Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.
Sections older than 5 days archived by ClueBot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once[edit]

On October 13 a bot put 109 BLP articles into category "Climate Change Deniers" due to a CFD discussion. Number of editors participating: 10. Number of notices on the BLP talk pages: zero. Number of reliable sources cited to support the changes: zero. I claim that WP:BLPN is the appropriate discussion venue for such a large set of BLP changes, and that labelling people "deniers" is not appropriate without a strong consensus of subject-specific sources plus a strong consensus of editors who have actually seen the BLPs and are aware of previous discussions on the BLPs' talk pages and are aware of WP:AE. The articles are: Khabibullo Abdussamatov Stuart Agnew Syun-Ichi Akasofu Claude Allègre J. Scott Armstrong Michele Bachmann Sallie Baliunas Timothy Ball Robert Balling Joseph Bast Joe Bastardi Godfrey Bloom Joe Barton David Bellamy Maxime Bernier Marsha Blackburn Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen Christopher Booker Barry Brill Paul Broun Douglas Carswell Robert M. Carter John Christy Petr Chylek Ian Clark (geologist) John Coleman (news weathercaster) Piers Corbyn Ann Coulter Vincent Courtillot Ken Cuccinelli Judith Curry Edward E. David Jr. James Delingpole Martin Durkin (television director) Myron Ebell Nigel Farage Chris de Freitas David Deming David Douglass Don Easterbrook David Evans (mathematician and engineer) Ivar Giaever Steven Goddard Vincent R. Gray William M. Gray William Happer John Hawkins (columnist) Rodney Hide Ole Humlum David Icke Craig D. Idso Keith E. Idso Sherwood B. Idso Jim Inhofe Wibjörn Karlén Michael Kelly (physicist) Steve King William Kininmonth (meteorologist) Václav Klaus Steven E. Koonin Lyndon LaRouche David Legates Lucia Liljegren Rush Limbaugh Richard Lindzen Scott Lively Craig Loehle Anthony Lupo Bob Lutz (businessman) Steve McIntyre Ross McKitrick Patrick Michaels Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Andrew Montford Patrick Moore (environmentalist) Marc Morano Nils-Axel Mörner Tad Murty Joanne Nova Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) Vladimir Paar Sarah Palin Garth Paltridge Tim Patterson Melanie Phillips Ian Plimer Denis Rancourt Arthur B. Robinson Marco Rubio Burt Rutan Pat Sajak Murry Salby Nicola Scafetta Harrison Schmitt Tom Segalstad Nir Shaviv Fred Singer Willie Soon Roy Spencer (scientist) Bret Stephens Peter Stilbs Philip Stott Henrik Svensmark George H. Taylor Hendrik Tennekes Anastasios Tsonis Fritz Vahrenholt Jan Veizer Anthony Watts (blogger). I will place appropriate notices on the talk pages. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCAT, I think it is a really bad idea to have a category called "Climate change deniers" into which we put living people. Many of the listed people have been described as climate change deniers, often by reliable sources, so there may be some justice to applying the term—but in that case, the justification and sourcing for the term needs to be described with appropriate attribution and nuance in the body of the relevant articles. Categories, by their nature, are devoid of nuance, and so I don't think this is an appropriate use of categorization. MastCell Talk 17:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree that a category based on a labeled term ("denier") for BLP is very very iffy. If we even should keep the category, it should be at something like "Climate change theory opponents" but that's even if we should keep the category. A list where we would be able to include inline sourcing where the individuals have self-stated opposition to climate change would be at least reasonable to avoid a question of unsourced contentious claims. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
This is analogous to religious views. If someone claims to be a climate change denier, he or she will be offended if this isn’t included provided a RS supports it. I edit Godfrey Bloom whose views are unequivocal. JRPG (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the concerns about this. Categories are blunt tools and the term "denier", while found in sources, is clearly pejorative and judgmental, regardless of the science and even if many both here and in the real world might think it fair. N-HH talk/edits 18:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
[EC] Fully agree with N-HH. Many extremely pejorative terms are found in sources that oppose those views. This phrase should only be used for BLPs of people who self-identify as "climate change denier". It is also imprecise, lumping together a blogger who thinks that the climate isn't changing and that all the scientists are liars with a respected climate scientist who agrees with the majority scientific view regarding climate change, including the most controversial part (the claim that all or nearly all climate change is the result of human activity) but doubts that proposed solutions that only involve a few countries and exclude China, India, etc. will solve the problem. Those are two completely different categories of people and should no be lumped together. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
As RevelationDirect said, maybe we could use a more neutral name like Category:People rejecting anthropogenic climate change. Prhartcom (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The parent category is named Category:Climate change skepticism and denial which is a little wordy but seems inclusive. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Masem that this probably shouldn't be a category (under any name). --JBL (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with MastCell's argument here; while I think they're clearly outside the scientific mainstream, the category name is needlessly pejorative. Prhartcom's suggestion strikes me as sensible. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Please also have the courtesy to alert each editor involved in the October discussion. — TPX 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I hope it's redundant since notifications have been made on all the talk pages now, but I hereby alert Youknowwhatimsayin 烏Γ Marcocapelle RevelationDirect Prhartcom Jerod Lycett Peterkingiron Nederlandse Leeuw Ssscienccce Cirt and the closing administrator Good Ol’factory. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
This notification, at least for me, was in no way redundant; I had no way of knowing this discussion existed. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the notice. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The articles were already in the category Climate change skeptics, which was renamed to deniers. Frankly, I think that the inclusion of most of those people in the original category was not controversial. What is controversial is the new category name, which sounds pejorative. I don't see this is a BLP issue. I didn't participate (or even know about) the original discussion. But to the extent that the new category name is pejorative, I'd certainly vote to revert to the skeptic category name. M.boli (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Skeptics" is just as bad as "deniers", even when knowing how the term is normally used in that field. Out of context, it implies "their opinion is wrong", and unless they self-identify as that, that's a label that runs afoul of BLP even if if the claim is made by a reliable source. And that's where we need the strength of inline sourcing to justify when such a label can be used. Hence why any type of category to group these people seems wrong and it is much better to use a list here which can be sourced and better maintained to avoid BLP problems. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We represent how the reliable sources represent. And basically all the reliable sources that discuss the people who oppose the science that mankind is changing climate are "deniers" . That positions they hold and espouse may reflect badly upon them is not a BLP issue.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
It has already been skeptics and before that it was deniers. We have been going back and forth between those two with many discussions along the way. If we're going to change it, change it to anything but either of those two. See other suggested names above. Prhartcom (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It's worth pointing out that there's a difference between skeptic and denier. Skeptic accurately relates that someone doesn't believe it. Denier implies that climate change theories are proven and that they won't accept it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • People who deny climate change probably do not see the term "denier" as pejorative. See, e.g., Category:Holocaust deniers. The category definition may be incomplete if they only deny human-induced climate change. A new CFD can be started if needed to adjust either "denier" or the scope. But there is no BLP crisis requiring immediate response.--Milowenthasspoken 18:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps some sort of climate category might be okay, but it's very difficult. If someone denies that the US can unilaterally take action to stop climate change, does that make them a "denier"? If they deny that climate change would be a totally bad thing, without any silver lining, does that make them a denier? If they acknowledge climate change but attribute 51% of it to non-human causes, are they a "denier"? Maybe a better category would be "people with a position on climate change".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Milowent -deniers are proud of their claims though wp:FLAT applies to those believing that CO2 doesn't cause it. JRPG (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Note that the current list includes Richard Lindzen, former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change, and Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Categorising those two as "climate change deniers" is madness. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I favor either of the paths suggested by MastCell and Anythingyouwant: delete the category per WP:BLPCAT, or expand the category to Category:People with public views on climate change or similar. alanyst 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    • having a public view on climate change is not notable or distinguishing. Denying the overwhelming scientific consensus about human induced climate change is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
