Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.
  • 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 7 days archived by ClueBot III.


Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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




Takarafuji Daisuke[edit]

Takarafuji Daisuke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article Takarafuji Daisuke states that Takarafuji is a sandanme (4th) division wrestler. This is false, he is competing in the highest division, makuuchi, fighting in the 2022 Nagoia basho right now.

Implicit naming of a non-notable witness via a notable father[edit]

Does anyone here have a view on the inclusion in the "Beergate" article of this sentence: "The footage was taken by conservative journalist [fully named]'s son who at the time was a student at..."? This effectively reveals the identity of a non-notable person who witnessed the event, and I think may unfairly prompt readers to speculate that there was a possible political alliance and motif for his actions. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I have a view, and I removed that irrelevant and BLP-violating factoid. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Drmies There are multiple reliable sources (including one in the article) identifying the person who took the footage, since he admitted it when it came to light in the media. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Black Kite, sure, perhaps--but we are not the media. Is it relevant to the actual event? If so, that should be made explicit, not left as a suggestion. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Proxima Centauri, if you believe the son is like the father, and there is a "strong family connection" or something like that, that needs to be made explicit. Is it explicit in the sources? If not, what's it matter? Did the father have a role in shooting the video or publicizing it? Etc. Innuendo is for the tabloids, not for us. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Drmies Actually, the son does not appear to be like the father, according to Guido Fawkes (which as a Tory-supporting site had no axe to grind here [1]). Any claim that the father distributed to video to Lawrence Fox and co, whilst totally logical (and claimed as such by one of the recipients on social media), would clearly be SYNTH without reliable sources though. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • If he was anybody else, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt instantly, but his father's involvement in promoting the art of the fake sting makes me a bit wary; indeed, the reason why it was covered in RSes is precisely because of that. Sceptre (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The identity of the son has been covered in reliable local, national and international media. It is covered in The Guardian, The Northern Echo and again, Stern (Germany) and the Novinky (Czechia). That seems to me to satisfy WP:BLPNAME. If those reliable sources consider the son's identity and his father's identity to be relevant, then we should follow what reliable sources say. (This is not tabloid innuendo, because these are not tabloids.) Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The gist of BLPNAME is "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.", and it's still a single event, even if a motley few sources cover it. BLPNAME also says "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context", I don't see a wide dissemination, and what context would be lost without naming this guy or mentioning who his father is? And I don't see WP:DUEWEIGHT there either, is that the only UK source covering it, and is that the sum total of all sources you could find? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Caution should be applied doesn’t mean “don’t do it”: it means, think about. We are thinking about it. We can identify individuals discussed primarily in terms of a single event if there’s wide dissemination and RS coverage. International media coverage in the UK, Germany and Czechia seems to me to satisfy widely disseminated. WP:DUEWEIGHT, likewise, seems to me to be met by Guardian, Stern and Northern Echo. That’s 2 UK sources (3 articles), by the way. Those are the main sources I found that seem to meet RS. There is other coverage that doesn’t seem to meet RS, like Guido. Bondegezou (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Sure, it doesn't say you must not add it, but neither does it say that you have to add it. The other question which is unanswered, is what context does it add that would otherwise be missing?
          Claiming that appearing in 3 or 4 likely reliable sources worldwide qualifies as "widely disseminated", is, at best, wishful thinking, in my opinion. I'd say that if it was widely disseminated, it would, at least, be covered in all the mainstream national UK media, especially BBC News, The Times, The Telegraph, and The Independent, and not just the one mentioned. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t see any policy support for your interpretation of widely disseminated. I don’t see why coverage by a major German magazine matters less than more UK coverage. I would’ve thought that international coverage is better evidence of wide dissemination.
Lots of editors at Beergate support the inclusion having also considered the relevant policies. We’ve discussed the matter at some length. You started a discussion here without even notifying the article’s Talk page, which looks a bit like forum shopping to me. Bondegezou (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Bondegezou, the gist of the BLP is really clear here: we should be sparing in giving detail, and do so only if it matters one way or another. Your argument seems to be "it happened to be this way and a few sources wrote it up". That's just not enough. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It’s a basic Wikipedia principle that what’s due is determined by RS coverage. There is RS coverage. It’s in a number of different publications and has gone international. If you feel that’s just not enough, can you expand on precedent or guidelines as to what is or is not considered enough? Because in the opinion of several editors, this is enough. Bondegezou (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The principle of due is that it's determined by a preponderance of RSs, but that is only a small part of policy. But that aside, all this wikilawyering seems to be evading the most pressing question, which is: what value does this name add to the article? We shouldn't include something just because we can. An encyclopedia is a reference source, which means we don't need all the boring details found in the newspapers and textbooks. What we do is summarize the sources, and that means cutting out all of the boring details, and whittling out anything that is not absolutely essential to the story. All we need for any article is the gist of it. The nitty-gritty. Now, as a reader and an outsider who knows nothing about this, I don't see a difference between the two sentences, except one is longer and gives me unnecessary details which leave me wondering, "So? who cares what the videographer's name is, or who his father is? What does any of that have to do with the price of rice in China?"
Now, the entire article reads like that. It's written like a newspaper would write it, filled with tons of details and unnecessary information that is basically just filler as far as I can tell. Contrary to popular belief, for the reader, it's always best to get the point across in the fewest words possible. Longer is not always better, and there are a ton of these boring details that can easily be cut.
So, the real question that should be answered is, why is this information necessary for the reader to understand the subject? I don't need that answer, but the reader really does, and it should be evident just from context why that information is important. Maybe it is incredibly vital, but if so then some key piece of information is missing, because it reads just the same without it. So, what is the logic behind keeping it? Zaereth (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the article as a whole is written in an overly newspaper-ish way. It has been a heavily edited article, with a lot of to-ing and fro-ing over issues like that. But that’s tangential to the point under discussion here.
Why is the identity of the student important? Beergate is not just about Starmer being at a gathering and there being questions as to whether that broke COVID regulations. The wider context to Beergate is Partygate, the breach of COVID regulations by Johnson et al., which ultimately played a large part in Johnson’s resignation. Much of the furore around Beergate was about Conservatives and supporters using the allegation (subsequently proved to be false) that Starmer had also breached regulations to distract from Johnson’s woes. In that context, some RS consider it notable that the source of the video is someone with links to Johnson, and someone whose dad has very strong links to Johnson. The father was one of many Conservative-supporting commentators who were critical of Starmer, yet he did so without mentioning his own connection to events.[2] That could be better explained in the text, yes. Bondegezou (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I mentioned on the talk page some time ago, there is a balance to be made here. There is, of course, the possibility that I.D. was simply on an innocent errand when he took the picture of Starmer. But there is a possibility that I.D. was being economical with the truth about what exactly he was up to that evening. This is seriously being discussed in reliable sources (i.e. Johnson is, or was, a family friend of I.D.; I.D.'s father is a notorious fake news peddler; and Johnson has spent most of 2022 either throwing dead cats on tables or wagging some dog to distract from Partygate).
My reading of BLPNAME is that naming I.D. is okay, as long as the encyclopaedic voice doesn't cast those aspersions towards him: nobody is suggesting any sort of criminality occurred, so BLPCRIME doesn't apply; I.D.'s name hasn't been deliberately suppressed; and there is a possibility that significant context may be lost, as I.D. being the one to take the picture is central to the argument that the whole affair was deliberately manufactured. Sceptre (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's an obvious contradiction here. If we aren't casting those aspersions towards him because there is insufficient evidence and coverage, then there is no reason to mention the name. It can't be "central" to an argument if there is no argument. Arguments covered in other places but which we don't mention at all are not of much relevance to us.

