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.

Arvin Vohra

• Arvin Vohra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are several incomplete or out of context quotes on this page, which is the page for the potential Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 2020. Examples:

1. Rather that quoting the original person, quotes are coming from people quoting the person. The original quotes are easily accessible in the articles referenced on the page. I have fixed one of these, but there seem to be quite a few. 2. Opening sentences of satirical articles are placed as if serious, without including relevent information of the rest of the article. 3. Relevant information missing, literally including political views! Why are a candidate's political positions missing? These are easily available through project votesmart and other sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.195.214 (talk) 02:29, March 17, 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Category:Climate change deniers

(I don't know where this should go, but I went with this board because it relates to the BLP policy.) Category:Climate change deniers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) In December 2015, this category was deleted as a result of a CfD and a parallel discussion at BLPN (Archive 231). There was consensus to delete the category on grounds of being "contentious", but was this decision appropriate? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean, its clearly true it is conscientious, but that (in and off itself) should not be grounds for deletion. The problem would be inclusion, and that maybe grounds for deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Having waded through much of the prior discussion, the only valid difficulty in having such a category AFAI can see, is the name. This is one of those situations (like pro-life/pro-choice) where the commonname is unfortunately somewhat 'loaded'. I obviously agree with Slater above that inclusion criteria need to be clear and might be difficult to enforce, but that in itself is not a reason to NOT have the category.Pincrete (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

When I started the BLP discussion I put a notification on all affected BLPs and pinged all participants in the CfD, and I explained what event had caused me to start it. The BLP participants were Peter Gulutzan MastCell Masem N-HH Prhartcom RevelationDirect JBL NorthBySouthBaranof TPX KarasuGamma M.boli Niteshift36 Milowent Anythingyouwant JRPG Jonathan A Jones alanyst Bonewah Zaereth Jess Bluerasberry Ssscienccce Marcocapelle agr Collect Softlavender Ryk72 AusLondonder Govindaharihari Sphilbrick Guy Macon Mangoe The Anome. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for pinging me. I suppose this is related tangentially to post-1932 American Politics, from which I am indefinitely topic-banned by User:NeilN (who has not been around to respond to my unbanning request at his user talk), but I do stick with what I said before about this category, FWIW. Cheers! Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Opposed to "denier" category. Denier is often flung as an insult, it sounds like the person is being accused of having a psychological problem, i.e. in denial. That makes it a BLP issue. The other problem is that there is no clear definition, you can find people with opinions all over the map labeled "deniers." Bjørn Lomborg for example appears in somebody's list of Top 10 Climate Deniers. What he denies are the economic benefits and urgency of addressing climate change. In my own practice I've stopped using the term except for a few unambiguous cases, since "denier" too often means somebody who fails the speaker's purity test. Thanks for the ping, Peter Gulutzan, and thank you for being a fair-minded and generous-spirited person in Wikipedia discussion. M.boli (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support restoration but it would be very recommendable to add "activist" or something similar that stresses the definingness of the characteristic. So Category:Climate change denial activists or Category:Climate change scepticism activists. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  Your suggested "activist" has caused me to re-think my opposition. The inclusion criterion–what people would have in common–would be opposition to addressing climate change. I still don't like the "denier" label, but you have have captured a crisper definition of what would make this a useful category. M.boli (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose anything with "denier" in it. It is a term invented by the opposition specifically to imply that it is like Holocaust denial. Using a loaded category that the proponents of a position use is nothing new; both "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" were chosen to imply that the opposition is against choice or against life -- and we use the more neutral and descriptive Anti-abortion movement and Abortion-rights movements. Climate change denial is not only loaded, but it is a term used only by detractors. Nobody calls themselves or their group Anti-life, Anti-choice or Climate change denial. (Strange that we disambiguate Anti-life as a pejorative term, but Anti-choice redirects to Anti-abortion movement. Seems a bit POV to me.) Oddly enough, Holocaust denial is used by many holocaust deniers, who see it as an accurate description based upon them (correctly, in their view) denying that Hitler killed millions of Jews. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  Actually very few holocaust deniers self-describe thus (as the page will confirm). 'Historical revisionists', 'truth-tellers' or simply 'historians' is how they self-describe. It's a detail, but the idea that we can't categorise people by terms used by their critics is not borne out. There are other good reasons for using something other than the rather crude term 'denier' IMO though. Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  I should point out that in some places Holocaust denial is a crime, and the fact that many holocaust deniers have in fact lost libel actions about being called a holocaust denier. The courts (in many cases) have said these people are holocaust deniers.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support restoring - the term is used extensively by sources, hence not "POV". Of course whether or not it is included in a particular article can be POV. That does not make the term unencyclopedic or not useful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not getting involved in this again. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 09:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "Denier" is a pejorative term, not merely descriptive, and open to interpretation. Our article on Climate change denial defines it as "... part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions." That is very broad and subjective. Who decides what doubt is unwarranted, for example? Are people who say it may already be too late then to be labeled climate change deniers based on the last prong of the definition? In addition we do not have a good way to cite sources for inclusion in a category, and BLP demands strong sourcing for controversial claims. And who is important enough to be included? Does the category cover every politician who has a Wikipedia article and is on record as expressing doubt about the reality of human-induced warming or has opposed measures to stop it? That might include most members of the U.S. Republican party and quite a few on the growing European right. That would make the category too broad to be useful. The decision to remove this category was correct and should stand.--agr (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support in principle I recognise the sentiments of those who object to the word 'denier', despite it being a commonly used term - however it shouldn't be beyond us to find a) a more neutral descriptor b) to establish objective criteria for inclusion and c) as with all cats, inclusion criteria should include that this is a significant defining feature of the individual, which is covered in the text of the article in some depth. I endorse that this would be a useful cat and am somewhat surprised that it was deleted.Pincrete (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I never thought this category was a BLP concern worth much consideration. If someone is of the opinion that climate change does not exist, why would this category addition be considered anything but simply descriptive, if not positive? The primary reason we fret about this is not because of the use of the term denier, but because we think it labels such people as having significant deficits in knowledge and/or cognitive abilities. Surely we can come up with something like Category:Flat Earth proponents that would get consensus?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  The problem is that you can spend all day searching and fail to find a single peeson who is labeled a climate change denier and is of the opinion that climate change does not exist. You will instead find the following (listed in order from most unreasonable and unscientific to most reasonable and scientific)

  [1] Conspiracy theorists who think all climate scientists are lying (but who, in general, accept that the climate changes from natural causes).