      • What consensus exactly? Th UN report on climate change? Some kind of academic work? Something else? And to what extent does one have to 'deny' the 'overwhelming scientific consensus' to be included? What if one thinks the UN report on climate change is too optimistic? Are they a 'denier' too? Bonewah (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Mr. Doom, sure it's distinguishing. It distinguishes people who have a public position from those who don't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
      • TRPoD, notability of a person's public views on climate change is up to the sources, and should not depend on our notion of how valid those views are. Whether a person has expressed public views on the subject is a rather objective question, much more suited to the binary nature of WP categorization than the nuances of the nature of those views. alanyst 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, categorizing people, living or dead, is the first step in creating a stereotype, which has been used for centuries as a divisive technique, from the Christians who were accused of burning Rome to the modern war on drugs, in essence to find support for a cause by finding someone to rally the masses against. Categories of things like athletic achievements, professions, or Nobel Prize winners are fine, but I personally am opposed to any categorization of things like race, religion or personal beliefs, because Wikipedia should not be participating in the stereotyping of individuals. Zaereth (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Although I disagree strongly with this category name, if someone is known largely as a critic/skeptic/doubter/denier/revisionist/debunker of climate change, I see nothing wrong with categorizing them as such. It makes it easier for readers to find other, similar articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure McCarthy didn't see anything wrong with his actions either, and that was the real problem with McCarthyism. This is no different. The real problem is not seeing how our actions affect others until it is too late. If Wikipedia existed in the 1950s, would you be in favor of a category of "Communist sympathizers?" The world is simply not as "black and white" as categorizations, which is exactly what makes them useful tools. It's much easier to rally people against a "perceived evil" than it is a spectrum of individuals. The Romans did it, as did the Nazis, the Americans, the English, and everyone else since the beginning of recorded history. George Bush Jr. had it handed in his lap, but like an idiot chose to take the fight to an enemy that the people were not even considering. As an encyclopedia, we're expected to do better than the politically-controlled news outlets we use as sources. Zaereth (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Godwin's law @Zaereth: If Wikipedia existed in the 1950s, the term would probably be "Fellow Travelers" rather than "Communist Sympathizers" but, under either name, it should be deleted per WP:OCASSOC. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I share the concern expressed above that the current name for the category is potentially misleading. Many public officials who are currently included in the category have indicated that they believe in climate change, but doubt the significance of human activity as a factor. I think it's misleading to say that they are "climate change deniers".CFredkin (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • And what are they "denying"? That change is occurring or that it's a man made problem and not a natural cycle? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've never been a fan of the word "denier" as a label; I prefer describing instead of labeling: "...advocates for climate change denial", "...who denies climate change", "...rejects the scientific consensus on...", etc. However, that's just a personal preference. Our sources are extremely clear on these articles that the subject denies climate change. Our sources are also very clear that the term "skeptic" is incorrect, and intentionally misleading. I'm frustrated that Pete is forum shopping; this discussion has been had many times, twice now at CfD, so Pete is trying somewhere new to get a different result. Nearly everything he's said in his first post here is untrue to some degree. If anyone wants the cat renamed, we can have that conversation (that's why WP:CfD exists), but please look into the sourcing and the BLPs first. Try Anthony Watts (blogger) for an example, and investigate the talk page and sources. As our sources there indicate clearly, "skeptic" is absolutely not the right word.   — Jess· Δ 19:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • CFD Notification Procedure "Number of notices on the BLP talk pages: zero." The current procedure for notifying other editors of category nominations is to tag the nomination category page which does two things: 1) it brings the page to the notice of anyone who is "watching" that page and 2) it places an alert on any WikiProject that is on the talk page. There are limitations to both: many long-term editors are watching so many pages they may miss the tag (that's why I always tag the category creator with a notice as an extra courtesy) and categories are much more likely to not have WikiProjects on the talk page.
When this category was nominated, the Skepticism and Environmental WikiProjects had tagged the corresponding talk page so they were automatically notified here and here. If the WikiProject Biography had tagged the category talk page, the alert would have shown up here.
As much as I disagree with the outcome of this particular nomination, as someone who routinely nominates other catgories, I don't think it's fair to claim the nomination was out of order when the process was followed. Rather I think it's worth emphasizing the importance of tagging category talk pages and watching the alerts pages. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to agree with Jess that this is forum shopping. There was consensus for the new name; two days later, another CfD was opened and is largely being opposed. My participation in this collective discussion has been unintentionally contentious, and while I would prefer a more neutral name if possible, we can't ignore the sources. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if it's intentional forum shopping (the concerns here were BLP focused) but it is the wrong forum. (And, as an opponent of "denier" my viewpoint would benefit from moving it to this forum.)RevelationDirect (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Skip the whole category. "Denier" is obviously a BLP violation; as it implies that there is something wrong with scientists who hold a minority view; as opposed to seeing them as a natural part of a scientific discourse. That's basically an anti-science view as dissenting views and open debate are important in all science. But "climate change sceptics" is also misleading; since in most cases the issue for debate is human impact on climate change more than the existence of the change that are up for debate (they may also doubt the prognosis for further cliamate change and/or the negative effects of such changes). All in all, this is too complicated to get correct in a short category; the list category is called "Scientists opposed to the mainstream view on climate change" or something similar. Iselilja (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • There are more than two options: doubters, critics, or "skeptics and deniers" would all be a middle ground. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Forum I strongly agree with the sensitivity shown in this conversation toward categorizing people as "deniers" when they would likely reject that label and think we should find a middle ground between skeptics and deniers. At the same time, the frequent viewpoint in the CFD nominations that this group of people is objectively wrong (they are) so we should apply this unwanted label seemed inappropriate to me. Nonetheless, this is the wrong forum.
Category nominations need to occur in the CFD pages where they are centrally located. As much trouble as interested editors here had finding the official category discussion, it would be even more unlikely for editors to find an unofficial category discussion on this page. There is an open nomination to reverse the name back to to skeptics here and that is the correct forum for input (pro/con or other). RevelationDirect (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reconsider change Many of the "deniers" do not deny the existence of climate change, but only challenge the cause. The previous label, "skeptic", captured this, while calling this group "deniers" does not. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
That was my reason for supporting the name change: edit: I had a similar but different reason: Helps more clearly distinguish between skeptics and those who think change is beneficial. People in the latter group should not be in the category of course Ssscienccce (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC) edit: 20:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wrong forum here. CFD is the right forum for these discussions, see link offered by RevelationDirect below. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Those who hold a position here because of what they "know to be the truth" are precisely analogous to those who favour or oppose any "truth" in the first place. Rather, we should divorce this from what we "know" or "believe" or "believe we know" and stick strictly to the precept that people should not be categorized for their beliefs except on the basis of categories they place themselves in by stating their own self-categorization.

