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.

Edward Kosner

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

---

There is disagreement whether to note Edward Kosner's religion (Judaism) in his article. It was added in August 2019 and removed in December 2019 by Coffee following an email request by Kosner at WP:OTRS. Kosner wrote about this experience in Commentary (magazine). There is a lot more background on both why it should and shouldn't be included which can be found on the talk page. At the moment no consensus about how to apply our BLP policy can be found at that talk page and at least a couple of us felt that this noticeboard might help us achieve consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• As I have stated at that talkpage, it is my opinion and experience, that ethnicity and religion are almost always noteworthy, both because they are usually mentioned in almost all in-depth coverage of people and because they are indeed important aspects of the lives of the subjects of the biographies themselves in their own eyes (and these two reasons are obviously logically connected). The same is true in this case: it is well-sourced that Edward Kosner is Jewish and that being Jewish is something that is important to him. Ergo, we should have it. Debresser (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

On a sidenote, which I nevertheless feel that needs to be added, I would like to say that the OTRS ticket and the magazine article are IMHO not worthy of consideration, as Wikipedia operates based on its own, community established, principles.

Another sidenote, which I am even more reluctant to add, but feel that must be taken into consideration, is that the removing editor, Coffee, has not so long ago been reported at WP:AN for mass removal of Jewish categories. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I also support inclusion in this case but think your link to the AN thread is not helpful; we're here to discuss content not conduct by particular editors. The issue there was the mass removal of such information not this removal (or any other individual removal). In fact a proposal to revert his changes did not have consensus. The close even noted the limited scope of AN in this matter. So AN has not weighed in on whether Kosner's page should or shouldn't have this article and it would be beyond the scope of that forum to do so in anycase. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

While a common underhanded tactic used in political campaigns, poisoning the well does not strengthen your argument here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• The evidence here is clear: Kosner was raised Jewish, but he does not wish to be publicly known as such. He finds the descriptor of "Jewish" to be regarding his religious background. So, our standard consensus that we not include such information unless the subject wishes to self-identify, in my view applies. It is verifiable that he is a non-observant Jew, but WP:ONUS specifically notates that not all verifiable information need be included in an article. On a BLP, I would think ONUS should apply more often than not. The fact that this discussion solely began because Kosner wrote an op-ed about how much he disagreed with the description's initial inclusion, brings forward ethical implications of our potential actions that I feel are being under-considered currently. (It wasn't a commentary in Commentary about how much he wants the world to know he's Jewish, it was quite the opposite.) While I understand the side of discussion that 'because we're an encyclopedia we should try to report as much data as we can', in this case I (the article subject, Jimbo Wales and several others) fail to see how this is truly relevant to Wikipedia's coverage of Kosner's life (especially when the article subject has implored us, in the highest degree, not to include it). I plead with those who participate in this discussion to consider not just whether this would be the most accurate thing for us to do, but also whether we find ourselves to be acting ethically (a standard that is oftentimes lacking here) when dealing with the effects our actions can have on our fellow living human beings. With sincerity and hope, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Kosner has seen fit to write about his Jewish identity in both his autobiography and again, after this very incident, in Commentary. There are verifiable facts that are not in the article and should not be in the article respecting Kosner's privacy. However, we have both Kosner himself, as well as reliable sources (WSJ and New York Times) noting this fact. It is my contention that our BLP policy does not say that Kosner can decide which places he's OK having the information (again in an autobiography and an influential journal) and which places he's not OK; if he'd changed his mind since his autobiography we could also respect that but Commentary makes clear that he hasn't changed his mind about publicly discussing this topic. We should, instead, characterize the facts as he does that he is a proud if non-observant Jew. These six words, if placed in the body, are not undue and self-identifies him exactly the way he wishes to be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  I do not believe an article subject writing an op-ed about how they were covered in Wikipedia, including a minor statement about how their actual religious beliefs are not important to their public life, rises to the threshold of notability so far that we have to include it (if anything, I continue to believe it furthers the notion that we should not). The most important facts of his life are already duly covered in his article. To me, this suggested addition simply does not appear to warrant inclusion. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  That his Jewish identity is mentioned in sources such as the New York Times, Wall St Journal, and his own autobiography, and that he's mentioned in three additional sources about prominent Jews in the media, all suggest to me that it is an important-enough detail to include in our biography of him, too. And those sources were all published long before the Commentary piece. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  We are WP:NOTNEWS. Everything that occurs in a minority of news coverage about a persons life (and it is the clear minority here, given how much of this man's life has been covered by reliable sources) does not need to be covered here. That is especially the case when it comes to religion. Kosner has stated clearly he considers the description to be of his religious affiliation, and so our clear consensus requiring self-identification of religion (regardless of how many sources state it) should stand (see WP:BLPCAT/WP:CAT/R). Kosner, in the Commentary piece, clearly and quite logically explains how his religious upbringing has not affected his notability. Using his statement that he does not wish his religion to be considered as part of his public life/notability, as some sort of loophole to that policy, is beyond the realms of how we should act here in my view... as is attempting to use him bringing up his upbringing as a form of self-identification of his current beliefs. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Those six sources are not "a minority of news coverage about a persons life". Two of them are from newspapers. One is his autobiography. One is an academic paper. The other two are books. So WP:NOTNEWS is WP:NOTAPPLICABLEHERE.

  Kosner's own view of what does and does not affect his notability is irrelevant. First, the standard for inclusion is set out in WP:V and WP:NPOV (significance); it's not "notability" (WP:N, which has nothing to do with this content dispute). Second, the BLP subject's views are not what dictate inclusion in the BLP.

  My entire argument has, throughout, been that the weight of reliable sources suggest inclusion, because they include it. You have, so far, over four months, brought zero sources forward. You just keep hammering away at what Edward Kosner wants. Who cares what Edward Kosner wants? That's not how we right an encyclopedia.

  At long last, Coffee, do you have any sources to share that suggest that "Jewish" is not a significant part of his biography? What biographies of Kosner or other sources should we be looking at besides "the six" and Commentary (all of which include "Jewish")? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  It's not just what Kosner wants that matters when it comes to discussing his religious beliefs, it matters what every article subject thinks when it comes to religion. What the BLP policy states on this is very clear: Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. ... These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and {{Infobox}} statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation... — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  BLP policy is 100% completely satisfied here because the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) when he wrote his autobiography years ago, and again this month when he wrote "a proud if non-observant Jew".

  Again: any sources that suggest "Jewish" is not important enough to include in this guy's biography? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, the one Kosner himself wrote here. If you also want me to list the myriad of sources from newspaper archives discussing this man's life that do not find his religion a relevant part of his notability, I will gladly do so. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Wha--seriously, you want me to ask you one more time? OK, fine. Yes, please share whatever sources you think support excluding "Jewish" from Edward Kosner. Links would be great if possible. Don't need them all; the best two or three or however-many would be fine. (It might be better to post them at the article talk page in addition to or instead of here.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  I'm way more than happy to do so, as I've already discovered a few dozen within the past few minutes. I will be listing them here once I've decided I've found enough (and have clipped them all so everyone here can read them without a newspapers.com subscription), since you've made this the locus of your dispute. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  OK great. But, I have not made this the locus of my dispute. I don't know why there's a need to make things so personal. It's not "my" dispute. This is a content dispute involving a lot of editors. Don't post things here, or there, because of anything I have said or done, OK? Just... help resolve the content dispute. Post whatever sources are helpful, not to prove something to me, but to educate all the editors who are participating in this discussion, so that we can all be informed, and we can all arrive at consensus. OK? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's just a quick selection of all of the newspapers covering this notable man (most are in-depth too), without once discussing his religious background (and this is not nearly all there is, I just require sleep and can't devote literally all of my time to this task): The Los Angeles Times - 2006 "A media memoir", The New York Times - 2003 "Editor of Daily News to Retire in March", The Herald-News (AP) - 1997 "Editor Kosner Leaving Esquire", Daily News - 1997 "Kosner Cashes In", Hartford Courant - 2002 "Pagnozzi", Rutland Daily Herald 2002 "Newpaper's undercover exploits raise ethics issues", The Los Angeles Times - 1979 "Editor of Newsweek Fired; Conflicts, Decisions Cited" part 1-part 2, Journal and Courier - 1975 "Time, Newsweek duplicate cover stories on rock star", The Brattleboro Reformer (AP) - 1999 "Mike Barnicle to Write for Sunday Daily News", The Honolulu Advertiser - 1979 "Editor of Newsweek Gets Walking Papers", Daily News - 1985 "Update", The Times Recorder (AP) - 1993, The Charlotte Observer - 1976 "Newsweek's New Editor After More Scoops", The San Francisco Examiner - 1980 "Time Keeps Marching On", The Ithaca Journal - 1975, Daily News - 2000 "Daily News circulation is on the rise", Austin American-Statesman - 1997 "Esquire's editor in chief leaving", Rutland Daily Herald - 1996 "Esquire Magazine Struggles to Find Role in the 1990s", Daily News - 1998 "Edward Kosner to edit Sunday News", The Los Angeles Times - 1998 "Magazines Feel Increased Pressure From Advertisers"...

And then there's these two, which are particularily interesting: 1. The Honolulu Advertiser - 1982 "Wrong color?" where Kosner is discussed regarding an issue of sending journalists to cover geographies that relate to ethinic backgrounds (specifically his choice to not send black reporters into Africa). While in it Kosner discusses sending Jewish reporters to Israel (without once mentioning he is Jewish), the reporter who wrote the article does not once bring up the fact that Kosner is Jewish (something one would think if it were a notable part of his life, would be worth noting in this case) 2. Daily News - 1989 "Publisher Kosner backs what Simon says" wherein Kosner specifically addresses the nature of anti-Semetic remarks made by drama critic John Simon, stating "There is no place for anti-Semitism, racism or anti-homosexual attitudes in New York magazine, and you won't find any there." Yet, the news article does not once mention that Kosner is himself Jewish. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Including every mention of him in the media doesn't persuade me. I looked at the first three and the two you highlighted and none are a biography of Kosner's life. Any that discuss his early life or personal life that don't mention he's Jewish? I wouldn't expect an announcement that he is leaving one employer to join another to include information about his identity, and I especially wouldn't expect the last two you highlighted to include that information. It's not like when an editor sends a reporter to Israel, they're going to mention that the editor is Jewish. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not "include every mention of him". But, that is besides the point. You asked for sources that covered Kosner without bringing up he is Jewish, there are a litany provided and even more I can provide. To now say none of those count because they aren't a "biography of his life" is a clear instance of moving the goalposts and simply not accurate. The very first LA times story you state you have read is titled "A media memoir", if a memoir isn't biographical I don't know what is. Regardless, all of those combined give a clear picture of his biographical tale and yet never mention his religious beliefs (or lack of such). In my view that is more than enough to show the weighting of sources do not cover Kosner in this way. So, I think at this point we will have to agree to disagree. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not move goalposts or ask for sources that covered Kosner without bringing up he is Jewish. I know better than to ask for something like that. Of course there are tons of sources that mention Kosner without bringing up he is Jewish–he was an editor at several major publications for decades, obviously there is going to be a ton of newspaper articles mentioning him, particularly surrounding his high-profile departures from various employers. Those aren't biographies. (And weren't you just saying NOTNEWS, yet all your sources are contemporaneous news reports...) I kinda figured you were going to WP:REFBOMB, which is why I specifically wrote, Don't need them all; the best two or three or however-many would be fine.

What I asked for was: ... do you have any sources to share that suggest that "Jewish" is not a significant part of his biography? What biographies of Kosner or other sources should we be looking at besides "the six" and Commentary ... please share whatever sources you think support excluding "Jewish" from Edward Kosner ... Post whatever sources are helpful ... Thank you for doing that, but if these sources are what you consider "biographies of Kosner", then yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. Note that the "A media memoir" article is not, despite its title, a memoir, nor a biography of Kosner. It's an interview with Kosner about Kosner writing his memoir, which does include some biographical details, but isn't what I'd call a biography (it doesn't mention his childhood or family at all, for example). Kosner's actual memoir – which I agree is a good source to look at – spends like 10 pages discussing his Jewish upbringing, and is one of "the six" sources supporting inclusion (now we're up to eight with recent publications). BTW, I noticed that none of the newspaper articles you posted were written after Kosner released his autobiography, which is another reason I don't find them as presuasive as more-recent sources ("the six eight"). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Something doesn't have to mention one's children or family to be considered a biographical source. If the only sources we permitted for BLPs discussed those facets, we'd have a lot less BLPs on this site altogether. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And it is worth mentioning I specifically asked you if "you also want me to list the myriad of sources from newspaper archives discussing this man's life that do not find his religion a relevant part of his notability, I will gladly do so". You directly and emphatically said "yes", without all these extra stipulations you're now adding. That is what I did, and this is where we are. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Copied from Talk:Edward Kosner as relevant here as well (diff):

  I very much agree with Coffee and Jimbo Wales on this. WP:ONUS states — and I quote — "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.". As Jimbo Wales has stated, I too have been concerned for some time with Sir Joseph's editing history on topics like this. This is further compounded by an apparent lack of understanding around the core site principle of consensus; Sir Joseph's insinuation that one (or two) editors is a strong consensus for inclusion of material that has already proven itself quite contentious is extremely troubling and disruptive, as his participation in a discussion that clearly falls under his topic ban: "Sir Joseph is topic-banned from the Holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed."

  --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  TheSandDoctor, how is this relevant here as well? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  I believe that is quite obvious. This discussion is about Edward Kosner's article including a descriptor of him being Jewish, the discussion where TheSandDoctor copied that from was the exact same topic. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  This quoted excerpt is about the conduct of an editor and doesn't seem relevant to the content dispute at issue. And what's a bit puzzling is that the editor at issue stopped participating in the discussion shortly after TSD posted the above quote on the article talk page, and yet a week later, TSD posts it again here. To what purpose? TSD already got what he wanted. This is unnecessary mudslinging. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know about the ethics of all this. I mean we're not talking about doxing or victim shaming here. If Kosner was notable for being Jewish, then the info should be in the article (regardless of OTRS, OpEd, or Jimmy's opinion). However, in this case I agree that his Jewishness (or degree thereof) is not tied to his notability, so it shouldn't be included. Ditch ∝ 03:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Ditch Fisher, we frequently include information that is not directly tied to their source of notability. For instance Laura Bush is not notable for having twins and yet we note it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Both twins you mention have their own Wikipedia articles, and, by the way, nowhere in the Laura Bush article does it give mention the religion/nationalism she was raised in. Regards. Ditch ∝ 05:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC) I am wrong, sorry. It's been a long 3 weeks. Ditch ∝ 05:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• In my opinion, Kosner gave up any claim to a right to object to his Jewish identity being discussed in his Wikipedia biography when he wrote his essay published recently in the Jewish intellectual journal Commentary where he talked at length about his Jewish identity, including several Jewish literary references in the article while simultaneously praising Coffee. Had Kosner not spoken up so openly, I would have no objection to leaving out the Jewish bit, but he has shifted the debate in favor of inclusion by his own actions. Four months ago, Coffee took Kosner's specific complaint, and set off on a bot-like campaign of erasure of hundreds of non-controversial entries on Jewish lists, removing, for example, many highly notable Jewish writers and poets from the appropriate lists rather than showing even a modicum of discretion or editorial judgment. It is not contentious to be a Jew, no matter what Kosner and Coffee claim, and bot-like tagging or untagging of Jews is not useful. Every such edit should be thoughtful and carefully considered. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Interestingly enough, there was no consensus to undo a single one of those removals. Some were added back with appropriate references, but that should have been done before those names were added to the lists to begin with (as WP:BLPCAT and WP:LISTPEOPLE clearly required). Suggesting we should state something in an article specifically because we know (from them publishing a commentary on the ordeal) that they don't want it in their article... that's bordering on retribution, and would appear to be because you didn't like what Kosner had to say (which clearly conflicted with your statements at the earlier AN thread). If it shouldn't have been in the article before Kosner spoke up "so openly", it shouldn't be in the article now. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  In the spirit of accuracy, TheSandDoctor, I never mentioned Kosner in the AN discussion and repeatedly said that each person should be individually evaluated using editorial judgment, rather than formulaic bot-like editing. I will continue to argue that it is not contentious to be Jewish until the day I die, and that Jewish identity is much broader than formal religious beliefs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  There was no consensus to mass-revert the removals. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Moving the goalposts still does not change the fact that at no time was there consensus against the removals that had already occured. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree, but anyone who wants to can read the thread and/or the closing statement and judge for themselves. There really isn't much point to arguing at BLPN about an AN thread from months ago. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree entirely it's not worth bringing up here, but I'm not the individuals who decided to bring it up. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It would certainly be seen as retribution by any entity external to Wikipedia. Kosner stated quite clearly how his religious beliefs are not a notable facet of his life. Even though Cullen has now agreed it wasn't necessary to include before, now that Kosner wrote a commentary that disagreed with Cullen's own assertions at AN (that being described as a Jew cannot be contentious) it somehow needs to be now included? Hogwash. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Cullen328, you can cast thinly veiled aspersions about my character all day if you must (I'm not one to run from bullets), but suggesting we should deliberately go against the wishes of an article subject merely because they opined publicly about their tiresome ordeal? That I am not remotely okay with. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• History of the content dispute – Some of the comments above are inaccurate with regards to the history of this content dispute. For the sake of a clear and (I think) complete record: the content at issue was added Aug 25, 2019 at 6:01, reverted by an IP with no edit summary at 6:02, and reinstated at 6:14. It was removed by Coffee, citing to an OTRS ticket, on Dec 18, 2019. The was the second of about 340 removals of "Jewish" from articles Dec. 18 – Jan 1. Those removals were discussed at an AN thread Dec 31 – Jan 15; the Edward Kosner article was mentioned in that thread. It was also mentioned (by me) at an AE thread Mar. 3 – 19. I shared six sources supporting inclusion of "Jewish" in Edward Kosner on Coffee's talk page on Mar 12. Kosner's Commentary piece about his OTRS ticket that Coffee handled was published about Apr 15 (archive). The content was added again, in different form, on Apr 17, along with a talk page discussion. It was removed Apr 21, readded, and removed again. Category:Jewish American journalists was added today (Apr 28) and removed. I hope we can solidify consensus on this content dispute. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm split on this. On the one hand, it isn't usually necessary to mention a person's religion in their BLP article. People have said "If X is a Roman Catholic/Protestant, it isn't usually mentioned." On the other hand, it is difficult for Wikipedia to ignore things that have been in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• It's obvious that attempts at persuasion will not lead to consensus -- so, I have started an RfC on the article talk page: [1]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I highly disagree that an RFC is needed to gain more participants to a discussion that already has many participants, and I doubt anyone can know what will come of any discussion that has only been allowed to transpire 12 hours before being ran to another forum. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
    • The "other forum" works out to be -- the article talk page! Good luck peddling the notion that this is forum-shopping... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
      • From the policy on forum shopping: Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It being on a talk page of the article does not absolve you of clear forum shopping. Disgraceful behavior on your part. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
        • So take it to ANI. Not sure why this is causing you such grief -- it's a good-faith attempt on my part to get a resolution to the dispute. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
          • Because 1. While here there were several discussion participants who had made themselves aware of the underlying issues, and a robust discussion between us was taking place, you've now created a second place everyone who has participated here will have to pay attention to if they want their voice included in the consensus. 2. I've still not slept because the ethics of this initial issue were disturbing me to no end. 3. You have attempted to state an RFC has to happen because you think it needs to, as if everyone participating here can't have made that decision up for themselves when the time was deemed necessary. 4. This is presenting unneeded stress to an already heated issue. - I will not be taking this to ANI, because I do not see a need for a third place to have this exact same discussion. If this is truly good-faith on your part, I implore you to suspend the RFC until this discussion thread concludes. There is no absolute urgency to have two discussions about the same issue right now. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
          • Launching an RfC was considered and instead I decided to come here. That might have been the wrong way to resolve this dispute but starting an RfC so soon after the discussion started here is definitely the wrong way in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
          • In a sense, launching an RFC did help bring about agreement... that launching the RFC was premature. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
            • Thanks to Rosguill who has closed the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Not controversial? With respect to this article, it seems beyond debate that there is controversy. Wikipedia's experience is that Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality tends to controversial. It seems hardly surprising that such text in articles would also lead to controversy. With respect to Jewish identity, such controversy seems to reflect the state of the world beyond Wikipedia, examples in no particular order (to begin with, notice all the question marks?):

• Who Is A Jew? What Is A Jew? 23 Rabbis Respond
• Who is a Jew?
• What are Jews?
• Jews: A religious group, people or race?
• Members of Whose Tribe?
• Judge rules that Judaism is not a race but Jewish people can be targeted for racism . . .
• Are Jews a Race? . . .
• What-does-it-mean-to-be-genetically-jewish
• Are Jews an ethnic minority?

-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

While "who is a Jew" might be a controversial question in theory, whether or not Kosner is Jewish is not controversial. Nobody controverts it. Nobody says Kosner is not Jewish (including Kosner himself). So his identity isn't controversial. What's controversial is whether it's DUE, but that doesn't make the underlying fact controversial. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The questions, who is a Jew, what are Jews, etc seem manifestly controversial, not just in theory. So, the concrete question 'What do we put in Kosner's article about Jewishness if anything?' also seems manifestly controversial. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That seems uncontroversial. But it probably isn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• The person can't have it both ways. They can't say at Commentary that they are proud to be a Jew but at the same time maintain the untenable position that Wikipedia should not say that they are Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Precisely. I find that argument decisive in this case. Cullen said the same above. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The individual is not articulating a stance similar to Feynman. The individual is articulating a stance approximately similar to 50% of American Jews—not observant but to varying degrees prideful. And of course we do delve into Feynman's relationship to Jewish identity even though his notability is not related to Jewishness. Bus stop (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Arb Break 1 (Kosner)

Hello all. Edward Kosner has, via OTRS, requested that the following be pasted in this section:

I find these discussions flabbergasting—the modern equivalent of the medieval scholastics arguing over how many angels would fit on a pinhead.