  [2] People who don't deny the existence of climate change but believe that the magnitude is smaller than the climate scientists say it is.

  [3] People who don't deny the existence or magnitude of climate change but believe that human activity is a smaller factor than the climate scientists say it is.

  [4] People who don't deny the existence or magnitude of climate change or how big a factor human activity is but believe that it is beneficial instead of being harmful.

  [5] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that we are on the brink of a naturally-caused ice age prevented only by human-caused warming.

  [6] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that geoengineering can reverse human-caused climate change.

  [7] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that humans can adapt to changing climate.

  [8] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that the computer simulations are flawed. Pretty much everyone agrees that previous computer simulations made predictions that turned out to be wildly wrong. People in category 8 believe that the same is true about current simulations. Climate scientists say that they have fixed the problems and the simulations are now accurate. But of course they said that the last time too.

  [9] People who don't deny [see list above] and accept the climate change simulations but reject the economic simulations -- again pointing out that no economic simulation has ever been able to successfully predict the future economy.

  [10] People who don't deny [see list above] but doubt that increasing the size and power of the government is the solution, arguing that those with the most money generally get the government to do what they want done.

  [11] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for North America and Europe to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on Asia, India, Africa, and South America

  [11] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for the US to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the world.

  [13] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for California to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the country or the rest of the world.

  [14] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for Los Angeles to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the state, country or world.

  All of the above views are regularly called "climate change denial" in the popular press. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  I think you have strengthened Marcocapelle (talk · contribs)'s point above. The common thread is do nothing about climate change. A category tying them all together could have utility. (Your assertion about not finding any flat-out deniers is wacky however.) M.boli (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  They also often switch from one of those positions to the next when too many people see that the first one is untenable. This is because they only care about doing nothing about climate change and not about the reason for doing nothing - it is only a pretend reason anyway. The underlying cause is market fundamentalism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Guy Macon, there are gradiations like this all over wikipedia regarding categories. Climate change is not unique. We are tying to create categories that help our readers, and no category is perfect. Indeed I just found out about and wrote Orlando Ferguson after chiming in here earlier with my reference to Category:Flat Earth proponents. Doctor Ferguson (who was not really a doctor) did NOT believe the earth was completely flat, instead, he thought there was some elevation change topping out at the north pole, and that the earth was SQUARE. But I still put him in Category:Flat Earth proponents and he definitely should be there. Here, if the consensus of mainstream news reporting is that someone is a climate change denier, some category seems appropriate, because it can help our readers. Nuance can be shown in article content. Indeed, it can be the case that someone falling in your category [14] (the "most reasonable" in your hierarchy) is just making an argument to support his general opposition to any intervention steps, although he actually believes like US President Trump that China invented global warming as a hoax. [1]. But if some comedian makes a random joke about global warming one day, that doesn't merit inclusion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

    Orlando Ferguson died over a century ago. The category we are dealing with primarily involves living people and, under BLP, our standards are much higher. Indeed, dealing with people who expressed doubts 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago about humans causing global warming and then died presents yet another problem. The further back you go, the less certain the science was. Are they all deniers?--agr (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

    • Newspapers definitely thought Orlando Ferguson was nuts, but they were always polite. That's also our goal.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I just tried explaining to an editor who can't seem to grasp the issue....... Aside from the word "denier" being loaded with implications, it's not really accurate. For example, I have a userbox that says I am skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. According to him, I'm a "climate change denier". Skeptic means I am not convinced and have doubts. Not denial, doubts. And Anthropogenic means man-made, not all. Do I deny that there is climate change? No. Do I have doubts that it is primarily manmade? I do. But labels like "climate change denier", regardless of how many media sources recklessly use the term, is not necessarily accurate. As an encyclopedia, I think we should strive for accuracy. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The whole problem with categories that include WP:LABEL language is that we cannot provide a source at the category page as required by BLP. Yes, on the main page of a categorized BLP that should be sourced, but we're still using labeled language, so factual inclusion may not be there, just the perception from a few members of the press or the person's peers. We should not have these types of categories where inclusion is based on a subjective evaluation of the person by other sources. --Masem (t) 13:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I was a significant contributor to both discussions above, which I suggest people read, and I haven't changed my mind. I don't like BLP categories which are controversial or can be considered as derogatory, and I especially don't like them when the criteria for inclusion seemed to be subjective, ill-defined and poorly implemented. For example the orginal list included a "lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change" and also included a minor UKIP politician where the sole reference in support of the categorisation was some retweets (not even tweets) an account in his name had made. As far as I can tell the whole category seemed to be little more than a list of individuals whom some editors didn't like. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "denier" label support other neutral categorization to be decided Wikipedia has challenges tagging people who support fringe ideas. This proposal is similar to many others I have seen. We look for third-party verification of these things, which is a bias of Wikipedia which has benefits and drawbacks. I like that Wikipedia maintains its quality control; I regret that we do not have good systems for helping researchers identify obvious information like "who has published a paper confirming a certain concept". The longer term solution to this problem that I see is modeling this kind of issue in Wikidata, probably through the meta:WikiCite project. There are maybe 500 people who have contributed significantly to that project and many more would do more if it were more developed. I think there is community consensus within that project that people want to be able to query Wikidata to generate lists of things like who affirms or rejects various positions in publication. Lists like this are likely to become part of Wikidata culture because that project has so much more power to quickly verify these claims than Wikipedia. I like that Wikidata makes it relatively easy for people to enrich data for such purposes; I regret that we currently lack training materials and that anyone wanting to do this will have to be patient and persistent as they ask questions to human for support in an environment without sufficient documentation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Support restoration (until a more neutral term is found). Understanding that the term Denier may be used subjectively, Climate change denier is a useful descriptive category when applied correctly and it is a term that is used extensively by reputable third-party sources. Until such time that a more clearly objective neutral name for the category is chosen the category and its title Climate change denier should be restored. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC) (~ add I think I have a problem in that I dont see the label as 'pejorative' as others do here, i just considered it as a environmental position.)
• Alternative suggestion. Since one mother category would be Category:Climate change skepticism and denial, why not call it Category:Climate change skeptics and denialists? That way, it would also contain scientists who rejected the concept before there was a consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  Since the opposition seems to be based on the perception that the category itself is "perjorative", surely there is some title that won't be seen that way? Perhaps Category:People who've decided humans had a good run.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose As the title is obviously pejorative in nature, and intended to be so, and is not a self-ascribed attribute to those who would be in such a group, it violates several policies and guidelines. Sort of like having a category for "Self-Hating Gnarphists" or "Gnarphist Nazi-Fascists" or the like. Collect (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• oppose Since this is a pejorative label, it's a problem (as I said last time) that it tends to be stuck on anyone who deviates from a certain political orthodoxy, even if they agree with the core thesis of anthropogenic climate change. It's not a clear binary like "did a certain even occur" is. I doubt the will of the community to police the category even if it is very narrowly construed. Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. SemiHypercube 16:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Alternative suggestion: {{Category:Climate action skeptics}} The criterion would be opposition to addressing global warming, as described by the scientific consensus. It doesn't sound pejorative, it seems to cover most of the varieties without arguing who is in and who is out. This category would apply to people where that is a substantial part of what makes them notable. -- M.boli (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• As I said 3 years ago, I tend to agree with Masem that this probably shouldn't be a category (under any name). --JBL (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose My two cents: From a neuropsychological standpoint, categorization is a natural reaction. It's really hard-wired into the brains of any animal with an amygdala, and in particular, occurs in the area here the amygdala connects to the hippocampus. This area acts like a filter of information based upon emotional saliency, before storing it as memories in the hippocampus. No information is cognized (comes into consciousness) until it passes through this area for filtering. The purpose of it is manifold, but primarily it serves as a form of file-compression (not too unlike compressing a computer file) for faster processing and easier storage. For example, when you drive through a forest, you could not possibly remember every single tree along the way. Only those things that grab your attention --that have some importance or significance (salience) to you-- are committed to memory. Everything else is erased and simply stored as generic categories, ie: spruce tress or birch trees, etc... The processes in your brain which determine what is salient and what is not are your emotions, thus what you commit to memory depends solely upon whether it invokes an emotional response or not, and therefore this area of the brain is also our emotional center.