Else we are as bad as any who have labeled folks on the basis of beliefs as "heretics" or "witches" or any other category susceptible of "guilt by association" tactics. I, for one, have always opposed "guilt by association" arguments on Wikipedia and in real life, and if I be the only one left in the world holding that personal belief, if I be the only one in the world in my self-identification in the category of "do not classify people because they differ from you in religion or any other belief at all" then I proudly assert my position in that category. Collect (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete category Since this is a BLP issue and WP:BLPCAT disfavors this sort of "known sinners" category for living people, the category should be deleted immediately pending some consensus on whether any category name change would pass muster.--agr (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Note The CfR was not properly noted on the article pages affected at all. The discussion had far fewer participants than the current discussion. Further such comments as
"But climate change deniers are not engaging in scientific skepticism, but rather political rhetoric and ideology"' ,
" I'm saying this for NPOV, even though I personally agree they should be ridiculed.",
"Valid science is not a "Point of view." It isn't controversial among anyone with any scholarship in the subject matter. We don't have to pretend there is a real controversy because there are a small number of fanatics out there who cry "controversy." We don't treat the flat-Earthers that way either"
appear on their face to say that the change was designed to make a statement in Wikipedia's voice about everyone in the category whether or not we can provide reliable sources that the persons affected are 'deniers' . As such, the "rename" was seeking to make a point which could not be properly made about each living person affected, thus should be considered improper from the start.
In fact, the reasons explicitly given for the rename in the discussion before were and remain violative of WP:BLP, violative ofWP:RS, violative of WP:NPOV and of common decency about categorization of living persons. Wikipedia should never be used as a weapon to show how wrong anyone is, how evil they are, or how much they oppose truth - our task is to make an encyclopedia which will pass the "laugh test" in another century. Collect (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Correct Procedure @Collect: I certainly agree that the current category name is inappropriate and was one of the few editors to oppose the original nomination. Proceduraly, the CfR was fine though and the appropriate tag can be seen here. The good news, is that there is an open nomination to reverse the use of "deniers". RevelationDirect (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I would note that there were actually only a few supporters of the use of "deniers" (some of whom sought the name of a category as a means of publically shaming those placed in that category for the express purpose of "ridicule." IMHO, those !votes were a red flag to anyone closing the discussion that there were major problems with use of any category anywhere on Wikipedia for such a purpose. Collect (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
AusLondonder put these additional 26 BLPs in the category "Climate Change Deniers": Cory Bernardi Tracy Byrnes Ben Carson George Christensen (politician) Derek Clark Ted Cruz Bob Day Steve Fielding Bernie Finn Nathan Gill Nick Griffin Roger Helmer Dennis Jensen Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) Alan Keyes Nigel Lawson Jean-Marie Le Pen Peter Lilley Ian Macdonald (Australian politician) John Madigan (Australian politician) Deroy Murdock Paul Nuttall Benny Peiser Peter Phelps (politician) Chris Smith (broadcaster) Roger Wicker Brian Wilshire. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
And your point is, User:Peter Gulutzan? AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I said in my initial post what my claim is. You decided to intervene, and your edits have similarities, so I showed them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I support User:MastCell and others here that per WP:BLPCAT it is a really bad idea to have a category called "Climate change deniers" into which we put living people. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
This is not a deletion discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary. This is the BLP Noticeboard and our WP:BLP policy clearly states "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." A bot insertion of a "sinners" category on over a hundred bios of living persons cannot possibly be verified as properly sourced so this category should be deleted immediately.--agr (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think there is a scientific consensus that the quickest and most effective way to stop exacerbating climate change would be to rapidly switch over to nuclear power. Can we have a category for people who deny that? I would support such a category if we wish to have categories like "climate change denier" that are designed to give BLP subjects a poor reputation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mastcell and many others. (If this turns out to be the wrong venue to argue for deletion interpret my position and being in favor of removing every entry from the cat. If some actually belong, add them following a discussion. Maybe there are some, but most in the cat do not belong.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete All. Obvious attempt to demonize people with unpopular viewpoints is obvious. If any are legit, they can be re-added after the mass deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not a deletion discussion. That takes place at WP:CFD. The astounding incompetence of some editors is deeply worrying. The cat corresponds to the article Climate change denial. The cat corresponds to independent, reliable sources. The matter should not have been brought here. The appropriate place is CFD. Could someone address why we can have these cats, if Climate change deniers is not allowed?
  • Category:Holocaust deniers
  • Category:Armenian Genocide deniers
  • Category:Nanking Massacre deniers
  • Category:Rwandan Genocide deniers
  • Category:Japanese war crime deniers

