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.

Stacey Abrams

Stacey Abrams (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

There's a rather contentious debate going on at Talk:Stacey Abrams#Refusal to concede 2018 gubernatorial election and now some edit warring over an issue which I believe falls under WP:BLPREMOVE. Experienced third parties would be helpful here. Generalrelative (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how this issue remotely falls under WP:BLPREMOVE. There's no debate as to the quality of the sources. There's no original research. The sources aren't self-published, and they don't fail verifiability. In fact, I don't think there's a conceivable way that the content in question could be deemed libelous. The content in question is such a basic statement of fact that I'm not sure how it's supposed to be a BLP violation in any way, shape, or form. Toa Nidhiki05 00:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The contention is that what you're seeking to add is an original interpretation or analysis of a source. That's WP:BLPREMOVE #2. Generalrelative (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Please identify the original research in question. Toa Nidhiki05 00:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's been explained to you numerous times on the article talk page. The purpose of this notice is to bring uninvolved third parties to the discussion there, not to create a separate debate here. Generalrelative (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Just some advice - it would help if you provided some examples for these editors to quickly identify. Specifically, the various proposed and existing text in the article. Toa Nidhiki05 00:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking for experienced editors who know how to parse a talk-page thread here. The issue is not that complex and there is no rush. Generalrelative (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm an experienced editor who participated the discussion and I don't understand why you think "a Federal judge ruled against Fair Fight in a lawsuit regarding the election is "original interpretation or analysis". I don't believe you have ever explained it. Politrukki (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The statement is one-sided and therefor WP:UNDUE without the context that there were "wins and losses on both sides" as the judge stated, and as was quoted in numerous reliable sources. Here, for example, is how the AJC summarized it: "The judge who decided against Fair Fight on all counts wrote in his ruling that the case wasn’t entirely one-sided." It's been explained many times on the talk page that Toa's rationale for excluding this context (e.g. The judge is being courteous, that the judge's statement is simply inaccurate, or that it doesn't actually matter) is invalid original analysis. Generalrelative (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

If the ruling was against Fair Fight "on all counts" then it makes sense to me to summarize it as such. There's no BLP issue with taking content from top tier sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand the issue. We are indeed taking content from top tier sources. The disagreement is over how to present them accurately. The lawsuit took four years, as the sources note, and over that time many of the issues brought up in the original suit were resolved as the plaintiffs wished. The final bench trial which ruled against Fair Fight was just one part of the story. Presenting it as though it were a ruling which refuted Abrams' claims on the whole would be simply false, per the sources. Generalrelative (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The ruling was against Fair Fight on all counts, Mr Ernie. What Generalrelative keeps referring to is a passing remark from the judge in the literal preamble of the opinion, which has no legal binding beyond explaining the basic background of litigation. Saying "wins and losses on both sides" serves no actual purpose except to confuse the reader - it would be like the Texas v. Pennsylvania article saying that "Trump lost the case, but there were wins and losses on both sides throughout litigation". That is technically accurate - a few lower court judges obviously voted to let the case proceed - but SCOTUS (rightfully) slapped the case down, and that's what we report.

As for the actual case - as outlined by POLITICO, it was originally extremely broad before gradually being whittled down to three claims. The judge ruled against all three claims. The "wins" Fair Fight did achieve here were entirely outside the courtroom - specifically, the Georgia legislature passed a few laws addressing some specific complaints. This is why several users, including myself, have supported wording that reads something like "A federal judge ultimately ruled against Fair Fight on all counts in a lawsuit regarding the election, although some election laws were changed by the legislature while litigation was ongoing". This accurately explains both the outcome of the case (Fair Fight lost on all counts) and the fact that the legislature did make some changes to address other complains Fair Fight had. Toa Nidhiki05 17:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

If it were a passing remark that doesn't matter, then it wouldn't be quoted in multiple reliable sources. Reporting in multiple reliable sources is how we determine notability, not the original analysis of editors, as has been explained to you numerous times. Generalrelative (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not engaging in original research, and I'm going to respectfully ask you to stop claiming I am. I am going off of what reliable sources said, and it's disappointing to see you continue to laser focus on literally one line in the preamble of a case rather than what actual, lengthy reliable sources like POLITICO report. Toa Nidhiki05 17:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

My response above was for the benefit of others who may be viewing this page. At this point I feel that you are engaging in WP:IDHT behavior which obviates the need to continue to debate with you. Case in point, the fact that here you suggest we focus on a Politico article which happens to be one of the sources I just cited as quoting that "one line" from the judge –– as though it did not say what it quite obviously says. Generalrelative (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

In this NYT piece, the "wins and losses for all parties" statement was brought up by Abrams. The NYT writes "U.S. District Court Judge Steven Jones ruled against all the claims brought by Fair Fight Action, which had challenged Georgia’s absentee ballot provisions, oversight of voter rolls and the state’s “exact match” law, which mandates that a voter’s name on their voter application be identical to their government identification, even in the case of hyphens or accent marks." I don't see the importance of mentioning the wins and losses on both sides without spelling out what those wins and losses were, which is probably too much for the lead. I personally don't see a BLPREMOVE issue here as the content itself is well sourced, and carried by enough sources to satisfy WEIGHT. Further discussion on the talk page could hash out the "wins and losses for all parties," but to me that seems like a sub-topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Reasonable minds can disagree on WP:BLPREMOVE, which is why the policy recommends bringing such disputes here. Feel free to weigh in on the article talk page if you have concrete suggestions as to how to improve the article. Generalrelative (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Then you don't understand BLPREMOVE policy. A valid example of BLPREMOVE, even though the edit summary didn't cite BLPREMOVE, would be this, because the source was grossly misrepresented. BLP applies to all spaces, but NOR doesn't extend to article talk pages or noticeboard discussions. Analysing sources in talk page discussion is normal and not original research.

What you're now describing is NPOV dispute. At the article talk page users have tried to explain to you that "wins and losses" quote doesn't sufficiently reflect reliable sources. It's verifiable, but not NPOV. Decent NPOV analysis requires taking all relevant sources (or a representative sample if that's not feasible) into account and then find a way to summarise all sources. I suggest you read more sources and go the article talk page to make your case. This forum is not optimal for building consensus in cases where there's no simple "yes" or "no" answer. Politrukki (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources are crystal clear that Abrams is not an election denier but rather a promoter of access to voting which is being deliberately suppressed by the GOP. These are two different things. Republicans use the Russian and Chinese propaganda strategy of undermining the legitimate act of democratic elections to make the larger point (from their POV) that democracy no longer works and that the US should transition to autocracy, authoritarianism, and strong leader guidance, in many ways a throwback to monarchism and an undermining of the nature and intent of the Founding Fathers and the Enlightenment in general. This is not what Abrams is doing, she is doing the opposite—fighting against voter suppression and the undermining of access to the polls. This makes her a pro-democracy proponent, and is something entirely different than what the GOP is doing, as their tactics and strategies are designed to de-legitimize electoral access, stability, and the peaceful transition of power common to the established democratic tradition. Attempts by editors to equate the two vastly different approaches should be met with harsh disapproval and possibly even editorial sanctions. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Toa Nidhiki05 00:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You’re welcome to your opinion, but the GOP is now an anti-democracy, pro-autocracy party, and the entire underlying intent of the Big Lie, baseless claims of voter fraud, and voter suppression laws is to thwart the will of the electorate and maintain the hegemony of a minority party. This is established fact based on scholarly sources. It’s not debatable. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, what are you hoping to achieve with this? Toa Nidhiki05 00:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Please, let's have a discussion based on specific reliable sources and WP policies at the article talk page. Not a broader debate about American politics here. Generalrelative (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement here. This section might need to be hatted to not distract from the actual discussion on RS and Wikipedia policies. Toa Nidhiki05 00:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The intent to play the "both sides do it" card here is obvious. That’s propaganda and disinformation. The false balance is obvious, but it also has an implicit whataboutism constructed in its addition to the article. Only one side is engaging in election denial, and it’s not the Democrats. I hope that clears up your confusion. Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not confused about anything other than what you're trying to accomplish here, so there's nothing to clear up. Toa Nidhiki05 02:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It would have been helpful to include sources that back up what you say, as I'm not able to find any supporting your statement. For example, the WaPo a few weeks ago reported that Abrams at various times said the 2018 election was stolen from her, falsely claimed she won, suggested the election was rigged and "not a free or fair election." She claimed voter suppression was the cause for her loss but was not able to prove it, and refused to say Kemp was the "legitimate" governor. The article notes that Abrams "played up claims the election was stolen until such tactics became untenable for anyone who claims to be an advocate for American democratic norms and values." This RS goes directly against most of your comment. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

