You may have to wait for the next revision to come out, but that is still an option within your power, but we have to default to what the sources say in this matter, but I don't think they really say what you may be inferring from it, that is, I don't think the author meant for it to come off like that. Zaereth (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@C.Fred: If you look at the history of the page, the addition of the Krensky source, it was used to indicate that a bunch of women "established" the book, presumably meaning that they all worked on it (there are a number of women contributing to the issue); it was other editors who somehow pared that down to just Robbins and Mendes; it would be as if we said "George Lucas and hundreds of cast and crew members made Star Wars" and someone rephrased it as "George Lucas and Peter Cushing made Star Wars". We shouldn't assume that this later editor actually accessed this off-line reference in making the change (and while I haven't searched through for that change, it would've been a different editor, as this was the final edit on this article by Muskmallow (talk · contribs).) And if you look what that edit is coming from, when there was just the one reference there, it was that Trina produced the book. So I don't think we can rely on the fact that the article currently makes this statement and has two references after it as an indicator that those references actually have this claim.

I will note that I have a minor WP:COI regarding Ms. Robbins; as an editor and publisher, I published an anthology decades back that included some of her work, and that book continues to generate money for both of us. So I will not be making any changes myself. But I will say that I have reason to believe that the above poster is indeed Ms. Robbins (she has raised similar issues elsewhere), and that in this matter she is discussing things within a realm where should would be considered expert, not just because it's her own life, but because she is respected and well-published writer of comics history, particularly where it involves female creators. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If we have a citable source - even Facebook would do - then that would definitely qualify under WP:BLPSELFPUB - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As for the idea that the author will correct the book in the next edition, there is no reason to believe that another edition is coming. It saw print in 2008, and there has not been a new edition since. It was a book aimed at school-aged kids (that's what the Twenty-First Century Books imprint is for) by an author who is not a known expert in the field and whose other books do not include any other non-fiction about comics. As such, that this source is sufficiently reliable to be used on a BLP in a matter where questions have been raised is questionable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Better source! From the website for a film that is in part about Trina, we find "With the moral support of the staff, she produced It Ain’t Me, Babe Comix, the first ever all-woman comic book. " --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Even better source The Routledge Companion to Comics, published by academic book publisher Routledge: "The women's underground comics movement was launched in 1970, when Trina Robbins published the single-issue It Ain't Me, Babe Comix anthology." --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Even better(er?) source. Article quotes Robbins as saying "And that was ‘It Ain’t Me Babe’ comics, which I co-produced with Willy Mendes." I updated the article to add this source and updated the text to match. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not have access to a copy of Oral history interview with Kim Deitch, 2007-2009, so it's difficult to determine if this was a claim made by Deitch or a genuine mistake. While Trina Robbins is now corrected, the page Kim Deitch currently still has the claim that Deitch and Robbins were married. Given that WP:BLPSELFPUB doesn't allow for disputed claims involving third parties and there is no partner parameter for Template:Infobox_comics_creator (unlike Template:Infobox_person), I've removed Robbins from his list of spouses. I have created an edit request for the comics creator infobox to allow for a partner parameter. See: [12]. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Janez Janša

Editors, the bellow contents may be unfit for the very beginning of the article and it may not factually be correct (the part about international notoriety, as it seems unlikely the said person is mostly known for these actions). Additionally, they may be poorly argumented (or sourced, if you will), since the sources for this content comes from media, well-known to strictly oppose politicians with views familiar to those of Mr. Janša. The said content is cited bellow: Internationally and domestically he is best known for having shifted from being an anti-communist pro-democracy fighter to one using an anti-migration and climate sceptic rhetoric in his political campaigns, calling critical journalists liars and “presstitutes.”[11][12] His views are backed up by Nova24TV, funded by Hungarian figures close to Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a close ally of Janša on the question of migration.[13][14][11] He also shares the Hungarian and Polish governments' wish that the European Union would not lecture the ex-communist countries on democracy and rule of law.[11]

Perhaps just something to reconsider. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.88.168 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Worood Zuhair Removal

This article belongs to a insignificant living person who doesn't satisfy the requirement for biographical articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by عمر سيروان (talk • contribs) 10:00 29 May 2020 (UTC)

So you don't like it? Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

David Miller

One of our editors has used some very strong language to describe David Miller (sociologist), see the edit comment here [13] and the talk page entry here [14]. I regarded the accusations as a breach of our BLP policy and provided a warning here [15] and here [16]. The editor has provided no response and their descriptions are still visible. Any thoughts on this? Burrobert (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem keen to prevent discussion of real stuff. Is there a reason for that? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

William Weir Gilmour

Although this is not a BLP, it raises some significant issues for living people, and Wikipedia policy generally. You will see that this person did have a significant brush with the law in later life. Somebody deleted this, I restored it, I then received this message:-