I understand that you are trying to adhere to your understanding of Wikipedia policy in this instance. The obvious problem is that Wikipedia standards for identifying religion are ambiguous and contradictory. Wikipedia seems to think that Jews are an ethnicity, like, say Armenians. Hitler had the same idea. But Jews come from many countries on the globe. Some look like Paul Newman and some Orthodox look like Old Testament prophets and some look like Nordic gods. Only a fraction of Jews speak Hebrew or Yiddish. Most speak the language of their home countries. For some Jews, religion is central to their identity; for others, it's an accident of birth irrelevant in any meaningful way to their experiences and careers.

This is the crux of the problem. Wikipedia does not as a rule identify notables as Roman Catholic, Buddhist, Baptist, atheist or agnostic in entries unless their religion or lack of religion is genuinely relevant to their careers. Roman Catholics are black, white, yellow, brown and mixed. Somehow, it is understood at Wikipedia they they are members of a religion, not an ethnicity. The same goes, to a lesser extent, for Methodists, Baptists and other Protestant denominations. Most Episcopalians are white. But in New York City, most are African-American. Why should Wikipedia—inconsistently—identify Jews? The answer is because some Wikipedians consider Judaism as a nationality or ethnicity. I am an American journalist and editor. I am not a Jewish-American journalist and editor. Wouldn’t it look odd if one of your Jew-tagging editors identified me as a Jewish-American journaist? If I were an Israeli-American journalist and editor, that would be a valid description. But I’m not—I’m all-American and my religion or lack of it is irrelevant to my career. You don’t have to be... Einstein to get the distinction here.

Your colleagues have spent a lot of time hunting down references to my religion, many of which I’ve been unaware of until now because they are so obscure. Both the New York Times and the Wall St. Journal reviews of my memoir were published fourteen years ago, and are, to my knowledge, the only such references in mainstream media. This is clear evidence of how little my faith has mattered in my experience and career. I also get a whiff of vindictiveness in some of the talk-page comments—we’ll show this smart-ass who’s in charge of Wikipedia! Or am I being over-sensitive? Need I remind you that the trigger for retagging me was the publication of my Commentary article examining the peculiar Wikipedia policy of inconsistent Jew-tagging? This is a Kafkaesque interpretation: I am eligible to be Jew-tagged because I self-identified as Jewish in an article about my being Jew-tagged!

I fear I’m going to have to have a big fat paragraph or more about this issue, my Commentary piece, and the response in Wikipedia appended to my entry. This should satisfy those of your colleagues who insist on identifying me as Jewish—and it will inform readers of the entry about some of the complexities and contradictions of Wikipedia.

For those who have access to the OTRS sytem, the relevant ticket is ticket:2020042910010551. I hold no view on the subject of this comment or the validity of the claims therein. Regards, Vermont (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious about the term "Jew-tagging". Could the person writing the above tell us about that choice of wording? Some people are Jews. Some encyclopedia articles say that some people are Jews. What is the impetus for calling that "Jew-tagging"? I'm interested to know if the writer of the above finds that choice of wording defensible? Isn't that choice of wording a little bit slangy? Bus stop (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Kosner seeks to frame this matter around the phrase "Jew-tagging", but we might say instead that this is really about "Jew-scraping" Wikipedia. Why is that any less contentious or malevolent? StonyBrook (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

StonyBrook—the salient point is that his comments including references to "Jew-tagging" pertain to Wikipedia in general. If he wanted to get the word "Jewish" out of his article the way to accomplish that is straightforward. He could simply distance himself from that identity by for instance saying "I don't consider myself Jewish"—or anything approximating that. I've asked others to articulate the basis for removing this information. I think I detect a disinclination to have such a conversation. Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What would be more helpful from Ed Kosner is sharing with us what he thinks are the three best biographies of him that we should use as sources for this article. The NYT and WSJ pieces might be 14 years old, but they're the most recent that I can find. His autobiography is also 14 years old, but those three are the best three available AFAIK. The sources posted by Coffee above are as old or older. If there are newer or better sources, we all want to know about them, they will help settle this dispute. BTW, someone should tell Kosner he needn't communicate through OTRS; it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit; he is welcome to join here directly (subject to WP:COI procedures). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If you'll pardon my bluntness: quite frankly, I don't give a wooden nickel about what Mr. Kosner thinks. Having said that, however, I find that this is certainly a strange conundrum we're in: could we not simply that "Kosner has written about his conception of his identity in Commentary," and be done with it? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it is Wikipedia BLP policy: "Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

True, though on the other hand it's tough to show kindness to someone who calls you an anti-Semitic Jew-tagger, repeatedly, in public. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If we might set aside my cantankerousness (which is due to my being sleep-deprived), I fear we're missing the more substantive point of my earlier comment: couldn't this be resolved with a sentence about Kosner and his conception of identity, and leave it at that? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Javert2113—you said could we not simply that "Kosner has written about his conception of his identity in Commentary," and be done with it? That should be "Kosner has written about his conception of his Jewish identity in Commentary", shouldn't it? Why omit the word "Jewish"? Bus stop (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You are indeed correct; I should have been more clear in my original statement, and I'd like to plead exhaustion, but it was actually a deliberate omission in a misguided attempt to forge a poor compromise. Sorry. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Nary a problem. Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

My concern with that approach is that he doesn't really say much about his conception of his identity in the Commentary piece; I think he says more in the email to OTRS above, but that's unpublished and thus uncitable; I also think he says more about it in his autobiography. Also, when it comes to what's WP:DUE, it's not up to the subject, it's up to the sources. In this case, the subject is a source, but only one source. As counterintuitive as this may sound, I don't think we have much of a decision to make about whether or how to include this content. I think the decision we have is what are the leading sources. Once we identify those, following the sources is easy: we include it if they include it, and we include how they include it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that approach. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To be fair to Kosner, I think in his Commentary piece he suggested that 'jew-tagging' could also be the result of working to claim an article subject, not for anti-Semitism too, like 'see all the greats who are'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

But they are writing "I fear I’m going to have to have a big fat paragraph or more about this issue". So why not keep it simple: he is Jewish. That is all that needs to be said. 50% of American Jews are nonobservant but proud of being Jews (approximately). I don't see how this situation pertaining to this individual is special in any way. The issue raised is about so-called Wikipedia Jew-tagging. I am not sure but that may be a separate issue from the subject's individual article. Bus stop (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

But he seems to say Jewish is a religion to him, so his phrase 'non-observant Jew' would just reinforce how little it matters. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"Religion" or "religious" is mentioned 18 times in the Commentary magazine article so I'm not sure which occurrence you are referring to. The reference that I have in mind is "I'm a proud if non-observant Jew, but my religious origin had never been mentioned in the many articles that have been written about me over the years." I could ask you a simple question: what is the object of the referred-to pride? Of course it is Jewish identity. Bus stop (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

He explicitly says he views it as a religious origin, not an identity, a religion he does not observe. One can take pride in being non-observant and not be ashamed of something that's not an identity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker—I'm struggling to understand what you are saying but not making any headway. The first thing you have to understand is what an "ethnic Jew" is. You say "And saying that someone is a proud ethnic Jew, makes no sense when they don't view it as ethnic to begin with." Even out of context, words and phrases have a degree of intrinsic meaning. An "ethnic Jew" is a person who is Jewish by dint of birth. This is in contrast to a person who is Jewish by dint of conversion. Such a person is not ethnically Jewish. They are Jewish nevertheless. They are Jewish by dint of having converted to Judaism. The terminology "ethnic Jew" does not at all equate to the terminology "nonobservant Jew" though our Who is a Jew? article states otherwise without a citation. Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Your struggle is not with me, you are struggling against the subject of this article. His points include the rather well established concept that claimed ethnicity for someone else that he and others cannot even see as one ethnicity, so it's not an ethnicity at all, is bound to present problems for that person. Then too, arguing with him about his identity, makes this whole thing exceedingly fraught with personal controversy. Do you or anyone else really want an argument about your personal identity. He says it's religious origin, he objects to it being ethnicity, he says it does not matter. None of that hardly seems unfathomable, especially when actually trying to understand someone else. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

My "struggle" cannot be "against the subject of this article". The subject of the article is one voice among many and all participants including the subject of the article require support in reliable sources for all assertions under consideration for inclusion in the article or even for the omission of this area of material from the article. This isn't formless palaver. The question is always: what do the sources say? On that we will make our decision as to whether to include or not and if to include, in what language? Bus stop (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is an important discussion and controversy that Mr. Kosner, through his OTRS ticket and Commentary article (and Coffee's subsequent interventions) might finally help solve. It has a lot more to do than just the simple horse-trading over policies and sources. Much of the underlying issues boil down to perception and opinion. Mr. Kosner himself has portrayed this debate as one about whether being called Jewish means as part of a religious group or as an ethnicity. He stated his opinion that the ethnicity option is incorrect, on two counts: one, because Hitler considered the Jews an ethnicity, a nation within a nation so to speak, that therefore had to be opposed from a nationalist point of view. This is a cogent observation, because it has been at the heart of much Jewish suffering over two millennia of exile. Secondly, Mr. Kosner points out that Jews couldn't be an ethnicity because some are fair, some look Middle-Eastern etc. I believe that it is not about one or the other (religion vs. ethnicity), but really a little bit of both. Yes, I am one of those Wikipedia editors that Mr. Kosner says believes Jews are an ethnicity, and that in turn, a minority of those Jews are also religious. There is a Jewish look too, and I believe that Mr. Kosner has it. As far as there being "Nordic-looking" Jews or whatever, they will either intermarry with gentiles and have Jewishness disappear from their descendants entirely, or otherwise intermingle with other Jews, with their descendants eventually acquiring that look. As Mr. Kosner himself tells it, he stumbled upon his Wikipedia article one day and 'discovered' that he is Jewish. What this probably means is, like many other Jewish people before him throughout history, he had been spending his entire life trying to escape his Jewish identity, only to have Wikipedia (or whomever else, it doesn't really matter) remind him of it. For the record, I believe we should mention that Mr. Kosner is a proud (ethnic) but unpracticing (religious) Jew; as Cullen and others have stated, there is nothing shameful about Jewishnes; not only is it valid biographical information, much the same as when we state that so-and-so American writer has Lithuanian heritage, I believe it is simply wrong on a deeper level for any famous or infamous person to try to deny or cover up from whence they came, and with it the influence that that background inevitably played in making them who they are. I don't think it is fair for Mr. Kosner to characterize this as being about how Wikipedia editors will "show this smart ass who's in charge". Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, whether it is about Jewishness or criminal convictions (no, those two aren't the same), and, per Wikipedia policy, none of it can be censored. As far as advice on how to Jewishly disappear from Wikipedia, I agree with Mr. Kosner that the absolute wrong way to go about it is writing about it in a highly visible magazine. StonyBrook (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Especially a highly visible Jewish magazine like Commentary. Kosner is certainly entitled to his opinion that being Jewish is a religious identity but not an ethnic one. However, that does not jibe with his statement he considers himself proudly Jewish despite not observing religious rituals. Scholars of ethnicity certainly recognize a Jewish ethnic group broad enough to encompass Ethiopian Jews, Mexican Jews, Yemeni Jews, Argentinian Jews, British Jews, Iranian Jews, Moroccan Jews, Turkish Jews as well as all the varieties of Israeli Jews and the Ashkenazi American Jews who speak several dialects of Hebrew and Yiddish, and love bagels and lox and falafel and hummus, and all those people interact mostly happily as part of their shared Jewish identity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Let us just bear in mind that you could be mistaken when you say "What this probably means is, like many other Jewish people before him throughout history, he had been spending his entire life trying to escape his Jewish identity, only to have Wikipedia (or whomever else, it doesn't really matter) remind him of it." Unless they say this it should not be accepted. Bus stop (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That is why I said "probably". I don't know anything of Mr. Kosner except what he himself has written on this subject; using a little "Talmudic" logic, I think that some of that might lead a person to this conclusion, that's all. StonyBrook (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think they are mistaken when they say above "The answer is because some Wikipedians consider Judaism as a nationality or ethnicity." They don't know Wikipedia. I regard "Jewish" as an identity. There are implications to words. "Judaism" tends to evoke religious practice. There are "religious" Jews and "nonobservant" Jews. Except in articles devoted to this purpose, context tells us the implications of words and phrases. There is too much hangup on pigeonholing "Jewish" into "ethnicity" and "religion". Anything can be further subdivided but simply pointing out that someone is "Jewish" goes a moderate distance in shedding some light on that person's identity. If they didn't identify as a Jew their way to articulate that is simple. They can say "I don't consider myself a Jew." But this is at odds with "I'm a proud if non-observant Jew". Bus stop (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There is another point to be made here: If Mr. Kosner is stating that he is a proud Jew, what could possibly be the hangup with having his background mentioned here? I don't believe that it has much to do with possibly being confused with a religious person; I do fear it has more to do with the all-too-familiar refrain that the Jews control the media. If my suspicion is correct, it puts Mr. Kosner's problem with Wikipedia in a clearer light, meaning he might be uncomfortable with possibly having this canard being bolstered through him. Maybe admirable in some respects, but as I've said above, I concur with those above who assert that being Jewish is not a liability. Jews don't control Wikipedia either. StonyBrook (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In no way would he have to be suspiciously ashamed of his religious origin. To him at 82, it's a distant religious origin, one that he does not observe, perhaps almost never observed, and according to him has nothing to do with his life's work. And saying that someone is a proud ethnic Jew, makes no sense when they don't view it as ethnic to begin with. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

All this is so strange to me. His parents were Jewish, he was bar mitzvahed, he was married by a rabbi in a synagogue (I think multiple times), he writes in a Jewish magazine that he's a proud Jew, yet he's going to great lengths to keep this word out of his WP biography. I wonder if he asked the Times and Journal for a retraction when they wrote that he was Jewish? Did he threaten to cancel his subscription? Or is this special treatment just for Wikipedia? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Life is strange and living people are regularly unwilling to be boxed. Regardless, when I examine his underlying assumptions and arguments in good faith, I find it within normal human reason. (Just one example, if an NYT reviewer says about me something like 'ham eating Jew', one reasonable reaction is 'WTF does that mean, it means nothing, nothing but snark').-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"WTF does that mean" might be a reasonable reaction to "ham eating Jew" for some, but not in this case, not for Kosner. "Ham-eating Jew" is a reference to a Jew who doesn't keep kosher (pork is forbidden). It is a way of saying "a non-observant Jew", or at least a Jew who is not so devout as to keep kosher. One might think this was some kind of slur, or at least criticism–i.e. a "ham eating Jew" is not a real Jew–but actually it's not. Most Jews don't keep kosher; I am also a ham-eating Jew. It's not really the most polite phraseology–I wouldn't suggest we write that in the encyclopedia–but it's not a criticism or an attack, as Kosner seems to suggest. Here's what he wrote in the Commentary piece about it:

The reviewer called me a “ham-eating Jew” because I’d mentioned that my American-born and fiercely assimilationist mother had occasionally served us a slab of grilled ham from Safeway topped with a slice of pineapple—that midcentury delicacy “Ham Steak Hawaiian.”

But that's not really truthful. For one thing, he didn't write in his autobiography that his mother "occasionally" served ham, the word he used was "often". More importantly, it was Kosner himself who used the "ham eating" to illustrate his and his family's Jewish identity. Here's what he wrote in his autobiography about it, starting at p. 17:

Like other assimilating second-generation American Jews, my parents were observant in the most idiosyncratic way. My mother lit the Sabbath candles and patronized Shulman, the cranky lobster butcher, but often served ham steak Hawaiian from Safeway.

The autobiography goes on for several pages from there, describing in some detail his Jewish upbringing and his parents' Jewish identity. Kosner himself is using ham eating to show that they didn't keep kosher. I'm not sure why he objects to the NYT review echoing his own words, or why he objects to "Jewish" being mentioned at all in his Wikipedia biography. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That would appear to be because, as Kosner stated directly above, "I’m all-American and my religion or lack of it is irrelevant to my career.". — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

But we know that we include material that is relevant to a subject's life, not just to a subject's career. Wouldn't that be why we delve into Feynman's distancing himself from Jewish identity? Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If it's not relevant, then why did he write about it for pages and pages in his autobiography? Why did the NYT and WSJ mention it? It doesn't matter if it's relevant to his career, because we're not writing a LinkedIn page or a resume; we're writing a biography. It is relevant to his biography; that's why he wrote about it in his autobiography, and why we should mention it in ours. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I take from this line of Kosner's above "For some Jews, religion is central to their identity; for others, it's an accident of birth irrelevant in any meaningful way to their experiences and careers" and this line "This is clear evidence of how little my faith has mattered in my experience and career" that he also finds his religion (or lack of such) irrelevant to his life, including and excluding his career. Talking about how one was raised in a religion in his autobiography, doesn't mean he has to be identified by what his parents believed in his Wikipedia entry. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

His email to OTRS is not a source that we can cite. It doesn't matter if the subject thinks it's important or not. We are not writing an article entitled "What Ed Kosner Thinks About Stuff". It matters what the reliable sources say. In all things. I think you continue to place way too much importance on the subjects own views and desires. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

We cannot insist that he experience these things the way we do, and therefore find him not understandable. It seems almost impossible he would be the only person to go through religious ceremony in youth or later life or not participate in cultural practice (of the something that has somewhere to do with religious food law) and not see it as just religious, of no personal import. But even if he were, when you see something is of no import, it doesn't mean it is relevant. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

He described himself as a proud Jew in public, so this isn't a case where someone was raised Jewish but renounces their Jewish identity later in life. This is not, and never was, about whether or not Kosner is "Jewish". He is Jewish, even he himself says he is Jewish (a proud if non observant Jew). The question is whether this should be mentioned in his WP article. He thinks that, although he is Jewish, that shouldn't be mentioned. But he's not saying "I'm not Jewish anymore" or anything like that. He says the opposite. And personally I don't understand how one can say "I'm a proud Jew but don't mention that in my biography because it's irrelevant." Huh? Seems totally contradictory to me. I can't square "proud but irrelevant" in my head. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

At present the article does not contain any reference to the subject being Jewish. Is anyone opposed to this version which simply says "Kosner, who is Jewish, was born in New York City, the son of Sidney Kosner, a salesman for a men’s and boy’s outerwear manufacturer, and Annalee Fisher Kosner, a housewife" and it includes the person in Category:Jewish American journalists. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It would seem there are several of us who are clearly opposed to that here and at other pages discussing this (myself, Kosner, TheSandDoctor, Jimbo Wales, Govindaharihari, Ditch Fisher, Alanscottwalker and Masem, yet also several in favor (yourself, Levivich, Barkeep49, Debresser, Hemiauchenia, StonyBrook and Cullen328), one person who is essentially undecided (Ianmacm), and one person who has expressed takes on both sides (Gråbergs Gråa Sång). If I'm leaving anyone out, feel free to mention them. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't checked myself but assuming that list is complete, and not counting Jimbo or Kosner, and counting wally below, I think that's a 7-7 split, assuming all arguments given equal weight. Shall we now discuss a neutral RFC question? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There's Zaereth who also just lent their opinion, and I don't think it neccesairly fair to discount Jimbo (although I get the community's penchant for not listening to him, in this case I think his arguments had decent weight as well). However, I would propose that whomever closes this thread recommend whether an RFC should be the next step. If it is decided that is the most reasonable step to go with, the RFC should sum up all of the discussion here and should neutrally present the question in the same way Barkeep49 did when he opened this thread. Either way, we should definitely wait until conversation stops here before moving to the next step - (48 hours after no comments have been made, perhaps) - but I would highly recommend we get an uninvolved admin to close this at that time before we move forward... for the sake of ensuring fairness. Does that sound reasonable to everyone? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm agreeable to that. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hi. I should just post that I am still , as previously stated and for the same reasons opposed to this detail being included. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Govindaharihari here. I admit that I don't have nearly enough time to read through this entire discussion, but what I mainly see here are a lot of inferences being made based upon vague implications. We're basically drawing conclusions about this person's private life based on passing statements, hints, and outwardly conflicting comments. If anything is included it should probably be a direct quote, but then again, how do we choose. If we even have to argue about it, then it seems apparent that how he identifies himself is unclear. Personally, I see it as none of my business, so I think leaving it out is likely best. Zaereth (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No there are no inferences or vague implications. We have seven sources explicitly and directly stating he is Jewish. They are on the article talk page. The autobiography spends I think 10+ pages on it; nothing vague about that. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Coffee (and Govindaharihari too)—I would be interested in seeing reliably-sourced reasons for not including that he is Jewish as well as reliably-sourced reasons for not including him in the "Category" of Jewish American journalists. Can you present such sources? Consensus as you know is not just voting. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I've already done that at length above (and on Kosner's talk page), and do not find it necessary to repeat myself. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think we should be very careful with adding religious identity and other similar personal information such as ethnicity to articles, and I do not think the sources show that Jewish identity is important to Kosner's notability. I also do not think we should use autobiographies or other articles about oneself to include information when the individual specifically objects, especially the recent article in Commentary where he is only discussing the information to point out a problem with its inclusion. I think that gets too close to punishing someone for speaking up about potential problems with Wikipedia. The autobiography would be more relevant, but I am still generally opposed to including information written about oneself that one has expressed they do not want included in encyclopedic biographies about themselves when is not significant to why they are notable. I am not sure how that plays out with the balance of the other sources, but they seem to largely be passing mentions or inclusions on lists, which I do not find very persuasive for establishing significance for inclusion. If his Jewish identity is eventually included, I think it needs to have a disclosure that he is "non-observant" and also include something about his statements regarding its inclusion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that he is Jewish does not need to add to his notability in order to be included in the article. Once a subject is notable, we write all kinds of things about them, basically anything that there is not specific reason to leave out. So if he is Jewish, we can have it. And since he has stated that being Jewish is important for him, how can we leave this out? Debresser (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the subject doesn't want it in the article is irrelevant since he used the occasion of his request to have it removed to write about just how important the very fact he wanted removed is in a reliable source. So we give him what he wants...does he then write another editorial on how he manipulated our contents? This is folly. John from Idegon (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I wrote this before but after the last comment I will write it again. we added it and he didn't like it, complained about it to us and then and wrote that he didn't like it, so we can include it, that doesn't seem to me to be a great way to include content in regard to living people. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he "complained about it", but on what basis, Govindaharihari? Subjects of biographies don't write articles about themselves. Editors in general write articles, and assertions are based on reliable sources. Mere complaint should not carry the day. The assertion that he is Jewish was reliably sourced long before the Commentary magazine article. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to agree that people are too focused on religion or ethnicity even when it does not contribute to notability. These include reliable sources. This sort of information is traditional in a biography, but we have editorial discretion not to include that. The arguments for ignoring his wishes can be reduced to "Well, you're a Jew. We have plenty of people that say so, even you. Deal with it". If he says he doesn't want to be labeled as a Jew in terms of ethnicity or religion, then we should respect that. We shouldn't be trying to parse his words otherwise, and we shouldn't use the Commentary article as some kind of gotcha justification to retain this information. We may not see the "Jew tagging" as a perjorative, diminishing his career, or putting a target on his back but he does and that is a type of harm. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  Two thumbs up for this. I couldn't have said it better. Zaereth (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, Zaereth, this version of the article is not "in terms of ethnicity or religion". It says "Kosner, who is Jewish, was born in New York City, the son of Sidney Kosner, a salesman for a men’s and boy’s outerwear manufacturer, and Annalee Fisher Kosner, a housewife." Bus stop (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, so? I was trying to cover the bases of why he objects to the label. However he reads it, he doesn't like it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts—you are saying "If he says he doesn't want to be labeled as a Jew in terms of ethnicity or religion, then we should respect that". But we are not saying that he was born Jewish or that he is religious. Again this is what the article said "Kosner, who is Jewish, was born in New York City, the son of Sidney Kosner, a salesman for a men’s and boy’s outerwear manufacturer, and Annalee Fisher Kosner, a housewife." That wording does not explicitly or implicitly say that he was born Jewish. And that wording does not explicitly or implicitly say that he is religious. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter if we're explicit in defining Jews as a race or religion when we label someone as a Jew. Enough with the parsing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts—in this version we are not "defining Jews as a race or religion". It reads "Kosner, who is Jewish, was born in New York City, the son of Sidney Kosner, a salesman for a men’s and boy’s outerwear manufacturer, and Annalee Fisher Kosner, a housewife." Bus stop (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:DUCKSEASON: "However he reads it, he doesn't like it." Words have meaning. What you see as not implying anything can be perceived as a microagression because of people's implicit biases. You are focusing on the wrong thing. See WP:RACIALISM. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the ambiguous wording is significantly worse than stating that he describes himself as a non-observant Jew. We should respect BLP's preference for how they want to be religiously defined. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts I liked the "Well, you're a Jew. We have plenty of people that say so, even you. Deal with it" part! True, that is how Wikipedia works. It is sourced, we'll have it.

