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.

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)

Tim Cook being gay wasn't literally headline news in multiple international RSes, Eich's opposition to gay marriage literally was. More specifically: one is a personal characteristic, the other is specific activism - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Another independent problem with this (whether the topic belongs the infobox or not) is that there are 3, previously 4, citations in the infobox to the "opposition to gay marriage". This is an indication of POV-pushing and that Eich is not, in fact, known for that, or for that tendentious phrasing of something else related that he actually may be known for. Such as being a well known CEO who... (something something gay marriage). If he were so well known for it, that would either be obvious without citation, or be apparent (also without infobox citation) to the average reader of the article from the sections related to gay marriage. Stuffing the box with citations to prove the point is pre-empting the interpretation for the reader, pushing for a particular view to be reached. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You're literally arguing "it can't be true, it's too well cited to multiple reliable sources"? - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A ridiculous straw-man. The actual argument is that (1) the sources do not support what they are cited to demonstrate but are (2) posted in the infobox, in a highly unusual fashion, in order to pre-empt the obvious (to editors if not all readers) question of whether the material is tendentious and inaccurate. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

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 [1], 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 [2]) We can also point to the Guardian, which called him "one of the most promising Darwinians of his generation" [3], the New York Times, which refers to him as "the biologist Rupert Sheldrake" [4], the Washington Post, which describes him as a "well-regarded plant physiologist" [5], Scientific American, which calls him a "renegade biologist" [6], and the Telegraph which states that he was "once a cell biologist at Cambridge." [7]. And here is a more recent article in the Church Times, a reputable source already used in the article: [8] 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 [9]. 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 [10].

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)

As it turns out, I am quite aware of the core content policies you cite. These policies are not dogmas and there is not only one way to interpret them - i.e., through the lens of Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans without balancing it with other concerns. I find it especially strange that sources such as NYT and WaPo are, to you, "unqualified" to evaluate Sheldrake's scientific credentials, and yet opinion pieces like this and this, are cited in the lead as if they were objective pieces of journalism. Yes, NPOV means "present what the sources say without taking a side." But this does not mean that we only permit sources which represent one point of view to be cited, particularly when these sources are opinion pieces. Of course, we note the mainstream view that morphic resonance is generally considered pseudoscience, but we don't need 22 references for that, and we don't need to belabor the point 3 times in the lead alone. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Fine, you have your own private interpretation of the policies. That allows you to tell yourself that your opinion is still within the boundaries of the policies, but it is not enough to convince anyone that your private interpretation is right and that the article should be adapted to them.

After that piece of special pleading, which could be used almost word for word in every other case where someone wants to go against policy and is therefore worthless, you suddenly change the subject. Before, this thread was about calling Sheldrake a biologist in the lede, and now it is about reducing references? Does that mean you give up? Starting a new section would be better then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"No longer a scientist" means "no longer working as a scientist". Irrelevant nit picked and unpicked. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, if you look at what I have written above, you will see that I raised a number of concerns. Among them: Sheldrake not being called a biologist despite many sources calling him one; needless repetition and POV pushing regarding Sheldrake's work; an excessive number of references intended to "debunk" all things Sheldrake (WP:COATRACK), as if an individual, and not his ideas, can be debunked; undue weight given to the subject of morphic resonance. It was argued by Eggishorn that my sources were not reputable. So, I pointed to other sources currently being used in the article which are clearly questionable as well. The purpose is to get a dialogue going as to just what sorts of sources are acceptable. Are opinion pieces OK, or should we go for objective journalism? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That depends: if you call scientific reasoning "opinion pieces" and false balance that gives equal weight to science and fringe, or more weight to fringe, "objective journalism", then opinion pieces is definitely the way to go. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@HappyWanderer15:, most of what needs to be said has already been said by Hob Gadling but I need to respond to this: "...you have your own private interpretation of the policies." A: Every editor has their own interpretation of the policies because every editor is an individual human and policies are designed to be flexible and encompass multiple viewpoints. Stating that I have a "private interpretation" does nothing to invalidate what I've said. B: What I posted was not, in point of fact, an interpretation of the policies; it was an evaluation of your sources. If you want to propose sources to support your point, you should expect that other editors will evaluate them and try to verify that they support the point. Your sources failed verification, one of the foundational (yes, I'm sounding like a broken record at this point) core content policies. If you can't provide a source that survives verification, then the point (no matter how positive or flattering of the article subject) isn't going to be allowed in an article. That is what BLP means. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please provide example(s) of what would be classed as - in your words - "a quality source". Arcturus (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RS. You are welcome. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, I have several recent examples of reputable sources, such as the BBC, describing Sheldrake as a biologist. It's difficult to work out precisely what you require of a source, but it seems you're suggesting that the only acceptable material would be some academic research, with the specific purpose of determining whether or not Sheldrake is a biologist. Is that where you're coming from? Arcturus (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You know, if you really wanted to describe Sheldrake as a biologist (rather than wanting to deny it, come hell or high water), I'm sure you could easily rustle-up sufficient mention from the results of a Google Scholar search (obviously ignoring Sheldrake's own publications). But clearly, as Stafford Beer pointed out, "The purpose of a system is what it does". Esowteric+Talk 18:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