Sadly, Wikipedia is turning its back on scientific source in favour of becoming a poor imitation of Conservapedia. Far-right politicians and their conspiracy theories are being given undue weight, fringe theories being promoted. AusLondonder (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hardly a NPOV approach: I don't see how Patrick Moore (environmentalist) could be considered a far-right anything, for one. Indeed, it seems like the whole point is to obfuscate any distinction among anyone who in any way or on any basis questions the political orthodoxy on this. Going through the scientists subcat I see people who merely question the certainty of the science, people who question the politics driving the scientific research, climatologists and meteorologists who don't agree with the science in their own field, and engineers and the like whose authority for expressing an opinion is at best doubtful. What it really looks like to me is a politically-motivated attempt to label them all as kooks. The comparison to long-settled matters of historical record is inapt. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Request for more admin input I'm asking -- not due to their authority but because I guess they've experienced the rules a bit more -- the four administrators who've been involved in this: MastCell, Masem, S Philbrick, agr. What do you think are the appropriate next steps so that we can come to a speedy resolution? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I thought I had the perfect solution. After watching the intense feelings expressed on this issue, not just here but carried out on the talk pages of articles such as Climate change denial, I did some thinking about the theory of categorization, helped by the article Categorization, and realized we were trying to solve the wrong problem. Roughly speaking, we were trying to debate the best term to be applied to a group of people, with some wanting to call the collection "deniers", others wanting "skeptics", and others suggesting alternatives. However, the problem isn't the identification of the correct word or phrase, the problem is that the collection isn't a proper category.
Categories ought to be "clearly defined, mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive". That is generally true of most categories but fails miserably when it comes to this set of people. Note that while one aspect of the discussion is the word choice, and equally important part of the discussion is which people belong in the category even given one of the several word choices. That ought to be a big red flag. Imagine, for a second, that some outside force simply degrees that the category name will be "deniers", or "skeptics", or "deniers and skeptics". With the debate be over? Only the narrow debate about the word and then the debate will be over whether person X belongs in the category.
This debate has carried over to the CfD discussion, but that discussion has a framing problem. It was presented as a discussion of whether Category:Climate change deniers should be renamed to Category:Climate change skeptics. While it is supposed to be a discussion, which allows all options and some have weighed in with a recommendation for removal, most of the participants are focused in on which of those two options is the best.
I thought I'd try cutting the Gordian knot and request that the category be deleted rather than argue over the right terminology. However, when I made this proposal here, it was procedurally closed, on the understandable argument that the discussion was already taking place. While understandable, I think it was flawed, as it missed the framing problem. It currently looks to me like some admin is going to have some god-awful challenge to close a discussion and choose one of the bad options. Once closed, I will try again to make the case that it ought to be deleted, but it should be nice if we could save the effort and delete it now. I think too many participants are entrenched in their own view, and see it as a tool to advance their position in the general global warming debate. Would be better off if we thought about it as a category not as a global warming tool and realize that it's not a proper category.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree on pretty much everything you say here. I've been trying to look at how similar issues have been treated in the past, and superficially there seems to be a lot of overlap with the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories. Is that right or am I missing something? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment (Non-Admin) @Sphilbrick: CfD discussions begin with a specific proposal (in this case rename) but the conversations often end with a different outcomes than the nomination. You'll see a lot of delete votes and alternative rename votes in that discussion. (If you haven't already, please do add your thoughts into that main CfD nomination.) In this case, I think the first third of the discussion was distracted not by the rename proposal but by procedural objections over reopening a recently closed discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Jurisdiction Who ultimately owns enforcement of WP:BLPCAT: the BLP side or the cat side? @Peter Gulutzan: and I were having a side conversation on his talk page about this. There's been accusations of WP:FORUMSHOP here but I really think this is a valid question. For now, I've started putting notices (below) for open category discussion with WP:BLPCAT implications to encourage more participation. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
We didn't specifically discuss WP:BLPCAT on my talk page. I don't bother with WP:FORUMSHOP allegations because this isn't the proper forum. I thank Sphilbrick for replying; I realize that the other administrators may lack time. I'm thinking now that requesting a close could work. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Climate change theory opponents or similar, per WP:NPOV. Yes, climate change is real, and yes, it's anthropogenic, and yes, it's a crisis and political action is desperately needed. But the current name of this category isn't helping any of that. -- The Anome (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
This is flawed, User:The Anome. Some issues do not require equal weight to all sides. Should Wikipedia take a neutral position on the Holocaust or whether the Earth is flat? AusLondonder (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not take a neutral position on climate change. Our article on Global warming reports what authoritative sources say on the topic without equivocation. In particular it says "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in 2014 that scientists were more than 95% certain that global warming is being caused mostly by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other human (anthropogenic) activities." However we have strict policy WP:BLP on biographical information that requires any contentious information be well sourced. "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." As the arguments over the name for the disputed category make clear, positions on climate change can be highly nuanced. I looked at a couple of the articles to which the category was originally added by bot and found Andrew Montford who's is quoted as saying "I believe that CO2, other things being equal, will make the planet warmer. The six million dollar question is how much warmer. I'm less of a sceptic than people think. My gut feeling is still sceptical but I don't believe it's beyond the realms of possibility that the AGW hypothesis might be correct. It's more the case that we don't know and I haven't seen anything credible to persuade me there's a problem." Does that make him a denier? Some might think so other might not. But the connection does not rise to the level required by WP:BLP. Categories are particularly problematic because there is no mechanism for adding a source to a category designation within an article. So our policy discourages label categories for living persons. The category was removed from Montford's article a few days ago, but who is going to check all 133 entries in the category and its sub categories on a regular basis?--agr (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I intend to go to WP:ANRFC and ask "Closure by admin requested for WP:BLPN discussion 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once", on Thursday November 12, unless other editors say more time is needed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: My only hope that this would be closed in tandem with the CFD discussion. I don't think two dueling close results would be constructive. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I have placed the request at WP:ANRFC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Cat per WP:BLP ("Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.") Labeling people who think climate change is beneficial or who doubt that the US acting alone can reverse climate change while China and India increase CO2 production without limit as "climate change deniers" is a classic example of an unsourced negative claim in a BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Cat There is no agreed upon way to categorize this, and the claim that all the people here have the same views is just plain false. Some of these people disagree with the notion of man-made climate change because they dislike the political goals of those who argue for it, others are convinced the evidence is against it, others are convinced it attributes too much influence to humans and their actions and not enough to other sources of change, others are clearly ambivalent on the issue but unwilling to declare as proven fact based on the current evidence. This is a mass grouping. The fact that the other deniers categories brought up all dealt with past events that some dispute occured as opposed to future events that some dispute will happen, or argue will happen for reasons other than those posited, and that even those who agree that the general principal applies have multiple models of what will happen, just shows this is an unworkable category. It needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep category: if, as has been repeatedly asserted, multiple reliable sources call certain people "climate change deniers", there is nothing in WP:BLP that prevents those claims to be reflected by a category, as long as the references are in the respective bodies (that's how categories are meant to work). LjL (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I can create a list of equally "reliable" sources that call people "anti-life", "anti-choice", "gun grabbers", "gun nuts", "freedom fighters", "terrorists", "traditional marriage defenders", "Homophobes", etc. etc. Just because a bunch of people use a biased term that most members of a group say does not accurately describe them, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should not find a more NPOV category name. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a huge red flag for me about this cat or others like it, when it is being defined by reliable sources that are not the person in question. It basically allows for people to be slandered/libeled by WP by a term that could be taken by some as derogatory because an RS says so. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Cat per BLP. The only place we should be even be thinking of using the term is in articles whose subjects explicitly identify themselves as a "climate change denier", and even then, erecting a category on that basis implies the term has the same meaning in all cases, which it doesn't, given as said repeatedly above one might contest the vality of the data, but not the predictions, the predictions but not the data, the reality of the problem but not the efficacy of the proposed solutions, and so forth. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Obvious and egregious violation of WP:BLPCAT. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Jaycen Joshua[edit]