@Govindaharihari Precisely! That is precisely how it works. It may not seem a great way, but it is the only way to be a good encyclopedia. Disregard the wishes of the subjects of your articles, and just tell your readers the truth. Put this way, it sounds even better to me... Debresser (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Naw.WP:VNOTSUFFWP:NOTBUREAUCRACY It doesn't improve the encyclopedia here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Disregarding your clear misinterpretation of what Morbidthoughts and Govindaharihari said, we have a long-standing consensus to consider article subject's wishes. WP:BLPREQUESTDEL even says that we can delete entire articles from the site (amazingly enough, even if there are reliable sources stating their existence), at the behest of article subjects (given certain conditions). We've listened to those wishes a myriad times, and have not somehow decreseased our encyclopedic integrity. Your suggestion that we should treat an article subject with such disrespect - that you think it is okay to tell them to essentially screw themselves and we'll do whatever we want without care for the impact it may have on their lives - simply flies in the face of how we're supposed to handle BLPs. It is indeed not how Wikipedia works. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not what BLPREQDEL says. It applies very narrowly, to "relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus". I agree with Debresser, how Wikipedia works is that we write an encyclopedia by summarizing reliable sources. The wishes of biography subjects are, and should continue to be, irrelevant. We are not a vanity press. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I second what Morbidthoughts said as well, WP:VNOTSUFF and WP:NOTBURO are encyclopedic standards that are highly applicable here. They literally permit us to not cover everything in our articles just because it happens to be verifiable. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Coffee—there is nothing shameful about being Jewish and we are not limited to only that material that has bearing on his career. As I've asked you before please articulate with reference to reliable sources why it is your opinion that this material should be omitted from this article. Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, reliable sources are not needed to show why something shouldn't be included. Reliable sources are the onus for inclusion, but information being included in reliable sources is not the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia, and less so for BLPs. Unless content is simply unsourced, discussion about exclusion is more often about reasoned discussion and consideration of other factors, and it certainly is when it comes to BLP policies, where we do consider living person's opinions, especially for personal topics like religion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, who has said anything about Kosner being ashamed? I don't think anyone has made that argument as a reason for exclusion. Privacy is not only an issue of shame. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert—please provide one or more reliable sources in support of your argument that this material should be removed from this article. Bus stop (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, that is not how Wikipedia policies work. They are based on discussion between editors. Please see my above comment if you still do not understand. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Aren't you conceding that you don't have any sources to support your argument? Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Your argument is a fallacious one. You can't prove a negative. Zaereth (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't "I don't consider myself a Jew" be a "negative", Zaereth? Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert—correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like you are conceding that you have no source asserting that Kosner might not be Jewish. On what basis should we remove this material? Has anyone, including the subject himself, suggested that Kosner might not be Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey man, have you stopped beating your wife yet? You're ignoring WP:ONUS by insisting the lithmus for inclusion is verification. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

And my answer to your question to me is, no. For example, a person can find all kinds of proof that God, or the Higgs boson, or whatever you believe in exists. You'll never be able to produce a single ounce of proof that they don't. You can prove a man's guilt, but he can't prove his innocence by lack of evidence. Lack of evidence is not proof. Zaereth (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, no one is disputing that he is Jewish. The issue is whether the content is appropriate or significant enough to include. That is a decision that is made between editors based on our policies, and a reliable source wouldn't be able to prove the content wasn't significant enough to include. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert—please present your argument in support of omitting the information. Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, I have already done that here. You should refer to that: [2]. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Subjects of articles don't control the content of their biographies, Wallyfromdilbert. Reliable sources play a large role in determining content. Wikipedia should reflect sources. This isn't about your opinions on topics—"I think we should be very careful with adding religious identity and other similar personal information such as ethnicity to articles". We are not in the role of dictating to the world the proper or recommended way to cover a topic. It would be more correct to say that reliable sources are in the role of dictating to us how a topic should be covered. Wikipedia isn't censored. I know that you know that. But you sound like you are imposing your opinions on an uncensored project under the guise of filtering out some material that you feel would be improper for inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't simply include anything because it is published in a reliable source. We use our editorial discretion based on our reasons and established policies. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I want to say we are dealing with two different problems here that as a net result, a conservative approach would be leave out these details in ethnicity and religion unless they are a central facet to the person's notability or importance. Not just oft-repeated.

  Point one is the "Jewish" confusion between the religion and the ethnicity which has been a long-standing problem on WP. (I think the last big issue came up around Bernie Sanders around last election cycle). I am neither by-ethnic nor by-faith Jewish but I know there's so many different levels of subtlity involved in there based on past WP discussions that its almost a problem we want to avoid unless for the BLP or topic that has BLP connotations it is essential to discuss, and when that comes up, we want to be using what the BLP has said themselves avoid the accidental implications, in the case that "Jewish" may give.

  The second point is that are some ethnicities and religions that gain undue attention for better or worse. There are editors who I am sure that they are a proud person of ethnic/religion X and would love to make sure that BLPs of X are highlighted when they can be identified; that's human nature. I also do believe that there's a far rarer set of editors that are a bit more malicious that would like to call out certain ethnics or religions (something akin to calling out people aligned with the old Nazi Germany state). Either way, this leads editors to focus on trying to prove these details out, and that might lead to poor source choices, or digging beyond what we'd want them to.

• For a combination of these reasons, I'd rather us not include either ethnicity or religion unless you cannot talk about the person without that being core to their importance. --Masem (t) 00:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

But that is exactly the point; ethnic or national backgrounds make up the core of every person who has an article here. It tells us a lot about them, and we are seeking knowledge here after all. And a person cannot deny their upbringing as surely as a leopard cannot hide its spots. StonyBrook (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What are the policies or guidelines that necessitates this background information for a "good" biography? Closest thing I can find is MOS:ETHNICITY, and even then it tells us not to emphasise ethnicity or religion if it's not pertinent to their notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mostly, I think this is one of those cases where more than a little editorial judgment is required. In sensitive cases such as this, I would usually lean hard toward respecting the subject's own wishes. Ethnicity is really a very subjective matter; almost as much as religion. Go back 30 generations and you can count millions of people that you can call great, great grandparents. We're all a little bit of everything. But in the case where the subject specifically requests not to be labeled anything, then I would want to honor that request out of basic human kindness. It doesn't seem to me to alter the person he is one way or the other. You can't possibly write a policy for every possible situation, nor would it be a good idea. Guidelines are just that, guides to use our editorial judgment wisely.Zaereth (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth—this isn't the forum for you to wax eloquent about "grandparents", "generations" and "kindness". Perhaps a User Talk page would be a more suitable place. Bus stop (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Dude, WP:Battleground. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth a fair point about people being a little bit of everything, but we are talking here about a full-fledged Jewish person by all accounts. StonyBrook (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It also might be worthwhile to review the discussion around the removal of the religion field from the infobox, there's a lot of overlap there. --Masem (t) 02:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts MOS:ETHNICITY only says to keep ethnicity out of the lead section, not the article body itself. StonyBrook (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

... and nowhere does it say it's necessary to a good biography if known. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"Necessary" isn't the applicable standard. If we reduced the biography to just what was "necessary", it would be a stub, or perhaps not exist at all. Better questions are: does it improve the reader's understanding of the subject? Is the reader's understanding incomplete without it? I'm hard pressed to imagine a biography that doesn't discuss the person's childhood and family. To me, if a person was raised in a particular religious or cultural or ethnic or whatever tradition, that's important information for a biography of the person. You wouldn't have a complete understanding of the biography subject if you didn't know that they went to church every Sunday, or temple, or not, or that they were bar mitvahed or Christened or baptized or similar. That might not be an important part of someone's career, but it is an important part of someone's life, and a biography (unlike a resume) is about a person's life, not just their career. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We do have standards for determining good articles, that states good articles should stay "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Kosner has repeatedly said this part of his life is not important, and this back and forth about necessary and important falls under WP:ITSIMPORTANT. From reading his objections and the excerpts of his autobiography that you provided, he is concerned that being labeled Jewish or raised in a Jewish family[3] would feed into implicit stereotypes and invalidate his life and work, and your comments about "complete understanding" makes his concerns valid. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure which GAR criteria, or other WP policy/guideline, says that we should exclude that which the subject thinks is unimportant. You'll also have to explain that last part to me about my comment validating his concerns. You don't think someone's childhood, family, or cultural background are important parts of their biography? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Read up on microinvalidation: "communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person belonging to a particular group" You are arguing that background information like ethnicity or religion gives us insight into the person (how so?) when the subject says it doesn't. This is classic microinvalidation. I don't believe childhood, family, or cultural background is important for EVERY biography, and no standard or guideline mandates them. In fact, MOS:IDENTITY warns us not to label people carelessly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Believing that a person's cultural background is an important part of their biography is not a microaggression or anything like that. Disagreement is not invalidation. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It is microagression to impose a label onto Posner and his family that he says doesn't apply. Your attempt to reframe this as a general best practice for biographies does not excuse this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

In his autobiography he wrote that his parents are American Jews, and in the Commentary piece, he wrote that he is a proud if non-observant Jew, so I'm not seeing how that is "imposing a label...that he says doesn't apply". He never said the label doesn't apply–he is not saying he's not Jewish; he says the exact opposite, that he is a proud Jew. He doesn't say the label doesn't apply, what he says is it's not important enough to include in his biography. And my belief that it is important enough to include in his biography is not a microaggression or any kind of aggression or misconduct; it's rather ridiculous to suggest otherwise. And nobody is "imposing" anything on anybody here. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Despite the seeming contradictions, he believes it's a misleading label the way it's presented.[4]. That his upbringing was Jewish when he has written that his family wasn't very Jewish in its practices. He also clearly has an issue with being labeled, Jewish American journalist, which was inserted as a category. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you're entirely missing the point that we're not just doing this because the article subject wants it, there are currently a majority of Wikipedia editors who do not want this added to the page. While not a consensus yet, I would definitely say there isn't a consensus that this has to be added. WP:VNOTSUFF specifically states: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. Nowhere in there does it state editors have to prove there's an additional policy that says we don't have to include something for it to be excluded. If there is no consensus to add disputed content or consensus deems something unworthy of inclusion, it is simply omitted (regardless of how passionately some disagree). That's all the policy there is, and that's all the policy that need be. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where you're going with this. Nobody is saying we don't make decisions by consensus. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Coffee—Please be so kind as to present your argument for why we should filter content in this instance. Alternatively, you could initiate a community-wide discussion, for instance at the Village Pump, to omit related content in related circumstances. I would like to have a civil discussion, so please compose your thoughts carefully, and I promise I will do the same. Bus stop (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I've already done that at extreme and exaustive length in the preceeding parts of this thread. I will not be participating in repetition ad naseum. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Coffee—you may think you have presented a cogent argument but you have not. You can engage in dialogue with me or not. You can't claim there is consensus to omit information that is standardly included in biographies, both at Wikipedia and virtually anywhere else. You are not going to slip through a practice in this instance which obviously is not practiced community-wide. The subject of this article literally said they are proud to be a Jew in a recent article in Commentary (magazine) so we're not "outing" this person in a facet of their identity in which they would rather remain "closeted". Discussion is the lifeblood of Wikipedia in cases of dispute. You can tell me one good reason this material should be omitted and I can try to match your reasoning with reasoning of my own. In the absence of dialogue you can't claim any kind if legitimate consensus. Consensus at Wikipedia is based on the quality and strength of the arguments on the different sides of an issue. As I've suggested, you can also present your argument on a community-wide basis at the Village Pump. Your refusal to engage in dialogue I think forfeits any solidity of ground that you may think you stand on in this issue. Bus stop (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Editors don't have to agree with your opinions for there to be a consensus, nor have you been appointed the 'arbiter of logical soundness'. I don't think any impartial soul could possibly think I have not discussed this matter to the fullest extent possible. To your statment "which obviously is not practiced community-wide"... that is flat out wrong, and empirically so. There clearly is such community-wide consensus, and I already quoted where it is documented above (in WP:VNOTSUFF). As far as stating religion specifically, our current encyclopedic standard is also documented at WP:BLPCAT, which requires that if we're to include a religion, the subject must self-identify that way, and such "beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability". Even if we're to make the troubling step of pretending his statement about being Jewish in Commentary as self-identification (a form of "gotcha" action that could be expected of a shit tabloid, not a reputable encyclopedia), it remains clear this is not relevant to Kosner's public life or notability. You're free to disagree, but I'm in no way required to keep explaining this to you. Good day, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts I would like to believe that your statement above he is concerned that being labeled Jewish or raised in a Jewish family would feed into implicit stereotypes and invalidate his life and work gets to the crux of Mr. Kosner's objection to the Jewish content in his own article, but his comments below demonstrate that he has instead embarked on a much larger crusade to make systematic changes to this encyclopedia, which began with his collaboration with Coffee. So let us not make this as if it is only about him. It clearly is not. StonyBrook (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We're only discussing his issues with respect to his article. Good luck to Mr. Kosner on trying to impose his issues onto all articles involving Jewish Americans or American Jews or Americans that practice Judaism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Arb Break 2 (Kosner)

I have now read through the entire Biography discussion and I’m more stupefied than ever. Wikipedia obviously needs an ombudsman—at the minimum, a highly-skilled lawyer—to sort through these arguments. That person would clarify some of the imprecise and contradictory statements made by the participants, arrive at a clear—not a muddled—analysis of the issue under discussion and recommend a resolution. This could be voted on by the participating editors and accepted or rejected.

Your colleagues don’t seem to understand a founding truth about America: We are Americans, not hyphenated Americans, especially those born here of American parents. I do not accept—nor do many Americans—that being Jewish is an ethnicity. There has been a long struggle against the noxious notion that American Jews have a dual loyalty to America and to some alien nation, most recently Israel. This has been a central, tragic element in anti-Semitism in Europe and here for centuries.

If being Jewish is not deemed an ethnicity—certainly in America—it is a faith. And if it is a faith, it is no more appropriate in a Wikipedia entry about a native-born American than being Roman Catholic, Buddhist, Chaldean or whatever—unless it is plainly relevant to the experiences and career of the subject and would be so recognized by readers. This is the fair and commonsensical standard used by the New York Times in its obituaries. It is the standard I would like to see Wikipedia adopt for both living and dead subjects and it is the underlying reason I have pursued this matter so strenuously. - Edward Kosner

This message was requested by Kosner to be posted here, relevant OTRS ticket is ticket:2020050110006632. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI: I merged the ticket to the earlier ticket (ticket:2020042910010551). --MrClog (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Mr. Kosner seems to think that he can use his own article as a crowbar to work his own political views into the encyclopedia. This is highly inappropriate, because the weighty issues he raises, should simply not be discussed in connection with an editorial debate about his own article. I will not take the bait and tangle with some of the issues he has raised, nor, I believe, should anyone else. StonyBrook (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't believe anything he stated is evidence that he wants to "work his own political views into the encyclopedia", much of what he proposed is already part of our system as documented at WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R. I find your disrespectful tone to be inappropriate to this forum, and entirely out of line with the WMF's resolution on how we're to respond to BLP subject's complaints (specifically note 4: Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are described in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Coffee—the subject of the article is primarily addressing Wikipedia as a whole. They are not primarily addressing their article. Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Coffee respect is not a one-way street. In his Commentary article Mr. Kosner saw fit to characterize Wikipedia "editors" he doesn't agree with in scare quotes. In this way he has potentially offended many Wikipedians and he ought to apologize or at least clarify what he meant before trying to get something changed. And my comment about this not really being about him but rather a broader agenda still stands. StonyBrook (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@StonyBrook: your response to Kosner crossed a line. Attacking article subjects and casting aspersions for merely proposing ideas is not appropriate conduct becoming of an editor. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Certainly not my intention to offend or attack. I am the only editor addressing our subject with an honorific. StonyBrook (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I also don't see a "don't piss off wikipedia editors" exception to WP:BLPKIND. I agree it's not helpful, but we shouldn't be carrying grudges into discussions on how to improve the encyclopedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@StonyBrook: Saying an honorific before someone's name does not then somehow give a "free pass" or "get out of jail free" card to then disparage them anyways. That is fallacious. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • I think his stance "Jewish is not an ethnicity" is a point of debate - or in that, its a statement that Wikipedia will never state in wikivoice; we can talk to that debate of course but WP isn't going to take sides in it. But that points to the end of the day that a person being Jewish-by-ethnicity or Jewish-by-religion is a very personal thing, and thus something we should keep out (as Kosney points out and in agreement with the NYTimes standard) of our BLPs unless relevant to the person's life. --Masem (t) 20:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • • It is a point of debate. To quote one reliable source, Pew Research Center: One of the first decisions that had to be made in conducting this study and analyzing its results was to answer the question, “Who is a Jew?” This is an ancient question with no single, timeless answer. On the one hand, being Jewish is a matter of religion – the traditional, matrilineal definition of Jewish identity is founded on halakha (Jewish religious law). On the other hand, being Jewish also may be a matter of ancestry, ethnicity and cultural background. Jews (and non-Jews) may disagree on where to draw the line. Alan posted a whole bunch more sources that address this question at the beginning of this thread. BTW, Kosner is also wrong about most Americans not accepting being Jewish is an ethnicity. According to the American Jewish Committee's 2019 Survey of American Jewish Opinion [5], 59% of American Jews think being Jewish is "mostly a matter of ethnicity or culture"; 24% think it's "mostly a matter of religion". Surveys in Israel find the same thing [6]; in Israel, 51% of Jews think it's mostly ethnicity or culture; 24% mostly religion. The truth is the opposite of what Kosner is claiming. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

How do surveys of Jews in America and other countries prove Kosner wrong?! His argument rests on Americans in general and their views, not specifically Jews? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Masem that it is unlikely we will find an end to all the multiple related issues of 'What is a Jew?' per the number of source links I put in my first comment above. Also agree, with Masem's result for the Kosner article. Kosner has certainly done nothing wrong, here. It's regularly Wikipedia's process and often hope that article level issues lead to thoughts about improvements to Wikipedia policy or guidelines, but I just don't see these issues being worked-out by us for improved guidelines, at this time, maybe down the line where there are several similar circumstances to talk about.