To quote the instructions at the top of this page: This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. Nothing has been said here to establish such issues, only that there is a content dispute. Further discussion of sources should take place on the article talk page. I have taken the consistent position that no good-quality sources have been presented to justify the requested edits. To ask me to produce such sources myself is a mix of asking me to prove a negative and flipping the burden of proof. I decline the invitation to do other editor's homework for them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, as you know, attempts to reach agreement about this article on its Talk page invariably result in stonewalling and closing down of the discussion. However, I'll do as you say and present a series of references, including material mentioned by User:Esowteric. If no legitimate argument against the references is forthcoming I'll add the material about Sheldrake being a biologist to the article. I'll provide a number of references, any one of which would, on its own, be sufficient. A valid counter argument against each will be needed. As to this being a content dispute, yes, the issue of Sheldrake being a biologist or not is just such a dispute. Unfortunately, there are several other problems with the article and some of them do relate to BLP. Nevertheless, let's take things one step at a time. I'll come back to the other matters, either here, or on other relevant noticeboards, once we've sorted out the current issue. Arcturus (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, as you know, or, at least, should know, "I will do this unless I am satisfied with the arguments against it" is not how WP:DR works. It is, in fact, a very good definition of WP:TE. It is certainly not complying with consensus. I would suggest that the course of action you suggest is likely to lead to sanctions. Please step carefully. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at sources, it seems Sheldrake used to be a Cambridge biochemistry don, but his notability derives from his later claims. Thus the current article lede appears to be admirably policy-compliant. Alexbrn (talk) 14:53, 7 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)

Can Wikipedia properly claim that a person “identifies as asexual for the time being” if there is no quote of that person ever saying such a thing? If that person often discussed, and can be quoted on the topic of their own sexuality and identity — and no quote exists of them saying that they identify "as asexual for the time being"? If that person consistently says that they identify in a particular way (which they do), but never says they identify "as asexual”? Åüñîçńøł (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

More than once I have wondered if there is some language/cultural barrier here or something. I don't understand why you keep stating that Jenner never identified as asexual/never said it...when the interview and sources are evidence to the contrary. Are you saying that Jenner never explicitly used the words "I identify as"? If so, I find that argument very faulty. The question of sexual orientation/sexual identity came up; it concerned how the world should view Jenner in this regard. To quote the "Being Transgender" source again, "Caitlyn tried to dodge the question but finally recovered by saying that she was asexual." When Jenner relays "asexual for now" in the context of sexual orientation/sexual identity, how else are we to relay that? It's like asking someone what their sexual orientation is. If the person states "heterosexual", the person doesn't have to state "I identify as heterosexual" for us to relay that the person identifies as such or has stated that they are heterosexual. Otherwise, we wouldn't report the demographics that we do in the Demographics of sexual orientation article unless the person states "I identify as [so and so]." You keep dodging the fact that Jenner stated "asexual for now." As a result, reliable sources have reported that Jenner identifies as asexual. And there is the fact of Jenner seemingly not being interested in sex (whether as a result of simply having no interest in it or a libido aspect) aligns with the "not interested in sex" definition of asexuality.

I'm asking you to stop WP:Edit warring on this and to not remove the asexual bit unless you have WP:Consensus for removing it. So far, you don't. Slow edit warring is still edit warring and can still have consequences. And, yes, I know that I've been on the other end reverting you. In addition to preferring that we aren't blocked, I'd rather that the article is not WP:Full-protected, to stop the edit warring. As for "time being" in place of "for now", it was recently changed to that and it's no big deal since it obviously means the same thing. It can be easily changed back to "for now."