She did not, however, direct an armed mob to go murder the public officials tasked with certifying the result. So the wording needs to avoid any suggestion of a false equivalence between Abrams' legal complaint, pursued through institutional process, and widespread Republican support for armed insurrection. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The so-called "reliable" source you are using has been the subject of serious criticism about his "fact checks", so it's not as reliable as you might think. Further, you're engaging in egregious, targeted cherry picking to falsely equate Abrams with Trump (and by extension the Big Lie spread by the MAGA contingent that has taken over the GOP) to make a wider false claim by implication, namely that they "both do it", which is again, false. Abrams by all accounts, probably said some things she should not have said; what high-level politician hasn't? The difference here, is that Abrams, and by extension the Democrats, are not by and large claiming the election was stolen, they are saying that voter suppression unfairly eliminated potential supporting votes, and the GOP record of doing just this to black voters stretches back 60 years. I maintain my original position, even slightly stronger than before. The two claims are vastly different. On the one hand, we have a Democrat saying there was massive voter suppression. All of the evidence indicates that this likely occurred, and frankly, we know it is still occurring right now, in the form of new voter restriction laws, organized voter intimidation efforts, and open and ongoing threats to commit violence against political opponents. This is not the same or equivalent to Republicans who claim there was massive election fraud at the ballot box. Abrams has never once made this kind of claim. That Republicans are seizing on her comments to play the "both sides" games says a lot about how this is a public relations effort to blame, distract, deny, and distort any responsibility for their statements. As bad as Kessler's record is, he does serve up a nice, inside-out shit sandwich, placing the actual facts of the matter in between his bad take on Abrams, facts I should note that you did not appear to read since they went beyond the headline and the opening paragraphs that you quoted. In any event, Kessler is not the arbiter of truth here, as the criticism against him shows; his enlightened centrism is deeply misguided and out of date, and represents everything wrong with institutional, establishment journalism that sucks at the juicy and supple corporate teats of managed democracy that prevents American society from progressing by design. Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of “egregious, targeted cherry picking to falsely equate” anything, as I’ve obviously done no such thing. I didn’t even mention Trump, so I’m not sure where you get that from. I don’t know how to respond to the rest of this screed, other than to say I’m sorry you feel that way. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like playing the victim, without responding to Viriditas' statement. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Viriditas's statement has nothing of substance to actually respond to, so Mr Ernie is entirely justified to express bewilderment both at the unwarranted personal attack and at the confusing tangent that was laid out before him. Toa Nidhiki05 19:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Abrams is a competent Black woman, an energetic advocate of voting rights, an elite law school graduate, -- and she's one of many who have been vilified by sundry false narratives and equivocations on the Republican/MAGA internet. The disputed article text promotes a false equivalence between her work and the Republican election deniers' narratives. The article wording has been corrected by numerous editors so that it would conform to the statements in the cited sources, but several editors have insisted on loaded language and original research interpretations and extensions of what the sources actually say. This is not a complicated issue. SPECIFICO talk 01:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think Donald Trump is relevant to what Stacey Abrams has said and believes about elections, or the lawsuits her campaign and Fair Fight filed. Seems like an attempt to distract from the actual content in question here. Toa Nidhiki05 19:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's been explained quite a few times now, including directly above. You may disagree. If so, it would be helpful for you to rebut the concern rather than ignoring it. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

A central narrative that runs in both parties is a belief in the illegitimacy of either the 2016 or 2020 elections. The Democratic Party even supported the campaigns of various “far-right” candidates in the 2022 primaries so that this issue is front and center in various battleground states. A Washington Post article about the practice: [1] Thriley (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no shared narrative regarding election denial between both parties, nor does your source support that claim. Only the GOP has made a belief in election denial a requirement for the current Republican Party. There is no such corresponding belief or narrative on the side of the Democrats. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to say this one more time: let's please have a discussion based on specific reliable sources and WP policies at the article talk page. Not a broader debate about American politics here. Generalrelative (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Should clearly be removed from the lead per WP:WEIGHT. The most critical line of the citation was extracted, without the rest of the context provided, and then repeated up in the lead based just on that source. Welcome to election season on Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

We clearly can't risk portraying Democrats in a bad light. This is Wikipedia! We must maintain a unified narrative that always frames the actions of the left as morally superior to those on the right. Jut think how awful it would be if a Wikipedia article contributed to the wrong candidate losing a race. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

This. Is. Not. A. Forum. Generalrelative (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you please specify which edit/content you are referring to? There's a discussion about what the lead should say about possible voter suppression, e.g. "unable to determine whether or not voter suppression affected its result", and another discussion about what should be said about the blow to Abrams's Fair Fight in federal court, i.e. "A federal judge ultimately ruled against Fair Fight in a lawsuit regarding the election, while noting "wins and losses for all parties over the course of the litigation". In the discussion about latter, Generalrelative has supported including "wins and losses" quote, but opposed mentioning that the court ruled against Fair Fight. Politrukki (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

This flatly misrepresents my position. In fact I explicitly endorsed Starship.paint's compromise wording which included the result of the bench trial. Generalrelative (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You didn't make this edit and then respond to me that including the part about rejection was "misrepresentation of the source? That specific edit escalated this whole situation. Politrukki (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup, you're definitely persisting in misrepresenting me. I made a bold edit to the lead which didn't mention the trial's final ruling but I never opposed reintroducing mention of the ruling with proper context. The issue was that a few editors were trying to reintroduce the final ruling without the necessary context, which was indeed misleading. The statement you appear to be quoting from reads in full: The point that critics of this edit are missing is that over the course of the four years between when Fair Fight filed the lawsuit and when it was finally resolved, the state of Georgia changed its laws to remove the most egregious voting restrictions about which the lawsuit was seeking remedy. These changes are counted by the judge as "wins" for the plaintiff. It's a misrepresentation of the source to present the lawsuit as though it were a failure on the part of Fair Fight. In fact it accomplished a lot, though less than hoped. [2] And when Starship.paint offered compromise wording which included the result of the trial, I explicitly endorsed that compromise: That's why this nuance needs to be reflected in the text, and I think that Starship.paint's compromise wording does a decent job of it. [3] Hope that clears things up. Generalrelative (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Then I must apologise my misunderstanding. I thought your comment "The contention is that what you're seeking to add is 'an original interpretation or analysis of a source'. That's WP:BLPREMOVE #2." (00:24, 2 November 2022) was about removing "A federal judge ultimately ruled against Fair Fight in a lawsuit regarding the election" part. I didn't assume that you considered the other part, "while noting 'wins and losses for all parties over the course of the litigation', also "original interpretation or analysis of a source". Also before that comment, you cited BLPREMOVE in your edit summary when you removed both parts. Crystal clear? Politrukki (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

At this point I'll refer you to my previous response to you at 17:17, 2 November 2022. There is no need for me to repeat myself. If your intention is not to troll me then you should be able to leave it at that. In either case, I've done all that's required to respond to you here. Generalrelative (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I already responded to your comment and explained that your claim of original interpretation or analysis was baseless because you didn't understand that NOR policy doesn't apply to talk pages. Hope you got it now. Have a nice day, Politrukki (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

There are no BLP issues evident here. Arkon (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Every single reliable source states there is no evidence that voter suppression affected the results. Abrams has not provided any evidence, therefore the article should simply state that there is no evidence.

[4][5][6][7][8][9]. "No proof," "Not much empirical evidence," "The evidence is missing," "no good social science evidence," "not supported by facts and evidence," "did not provide direct evidence," and even more sources can be found on the matter. Politics scientists and the courts have stated no evidence exists that voter suppression affected the results, and nobody can provide a single reliable source that provides any evidence. As I stated on the talk page, you cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist, but no evidence has proven that he exists, so we should not be claiming that we are "unable to determine" if he exists. Bill Williams 12:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• To follow up on this - It's worth noting that Abrams herself admits that her claims are not backed by evidence:

If you look at my immediate reaction after the election, I refused to concede. It was largely because I could not prove what had happened, but I knew from the calls that we got that something happened... I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes.

• The current wording in the lead, then, is a travesty. There is simply no evidence for Abrams's claims, in her own words, and we are contradicting reliable sources by implying there is. Toa Nidhiki05 13:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources quoted have vastly different takes from the lack of evidence, ranging from "there is no evidence" (a strong assertion) to "no evidence has yet to be found" (a weak assertion). As this is a BLP and WP must take a conservative/middle-ground voice, the proper summary for the conclusion is "her claims have yet to be verified with evidence", eg staying with the weak assertion. It does not invalid the stance that "there is no evidence" that some sources have taken. And given she has said she had no evidence when making these claims, we can stay "Abrams said she had no evidence when she made the claims, and no verified evidence has yet to be found as of (date)". Masem (t) 13:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I like this suggestion. Would this be in line with what you are suggesting?

Abrams was the Democratic nominee in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, becoming the first African-American female major-party gubernatorial nominee in the United States. She lost the election to Republican candidate Brian Kemp, but refused to concede, accusing Kemp of engaging in voter suppression as Georgia Secretary of State. Abrams has said she has no empirical evidence, and news outlets and political science experts have found no verified evidence.