"Hello Pat. I’m not sure if this is the correct way to message you. I’ve not used this before. I removed content from the page because [this] is my father and my then 17 year old was researching her ancestry. I didn’t want her learning about this online. Mel1425 (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I recognise this could raise some complex and sensitive issues. However Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, see WP:NOTCENSORED. Some might ask if the issue you mention was more deplorable than his fascist activities. Wikipedia has biographies on a lot of people with controversial personal lives e.g. Tommy Sheridan currently has a teenage daughter, her parents might not feel happy about [her reading about] some issues online, and Chelsea Clinton was in her teens when her father's activities hit the headlines. However I will raise this on the appropriate Wikipedia noticeboard if you want. PatGallacher (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)" PatGallacher (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Without being able to review the cited newspaper article, I could not find any non-mirrored mention of this online or through newspaper.com. Let's hope that whatever BLP concerns that might impact the remover have been addressed given that the removal was over a year ago. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not actually seen the newspaper article myself, but the Mitchell Library in Glasgow does have microfilmed copies of the Glasgow Herald from way back, I could check this once the coronavirus crisis ends. I don't think it was disputed that the information in the article was accurate, just whether it was appropriate to put this online. PatGallacher (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Given the type of abuse asserted, the BLP impact also depends on whether the remover is related to or is the victim. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The person who removed the article stated on Pat's talk page "Neither Tommy Sheridan nor Clinton have been convicted of sexually abusing their juvenile daughters.", which implies W.W. Gilmour was, which absolutely makes it a BLP issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The article at present does not identify the victim. Although as a general rule Wikipedia is not censored, I'm leaning towards the view that this is one issue where sleeping dogs should be allowed to lie. Although I may still consult the newspaper article when Glasgow city libraries re-open. PatGallacher (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Using for Forbes.com for Kanye West's networth

Kanye West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can we get some opinions on this and this removal of Forbes.com I made to the Kanye West article? The hidden note I added as well? As stated in the edit history, I removed the source because Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is clear that Wikipedia discourages the use of Forbes.com. It also states, in part, "Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by 'Forbes Staff' or a 'Contributor', and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their URL beginning in 'forbes.com/sites'; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as Forbes staff articles have also been moved under '/sites'. See also: Forbes." The source does state "Forbes staff."

There has been back and forth and similar regarding the addition of this material. Oyylmao added the Forbes.com networth material. Trillfendi stated, "The fuck not. You cannot take them seriously when they admittedly don’t even properly verify their earnings estimates... ([[Gisele Bündchen|leading to certain people getting audited)." Realslovenian then used the same source to add "The asset is however highly illiquid and in reality West only owns 11% of royalties as stated by Forbes." Elliott080212 came along and stated, "Kanye West is worth over 3 billion, according to Bloomberg and other websites. It seems wrong to list it at 1 billion when Forbes is the only website listing it." Bzweebl reverted, stating, "The 3b+ is self-reported, websites that reported are simply sharing that. Only Forbes does the legwork." Transfo47 came along and removed the piece that Realslovenian added, stating, "This information adds nothing new, and certainly financial minutiae should not be in the lead section. In addition, the same source is cited right after another citation of itself." Realslovenian added the material in a different way, stating, "More accurate representation of the deal." NoD'ohnuts removed the material that Realslovenian added. Realslovenian came back and re-added it.

I will also alert the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard to this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a Forbes staffer, not contributor. Forbes as the magazine is considered reliable for BLP, so this is completely fine. As you've pointed out, its when the byline is Contributor that you have to throw caution in the use for BLP, but that's not the case here.

Secondly, we're talking an article that points back to Fortune's Billionaire's List ([17]) , which is a highly respectable source. They are normalizing all the people on that list (2000+ some) using the same principles based on what assets they have, etc. so the normalization applies as close to equally to all on the list. So I see no reason why editors are throwing doubt to the $1.3B number that the Forbes articles is giving out here. What I would make sure is clear is in the body (not the lede, that's the wrong place to put it) is an explanation from Forbes, and probably this Bloomberg article that this accounts for a portion of the $3B that Yeezy is valued at. (BTW, I'm not seeing other sites saying West is over $3B. They note the value of Yeezy but because he doesn't own it fully, there's no way all $3B of that can be valued onto him). --Masem (t) 18:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on this. Because of the "Forbes staff" aspect, I wasn't opposed to the material being included, but I was questioning its inclusion and whether or not the source is ideal for the information because of the back and forth and similar. And I definitely did not view it as WP:Lead material. I knew it needed discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I would think it's fair, in the lede, to say that "With his partial ownership of Yeezy, Forbes included West on their 2020 Billionaires list with a net worth of $1.3B." because that's pretty significant, but what's key that identifies the who, and the important list (Forbes Billionaires), and in the body, any additional details can be discussed. That's all fair game within BLP; sourcing is there and attributed. --Masem (t) 19:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As stated in Forbes disclosure....they only have access to public information....thus their estimates are imperfect (a guesstimate at best). Not sure an encyclopedia is the place for guesswork of this nature. Perhaps is a billionaire ... but an exact figure seems Out Of Reach if you will.Moxy 🍁 19:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If the RS debate various numbers than that should be included in the article. (I'm just not sure about in the lead (having no survey of all the best sources on his life) so I take no position on it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the source, and it's an editorial piece. There is a lot a guesswork on the part of the author, which to his credit he makes clear in his writing, and quite a few jabs taken at West in the process, as apparently the two have some history. I would really want a much better source than that for any numbers. For example, the "11%" number is one the author was clearly guesstimating.