When the asexual bit was first added, I questioned it in my head as well because Jenner certainly seems to have been sexually attracted to women, and because the term "asexual" is not always used in a consistent manner (which I've been over above), and because "for now" indicates a non-permanent state (that it's an identity being used in the interim). Looking in the edit history, I see that I altered the wording in 2015 as a result of IP commentary on the talk page. As seen in that discussion, the initial IP wondered if we should report that Jenner is a lesbian. Wondering about Jenner's sexual orientation is why Sawyer asked what she asked, and it's why Jenner has commented on it more than once. So I think it's relevant for Wikipedia to comment on it. If you think that this wording seems to imply that Jenner transitioned due to sexual attraction, which it seems that you do, we can change the current text to the following: "She said that sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing, and that she has never been sexually attracted to men, but always to women. She also said that she would identify as asexual for the time being." If you take any issue with "asexual for now" being mentioned, all I can do is repeat that Jenner said this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen, please, tone down your words. Wikipedia encourages civil discussion, and the assumption of good faith among editors. But you, with your repeated accusations, and your enormous amount of anger, are acting as though you are incontinent with rage. I’m afraid you’re going to intimidate others from participating. You are the one that brought this, you are the host of this conversation. I would think you’d want to be welcoming to others. You accuse me of edit warring — I consider that a false accusation. I have edited very little, I was reverted by you. Big deal. If you think that your accusations are true, I challenge you to go elsewhere, perhaps to another section on this page, and make your case if you think you have one. But don’t clutter up this discussion with it. Please. Åüñîçńøł (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Tone down my words? Again, what in the world are you going on about? Read the WP:Edit warring policy if you don't understand what edit warring is. You have been edit warring to remove reliably sourced content with rationale that makes no sense. Editors have been clear to you about what Jenner and the sources state. That is why I brought this matter here. I don't need a lecture from you about civil discussion. I was clear about what could happen if the edit warring continued. That is not uncivil. I also proposed alternative wording, and, instead of focusing on that, you decided to lecture me in an unjustified manner. And "enormous amount of anger"? And "acting as though [I am] incontinent with rage"? No. It's time for you to move on. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Whats the difference between incontinent with rage . . . and incoherant with rage? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 20:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Who's intimidated? This is just far out of my field of expertise, so I would generally turn to Wikipedia's foremost expert on such subjects. I see nothing wrong with Flyer22's behavior. She has a very direct way of speaking, but that's just Flyer22.

The sources here say what the sources say. Like it or not, we have to go with that. I don't know much about this world beyond what goes on within the realm of my own interests. I generally think people are born like they are, and most of them spend all their lives trying to figure out what that is. We all knew my nephew was going to be gay when he was still in diapers. He never realized it until he was in high school, and when he finally decided to come out on his own, years later, it was a big relief for everyone. Nobody wakes up one day and says, "I think today I'll be gay" or whatever.

Jenner seemed equally confused. I'm not sure she was using the term correctly, or just maybe threw it out there as sort of an "I don't know", but it's not really our place to debate it. We use the term she did. Simple as that.

Now, what we have there does have problems. 1.) It's too closely paraphrased to the source. 2.) By using the phrase "for now" or "the time being", we are giving this a temporal dimension. The question becomes, when? I think simply adding the date of the interview would help alleviate this problem. (ie: "In a 2015 interview, she stated..." or something to that effect.) Then we know what "for now" means. Other than that, we shouldn't be trying to interpret her words ourselves. Perhaps a direct quote would be best. If she feels the need to clarify or update us on what she has learned in these past years, that is up to her, but this also seems like something very private and personal to her (as it is to most) so she may have been vague for a reason (as people often are) and may not have any inclination to fill the world in on it.

That said, this is not a BLP vio, and I tend to lean toward honoring a person's right to privacy. I'm not all that sure that a person's sexuality is necessary for understanding the subject --unless that is a big part of what makes them notable-- and due to the vague and sensitive nature of the statement, I would lean toward leaving it out. (When in doubt...) But it is well sourced, she did decide to make it public, and others may feel differently, as is their prerogative. Whatever we do, we should do our best to keep the meaning true to the sources and avoid spinning in our own interpretation. Zaereth (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Since I have been accused of “edit warring” (the phrase is used against me 8 times on this page), I think I should be permitted to respond and defend myself. So here goes:

I made three edits, in good faith, to the article over the course of 27 days (May 6, May 26, June 1). (Not counting other edits I made that don’t pertain to this — for example when I fixed a format.)