Would this work, or do you have an otherwise preferred wording Masem? Toa Nidhiki05 13:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that works, though you should have an "as of date" in the last sentence, using the date on the last source for it (in case somehow evidence is later found). That neither vilifies her which seems to be one issue of concern (in contrast to cases where others have stated theories that have been proven wrong with evidence) but also highlights that she had nothing to base her claims on. Masem (t) 14:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. This seems like something that could be agreeable to both sides of the dispute, I would think? Toa Nidhiki05 14:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not consistent with the comments of numerous editors here and at the article talk page, so it's clearly not "agreeable..." SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

What specific issues do you have with it? Toa Nidhiki05 14:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully, Abrams' concession in yesterday's election (which Kemp won by a wider margin) might help clear the air a little. There is, fundamentally, a difference between being upset that democratic backsliding cost you an election, and organising and supporting a fascist insurrection because postal votes got counted in Philadelphia, and I think political pundits and Wikipedia editors alike are becoming guilty of bothsidesism here. Sceptre (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Dorothy Moon

Dorothy Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Describing Dorothy Moon's politics as Far-Right seems libelous at best. Wikipedia defines "Far-Right" as "Historically used to describe the experiences of Fascism, Nazism, and Falangism, far-right politics now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, National Bolshevism (culturally only) and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views."

Nothing in her history or background gets close to defining her as "Far-Right". The author has cited the Washington Post as their authority for calling Ms. Moon "Far-Right". It looks like someone from the WAP mentioned her as being Far-Right while making a point but clearly not reporting it as a fact. The whole Wikipedia article on Ms. Moon comes across as a hit piece by a political rival. Taxmiester (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The article cites multiple sources which characterise Moon thus. Read WP:RS, and then discuss on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

1. 1 – Is and opinion piece that calls John Birch Society a Far-Right Organization. They are not Racist Neo-Nazis. This article was written by left-wing journalist and is an opinion piece, it is no surprise they are spreading so much misinformation. The use of far-right to describe them is pure political hyperbole and nothing more.
2. 2 – Another opinion piece written by a democrat using hyperbole to make his point.
3. 3 – Does not link to the article referenced.
4. 4 – Does not even mention Dorothy Moon in the political op-ed.

None of these articles show how these Republicans are linked to the Far-Right. The left makes statements using hyperbole but never connect the dots. Far-Right has a definition that these politicians, including Ms. Moon, do not rise to. Taxmiester (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Plenty of support for it. Four good sources. And the rest of the content on the page fits just fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

So, if a credible source misuses a term like "Far-Right", are we just going to accept it? Wikipedia uses the same definition of Far-Right right as just about every source out there. If these credible sources are misusing this term, we should not just blindly accept it. Is there not a distinction made between op-ed and news? Hyperbole? Overusing a term because some television personality uses it wrong? Taxmiester (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

See Special:Diff/1121293841/1121324790 about this. Further discussion should best occur at Talk:Dorothy Moon instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

There is now an RfC at Talk:Dorothy Moon#Request_for_comment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Peter Strzok

This BLP is about the former FBI agent. User:SPECIFICO edited the lead here and then here in a way that blatantly violates WP:BLP and also WP:NPOV. The result is that the lead now paints a false and dishonest picture, and additionally excludes certain well-sourced information solely because it is unfavorable to the BLP subject. Talk page discussion has been unavailing.

As of now, the lead *correctly* says that in February 2018, the Wall Street Journal reviewed text messages by Strzok and found no evidence of serious misconduct by Strzok. The lead now *omits* that further text messages were released to the public in June 2018. And, finally, the lead now *correctly* says that the FBI fired Strzok in August 2018 for text messages.

With surgical precision, User:SPECIFICO creates the misimpression that the FBI fired Strzok for text messages that the WSJ had essentially said were not very problematic. This SPECIFICO accomplishes by omitting from the lead information solely because it has an unfavorable effect on the BLP subject.

WP:Consensus is not a license to screen out information that hurts people you like, or that helps people you dislike. Nor is it a license to make a BLP false and dishonest. Is it? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Setting aside whether this belongs in the lead, there is an infinite number of wordings you could have used to give an accurate, contextualized, and specific account of the message in question. A review of the many RS accounts of this, and in particular not the very first accounts when the context and detail was still unclear, would have helped to formulate informative, BLP-compliant, NPOV text. The ONUS is on you to do that. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

My understanding of editing policy like WP:Preserve is that we are to try fixing problems, instead of blanking info that we dislike or that we think is imperfectly presented. I am not going to endlessly try to revise the presentation of this information until twenty years from now I hit the jackpot to your satisfaction. I made a good faith effort to address your purported concerns. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, you appear to be the editor who has added this material, so the onus is on you to ensure that it complies with Wikipedia policies on BLPs. If it doesn't, other editors will remove it. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The editor who removed it is creating a false and dishonest lead, and allowing sourced information only about text messages that are very different from the ones being omitted. All of that is fine? I think not. The idea that WP:Consensus can be misused in this way is becoming increasingly common at Wikipedia BLPs, and it needs to stop. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP is the predominant policy when it comes to living people. If you want to add material that others believes violates WP:BLP, the onus is on you to discuss it and reach consensus. Otherwise such material is liable for removal. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP incorporates other policies by reference, e.g. BLPs “must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies….” Lying or propagandizingMisrepresenting the reliable sources in a BLP lead is not acceptable, or anywhere else in a BLP (or at Wikipedia generally). Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

When you use terms like "lying" you weaken your argument and make it difficult to WP:AGF. BTW, the lead is supposed to summarise what appears in the article. What you are inserting appears nowhere. It really does look like POV pushing to me, coming at it as a neutral editor who has not read the article before. You really do need to reach consensus on the article's TP if you can. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You are mistaken to say “What you are inserting appears nowhere” in the BLP body. The BLP body covers this matter in detail. I never suggested you are lying. My point was that a Wikipedia editor never has an “onus” to convince another editor to stop doing things that are expressly prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I never said you are accusing me of lying, but by implication you are accusing the editor(s) who remove your addition of lying. The wording "turned out to be more problematic for Strzok" is not supported anywhere in the text as far as I can see. In fact the investigations into the texts found "Strzok's actions were not taken because of bias." Anything in the lead that suggests otherwise is misleading and violates WP:BLP IMO. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I have added a couple of sentences to the lead that reflect what the article actually says. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I moved the old "7,000 messages" thing to the body where it belongs per WP:DUE. Thank you for your addition, but my move rendered additional lead content irrelevant, I think. Your content was already in the body, but please let me know if I deleted too much. Politrukki (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems okay to me, although I added a few words.[10] Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Just as a comment (which may help resolve this), the last para of the lead is far too detailed. Summarize in very broad terms and try to give a brief narrative rather than the proseline that it is; the exact dates of things are not necessary. Most of what I see is body-appropriate material but needs the space of the body to give more context. --Masem (t) 15:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe so, User:Masem, but even if the last paragraph of the lead were reduced to the following the problem described above would still 100% remain: “On August 10, 2018, David Bowdich, the FBI deputy director, fired Strzok for the anti-Trump text messages.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

If you're writing from a big picture standpoint, that level of detail of that sentence is unnecessary, and you may be able to keep the more problematic aspects that need the full prose allowed in the body to be left there, which would remove the BLP issues. Its clear that his text messages and his firing are lede-worthy material, but how its written now (when I looked), its not written at a high enough level. Masem (t) 16:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You’ve only suggested modifying the last paragraph of the lead, right? But the prior paragraphs wrongly imply that all of the texts were found to be okay by the WSJ. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Your phrasing takes something not considered a serious problem by the WSJ (it was a throwaway, emotional, very private, remark by Strzok, not a serious threat of any kind) and makes it sound like a really big deal. That POV is the one pushed by unreliable sources like Trump, Fox News, and Breitbart. You don't want to be parroting such POV here. Advocacy of fringe POV is forbidden. That's why your phrasing is a BLP violation that must be removed. The body can deal with it better. A similar situation exists when someone makes a drunken comment. Society doesn't take it as seriously as when they make it when sober. Emotional comments can easily get inflated importance when political operators discover they can use them. That's what happened here.