Jaycen Joshua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page reads like a resume, no citations to prove work, singular editor making all changes probably a COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixoticzoomie (talkcontribs) 21:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Need a second opinion[edit]

Recently the article for Huccha Venkat was deleted several times, to the point where it was salted. It was eventually restored and moved to Draft:Huccha Venkat, but there's still somewhat of an issue here, predominantly from a BLP angle. The guy has been in a film that looks to be potentially notable and he was on Big Brother, so notability is likely established - I haven't taken a close look at this yet.

The main issue is that the guy is primarily known for being controversial. His latest thing is that he said some allegedly offensive stuff to another person on a panel discussion, which led to him being arrested. His lawyer is now claiming that he's mentally ill. Given that this is all due to controversy and there's allegations of mental instability, I want to make sure that this is 100% kosher before going forward. I'm fairly certain that if this was accepted right now, it'd probably go straight to AfD where the BLP issues could prove fatal if not discussed beforehand. I'm leaning towards this guy probably meriting an article since there is a lot of coverage (his film could probably be merged into his page, making notability easier to establish), but the possible BLP concerns are troubling.

I've posted at WP:INDIA about this since there will be some issue with finding sources since India-related sources won't come up in a basic Google search. I'd recommend using this search engine to find things. It's one that was made by the India WP specifically for use on here. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

He's trying to stir up controversy, but mentioning that stuff on here affects other BLPs all on the say-so of this person. This appears to be all too similar to Kamaal Rashid Khan but without that much coverage for the nonsense. However, we don't cover most of the nonsense in the KRK article. If this bio is notable, it should include only opinions of him, not the random ravings about other living persons. —SpacemanSpiff 12:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks fine to me - everything is attributed to whoever said or wrote it, and it's all relevant. The Times of India quotes should probably be compacted a little. Samsara 13:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This article has reference more than 20 news article. Huccha Venkat is a personality, where its for right or wrong or mixture of both. The article is relevant. It needs to be instated without further due and dragging to different forums. Please reinstate the article, ASAP. Rajannamysore (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Of possible interest[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary DeMoss (3rd nomination).

Comment there, if you will.

jps (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Karunasena Kodituwakku[edit]



D — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done (There was one square bracket missing from the birth place field). Eagleash (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


Lorenzo Giuliano, commonly known by his stage name Haxent, is an international music producer and Dj. Supported on BBC Radio 1 by Chuckie & many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Areyoureadyec (talkcontribs) 21:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Xavier Naidoo[edit]

Prejudicially negative, likely reputation-damaging characterizations re political views inserted into this short article here: Special:Diff/651182580 and here: Special:Diff/691706416   - IslandGyrl (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The material in question comes with sources that include Die Zeit. I'm not going to spend much time dredging up the German that I learned >20 years ago, but if the sources say what is being entered into our article then I doubt there's a problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The sources seem to support what's being said. My worry is whether German Huff Po is an RS (I have no idea if UK or US Huff Po is either) and a couple of the others ( and It might be worth finding someone who knows more about German media to double check.Red Fiona (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Its reliable to the extent Huff Po is elsewhere. My German pretty much gives me the same as google translate does, which indicates its factually correct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Die Zeit und Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (faz) are the highest tier German quality newspapers. Heise is a computer-oriented magazine publisher who branched out online early and has a good reputation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

BBC story on the event Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The BBC link gives a good summary, but reports on claims, not facts. I've removed the claims that are not directly supported by the other sources. This whole thing is somewhat overblown at the moment, and might easily drift into WP:UNDUE. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal[edit]

Asking for more eyes at Max Blumenthal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which for more than a month has seen IP editors trying to add unsourced (or poorly sourced) information to the BLP. Today a sockpuppet of perma-blocked editor NoCal100 (talk · contribs) joined the fray. Thank you. (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Watchlisted. - Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Jim Sterling[edit]