When it comes to what goes in the lede, I'd have to base that on weight. The lede is supposed to be just a very brief summary of the article, and the weight given things there should be proportional to the weight given in the body. (I like to picture it as a scale model of the body.) Naturally that means cutting out a lot of fine details from the lede, and shaving it all down to the nitty gritty--those things he is notable for-- so unless this info carries a lot of weight, and is very well sourced, I would not even consider putting it there. That's just my two cents. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, Moxy, Alanscottwalker, and Zaereth, I just reverted Graywalls on the matter. He stated, "re-inserting contents that is under dispute as an uninvolved editor, and add additional comment with another source. After evaluating the source and looking at perennial list, I'm satisifed that Forbes.com Staff writer articles are authoritative." I replied, "You are uninvolved, yes. But per the WP:BLP noticeboard discussion, this is not WP:Lead material, at least not without being covered lower first. And there are editors there expressing that using this source alone is not ideal. I'll comment further there." I think that Graywalls "Forbes reports Kanye West insists he is worth $3.3 billion." wording is worse than what was there before; it has a WP:Claim tone it. Thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen:, If it is not lead material, there is always the option to relocate it. "it has a WP:CLAIM tone to it" applies to the use of synonym by an Wikipedia editor that conveys different message than the source directly supports. When reliable sources disagree, you report both versions. It has been established that Forbes.com staff written articles are satisfactory for most purposes. USA Today is reporting that Kanye West is disputing Forbes account. Therefore, it is reported as said. Graywalls (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, that the material can be relocated is obvious. But it doesn't appear that you are considering what Moxy and Zaereth have stated above. It is not as though consensus has been achieved for adding that material. And as for "insists", you can still state "says." Per WP:Verifiability, I am very much aware that "When reliable sources disagree, you report both versions." That is...as long as we are not giving WP:Undue weight to one side. Per our WP:Undue weight policy, not all sides need reporting or should be reported. We adhere to the WP:Claim guideline except for cases where that type of wording is needed. It's not needed in this case. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Forbes may very well be reliable for some things, but I wouldn't call this particular column reliable. Reliable sources are not always reliable for everything they print. It doesn't work like that. For example, a book on lasers may be perfectly reliable for info on lasers, but would be a lousy source for info on dogfighting. A news article from the NY Times would be reliable, albeit at the bottom of the barrel as far as RSs go (news-type info may be good, but I wouldn't trust them for my medical info.) An op/ed column from the NY Times most certainly would not be. This article from Forbes is an op/ed, thus I would not consider it reliable. Not only is it full of the author's own opinions, but the author makes it rather clear that he's only making some educated guesses. That's not what I'd call reliable by any stretch of the definition. Zaereth (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zaereth:, But for this, it appears that Forbes is talking about lasers in a book about lasers. This is one of their niche topic. See https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-the-forbes-400-just-dick-measuring-at-its-finest Graywalls (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, the op-ed is explaining the math of the placement of West on the Forbes Billionaires list (eg The World's Billionaires). All the entries on that list have similar funky math and hand-waving to estimate net worth. --Masem (t) 13:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is such a thing as expert on publicly estimating wealth, Forbes is expert, it's one of the things they are known for.[18] Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This. As long as it is reported as "so and so publication estimates". It only becomes a problem when it is stated as "determined" "conclude" or "valued it at" that indicates something other than an estimate. I don't know why this isn't allowed, while statement that is PURE out of rear OPINION like Atlantic's "America's Mozart" is allowed. Graywalls (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Roger Wolfson

I have a personal relationship with the subject of this article. The article contains false, highly-inflammatory allegations about this person in the section Roger Wolfson#Domestic Violence Allegations. The only source is a 100% opinion website, created largely with user submissions, entitled City Watch LA [19]. Here is what the website says about itself on its Contact page: “CityWatchLA is an opinion publication based on the opinions of its writers and contributors. We value ideological diversity and debate. However, the opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the editorial position of CityWatchLA. We offer and encourage those with different opinions to submit articles which we will consider running.” [20]

As I read it, a 100% opinion website consisting of user contributions, which even says it does not necessarily stand behind these contributor opinions, cannot be considered a “high quality source” as required by WP: Biographies of living persons, especially for contentious matters. But even if it were the highest quality source possible, opinion articles (and 100% of CityWatch LA is opinion content) cannot be used as the source for statements of fact, as I found when looking at WP:RSEDITORIAL: “Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.” Therefore, I’d request that this entire section be deleted immediately, as Wikipedia policy requires: “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: BLP. FYI, I looked it up and these few false allegations are the only contributions this user has ever made on Wikipedia: Special:Contributions/AboutLA.