Strzok's very private discussions with Lisa Page were deemed inappropriate and embarrassing for the FBI, so he was fired. There is no evidence that he ever misused his position to "stop Trump from being elected president" or misused his position for political ends. He just became another victim of Trump's politicization of every aspect of government offices, including the FBI. They felt pressured to act and ended up firing a very valuable agent. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The current wording is good: "A comprehensive review in February 2018 of Strzok's messages by The Wall Street Journal concluded that "texts critical of Mr. Trump represent a fraction of the roughly 7,000 messages, which stretch across 384 pages and show no evidence of a conspiracy against Mr. Trump"." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm just going to throw a possible cavet here, in that it is known the WSJ has often leaned in favor of Trump, so having that as the only source to judge the content of Strzok's text throws red flags to me. They may not be wrong, but I'd be asking for an independent confirmation, such that that statement can be made w/o mentioning the WSJ. But that might be me looking a bit too far without having spent hours involved in the details. Masem (t) 17:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me if the info is included or excluded. Just as long as we are careful not to attempt (or appear to attempt) to read Strzok's mind. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• I strongly object to this edit to the BLP, including the part that is described in the edit summary, and also the part that is not mentioned in the edit summary. At the time Strzok was fired, the most controversial text message was a text message released in June 2018 that referred to stopping Trump. See Weiss, Debra. “FBI agent Peter Strzok is fired after sparring with lawmakers over anti-Trump messages”, ABA Journal (13 Aug 2018). However, after this edit, the lead does not even hint that any text messages were released after the summer of 2017. Additionally, this edit to the article body seeks to portray the WSJ review as comprehensive even though that review did not include the most controversial text message which was released in June 2018. Why is it necessary for this lead to avoid even referring obliquely to the most controversial text message that had been made public at the time Strzok was fired? Of course, it is not necessary at all, and instead is a failure of WP:NPOV. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Your addition has zero context. Those additional texts were considered by the DOJ; they simply weren't made public until the DOJ released its report. All of the text messages are covered by "text message exchanges between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page contained criticisms of Trump and his supporters." People will see the detail in the appropriate section of the article. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

That’s incorrect. “Mueller removed Strzok from the Russia investigation after text message exchanges….” refers to an action by the independent prosecutor in 2017, before inspector general Horowitz’s investigation. This lead implies Bowdich fired Strzok based on text messages that don’t include the most controversial one, and thus suggests Bowdich was wrong to fire Strzok. The lead carefully omits the slightest mention of the June 2018 text message, which was the most controversial known text message when Strzok was fired. Moreover, as to the body of the BLP, you haven’t addressed why you reverted the clarification about the comprehensiveness of the WSJ analysis. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

David Bowdich knew about those messages when he fired Strzok in 2017; they just weren't made public until 2018. So of course he was fired on the basis of all the messages he wrote in 2017. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Bowdich fired Strzok on August 10, 2018 (not in 2017) at which time the most controversial text message made public was the one about stopping Trump which was released two month prior. This lead makes no reference to the most controversial known text when Strzok was fired, nor even hints that any texts (including that one) were released after 2017. The implication is that Bowdich fired Strzok based upon relatively innocuous texts released prior to June 2018, which is false. It’s also false for this lead to suggest that no noteworthy text messages were released other than the ones that Mueller used in 2017 to dismiss Strzok from the investigation. I don’t think we could do backward somersaults through hoops that’s more convoluted than the way we avoid letting readers understand this matter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to understand the difference between what was made public and what investigators knew. The lead refers only to "anti-Trump texts" That includes the ones that were made public in June 2018 when the report was released, and which were obviously taken into account in his firing. The detail of all that belongs in the body, not in the lead. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

CNN reported in June 2018: “the latest batch was only recently uncovered by Horowitz’s office” (emphasis added).[11]. That batch included the most controversial stuff. Our lead only refers to text messages that were known to investigators in 2017, and thus implies Bowdich’s action (firing Strzok) was based on the less controversial stuff that was known to investigators in 2017. So our lead is misleading. And there’s also the matter of why the article body was recently edited to portray the WSJ review as more comprehensive than it was,[12] and why the article was recently edited to omit a description of the most controversial text message known to Bowdich when he fired Strzok.[13] Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead now mentions no dates in reference to the text messages. We don't know what "recently" means and can't speculate. It is best to have the lead as general and brief as possible and the details in the body. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. The lead now says: “In December 2017, Mueller removed Strzok from the Russia investigation after text message exchanges…”. Clearly those text message were pre-2018 and exclude the ones discovered by Horowitz in 2018. And there’s also the matter of why the article body was recently edited to portray the WSJ review as more comprehensive than it was,[14] and why the article was recently edited to omit a description of the most controversial text message known to Bowdich when he fired Strzok.[15] Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I see you have changed the lead. It makes no difference. Just because the messages were only made public in 2018 doesn't mean they don't date from 2017. I'm really not sure what you are trying to prove by all this. I didn't make the change to the body, so can't comment. But I really think you need to take a step back as it is clear you have a POV. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

For the record, the most controversial text messages were made public in 2018, and (per WaPo) they were also discovered in 2018 by the DOJ Inspector.[16] They include the most controversial text messages, whereas our lead falsely implies that Bowdich fired Strzok because of the same text messages that led Mueller to fire Strzok in 2017. That’s just false and misleading. and it was false and misleading even before I inserted the month of Strzok’s dismissal by Mueller. You are also incorrect that you did not edit the article body to make the WSJ analysis seem more comprehensive than it was. On the other hand, you’re correct it was another editor who edited the article body to omit a description of the most controversial text message known to Bowdich when he fired Strzok,[17] and I never suggested you made that edit, although I did ask you repeatedly to comment about it. If there’s a POV here, it’s not mine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

For the record I have made two edits to the article [18] and [19], both to the lead. The other changes were a restoration of edits another editor made. They were not my original edits. Again, take a step back. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

When you want to revert an edit, you need not revert subsequent edits as well, as you did here to the article body. That’s Wikipedia 101. Rules against edit-warring prevent me from correcting that error, assuming it was an error, but you can correct the error whenever you feel like it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't revert, I restored a previous version. There is a difference. It wasn't an error. But it is incorrect to suggest that I was the original editor who added that text. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

”On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which restores the page (or a part of it) to a previous version.” That’s what you did to the article body, I’ve never said or implied anything to the contrary, and you’ve never explained why you made that revert. I have other things to do now, bye. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I restored the previous version because it goes without saying that the WSJ could only review messages that had been released at the time it did the review. To say "at that time" is redundant. It is clear in the article that further messages were made public later, but we don't know how many additional messages were released or whether they made much difference to the overall proportions and we shouldn't speculate or imply. Lard Almighty (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

And now another editor has edited the article body (while saying in edit summary that he’s editing the lead), to make sure we completely obscure what was the most controversial text message at the time Strzok was fired. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems clear that the editor used the undo function to revert an edit and didn't notice that the info was added to the body not the lead. Editors make mistakes, I don't see the need to discuss it here. They gave additional reasons why the feel the addition was problematic, it would be more productive to discuss those concerns here or on the article talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

IMO the best solution is simply to remove the WSJ review from the lead. If the comprehensive review missed out on some important messages because they had not yet been found or released and the review was never updated based on the newly found messages, and given that it's simply a review by a random media organisation however respected it may be, it doesn't seem that important to the Strzok biography to be in the lead. If things change in the future e.g. of Strzok uses the WSJ investigation as a significant part of his lawsuit we can consider then what to do. I would add if the WSJ review is so important, the body doesn't seem to establish this AFAICT. It's briefly mentioned but I don't see any significant detail like I would expect if the WSJ was really an important part of Strzok's life. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Right, removing the WSJ from the lead is one way of solving the problem that I pointed out at the outset of this thread, and so the WSJ has been removed from the lead. But this leaves another, somewhat less urgent problem with the lead, mentioned above: when Bowdich fired Strzok from the FBI in 2018, it was not because of the same text messages that had been released the previous year (which were the basis of Mueller removing Strzok in 2017 from the Mueller investigation). Instead, the most controversial text messages known at the time Bowdich fired Strzok in 2018 had recently been made public by DOJ Inspector Horowitz, and Horowitz’s investigation is what uncovered those new text messages earlier in 2018. This is all supported by reliable sources, and when time allows I’ll try to make sure it’s adequately explained in the BLP article’s body. Then perhaps the lead can be tweaked to reflect that Bowdich fired Strzok in response to newly uncovered text messages, not just the text messages that Mueller found out about and used as the basis for removing Strzok from the Mueller investigation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The article states: "On August 10, 2018, David Bowdich, the FBI deputy director, fired Strzok...". The DOJ report, including the making public of previously unknown messages, was released on June 14, 2018. Mueller only removed Strzok from the Russia investigation in 2017; he did not fire him, pending the investigations. Strzok was fired after all messages were in the public domains. I have edited the body by adding "On August 10, 2018, David Bowdich, the FBI deputy director, fired Strzok for the anti-Trump text messages,, including those that were uncovered in the DOJ investigation." to make that clear. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I clarified that: “fired Strzok for the anti-Trump text messages, including those that were uncovered in Mueller’s DOJ investigation as well as ones discovered later in the DOJ Inspector General’s investigation.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Use the article talk page as the Lord 9ntended. Bear in mind NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Not a clarification. Use the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Please don’t insert your comment between mine and the one I was responding to. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Additional concerns today

• Unfortunately, the drama continues at this BLP, eating up editors’ time and distorting the BLP. User:Lard Almighty does not want the BLP to indicate that, as the ABA Journal has stated, the most controversial messaging from Strzok (that was known at the time he was fired from the FBI) had been uncovered not by the Mueller Investigation, but rather was uncovered later by the investigation of DOJ Inspector General Horowitz. Inclusion of this material in the article body had been done satisfactorily to two editors yesterday, but was deleted from the article body today by SPECIFICO. But Lard Almighty doesn’t want any trace of this information anywhere at Wikipedia, so Lard Almighty has deleted it from the footnote too. Neither Lard Almighty nor SPECIFICO has provided the slightest information that any reliable source disputes the whitewashed information. I will look for other sources to satisfy Lard Almighty, but so far there is 100% sourcing against his POV. Anythingyouwant (talk)}