I've reverted this article to a version from 9 months ago due to the new content containing large amounts of negative or questionable material, which was mostly self-sourced or sourced to YouTube and other user contributed media. I'd appreciate any third party review. Prodego talk 23:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

you removed almost half of the content, and just almost a year's worth of revision, over that?
Jim Sterling has had a long-running feud with Indie Developer Digital Homicide for over a year. It has been discussed by external news sources, and has been sustained with frequent content between the two. At least three of his "Jimquisitions", produced weekly, have been on them in the last year, and his greenlight series has covered at least ten of their games. Further, there was an interview between the two lasting a full hour and forty minutes.
even putting aside the notability of the rivalry, is that one section worth reverting almost a year's worth of edits? really?--Kizzycocoa (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
So much for being done, the whining continues. Listen, what have I been telling you? They are correct, obviously. All your sources consisted of reddit comments, taken down tumblr blogs, tweets, and youtube videos. And the few websites you had sourced were community blogs or websites that weren't credible, per WP:VG/S. None of that belongs in an encyclopedia, so I encourage you to look through the Wikipedia policies to better understand what should, and should not be added to articles. A 'feud' between Jim and a non-noteworthy developer is not something you add to encyclopedic articles. WP:NOT, WP:BLP. You can benefit from reading those. (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, at this point, I can't care less. It's clear that this site is bureaucratic to a ridiculous PC degree, and I certainly don't plan on even trying to improve the article any further.
Right now, I'm intent to point out the incredibly ridiculous actions of the admin. It's to the degree where I'm livid that they, as an admin, thinks this is an acceptable course of action.
In response to a section on Digital Homicide, which has had a large coverage from Jim and other press outside of games websites (who tend to focus on games rather than indie disputes, hence the very understandable lack of sources), this administrator decided the best course of action would be to erase 9 months of edits.
I was one of the leading admins on The Minecraft Wiki - one of the most popular gaming wikis out there - for years. They still list me as such, though I've gone inactive for a fair while. Still, if I even attempted a move like this, I would be laughed out of my position.
Disagree with the section? as an admin, delete it, and put a discussion on the talk page over it's formatting or the like. I still believe that section is justified to be there, but that aside, that is the sane course of action in anyone's book.
The absolutely wrong answer is to nuke all edits in the past nine months. I would have been out on my ass within minutes if I dared to do that, and I am shocked that this was seen as the best course of action from this admin. Their actions have gutted the page completely, and I'm left aghast that this has happened. Forget me being a fan of Jim's, that is not the reason I am posting this. As an admin, to think this could happen with any page on the official wiki, I am shocked beyond comprehension. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia takes living person biographies very seriously, and for good reason. It's the role of the admins to make sure there's no possibility of a violation that could be considered defamatory (such as poorly-sourced, negative content). That said, have you considered bringing your concerns up directly to the involved party? clpo13(talk) 01:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I had thought he would find it here, but I'll go post to their page in the event he does not. This is simply unacceptable. It defies all logic that this is acceptable. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, too bad there's a difference between a Minecraft gaming wiki and a wiki that's meant to be an encyclopedia. If you don't want to see reverts going to 9 months ago, then don't make edits that directly contradict how articles are supposed to be written. It was not just the sections I was deleting that were the problems.. All the other sections had youtube citations as well, the "Digital Homicide" and "Tumblr threats" were simply the most egregious of them all. Those needed to be deleted absolutely, but the other sections were only marginally better. (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I stand by my comments on the Digital Homicide section being notable. However, I find it deplorable that this was the action picked to "fix" the problem. I am utterly shocked at the conduct.--Kizzycocoa (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
And I am shocked that no matter how many people tell you what you're doing is incorrect, you stand by it and won't budge on that position at all. (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I admit the threats section did not have enough sources to substantiate itself, but a year-long feud between a journalist and a developer (which had involved 20 games, a 1 hour 40 minute long interview and enough of a meltdown that several of his peers, and many other smaller websites covered the saga, as well as many videos of Jim's and an entire section of his live show were dedicated to them) I saw as notable, with enough sources that it is clear that it happened, and was a big part of his career.
Even so, if you had disagreed with it as an admin, you delete it and make a note on the talk page. You don't nuke the entire page of all edits from the last 9 months. That's insane, and I'm shocked this is a thing that can happen. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kizzycocoa: here on Wikipedia we have a saying that many editors think is very important: "Be bold". That means that editors are encouraged to make dramatic changes if they feel that it improves the encyclopedia. I'm sorry that you feel a lot of work has been undone, but no one is going to support your call to restore it simply because it was in the article for a long time. What they might support is the restoration of selected material provided there are enough appropriate sources - and not blogs or videos. I suggest we move past the unproductive complaints about Prodego's edit and start a potentially productive discussion about what should be in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, if we are to follow the wikipedia policy to the letter, we cannot get much further, if at all, beyond what we have at present.
Jim sterling is a video game journalist. If any news happens with Jim, he is the one to report on it first, and does so thoroughly. So, many parts of his career go without official sources. This includes his personal life (Which his wife had helpfully corrected), this includes his political views, his voice acting roles, his history of previous independent works, his involvement with the Steam Greenlight program and more. A lot of his career goes unmentioned, particularly after his massively successful move to independence.
Without sourcing to his works on YouTube which was done previously, the page will mostly be inaccurate and outdated. As popular as he is, Jim is a video games journalist at the end of the day. He is notable, but not flooded with sources by larger news outlets. You rarely get any stories on journalists from bigger sources Wikipedia will accept. It is impossible to build an accurate page while adhering to every letter of the wikipedia citing guidelines. By following those guidelines to the letter, the page is very outdated, and will be outdated in the future. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm afraid this argument isn't going to get much traction. We will work with you to make the article as up to date and complete as we can given these rules, but we have very firm rules about what goes in articles about living individuals, and this board is where those rules are discussed and enforced. You can use less than high quality sources for some innocuous bits of information, but anything remotely controversial must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. We would rather have an outdated biography than risk Wikipedia being used as a platform to harm living individuals, purposefully or not. Gamaliel (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
the problem is, where can we source information like this?
Looking at the page pre-nuke, we can't possibly cite anything in his personal life. He lives in Mississippi, has a step-child, a wife and is in an open relationship. This are no news outlets in the whitelist that has covered this, except for Jim himself. His wife has personally made edits to correct this, but we have no source outside of this. Isn't this important for the article?
Then, his career and voice acting. How could we go about citing that? This is a part of his career and the works he has been involved with, but no reputable source will note down every stage of his career, from Podtoid to Fistshark Marketing, and all the projects between. There is a clear trail and connection to all of them through more primary sources such as tweets and game credits, but it's not going to be in the scope for game outlets.
How on earth can we paint an accurate picture in these circumstances? The facts are there, and some verified by Sterling's own family for the more personal details. But, we can't note them down? Jim's in a place where he is undoubtedly notable, but the details are not, and we cannot accept any details from the horse's mouth? --Kizzycocoa (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
If it hasn't been covered by notable, credible, sources of information then it isn't notable enough to be encyclopedic. (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. That's generally the standard here. We don't have to cover every stage of his career, only the notable highlights. If there's an important, non-controversial project that deserves a mention, it can be cited to primary sources, there's nothing wrong with doing that to cover a gap here and there. Large parts of the article and controversial incidents, however, cannot solely rely on primary sources. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I simply have to disagree. Relevant and accurate information about a subject can rarely be obtained solely through news articles. There is a lot of notable information, such as the more personal details and career notes, that cannot be sourced via third parties, but are certainly worth putting on the page. There simply is no third party that could source this, unless we get into interviews and the like, which I believe is "original research", though ref 2 on the page seems to differ. Yet these are details that are very relevant to Jim as a person, and to ignore them is to do a disservice to the page.
I mean, how on earth can the page be kept accurate through the sole sources of third parties for every point, given the field Jim Sterling occupies as a journalist himself? He is notable, that cannot be denied. But he is not the subject of journalism, he is the journalism. It will be next to impossible to build an accurate up-to-date page solely on third party sources.
I mean, we had this discussion on the talk page, following which I talked with an Administrator of the wiki. The general feel of what they said, is if there is a notable source on the situation or subject, that can give way to some primary sources on the details. In essence, as long as there is notability, the finer points can be defined through more direct sources. I would like another admin to clarify, is this not the case? If it is, to what extent is this the case by wikipedia's standards? --Kizzycocoa (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Kizzycocoa – I think we would all agree with DMacks that primary sources can be used to support strong, third party, independent sourcing of the type described at WP:SOURCE. What we cannot do is reverse this relation - where a majority of the information comes from primary sources. Prodego talk 02:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Prodego's list at Talk:Jim_Sterling#WP:BLP_violations_and_sourcing should give you a good idea of what kinds of things cannot rely on poor sources. We do not need to solely rely on third party reliable sourcing for every single point like voice credits, but there are some points where we absolutely must, and these include controversial incidents. Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, I've since replied in full.
I'm glad to know what does need reliable sources, and what can be sourced by more direct sources. We can, at least, support the career section for a large part, to which I'm fairly happy.
It seems on the page right now, one such source seems to be an interview. Does wikipedia accept interviews as viable references, if from a credible source?--Kizzycocoa (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If you follow someone around to multiple pages and call them a whiner, why are you surprised they are going to dig their heels in a little bit? How about you step back from this and let others engage this editor in a more productive manner? Gamaliel (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just letting people know I pinged the Video game WikiProject on the discussion. GamerPro64 04:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • The feud with Digital Homicide probably does need to be in there, as it was covered by independant (of the feud) gaming media due to the extensive and ongoing nature of it. I took a look at the previous versions, and as written and sourced, it was not compliant with wikipedia's requirements for inclusion in a BLP so it was correct to remove it. Sometimes with something that large the best option is to nuke it from orbit and start from scratch. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have left a (large) response on Talk:Jim Sterling#WP:BLP violations and sourcing. Prodego talk 02:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Kizzycocoa, you can talk about the policies of this encyclopedia being "incredibly ridiculous" all you want, but we will stick to our policies because they are proper and ethical, and have made us the world's most used and trusted reference work. Any contentious claim must be cited to a reliable, independent source. This is mandatory, and is not negotiable. The article is on my watch list now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
My issue with the policies is with the nuking of 9 months of content by an admin with no consensus, which frankly, "Be Bold" is more of an excuse than a policy if I've ever seen one. If there is a policy that addresses this type of action that isn't a blanket excuse for what could be any edit on the wiki, I'm all ears. As a former admin on Gamepedia's largest wiki, I found the move outrageous. If I had done so back there, I'd be fired on the spot.
While some policies on Wikipedia are bureaucratic to a silly degree, I do not have any issues with citation. Though the restricted pool of "reliable sources" is frustrating. For some sections, I have found 4 sources from various individual game news outlets. But they can't be used as they aren't on the list, though some have been discussed on the project talk page. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