The purpose of categorization is to allow us to focus on the details which are important to us while discarding all of the info that we feel is unimportant, so it doesn't bog us down in the moment. That's what makes it so useful but also what makes it so dangerous. The same processes that cause us to categorize plants and animals into different taxonomical groups is exactly the same thing we use to categorize people. Thus, the emotional center of the brain is also the area where racial or other forms of hatred, prejudices and stereotypes form (all forms of categorization). When you can reduce something as complex as people to a simple label or title, it causes others to ignore all of the information involved and treat the individual as having all the characteristics placed upon that label. This is what makes it an extremely effective propaganda tool, because it turns a discussion into an us against them thing, rather than a collaboration or healthy debate of ideas, by creating an "in-group" in which "we" are all complex and individuals, and an "out-group" where "they" are all the same and (predominantly) bad. That's the way it has been used since the dawn of history to incite hatred or violence against others, from Babylon to the Romans to the Nazis to todays modern-world of political hatred.

We need to be really --extremely-- careful when categorizing people. Categories can be a great and very useful thing, when used properly, but they can be a terrible tool for both the nefarious and those with nothing more than good intentions, alike. This is one of those categories that is made to be divisive and does more harm to the debate than good. Zaereth (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural Oppose The CFD conversation on this topic was extensive and had a large group of editors with different viewpoints, including those that came as a result of tags from biography discussion pages. While I respectfully disagree with the outcome (I favored renaming to be more neutral) the process lead to a reasonable outcome and I don't see anything that has changed recently to suggest a differnet consensus. If anyone feels the CFD was closed improperly, the right path is at WP:DRV. Thank you for tagging me to provide input; much appreciated! RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As much as I think true climate change deniers should be identified as such, I don’t like the concept of pigeon-holing beliefs into binary categories. O3000 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support restoring. I missed the original debate. After reading it and giving it some thought, I'd have voted keep. It's an identifiable and notable stance, just like Holocaust denial, and with potential to kill even more people. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support restoring I know I am fighting a rising tide (see what I did there?), but let's get back to talking about sources: if Reuters (or another RS) describes someone as a Climate change denier (using those exact words), we can categorize them as that too (though WP:DEFINING still applies). If there is not a source that says that, putting a person in the category constitutes original research. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Bad Rfc the OP didn't give a good reason for starting it. My opinion is in the prior BLP discussion. If nobody objects I will ask tomorrow for a formal close, "by an administrator" since an administrator closed the last one and this is like an appeal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: I asked today for a close by an administrator. I added earlier a DoNotArchiveUntil 14 August. Information for closer: I have just noticed that the OP pointed to the wrong version of the BLP discussion, where it was closed, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support restoring Support bringing back the word "denier", generally speaking is a descriptive and commonly known and used term. Why we should crack our brains to reinvent a wheel again and using some conspiracy words not to affect on someone’s emotions or attitudes. I don't see the label as the others do here and I did not see any depreciation "pejorative" it just express the sbm positions and views - and this is normal to have both affirmations and negations. We can found other term more neutral but it would change in essence, nothing - the problem still exists. However, the worldwide scale of these impacts has not been satisfactorily assessed.--IuliusRRR (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Alternative suggestion. I think the distinction between "skeptic" and "denier" is relatively unimportant. Change to Category:Climate change skeptics. Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Since we have Category:Holocaust deniers to categorize individuals who "actively promoted" Holocaust denial, it would be consistent to have Category:Climate change deniers to categorize individuals who actively promoted Climate change denial. The category Category:Climate change skeptics would make an acceptable compromise, as a second choice. — Newslinger talk 04:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

BLPSPS

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

There seems to be some debate here regarding the use of BLPSPS, and essentially whether we have a loophole that means you can source any content you like on an article about a living person to garbage blogs and social media written by third parties, so long as you are careful not to mention the subject directly.