Anythingyouwant is quoting the opinion of one writer in one source to suggest that some messages were more controversial than others. There is no evidence that some of the messages were more controversial than others and certainly there is not a general consensus in the sources that this is the case. Therefore cherrypicking one quote from one soure is WP:UNDUE. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

You haven’t cited any sources whatsoever to support your position. Now I get to spend the rest of the day coming up with multiple sources to rebut your POV. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't need to provide sources. You are the one wanting to make the addition; it is up to you to source it propoerly. To avoid WP:UNDUE, we need to ensure that we are summarising the sources properly. That means we look at all the sources in balance and summarise what the general view is, even if we do select one quote as an example. The only source that I have found that uses the wording that you want to insert is the ABA one, so using that quote is WP:UNDUE as it does not reflect the general view of all sources. That is a WP:BLP violation. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

When only one reliable source addresses a matter, it is appropriate to use that source. There is an exception according to WP:BLP: “If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.” But we are not talking about any such allegation or incident, we’re just talking about chronology and comparison. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Many sources address the second investigation and the new messages it discovered. The only one that describes those new messages as "the most controversial material" is the ABA. None of the many, many other sources I have seen that cover those new messages use that language. Therefore quoting it in the article is WP:UNDUE because it does not summarise accurately what all the sources are saying. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

You have not shown a single source that in any way contradicts the ABA Journal on this point. As I say, I will find multiple sources corroborating the ABA Journal, and then you can cook up some argument for rejecting those too, if you would like. The process of summarizing reliable sources obviously does not require us to leave out material that is only covered by the most in-depth source. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Further on this latest problem: The insertion is text with ellipsis cherrypicked from a straight news report that gives commentary on the fact not used in the sentence for which the reference is cited. Moreover the fact is already Verified by another source citation. The cherrypicked, cobbled quote introduces OR commentary on the article text, a BLP violation. The quote within the footnote was correctly removed by @Lard Almighty:. Moreover, as the article text in that section details at some length, the "controversy" arose when Trump used the incident to amplify his narratives about the "Russia Hoax" and "Mueller witchhunt" etc., not due to heightened RS concern about the messages themselves. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection whatsoever to restoring the quote into the footnote but without any ellipsis. Are we done here? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC

Nobody's agreed to that. Same problems w or w/o ellipsis. That's just a minimal fingers-in-the-cookie-jar proposal. It's been removed and that's how it stands. SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

No, because it remains WP:UNDUE as it is not a fair or accurate summary of what all the sources that cover the new messages are saying. This belongs on the article TP as you have been told earlier. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The process of summarizing reliable sources obviously does not require us to leave out uncontradicted material that is only found in the most in-depth source. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't be editing WP:BLPs if you don't understand the concept of WP:UNDUE. It is not up to other sources to "contradict" what one source says. If there is not broad agreement amongst the sources about something, then we should not give undue weight to one sources that is reporting that thing. Seriously, this discussion belongs on the TP. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think you properly understand policy. WP:Undue is about majority and minority views, and a view is not a minority view if there’s no published disagreement with it. Let’s suppose arguendo that ABA Journal is the only source that says the Horowitz batch was more controversial than the Mueller batch. According to your opinion, that would make this ABA Journal view fall under WP:FRINGE. But something is only a fringe view if it “departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.” There is nothing in the ABA Journal article that departs significantly from anything published in any other reliable source. So it’s not fringe, it’s not a minority view, and it’s not undue weight just because ABA Journal has gone into greater depth than some other RS’s. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

A view is a minority view if only one source reports that view. What departs from other sources in the ABA article is precisely the quote you want to highlight. None of the other sources that I have seen that address those messages use those words. It is precisely a WP:FRINGE view because no other sources concur. Therefore we should not give the impression by using them that it is a fair representation of the sources. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Nope. If one reliable source (X) gives a complete birth date of the subject, but none of the other 50 reliable sources gives more than the birth year, that very obviously does not make the complete birth date a fringe view. Source X is entirely consistent with the other 50 sources. One way to look at it is that the reliable sources are acquiescing to the accuracy of source X. In any event, there is no plausible way that source X is conveying a minority view. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

If that one source represents an expert or authoritative source for that topic or field, in no way does it make that source a minority view. For example, if we were talking about extremist groups. We nearly always include an attributed entry on the SPLC' Hate Watch, even if no other source mentions this area. DUE needs to consider the weight of speakers behind that material and not just proportion of publications. Masem (t) 00:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

A date of birth is a fact. It's not a "view". Whether an email exchange was "most controversial" is a matter of opinion, a "view" (covered by WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE).We have no idea whether Debra Cassens Weiss is qualified to offer that opinion. And since no other WP:RS that I can find supports that view, it is best to leave it out. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Here's a whole bunch of sources that refute what you've said (emphasis added):

• "Most controversial was this email exchange between Strzok and then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page...."ABA Journal
• "The 'we’ll stop it' text is considered Strzok’s most controversial text message to have surfaced."Fox News
• "Strzok expressed little regret for the most controversial text exchange with Page. In the text, Page says Trump is 'not ever going to become president, right? Right?!' Strzok replied that Trump won’t. 'We’ll stop it,' he said."Associated Press via Boston Globe
• Ditto from PBS. Etc, etc.
  User:Lard Almighty has not pointed to any reliable source that suggests otherwise, and no reliable source does suggest otherwise, because it's a factually correct statement reported in multiple reliable news sources. The idea that Wikipedia policy prevents us from saying this even with inline citation in a mere footnote is manifestly incorrect. Lard Almighty is mistaken to say, "This is WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and a WP:BLP violation." It's none of those things. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Finally! All I was arguing was that the onus was on you as the editor who wanted to add the opinion that these emails were "the most controversial" to source it properly and show that it was not just the opinion of one writer in one source, and thus a fringe view which we should not give undue weight to. If you had simply done what you have done today much sooner, we would have saved a lot of time. I should also note that the sources you have provided qualify "most controversial" with words like "some of", "one of", " is considered", so words like "among" and "considered" should be used if we resinsert (something like "Among the messages considered most controversial was the email exchange between Strzok and then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page in which he stated "We'll stop" the election of Trump." as this is actually what the sources say and it shows that it is an opinion. Strozk's explanation of what he meant by "we" is included in the article, so there is balance. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

When I get a chance, I will reinsert into the BLP, with gobs of additional references. However, that’s really not my job, User:Lard Almighty. Per WP:PRESERVE, “As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the ‘finished’ article, they should be retained if they meet the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research.” There was nothing wrong with this material with one footnoted reliable source and inline citation. If you wanted more sources, that’s fine, but they were never necessary. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

There most certainly was something wrong with the text you inserted, and the additional refs you have listed show that. More sources were needed as is now clear, because the ABA article is in a minority to state the opinion that the email exchange was the most controversial. Most of the others qualify that opinion in some way ("some of", "one of", " is considered"). Therefore to rely on the ABA article alone is a breach of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE because it is not a fair representation of what the sources say. My suggestion for rewording addresses that issue, given the additional sources. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I just provided quotes from news reports in ABA Journal, Fox News, Associated Press, Boston Globe, and PBS that all say it was “the” most controversial. Consistent with that, many other sources said it was “among” the most controversial, or something like that. The ABA Journal was not in any minority, and it was not opining about anything. None of the news reports suggested whether the news report author believed the text message should be controversial or should have caused an uproar, they merely reported that’s what happened. If you can improve article text, that’s not a reason to delete article text. In any event, I’m glad we are getting closer to a resolution here, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I repeat: I should also note that the sources you have provided qualify "most controversial" with words like "some of", "one of", " is considered",. So yes, the ABA journal is in a minority by saying (without any qualification) that these emails were the most controversial. A fair representation of all the sources would be to add some kind of qualifyer like "considered" or "among". Remember, this is opinion, not a provable fact, and, especially when we are dealing with superlatives (best, most, worst etc.) in a BLP we must be very careful to ensure that such opinions are extremely well sourced, especially if they are negative, and a fair representation of all available sources. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I don’t give a hoot whether we say “most controversial” or “one of the most controversial”. You could have changed it to the latter without any objection from me. Both are well-supported by multiple reliable sources, and consistent with each other. And neither of them is the least bit negative, they merely categorize the tweetsmessages. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't have because the only source you provided before last night was the ABA one. As has been pointed out by several people, the onus is on you to provide adequate sources for the addition you want to make. Several people reverted because they didn't feel it was adequately sourced. You have now done that so we can move forward summarising the sources that are now available.. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

If I do it, it seems much more likely to get reverted, so I’d appreciate if you would. Thanks, User:Lard Almighty. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty @SPECIFICO @Valjean User “anythingyouwant” has already been TBANed in the recent past for this kind of pov-pushing and disruptive behavior— only allowed back AFTER he begged for a second chance, and promised to lighten up. This thread is a war zone. And it’s one of several immediate examples of AYW breaking his promises, and continuing to indulge in the same disruptive behavior that got him banned in the first place. Before this, in just the weeks prior, AYW was attempting to censor contributions about the 2020 Trump coup-attempt by inserting pov-pushing OR Jan 6th denialism. tl;dr version- he’s edit warring again, with no intention to stop.