On a more prosaic note, and certainly not addressed to Mr. Kosner who has only commented twice as people avidly discuss his person, but to the rest of us, it is time to really look at the advice in WP:BLUDGEON, especially its words on such personal matters as religion/ethnicity/nationality, etc. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, this this entire discussion is circular. The one side is never going to convince the other, and visa versa. Outsiders to this whole debate like Masem and I, who have frequented this page for a long time, have tried to give our opinions, to no avail. I really don't understand the passionate need to push something like this into an article, but it is prevalent wherever people are so passionate about some specific trait, such as religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, and so many other things which for many are very private and personal things. I personally think that when I get this passionate about something then I've likely lost the ability to see or handle it with any objectivity, and perhaps it would be time for me to step back.

At any rate, someone here suggested RFC, and I think that's a great idea at this point. Those like me with no dog in this fight probably don't have all day and night to leave more than one or two comments a day, so they're just getting drowned out by the fray, so I think this forum has outlived it's usefulness here. The RFC format I think should help, because then it's more or less one comment per person, and thus is more manageable. But there is no point in everybody repeating themselves over and over here. This is already long past spiraling out of control. I think it's best just to close this down, everybody step back and take a few breaths, and take it to RFC. Then listen to what the outsiders to this conflict have to say instead of circling the same old wagons. Zaereth (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth—speaking only for myself I am "passionate about" opposing censorship. The subject of this article is not a participant in this discussion like you and I are. I cannot directly address the subject of this article. The subject of the article cannot directly address me. The subject of the article primarily addresses issues other than the Edward Kosner article. For instance we are not entertaining the propriety of the purpose-built notion of "Jew-tagging". Our purpose is writing biographies. They're are meant to be informative. They are not meant to be censored. We don't need filters screening out "micro-aggressions". We are not discussing nationalities. We are not discussing hyphenated Americans. "Jewish" need not be pigeonholed into a slot of religion, ethnicity, and so forth just to say in a biography that someone is Jewish. The sources say it. The subject himself says it. The subject of the article is addressing a wide range of issues but not necessarily the one article that we are discussing. A month ago they wrote in Commentary (magazine) that they are proud to be Jewish. Just because they have other things to talk about doesn't mean the article in question should not say he is Jewish. This isn't the Madoff article or the Epstein article or the Boesky article—all of which say the subject is Jewish. The Kosner article is an article on an erudite writer who last month publicized his pride in being a Jew. Wikipedia should not be turned on its head by this incident. Wikipedia should continue to be uncensored. Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

There is zero censorship going on here, and to suggest there is is disruptive. (Censorship would be an outright ban on any mention of "Jewish" or any religion altogether across the border. --Masem (t) 23:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem—you reference an outright ban on any mention of "Jewish" or any religion—but we aren't talking about "religion". Do you see the word "religion" in this version of the article? Of course not. It says "Kosner, who is Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, no one has claimed that Kosner is not Jewish, no one has claimed that being Jewish is shameful, and no one has argued for "censorship" (unless you are using your own idiosyncratic meaning). If you are going to respond to every comment thread, then I believe you need to be more careful with characterizing others' arguments. If you genuinely are unable to understand the arguments others are making, then you may want to limit your responses to them. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

^^^^^ This. Every discussion I've seen Bus stop in seems to degrade into this. They should know better. --Masem (t) 00:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I concur 100%. Their arguments are often flawed and fail to convince, which inevitably leads to aspersions, deflections, repetitions, more repetitions, and finally cries of censorship; the last-ditch resort of desperation (short of personal attacks). I gave my opinion and that hasn't changed, so I feel no need to repeat myself, and Bus Stop's arguments have only served to reinforce them, so I'm out. The only thing I'm convinced of is that feeding this discussion isn't going to help solve anything. And, please, everyone look up the definition of "censorship". That's a far cry from this. Zaereth (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I apologize to Zaereth, Masem and wallyfromdilbert. I was too forceful in my argument. I obviously disagree. But a more low keyed approach would have been preferable and I regret my shrill tone. I hope for a reset, meaning that I hope you all will accept my apology at face value. Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  I accept your apology, but we're not trying to hurt your feelings. You don't get to be a writer without facing a hell of a lot of criticism, so I tend to be blunt. As a writer, you learn that it is meant to help you, not hurt, but there's no point beating around the bush. My advice is to slow down for a second and seriously consider other points of view. Only then can you really understand your own, and realize why this is important to you. (See: Theory of mind) The hardest person to see clearly is ourselves, by a long shot, and in seeking all knowledge, we're really only seeking to learn about ourselves. You'll be able to formulate a much better argument that way, but in the process you may also see that other's may have points worth considering. My mind is always open to change, but I strongly feel that race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., have absolutely no bearing on who a person is on the inside, and that's what is important to me.

• That's what I love about this place. It doesn't matter who any of us are in the real world. All that matters is what we do here. We are here to provide a summary of all information, not all information, and Wikipedia has rules and guidelines about lots of things that are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. But in the end those can only guide our editorial judgment on what is necessary and what is fluff. That involves two things you can't put into rules, consciousness and a conscience. We have to whittle it down to the nitty gritty, and my conscience leans hard toward following the subjects wishes on publishing information that has little significance in telling us who they are as a person, you know, just a human being. Zaereth (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• A quote from Harold Rosenberg: "Whoever undertakes to create soon finds himself engaged in creating himself." Bus stop (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Include Many people never make public mention of, or don't even know, their ethnic ancestry. So for many articles about Americans it is omitted, and for less multi-ethnic nationalities it may just be assumed by their nationality - but neither omitted or included on any different standard than any other BLP (although I am not sure we are consistent about one significant and fundamentally multi-ethnic country, the UK). Once a subject self-declares it in public and it is covered in RSs at all, it becomes somewhat relevant to their biography. Kosner has created a Streisand Effect scenario by publishing anything about it and that only adds to the significance. I think both the Jewish-tagging and Jewish-detagging camps are disruptive and we should handle it on an individual basis sourced to statements by the subject themself, or DNA testing, that sort of thing. If someone published DNA testing results or analysis about themselves it would potentially become significant for the article, and the more of a big deal they make about it (like going to the point of writing an op-ed about it) the more relevant it becomes. Let me put it simply: if you are writing a biography of someone and know that they were "born to Jewish parents" or are a "proud but non-observant Jew", that is relevant to a certain degree. If I want to understand the background/childhood/whatever of an American one of the first things I'm going to wonder is what their ethnic background is. Am I alone in that? Lots of BLP subjects have wishes about what should be included or not. Lots of people wish they could undo Streisand Effect situations. We're here to be informative and publish any relevant cited information. If Kosner did not want to be identified as Jewish he should've said he is not a Jew or entirely ignored the topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I find the idea that we should require (or even suggest) that article subjects release DNA tests to prove or disprove ethnicity, to be one of the most abhorrent ideas I've seen in my 13+ years on this site. I am seriously aghast that anyone would think that is okay. Kosner has already made clear his ethnicity is "all-American", not Jewish. It is absolutely not our place to ask for his DNA to attempt to prove or disprove that statement (nor to please your personal curiosities). The line he wrote in Commentary about being a "proud but non-observant Jew" is in an article that discusses how little relevance that religious description is to his life, and notability. Context is important here; the context doesn't show an attempt to censor out facts of his life, it shows him plainly stating this isn't a relevant fact (and he doesn't want his life work to be boxed in by the description). Saying an editor of four major news publications should have kept silent or else we implement some form of Streisand effect, is also completely irrational. The Streisand effect is not a Wikipedia policy, nor is it a required outcome of any situation regarding personal privacy. We aren’t mandated to post every verifiable fact about subjects (per WP:VNOTSUFF), and we certainly aren’t required to do so purely because they publicly complained about our actions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    Point well taken on DNA. But I read that Mr. Kosner asserts that he is an "American journalist and editor" and also that he is "All-American", but not that his ethnicity is American. He never said that. Is "American" an ethnicity? I don't believe it ever was, although there was a running chance for it to happen in the first half of the 19th century. Certainly not after 1965. StonyBrook (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    I took that indication from this statement "The answer is because some Wikipedians consider Judaism as a nationality or ethnicity. I am an American journalist and editor. I am not a Jewish-American journalist and editor. Wouldn’t it look odd if one of your Jew-tagging editors identified me as a Jewish-American journaist? If I were an Israeli-American journalist and editor, that would be a valid description. But I’m not—I’m all-American and my religion or lack of it is irrelevant to my career." - It honestly isn't up to me what he considers his ethnicity, I'm merely relaying what he considers it to be. (It would seem per Race and ethnicity in the United States and White Americans [albeit I don't know if he would consider himself white or not] that one can certainly call themselves simply American if they want, as you can write in such a descrtiption directly onto the census. There isn't a requirement to choose some other group if the respondent doesn't want to.) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)'

    It's clear to me now that Kosner labels himself Jewish in terms of religion only. Even though he doesn't practice the religion, he considers himself Jewish just like there plenty of people that identify as Christian even though they don't really practice the religion. Note that he uses the term to describe his parents, American Jews rather than Jewish Americans. To expand on the Christian analogy, the popular term to describe Americans who are Christians is American Christians, not Christian Americans. Kosner has been rather consistent in rejecting the label of Jewish as an ethnicity and the attempted parsing by multiple editors to argue ethnicity had detracted the discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    Sorry, I was more broadly speculating about this topic. If he is a Jew by religion only then let us label him has he identifies himself. As for a more generalized or analogous example and answer to your example, can someone who is a WASP not be a Christian? Is there a difference between an Anglo-Saxon Protestant and a Protestant Anglo-Saxon? I've heard WASP applied to people who are not even ostensibly Anglo-Saxon. Like Jew it is sort of an ethno-religious label that means less about the religion than the ethnic identity. If someone says they are a WASP but we know (for some reason) that they are neither Anglo-Saxon nor Protestant, well, I guess we just pass on the misstatement as a fact? —DIYeditor (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    I'm not following the analogy and I'm not interested in parsing the meaning or why people describe themselves WASPs when they're not. Morbidthoughts (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    A Christian who "does not really practice the religion" to quote you is not a Christian any more than a person is a WASP by merely being white and having Protestant ancestors. Again, while possibly tangential, this situation has implications for other articles since it is garnering so much attention. I understand that Wikipedia precedent (probably rightly so) is that self-identification for things like gender, race, religion, sexual preference is what we use - but we state these things as facts. Further, do we let the subjects of BLP dictate the meanings of those terms? Maybe I should form my thoughts more cohesively and start a separate thread? I guess where I am going with this tangent is that maybe we should use "so-and-so identifies as" rather than "so-and-so is" for anything like race, religion, gender, sexual orientation. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    I know plenty of people do, but I don't like to second guess people's religious identities against their practices. People can believe in the Christian god and Jesus yet do not go to church or live the way their religion expects them to. They consider themselves Christian and the label is not based on ancestors so I didn't understand the WASP analogy. I don't know if that applies to Kosner with respect to Judaism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    Kosner identifies as a "proud if non-observant Jew" but stated he does not wish to be described as Jewish in his Wikipedia biography. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    I would support that, DIYeditor. (I wish I would have thought of it myself.) Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    That makes me a little nervous because I don't think going around looking for people to flag as Jewish is a reasonable use of volunteer time (POINTy at best) and I seem to remember that it has been an issue for you. In this case it seems clear that he has tagged himself though. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    It makes you "nervous" that I endorse your suggestion? Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    Well I don't know if you are Jewish or not and I don't know the details of the arguments about Jew-tagging, I just remember that you were involved in some drama regarding that and I don't see any reason why it would be a good idea to make a mission out of identifying people as Jewish. So I don't want any part of that. I also don't want to see special treatment because someone starts throwing punches about their BLP. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    DIYeditor—you say "it seems clear that he has tagged himself" I don't agree with that. We don't "tag" anybody. He hasn't "tagged himself". Wikipedia doesn't "tag". We convey identities of all sorts that are reliably sourced. We convey to readers that which is adequately supported in sources. These "identities" can include tons of things, including nationality, ethnicity, gender orientation, gender itself, religion... Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    I agree that if someone is editing a BLP and they know someone identifies as Jewish it is one of the identities you would want to include for the information of the reader. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    Morbidthoughts you are correct in pointing out that Mr. Kostner views Jewishness as being indicative of religious observance only; he has made this abundantly clear (does the term "Christianness", i.e. expressing one's fealty for that religious background, exist as well?) But your second point is lost on me; in discussing his parents, wouldn't the term "American Jews" be indicative of the primary stress being on Jews, with American being the qualifier, that is to say an American kind of Jew? Jewish American OTOH would seem to be the way to go if one wishes to place more importance on Americanism. Regardless, Mr. Kostner himself is only interested in being called an American. StonyBrook (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    For whatever reason linguistically, ethnicity usually precedes nationality (Black Americans vs. American Blacks) while ethnicity or nationality usually comes before religion (Thai Buddhists vs Buddhist Thais). I don't know if importance has anything to do with the order. Following that linguistic order, you can see why Kosner might object to using Jewish American (ethnicity nationality) vs American Jew (nationality religion) Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    I have no idea what on earth made you take away that I thought we should require DNA tests or ask him for a DNA test. It was just an example. If he says he is Jewish that is fine. The Streisend Effect is effectively policy because if you cause some kind of coverage in RSs or even in an op-ed you have created the grounds for inclusion. Should this pick up any more coverage it will almost certainly be grounds for inclusion of the fact that he has made an issue of being Jewish. The bigger of a deal he makes and the more attention it gets, the more it is relevant. He should've kept it private between him and WMF rather than publishing an op-ed if he didn't want to create public attention to the topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    You have "no idea what on earth" made me see that's what you said? Let me quote directly what you suggested above: "we should handle it on an individual basis sourced to statements by the subject themself, or DNA testing". If you're not willing to stand up for your own words, perhaps you should have never suggested something so ludicrously abhorrent to begin with. The rest of my comment stands as well. Good day, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    (edit conflict)I certainly did not intend to suggest anything in particular about requiring or asking for DNA tests I was just exploring this topic in a general sense and thinking of possibilities. If you think suggesting that we could allow inclusion of published DNA results is abhorrent I have no idea where you are coming from but it is increasingly off topic in this thread. Perhaps this is more about religion. It is not clear whether being Jewish is more of a religion or an ethnic identity and in many cases it doesn't matter. At this point since he chose to use his public standing to publish an op-ed to the whole world, rather than for example coming to the noticeboard like regular folks do, should it pick up any more coverage it would definitely be relevant to the article to say "Kosner published an opinion piece stating he did not wish to be identified in his Wikipedia biography as Jewish but that he is a proud if non-observant Jew." It looks like one more publisher has picked up the op-ed so it is heading in that direction for sure in my opinion. If someone twice-published an opinion piece stating they were Catholic or bisexual or etc. would we not include that in their biography? It's a primary source yes, and primary sources are perfectly reliable for statements of a BLP subject about themself. How we handle this has implications for a lot of articles. What prerogative does this subject have to censor his biography of information he has himself published? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    I also think that Coffee misunderstood what you meant regarding DNA tests. Let's close this part of the discussion, ok? Debresser (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    You're free to think whatever you like, but I completely comprehended what they wrote. The suggestion, example, *insert euphemism here*, was entirely a bad one. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude: I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the GDPR or article 6 of the French law n° 78-17 (6 janvier 1978), which are very clear about the automatic treatment of ethnicity & religion. Now the usual caveats apply, a publisher will not be taken to court in France for saying a rabbi is Jewish (cf. WP:DEFINING), but the court would object to someone with a perceivedly Jewish surname being categorized as Jewish in an on-line database (as happens from time to time at en.wp). This case is somewhere in between those two poles, obviously. Were Kosner European, he would have grounds for complaint because he was included in the ad-hoc category Jewish-American journalists until Coffee removed the category (here). I think in cases like this people should respect the wishes of the entry subject. Still, there is no GDPR in the US. Disclosure: I am no more Jewish than I am Charlie (or Bravo, for that matter).-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well, French law does not really apply here. In any case, this is not "someone with a perceivedly Jewish surname being categorized as Jewish". That Kosner is Jewish is something that he has stated himself and which is reliably sourced. An encyclopedia should not cater to the whims of people who want information removed from their biography, whatever information that would be. That is censoring. Debresser (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Agree with this. A great many BLPs, particularly about actors and the like, include information like religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation even when it has not had a significant impact on what they are notable for. These sorts of information are I think fundamental to a biography. Once disclosed by the subject I don't see how this can just be swept under the rug. It's a slippery slope and bad precedent. This article should not get special treatment. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Let's make a difference between "fully disclosed" compared to "alluded to", in terms of a facet of his life that has no relevance on his importance. From what I've seen of Kosner's statements to "Jewish" in the published material, even his own words, this I would call "alluded to", and thus something to avoid inclusion. If and only he had said, in as so many words "I am of the Jewish faith", then we could include that as full disclosure. As soon we consider any language less than a direct disclsoure as acceptable, we may be second guessing meaning and violating BLP. --Masem (t) 16:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  "I’m a proud if non-observant Jew" is the direct statement he made. So we could quote him. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  He says he's a non-observant, so that's a good reason to exclude, unless for some reason there was a need to address his faith. Then we could quote him. --Masem (t) 17:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Masem—you refer to "the Jewish faith". I don't think the slicing and dicing of the word "Jewish" into ethnicity, religion, faith, et cetera, is necessarily relevant to this discussion or even necessarily knowable. (You write If and only he had said, in as so many words "I am of the Jewish faith", then we could include that as full disclosure.) Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  So we should only say someone is "Jewish" or put them in a "Jewish" category if they're an observant Jew? That would be treating "Jewish" as solely or primarily a religious belief, which is a minority view, not the mainstream view of reliable sources and Jews (the mainstream view being that it is primarily ethnicity or culture, not as primarily a religion, see e.g. the Pew and AJC sources I posted above). That Kosner views Jewish as primarily or solely a religious belief is no reason for Wikipedia to do the same, particularly when that's the minority and not the mainstream view. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  That is not what Masem said; this is not a black or white choice. The crux of the matter is that 1. he does not consider himself to be devoutly religious, 2. his religious background has come up in a minority of sources (NYT's singular reference to his upbringing as a ham-eating Jew, does not declare in any way what his beliefs were as a notable adult), 3. there is no evidence this is in any way key to his notability (that matters because the entire reason we have an article on him is the notability of his career), and 4. we are in no way required to cover irrelevant (or minor) facets of living people's lives on this encyclopedia. It is simply not our position to force Kosner to accept he is of an ethnicity he resoundingly states he is not, regardless of what the "mainstream" view is. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  What you are suggesting could have far-reaching implications. For instance you say "we are in no way required to cover irrelevant (or minor) facets of living people's lives on this encyclopedia". Would it then follow that we should remove mention that people like Ivan Boesky and David Berkowitz are Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  I hold no opinion on those articles, I have not reviewed them, and they are not what is being discussed here. This discussion should not (and in my opinion, does not) have "far-reaching implications"; what is included or excluded is determined on a case by case basis (per WP:VNOTSUFF). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  OK, maybe it doesn't have "far-reaching implications". I can accept that. But do you think Kosner is primarily speaking about his article? I don't think so. They are primarily addressing the project as a whole. For instance one thing they say is "This is the fair and commonsensical standard used by the New York Times in its obituaries. It is the standard I would like to see Wikipedia adopt for both living and dead subjects and it is the underlying reason I have pursued this matter so strenuously." (It is found at the top of "Arb Break 2 (Kosner)". ) Bus stop (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, 2 points: Mr. Kosner has stated in reliable sources that he is Jewish, even proud of it. We are not forcing anything upon him that he has not willingly placed upon himself. We can simply state that he is Jewish without getting into exactly what that means. Secondly, you say that we are under no obligation to report minor facts, but we are reporting that his father was a clothing salesman and his mother was a housewife. Not only is it appropriate to mention facets such as these, it also goes a long way in preventing this bio from looking like a resume. StonyBrook (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Read what Kosner has said above: his point, and several others have said here, is that there is that is information that may be widely published in news sources that is still not appropriate for inclusion an encyclopedia that is meant to be about enduring long-term coverage. Because he is a journalist with absolutely no work involved in any area where his past ethnicity or religion would come up, he should not have to worry about discussing this in his own writings and having it appear in reputable biographies of his that follow the NYTimes standard for biographies (which we should be reasonably following as well). As a journalist, I *would* expect that where he went to school, where he worked before, etc. would be 100% relevant. If his journalism work focused on the Jewish community in New York City, then that also may his Jewish background relevant, but that's not the case here. --Masem (t) 22:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Masem 100%. People continuing to take Kosner's statement in Commentary out of context, simply to suit their arguments, is getting incredibly tiresome. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why Masem is referring to the individual's "past ethnicity or religion" when the individual confirmed approximately 1 month ago that they were Jewish. One month ago is hardly the distant past. Bus stop (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Let me be clear: in my opinion, whether Kosner wrote in to OTRS or not... his bio should never have been tagged with Category: Jewish-American journalists. As for the text in the entry, prior to his OTRS request I would not have seen a problem with it being included. However, all things being equal I see no encyclopedic grounds for doing so against his will. So, IMO, the categorization was wrong-headed from the get-go (albeit common practice on en.wp, if not on fr.wp or de.wp) , whereas the inclusion of the label in the text of the entry only became so after his request. I also would note that the Commentary article came after attempts to deal with the situation quietly via OTRS. (That said, I'm somewhat sympathetic to Levivich's comments above about hell-raising / name-calling in the press as a means of pressure.)