I didn't exactly know that it was terribly controversial that sourcing on a BLP needed to comply with WP:BLP, and there was some special case about content on a BLP not covered by BLP. If this is somehow a valid interpretation, do we need to amend the policy to clarify? To my mind, if this is valid, it opens the door for people to widely use god awful crap blogs and social media on BLPs to source whatever we like so long as we comply properly with the loophole. GMG^talk 21:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a lot to dig through to find out exactly what is going on. You shouldn't think of policy as being a bunch of individual rules with loopholes. Policy is like one, big, giant equation, where each factor in that equation augments and is augmented by every other factor. The info we add should meet all those factors simultaneously in order to satisfy the equation. In general, we should try to avoid self-published sources on any article. There are some cases where self-pubs can be good, such as a book on bladesmithing by a renowned bladesmith. For BLPs, we're quite a bit stricter. Self-published sources should only be used when the person talked about in the source is also the one who published it, but only for certain types of info such as the publisher's own opinions, denials, or such. In this case we treat them like a primary source being used to augment a secondary source. In such a case we can deem them to be a reliable source for their own views. It doesn't really matter if the publisher is the subject of our article or someone merely mentioned in the article. The main thing is that they are talking solely about themselves, not being self-aggrandizing, and the source is being used only to describe their views. Zaereth (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

A proposal to clarify that wording did not succeed, but that was because of an objection (as I interpreted) that the prohibition was clear enough already. And, in the particular case you're looking at, I didn't understand why, if it's not about the person, it needs to be in the person's article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Good find. I hadn't seen that thread started by SV. Basically the exact same issue: it's okay to use ramblings written on toilet paper with crayon blogs and social media in BLPs as long as we're using it for a COATRACK. GMG^talk 22:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that the claim made at AE that this is a BLP vio is not correct, as the issue is tangential to the subject of the subject of the article - the matter at hand had nothing to do directly with the article's subject, but an article someone else wrote about, and which that author was finding was being misused in some places, requiring that author to speak out about it via an SPS.

There definitely is potentially wrong in our wording since BLP issues can happen at any article, and we'd still not want SPSs about any BLP named in such articles - BLPSPS is not limited to BLP Articles only. But how to word it to be clear is not immediately obvious. --Masem (t) 00:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. Looking at the proposal that Peter put up, it helped clarify what the issue was about without scouring through a pile of diffs. As I interpret what most people are saying at these other forums is that the issues being described are not really BLP issues, and thus are covered (or really prohibited) by other parts of policy, so no big deal. On the surface, that makes sense to me. However, in analyzing the sentence I realize that what we have here is a sentence fragment that has multiple meanings, depending upon how you look at it. "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Without the context of all the other policies, the last part of that can be read too literally, too idiomatically, or unduly free, ie: "Any material written by the subject of a Wikipedia article, about a living person, is fair game to use in that article, regardless of which living person they discuss." Or, "Any material written by the subject of an article is fair game as long as it's not about a living person." It could mean: "Only use self-published sources to support material about a living person when author of that source is also the subject of that source." The confusing words, bearing those multiple meanings, appear to be "the subject" and "the article." I'd suggest replacing these with some synonyms and perhaps with a little wordsmithing see if we can get a clearer meaning. Zaereth (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe flip the idea around "Claims, particularly contentious ones, about an individual must come from reliable sources and may never originate from SPS, except for SPS made by the individual themselves." This would make it apply everywhere in Mainspace, not just on a BLP's page, and would cover the cases of a BLP being discussed on a completely separate page from their specific BLP topic page. --Masem (t) 14:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Well the argument that seemed to be bubbling up was that it wasn't an issue of BLP; it was an issue of WEIGHT. But it seems obvious to me that the issue of WEIGHT in a BLP is a BLP issue.

Suppose you had an article: Sally founded Tree Corp but then left the company.^{Reliable source} Tree Corp was later implicated in violations of trade regulations^Twitter and for worker safety issues.^Blog

The same argument would go that the garbage-sourced content isn't about Sally. So it isn't about a living person. So it isn't a BLP violation. But from the point of view of Sally, this is her biography. It's probably the most prominent coverage of her on the internet. Everything on her biography concerns her, and is what people read when they go on the internet trying to read about her. If we are using crap sources to introduce undue weight, then the undue weight itself directly concerns BLP. GMG^talk 22:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue in your example is a WP:SYNTH issue more than a WP:BLPSPS issue. The way you put those two sentences together carries a clear uncited implication that Sally did something wrong, which violates WP:BLP. In the case at issue in the link, things are at more of a remove from the article's subject and don't carry that same implication. Also, even ignoring BLP, your examples probably don't pass WP:SPS in the first place, unless they're by subject-matter experts; and they risk falling afoul of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. None of that applies to the linked dispute, which is an aside about an article concerning an event in which the article's subject was involved to provide context about the broader reaction (and which therefore, reasonably, doesn't have many implications about the article's subject.) Putting aside the question of whether putting it in an article on a living person makes it automatically WP:BLPSPS, the use of WP:SPS was at least notionally defensible (published author commenting about their own work, ie. they're an expert) and the claim doesn't seem particularly exceptional, which makes your attempt at a more hyperbolic comparison unhelpful. Basically, it feels like the hypothetical "loophole" you're trying to convince people exists here is just WP:SYNTH, which is already a WP:BLP violation for other reasons. Do you think the example in the discussion you linked to is that sort of WP:SYNTH? I'm not seeing it. --Aquillion (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• That particular discussion relates to whether something falls under a WP:BLP WP:1RR exemption or not. My feeling is that the WP:3RR / WP:1RR exemption is for clear-cut WP:BLP violations - BLP is an important policy, but so is 3RR; if it's uncertain whether something falls under WP:3RRBLP, you're supposed to go to WP:BLPN rather than trying to edit-war yourself. I think an outcome like that ("this isn't sufficiently related to actual WP:BLP issues to justify ignoring WP:1RR") is entirely appropriate. Whose reputation, precisely, was threatened by the removed text, and how? (More generally, it's important to be cautious about invoking WP:3RRBLP, because if we're incautious editors will claim WP:BLP applies to at least one side of every single dispute on an article about a WP:BLP, making WP:3RR / WP:1RR meaningless on huge swaths of articles. That's not the intent of the policy.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ricardo Rosselló

• Ricardo Rosselló (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some IPs want to add a recent event (diff) with "governor Rosselló insulted various politicians of Puerto Rico and the United States on a group chat" and similar. Pretty ho-hum WP:UNDUE but watchers welcome. Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Stockholm truck attack#RfC: Ebba Åkerlund's grave