Can someone here with the time and acumen take this over to AE? Finally?? So the rest of us don’t have to keep wasting what little time ‘we have’ to edit articles in the face of AYW’s ongoing exhausting passive-aggressive edit wars? 2601:282:8100:5AA0:B5F6:429F:E042:C308 (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Denied. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:

1. The ABA journal is not an authority as to political controversy.
2. The controversy only arose because of Trump's misrepresentations and the feckless cohort of Republicans and media flacks that echo them.
3. We do not insinuate POV into the article via a footnote that makes assertions beyond the article text narrative.
4. Any mention of the "controversy" would need to give the full context as reported in RS. That NPOV narrative would discuss point #2 above.

Once again, you should be using the article talk page and you need to demonstrate consensus and yes it's BLP issue with respect to Strzok, and yes it will be reverted if you make such an edit without addressing the above and demonstrating consensus. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems you’re in a minority here, SPECIFICO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant please let others chime in. That's what this board is for. Thus far you have no agreement with your view. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I have to go vote anyway. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I have a couple of brief thoughts; while I don't think Anythingyouwant's intended contribution represents a BLP issue, and can be supported by a high-quality source, for me, the better course of action is to leave it out as something of an outlier opinion. If it were a significant opinion, one would expect to see it elsewhere. As ever, reasonable mins may differ on this point. Secondly, this really does belong on the article talk page, or even, possibly at WP:NPOVN. I really don't think BLP policy is the crux of the matter here. That said, cheers to all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Oleszczuk

Is the statement by a Wikipedian, "In an interview given for "Radio Zet " she confessed she had been appointed to the council after her boyfriend resigned from being in the council and gave his seat to her" about a living person, Nadia Oleszczuk, in the AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Oleszczuk, acceptable under BLP policy, given the connotation of "confessed" and the framing? I haven't looked at the youtube video (not normally a serious source) that is claimed to support the sentence, but the article itself currently includes a paragraph (result of an editing compromise, if I remember correctly) describing the attempt by Do Rzeczy to devalue Oleszczuk's nomination to the Council. My concern is that the deletion debate risks being about whether or not Oleszczuk should be devalued as a "replacement for her boyfriend" as part of the notability debate. Boud (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The people have spoken, and the article is going to remain on Wikipedia. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP has an RFC on the inclusion of denials in BLPs

WP:BLP has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. DFlhb (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

There is also a more specific RfC, on the use of ABOUTSELF sources for rebuttals/denials here. Additional input would be helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

10th November 2022 update

Both RFCs were started without prior consensus on their scope or wording. One ran into an impasse (with editors disagreeing on what the options would actually mean if applied), and the other seems to have sputtered out. I've started a discussion to workshop a new RFC, with proper consensus on its scope & options, that would subsume both RFCs above. Everyone is invited to join us in workshopping it; the outcome of this future RFC may have very wide-ranging effects for all BLPs, so it's important that it reflect a wide consensus. DFlhb (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Pavel Fuks

A lot of unreliable information without sources, added by newly created and unregistered users who commit vandalism, as well as their removal of information with sources, including links to official information agencies of Ukraine. Example: User Rolf Linge added false information about Russian nationality in revision 1116409358. (I note that the user registered on Wikipedia and made revisions only on one day - 16 October 2022). This false information has been corrected with arguments. However, a user from IP address 2607:fea8:c3a0:b7a0:4937:d3ed:d8a8:db04 (Canada) in revision 1120158168 returned including the above information. This change was canceled with reasons. Soon, a user from the IP address 45.128.189.62 (Ukraine) in revision 1120380532 returned the above information as well, thus setting up a war of edits without discussion on the Talk page. Other changes were also added, which were made deliberately with the aim of compromising the reliability and authority of the encyclopedia. In violation of the rules, information was removed from the Philanthropy section, which was confirmed by the news agency. In addition, there are many unreliable corrections that concern the business and social activities of a person, in this regard there are even court decisions against fraud and the spread of unreliable information by news websites. So in this case there is a clear violation of a number of rules, including Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I quote the paragraph: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The protection imposed on the page makes it impossible for users without the appropriate status to correct inaccurate information. I draw your attention to the need to take measures against violators of the rules, to maintain a balance regarding the biographies of living people and public figures. So I urge admins to stand guard over the fundamental rules of Wikipedia and, first of all, remove information without sources. -- Ded Prorok (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle

Talk:Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am possibly jumping the gun here a little, but based on this editor's subsequent comments I think it very likely he would just restore his unsourced/unreliably sourced allegations.

My main concern centers around this edit, particularly the comments in the final two senteces of the first paragraph.

There are also the comments concerning Camilla Tominey in this edit and this edit, which I would like an uninvolved opinion on, if nothing else.(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Robin Antin

Robin Antin

Robin Antin is single and does not know Simon Phillips personally. I was able to change her status to single in source text but Simon Phillips still comes up in search results listed as her partner. Please help me to fix this search issue. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainstarlet (talk • contribs) 18:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a google problem. As far as I know we have no control over search engine results. It may be that there is just a lag time for them to catch up, or maybe we just have to wait until they send one of their web crawlers our way. Whatever the case, you'd probably have to take it up with them. Zaereth (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Hossein Maher

Hi, Would you please review this article for any possible problems and if it's OK, accept it? Thanks Kabootaremesi (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not what this board is for. I already reviewed it once for you, just to be nice, but it's already in the AFC queue, so that's the place where it should be reviewed and accepted or not. Zaereth (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Barbara O'Neill

Whoever created the page Barbara O'Neill has done it without consent from Barbara and has come from unreliable and untruthful sources. They are defamatory and denigrating to a living person. I have obtained my information direct from the source. I am requesting the page on Barbara O'Neill either get taken down or allow me to organise correct changes direct from Barbara herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.40.44 (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Subjects of articles do not have any special say in the content of articles that cover them, so no, that request is out. If you could point to specific passages in the article you have a problem with, and the reliable sources you would cite if you were to provide an editing suggestion, that would be helpful. Zaathras (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify while subjects do not have any special say in the content of artices, in a very limited set of circumstances the subject's request for deletion of an article will influence our decision to delete the article per WP:BLPREQDEL. However I had a quick look at the article and am certain it will not apply here. Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe there are BLPPRIMARY issues solely citing a press release from a government commission about its investigation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

See WP:OWN and WP:COI. You can make suggestions at the article talkpage. If other editors think they are reasonable, they may act on them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Mirza Masroor Ahmad

Mirza Masroor Ahmad is not the Muslim caliph, rather he is the leader of the Ahmadiyya sect. The Ahmiddiya sect due to their disbelief in the finality of the prophet hood with Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W), are as such not Muslims. Yes they do identify themselves as Muslims but they are not in any way Muslims and neither are the accepted by the wider Muslim Ummah as Muslims. As such I would like to request as a Muslim myself, that you edit or remove the Article so that it does not make reference to Mirza Masroor Ahmad as a Muslim leader or as a Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.190.29 (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Then you must have been pleased when you read the Mirza Masroor Ahmad article and saw that it doesn't call him the Muslim caliph. See also WP:CALIPH. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the article doesn't explicitly even call him a a Muslim leader or Muslim either other than references to him being part of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. There are two categories that maybe do, Category:21st-century Islamic religious leaders and Category:21st-century Muslim scholars of Islam but categories naturally have to be simple. Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, the law of India seems to agree. But the law is not the whole story. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps an important point is that most of the time we have no reason to get into such issues on articles on people unless it is directly relevant, dealing with it in other articles. So while there is some mention of the issue of whether Ahmadiyya are Muslims in the article on them, and more in Persecution of Ahmadis; the Mirza Masroor Ahmad only discusses his engagement with other Muslims and their acceptance thereof. Likewise neither Joseph Smith nor Russell M. Nelson really deal with their issue of whether either subject is or was Christian but we have a whole article on Mormonism and Nicene Christianity. Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do we care about what Indian law has to say about Muslim Caliphs? Isn't India a Hindu nation? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hindu or not, India has a lot of muslims. TBH, I mentioned it as a kind of "sez you" to the OP:s "are as such not Muslims". I dislike such statements. The relevant point is that the Mirza Masroor Ahmad article doesn't say that he is the Muslim caliph. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Lakshmi Mittal

Lakshmi Mittal

There are debates regarding whether Lakshmi Mittal ever became a British citizen, yet his Wiki page continually fluctuates between him either being Indian or British. He is known to be a UK-resident, however there are no articles comfortably demonstrating that he is no longer an Indian citizen, the country of his birth, or that he ever acquired British citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.151.183 (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Cowan (alternative medicine practitioner)

Talk:Thomas Cowan (alternative medicine practitioner)

I would like to call the editors of Wikipedia to task for applying the term pseudoscience to Dr. Tom Cowan, and there are many other terms used to describe him, which would be in the same vein, but this is about pseudoscience and its application to things one does not understand and therefor would label as pseudoscience.