So this is a WP:Single Purpose Account set up just to attack the subject of the article and may be advancing a personal agenda. Lisrayn (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed those per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPCRIME. This does not pass WP:WELLKNOWN being cited to a single source of questionable reliability. The other was court records, which is a clear violation. Unless/until a conviction is secured in a court of law, or this becomes a big media thing, it should stay out. Zaereth (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As a minor political figure, he is a public figure where WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. However, this incident does need multiple reliable sources required under WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:REDFLAG, and I can't find any beyond those sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe BLPCRIME applies unless WELLKNOWN is satisfied. Unless there is a big media storm around this, it should stay out. Zaereth (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Tara Reade

Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

I am hoping to get some feedback especially from uninvolved, perhaps apolitical editors. My addition *, * of a statement from the lawyer who represented Biden sexual assault accuser, Tara Reade, is continually being removed *, *. Disallowing Reade this voice in her defense seems to be an NPOV violation.

His statement reads:

While not providing a reason for leaving, Mr. Wigdor said his decision was “by no means a reflection on whether then-Senator Biden sexually assaulted Ms. Reade,” adding that he was among the 55 percent of Americans who believe her, according to a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll.

The article is heavy on the defense of Biden, and includes very little support of Reade already. This statement from her attorney should be allowed per WP:BLPBALANCE according to my understanding. petrarchan47คุก 20:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not Reade's voice. That is attorney Wigdor's voice. His statement supports his professional reputation by shutting down any further speculation that he took the case without believing Reade's narrative. That would have been a serious breach of professional ethics, and with murmurings to that effect already circulating (Trump donor, etc.) it is understandable he would want to secure that point at the time he closes out his involvement. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This statement qualifies as a statement in defense of Reade. He is essentially speaking on her behalf, and if your WP:OR is correct, the statement has a dual purpose. However, that has no bearing on whether a defense of the BLP subject by a prominent voice should be included per WP:BLPBALANCE. As any disinterested party can see, the article gives ample room for criticism of Reade and the allegation. I really was hoping to hear from editors who aren't involved. petrarchan47คุก 23:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with involved, OR or other Wikipedia stuff. He quit. He was no longer representing her when he made that statement. It was for himself. That's how attorneys do it. They represent clients only when they are representing the client. The announcement of the end of representation is significant and relates to professional obligations and ethics. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And now all mention of this attorney has been removed from the article, removing any supportive words from Reade's BLP. That's not neutral, but I give up. I'm with Sanger.* petrarchan47คุก 16:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC) (Pinging Thryduulf so that a noninvolved party is aware)

• Correction: mention of the lawyer was whittled down to On May 22, Wigdor announced that he was no longer representing Reade, while also stating that he still believed her allegation.* But Wigdor's defense of Reade with regard to recent journalism heavily covered in the BLP was removed. petrarchan47คุก 17:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The teck-no police have arrived to reping your non-pinged Thryduulf so instead, I'll add my sig like a good little teck-no police. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't attach your frustration to a named colleague in your edit summary. This board is heavily watched. Maybe there's nothing more to say? SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 left a lengthy message on my talk page about this as well, but I haven't been following the saga on or off wiki. Without spending time that I don't have at the moment reading the background to understand matters I'm not in a position to determine what is or is not due. I'm also reluctant to get into US political matters at the moment - UK politics has enough issues of its own right now and I've spent the last couple of days being accused (on Facebook) by someone I believe to be a (possibly former) Wikipedian (I won't name them, don't ask) of being "spineless", an "enabler" )whether of police brutality or the anti-police protestors I'm not sure) and an "enemy of the United States" for not supporting a specific interpretation of a specific part of the US constitution (because I didn't know enough background to know whether I did or did not support it). So I wont be offering any opinion here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Reading what was removed from Petrarchan47's diff above would only seem appropriate to keep if there was discussion on the media's actual approach to how the allegations were covered and if there was bias in how they covered it. Which I don't know if that can be done or not, but that's where it would below and be appropriate; without such coverage, the reduction of Wigdor's statement seems appropriate to the relevance here. --Masem (t) 17:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake

This is not the first time that Rupert Sheldrake has made it to this noticeboard. This extensive discussion took place in 2013 [21], without resolution. In addition to BLP, there are several other problems with the article, including NPOV and ownership, and these overlap significantly with the BLP issue. The article is currently being used as a vehicle for a core group editors to promote their POV. They have essentially locked it down, to the extent that permission must be obtained by members of this core group to perform even minor copyediting work.

Although the article is a biography, much of the text is devoted to the idea of morphic resonance and a repudiation of it. The rejection of the idea is repeated throughout the article, but starts in the very first sentence, where the idea is described using the weasel word "conjecture". Criticism of morphic resonance occurs in multiple sections, and this has led to the article becoming a coatrack article. A link repository to invariably critical sites has been established within the article. As an example, this sentence in the lead is tagged with no fewer than 22 critical references: Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been widely criticised. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and inconsistencies between its tenets and data from genetics, embryology, neuroscience, and biochemistry. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science. Further links to critical websites are given in the Notes section and throughout the article. Within the Notes section there are no links to material offering an alternative view, even though a Google search results in numerous instances of such material being available. Undue weight is being given to the idea of morphic resonance, and in particular to a criticism of it. The constant criticism makes it difficult within the article to differentiate between criticism of Sheldrake himself and criticism of his ideas.