John Martin (singer)[edit]

Article still has a somewhat promotional style.

E.g. "John's vocal tracks are a list of hits including ... all the way down to an in progress track ... with David Guetta": requires citation. It also seems implausible that a track can be a hit while it is still "in progress."

E.g. "At 13, Martin bought a guitar, formed a band, and began playing Nirvana covers." Requires citation.

"John Martin is now working on his debut album which was planned to be released in August 2014, however it has been delayed awaiting a massive new collaboration before the release" is clearly promotional and requires citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed some promotional language from the lead. Meatsgains (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

mark evanier[edit]

hi the mark evanier article publications section is missing a lot of groos. dark horse & other groos. -groo — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have reposted this concern over at Talk:Mark Evanier, where it more appropriately belongs. Nothing to bother with here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


No specific BLP issue. In general WP:NPOV does not conflict with WP:BLP. Any specific content disagreements should be discussed at Talk:Rick Alan Ross. Prodego talk 12:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

One editor (Jbhunley) has opined at Talk:Rick Alan Ross:

Mere recitation of 'facts' in not a service to our readers. We do not play the game of 'present the facts and let people figure it out themselves'. Wikipedia presents what competent and appropriate commentators have to say about a matter because they are the ones best qualified to draw conclusions or comment on an issue. Avoiding, suppressing or minimizing the views of a significant yet unflattering viewpoint is whitewashing and why we have a WP:COI policy.

Is this precisely in accord with WP:BLP? I had rather thought this policy says to edit conservatively, and stick primarily to fact. Here the interesting argument is made specifically that we should include "unflattering viewpoints" in order to tell readers what the "truth" is (i.e. that readers are not able to look at facts and decide what the truth is on their own without us guiding them)? And does this concept relate to COI policy in any way? Collect (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: Ahh.. forum shopping to make some point as again. Do you never tire of this crap... are you off to bring this up on Jimbo's talk page too as you are wont to do?? Care to give the whole diff [1] and quote

How are the opinions of other professionals and academics - as near as I see the only other professional commentary on your activities - a WP:FRINGE theory?? History is the analysis of facts and learned commentary is how Wikipedia adduces what is important and what should be included. Mere recitation of 'facts' in not a service to our readers. We do not play the game of 'present the facts and let people figure it out themselves'. Wikipedia presents what competent and appropriate commentators have to say about a matter because they are the ones best qualified to draw conclusions or comment on an issue. Avoiding, suppressing or minimizing the views of a significant yet unflattering viewpoint is whitewashing and why we have a WP:COI policy.