OK, this may be borderline, but it looks to me like the mother and family of a murdered girl are at risk of being additionally hurt here by what I see as dogged attempts by a stubborn editor to sensationalize her death and vandalism to her grave in a tabloidesque & totally irrelevant manner. The user has been asked several times to provide a reliable source that specifically would link the vandalism to the terror attack, but it looks to me like that only has led to a bit of game playing, nothing relevant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Geoffrey Webber

Geoffrey Webber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – can someone take a look at this please? It's beyond my area of expertise. I just intervened because I saw an IP leaving an uncited BLP-worrying comment so I zapped it. A quick look at the edit history, though, reveals a back-and-forth on potentially libellous comments starting on 27 April 2019. Although there are some sources, I've not seen anything very mainstream RS – so far I have seen a student newspaper and a classical music blog and I don't know how authoritatively we'd rate either of those. I take no position on this story myself – I just think that we should proceed with caution here, bearing in mind the encyclopaedia's possible legal exposure if it all goes horribly wrong. There are obviously editors interested in pushing both inclusion and removal of the material so I can imagine how this could continue for a while ... does the page need protecting? Ermmm, or something?? I'd be most grateful if someone with the knowledge and abilities could please take a look at the whole thing: for personal reasons that can't be me at the moment. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:UNIGUIDE, student newspapers (like Varsity, which is the source linked) can be considered reliable sources for material related to their own institution. Given that this is a sensitive BLP issue, though, I'd look for something further to include it. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Israel Shamir

At Israel Shamir, a person who it is admittedly difficult to appear to be defending even if one is only defending WP:BLP, two editors have been removing anything Shamir has self-published on the basis of them considering him a fringe source. This has led to some interesting edits such as this in which a person in an op-ed calls this living person a "rabid antisemite" and that person's response to that charge is removed. Is Shamir's response to claims made against him UNDUE as the editor has argued? Can a living person be repeatedly called a Holocaust denier and an antisemite and have his response not included? And can Shamir's claims about his own personal life be included, or does WP:SELFPUB not apply to him saying where he lives or that he was baptized or that he says he was in the IDF (a claim repeated by sources, as his claim, such as Times of Israel. nableezy - 17:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Icewhiz as the person who left the op-ed calling a person a rabid anti-semite but removed the response to provide his justification for that. nableezy - 17:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I did a rough pass of removing WP:SPSes by Shamir (failing WP:FRIND and ABOUTSELF-4 - as the most basic bio details are contested by RSes) and others (e.g. a blog accusing Shamir of various things). The article needs a major cleanup - anything poorly sourced be removed - and there is definitely additional content that should go - I mostly removed what was clearly a SPS. Shamir is described as a Holocaust denier by RSes in their own voice - e.g. DW [2] - this is not someone we should be using SPSes for.Icewhiz (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

So your position is an op-ed by Stephen Pollard (not a news article, but a straight opinion piece) should be used to call this person in their biography a "rabid antisemite" and that Shamir's response should be removed? nableezy - 18:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Alis Rowe

Hello, I am a fully disclosed paid-editor representing the subject of this article on a pro-bono basis. My client has requested that this page be deleted as she feels it is a violation of her right to privacy.

Would it be possible to have this page deleted? My client barely meets the notability criteria for living people and I don't believe there is a legitimate public interest case for this article existing.

I have left a further explanation on the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alis_Rowe

Essayist1 (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here. Although you've not presented significantly different rationales for deletion than the two previous AfDs, I have reviewed the one "valid" previously AfD (from 2017) and note that it seemed rather thin on policy-based reasons for keeping the article. (I note that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE already existed in BLP policy at that time.) Perhaps the article should be nominated for a third AfD. I would be interested in others' opinions. MPS1992 (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @MPS1992: I have tried to nominate the article for a third AfD. The AfD page was deleted by accident though and I could not get the page listed on the articles for deletion board. Do you know anyone who could help recreate the AfD page? Essayist1 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Essayist1: I have created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alis Rowe (3rd nomination), all are encouraged to comment there. MPS1992 (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanksEssayist1 (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Gregg Hurwitz

This article looks pretty promotional and the notability of the subject is borderline. Before deciding on whether to put up an AfD I was hoping to get some opinions here first. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

David Bintley

This entry is very incomplete and contains a few small inaccuracies. I would like to considerably update and revise the whole entry. My question is about how to reference... There is very little published information about David Bintley except reviews and a few interviews, most of it from the last decade or so. I work for Birmingham Royal Ballet and have worked with David for 18 years. I recently completed an extensive (though not published) 380-page leaving book for him as a gift from the Company as he stepped down as our Director. I have had access to the Royal Opera House archives, the Birmingham Royal Ballet archives, the Royal Ballet School archives, been in touch with the various companies he has worked with (Hong Kong Ballet, Stuttgart Ballet, San Francisco Ballet etc) and, most importantly, I had to David's wife's diaries from 1980 to 1995, as she worked on the book with me. Obviously, none of these sources are public, so how should I write my citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leea25 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The use of non-public sources is problematic, particularly for the biography of a living person. Wikipedia is built around principle of verifiability, the idea that if you can't trust Wikipedia, you can always go to the source that the article got its information from. As such, as painful as it is, we should probably leave the information out of our article. You should also be reviewing our guidelines on dealing with a conflict of interest. As someone who is employed by the Ballet and has been working with the subject so long, you do have a conflict of interest and should probably not be editing the article directly at all, but rather placing suggestions for additions and corrections on the "talk" page for the article, Talk:David Bintley. But really, the best thing that you could do for improving the Wikipedia page would be to write a biographical article about Bintley for some other outlet, one that Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. In that way, we could use that article as our verifiable reference for things we put in our article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Nat. I have read the page about reliable sources... there must be some way round this? The inference is that nobody can have a wikipedia article without prior, third-party publication of all material related in the article. This is going to sound terribly off, so forgive me, but I have personally ready dozens, perhaps hundreds of articles (mostly on obscure 20th-century classical composers) that are not fully referenced in this manner and, if they are referenced, their source links are dubious or broken. I dare say, major figures in their field aside, most articles about lesser known personalities will not be properly referenced, as they will be written by enthusiasts or specialists. I'm not sure about the confilct of interest, either... I'm aware it's not a marketing tool - all I intend to add is facts - what he did when, who he collaborated with, where his works were staged, what he choreographed when etc. (i.e. no opinions). If that is a conflict of interest, then I'm not sure putting suggestions in the Talk box isn't also (an excercise that would be, for the majority of the corrections, futile, as nobody except me would be able to carry them out). Many wikipedia articles reference blogs, enthusiast's websites etc - as a frequent reader of dance-related blogs and reviews, these are often rife with mispeelings, incorrect dates and other errors themselves. If I were to write an article for a 'reputable' source they, equally, would have no way of verifying the contents, so it would be no different to simply writing it on Wikipediea in the first place. Do you have any suggestions? The page that is there is not correct and incomplete. Is it better for that to remain, or for someone who is actually an expert (though very much unpublished!) on the subject to correct it and add to it? Would suitable citations include old ballet programmes from the 1970s and 1980s that are long out of print, but available in archives and private collections? Birmingham Royal Ballet show reports? The back end of our own website (i.e. pages no longer public)? I hope you can see my point. As a regular surfer of the fringes of Wikipedia looking for unusual composers, choeographers etc, if one were to stick to the rules for citation utterly rigidly, I dare say a large chunk of Wikipedia would disappear over night... Thanks, Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leea25 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Lots of points to address; I'm going to number my responses so that you can easily respond to any given one.