Despite there being numerous external references to Sheldrake being a biologist, any attempt to describe him as such is immediately reverted. A comparative example is Brian Josephson. Even though "In the early 1970s Josephson took up Transcendental Meditation and turned his attention to issues outside the boundaries of mainstream science," he is still called a physicist because of his notable work in the field. It would be absurd to make the argument, as some have with Sheldrake, that since his work in mainstream science took place several decades ago, he is no longer a scientist. While some will argue Sheldrake's work in mainstream science was not notable, we should point to his discovery of the chemiosmotic model of polar auxin transport. (See more info here [22]) We can also point to the Guardian, which called him "one of the most promising Darwinians of his generation" [23], the New York Times, which refers to him as "the biologist Rupert Sheldrake" [24], the Washington Post, which describes him as a "well-regarded plant physiologist" [25], Scientific American, which calls him a "renegade biologist" [26], and the Telegraph which states that he was "once a cell biologist at Cambridge." [27]. And here is a more recent article in the Church Times, a reputable source already used in the article: [28] and describing Sheldrake in the headline as a biologist.

Further to these points, the Talk page has recently attracted disparaging remarks about Sheldrake. For instance, Sheldrake has been described as a "wooster" (whatever that might be, but obviously a pejorative description) by User:Roxy the dog; see Talk page, Archive 21, and as a "confirmed charlatan", by User:Eggishorn here [29]. These are just some recent examples. A glance at the talk page and its archives show that there is a core group of about five editors that repeatedly express hostile views of Sheldrake as an individual. Of course, they are entitled to their opinion, and scientific consensus on his work should be reflected in the article's text. But per BLP and NPOV policies, the editor's voice should not be used to demagogue, and many of these editors have insisted upon just that.

A potential solution to the BLP problem proposed by Arcturus was to create a separate article about morphic resonance, and to use summary style regarding the subject in the article, shifting its focus to Sheldrake as an individual. Of course, good faith editors may disagree on whether this is the appropriate solution and should all have the opportunity to make their case either way. Unfortunately, the discussion about this possibility was quickly closed down here [30].

A read-through of the discussions will show that many of these concerns have been ongoing for years. A number of editors, many of them veteran contributors to Wikipedia and some of them newcomers, have raised these issues and more. They have invariably been met with hostility, incivility, accusations of disruptive editing and even threats of blocking for simply raising said issues on the talk page and attempting to have a good faith discussion about them. While I know that editors will disagree on how exactly to proceed, I hope we can at least agree that good faith contributors should have their ideas considered and that greater collaboration on the article would do it some good.

HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Or, alternative interpretation: A small group of enthusiasts for ideas not accepted by science are crying BLP to avoid the obvious fact that Sheldrake is only notable for his WP:FRINGE ideas and WP:CANVASSED support for this post to avid complying with the WP:CCP. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Rupert_Sheldrake is also of interest. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, was WP:CCP really what you meant? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, you are, of course, correct. WP:COPO Thanks for catching it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that HappyWanderer15 and Arcturus discussing the best way forward in the face of difficulties amounts to WP:Canvassing.

If so, then this across at the Rupert Sheldrake talk page might also be construed as canvassing or "rallying the faithful": "For info, Arcturus is plotting a BLP noticeboard appearance. [diff] -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)"

As for this report being brought on behalf of a small group of enthusiasts, many individual and largely moderately-minded editors have attempted to make changes to the article over the years, mostly to simply add the word "biologist" to describe Sheldrake, or to blunt the heavy-handed criticism of him, and their edits have inevitably been reverted, to the point of page ownership.

I'm sure that the opposing group of editors and their supporters have the best interests of Wikipedia and truth at heart, but their brand of militant, dogmatic – and above all proudly-uncompromising – scientism creates unnecessary difficulties and animosity, imo. Esowteric+Talk 09:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I admit that when I first saw the infobox and lead I wanted to edit it to say biologist like Buzz Aldrin is listed as an engineer in present tense. A PhD is a lifelong label isn't it? Then I saw that his history as a biologist or biochemist or whatever is mentioned in the first paragraph and thought there must be a reason. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

When Sheldrake worked as a scientist, he was not notable. If he had not become a woo proponent ("wooster"), there would not be an article about him, as a scientist or otherwise. All journalist sources you gave are from a time when he had already joined the other team. Before he did, none of the publications would have found him interesting enough to write articles about him.

When Josephson worked as a scientist, he was very notable. If he had not become a woo proponent, there would very obviously still be an article about him. His article contains lots of material about his work as a scientist.

So, "he is no longer a scientist" is true of both, but one of them has once been a notable scientist and the other has not.