The problem I have with applying the term pseudoscience to Dr. Tom Cowan and other Covid deniers, is that the claim they make is that Virology has no evidence to prove the existence of a virus as a pathogenic particle, and that the methods Virology uses are unscientific. For Wikipedia to be neutral could mean that one should understand an argument at the very least, rather than label it pseudoscience because it does not fit with one's current understanding as an editor.

Labelling something as fundamental as a scientific dispute in a dismissive manner is not neutral, one could argue. At first I considered that perhaps pseudoscience would be the correct term for Virology as applied by Dr. Tom Cowan, but you will note that the group of researchers in his camp refer to Virology as unscientific, not pseudoscience, which is the term applied to them.

I considered that one might broaden the neutrality of the descriptions of people whose views contrast with orthodoxy in the scientific world, otherwise known as accepted scientific understanding, by discussing knowledgeably the views of Dr. Tom Cowan and others who give evidence that the exercise of Virology is unscientific.

The Covid deniers claim that Virology is unscientific because there are no control experiments to disprove that the experiment itself does not create what is called a virius, neither in the methodology of the culture process, nor in the sequencing of the genome, nor in the PCR. They claim that the discipline of Virology is based on a circular logic where Virologists start with an artificial object provided by the scientists themselves rather than having isolated and proven that the particle called a virus is a pathogenic particle existing in Nature. The dispute states that neither do they prove contagion and Dr. Tom Cowan discusses the evidence for this as do others who dispute germ theory in general. Basically, virologist claim that the only way to find a virus is to culture it, because there is not enough to find in a diseased host to be isolated.

There is a paper by Dr. Mark Bailey detailing the argument in detail titled "Farewell to Virology", which is recommended for its clarity. https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/

There are also references in Wikipedia to Dr. Stefan Lanka and his court case in Germany challenging anyone to provide a paper showing that the measles virus had been isolated. He is another figure in this view that viruses do not exist as pathogenic particles. Ultimately this case was decided in favour of Stefan Lanka in Germany. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Lanka#cite_note-s%C3%BCdkurier-10

I see that the main problem being with orthodoxy, rather than the scientific method. Because "everyone" agrees does not yield truth. A more "neutral" approach by the editors of Wikipedia would go a long way toward truth based on evidence rather than truth based upon consensus. Science can be determined by what can be shown to have more than one view of reality. One should be able to understand that there are various theories and that the germ theory is just that: it is a theory, and there are other theories, such as terrain theory, or other so-called pseudoscientific theories which operate equally well in reality if understood, one could say, by way of being neutral. I have no problem with the term pseudoscience being applied in the sense that something varies from consensus in the established scientific circles, but ultimately, one should understand and discuss an argument and a theory more deeply before labelling anything with the term pseudoscience. I think it will be more difficult in future to be that lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bothsidesofthecoin (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to how Wikipedia determines article content. Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and take particular note of the comments regarding 'false balance'. Per long-established core policy, we reflect scientific consensus, not abstract (and inherently subjective) notions of 'neutrality'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, given some of the delusional stuff that Cowan has espoused, being called a "pseudoscientist" (which, by the definition, he undoubtedly is) would be the least of his issues. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

John Campbell (YouTuber)

John_Campbell_(YouTuber)

I initially attempted to address my concerns through the talk page of this article, but the discussion section I was replying in was archived as I commented. This follows my observation of the edit history-there appear to be a small group of POV Warriors guarding their viewpoints in relation to this living person, and taking strategic action to prevent open and free discussion.

The entirety of Section three of this biography fails to follow NPOV guidelines. The first quote of David Gorski 'while at the beginning of the pandemic Campbell had "seemed semi-reasonable", he later became a "total COVID-19 crank"' is quite obviously Value Laden language, intended to bias all following information.

Next, the paragraph on aspiration fails to link to a specific video, and misquotes it's cited source article ( "Aspiration is a common technique but not without disadvantages so it has not been recommended by many countries", the article states: "The technique used to be commonplace in the U.S. and globally, but many countries stopped recommending the practice in recent years.")

The paragraph on ivermectin cites a New Zealand tabloid quoting Meaghan Kall who says of one of John Campbell's hypotheses: "{it} appears this was based on anecdata on social media driving wildly damaging misinformation". This appears to be Value Laden. This also fails to link to specific videos or publication by Campbell, making fact-checking difficult. Further, the Health Feed Back citation at first appears to infer that Campbell was responsible for a false comparison of clinical outcomes for patients who took remdesivir vs. ivermectin, when in his video he clearly is responding to a submitted abstract which postulates the comparison.

The paragraph on the Covid 19 vaccination represents a current event. No linked videos are given, though Campbell is directly quoted from his videos by the article authors. I can't verify their accuracy, as I'm not sure which videos they're referencing. One quote cited is demonstrably inaccurate: "Campbell's video was viewed over 2 million times within a few weeks and was used by anti-vaccination activists as support for the misinformation that COVID-19 vaccination will cause a wave of heart attacks" Fact Check does indeed reference a video by Campbell, but there's no support in the article that he a) promoted the research, or b) that it was used by anti-vaccination activists. There is a Twitter link to a chat thread between three people.

The paragraphs on Covid Deaths and Monkey Pox both state that comedian Jimmy Dore cited Campbell's work, but do not clarify if this reference was in jest or seriousness, or in what possible manner this is relevant to Campbell's biography. The term "misinformation" is used here: "The misinformation was embraced and amplified by Jimmy Dore and his comedy co-host Kurt Metzger, achieving wide currency on social media" but the cited article by Politifact does not claim Campbell's video is "misinformation".

All in all, these references seem to be designed to discredit John Campbell's work, and do not attempt to offer a balanced or neutral point of view. The video subjects chosen are all recent, and only cover controversial subjects. His videos on fetal development, depression, African flooding and tribal medicine are omitted. Sources are cherry-picked to frame his opinions in a negative light, and to attempt to portray him as some sort of failed neutral arbitrar of current events. Sources are over-used, and placed in such a way as to attempt to add credibility to biased assertions, such as a citation relevant to the beginning of a paragraph placed at the end, directly after a biased statement. Campbell's written publications are ignored, save a few referenced in links. Additionally, as this article primarily attempts to defame Campbell's past personal opinions on (then) emerging data and research, the sources which are cited in order to refute his opinions are often out of date in relationship to current scientific findings. This gives the appearance of a baseless witch hunt, and lowers the general credibility of Wikipedia.

Finally, on Talk Vitamin D, discussion was actively thwarted, see section 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altairah (talk • contribs) 11:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• You say "there appear to be a small group of POV Warriors guarding their viewpoints in relation to this living person, and taking strategic action to prevent open and free discussion.". The reality, of course (as you will see if you look at the many edit requests) is that - like many other articles about people that pushed COVID-19 conspiracies and misinformation - a small number of editors are preserving NPOV in the face of multiple requests that the falsity of their statements be whitewashed. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

You mention that "the paragraph on aspiration fails to link to a specific video", that the paragraph on Ivermectin "also fails to link to specific videos or publication by Campbell, making fact-checking difficult.", that "No linked videos are given, though Campbell is directly quoted from his videos by the article authors. I can't verify their accuracy, as I'm not sure which videos they're referencing.", and so on. I'd strongly encourage you to read WP:OR. In particular, from WP:PRIMARY, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

The contents of the section appear to be based on reliable secondary sources, do you have reliable secondary sources disagreeing with them? JaggedHamster (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a problem here. Taking a look at the top-level COVID section, the article presently states that Campbell claimed something in his videos but then the article proceeds to stay that information is wrong due to established studies. While that is the right way we want to proceed on pseudoscience claims, none of the sources in that section specifically talk about what Campbell said, only the scientific/medical explanation of the broad, correct science. That's not appropriate. And no, we can't plug in his videos as links to support that as that becomes OR - we need third party sources in this instance to say "In such-and-such video, Campbell said (this COVID myth)". Now, I haven't looked in depth at the three sources that lead off the COVID section (including the Science-Based Medicine link) to see what detail they say about Campbell's work, though from the titles I get the impress they do discuss to some degree about Campbell's support of certain COVID myths. If so, those need to be reused in the later parts of the COVID section to be clear it is not WP's original research to assess those videos and assert he is wrong.