1. Actually, if a large chunk of unreferenced or improperly-referenced material were to disappear overnight, it would be a vast blessing to the project.
2. Yes, we shouldn't have significant non-referenced material. That is the goal. Wikipedia is supposed to be just a repetition of what is found elsewhere.
3. Yes, we know that there are pages with problem material. Wikipedia is not finished; that does not mean that we should strive to play loose with things.
4. We actually encourage people with conflicts to use the Talk page. They can be a great source of pointers to information, but non-conflicted editors get to choose what goes in the article, which is what we are primarily protecting.
5. Writing an article for a reliable source means that an editor may be able to access your private sources, and would be able to post corrections. If we cannot rely on reliable sources, then there is no wikipedia.
6. We are particularly protective of things written about a person who is still alive, for both legal and ethical reasons. Self-published things like personal blogs are barred from use (unless it's the blog of the person being written about.)
7. Yes, ballet programmes are citable. They may not be easy to lay hands on, but they are not private. We of course prefer things that are easy to find, online things best of all, but basically anything that has been published is considered verifiable, and a ballet company is considered a reliable source for the basic facts of who was involved in the performance.
8. To that end, the ballet troupe's own website would be considered a reliable source for non-boastful material, assuming someone but you has oversight over it and could edit your material. So if you could write an article that appears on the company's website, that would be a help.
9. As for the "back end" of the website, have you checked an archive site like [3]]? It can be a source for the old, since-removed versions of many a page, and would make a fine reference. But material that has not been archived is not verifiable.
10. For material that is incorrect, you can point to it on the Talk page. Even if we don't have a source sufficient to make it correct, you might be able to cast enough doubt to cause the editors to remove the incorrect information. Which yes, leaves the work incomplete, but better to be uninformative than wrong.
11. An expert writing unreferenced material may be excellent... for some other site. Wikipedia has built itself to what it is by being what it is.
12. Some of this may sound inefficient or limiting, but as someone with extensive editing experience, I can tell you that these policies and guidelines avoid more problems than they cause.

I hope that helps! --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nat, it does help. I do understand the goals and ethics of the site, and very much agree with them, but it seems, perhaps, I should have just gone ahead and done it rather than asked for guidance - I doubt anyone would have noticed! Thoughts below.

1. You guys as editors face an impossible task, but I strongly disagree that a whole chuck of Wikipedia disappearing over night would be a good thing. Although the 'fringes', as I call them, are rife with innacuracy, a fair chunk of what people write, unreferenced, or linking to dead sites, is correct. For example, I have in my book collection, an old catalogue (in English translation) of Ukrianian composers. It was written on a type writer and bound, and I have never come across another - the title is written on the front in pen! However, a lot of what I have found on Wikipedia about those weird and wonderful composers detailed in it, is correct - I can only assume someone has a copy and has not referenced it, or people from that part of the world who know, are writing the entries. Another, less good example might be the fact that several Wikipedia entries on Soviet composers used to reference a site called RussianComposers. I wrote and ran that site and, in the end, despite it being a work of some years of scouring through music dictionaries like Grove and MGG, I took it down, as there were so many contradictory sources, I couldn't be sure very much of it was factually correct and lost heart. Also, a lot of this potential source material will likely never be available from reliable sources... Soviet books, for example, definitely cannot be regarded as reliable sources!

2. And yet, it has become so much more... Wikipedia is often the only place you can find obscure information from long-out-of-print books or dead websites.

3. At the same time, were I to write a horribly biased and grandiose article for my Company's website (which I help administer and I exagerate, but you know what I mean) and somehow got it published, it would be considered a suitable source, just because it is elsewhere? Show reports that detail when David, for example, made his debut in a certain role, are the only record of those facts available (I know because I have asked), and were written immediately after or during the show in question. We have them going back to the 1950s, yet they are not admissable as sources because they aren't available for public viewing... historically speaking, they are primary sources. This seems rather odd to me!

4. Forgive me for saying so, but this would seem in part a little pointless as nobody else would be able to verify some of it... would showing it to the man himself help in any way? Surely he could verify facts about his own life? Surely dates that are a matter of public record like the premier of a particular ballet, which would be recorded in numerous publically available places, are not things that can be biased by an editor with an alleged conflict of interest? Are those with an alleged conflict of interest banned from all editing? Would the correction or addition of a date be conflicted if done by that person? What about the correction of a spelling? I do find this all rather contradictory. Take for example the author of a book about a living person. That author would very likely have had a lot of contact with the subject of the book, got to know them well, yet (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the author himself would not be allowed to edit a Wikipedia article about the subject because of a conflict of interest. A third party would be allowed to do this, yet the information would be coming from the same source, and the author himself would have a far more detailed knowledge of the subject that anyone who had simply read the book (a bit like, well, me, for example!).

5. I agree, but those sources are not available to the public. An editor could ask for permission to come and check them, and it would be granted, but nobody would take be willing to come to Birmingham and spend many, many hours trawling through cast slips and show reports to check the information.