Each of those three edits is explained in the edit history, each one is different, each is separated by discussion on the talk page. The reason each of my edits is different, is party because I made adjustments to go along with comments made by others on the talk page. The talk-page discussion seemed to have a consensus that the “asexual bit” (as Frozen22 puts it) could be removed: First, I myself thought so, second, another editor said “you may be right”, and even Frozen22 pointed out: “However Jenner meant ‘asexual’ back then, we do not know. We can guess. But we don't have Jenner's word on it.” If any editor objects to any of my edits — they are always welcome to change or revert, and they are welcome to discuss.

I also had in mind the extra cautions and advice found in boxes at the top of the article’s talk page: Editors are encouraged to “adhere to the identity guideline” (“use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources”) and “give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources”. And editors are told: “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately.”

I believe that what I was doing is simply called “editing”. Åüñîçńøł (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If we used the actual quotation, and if we included the date, as Zaereth mentioned, that would seem fair enough, but then there’s a problem of “notability”. The word “now” usually indicates a sliver of time in constant motion. So, if Jenner had a fleeting moment of asexuality five years ago — that’s not notable. I mean, you could ask: Who hasn't had an asexual moment now and then? It also seems to go against Wikipedia’s advice that says: “Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid..." etc. Åüñîçńøł (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard of an "asexual moment" until now. And "not a tabloid" is not relevant, because again, Jenner said this herself. It's not tabloid-esque secondhand gossip/speculation. Note that earlier in this discussion, it was noted that the very same point was picked up by an academic work from ABC-CLIO. Still, I am also good with Flyer22 Frozen's proposed alternative of She said that sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing, and that she has never been sexually attracted to men, but always to women. She also said that she would identify as asexual for the time being. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

When the Wikipedia policy uses the term “tabloid”, it doesn’t refer to second-hand gossip or speculation — it refers to writing conservatively and with regard for the subject’s privacy in biographies of living persons. Wikipedia policy also says editors should give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources. Åüñîçńøł (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There is another serious problem that hasn’t been discussed, and should be. The paragraph we’re discussing in the Wikipedia article on Jenner mixes up the chronology of events without letting the reader know. It begins by mentioning and providing the date of an event (surgery) that occurred in 2017, then shifts backwards in time, to go back to the 2015 interview (when Jenner says “let’s go with asexuality for now”). This gives the impression that the “for now” is a reference to sometime post 2017, and the comment about “asexuality” is made in a post-surgery context — which is false. And it leads the reader to think that somehow the 2017 surgery might very well contributing to Jenner’s thinking and frame of mind in 2015. Which is impossible.

This chronology problem can be easily remedied, and it was edited recently (June 1) to fix this with the explanation: “copyedit to move first sentence to the end of the paragraph, so they are in chronological order - sources are from 2015 and 2017”. However, that correction was reverted the same day (here), with a comment that included: “Taking it to the WP:BLP noticeboard." That needs to be corrected, it is not controversial. Åüñîçńøł (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It is important to this discussion and revealing to compare what Jenner actually said with what the Wikipedia article is claiming. Here’s the problematic sentence from the WP article:

“She said she has never been sexually attracted to men, but always to women, and that, keeping in mind the difficulty people have understanding the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity, she would identify as asexual for the time being.”

“Keeping in mind?” How does Wikipedia get inside of Jenner’s thoughts? The phrase “keeping in mind” is not supported by any source, because Jenner never said it. It is as if Wikipedia is writing a novel — from an “omniscient” point-of-view. The phrase “keeping in mind” is being used in the article to stitch together separate thoughts, that occur in different places in the interview to create or imply a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by the source. This violates a Wikipedia policy that is referred to as a synthesis of published material.

Wikipedia adds a “blue link” to the phrase “sexual orientation”, however Jenner doesn’t actually say “sexual orientation”, he says “sexuality”. Why not use the word that Jenner actually said, since both words have their own articles on Wikipedia? Who knows. However, the WP article Sexual orientation better supports the concept of “identifying”, which will better support the claim that Jenner will “identify as asexual” — another thing he never actually says.