Assuming that can be done, while I do agree we need to remind the reader that these are all points of pseudoscience, it is not necessasry to go into depths of why each point has been disproven, instead pointing to one or more of the pages we have that talk about COVID myths and their disproval. In other words, that entire COVID section can be parred down to what I'd estimate as two paragraphs. The long-windedness in the explanations is tipping into a BLP problem, and it is better to just say what he was noted for saying, and then saying that these are all COVID myths that have been disproven. The less said in this, the better this will look as a BLP while still noting his COVID myth promotion. --Masem (t) 13:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. The article as a whole reads like synthesis. By that, I mean it really, really reads like synthesis. And I haven't even looked at the sources yet. There are only a handful of them that are used most predominantly, but the first thing I noticed is how thoroughly and randomly dispersed they are throughout the article, all jumbled together and combined in various ways. It's written like a Jack van Impe sermon. "The bible says horrendous times are coming. [Jerimiah 30:7] It's the time of Jacob's trouble, [Kings 17:34] and the gates of hell will open. [[Revelations 16:24]"

Now, Admittedly, I haven't read the sources, but I'm just going by what the article reads like and those little red flags that pop up. It looks like we are taking statements from the subject and providing our own secondary-source analysis of it, using unrelated secondary sources to refute those claims rather than getting those analyses from secondary sources. That just what it reads like. Just sayin'. Zaereth (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I've had more of a look through the sources and I'd agree with you here, they're good sources for demonstrating that he's promoted disproven COVID myths and that it's WP:DUE to include this but there's too much additional commentary that's not sourced to them. I don't think there's an NPOV issue as such, reliable sources are clear that the claims he's making are discredited and we reflect that, but the WP:SYNTH elements should be removed. JaggedHamster (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that Newshub is not a tabloid by any stretch of imagination. It's the news site of NZ's major private FTA TV broadcaster. As with many modern sources, it does gossipy coverage or celebrities, still it's far from a tabloid. Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Sam Bankman-Fried

A fairly inexperienced editor (less than 40 edits) keeps on removing any mention that Sam Bankman-Fried was a major political donor to Democratic Party from the lead. There is an entire section of nine paragraphs coving Bankman-Fried’s political donation history. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section “the lead must correctly summarize the article as a whole”. I think mentioning his donation history in the lead is in line with the manual of style for biographies. I would appreciate additional eyes on this article as there is new news daily and will likely be for months to come. Thriley (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's an appropriate summary of the entire section of donation history. You should get consensus before reinstatement. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Kasie Hunt

Persistent addition of poorly sourced and politically motivated WP:BLP content, attempting to give prominence to an on-air comment from five years ago. Needs more eyes and perhaps page protection. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Graham Hancock

I think we need more BLP eyes on this article. I've recently conformed the section order and headings to a more usual presentation, covering Early life, Career, Themes, Media appearances, and Reception. The anti-pseudoscience crew wants to inappropriately name the Reception section "Pseudoscience" and place it above the Media appearances: but reception to a person's works and appearances should follow, not precede the description of the works to which which others are responding, and we typically don't label the section with an word describing an opinion, even if it is the prevalent opinion. It precludes the inclusion of opposing opinions. Skyerise (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

As expected, I've been reverted. The article at it currently stands violates WP:BLPSTYLE, both in tone and balance, as well as WP:BLPKINDNESS. I believe my proposed reorganization meets all of these guidelines better than the current presentation. The subject has very publicly complained about his treatment on Wikipedia in the Netflix series Ancient Apocalypse and online. Skyerise (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The "anti-pseudoscience crew"? Wow. Anyway User:Govvy made this revert[20] changing Skyerises "the author of a dozen books" back to "best known for his pseudoscientific theories" which was sourced and seems accurate to me. They also changed the organisation. User:Joe Roe made these edits[21]. They don't seem to violate NPOV. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It is normal to divide description from opinion. The facts of his authorship and work should precede the opinions of others. It a standard presentation principle, both in the lead and in the article body. Skyerise (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually it is not when they are primary known not for their theories, but for how BS their theories are. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Really, so you're asserting that the average Joe, who watches the Netflix series, primarily knows the subject because of scientist's negative opinions of the subject? Skyerise (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that assertion. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Unless that average Joe is a WP:RS somehow whats the relevance? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

No I am saying our articles are based on what experts, not the average Joe, think. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: My revert was more about reverting back to the page alignment, the way the headers for each section before. The change by Skyerise seemed to scatter section is it looked and felt badly ordered. Govvy (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, hard to tell from my view. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you are presenting your own preferences as "standard" without a whiff of a policy or guideline to back it up. I have never seen a "Themes" section in a biography before. Nor do I agree that it's usual to have "Reception" sections in articles about people (as opposed to creative works). The current structure integrates descriptions and reception of his specific works in their respective subsections (often preferable). Most of these are under the heading "Pseudoarchaeology" because that is what reliable sources universally describe them as. There is no BLP violation there. Your version had, for example, one paragraph describing his latest documentary in the fourth section, and then another two paragraphs discussing its reception at the bottom of the page. At best that is annoying for the reader. At worst it is a deliberate attempt to bury what independent sources actually say about Hancock and his work. – Joe (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that these are communal judgement calls. I choose not to WP:WIKILAWYER but rather gather opinions from the members of the relevant WikiProjects. Don't try to tell me how I have to argue my case, grasshopper. :-) Skyerise (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe more eyes needed here. The article has to make clear that mainstream archaeologists do not support Hancock's theories, but I am a bit wary of overloading the article with words beginning with "pseudo". Hancock has made a rod for his own back by bypassing mainstream academic journals and selling books directly to the public, and this does not amount to validation of his theories no matter how many books he sells. Nevertheless, the article should try to avoid reading like a hit piece.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Actively trying to avoid the word pseudo like that is a major NPOV violation in addition to WP:FRINGE. WP:PSCI policy is explicit The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. We don't obfuscate that terminology. KoA (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Straw man. I have not and am not interested in removing or softening such content. I just don't believe making it a section heading is either correct or kind. Skyerise (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article have to do with the situation here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Joe here, you literally split one section into two and kinda buried it. It's not helpful to the reader. Govvy (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I already know what you guys think. I'm waiting to see what the real biographers and BLP WikiProject think of the undue emphasis of misusing headings to convey opinion rather than type of content. Skyerise (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

“Real biographers”? As opposed to? Doug Weller talk 15:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to oppose yourself to anyone you choose, Doug. Skyerise (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hardly a constructive reply. It was a serious question. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Nearly 100 biographies written for this website, but every night I still wish upon a star to be a real biographer :( – Joe (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't referring to you Joe, you seem to have good faith and do good work. Skyerise (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the subject has publicly stated that he is neither a scientist or an archeologist, and does not claim that his work is either: that he is only a journalist who presents the research of others. Sure, he then makes wild speculations based on the research he presents. I think he's great entertainment! Could be worse, he could be saying it's aliens. Y'all need to lighten up. I get it, we have to report what science says about his wild speculations, but I think then you also have to report how he views himself, which hasn't been done. For the Wikilawyers, that's WP:BLPBALANCE. Skyerise (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article says that he's a journalist. – Joe (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thats WP:FALSEBALANCE. His own views about himself are not as valid as WP:RS's views about him, you know this... Right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the request is that we say "he has not claimed his work is scientific and has stated he is neither a scientist nor an archeologist". I would like to see where he has said that. But have no issue with us saying that if it can be sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Even if sourced, I'd really question that being WP:DUE. It's a common trope for quacks, political pundits, etc. to say "I'm not a scientist, but . . . {insert science claim}." I seem to recall some of our fringe guidance somewhere calling this out specifically, but out of time for the morning here to go searching. KoA (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

He says it right at the beginning of the first episode of the Netflix series (0:47): "I don't claim to be an archeologist or a scientist. I am a journalist, and the subject that I am investigating is human prehistory." Skyerise (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry that is not enough for me. I note he does not say "I am not" he says "I don't claim to me", it's not a denial. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's the consensus that matters, right? Skyerise (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Whatever he says he is or isn’t, his works are what they are, pseudoscience/pseudoarchaeology and we have sources for that. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm not arguing for the removal of those opinions. Skyerise (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

While I am sympathetic to editorial concerns over things like section ordering, word choice, and writing brilliant prose that doesn't come across unduly as a "hit piece", or whatever, I remain unclear as to what the concern over BLP being presented here is precisely. I don't think BLP policies are being violated explicitly and the "anti-pseudoscience crew" (whoever they are) are keenly aware of this policy. Is there some aspect of WP:FRINGEBLP that those in editorial opposition to the OP are missing here or is this just a call to arms? jps (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It is a good point about consensus, so lets all of us who have posted a few times here shut up and let others chip in. Let us see what t he consensus is. 17:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia repeats what is stated in reliable sources by the weight of those sources. When it comes to matters that are potentially critical of BLP high quality sources need to be used. In this case the references supplied are the published works of two respected historians - stating that the subject of the article advocates for pseudoarchaeology. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Since more eyeballs have been requested on this article, my eyeballs have surmised that these edits seem designed to bury crucial information about the subject at the end of paragraphs or later in the article, after most readers will have given up and moved on. As such, they appear to be giving undue weight to esoteric or less-controversial aspects of his career for which he is definitely 'not' best known. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 18:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)