6. I understand completely. What I meant was that so-called ballet or theatre experts write reviews and articles about works and choreographers on their blogs and these are referenced, but sometimes include inaccuracies. Even papers like the Guardian or The Times occasionally print things that I know to be factually incorrect, perhaps because the writer has made a mistake in haste, but the editor who has the final say doesn't know enough to change it. The number of times I have seen him refered to as David Bentley (doubtless thanks to autocorrect)!

7. That's a relief. I also do completely understand this policy, but it has huge limitations. Information about famous events and people that are well documented will easily find itself in numerous places online or in print. The problem comes at the 'fringes'. So much information, particularly sitting in that grey area you might refer to as 'recent history', will not make it's way onto the net for a long time, if ever. There are simply more sources about, say turn of the 19th/20th century composers than there are of weird composers from the 1950s. These are only likely referenced briefly, if at all, in print, and likely out of print.

8. There are four of us who help maintain the website, though I find it a little odd that someone sat next to me at work apparently has less of a conflict of interest than I do... and they would certainly not be knowledgable enough to fact check anything I wrote, meaning it would in all likelihood just go up as I wrote it.

9. I haven't, but will. Thank you.

10. I would say better to be fully informative and correct! Oh, wait, I'm not allowed to... yes, I know... :)

11. Yet, as I mentioned above, I think it has become so much more. There is so much unverifiable and unverified information on the stubs and articles for obscure people in history, I think Wikipedia would be doing itself a great diservice in removing it all without knowing whether it is correct or not.

12. I do find this inefficient, to be honest, and contradictory, in that unquestionable primary sources that are not publically available are disallowed, whilst 'fan sites' (which is what a great deal of sites about obscure subjects in effect are - my RussianComposers site, for example, which looked accurate due to the sheer volume of information, but wasn't) are allowed, even though the writers of those sites probably don't reference their own sources (a horrible sweeping generalisation, I know). Although I do understand, it does seem a shame that these policies (and the time available to to editors) means that a lot of rubbish is floating around Wikipedia, whilst people like me, who have access to unique sources - the horse's mouth, so to speak - are disuaded from including their information.

I disagree with the policies, but understand that they are the best that can be made of a complex situation and perhaps overwhelming amount of information. I think what I might do is leave the 'story' of his career unedited (except for things like "he has created ballets for blah blah blah companies", which can be verified with a Google search and should be a matter of public record. I'll then make requests for changes to errors, and then add in what basically amount to lists of works and dates, composers, designers etc. They are almost entirely verifiable through Google or, if not, through old programmes. Does every single date and name need to be cited? You, or a fellow editor will be able to see that I am only including facts and figures, not opinions. I suspect you will ask me to put it all in the Talk, box, but I see little point as anyone coming to review it would have no idea if it is correct or not and, I believe, is very unlikely to put in the necessary hours and travel to verify it all. Better a job half done than one complete that might get deleted soon after because I have done the right thing and asked how I should proceed :) Does that sound ok to you? I can even e-mail you photos of some of the show reports, or programmes and cast slips from the archive if you like, just to show that they exist? I am, I have to say, mildly put out that that the book I wrote and created is not admissable as a source (although only 4 copies exist), but I guess that would fall under the same conflict of interest rules we have already discussed, and it is not professionally published.

Sorry to keep wandering off topic a little, too. As well as frustrating, I am finding this very interesting and appreciate your time and patience. Thanks again. Leea25 (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I am in the midst of several days of heavy business and will not be able to respond. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

As Nat is away for the next few days, could I point out that our encyclopedia is written using reliable published sources. That is all. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to note, Leea25 and I are having a parallel discussion about the sourcing complexities of her circumstances here. My thinking is that this is maybe an issue that might get more traction at WP:RSN; we're going to need to do some very nuanced parsing of policy regarding RS if we are going to find ways to (hopefully) make at least a small fraction of the resources at her disposable usable to augment the article in question. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I am finding this all rather disheartening to be honest. Having already spent some 6 weeks (full time) gathering and researching the information for 'my' book, I thought it would just be a matter of transfering it to here. I understand now that that's not the case and the rules are the rules. I still disagree fundamentally with a policy that potentially excludes SO much information, and will likely never be able to include it, but there we are. As for the definition of a 'reliable secondary source', well that's a whole other can of worms! You find me a book, magazine, newspaper or website that doesn't have at least some slant... I have a book about the Head of the Musicians' Union in the Soviet Union, Tikhon Khrennikov. I know enough to know that it is by and large propaganda, painting him as a loving father figure of Russian music. The truth is far from that, but by these rules, it would indeed be a reliable source. Any way, I'm repeating myself. I think I'll carry this chat on with Snow Rise through the Wiki Dance Project, if that's ok. Thanks very much for your help Nat - very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leea25 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Gab (social network)

Is Jeffrey Clark sufficiently notable to warrant being addressed in the Gab article? The description is a bit borderline with regard to WP:BLPCRIME but I do remember his arrest being pretty significant to the discussion surrounding white supremacist terrorism in the aftermath of Charlottesville so I hesitate to say that it actually crosses the line. This is one where I figure a discussion would be warranted. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Per BLPCRIME - probably should avoid naming him until conviction. Per a quick search - this hasn't happened as of yet. (HuffPost last week did report that a plea bargain might be near). Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That was my feeling too. I've removed for the time being with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:TOOSOON justifications and reserving the right to re-insert if he's convicted. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit request Lord Sheikh

Please see the request and respond at Talk:Mohamed_Sheikh,_Baron_Sheikh#Request_for_edits. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Jennifer Grassman name change

Jennifer Grassman has changed her name to Jennifer Michelle Greenberg. I've updated the name in the body, but cannot update the page title. I'm assuming a moderator needs to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UncleCharlie74 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Willem van Spronsen

Two AfDs about a recently deceased person that should get attention from the BLP noticeboard.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Willem van Spronsen
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2019 Tacoma attack Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Turley Richards

I believe that information posted to this page is in violation of the guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons. I have attempted twice to delete the information, and my edit has been reversed, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turley_Richards&action=history. Please keep in mind, I am a novice editor to Wikipedia, however as an award winning writer, am willing to receive feedback on content and style. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this serious matter.