Comparing Sheldrake to Josephson, regarding mention of their scientific field in the lede, is apples and oranges. A better example is Angela Merkel: She is not notable as a physicist, and she is not called "physicist" in the lede, but her article is in Category:Physicists, as Sheldrake's is in Category:Biologists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling - actually, "he is no longer a scientist" is true of neither. Josephson and Sheldrake both retain their scientific credentials, despite their interests in other areas outside the bounds of mainstream science. The Josephson article acknowledges this in its wording. The Sheldrake article does not. If Sheldrake were not notable as a scientist, it seems unlikely to me that the editor of Nature would take the time to write an article condemning his work in that journal. I'm sure he would not have been the first, nor the last, minor scientist to become interested in parapsychology and write about it. The difference is, rarely are any of the others acknowledged, and certainly not by the editor of one of the most prestigious academic journals in the field. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

HappyWanderer15, please re-read the core content policies I linked to above because argument and interpretation are not helpful here. We don't write what we think about subjects, we write what the best possible reliable sources say about subjects. If you want to Sheldrake's article to present him as a legitimate working scientist, you need to present good quality sources which describe him as such. Context matters in evaluating sources. Trawling through search results to find passing mentions and presenting them out of context is not helpful. E.g., in the NYT 3,615-word lifestyle profile of Andrew Harvey (religious writer) you link to above, the sum total of the reference to Sheldrake is: "This fall, a television documentary about Harvey's own life, "The Making of a Mystic," will be broadcast in England in a British religious series called "Witness." In it, Harvey conducts dialogues about his beliefs with his friend Dame Iris Murdoch ("for the Platonic view," he says); Anne Baring (a Jungian and the author of "The Myth of the Goddess"); the biologist Rupert Sheldrake, and Sogyal Rinpoche." That is not a reliable source for calling Sheldrake a biologist. It is a reliable source for stating that Harvey called him a biologist and Harvey is a mystic and scholar of Eastern religions, not an authority for scientific qualifications. Similarly, the WaPo article is by the founder and long-time editor of the Post's Style section. Despite all the digital ink spilt in Sheldrake's "defense" no reliable sources that are qualified to evaluate Sheldrake's scientific credentials and make the point you want made have ever been presented. NPOV does not mean, "present both sides". NPOV means, "present what the sources say without taking a side". For example: Maddox did not "write an article condemning his work". He reviewed Sheldrake's A New Science of Life and said that "even bad books should not be burned." That you are phrasing it in that manner indicates that you are trying to inject Sheldrake's perspective because that's how Sheldrake writes about the review on his own website. He's apparently still unhapppy about that review almost twenty years later. Bottom line: the quality sources that are independent of Sheldrake do not and have not and probably never will describe him as a scientist or biologist or biochemist. They describe him, at best, as a "former" scientist, etc. etc. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Tyrell Robinson

• Tyrell Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is WP:BLPCRIME consideration - a professional athlete whose career has seemingly come to an end due to criminal charges. He is in court tomorrow - extra eyes on the page (particularly given the offence is sexual and involves a minor) would be appreciated, as well as wider guidance on how best to describe/display the situation on the page. I am the main editor to the page and have tried to avoid details, but they probably need to be mentioned somewhere/at some point. GiantSnowman 11:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The amount of when things happened could be cut down just a bit but its not be yet. I'd add a para break when discussing the event around the arrest and charges, and suspension/dismissal from the team only as that's clearly a separate logical thought. You could arranging to keep all the criminal charges together, and then afterward, noted that the team suspended him on the arrest, then later let him go (avoid some slang like "sack"), but its otherwise not any serious BLP problems right not; everything you have is wholly appropriate per PUBLICFIGURE. --Masem (t) 17:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner as asexual

Caitlyn Jenner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At the Caitlyn Jenner article, I reverted MacySinrich changing "she will identify as asexual for now" to "she will identify as bisexual for now." I then complained about it on MacySinrich's talk page. MacySinrich was reprimanded by others as well and is currently blocked. Åüñîçńøł was watching MacySinrich's talk page and also focused on the asexual aspect, stating, in part, "The article falsely claims that Jennifer identifies as 'asexual'. The truth is: Nowhere in the source does Jenner claim to 'identify' as asexual. Jenner (in the source article) expresses an attraction for women — so it is not unreasonable for a fellow editor to assume bisexuality." Åüñîçńøł is wrong. As seen by this The Washington Post source and this NBC News source, Jenner does explicitly state "Let's go with 'asexual' for now." This is in reference to sexual identity, not gender identity. It comes out of Jenner's mouth in the interview. Yes, Jenner also states, "And I always felt heterosexual. I am not gay... as far as I know, I am heterosexual." But that is when speaking in the context of identifying as a man. At the time of that interview, Jenner was still using masculine pronouns and would often speak of "Bruce" (meaning life as Bruce) as a separate entity. The ABC NBC News sources relays that Jenner "ultimately identif[ied] as asexual." Despite this, as seen here, here, here, Åüñîçńøł has repeatedly removed the asexual aspect, claiming that Jenner never said they identify as asexual and that the text is a BLP violation. I have reverted Åüñîçńøł each time.