Consider what Jenner actually says on asexuality. In this part of the interview the question is: What about sex? Jenner says: “That's so far down the road.” That doesn’t sound like a person “identifying as asexual”. It sounds like a person foreseeing sexuality in the future, but not now. Jenner continues and says that in the future,"I want a free soul, and a lot of great friends. I just want a great life, it's that simple... Let's go with asexual for now.” There are way, way too many serious problems with this short paragraph, which deals with what is a sensitive topic in a biography of a living person. (The more complete quote is from an article in USA Today, “Jenner speaks: I am a woman” written by Maria Puente, published April 24, 2015.) Åüñîçńøł (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that a solution to all this is to follow Zaereth’s suggestion (above) that actual quotes be used, and to provide sources that will support the quotations. Since the section heading is: "Coming out as a transgender woman", (which happened in an interview on ABC in 2015), the content regarding 2017 surgery doesn’t belong in this section, and is repeated elsewhere in the article, so it can be deleted. Here’s what the paragraph might look like:

In 2015 the interviewer, Diane Sawyer, asked "Are you a woman?" Jenner responded, "Yes, for all intents and purposes I am a woman." He added, "In a lot of ways we’re different, but we still identify as female." Responding to questions regarding sexual attraction and gender identity, Jenner said, "I am not gay. I am, as far as I know, heterosexual." And then later in the interview added, "It’s apples and oranges. There’s two different things here. Sexuality is who you personally are attracted to–who turns you on–male or female. But gender identity has to do with who you are as a person and your soul, and who you identify with inside."

In the article, the reliable sources would be included as inline citations.Åüñîçńøł (talk) 11:05, 8 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)

Fiona Graham

Fiona Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is no recent information on this page at all because every attempt to add any new information is immediately reversed. Sayuki has been a geisha in the Fukagawa Geisha District for five years and there have been many many attempts to add recent information from the last five years to the page but everytime any new information is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:D5D9:3D58:C6D3:892 (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

added courtesy link Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As has already been explained on the talk page, editing the article about oneself is a violation of our Conflict of Interest policy and the related Autobiography content guideline. Adding this information in the form of an Edit request on the talk page and providing independent, third-party sources for the changes will have a much better chance of being accepted. We have no way of verifying edits made by an anonymous user claiming to be a primary source and past acceptance of such claims on other articles has lead to major problems. It is also important to realize that a Wikipedia article on a living person is not a profile or the subject's page -- it is an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to note myself - I have explained, pretty extensively, the ways in which this user, if created and confirmed to be Graham, could request an edit and actually see this article progress in the future. I've also explained that sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and generally consistent and persistent account-hopping will not see any COI edits ever solidified as part of the page, as due to the nature of the user creating them, they will be removed, no matter how valid.

As has been noted a number of different times, over a period spanning roughly 10 years, a number of confirmed or suspected sockpuppets and meatpuppets have had this explained to them.

The issues surrounding this article, which have frankly dragged on long enough, are not to do with the content of the page - I don't care that someone faced legal action. I don't honestly, pardon my french, give a shit if someone did or didn't have to move their business to another location in Japan for a variety of vague and undefinable reasons. It doesn't affect me.

What does affect me is the fact that I could spend an hour and a half of my time very patiently explaining how to request an edit even with a COI, and how someone could work with unrelated editors in order to reach a consensus, work through their issues with the BLP in question, and reach some kind of, if not happy, begrudgingly settled medium that would allow everyone to move on.

It frustrates me deeply. Wikipedia isn't anyone's soapbox, suspected sock or meatpuppet edits are highly unlikely to become a solid part of the article, if ever, and the longer these issues drag on, the higher the barrier to entry will be for the person in question seeking to edit their BLP - which is not, I am guessing, the result one would want.

I apologise if this doesn't read as a very encyclopedic or especially professional post to this Noticeboard, but when you spent time and effort writing out an olive branch yesterday, and then see the same user not even trying to give a response and simply going elsewhere...I think anyone would be frustrated, if I'm honest. It's not even an attempt at resolving issues, it's just skirting, ducking and diving around the issue, again, and again, and again. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I personally don't support removal of material solely because it was added by someone with a COI, as I believe no policy or guideline supports that. Direct editing with a COI is strongly discouraged but only forbidden if it's forbidden for some other reason. If edits really were being removed solely for a COI, perhaps there would be reason for concern. But whenever I've looked into this including just now, it's never that simple. For starters, as others have said, there are multiple accounts who seem to get involved, this results in SOCK and MEAT concerns and since some of these accounts have been blocked you get into concerns over editing in violation a block or ban (which often does justify removal of edits without bothering to check whether they are bad). In addition, given the large number of accounts there are concerns whether these are just one or more editors with a regular COI, or if there could be WP:PAID editing involved. If there is paid editing going on, then that's a major no no since AFAIK, no one has ever disclosed this however it's been required many years, nearly as long as this has started. And it doesn't matter if you are directly editing the article or only commenting on the talk page. You need to disclose your paid editing per policy and the TOU. If whoever was behind this would restrict themselves to one account preferably with a confirmed identity and of course requiring with the paid editing disclosure requirements if required, this would help to reduce concerns in that area. But the other thing is the edits themselves are often problematic. There is a persistent attempt to remove the Wanaka court case even though the community has rejected that. And a lot of the additions are poor e.g. [11]. That of course is the problem with COI edits and the main reason (I hope) why they are often removed. When someone has a COI, they often cannot see that the language they are using is flowery or promotional and unencyclopaedic, their sources are poor or unsuitable, sometimes not even supporting what they added, or they modify sourced material so the source no longer supports what it says etc. Therefore their edits are poor enough to warrant removal. Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