If you have a question about what I mean in my statement ask me on the fricking talk page as opposed to scurrying to a noticeboard. I do not know if you simply misunderstand the conversation I have been having with Rick Alan Ross over a period of months or if you simply like taking quotes out of context for some perverse reasons of your own.

Also, if you wish to discuss me at a noticeboard please have the minimal courtesy to notify me on my talk page. It is a little thing but the discourtesy reflects poorly on you. Again, if you have questions about what I have said - ask me. JbhTalk 22:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, article Rick Alan Ross, person I am addressing Rick Alan Ross. See where WP:COI comes in or is this yet another case where we, for some odd reason, seem to be speaking a different language? JbhTalk 22:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You made claims on a BLP talk page which impact the policy. That is a purpose of this noticeboard. As you seem to think shouting "FORUMSHOPPING" means the issue does not exist here, I would like to gently disabuse you of the efficacy of that shout.
And the part about which we demur is your belief that we can not trust readers with statements of fact to make their own conclusions, but that we must make sure they reach the correct conclusion. I fear I continue to demur with that position. Collect (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Not what I said, not what the context of the talk page conversation implies. If some other editor here has an issue with this they are welcome to ask me and I will discuss the matter with them. I believe most who are familiar with you know that attempting to discuss policy with you is much like talking to a, rather opinionated and obstinate, brick wall so you will forgive me if I do not engage further with your games.

I will go post a notice about this discussion on the article talk page so the others can chime in if they want. I know you prefer to carry on with your little noticeboard point making exercises without letting others who are involved in the matter even know a discussion is ongoing so sorry for cramping your style. JbhTalk 22:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

AFAICT, the words I cited as a quote are an exact copy of your post. I find your desire to use hundreds of words in a personal attack to be less than proper here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh I will happily back up what I said about you with diffs if it comes to an ANI complaint. As ever, you just love quoting out of context to make a point so your claim of 'an exact copy [of my statement]' is spurious. You distort my statement by removing it from the context of the discussion wherein I made it and try to make the claim I either said or implied we must manipulate sources so "we must make sure they reach the correct conclusion". You also failed to provide a diff to the full quote - you know, the standard thing all quotes of on-wiki statements should link - so I presume you wanted comment here without people looking much into it or even seeing my entire statement. As I have said, in the past - your statements often do not comport with objective reality - really, that is the most polite way I can think to say it. Again, I will happily dig up some diffs to illustrate that point if you insist although I have provided you with many in the past and it seems to make no difference.

Now, enough of this. Would you care to discuss your misunderstanding of what I said on the article talk page - you know, ask me what I was talking about - or would that not fit with whatever your purpose for starting this thread is? JbhTalk 23:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Per NPOV, in Wikipedia we report on significant viewpoints, not just facts. In BLPs we edit conservatively, but NPOV is non-negotiable. So if there are unflattering viewpoints that are significant, we report them. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  • My reply to an inquiry on the article talk page:

    My statement was in response to the proposed edits in the section above. There exists significant WP:RS commentary which analyses and discusses the results/outcome of the Waco siege and Rick Ross's participation. Simply stating 'fact' without analysis is not what we do when there is RS analysis to discuss. Whether the analysis is flattering to the subject or not is irrelevant only whether it is a significant viewpoint offered by mainstream authors. To quote from WP:BLP "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." This is not talking about the 'mere recitation of facts' it is talking about proportionate reporting of significant opinions represented in reliable sources. Do you claim we should forgo the reporting of relevant analysis and significant opinion and merely report 'facts'? If so, please support your position with policy. Cheers.[2]

    JbhTalk 23:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • as per Cwobeel and Jbhunley. In addition, it is not only the actual things that people have done that matter, but the impact of those things and the reputation/place in the world that a person acquires because of the things they have done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This should be closed before it degenerates further - the meaning of JBH's comment is clear (and yes, compliant with guidelines). I doubt Collect would have bothered to even bring this here if he didn't have a long-standing grudge against JBH - and noticeboards shouldn't be used to further a petty feud. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that the "closer" above is not an uninvolved person, and was a strong critic at the late ArbCom case about me, and thus the editorial nature of that conflict (where I opposed listing people in a "guilt by association" list - and where the consensus strongly supported my position at AfD) might possibly be construed as slightly less than neutral here. I have no "long-standing" grudges against anyone at all on Wikipedia, and that fillip is simply an ad hominem attack. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Done, Prodego talk 12:54, 25 November 2015 (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.

Laurence Brahm[edit]

Laurence Brahm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

From a cursory reading of this over-long article it is clearly mostly written by the subject and/or groomed by him to remove any criticism. The article's main named contributor is "LBwikiacct", a user who has only edited this page, and a few other accounts (Shambhalahouse, AfricanConsensus) who also seem likely to be aliases of the subject. Their purpose is only to promote Brahm's image and career. (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Heavily SPS material or as close thereto as possible. About 99.44% pure. 4 NYT mentions total - once as "former lawyer", once as "businessman", once as "entrepreneur" and once as one "who has written several books." In 2006, he was starting a high-end hotel in Tibet for Chinese tourists. Sorry - I rather think his "notability" is gauze. Collect (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
If the list of books is accurate (sources should be easy to find), he is notable as an author. Samsara 17:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

E-mail from Greg Kohs[edit]

I am posting, with permission, the following e-mail from blocked user Greg Kohs:


User:Kevin Gorman engages (for the third time) in a violation of WP:BLP. He accuses me of "harassment", with no evidence to back up the claim. Online harassment is a criminal act in many jurisdictions, so this is clearly a problem vis-a-vis WP:BLP."

End of e-mail.--ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Eelco Schattorie[edit]

Persistent COI editing to make this a puffy resume. Probably involves WP:MULTIPLE. Help would be appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Glover (composer)[edit]

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

The element about supposed bNP membership is liablous and tehrefore should be removed from the article. Some on Wiki appear to have a vendetta and not an impartial stance or opinion in this matter. Leave the item out of teh article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)