On the talk page, Paul August told Åüñîçńøł, "but the cited article quotes Jenner as saying 'Let's go with 'asexual' for now,'. What are we to make of that?" And I stated, "Not sure what you are going on about. The sources are clear. And you most certainly did not add any 'recent and up-to-date sources' on Jenner's sexual identity. To repeat, the text you added wasn't an update on Jenner's sexual identity. You redundantly added 'She identifies as a transgender woman.' We already know that! Readers will already know that because the lead and 'Coming out as a transgender woman section' are clear about that. The trans woman aspect is gender identity, not sexual identity. MOS:GENDERID is also about gender identity, not sexual identity. And to repeat something else, it is not uncommon for people to use 'asexual' to mean 'celibate' or 'sexually abstinent,' as made clear in this section of the Celibacy article. However Jenner meant 'asexual' back then, we do not know. We can guess. But we don't have Jenner's word on it. What we do know is that 'asexual for now' was stated. Should Jenner have used other words instead, given the 'never been sexually attracted to men, but always to women' aspect? One can argue that, yes. But what was stated was stated. It came out of Jenner's mouth. There was no misquote. All that is left now is to form consensus on whether or not to remove any mention of the asexual bit. If it is removed, it will leave some readers assuming that Jenner identifies as a lesbian. The article might occasionally get added to the lesbian category, which would need to be removed each time per WP:BLPCAT. We go by what BLP subjects identify as. If there are more recent sources on this, and the asexual or lesbian aspect is therefore clear, then we can tweak the section and categories in that regard."

Thoughts? To me, it appears that Åüñîçńøł keeps removing the asexual bit on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis and/or a misunderstanding of transgender sexuality (given their comments at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(This discussion is regarding content in the Caitlyn Jenner article, in the last paragraph in the section “Coming out as a transgender woman”.)

This is a simple question: The article states “she would identify as asexual for the time being”. Does that belong in the article or should it be removed? Jenner never says that she would identify as asexual. The sources cited are more-than-5-years old and are based on a TV interview on ABC. In that interview Jenner doesn’t say it. When Jenner refers to asexuality (or sexuality in general) it is never as an “identity”, and Jenner points out that (in Jenner’s words) “sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing”. Identity is important to this article, because it is discussed notably as a Gender Identity. “Identity” needs to be handled accurately and carefully. In the source interview Jenner says that there is a “misperception that people transition because of their sexual desires.” Wikipedia should be careful not to contribute to that misperception. Jenner discusses these topics often, and in much more recent interviews, and Jenner is consistent in saying that sexuality is not identity.

Two sources cited are both more-than-5-years-old, and are both based on the same TV interview. The first citation is People Magazine, the second citation is an anonymously written NBC news bulletin, which interprets Jenner’s comments — from the original ABC-TV interview — and claims that Jenner was identifying as asexual. But (again) Jenner never actually says it, and Jenner contradicts the idea in the original TV interview, and in many other reliable (and more recent) sources, and in Jenner’s 2017 autobiography, which was recently removed as a source from this section.

The argument above (made by Flyer22 Frozen) is wide-ranging, speculative, and it discusses all kinds of things that seem to be off-topic. Flyer22 Frozen repeatedly makes the false statement that the idea that “she would identify as asexual for the time being” came (as he puts it) out of Jenner’s mouth. (The phrase “for the time being” is a translation of the word “now” — and the sources are 5 years old.)

The advice given by Wikipedia is that this article should adhere to the identity guidelines, it should give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, and contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed from the article.Åüñîçńøł (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

For this topic, nobody is interested in an editor's personal views on gender identity, sexuality, or odd views about the sources. And that includes your statement that "Jenner contradicts the idea in the original TV interview." Contradicts? I already stated that the reason Jenner relays "And I always felt heterosexual. I am not gay... as far as I know, I am heterosexual" is because Jenner was speaking in the context of identifying as a man. At the time of that interview, Jenner was still using masculine pronouns and would often speak of "Bruce" (meaning life as Bruce) as a separate entity. Jenner has been very clear about that. Jenner stated what Jenner stated. Did you even watch the interview? I did. The sources state what they state. Various other reliable sources state Jenner identified as asexual as well. You, just like MacySinrich, are having trouble with this because Jenner is a transgender woman. And that is partly why Jenner went with "asexual for now" -- for laypeople like you. Jenner didn't want to continue publicly identifying as heterosexual because it would confuse people. Trans women who are heterosexual are those who are only sexually attracted to men, similar to how trans men (as noted in the Trans man article) who are heterosexual are those who are only sexually attracted to women. But Jenner was clear about not being sexually attracted to men. So Jenner chose "asexual for now." Trans women who are only sexually attracted to women may be called lesbian (though some don't use that term and may use queer instead). That is not off-topic or speculative. It is a fact. Jenner apparently did not want to identify as a lesbian, and chose "asexual for now" instead. This 2016 "Being Transgender: What You Should Know" source, from ABC-CLIO, page 143, tells us, "Caitlyn Jenner was caught off guard by questions about her sexual orientation in his TV interview with Diane Sawyer. Caitlyn tried to dodge the question but finally recovered by saying that she was asexual. This made me believe that he (it was his preference to use masculine pronouns in the interview) had learned a little transition science from his mental health professionals."