  Also, Mr. Kosner seems to have two WikiData entries (Q16104700,Q22998227), though I'm pleased to report that (at least for now) neither one of them includes ethnic or religious tags (property-value statements).-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  SashiRolls, what about Category:American people of Jewish descent? The inclusion statement for that category is "Listed are American people for whom reliable sources have been found indicating partial Jewish ancestry, but who are not considered Jews. For Americans who are, see Category:American Jews." Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  I feel that that category, in its entirety, falls afoul of the guideline WP:CATDEFINING. A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), [...] . -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@SashiRolls I don't understand why you are so happy that his WikiData entries don't include "ethnic or religious tags". I see nothing good about this encyclopedia lacking information about its subjects, and unequivocally support inclusion of relevant information regarding ethnicity, including in categories. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This is probably understanding why BLP makes Wikipedia different from a typical encyclopedia. If we were talking someone who died 20 years ago, we'd not have this concern, but BLP is a higher principle over "completeness" of data even if that data is available. --Masem (t) 18:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that BLP has anything to do with this. Debresser (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You "don't think" how we cover a biography of a living person on this site "has anything" to do with our Biographies of living persons policy? That is clearly a fallacious special pleading: "Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle (without justifying the special exception)." — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't think that there is anything in BLP that says that we should honor a person's request to remove information which is neutral and well-sourced. Please don't use cheap rhetoric. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Logic is not "cheap rhetoric". Regardless, the BLP policy applies across the board in this case (and it clearly states we should consider and respect complaints by article subjects). Let me quote an area of the policy that has been left out thus far, but is entirely applicable (emphasis added): Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. ... Also beware of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit. This is something I and many others find irrelevant to include (his notability does not hinge on his religious affiliation), and the argument presented by those proposing inclusion has relied heavily on the circular reporting of Kosner's Commentary piece. You may believe we shouldn't treat BLPs differently than other article topics, but our long-standing consensus says otherwise. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Entirely separately from this discussion but related to this last comment, BLP should discussion avoiding material that has been the subject of a Streisand effect, unless that does become a factor towards the person's importance (such as, the fact that the Streisand effect is named after what happened with Barbara Streisand). What's happened with Kosner here - definitely falls into this area. --Masem (t) 21:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, in reference to the quoted policy, I do believe that the biographical data we are discussing absolutely belongs in a disinterested appraisal of the subject. As for the circular reporting, I do not see the correlation; it is not as if a journal picked up on some unsourced assertion placed in WP. Patapsco introduced it with a source, it was deleted, then a new source appeared which corroborated Patapsco's inclusion even more strongly, this time with Mr. Kosner stating in his own voice that he is Jewish and even proud of it. It matters not how it came about, and it is not a circular reference as the policy is delineating it. StonyBrook (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The source used the second time was a Commentary piece about the edit being made on Wikipedia, that is clearly circular reporting. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not how I understand WP:CIRCULAR, which is all about using a journal or mirror that uses an unsourced fact that appeared in WP at some point; I get it that you recoil from considering the Commentary piece as a source, but the assertion being made therein is not depending upon something only found in WP and nowhere else; there are plenty of sources backing it up. StonyBrook (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, I still see nothing in your quotes from BLP that has any bearing on this discussion, so I am sorry to say, that I still view your invoking BLP as cheap rhetoric. Others have explained this in more detail, like StonyBrook in his word right above mine, but the point we are both trying to get across to you is, that there are no BLP issues involved. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Your inability to perceive how that policy applies does not affect the reality that it does. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Unless of course it doesn't. "The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I don't understand you." Debresser (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Debresser: if you click on the wikidata entries above and have a look at his VIAF entry or his LOC entry there is no mention of ethnicity / religion. I don't believe international databases list ethnicity as a general rule because of the differing cultural and legal frameworks concerning such labeling.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Good to see we're getting closer to consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Funny because I was coming here to close the thread because it's apparent there is no consensus here. What we do with no consensus in this case is clear (exclude). What are you seeing that is getting closer? I see largely the same arguments being trotted out for and against over and over again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that Nomo's post was sarcasm. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Barkeep49 was joking too since they've been involved in the debate and can't really close it. Since Debresser added the empty ref-list talk template below, I guess I'll fill it up with the relevant reference for what I was saying above about ad-hoc categories and the GDPR (one of the differing cultural & legal frameworks I mentioned above). Actually, this gives the "includes" a boost because of e). Also FWIW, I (automatically) merged the two wikidata entries back down to the original pre-excitement entry.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I do still think Coffee was right to remove these items for all of the internal reasons (guidelines/policies cited above) and general data-publisher "best practices". (+ being congenial) There is a tendency to categorize here in clerk-land, as everywhere. I understand the Chinese do a lot of classifying of people, too.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually my post was not sarcasm. I opened this thread and so I was going to make a bold "It's clear there's no consensus here" close; I sought feedback about how the community thinks and it's clear the community (like me) cares about this and also clear that we don't agree on whether it should be included. Our policies on what to do are clear in that instance (omit the information until there is consensus to include it). At this point I am not going to do that but i do think it's the right close to this thread at this moment and I hope someone does it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"No consensus - Exclude" seems reasonable at this point, an Rfc can always be opened sometime in the future if someone feels the need. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The theme, and possibly the consensus, that has emerged from this thread, is that the subject should be described not simply as "Jewish" but rather as a "nonobservant Jew" or similar wording. As several of us are supporting the inclusion of that further modifier—"nonobservant" or "non-practicing"—that could be a resolution to this massive discussion over what in my opinion should be a minor blip in an article on an erudite individual for whom I have unbridled respect, admittedly gathered from watching YouTube video interviews. Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Is not better to allow some uninvolved person to assess consensus rather than users that have been major contributors to the discussion? Govindaharihari (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Govindaharihari—I accept that an uninvolved editor should ultimately decide how to close this thread. Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

and to include in that consideration, the projects high level of editing quality as regards WP:BLP including the subjects expressed concerns. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

But we should not misconstrue "the subjects expressed concerns", Govindaharihari. Their expressed concerns are not primarily about this one article. They are clear that the underlying reason they have pursued this matter is to bring about an adoption at Wikipedia of standards found at the New York Times for both living and dead subjects. Please see their above OTRS post. This thread is largely an irrelevancy. To institute their recommendation would appropriately call for a discussion at Village Pump and of course an outcome of such a discussion would apply to other articles as well. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You should not misconstrue the word underlying to mean primarily. "Underlying" in this context refers to what has motivated him, it does not necessarily reflect what his primary concerns are at any given time. Saying we can't take his concerns about his own article into account, because he has discussed other articles, I find to be a red herring. What we're discussing here, primarily, is Edward Kosner's article. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

He has not "discussed other articles" and I have not said that he has "discussed other articles". Bus stop (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it this is just the sort of thing (a throw away line in a review) that BLP is supposed to be about. The subject has objected to it [[7]].Slatersteven (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

How do you tell the difference between a throw away line in a source and a keeper? FWIW, it's a throwaway line in two reviews, plus several pages (I guess throwaway pages) in his autobiography, and the three other sources that list him as a notable Jewish journalist (I guess those are throwaway entries). Not that I'm trying to give you a hard time Slater, but I think calling the sources "throwaway lines" is rather dismissive, and I beseech upon you not to believe or repeat the falsehood that this dispute is based on a single mention in a single source. I wouldn't have argued for inclusion if it were; none of us would have. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe BLP is designed to protect people from throw away lines being included here. I 100% believe that. I believe that so strongly that I implement that in OTRS tickets I respond to. I don't believe it's supposed to be about BLP subjects being able to write about a topic in influential thought periodicals and in significant detail in their autobiography but also say we're not supposed to write about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It is really all so simple. It is sourced. It is "self-identified". Discussion over. He likes it, he doesn't like it, he wrote an article about it, he corresponded with Coffee about it; it is all irrelevant. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The individual is primarily addressing Wikipedia as a whole. Why should only their article be affected by their suggestions? Their argument does not pertain primarily to their article. They are suggesting a standard based on what the New York Times uses, that they argue should be applied to Wikipedia as a whole. They reference their own article at points in their OTRS posts but they make clear that "the underlying reason [they] have pursued this matter" is to cause Wikipedia to adopt the "commonsensical standard used by the New York Times in its obituaries". Consider for example: "This is the fair and commonsensical standard used by the New York Times in its obituaries. It is the standard I would like to see Wikipedia adopt for both living and dead subjects and it is the underlying reason I have pursued this matter so strenuously". Bus stop (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Because discussing something, and self identifying are not the same thing (after all they self identify as a non observant Jew, so why not actually call him what he has called himself?). I could say "I am a nonpracticing musician (by the way I am nonpracticing because I cannot play)", does that mean I have self identified as a musician. Moreover he has explicitly said he does not wish to be identified as a jew at least partly out of fear. We have to take that into account as well.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

For someone to convey that they cannot play at all, they would say "I am not a musician"; to convey that they can only play a few chords but not professionally or even regularly, they would say "I am not a practicing musician," but they are a musician nonetheless. As an aside, a bar mitzva boy (such as the young Mr. Kosner) who read the Torah (not clear if he did) is a kind of musician too. StonyBrook (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven I suggest calling Kosner exactly what he has called himself "a proud if non-observant Jew". If you were notable and RS had taken note of your musical skills and you called yourself proud if non-practicing musician I would suggest we could note that as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven—you say "Moreover he has explicitly said he does not wish to be identified as a jew at least partly out of fear." I have looked in the "Commentary" source and their OTRS posts but I'm not finding that. If you could post an excerpt that might help. Bus stop (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The eighth paragraph of the Commentary article is where you will find that answer. Along with Kosner's statements here (and their initial statments conveyed via OTRS that have not been released) there is a clear picture of someone who does not want their religion to be noted in their Wikipedia entry out of a fear (a word Kosner himself used in his first comment on this thread) of their life (and work) being stigmatized. I'm growing quite tired of rehashing this discussion. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Kosner's "Jewishness" should be excluded. First, we have no obligation to mention someone's ethnicity, even it it's written somewhere. Second, Kosner is correct that we have put him in a strange situation: the description in his wiki bio might have been excluded, but Kosner's objections to inclusion, and a published critique, are being used against him. The implication is that the subject of a BLP can do little to defend themselves. This is particularly troubling since there was and remains, throughout the world and in history, a problem of "Jew-tagging," however you want to understand that. Third, More or less all the "controversy" of Kosner's ethnicity first arises not from published sources, but from our own actions. Kudos to Kosner and to Coffee for the patience and persistence to put up with this nonsense. To the highly capable editors who have argued for inclusion, with all due respect, I disagree with you. -Darouet (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Now that he wrote the article, there is no way we can not have it. :) Jew-tagging may be a problem, but since the arguments of the editors who favor inclusion are policy and guideline based, this is not relevant. I woud have prefered it if you would have left the word "nonsense" at home. It kind of strikes against the hairs of people who disagree with you, like me, with respect, of course. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Debresser no offense intended, and if it helps, you can mentally substitute my word "nonsense" with Kosner's phrase, with which I agree: "...the modern equivalent of the medieval scholastics arguing over how many angels would fit on a pinhead." -Darouet (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Although that expressing I think refers to a scholarly discussion of not too much practical import, while in this case you do have an opinion regarding the practical issue at hand. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Darouet—how is anything is "being used against him"? They wrote that they are proudly Jewish. Had they written that they were not Jewish or that they did not consider themselves Jewish, the descriptor would have been immediately and uncontestedly removed from the article. But instead they chose to say that they are proudly Jewish. How is anything being "used against him"? Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: your comment seems to prove Kosner's point that common sense is being ignored. Put yourself in Kosner's shoes. He wrote, "I felt that the introduction of my religion in Wikipedia was intrusive... I rarely if ever came across religious affiliation noted in Wikipedia biographies of other secular journalists and writers. So I set about stripping the reference from my entry, only to find that I’d been barred by Wikipedia from editing my own biography." Now, his attempt to remove what he felt was an inappropriate reference to his ethnicity or religion is being used to argue against his request, i.e., is being "used against him." If you want to argue that his wishes are irrelevant that's fine, but don't pretend he hasn't contacted us multiple times now asking to remove the "jew tag." -Darouet (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe this point might go to the heart of this dispute. The deletionists assume that the passage is being used against the subject and the inclusionists do not. Is the editing community as a whole against our founder because we kept certain inconvenient truths in his own bio, something that the founder himself unsuccessfully tried to remove? We couldn't possibly be. And those facts could reasonably be described as putting our founder in a negative light, while here it is a really long stretch to claim this, no matter how passionately it is argued for. StonyBrook (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@StonyBrook: is the fact that one is born Jewish an "inconvenient truth?" And since we're representing a publishing house here, what in your editorial judgement is the public interest in putting that tidbit in? -Darouet (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Because I am just trying to illustrate a point. There is stuff in Jimbo's page that anyone can find because it was placed there and allowed to remain, and yet that doesn't translate into "Wikipedians are against their founder" because that is not a correct thing to say; here that is surely not even remotely correct. Of course being Jewish isn't an inconvenient truth; but some editors, and Mr. Kosner himself, seem to think that it is. StonyBrook (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@StonyBrook: my apologies, my question was unclear. What is the public interest in adding Kosner's Jewish ancestry? Something more substantive than, "it was placed there"? And if being Jewish isn't an inconvenient truth, maybe your comparison wasn't, in fact, apt? -Darouet (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The interest is quite simply: Knowledge. As to your second question, the unevenness itself is the proof; the Jimbo case is using argumentum a fortiori. StonyBrook (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If this discussion is to achieve consensus, then my views align with Coffee, Masem and Darouet...and I think Levivitch is in there, too. Considering the possibility that I may have inadvertently missed a few arguments that may also align, the rest is, well...if I may say...not kosher. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Atsme—the subject of the article does not primarily want to have "Jewish" removed from their article. They primarily wish to bring about a change at Wikipedia. You should read their OTRS posts. For instance: "This is the fair and commonsensical standard used by the New York Times in its obituaries. It is the standard I would like to see Wikipedia adopt for both living and dead subjects and it is the underlying reason I have pursued this matter so strenuously.". Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, this discussion would advance a lot faster without the red herrings ad nauseam. Kosner clearly wants to have "Jewish" removed from his article, and that is primarily what we're discussing here. Kosner's musings about the site overall do not change that we're only talking about removing the religious descriptor from one article (Kosner's) currently. If that one line in his posts referring to the whole site is all you wish to focus on, please feel free to open up a broader discussion about the issue of jew-tagging overall at the Village Pump. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Kosner's statements don't have any impact on site policy overall: we're discussing his bio. -Darouet (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

While framing this discussion to deal with his bio is correct, it is valuable to consider his point re: the NYtimes policy that avoids mention of ethnicity and religion on obits as a rational basis to consider for our own BLP. Whether to include that would need to be a policy discussion there, and treated as a suggested brought by a WP editor to be reviewed as per any other suggestion, but from the discussion here, it certainly has enough weight to consider having an RFC about it with some thought to make sure its framed right. But this discussion only will touch Kosney's bio, nothing else immediately. --Masem (t) 06:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Darouet—you ask "What is the public interest in adding Kosner's Jewish ancestry?" Let me ask you a similar question—what is the public interest in adding the Jewish ancestry of Boesky, Madoff, Berkowitz, and Epstein? Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Whataboutism is a poor argument to use when dealing with BLPs. We aren't discussing those articles here, and no one has to jump through the various loops you're constructing to hold an opinion on whether to include or exclude the information on Kosner's article. If you think a discussion needs to be held on those articles, please open one up at the relevant talk pages. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Coffee, and while I'm not an expert in those cases, a quick investigation of scholarly sources shows that Madoff's relationship with the Jewish community has received a lot of attention, with references to his own heritage prominently placed in the titles of articles on the topic. There's no comparison here with Kosner. -Darouet (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Darouet—let us bear in mind that I am just responding to you. Surely you don't think your points should go unchallenged. You say "we have put him [Kosner] in a strange situation". I do not accept that assertion. Presumably Kosner spoke of their own free will when they asserted that they were proudly Jewish—in lieu of for instance an assertion that they did not consider themselves Jewish. I find it difficult to accept your characterization that "we have put him in a strange situation". Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

References

• Exclude: the subject does not want to identify with the Jewish faith in his biography, considering the recent examples of anti-Jewish violence in the US. It's unclear who it's going to hurt to leave it out. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This encyclopedia is going to get hurt. It is reliably sourced and there is no policy or guideline-based reason not to have it. If we start leaving out such information, we might as well close up shop. Debresser (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The subject wants to be identified as an American in his wiki bio. Yes, some sources mention his Jewish background, but it's a minor detail that is not critical to readers' understanding. It's not like Kostner is asking us to remove a major scandal; causing distress to a BLP subject is not the purpose of the project. It's common decency. I appreciate Coffee's efforts in this regard. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Weak include, reliably sourced, subject self identifies as such. If there are broader issues with Jew-tagging this needs to be brought up elsewhere, this discussion is way overblown for such a minor issue of a person's biography, and everybody involved probably needs to cool off. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Off the topic of Kosner, but interested editors may want to take a look at this [8], is it Jew-tagging? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It definitely Jew-tagging his father. The information about how he describes himself half-Jewish and not getting to decide whether he's Jewish or not is more appropriate in his personal life section. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"my father's Jewish, my mother's not. I don't identify as Jewish in a religious way." Definite Jew tagging. Jews wouldn't consider him Jewish ethnically since his mother is not. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That's an overstatement; only some Jews subscribe to matrilineal descent. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note - Reverted bot-archival as this still needs closure. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Asked for at WP:RFCLOSE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Piers Robinson

Dear Editors,

This page, set up without my knowledge, has repeatedly been edited in order to smear me. It seems a battle between editors has gone on for several years.

At the moment the wikipedia page is making two defamatory claims. The first is that my occupation is as a 'conspiracy theorist'. This is false and defamatory.

Second, the page gives the clear impression that I left Sheffield University because I had been accused of spreading conspiracy theories. This is entirely false, my departure from the University ofSheffield had nothing to do with amy criticisms regarding my research.

Yours Sincerely

Dr Piers Robinson Co-Director, Organisation for Propaganda Studies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:46FA:C700:BC59:1B0F:D508:DE4 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If you are apparently reputable, can you explain why you promote The Grayzone as a reliable source of information on your twitter account, when it was depreciated as a source on wikipedia for publishing "false or fabricated information"? Also, Wikipedia abides by the WP:No legal threats policy, do not use charged language like this. If you think content on wikipedia is libellous, then you need to contact the email linked at WP:LIBEL. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a page for discussing BLP concerns. It is not a place to have a discussion over what his standards for sources are (but it seems ridiculous to expect that he follow Wikipedia's, except when he edits Wikipedia.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@NatGertler: My point was that he promotes a website that publishes content that has been described in RfC discussions as publishing conspiracy theories, and was placed onto the Wikipedia:Deprecated sources list, which ties in to the claim that he is "spreading conspiracy theories" which he claims to be false. The issues with BLP have largely been resolved after discussions within the last few hours, I let commenters on the talk page of the article know that he made the complaint here, which as I thought was reasonable, as well as a report on the administrators noticeboard for making legal threats, for which he was blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: The issue being raised here had to do with not whether he was "spreading conspiracy theories", but whether that was the basis for his firing. To make it an issue of whether Wikipedia approves of the sources that he uses is far off the point and inappropriate. This is not the place for it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

That was his second complaint, his first was "that my occupation is as a 'conspiracy theorist'". I have no further interest being told I am wrong in the absence of other editors objections, and think it's time to WP:Drop the stick. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If I may interject, I think what Nat is trying to say here is that your comments above are really treading the line on becoming BLP violations themselves. I'm not saying this was intentional, but I'd be careful on how you assert things. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Just FYI. Zaereth (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't assert anything that could be considered a violation of BLP. I didn't call him a conspiracy theorist or even imply it, my claim that Wikipedia concensus found that it "false or fabricated information" related to the Grayzone, not about Robinson. You can clearly see from his twitter account that he does promote Grayzone News as a source. I simply asked why an academic would promote a source that wikipedia deems "fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances" such that editors are expilicity discouraged from using them. In retrospect I probably would not include the section again, as it does feel somewhat accusatory, but it is also not appropriate to send legal threats under WP:No legal threats which no other editors have criticised him for. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

To have your comments on Grayzone[9][10][11], and by extension Robinson, taken seriously, at least spell its name correctly.     ←   ZScarpia   15:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC) (note: without using a device such as strikethrough, Hemiauchenia later corrected the spelling from Greyzone to Grayzone in all his references to that website)

ZScarpia, you might want to have a word with the site owners, as the error appears to be theirs. https://www.lexico.com/definition/grey_zone Guy (help!) 18:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: this is a very confusing discussion. Why would a site which appears to be primarily run by Americans [12] and targeting a US or Latin American audience [13], choosing to use a spelling more common in the US (as per the source you provided) be in error? Of all the criticism that could be made of Grayzone, this seems to be one of the silliest. Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Look mate, I've been having migraines and brain problems for most of the last 6 months and sometimes it affects my spelling, for which I apologise. A minor regional spelling difference makes no difference to the validity of my points, so I don't even see what the point of this comment even was, it has no substance at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The point is that, like if you were, for example, to repeatedly refer to the Boston Red Socks in a discussion on baseball or Buddism in a discussion on religion, it makes it look as though you don't really know what you're talking about. Some other things which don't show you to advantage: addressing another editor with the words, "look mate"; editing a comment after it has been discussed without leaving an indication that it has been edited [14]; leaving a reference to appeasing "pedants" in an edit comment [15]. Apologies to anyone (other than Hemiauchenia) who feels this is getting tedious.     ←   ZScarpia   02:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC) (note: comments re-arranged into chronological order)

Look mate is British English for exasperation at your rudeness, grey is the correct BE spelling, nobody else objected, why should I care about your opinion, exactly? I know that you have strong opinions about the reliability of Grayzone, so I'd like to know your reasoning. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that everyone else would prefer this thread of the discussion to end. There are a couple of things I would like to note firsy though. One is that I have no objection to your spelling, it's completely a matter for you. I was merely pointing out to you that by using the British English spelling, you gave the appearance of knowing next to nothing about The Grayzone. The second thing I would like to note is that I don't think that The Grayzone particularly meets the standards for measuring reliability, but I don't think it deserved to be deprecated and I'm sure that it's not any worse than some sources which are considered reliable. A bit more consistency would be nice. If you look at the discussion at WP:RSN, you'll see that some editors gave a more favourable opinion of the site than me; presumably, they feel greater disatisfaction than I do about the result.     ←   ZScarpia   02:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The second issue is about the content removed by this edit.[16]. The criticism and his denial should not be in the lead but later in his biography, appropriately in the criticism section. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure this is another instance where wikidata (not affliated with Wikipedia for the benefit of Mr Robinson) was probably showing up in search results somewhere. It still lists him as "British academic and conspiracy theorist" - did someone put a short-desc in to our article to override those stupid fucknuts running wikidata? As currently search results show the ENWP description. (Wikidata had some of the detail expunged earlier today) Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Totally expunged from wikidata now. (@Only in death re 'not affiliated', iiuc, both are owned by Wikimedia Foundation.) Humanengr (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Technically ENWP is not owned by the WMF, nor wikidata for that matter. If you define ownership as the content rather than the physical hosting and trademarks etc. But its easier to simplify that than to go into a really long explanation of why different Wiki projects work by different rules (or in the case of Wikidata, no rules). Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The info boxes at both Wikipedia and Wikidata do, however, say "Owner: Wikimedia Foundation". Humanengr (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Humanengr, to be fair, he has been pushing conspiracy theories. Guy (help!) 22:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You should re-phrase that. Maybe in your opinion, and the opinions of your favoured sources, Robinson is a "conspiracy theorist", an extremely prejudicial phrase designed to belittle those the whose beliefs the accuser dislikes. But that doesn't make it a fact. Either show that, apart from the extremes of the spectrum, Robinson's views are seen as flakey, as the phrase implies, or redact your statement.     ←   ZScarpia   15:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, "Prominent British academics have been sharing conspiracy theories about the coronavirus online, The Times can disclose."