My apologies - I hope you can forgive me, I was unaware that no Wikipedia policy supported the removal of COI edits on sight. (I'll update what I've posted on the Talk page of this article to reflect this.) Entirely my mistake - I should've made myself more familiar with BLP policy before posting. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

B. Wongar

The article on writer and literary hoaxer B. Wongar has been subject to a lot of problematic editing in the past (e.g., by Serbian nationalist and sockpuppeteer Vujkovica brdo). Recently, a new editor has showed up on the page, a lot of tags, and left a very long message on the talk-page. I do not have a good enough grasp of this topic to assess how much of this is valid and how much of it is more POV-pushing; additional eyes would be welcome. --JBL (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Nick McKenzie

Nick McKenzie page is subject to repeat additions by a single user who repeatedly adds inaccurate and defamatory material. Repeated requests to seek consensus on talk page are ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qldsydmel (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I see a content dispute rather than any alarming BLP concern (original research?). Rather than continuing to edit war over their lengthy cited assertions, I suggest you discuss the problematic issues with each assertion on the talk page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Isaacman

User CircleBBQ continues to deface an individual users wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Isaacman) with information out of context and factually incorrect. He has been warned and continues to revert back the changes regularly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CircleBBQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.59.191.98 (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reverted it and left CircleBBQ a DS warning and an explanation of BLP. Might be advisable for other editors to keep an eye on the page as well- One of the "references" was a youtube video posted by someone using the same name. plus review complaint sites, facebook... Looks like someone is not happy with the automated payment system operated by the company belonging to Mr Isaacman.Curdle (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ali Spagnola

An anonymous editor keeps making changes to this article to say, without any source at all, that she died on the 3rd of June. Tried editing it back, but they've just gone and done it again. HiddenViper13 (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Richard McDaid

Richard McDaid has two sources but they both lead to https://cricketarchive.com/subscribe instead of the refererences currently in use.

You have | Failed | This Universe | 00:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's a paywalled site, can be read with a subscription. (The first time I clicked on the first link, the proper page showed up... for a fraction of a second, before it was rerouted to the subscription page.) WP:PAYWALLed sites are allowed, but not preferred. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 4#File:Derek Chauvin.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 4#File:Derek Chauvin.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 29#File:George Floyd.png

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 29#File:George Floyd.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Climate change denial category

I've been seeing removal of the "climate change denial" category at a few articles, including James Delingpole and Anthony Watts (blogger). Apparently a CfD discussion is the justification. It's not obvious to me that that discussion should be determining. No doubt some will disagree -- but on the basis that categories are (merely) useful navigational aids, I'd suggest restoring it where it has been deleted (not just for these two articles). It certainly is pertinent to those two individuals. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there was a tussle to remove the category at Naomi Seibt, a YouTuber employed by the Heartland Institute a little while ago as a paid spokesperson for climate denial. Esowteric+Talk 16:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Category talk:Climate change denial#Criteria for adding biographies and Category talk:Climate change denial#After introduction and deletion of the "denialists" categories about this currently. PackMecEng (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, Seibt is not in the same category as Delingpole when it comes to notability. --Knucmo2 (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There have been many discussions over the years about why these are generally not helpful categories for BLPs, and the specific categories for "climate change deniers" have been deleted twice recently, reflecting the consensus that these particular categories are not a good idea. In this context removing BLPs from the "climate change denial" category is certainly understandable, although the consensus here is less clear. But if you are going to include BLPs in this category then as a minimum you should only do so when the article includes an explicit statement in Wikipedia's own voice that the subject is a climate change denier. If we can't find sufficiently good referencing to make such an explicit statement then we shouldn't make an implicit statement by inclusion in categories of this kind. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes that all makes sense. I think that for most of these people, something along the lines of Category:Persons involved in climate change issues (which would maybe be a direct subcategory of Category:Climate change and society) would be best. True, this would make it harder for the reader to easily say "find me all the articles on climate-changer deniers", but impossible for her to say that and presented with the members of set that we have made up on our own dime that includes some people who are climate change deniers, and some who might or might not be, depending on who you talk to. It's a lose-lose proposition, but "no data" is usually better than "false data". It would be nice for a reader to quickly be able to get the set of climate change deniers. But... it would also be nice for the reader to quickly find the set of "Corrupt United States Senators" or "Underrated American Football running backs" or "Difficult actors" and so on, but... there's a limit to what we can do. Sometimes the reader just has to do her own work. "Climate change deniers" might be over the limit of what can do, at a reasonable level of confidence that we aren't making any mistakes. Herostratus (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Judy Mowatt