Here and here, I see that you alerted WP:Teahouse and WP:LGBT to this discussion. Okay. But you are not listening. That is easy to see, including by you once against again citing MOS:GENDERID when I have already been clear that MOS:GENDERID is about gender identity, not sexual identity. As many know, I significantly edit sexology topics. But I'm not going to sit here and educate people on sexual matters, except for what I stated above and to state that one can be both heterosexual and asexual (often called heteroromantic among asexuals). What matters in this case is not our personal thoughts on gender identity or sexual identity, or what term Jenner should have used, but what Jenner and the sources state. You've offered no up-to-date statement on Jenner's sexual identity/sexual viewpoints. But I will now. We can see in this 2017 Allure source that Jenner states, "I don't have the appetite for [sex], which is why the public's obsession over whether I would [get gender confirmation surgery] is annoying to me." That aligns with the "not interested in sex" definition of asexuality. And, yes, as is clear in the Asexuality article, there is more than one definition for it (which is partly why it's conflated with celibacy and sexual abstinence). In the Allure source, it is reiterated that gender identity and sexuality are distinct, although they are often conflated, and the source also relays what Jenner states in a book: "A future female companion? I think about that. A future female sexual companion? Not happening, at least for now, and perhaps not ever. A future male sexual companion? I have never had the inclination. But maybe that attitude might possibly change if I have the Final Surgery." 2017 is the most up-to-date commentary on the matter. Jenner has yet to retract identifying as asexual. You go on about the 2015 statement being five years old, but Jenner is under no obligation to keep us updated on the matter. If wanting us to know that a change has occurred, we will know. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The 2015 interview and 2017 autobiography are generally consistent: 1) Jenner was only ever sexually attracted to women, and 2) she has for some time considered sex of very low importance. Any discussion in the article should convey those two points, preferably with as direct and recent quotes as possible. I lean towards removing the contested sentences entirely. Jenner has shared much more about her gender identity and transition than her orientation.--Trystan (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Åüñîçńøł's reasoning is not making any sense to me. Sexual identity and gender identity are distinct, and I see no conflation being implied by the content at all. The 2015 statement doesn't have an expiration date, and is stated directly by Jenner, so this seems to be straightforward. The sentence in the article is good as is. As for Åüñîçńøł's statement that In the source interview Jenner says that there is a “misperception that people transition because of their sexual desires.” Wikipedia should be careful not to contribute to that misperception, I am baffled as to how stating that Jenner said she was asexual contributes to the idea that she transitioned due to sexual desires. Obviously the opposite if anything. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Rob Roberts (politician)

Hi. For the article on Rob Roberts, a politician in the UK, there's been a bit of back-and-forth in adding/removing information about his personal life. The issue is around if we should or should not include details of a potentional COVID-19 lockdown breach at his home, when he was not present. I personally think this is WP:UNDUE. As of typing this, the version of the article has this information, but I was looking for a second opinion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I remember that story - it was a newsworthy event, but the Daily Mirror featured a great big picture of Roberts, even though he had separated from his wife and (as he tweeted in response to the Mirror) was 200 miles away at the time. So it was news because he was tangentially involved, but ... he wasn't actually involved. I'm not sure it is actually reasonable to put in his bio, unless and until he's found to be directly involved. That said, the current wording isn't awful - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks David. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Grady Judd

Grady Judd's biography seems inherently biased and claims he is racist, without any proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.218.203.87 (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This seems to have been fixed by Dmitry103. Thanks for letting us know. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Billy Chemirmir

Billy Chemirmir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could somebody please deal with this WP:BLPCRIME disaster please, and also remove his entry from List of serial killers in the United States?

Despite him not being convicted (other than of DUI) there are violations in the lead (stated as fact he is a serial killer), infobox (stated as fact he has 14-22 victims and he committed crimes between 2016 and 2018), Exposure section (stated as fact he attacked a 91 year old woman, and other crimes) and categories (two serial killer categories).

The editor responsible, Haunted Spy (talk · contribs) seems to specialise in creating articles with potential for BLP problems (serial killers and the like), so perhaps someone could apply a liberal dose of clue please? Another article he created also has major BLP issues Samuel Legg (his trial was postponed for health reasons but might still occur, yet he is called a serial killer and it's stated as fact he killed four women) and is also incorrectly included on the list article mentioned above. 82.23.215.85 (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is egregiously violative and I am working on fixing it currently. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the references on the article and reduced it to comply with BLP. I've also removed the entry in the list article. The original text by Haunted Spy (f/k/a Plamen1402) was very sensationalist in tone. Much was sourced to unacceptable sources such as web forums. What was sourced to acceptable sources used those as justification to directly state multiple times that he committed the crimes and included actions leading to them of which he has only been indicted or accused of. I have explained my reasoning further on the article's talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)