1. "Avoid gossip and feedback loops" As Richards was never charged and/or arrested, and the country prosecutor declined to pursue the complaint, inclusion of this television expose, although factual in it's report of the original complaint, is not relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. The event occurred 16 years and 8 months ago, and is not relevant (by Richards' statement) to how he conducts business today.

2. "Public figures" the following is copied and pasted from this section: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."¹ As there exists only one third party source, the content about this television expose should be deleted. In addition, Richards' denial of the allegations is not reported.

3. People who are notable, but not well known. This rule states the following: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." ¹ Due to personal relationship with the subject (wife,) I have knowledge that this article has greatly adversely affected Richards' reputation and livelihood.

4. People accused of a crime. Please refer to the following: " For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." ¹ See comments regarding #1 above. This point is also relevant to "false light."^2>/sup>

5. Images. In the linked news expose, Richards states he does not authorize his image to be captured and used by the news station. Since Richards is blind, and could not see the camera, inclusion of this link violates Wikipedia's rule for situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed.

In closing, please be aware that Richards is a 78 year old, blind man, who until 9 months ago was revered in his community.  This article has virtually ended his career, even though he has coached hundreds of other individuals over 28 years with no incident reported.

ⁱ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons></ref> ² <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light></ref>

• Will put it on watch. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Robert Schoch

The Robert Schoch Page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Schoch contains an unfair heading: "Fringe claims". This term is used to prejudice readers before they have a chance to review the evidence. In the "Response from academics" rubric, no actual contrarian evidence is given other than opinion statements. The reference to Robert Schneiker is in error. He is not an academic and he presents just another theory. The heading is therefore misleading readers into thinking this is a scientific theory, which it isn't. No experiment was conducted by Robert Schneiker. Robert Schoch on the other hand did perform measurements with Thomas Dobecki at the Sphinx, see reference 7 on the page.

What is needed here: 1) Replace "Fringe claims" with "Claims" 2) Replace "Response from academics" with "Response from critics" 3) List Robert Schoch's recent published papers which provide further, Egyptological evidence of an older Sphinx:

Seyfzadeh, M., Schoch, R. (2019). World’s First Known Written Word at Göbekli Tepe on T-Shaped Pillar 18 Means God. Archeological Discovery, Vol.7 No.2, PP. 31-53. Seyfzadeh, M., Schoch, R. (2018). The Inventory Stele: More Fact than Fiction. Archeological Discovery, Vol.6 No.2, PP. 103-161. Seyfzadeh, M., Schoch, R., Bauval, R. (2017). A New Interpretation of a Rare Old Kingdom Dual Title: The King’s Chief Librarian and Guardian of the Royal Archives of Mehit. Archeological Discovery, Vol.5 No.3, PP. 163-177. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.237.169 (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment. I agree with the point about "fringe" being used to prejudice readers, and on it not being justified by legitimate claims. It just seems to be a poorly-supported opinion by an editor. To the extent that Robert Schneiker is not an academic, I agree that "Response from academics" should be replaced by "Response from critics". Schneiker does NOT appear to be an academic. Googling him gives few results. In a YouTube about the Sphinx, he seems to be promoting theories based on his use of his own commercial software package. I do NOT support the inclusion of references from Archeological Discovery, out of concern that it might not meet the rigorous standards of WP:RS. Lou Sander (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Given the nature of the content, I have posted at WP:FTN asking for comment here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the subject is primarily notable for their support of a number of fringe theories. And there is no question that these are fringe theories see e.g. Sphinx water erosion hypothesis. It's quite likely that the article will reflect this in some way. This doesn't necessarily mean it should mention fringe in every instance but it's quite likely it will be mentioned somewhere in some form, perhaps even in the lead. (Whether the term fringe is used or the article simply says his theories are rejected by the larger scientific community.) Remembering of course this is a biography and not really a place to offer evidence for or against Schoch's theories. I personally think the Robert Schneiker thing should probably should go. Regardless of whether or not they are an academic, a talk of that form doesn't seem to be the sort of sourcing we should use even if this wasn't a BLP. Note however that there is no requirement that someone needs to personally perform experimentation. It's reasonably possible someone could publish an extremely well accepted, respect and cited paper in a prestigious peer reviewed journal based on analysing existing data. But that doesn't seem to be what we have here from the sourcing provided. Nil Einne (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

My assessment: the lead is a summary of the article's body's important points (WP:LEAD). WP:PSCI/WP:FRINGE policy requires that pseudoscience be indicated as such. The body includes reliably sourced material, not only that the ideas are fringe but also at least one that I see is directly about Schoch's papers and conclusions (so not a WP:SYNTH or editor inference issue). I don't personally see a problem. —PaleoNeonate – 07:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Response: Wikipedia is applying circuitous justification here. The same editor who is reverting attempts to delete fringe from Robert Schoch's page is also reverting it on the Water Erosion Hypothesis Page: Joe Roe. It is abundantly clear that personal bias is entering here. Fringe is not a term which should be applied to competing views in a scientific debate. The Khafre-Sphinx theory by Reisner/Hassan/Lehner/Hawass has been questioned for example by Stadelmann, Hartwig, and Dobrev, all Egyptologists no one in their right mind would label as "fringe". Yet this is what Wikipedia editors are saying here: If the model is not mainstream it's fringe. The Water Erosion Theory is based on physical evidence. If Wikipedia is not in the business of litigating positions, then Wikipedia ought not take sides and taint one position vis-a-vis another to manipulate reader response. That is exactly what Joe Roe is doing here. He is inserting himself into a debate of which he understands little or else he wouldn't allow the inaccuracies and omission on these pages I have listed on the fringe notifications board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.237.169 (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Meital Dohan

At Talk:Meital Dohan a user made some edit suggestions which they wanted to share. I am posting here to request any response to the request on that talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Alexander Temerko

This is not a dispute but simply a request for somebody to review the Alexander Temerko article for BLP issues. The subject is controversial enough and recent edits were extensive enough that a BLP review would be helpful. I'm not accusing anybody of doing anything, just suggesting a review, which I don't have time for myself. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Missing credits

Justine Bateman played a major roll in 2006 Mission Impossible III. She played Ethan's (Tom Cruise) girlfriend who was kidnapped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:741:8000:B840:51DD:E7A5:E74B:813A (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

That was Michelle Monaghan, not Bateman. --Masem (t) 18:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)