The page currently states (under the section "career") that Judy Mowatt is the longtime wife of Bunny Wailer. Furthermore, it states Mowatt as co-author of 3 songs performed by Bunny Wailer, under the pseudonym "Jean Watt". Both claims point to the same source: "The words and music of Bob Marley", written by David V. Moskowitz.

Jean Watt however is a separate person. She is, in fact, spouse to Bunny Wailer and co-author of the 3 songs mentioned. On May 28th, 2020 she was reported missing in Jamaica. Citing the article: "Social and traditional media have been utilised in helping the family to find Watt, with a message that states, "Jean Watt, who is known as 'Sister Jean', is dreadlocked, about five feet three inches tall". The article shows 2 photographs of Jean Watt, and make no mention of the name Judy Mowatt.

The claim that Jean Watt is a pseudonym for Judy Mowatt is contradicted by reggae historian Roger Steffens in his essay about the recording sessions for the album "Burnin'" by the Wailers. Here, he refers to Jean Watt as Bunny Wailers "baby mother". No mention is made of Judy Mowatt in the essay in spite of her later important role as backing singer for Bob Marley as a member of the I-Trees. It can therefore be concluded that they are not the same person.

Judy Mowatt is reported to be still active (now a gospel singer) and recent photos show her to look very different from Jean Watt. Furthermore, Judy Mowatt no longer has dreadlocks. She remains a well known figure in the jamaican music industry, and still releases new songs with other top artists.

The David Moskowitz book would therefore appear as a poorly researched source. It should be noted that one other book by the same author, "Caribbean Popular Music: An Encyclopedia of Reggae, Mento, Ska, Rock Steady, and Dancehall" from 2005 has been criticised by one reviewer for being poorly researched in 3 instances, quote: "the entry for Ranking Dread states that he rose to prominence on Clement "Coxsone" Dodd's UK-based sound system, confusing Dodd with the completely unrelated British sound system operator Lloyd Coxsone. Moskowitz doesn't seem to have done his research well at all, and he fails to even mention Ranking Dread's rather colourful life after reggae. The entry on Cornell Campbell is similarly poor, getting his year of birth wrong and stating that he recorded at Studio One for Bunny Lee(!) and retired in the mid-1980s, not mentioning the albums he recorded or the regular live performances since then." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phk1966 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Bronson Pinchot

Bronson Pinchot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been a recent recurring issue on this page. An anonymous editor posted a sentence on the bottom of the “personal life” tab that states that Pinchot’s Perfect Strangers co-star Rebeca Golden accused him of sexual assault. The source of this information was from an informal fan-run Wordpress blog, and though it is cited, it is clearly not a reliable or high-quality source. Additionally, the blog referenced has a history of publishing highly subjective, malicious and libelous statements regarding Pinchot. Since it’s addition to the page on April 5th, various users have removed this information FOUR times (with one user commenting on the unreliable source), only for it to be quickly re-added each time by the same exact IP address of the original editor.

In addition, I have searched and found no additional sources, credible or otherwise, to verify Golden’s claims. The statements from Golden’s interview on the blog may or may not be true, but seeing as the source is unreliable, and also known for posting hateful and biased information, I feel that this sentence should be permanently removed. The publication of this content on Wikipedia also defames Pinchot, which is unacceptable, unethical, and violates all 3 of Wikipedia’s BLP policies (NPOV, V & NOR).

I have not edited the article myself, as I did not want to cause unnecessary conflict. I also have little experience in editing pages (student), and wanted to make sure to do the right thing to have this fixed. I apologize if I made a mistake in reporting this here.