"They included suggestions from other social media users that Bill Gates, the billionaire philanthropist, and the World Economic Forum (WEF) that meets in Davos may be involved in plots to exploit the illness and speculation that it was a biological weapon."

"The academics include Tim Hayward, a professor of environmental political theory at the University of Edinburgh, and Piers Robinson, co-founder of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies (OPS), which uses the University of Bristol as an address."

That's not the only one. In fact the range of sources calling him a conspiracy theorist is pretty remarkable: it includes HuffPo, the Daily Mail, The Times, the Jewish Chronicle and more - a remarkably broad spectrum. Dissent from this can be found at the Daily Stormer and Sputnik. He wrote the cover blurb for David Ray Griffin's 9/11 Truther book, and defends it: "My position, as has been the case for some time, is that [conclusions detailed in 9/11 Unmasked] demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that significant parts of the official narrative are very likely to be incorrect."

But thank you for recognising that I favour reliable mainstream sources like The Times. Yes, I do. And so should you. Guy (help!) 18:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

In case there is some confusing, AFAIK search results of a completed search do not show any description. Instead they show a snippet of the article. However for the mobile search the preview of the results (before you hit enter or tell it to search) does show the short description. I just tried and confirmed that [17] for Piers Robinson it's currently showing British academic. I assume this is still coming from Wikidata since we do not have a short description AFAICT. Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, is there some reason to think this has anything to do with searching? The OP explicitly said " first is that my occupation is as a 'conspiracy theorist'." They did not say anything about search results and while Wikidata does have an occupation field, it doesn't show up in search results or anywhere else on here AFAIK. Only the short description does show up here in some cases (again AFAIK), and I'm not sure if someone would assume every field in the description implies it's their occupation. And remember, our article has said the subject's occupation was a conspiracy theorist, for at least 4 hours combined AFAICT [18] [19]. And indeed this included during "15:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)" when the OP posted and in fact for 2 hours before then. It seems to me this most likely has nothing to do with the short description on Wikidata let alone the occupation field there, but simply to do with the fact we did say his occupation was conspiracy theorist for 4 hours which included when the OP checked it out. We should not forget while 4 hours may be a short time, it's still enough time that people could easily see what is in our articles. Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, the most likely explanation is that he's looking for a job or backers, and blames Wikipedia for the fact that the internet is... unflattering to his cherished beliefs. He's a regular on Sputnik and an outspoken pro-Russia / Assad pundit, so maybe he's in the same position as George Galloway, who is not seen as an honest broker when discussing these subjects. A good number of sources describe him as pro-Assad and pro-Russia. These are not fashionable positions right now. Guy (help!) 18:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: unless you're accusing the OP of being the one who modified the article on him as some sort of false flag attack to help him in some way, this has nothing to do with my point. My sole point with that reply was to remind editors that we did say his occupation was conspiracy theorist in the infobox for about 4 hours combined, and this included the time when the OP made their comment. Therefore there is no reason to think this has anything to do with searching or Wikidata, as suggested by User:Only in death. If you are making an accusation that the OP was involved in changing the infobox, since BLP applies everywhere please provide some evidence. The reason why the OP may have been checking out the article at the time someone changed the occupation to conspiracy theorist is frankly not something I find particularly germane to the discussion anyway. The OP was correct that the infobox should never have said their occupation was conspiracy theorist regardless of whether they may spread conspiracy theories. Frankly anyone who thinks the occupation field of the infobox should have said conspiracy theorist probably shouldn't be editing BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Simple in my case. I looked on my mobile when I saw this and it was listed as conspiracy theorist in the usual place. I looked at our article which didnt appear to have listed him as that (at the point I was looking) and wikidata did, so assumed, like in the many many other instances where we have someone described as something and its on wikidata not ENWP, it was another case of the short desc showing up through google (PC-based browser right-side preview last I recall also used short desc). I really have no interest otherwise, as Jzg has pointed out, there are plenty of sources for him peddling consiracy theories, there are almost zero that describe him as a conspiracy theorist, and none that justify it as his 'occupation'. I will leave the speculation to others as to his motivations. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

While I really have no interest in following this discussion, I do have to agree with Only in Death's statement. As a general thing, to call someone a theorist of any kind it would seem to me that it would have to be as an occupation. We wouldn't call someone an atomic theorist if they were only know for blogging on the web about it. And I don't buy most of the bunk conspiracy theories, although I have no doubt conspiracies exist; you'll be more likely to find them between corporations and regulating bodies than in moon landings and bio weapons. Is you want to finds a conspiracy, look for the money. Zaereth (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• We have reliable sources in the article that clearly identify him as a 9-11 Truther. How is that not a reliable demarcation of a conspiracy theorist? As to whether his "occupation" is conspiracy theorist, that's probably not correct, but it should at least indicate that he promotes conspiracy theories somewhere in the infobox given the reliable sources we have which identify him doing such. Perhaps "known for"?jps (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes are for simple and obvious information that doesnt need an extended explanation in the article. Its why we had to keep religion and ethnicity out of most of them them. If we start using them to list people's views on various subjects, it will just open a can of worms. Just put it in the relevant place in the article where it belongs - which would be when he parted ways with the uni. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "Infoboxes are for simple and obvious information", but if the person is known for promoting conspiracy theories, that seems pretty simple. In this case, a significant portion of the media attention is because he was promoting conspiracy theories. I agree that he may also be notable for taking particular foreign policy positions, but as this seems to be from whence his notability is derived, I don't see a strong argument for saying that it is the semantic equivalent for including religious belief in articles where the religion of the individual is irrelevant. A better comparison might be a scenario where we omitted the religion in the infobox for someone who was notable for promoting that religion. jps (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The infobox should be reserved for 100% objective information that needs no explanation; it's "information". No matter how many reliable sources back it up, "conspiracy theorist" is a subjective label. It cannot go in the infobox, period. --Masem (t) 05:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we agree that "conspiracy theorist" doesn't belong. My point is that this person has received notoriety for promoting conspiracy theories. Do you think we don't have 100% objective information to that effect? If so, why? Does support for 9-11 Truth not indicate support for conspiracy theories? jps (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case, then we should just say that. We don't need to make it an official title. Better yet, rather than tell me, show me. I don't need to be told Darth Vader is an evil dictator. Show me and let me come to that conclusion for myself. Zaereth (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, sure. I think we do say that. The question then becomes, "How do we summarize that for the reader?" It is a question of style rather than substance, perhaps. In this case, the person in question is supporting people who are verifiably conspiracy theorists and has said that, for example, the WP:MAINSTREAM explanation of 9/11 is not correct. So if you were going to summarize that state of affairs in a sentence or two, how would you do that? jps (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a reason why our infoboxes for persons do not have spaces to fill for these types of things because it still is a subjective facet even if it represents the most popular opinion with no other opinions (excluding fringe ones) to counter it. The absence of no counter opinions from RSes to a subjective assessment doesn't meant that subjective statement becomes objective, we just get to state it with a bit less hand-waving. I'll assume that a source analysis has been done to show that there's more than sufficient frequency in highly reliable sources to support that he is known to be promote conspiracy theories, documented on the talk page (without that, you can't do what I am about to suggest). in which case we can say in the lede something like "Piers Gregory Robinson is a political commentator and former British academic.[2][3] He was was co-director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies,[4] and a founder of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media.[5] As a political commentator, he is known to promote conspiracy theories related to 9/11, antisemitism, and COVID-19." (examples only, I'm just doing a quick pull).

No one can be a "verified" labeled term. They can be verified to be considered to be that labeled term, no matter how many sources and quality of those sources back them up, but Wikivoice cannot make the step to say that as a fact, barring self-identification (which even then, I would be wording it carefully as a self-identified label.) Editors are far too eager to jump on the use of labels as objective terms which is exactly what LABELS warns against. Wikivoice cannot state a label is truthful, particularly on a BLP, only that there is wide consensus in sources a label applies. --Masem (t) 19:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you just answered your own question. If the idea is to whittle it down small enough to fit in the infobox, I'd say forget it. It's not factual information, thus cannot be objective. Now if he had a job either creating or espousing conspiracy theories, or both, then I would agree. People like, in my opinion, the producers of Unsolved Mysteries, or that guy with a radio talk show somewhere are professional conspiracy theorists, whether they believe in them or not. While all the evidence presented here may all be factual --regardless of whether it is correct or not-- when we take those facts and draw the conclusion that he is a conspiracy theorist, we are in fact creating our own theory based on an analysis of how and why all that evidence fits together in our minds. A theory is never factual, and why is always a theory (opinion). That's what makes this a subjective label in this case, and not proper for an infobox. (For more info on objectivity and subjectivity see: Philosophy of Scientific Method by John Stuart Mills, first chapter. These same principals are also applied to non-fiction writing.) Facts are observable and recordable things or phenomena (attributes). Theories are subjective analyses (conclusions, judgments, opinions) of those facts, and in themselves are never provable. Scientists may spend the rest of time trying to disprove a theory, but none are ever provable. Zaereth (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The objective fact that support for the 9/11 Truth movement is support for conspiracy theories I think is an objective enough fact to say in Wikipedia's voice. Do you disagree? I am not talking about infoboxes, labels, etc. I'm talking about in the article text. I understand that people are allergic to anything that is controversial, but there is really no debate that this person is a member of various 9/11 Truth groups, has supported the claims of these groups, and is unapologetic about it. Of course he doesn't think 9/11 Truth is a conspiracy theory. That doesn't matter for our purposes. It is possible we're talking at cross-purposes here, but it is important that we don't fall into the trap where we just say everything is, like, just, like, your opinion, man. It's not an opinion that Pier Robinson supports 9/11 Truth. I don't see any way around that. Do you? jps (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I see no reliable source that says that the subject supports any movement. Writing a positive review of a book that questions the official narrative - whether a conspiracy theory or not - is not sufficient to claim that he is a supporter of a movement. Until and unless there are reliable sources that describe the subject's views - like, an official biography - we need to be extremely cautious about "objective truths" found in mass media. Especially when it is absolutely obvious that a given news piece belongs to the smear category. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, I would point out that conspiracy theory is a very different semantic object from critical theory which is different from scientific theory. Most scientific theories are facts (the few that aren't are really more of methods). Conspiracy theories are, by definition, incorrect. We can say that pretty plainly in the encyclopedia and do so. It's important that we don't fall down the rabbit holes of thinking that there is no such thing as a fact when it comes to things people call "theories" lest we start writing stupid things about biological evolution being only "just a theory". John Stuart Mills, I would bet, would agree. jps (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between supporting a conspiracy theory and the questioning of official narratives, especially in politically or commercially sensitive areas. You seem to be deliberately conflating the two. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There really isn't. There is only a question of degree and which narrative is being questioned. If I question the official narrative that "the Earth is round", I'm promoting a conspiracy theory (and lest you claim that this isn't a politically or commercially sensitive area, I would point out that getting the shape of the Earth correct is big business). If I question the official narrative that, say, trickle down economics will lower the unemployment rate, that's not really a conspiracy theory. In the case of 9-11 Truthers, I think there is really no debate about what it means to "question" the "official narrative" about, say, how building 7 collapsed or whether Al Qaeda was involved (which is what the group that Robinson belongs to does and he makes no apologies for that). jps (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to understand that to write a positive review of an academic publication is not the same as to share the author's beliefs. Reviews are of the method; the execution; and the writeup. Sorry. It's how academic publishing works, social science being no exception. I don't blame the HuffPost editor for not understanding this - after all, mass media publishing does differ from academic publishing. But an encyclopaedia aspires to be much more than a summary of media coverage. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No, most scientific theories are not facts. None of them are. They may be supported by facts, but the theory is not a fact, and will likely be superseded by another, better theory when one comes along. I'll give an example. The phlogiston theory was the top scientific theory of thermodynamics and chemistry of it's time. It was extremely accurate, and passed every test people could throw at it. Even today, it is incredibly accurate in its predictions. It took a brilliant scientist and some newer, more accurate instruments to come along and find a flaw (a fact which didn't fit the theory) to prove it wrong. All it takes is a single fact that doesn't fit, and as even Einstein noted, that is enough to prove it wrong. And speaking of Einstein, he noticed a flaw in Newton's theory of gravity (namely the orbit of mercury). Einstein understood that a single flaw and the theory was unsound, so he came up with a radical new theory of gravity. Both are still used to this day, yet even Einstein;'s theory has demonstrable flaws, so it cannot be right either. Good enough for now maybe, just as the phlogiston theory was and still is, but not correct. Someone will eventually come along with a radical new theory that blows them both out of the water. There is only one scientific theory that has passed every single test thrown at it, and that is quantum theory, but nobody can understand it, not even its creators.

Same with light. First it' a particle, then someone comes along and says it's a wave. (He even got death threats and was beaten up over it.) The another gives good evidence that it is a wave and it's accepted. And here comes Einstein again to show it's not a wave or a particle, but somehow behaves as both.

In science, there is no proof. There are facts and theories to explain those facts. If you make your theories fit the facts, it's good, that is until a new, unexplained fact arises (see: Godel's incompleteness theorem), but if you try to make the facts fit the theory, it's bunk every time. That's the problem with most conspiracy theories. Now conspiracies do exist, and not all theories about them will be bunk. A conspiracy to commit murder, for example. But it's far too easy to see what you want to see than to put your expectations aside and look at it objectively. In science, just as in everything else, it's never about proving something. It's all about probabilities. Is it more probable than not? Nothing is ever 100% for sure, as Richard Feynman spoke of a lot, but if the facts support it with no flaws, then it's widely accepted as a likelihood. If not, it's bunk. Just because you cannot prove a theory doesn't mean you can't disprove it.

But this is not about whether the conspiracy theories are correct or not. It's about objectivity or subjectivity. This is about whether your own theories about him are fact or opinion. I cannot prove your theory, but I can sure disprove it. Every time we learn about or interact with someone, we create a theory in our minds about that person. What that person thinks, why they think that way, how they will react, etc... This is called Theory of mind, and we all do it constantly. Without it any complex communication would not be possible. Through this we learn about ourselves, which is the person we know less about than anyone else in the world. It's important to know just when we are being objective and when we're being subjective when writing, and you can find that same info in any book on non-fiction writing, and it is exactly the same as what is in Mills book. These are universal principals. Zaereth (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Lord, that's a lot of nonsense. It is almost at the level of science denial. Shameful, really. Science is based in empirical reality and theories describe that empirical reality. To the extent that they do that, they are facts. See Evolution as fact and theory, e.g. Also, lol at the idea that phlogiston theory is extremely accurate and difficult to show incorrect. You can do so with fairly simple kitchen chemistry. jps (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, didn't see this until now. Thanks for the link, because that exactly makes my point. I am very familiar with evolution, and there is no doubt it exists. It has been directly observed and recorded. Darwin's theory though, well that's been mostly outdated since the 80s. In part, sure, natural selection has something to do with it, but turns out there are possibilities Darwin never dreamed about and new technologies have brought about new evidence it's not as slow and methodical as all that, but tends to occur rather quickly in spurts, which has also been observed and documented. So thanks for for your help in clarifying my point. Zaereth (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The following is an attempt to provide some diffs relating to the content being complained about. Apologies if it is incomplete or inaccurate. I did not set out to point an accusing finger at user Nomdea, though his/her edits came to feature prominently among those which appeared prominently.

"The first is that my occupation is as a 'conspiracy theorist':

- 20:27, 9 May 2020: NomdeA changes 'occupation' from "political commentator" to "conspiracy theorist".
- 13:21, 10 May 2020: NomdeA repeats the change of 'occupation' from "political commentator" to "conspiracy theorist".

"Second, the page gives the clear impression that I left Sheffield University because I had been accused of spreading conspiracy theories.":

- 21:54, 24 September 2019: citing the Huffington Post, Marjorieparsnips added text implying that, in April 2019, Robinson left his post at Sheffield University due to "reports that he had promoted conspiracy theories". Within half-an-hour, this was modified into a statement about an article in Sheffield University's student newspaper accusing Robinson of "promoting conspiracy theories".
- 19:00, 1 December 2019: NomdeA added text to the Lead stating that the criticisms directed at Robinson had come from other Sheffield University academics, something not stated explicity in the cited source.
- 04:42, 31 January 2020: NomdeA added text to the Lead implying, unsupported by anything but the title of the cited source, that after he was accusations of 'promoting conspiracy theories and of “having no interest in truth or justice”' lay behind Robinson leaving his university job.
- Until 19:43, 10 May 2020, citing this Huffington Post article, the Lead read, "He was the Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism at Sheffield University but left the university in 2019 after he was accused by other academics of promoting conspiracy theories." That implied that Robinson left Sheffield University, a claim not made in the cited article (though implied by its title). In addition to not making that claim, the cited article quoted Robinson saying that he was leaving for reasons not related to the criticism or pressure from Sheffield University. Zzuuzz extended the sentence to note that Robinson denied the reason for leaving were accusations of promoting conspiracy theories.
- 21:05, 10 May 2020: Huldra reduced the last sentence in the Lead to its current form, a simple statement that Robinson left Sheffield University in 2019.

Other questionable edits by NomdeA:

- 06:46, 15 October 2019: changed the text "he often appears on Russia-backed channels" to "he often appears on Russia-backed propaganda channels". The cited source uses the description "Russian state-backed channels", so the use of the word 'propaganda' is unsupported.
- 05:59, 20 October 2019: changed description of Robinson in first sentence of the article from "academic" to "conspiracy theorist".
- 05:25, 21 October 2019: added an uncited description of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media as "a small pressure group with no academic standing," re-adding the same text on 24 October 2019.
- NomdeA also took exception to Robinson being described as an academic, though the cited article probably came out before the announcement of leaving his university job, here.

    ←   ZScarpia   04:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

'sharing coronavirus conspiracy theories'

I opened a discussion concerning an edit on this related topic at Piers Robinson talk. (I placed the discussion there as it is not specifically on the two points addressed by the OP here.) Humanengr (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• I mean at this point jps & Slatersteven are trying to use the headline of a Snopes article to label him a conspiracy theorist.[20] PackMecEng (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

If that were the only source we were trying to use you might have a point, and it was responsive to a request for sources that use that exact phrase.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It is concerning that Robinson's wiki page currently misrepresents the information provided in The Times article that it uses as a source. The Times claims Robinson spread "conspiracy theories" about COVID-19 but we have changed this to "misinformation". There has also been resistance to including Robinson's reply to the accusation. His reply is included in the same Times article that is used as a source. Burrobert (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

ignore the comment above as the whole section relating to COVID-19 has been removed. Burrobert (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Arb break

I'm pretty puzzled about the removal of the material on Robinson's comments re COVID19, e.g. here. What we seem to have is an editor doing his/her own cogitating about the source -- an obvious instance of WP:OR. The source is obviously reliable; describing it as a "smear piece" doesn't make it unreliable, it's just a bit of dressed-up WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a surprising amount of WP:OR going on. There is a bit of spillover here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sentence_check. I have not seen anything quite like this before. Also, I note that there is a considerable amount of activity on Twitter trying to sway the editorial approach here. jps (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The text that is present is exactly the problem that I'm been called the scarlet letter issue. As I write this, it is exactly one news article that has called out Robinson's behavior to COVID, so whether this is a significant stance that any other sources he had been called out on or not, I don't know yet. I'm going to check after I submit this comment, but before I affect my perception on that, the way this stands to me, just because one RS makes this stance doesn't means its still appropriate to include. If Robinson had been known to have been stating a number of prior theories on medical aspects, adding COVID to the list with this would have been fine, but this is not the case here. We absolulety should not be assembling these types of articles on BLPs with single sources for single points of criticism, that just makes them laundry lists of negative criticism. They need to be holistic. That said, I'm going to check now to see if other sources exist. --Masem (t) 21:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

And after a check, the only other news source that is even close to stating what the The Times source is saying is the Daily Mail, which, no. This is fully not appropriate to include as a single-sourced claim, at least in the sense of UNDUE-ness. BLPs are not "bad person laundry lists". --Masem (t) 21:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: What's your opinion on the Huffpost 9/11 piece? It directly quotes from a book review which he wrote which is available publicly online (which I cited in the article) as well as emails sent from Piers to the Huffpost, my concern is that in the email quote "My position, as has been the case for some time, is that [conclusions detailed in 9/11 Unmasked] demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that significant parts of the official narrative are very likely to be incorrect" is that [conclusions detailed in 9/11 Unmasked] may be misleading editorializing, and there's no way to verify without the original email. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That too, as a first-pass search, seems like a single-sourced item (HuffPost brings it up again in the news about him leaving his position), there's a few smaller, questionable RSes about it. There's a bit of concern here. Stuff related to Syria, that's clearly multiple sources, as well as Iraq and his stance on media + propaganda. Other positions seem to be singular pieces. --Masem (t) 22:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to note that the author of the HuffPost piece is a self-professed "specialist in conspiracy theory debunking"[21]. While there is nothing wrong with debunking fringe theories, York does not debunk here an theory but goes after Robinson, starting right from the article title. This makes this witch-hunting POV news piece pretty much worthless for the purpose of being a reliable basis of a person's biography.