I felt that this issue needed to be brought to attention because it genuinely seems like intentional libel due to the content being republished multiple times by the same IP address. I hope there is a way that the administrators can permanently remove this content, block the violator and/or protect the page from vandalism. Kreglas413 (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

As the owner of the blog sourced for the statement, I can verify that I have the emails from Ms. Golden, as well as a recording of our conversation. You're correct that the majority of material on my blog is subjective, as are all review and analysis efforts. I fail to see, however, how the interview cited falls under the same umbrella as the rest. The page cited does objectively show the questions and answers that comprise the interview. I recognize it is difficult to hear that an actor one is a fan of has acted horrifically to another human being, and I'm sorry you're having to go through that. Caseyroberson (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPSPS we do not allow any claims against a BLP from self-published sources. If a reliable source like the New York Time picked up these assertions, then we could incorporate that, but we're not going to use a blog even with the assertion of the origins of the source. --Masem (t) 17:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. Caseyroberson, while I appreciate your comments on the matter, this has nothing to do with my feelings, nor anything other than Pinchot’s BLP page, which, like any other BLP page, must have reliable sources which abide to Wikipedia’s policies. Even if you can verify the information, no one else can. As is clearly stated in the WP:BLP, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.

That being said, this unverified content being continuously re-published and re-cited on a website like Wikipedia can also be seen as potential defamation of character.

I noticed now that the sentence has returned after being deleted again for the FIFTH time. Would administrators please consider protecting the page (WP:PP) or blocking the IP address (WP:BP)? It seems that this problem will persist unless either of these things are done. Kreglas413 (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it and semi'd the article for a week. --Masem (t) 22:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks,Masem. I appreciate your work in resolving this issue. Kreglas413 (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Julian Firth

Date of birth: January 8, 1961 Divorced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.149.11 (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Julian Firth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) We need reliable sources to add details to the article. I have removed the existing birthdate including year since I can't find any such sources (to be clear IMDB and other wikis don't count) for either date. Probably an age as of would work since the Evening Standard has an age, but it doesn't seem that important. The marriage stuff, I've left it be for now. The Evening Standard source confirms he had a son who died in Thailand, but the parentage of the deceased son's sister and brother isn't clear and doesn't mention whether he was ever married to the son's mother so frankly the whole family section is lacks clear sourcing. So if someone wants to modify or remove, be my guest. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Trevor Moran coming out as transgender

Trevor Moran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saw this via WP:Huggle. Huggle often picks up on pronoun changes being made to a BLP article. Experienced editors are needed at the Trevor Moran article to handle the name of the article with regard to WP:Common name and WP:NAMECHANGES, and name usage within the article. Pronoun usage is clear per MOS:GENDERID, but MOS:GENDERID does not apply to article titles. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The Great Hysteria of 2020

Violation of WP:BDP; unsupported and mostly untrue allegations against George Floyd; no possibility this will be an independent article given existence of Death of George Floyd and related content. Kablammo (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedied. Thank you, Kablammo. Bishonen | tålk 15:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen, I think you sent a warning message to the wrong IP. That IP created the original version of the page in neutral terms (although youre correct in the sense that it was a duplicate article). It was only a subsequent IP who introduced the biased terms. Also the talk page of the draft should be deleted per G8. Thanks! --Dps04 (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Dps04,  Done – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Aengus Ó Snodaigh‎

Aengus Ó Snodaigh‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been back and forth between various IP and other editors over a two year period, so perhaps the input of some outside editors can get this issue put to bed for a while. The current content being added or removed can be seen here. Specifically there's a lengthy paragraph about his wife being drunk and a court case resulting from it, and secondly there's a spy-ring allegation with some other allegations thrown in. While two of his staff were convicted in relation to that, it was simply for IRA membership and thus the rest of the allegations remain in WP:BLPCRIME territory especially as the subject of the article doesn't appear to have been accused of criminal activity, never mind convicted. Another point worth bearing in mind is how much of the article seems to be about people other than the subject of the article. FDW777 (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

In the general case, controversial material about non-notable third parties shouldn't be on a BLP at all, no - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Allison Davis (television executive)

A user has made major unsourced contributions, claiming it to be "their article". I left them a note on their talk page about verifiability and autobiographies, but they are continuing to edit and havent responded. I'm reverting their edits for now as they are still uncited and therefore technically WP:BLP violations. I'd like somebody with more experience on the issue to take a look. –DMartin 23:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

James Kilgore

Not sure the proper way to do it, but if anybody is better than me at Wikipedia: basically all the previous edits to James Kilgore's page from 98.155.163.122 should be reverted. They violate most of the issues with living people's bios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.186.227 (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I used a tool called Who Wrote That? to find the remaining text added by the anonymous editor. These additions were clearly detrimental to the article, being ungrammatical, biased, and, most importantly for WP:BLP purposes, unsourced. Thank you for the report. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)