Also while I am long resigned to the fact that mass media fill space with reports on absolute trivia these days, I wonder why someone's tweet or a Facebook share should be immediately included in an encyclopaedia? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Piers has re-activated his old account and has responded on the talk page

Dear Editors,

Regarding COVID-19 and my alleged 'conspiricism' about bioweapons and lethality, are you aware that PBS broadcast this briefing with a US military commander who also noted the possibility of bioweapons (although he thought unlikely) https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1155&v=n4LvzK1wTRY&feature=emb_logo and that The Australian economics editor (sister paper to the Times) stated the virus threat was overstated etc just three days after the article about me in the London Times https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/we-may-be-overreacting-to-an-unremarkable-coronavirus/news-story/3d78be873fac364af49f5fc949e3eaeb.

Can anyone see a problem here, that I discuss (briefly) issue of lethality and virus origins and am attacked in the Times for doing so, and yet I assume the PBS broadcast and Australian article are not being labelled as conspiracy theorists or attacked?

In addition, are you all aware that the same Times journalist, Dominic Kennedy, led an attack piece on me and my colleagues in 2018, accusing us of circulating conspiracy theories regarding alleged chemical weapon attacks in Syria? Subsequently, Times leader writer Oliver Kamm has publicly stated that he initiated the Times 'investigation' and he has also stated that, subsequently, former UK military officer (involved with the war in Syria) had asked the Times to keep going after us https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1194741907559108609?s=20??

Finally, although back in 2018 the Times accused us of spreading conspiracies regarding chemical weapon attacks in Syria, it is now the case that multiple documents plus whistleblower testimony are in the public domain corroborating the questions we originally raised. Indeed, OPCW inspector Ian Henderson has addressed the UN security council on this issue. Should there not be mention of these facts when discussing Syria?

This information might be useful for your deliberations.

Sincerely,

Dr Piers Robinson

It is worth noting that Piers has still not retracted his threat of legal action. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Why pasting all those paragraphs when a diff would suffice? Let's keep in mind that this is a new editor and will certainly need guidance re. policies and procedures we have here. You might like to politely inform him that he is expected to retract legal threats as it's unlikely he is aware of this policy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Because it is a direct response from the person the article is about, quoting it in full makes the most sense given that the initial complaint on this noticeboard was also written by him, not everybody following this noticeboard discussion is also discussing on the talk page. It was made very clear at the IP address that the block was related to legal threats and that he would not be unblocked until the legal threat was retracted, I'm not saying I'm unsympathetic to Piers in this situation, but both of the issues that he found defamatory initially have been resolved, so there's no reason for the legal threat. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If that's the problem, let's do it this way:

@Piersgregoryrobinson:, Wikipedia policies do not allow editors to make legal threats – see WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. You are asked to retract the legal threat above. Please keep in mind that making legal threats is a blockable offence on Wikipedia.

— kashmīrī ^TALK 11:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat has been removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Death of Rebecca Zahau and Jonah Shacknai

Good afternoon all. Can I request a few opinions over on the two articles above. See this talk section of DoRZ page. Dispute comes down to the insertion of the word "disputed" against an official coroner's report. This was done during a civil trial that has since been vacated following a settlement. The insert of "disputed" suggests a clear POV from Wikipedia in Wikipedia's Voice, and casts a clear shadow on Adam Shacknai who was party to the civil case that was settled without his approval by his insurers which I consider a clear BLP issue. Further on JS article in order to prevent further confusion over the sequence of events I clarified dates, and inserted the factual coroner's outcome of suicide. While not subtle, it is accurate. While there have been speculative articles up to the final civil case, the only other sources that can be found on this are from non-reliable that represent OR, and Self Publish. Cheers. Koncorde (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Putting it in the infobox recognises that the suicide is disputed (by her family), not that Wikipedia disputes it. Is there a WP:MOS for death infoboxes that it should reflect the official coroner's report? I'm also going to agree with being neutral as possible in describing her death in Jonah Shacknai's article. I'm surprised there isn't more written about the death of his son and his former girlfriend in his article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Her family are not an authority, and it is their opinion. I find it utterly incredulous that an opinion without source or attribution is being used in the face of the weight of both Primary and RS against the official position.

That's like going to the September 11 attacks and arguing for the inclusion of conspiracy theories. Koncorde (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

We do not weigh the evidence. We rely on what reliable sources tell us, and their coverage is all about the dispute. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources state it was ruled a suicide. The coverage is subsequently about their opinion which they took to a civil case that has since been set aside. Pretty much all crimes have some form of dissent, but we do not typically go around suggesting that criminals are only "alleged" even after they are convicted.

The subject of their dispute is covered in the body, with the appropriate context. In the infobox without context is problematic for me in the same way including other opinions in a public dispute would be.

Yes, her death was ruled a suicide and that ruling was disputed by the family leading to a wrongful death trial covered by reliable sources. The infobox is part of the lead which is meant to summarise the contents of the article. That's why I asked rhetorically if there was a MOS for deathboxes mandating the official coroner's report. If you believe that the word "disputed" needs attribution in the infobox, then attribute it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

They went to a civil trial for damages against Adam Shacknai, (which would not change the coroner's report). They won, and her death was still a suicide. Then on appeal they settled, and her death was still a suicide. The official stance did not change even after her body was exhumed. Adding "Disputed" suggests that there is something intrinsically wrong about the formal process (there is no suggestion to that effect), and still places a clear suggestion of guilt on Adam Shacknai (as no other third party has been posited). If there was no named third party I might not be bothered so much - but given the family have made accusations against an individual and they have since settled with no admission of guilt and outcomes set aside - and he is on record of being aggrieved - then we are clearly infringing on his BLP rights.

Meanwhile asking to attribute "disputed" makes no sense any more than allowing misinformation in the summary about Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 from Russia, because, y'know, their opinion. The presence of someone who doesn't share the opinion of the formal outcome of an investigation was never meant to enable people to insert pet theories into infoboxes without context (sourced or not) particularly when they impact on an innocent third party.

As for MOS for the infobox; whether it is even the correct infobox or the correct information is held at all is open for debate. But the idea that a conspiracy theory (which this is) holds water is dangerous ground. Koncorde (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to strike out your accusation that this is a conspiracy theory. You have zero sources that substantiate that. The family simply argued that Zahau's cause of death was incorrect. At one point a jury found Adam Shacknai responsible for Zahau's death. And I agree, the civil suit against Shacknai did not change official cause of death. But that's because U.S. law doesn't work that way. The jury did not say Shacknai caused Zahau to commit suicide. It would be unbalanced to display "Cause of death: Suicide" in the infobox without any context. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it is a conspiracy theory. There are literally websites set up to that effect talking about the family's theories (which I am not dragging into here) in addition to their own claims and their own lawsuit. They are not simply disputing the cause of death. They literally alleged a conspiracy, to quote:

“On or around the morning of July 13, 2011, defendants Adam, Dina and Nina, and each of them, conspired to plan, and did in fact, enter into a common scheme of conduct with the intent to murder Rebecca in Coronado, California,” the lawsuit states.

The document goes on to claim that the trio struck Zahau “on the head multiple times with a blunt instrument,” physically restrained her, gagged her, bound her and strangled her “to the point of unconsciousness or death.”

The lawsuit alleges the defendants then placed a rope noose around Zahau’s neck, tied the other end of the rope to a bed, carried Zahau to the balcony of the bedroom and pushed her over the railing."

They are literally alleging people are party to a conspiracy to murder Zahau. Suggesting that there is any legitimacy to their claim is a BLP violation against 3 named individuals. Koncorde (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: Colloquially, the label "conspiracy theory" is pejorative. And as a value-laden WP:LABEL, it would be best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Even if we ignore the pejorative nature of the phrase, you have yet to provide a single source (let alone WP:RS) that supports your position that the controversy behind Rebecca Zahau's death is based on a conspiracy theory. Instead, you are providing your own evaluation of WP:PRIMARY sources. Wikipedia policy states Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. So no, in an encyclopedic sense, this is not a conspiracy theory. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The controversy is entirely based on an upset family refusing to accept a coroner's report. What has since been spam is a series of theories making accusations against multiple people alleging a conspiracy (a, "conspiracy theory" of you will) - all of whom have been found to have no criminal case to answer, and the civil case thrown out. But we can't take the family or their lawyers word for it now then? And I know you won't accept any secondary source that doesn't provide their own opinion on things or secondary sources that actually talk about the conspiracy theories or discusses the preponderance of conspiracy theories abounding that are made reference to because the entire thing is a joke and your interpretation is fundamentally flawed. Koncorde (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You are conflating online conspiracy theories and the real-life litigation by Zahau's family. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

My argument is simple. Konkorde is violating WP:BLPBALANCE by removing mention of the dispute in the infobox in Death of Rebecca Zahau and by adding the suicide claim to Jonah Shacknai. The majority of WP:RS on this matter mention the dispute over Rebecca Zahau's death. Arguably none say her death was a suicide in a way that satisfies WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. Konkorde's own supposed secondary citations state "alleged suicide" or "ruled a suicide" and reference the dispute, which is honestly par for the course in this matter. Konkorde admits most reliable sources cast doubt on the cause of death [22]. For the page Death of Rebecca Zahau we should inline sources and mention the dispute in a manner that adequately matches the source material. As for the page of Jonah Shacknai, an actual living person who is in the public spotlight, we should either mention both the suicide and the dispute, or leave that to Zahau's article. Mentioning the suicide alone would be a violation of WP:WELLKNOWN: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. Hopefully with these changes, the facts in this case can be presented in a balanced and neutral manner. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The idea that an RS reporting the outcome of a coroner's report doesn't meet secondary is questionable. By that perspective no secondary source reporting facts is admissable on Wikipedia for lack of their own opinion. In fact their opinion is clear when they report the incontrovertible facts. Until such time as the coroner's report is overturned. Koncorde (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"Disputed" is not suitable for the infobox. The family's view can be related in the article text. The infobox should give the determination of the authority responsible for these matters. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Cause of death is an official record, and is what should appear in the info-box. Ditch ∝ 14:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Governments are fallible like any other primary source. They are routinely incorrect or in disagreement with one another. As an example, I work in articles that deal in genocide. Culpable nations generally underestimate or fabricate stats for their own purposes. The same logic applies for COVID-19 stats and crime rates. And like Morbidthoughts says, there is nothing in the WP:MOS that says official government rulings should be given special treatment. We do, however, give special attention to reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Then perhaps, like disputed birth dates, it should just be removed? Ditch ∝ 15:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Since the cause of death is disputed, I feel like it's fair to remove the cause of death from the infobox. --Elephanthunter (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Pointless to do so. She still committed suicide. You keep talking about reliable secondary sources, and have provided no such sources that provide the "own thinking" logic leap you are insisting that they must have. Koncorde (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: The point of removing the line is to provide a balanced article given the information we have. The article should cover the dispute with the same balance as reliable secondary sources. I've already provided my sources above, which is what prompted me to add a reflist at the end of this talk. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, what "own thinking" is being presented? They are just repeating what the family has said, who are a primary source. A source that, by arguments you have made, we should be careful in using. Koncorde (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of secondary sources. Most reliable secondary sources mention the family's litigation and include an in-text citation whenever they refer to the coroner's report. They steer clear of interpreting the nature of her death. Wikipedia's prescriptive guidelines on writing a neutral piece say that we should follow that same pattern. We should not promote the views of Zahau's family as fact, nor provide our own interpretation of the coroner's report. Unlike you, I am not asserting that we should write the cause of death, absent of context, in the voice of Wikipedia. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

References

BIll Ayers

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

In late April 2018[23] (arbitrary date} the article read:\

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

In December last year[24] it read:

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

But starting on the 3rd of March it beings to change , with the last sentence saying "He is known for his 1960s terrorist activity" instead. Then we get thisp[25] which adds "terrorist" to his short description and bizarrely calls Bill Ayres a "political terrorist" in the "For the" bit above the lead. Then we get an account making two edits (and more anywhere) throwing "domestic terrorism" into it in several places. This type of edit continues and even spills over to WP:ANI#Moderator Tarl N. abusing powers and reverting legitimate changes due to political bias with User:Bswastek complaining about User:Tarl N. Bswastek and User:Monomoystriper continue and are reverted by User:MiasmaEternal who then adds to the Weather Underground mention that it was described by the FBI as a domestic terrorist organisation (which is absolutely true, but the issue is where does that belong). An IP that I will notify removed this saying there was a consensus not to use the word terrorism, but I can't find that. User:Baseball Bugs reinstates the text, an IP (that I will notify) changes "described" to "classified", a term definitely not used by the FBI source[26] making it read that Ayers "is a former leader of the Weather Underground (a group classified by the FBI as a "domestic terrorist organisation")" rather than "described by the FBI as a domestic terrorist group"(I'll raise that issue at RSN) and I reverted them.

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

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

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

References

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

As I pointed out at RSN, the description of the group as domestic terrorists is taken from an article written for the general public. As the disclaimer says, "the Department makes no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this site....The information appearing on this website is for general informational purposes only."[27] AFAIK the FBI has never charged members of the Weather Underground with terrorist offenses or designated it a terrorist group. Any attempt to claim they did is wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alice S. Fisher

There is a serious distortion in this article about Alice Fisher’s prosecution of Jack Abramoff when she was Assistant Attorney General. Details at Talk:Alice S. Fisher#Request Edit May 18. This is a separate matter from the issue raised below, which has been resolved. JZ at LW (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I've unarchived this as it doesn't look like it has been dealt with and so if nothing else, it will be a reminder to me to look into it in a few days if no one else does. Nil Einne (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Tedros Adhanom

There are multiple issues at this page. Because Adhanom is director general of the World Health Organization and is the target of both criticism and conspiracy theory, his page could really use help from editors who have time.

Some editors (HaeB, Mx. Granger) have correctly noted that much of the article is written in an unencyclopedic manner, hence this tag [28]. However, we should fix up the article to remove the tag asap.

Unfortunately the section on COVID-19 is highly unbalanced [29] and needs attention. -Darouet (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't find the Tedros Adhanom#COVID-19 pandemic section obviously problematic. Can you be more specific? Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Bus stop: I had made some corrections [30]. You can see there's also a discussion at the bottom of Talk:Tedros Adhanom. Regards, -Darouet (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have attempted to include notable, sourced and neutral data about a BND report regarding Tedros, and the WHO's response to the allegations. This has been reverted twice now by User:Thucydides411, claiming it is a POV addition. I started a discussion on the talk page after his first revert, but the user has decided to refuse to engage in that discussion. Does anyone here see a reason this data should not be included? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven't "refused to engage." Not everyone edits round the clock. I have now explained my objections to your additions. In short, I think they tend to turn the page into an attack page. There is no BND report, as far as I can see from Der Spiegel. There is a claim that Der Spiegel sources vaguely to the BND. Whether the claim comes from an anonymous official, an unmentioned document, or somewhere else is not stated by Der Spiegel. The claim - that the Chinese government asked the WHO to cover up information that the Chinese government itself had already publicized - in itself is highly dubious. There should be stronger confirmation of this claim before it is included in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I have responded in detail, and with a myriad of additional sources that cover the BND accusation, at the talk page of the article. There is no logical reason to exclude such notable information. It should definitely not be stated as if it is a fact, but my edit was carefully done to ensure that both the accusation and denials were given weight. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Your edit claimed that the BND had released an intelligence report stating that Xi Jinping had pressured Tedros Adhanom to delay reporting human-to-human transmission and delay declaring a PHEIC. Der Spiegel does not claim the existence of any such report. Der Spiegel says, "Nach Erkenntnissen des BND" ("according to the BND") and "Nach Einschätzung des BND" ("in the estimation of the BND"). That's it. Whether someone in the BND spoke to Der Spiegel, whether there is a BND report - all this is unclear. The problem with this claim, beyond its weak sourcing, is that it contradicts what is publicly known. The Chinese government publicized the existence of human-to-human transmission on 20 January, yet Der Spiegel is claiming that they somehow heard from the BND (in some unspecified way) that Xi pressured Tedros to cover up human-to-human transmission on 21 January. This is an extremely dubious claim, and the sourcing is very thin. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"Der Spiegel cited intelligence from the country's Federal Intelligence Service" (NZ Herald). If the word "report" you feel is somehow wrong, fine take that out... "intelligence" in this context has the same meaning as "intelligence report". The sourcing is not remotely thin, I've showed that The Telegraph, the Associated Press, and even the WHO itself have covered this BND claim, and the subsequent denials. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Michael Avenatti

Please come comment at Talk:Michael Avenatti#Opening sentence. A discussion to develop a consensus on the opening sentence needs more than two people who aren't agreeing. At issue is whether to start the article with essentially the "X is a convicted felon" construction. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

My sensibilities lead me to being inclined to omit from the very first sentence that they are a "convicted felon". They are also an educated person who has no doubt done defensible things professionally. It strikes me as over-stigmatization to pigeonhole them as a "convicted felon" in the opening sentence of their biography. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm made the same comment there already with a suggested revised text. There are rare cases - someone like Bernie Madoff - that despite their "legitimate" career before conviction, that their convicted felonies far far far outweigh that and need to be highlighted as such (usually when their crimes have harmed numerous people financially or in some other way). But cases like Avenatti's here are more type of the type of "victimless" white collar crimes that while felonies and important enough to note their convictions and sentences in the lede, should not immediately outweigh impartial coverage of their career they were known for. This is not to downplay their crimes, we should still let the media be a general guide here with an awareness of RECENTISM (in the case of Avenatti, this all happening in the last several months so RECENTISM absolutely applies) --Masem (t) 23:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You consider extortion a victimless crime? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Not in that way, it was more a simplification to differentiate. All crimes have victims, obviously (otherwise they would not be crimes), but, as I've feel there exists when reading sources, there's a big perception difference of crimes against a company and its recordbooks, and a crimes that immediately impact thousands of individuals. Sources seem to treat the latter as being victims and those committing the crime with much more resentment, while in the former there is not that much sympathy for companies being victims, but there is a want to see justice against any misdeeds anyway. --Masem (t) 23:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

No, not all crimes have victims, even if you put "obviously" on it. Enough people have been locked up over the years for consensual acts that that should be clear. And financial crimes against a company has as victims all of its shareholders. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Some notable examples (of individuals who were notable before they were convicted) that come into my mind:

• Michael Cohen: "is an American former lawyer and convicted felon best known as an attorney for Donald Trump from 2006 until May 2018."
• Paul Manafort: "is a former lobbyist, political consultant, lawyer, and convicted felon of tax and bank fraud."
• Anthony Weiner: "is an American former congressman who represented New York's 9th congressional district from January 1999 until June 2011."

The first two use {{Infobox criminal}} that includes statements about their criminal status while biographies of Avenatti and Weiner. Here (re: Avenatti) is discussion about removing criminal status from the infobox. I'm not suggesting that all four biographies should be treated similarly, just that they aren't. Here someone has commented that Cohen Sorrentino (whoever that is) are not treated similarly. Politrukki (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, and I would argue the same points on those; they had known careers before they were convicted even though their convictions (and events leading up to and after it) likely overshadowed their careers. Using infobox criminal is fine as long as they are convicting on criminal charges, but as I've pointed on on Avenatti's page, there is no requirement or policy that the lede sentence has the summarize the person completely. The lede in total has to, with appropriate UNDUE considerations, so as to summarize, for example, Cohen without mention of any conviction would be inappropriate. What the lede does have to do is present the topic in a neutral and impartial fashion, and that is where rushing to append a conviction at the end of that first sentence is nearly always a problem; its the inverse of the "murder, arson and jaywalking" trope, and it immediately sets a wrong tone for the article in Wikivoice. Again, per UNDUE, we're going to be talking of these convictions in the lede, and in nearly all cases I've seen, that's in the second paragraph after establishing what their main career path was, and the infobox will have the basic details. This is only a rule of thumb, I am sure there are cases where the conviction needs to come earlier like in the second sentence, but after establishing enough of the person's career to make it clear why that conviction exists. It's not about whitewashing away information but the tone we're presenting this information to readers. --Masem (t) 14:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning the conviction in the lead sentence twice is redundant and I'm not sure whether "best known" should be mentioned in the opening sentence/paragraph at all. However, I fail to understand how using rollback[31][32] and semi-protecting[33] the article (as opposed to requesting for protection) can be justified – unless there is some additional information we are not privy to. Politrukki (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Liz Crokin

Your feedback would be welcome at this discussion about whether the available sources meet the bar required by WP:BLPSOURCES for inclusion of material about conspiracy theories in the article Liz Crokin. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Alison Roman article

Could use more eyes at Alison Roman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

List of LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom

There's a discussion taking place at Talk:List of LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom#Portillo about the inclusion of living people - some of whom don't appear to be openly LGBT - on this list. Input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Coatrack material at Rick Bright‎

Recently I removed some material from the BLP Rick Bright that was a recent add by Activist [[34]]. My talk page comments were added here [[35]]. The primary concern is that the content was not about what Bright said, rather it was about what another person said in testimony after Bright. It also looks like a wp:coatrack used to insert information critical of the Trump administration's response to the COVID-19 pandemic into an article not about that subject. I think it would be helpful if other editors could weigh in. I trust that Activists intent is good faith but far too often they are inserting UNDUE material into articles and often they are using conspiratorial tone.[[36]],[[37]]. So in this case I'm looking for both editor opinion on the content as well as similar edits to this one (often added to BLP). Springee (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The editor has added similarly questionable/coatrack material to Alek_Skarlatos here [[38]]. I'm not sure how we can consider a phrase like "Republican Dr. Art Robinson, controversial scientist,[37], global warming denialist, and anti-evolutionist also filed for the seat." to be IMPARTIAL in tone much less why it would be in an article about a different person. Springee (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The material has been disputed as being a little off-topic in an article about Rick Bright. But in no way did it violate BLP or add anything derogatory about anyone, so I can't imagine why this was reported here. (Note: I am involved at the discussion.) -- MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I had debated NPON or here. I picked here because the pattern is similar to the issues with the previous edits (see the links). The Akarlatos article may be more BLP issue. I'm happy to close the discussion here and reopen it at NPOV. I think the bigger issue is multiple examples of coatracking (and failing to follow BRD when challenged). Springee (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no rule against reporting to the wrong board, and who knows, maybe something helpful will come out of it. To me, the first diff looks like going from reporting the issue and the subject's position to trying to sell that position. It's like coming across an article about physicist, and finding its more about selling their theories than it is about the person.

Same but opposite in the fifth diff. The info about Robinson is totally irrelevant to the subject, and not only is undue but irrelevantly undue. The article is not about Robinson or the other candidate. There is no need to list their positions or compare campaign funds (the article is not about the campaign either). And I think there may be some BLP issues with the labels, as these are subjective labels and need either very good sourcing and attribution to someone with the expertise to make that call, or he describes himself that way (not as good though, and should still be attributed). However, it is irrelevant to this article. All in all, it looks like a little activism rather than reporting, no pun intended. Zaereth (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Cuban ancestry material at the Mariah Carey article

Mariah Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At Talk:Mariah Carey#Cuban ancestry (a permalink for it here), I expressed concern about this material that I reverted. I stated, "It is poor sourcing. I don't think that Deseret.com is strong enough sourcing for what [was] added. And editors have stated before that we shouldn't use genealogy sources (familysearch.org) or otherwise to add material like this. If this is true, it should be covered by better sources." I also stated that the editor who added it, Xuxo, "didn't help the text by adding 'claims'; see WP:Claim."

Xuxo replied, "The sources I posted are not 'genealogy sources', they are official documents (Mariah's grandparents marriage certificate of 1928 and the 1930 US census). Both listed her grandfather as 'Cuban', not Venezuelan. They are not genealogy sources that anybody can change, they are official documents emitted by the US government. These documents happen to be avaiable in a genealogy website (familysearch.com), but they are original copies of official documents and one cannot argue against them. All sources claiming Mariah's grandfather was Venezuelan is based solely on her 'claims'. In that interview I posted as a source, Mariah said that she once thought her grandfather was Cuban, but later she 'discovered' he was Venezuelan (it is possible that someone gave her the wrong information). It is clear that Mariah did not meet her grandfather, so she may be confused about his nationality, which is ok. However, his marriage certificate and the 1930 census are clear and indicate his nationality as Cuban, not Venezuelan. As there are conflitive sources regarding his nationality, I added both possibilities in the article (Venezuelan or Cuban) and this seems the best way to deal with it."

Thoughts? I'll also point the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard to this matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen—I don't see where you've included any mention of Cuban heritage. Aren't you saying "I added both possibilities in the article (Venezuelan or Cuban)"? Bus stop (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't add anything. Above, I was quoting Xuxo. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Bus stop (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those types of official documents are no different than using court records, tax records, phone books, or any other primary source covered by BLPPRIMARY and BLPPRIVACY. I recommend removing them at once, leaving a clear indication that these are definite BLP violations. It doesn't matter if they were found on some third-party website either, they are still official documents and subject to BLP. Genealogy sites are also primary sources, although not the type that would require immediate removal, I would avoid them like the plague. They do their own research, and are far from infallible. It is much better if we can find this info in secondary sources, but digging into primary sources like those is doing the work of journalists, or original research, so I would avoid that.

That said, the diff above is not even about Carey but about her grandfather. It is really extraneous and makes it awkward to read. And the use of the word "claims" makes it look like she's lying, so I would watch for those things. All in all, it's too much detail for something that could be summed up in a few words, and none of that detail really helps in understanding the subject. I would definitely go back to the way it was. I hope that helps.

Oh, and I did a quick review of the Deseret article. At first it looks like a well written article, but it's really just a report of an interview from taken from another magazine, and doesn't say a whole lot. I don't think I would count that as reliable for this particular info. I would at least go back to the original and see what it says in full context. Zaereth (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with "the diff above is not even about Carey but about her grandfather. It is really extraneous ... none of that detail really helps in understanding the subject". While the importance of one's ancestral lineage can be overstated it is not irrelevant. As for the quality of the sourcing I think it is weak and it verges on original research. Therefore I agree the assertion of Cuban ancestry should be omitted at this time. Bus stop (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Using a marriage document is textbook WP:BLPPRIMARY. It is using public records to assert things in her biography and they should be removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I should have mentioned WP:BLPPRIMARY to the editor; it escaped my mind at the time. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no blanket prohibition whatsoever on using primary sources. We can use them on occasion where appropriate and for plain facts requiring no interpretation. Per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Thus, we can use a primary source to state someone was born somewhere, such as Germany. We cannot, however, use a primary to make an interpretive statement, such as "he is German" (since, for example, Bruce Willis was born in Germany but is not German). --Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent point, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I think that Zaereth and Morbidthoughts were focused on the following from WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Nearly 15 years, and I'm still learning! I'm thinking there should be mention of that / link to that at WP:PRIMARY. Addendum: And I see it's already there, right at the bottom of the section!

I would note that secondary sources using data taken from primary sources have long been used and accepted, i.e. FamilySearch Social Security death records and the California Birth Index. So I would advise the editors using primary sources at Mariah Carey to try to find acceptable secondary sources. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Rocky De La Fuente

I just received a call from Rocky De La Fuente, who is currently the Alliance Party candidate for US President, and whose article I am a regular editor on. He is concerned about the use of the term "perennial candidate" on his article. He feels that

1. this was placed in the article based on weak sources (minor market local coverage, rather than national), and
2. uses of the term in subsequent coverage arise from reporters using Wikipedia as reference, and find that term there (and thus would be WP:Circular reporting), and
3. the strong majority of references to him in major coverage do not use that term, and
4. that the descriptor is not accurate, as it is usually used for those who do not win elections, and he has won two nominations - the Reform Party's presidential nomination in 2016, and the Alliance Party's this year, and
5. the descriptor can be viewed as a negative one that could impact coverage and voting.

This matter has been discussed on the article's talk page in the past, which has lead to the current status. However, I felt his concerns were heavy enough that I promised to bring them to this page, so that more editors with a sense of BLP concerns could review the matter (particularly because there has not been much active discussion on that page for a while.) The phrase is also used to describe him at 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries. I ask that folks take a look and voice their opinions here.

To be clear: while this is not the first time De La Fuente has reached out to me, I have no conflict of interest in this matter. I do not work for him, his campaigns, or anything affiliated. I am not here campaigning for one outcome or another, just helping someone who does not speak Wikipedian have his concerns heard. (Obviously, the above includes a lot of translation into Talk page lingo.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I know that he has tried in the past to get this accurate description of himself removed. But he is the absolute definition of a perennial candidate. I can't think of anyone who fits the definition better. Running for president multiple times on multiple tickets; running for Senate in nine different states (where he doesn't live) in the same election; running for mayor of New York (where he doesn't live). Winning the nomination of minor parties (including parties he created himself) is not the same as winning elections. Whether he likes it or not, he is a perennial candidate, and he proves it more and more strongly in every election. Thanks for passing along his concerns, Nat, but "perennial candidate" is what he is, and it is not a BLP violation to describe someone accurately. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Do RS note that he's run multiple times and rarely won? If they don't even acknowledge that, we may be crossing into WP:SYNTH. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Did a quick search and found several RS that explicitly refer to him as a perennial candidate so there is no SYNTH.[39][40][41] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the claim however reliably sourced can be moved out of the first sentence in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I checked the list of people at Perennial candidate#United States. It is in the first sentence of the lead in about half the cases. See Sam Sloan, John Raese, Jimmy McMillan, Basil Marceaux, George P. Mahoney, Calvin H. Gurley, Peter Diamondstone, William Bryk. Whether in the lead or in the body of the text, it should be retained since it is accurate and sourced (and is the source of his notability). It is not an insult or a BLP violation. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

How about this: instead of calling him a primary candidate in Wikipedia's voice in the first sentence, we could have a sourced sentence saying "he has been described as a perennial candidate". -- MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Not necessary because the descriptor is completely justified. De La Fuente's objection that it is inaccurate (relayed via NatGertler's point #4) has no bearing because winning nominations is not willing elections and De La Fuente has never been elected to any office. The descriptor is accurate and (as stated above) well-sourced and we retain accurate well-sourced descriptors even if the subject disagrees. If Mr. De La Fuernte does not wish to be described as a perennial candidate he simply needs to stop doing that which gets him reliable described as such. It is not up to us to be his PR department and describe him as he wishes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to share my thoughts on this, I hope they find their way into open minds.

Wikipedia is one of the most important sources of information on the web. Many use it as a reference, make decisions, and shape their thoughts upon what is posted here. Even though it tries to stay objective there is plenty of evidence that there are external forces that shape many articles and damage the image of a lot of people. Especially in politics.

The argument here is about good faith writing. Some consider that the adjective Perennial should be posted and others that it should be removed, both groups make their arguments very rigid points of view, there is not going to be an agreement on that.

What I think we can all agree is that the term Perennial has a negative connotation. Such term politically speaking is mainly associated with ¨joke candidates¨. It has proved to be so controversial here that it can´t be considered ¨accurate¨ either.

I have studied deeply the platform and his positions, his arguments to run and the path he has followed. I can´t say I agree with them or that they are normal, but certainly, they are serious and the impact he has made from a legal point of view in our political system is quite serious and well thought.

So the discussion here should be if it is vital for the quality of the information in the article to label De La Fuente with the term.

If it is not vital, why should it be posted from a Goof Faith writing POV?

Crazycapybara (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr. De La Fuente is a perennial candidate by any definition of the term, regardless of its connotations. We should describe him as such. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn—the fact of consistently losing elections is not sufficiently important for the first sentence of the lede. Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, it is if that is all the person is notable for. De La Fuente has never had any significant effect on any political contest he has participated in. His notability rests entirely on running for, and losing, elections where he is not merely an outsider (a la Ross Perot or Ralph Nader) but having virtually no impact on the race at all. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing the term used by LA Times, Vox, ChiTrib (granted from their OpEd dept), Politico, Fox News, WAPost, USA Today and that's just about 6-7 pages into a Google News search discounting smaller state and local papers/news stations. "Perennial candidate" is not a label as it has objective meaning here, its well applied to De La Fuente who is a public figure, and its unfortunate that it might harm their election chances but we're not here to right great wrongs.

That said, I'm only getting about 200 hits for "Rocky De La Fuente" and "perennial candidate" in Google News, compared to 19,000 hits for his name only. Putting as a first sentence term is UNDUE. It needs to be in the lede, but it shouldn't (edited per below) be as early as it is; I'd replace it with "politician" and then introduce the "perennial candidate" in discussing his failed runs. --Masem (t) 16:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"it should be as early as it is"? Do you mean it shouldn't be as early as it is? Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

yes, I've edited to be clear. --Masem (t) 16:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, thanks for the search and the Reliable Sources, and for your carefully reasoned approach. I guess your point is that not EVERY mention of him on the internet says he is a perennial candidate, although many do. My hunch is that most that don't are mere mentions of his name, in articles or posts listing the candidates who are running for this or that, but I can't prove it. I would be OK with putting it later in the lead, with attribution. And I would not call him "politician" because he isn't. (A wannabe politician perhaps, but he has never held office.) Call him an American businessman, period. BTW the thing that makes him "perennial" is not that his runs have failed; it's that there have been so many of them, and sometimes carried to (I suspect) unprecedented extremes - like running for Senate in nine different states in the same election. (He admits that he did it to increase his name recognition.) If he is not a perennial candidate, nobody ever has been. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't avoid the term, you can't avoid saying he's run for office many many times, but again, the use of the term is not as frequent as its made out to be to be necessary or appropriate in the lede sentence. This also may be where its necessary not to focus on any particular candidacy runs he's done outside of Presidency in the lede as well. --Masem (t) 16:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have altered the first and second paragraphs so that the term is no longer in the opening sentence, but it is at the front of the second paragraph. Does this properly reflect all concerns? (I will note in regards to Melanie's most recent comment that our article politician includes those who are campaigning for office under that descriptor, although dictionaries seem mixed on that usage. "aspiring politician", perhaps?) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Nat Gertler, good compromise. I would just say "has been described as" a perennial candidate instead of "is considered to be", which cries out for a tag. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I will integrate that for now, as that has been suggested by another as well, for the nonce.

I have now been reached by a person who is apparently on the PR team for Rocky, who argues that a better, and truer adjective is “persistent”. (Again, posting that as a courtesy; this should not be taken as my endorsing that wording.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Perennial" is the term used by the sources. We don't modify our articles to suit the preferred terminology of the subject or their PR team - who I gather is closely monitoring our discussion and actions here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a few but far fewer for "persistent" and so yes, we have to go with what the sources say. We can agree that per UNDUE it shouldn't be front and center, but we can't go with a preferred wording that is not preferred by sources. --Masem (t) 18:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no issue with directly saying that he is a perennial candidate rather than "described as". The term is intended to summarize that he's ran multiple times without being elected. We shouldn't allow the rebranding spin to "persistant" as his article is not an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced the existing references with higher profile, national publications, spread out over a period of three years. Thank you, Masem, for the links. That's to respond to their first talking point, above, that the description has only appeared in minor local publications. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Peter Nygård

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

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

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

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

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

References

Jia Tolentino

• Jia Tolentino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recent editing could use attention from a BLP specialist. Could maybe use being frozen on a previous stable version, to encourage discussion of content on the talk page. Jheald (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It would not be suitable to freeze it on any version with a bunch of extraneous article on the subject's parents. This is an article on Jia Tolentino, not an article on her parents. Nil Einne (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Greyjoy appears to have a found a good version without these issues that also has a lot of information that was mysteriously removed despite apparently being sourced. I'm going to start warning anyone who adds the information without sufficient sourcing since editors still seem to be at it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is still a problem, and still has anonymous users edit warring salacious claims sourced to blog posts and original research. It definitely at least needs to be softlocked. - Desine (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

A request for page protection has been submitted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for three days. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Judy Genshaft

Please participate in the RfC at Talk:Judy Genshaft#REQUEST FOR COMMENT RE:_Al-Arian controversy Rocky.abcd (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Karter Zaher

• Karter Zaher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This seems to be a paid article. Most of the references and citations are not relating to the points being made. He claims to be the founder but there is not proof of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Picolie (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Freddy Cedeno

Hello my name is fredy cedeno, I would like to add information from my profile, such as my summary, the teams I played as a personal athlete and more information from my biography, please feel free to contact me if you need more information. additionally and no less important my name is written with a single D not with double DD, it is a bit confusing because in some articles on the internet my name is written with double DD. Thank you very much for your help regards fredy cedeno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredy Cedeno (talk • contribs) 22:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this the correct article: Freddy Cedeño? Bus stop (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Chanty Marostica

Please see the latest addition to Talk:Chanty Marostica, which may be a violation of BLP policies. I am not familiar enough with the policies to determine for myself whether this note is unacceptable. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPRS and WP:BLPREMOVE say that contentious material must be cited with a reliable source, which is really what the BLP policy is about. So yeah, that EPER, not specific, unsourced, and possible libel. And off-topic, that should probably be a COI edit request. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 01:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the question was whether the material should be removed from the talk page: obviously it can't be included in the article for many reasons. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have redacted the unsourced allegations from the talk page. I left parts of the message and the responses, in part to ensure the IP can read them. There is still the line "it is a factual.....", but IMO that's probably borderline okay as it with the earlier stuff deleted, it's not clear what it's referring to. Still others are welcome to go further if they want. IMO revdeletion is also justified but I haven't asked for it from anyone. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Dimple Kapadia - parents' religion

The Dimple Kapadia article is currently at FAC, where there's a dispute between myself and a user over the religion of Kapadia's parents (see section on FAC) - my summary/query of the dispute appears on the FAC talk page.

In brief (as much as possible), the a user did not review the article but persisted that her parents' religion be added (I had only a source that said her mother was Muslim but nothing about her father, so I initially refused to add religion because I wanted it to be balanced). Actually I was not very favoring of adding her parents' religion at all because Dimple Kapadia never spoke publicly about her religion. I finally found sources from Open magazine, 2019 and India Today, 1985, which say, respectively, the following about her father, Chunibhai's family:

• India Today: "The wealthy Khoja family, which embraced Hinduism only with Chunibhai's father, Laljibhai, and which accepts the Agha Khan as its religious mentor even now, disowned Dimple's father the day he agreed to Raj Kapoor's proposal to let her sign for Bobby"
• Open (about her daughter): "...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family ... Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby".

Based on these, I wrote the following:

• "Chunibhai belonged to a wealthy family of lapsed Ismaili Khojas who accepted Hinduism but continued following Aga Khan as their mentor; Bitti was Muslim (mother).

The user did not accept this version, saying it does not make sense Khoja Muslims would embrace Hinduism (calling it "adaptive lying not based in any reality that I am aware of"), and instead offered to write that her father was "professing a more pluralistic religious outlook".

After a long discussion and many versions offered, on his part an ongoing insistence to remove the word Hinduism, I found an interview with her daughter which said, "My grandmother is an Aga Khani so she would take Rinke and me to the jamatkhana. I had a multicultural exposure, that's why I don't believe in a particular religion. I have respect for most because I grew up surrounded by so many." Based on this finding (or another similar report), the user said that this proves beyond doubt that the family was Muslim because "Ismailism, which is an integral part of Shia Islam, of necessity and non-negotiably monotheistic, does not allow its adherents, even the wayward ones, to 'embrace' Hinduism, a polytheistic religion". Now this is funny, because her daughter is factually half-Muslim and half-Hindu (Dimple Kapadia's husband was Hindu). My current version, considering all sources:

• "Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, whose members had—according to India Today—"embraced Hinduism" without relinquishing Ismaili loyalties; Bitti was an Ismaili, too, and the couple followed Aga Khan as a religious mentor."

This version is not good for the user either. He is totally against the use of the word Hinduism despite the fact that it's mentioned by a reliable source. The user opposes the nomination in spite of admittedly not having read the article, but that's not for here. The whole process through, I had to put up with some serious calls for a violation of WP:OR, WP:VNT, among others. There's nothing more annoying than to have to deal the whole time with one line in the background section, when the article I worked on covers five decades of work in films.

Another thing, when she was a child, Kapadia was given the name Ameena by Aga Khan. I added it, but he demands that a mention be of Ameena being the name of Prophet Muhammad's mother. I disagreed since this is not what the source says. According to him, the reason she cites for being given the name does not matter (that's literally what he said: "It doesn't really matter what spin she puts on the name". According to me, it is the only thing that matters on a BLP and anywhere on WP since that would be original research.

Anyway, his version is:

• "Chunnibhai was of Ismaili Khoja heritage, but was thought to hold somewhat unconventional religious beliefs; Bitti belonged to a Muslim family."

I think this description is just not warranted by the sources quoted above. I'm specifically ignoring the patronising behavior of the user here, the assertions that this version is his "final proposal", the terribly disregarding words he wrote upon his oppose, because more than anything, out of respect for the actress, as I also explained to him, I would not like to mention anything other than what has been explicitly mentioned by the sources. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Nick McKenzie

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

Can you explain why you removed this paragraph? [42] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Brendan Eich

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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


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

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

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

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

Bradford (band)

At Bradford (band), a new editor (Angelhalo86) has been edit warring to remove an assertion about one of the band members having been charged with possession of child pornography - they explain their reasoning in their edit summaries. The content appears to be accurate and supported by sources, but I'm wondering whether it is DUE - the band split up some ten years before the charges were brought, and the band member in question is not himself notable. Is this content necessary in our article? Others' thoughts would be appreciated. Pinging Hillelfrei who brought this to my attention. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to ping Michig, who also reverted the removal. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Ebi

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

Jennifer Connelly

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

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

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

Ray Burton (musician)

Please note that Australian musician, Ray Burton, born in Sydney, New South Wales, on June 22, 1944, is not deceased. The death notice at the bottom of this article I believe refers to American citizen, Ray Burton, the father of former deceased Metallica member, Cliff Burton.

Regards, Jim McMaster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.39.59.118 (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. I've removed it. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Terry Angus

I am trying to amend the page "Terry Angus" on behalf of Terry Angus who is a very close friend of mine. The article stated that he had suffered a series of injuries, however the article that was referenced referred to other players having injuries, not Terry, and he is adament that he did not have injuries. I also amended his stats (appearances and goals) as these were also incorrect.

An admin reverted my changes and said they were incorrect but they are correct as I am amending on behalf of Terry,at his request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayleyjedwards (talk • contribs) 18:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

As explained - the injuries element has been updated; the stats provided are either unsourced or contradicted by reliable sources; and there is a clear conflict of interest here. GiantSnowman 18:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Birthdates of BLPs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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