Also while BLPCRIME may only apply to criminality, the wider issue of not covering non criminal allegations if they are insufficiently sourced, not of great relevance and especially when the person is not a public figure, remain. The same as we would treat an extramarital affair (which if involving consenting adults in most cases in the Western world is not a crime) or claims of plagiarism (which in some cases could be a crime but often won't be) or cheating on a test (ditto).

I'd add that any source which thinks someone journalist's random son recorded something happening in mid 2021 which even the Daily Mail didn't give a fuck about, so it could be used by Johnson in 2022 when the shit hit the fan is so obviously silly that any source suggesting as such is probably not a reliable source.

Note that from what I've read which I admit isn't much, it seems incredibly unlikely that this whole thing was deliberately manufactured as this would suggest someone in Labour involved in the decision making was working with outside parties which is such an extreme claim to make that it seems to me to be approaching Pizzagate level of wackiness. The only other scenario I can think of is if the 1 hour takeaway delay someone contributed to the situation seeming worse on video, but that still suggest way too much conspiracy, work and ifs and buts for something which let's remember even the Daily Mail didn't give a fuck about.

Note that this is distinct from the possibility that the videographer didn't just happen upon the scene. There are other ways that could occur e.g. they were following the campaign or someone involved for a long time trying to observe something of interest. Or perhaps they somehow found out about the takeaway deliveries either from someone at the restaurant or delivery service or someone in the campaign. Which could even be without any sort of conspiracy if the person was e.g. simply careless with what they shared on social media. Whatever people may think about such things, it clearly doesn't make the recording something that was deliberately manufactured as what was recorded such as it didn't only come about because someone had set it up (i.e. deliberately manufactured or engineered the situation). Instead it was something that happened "naturally" or without mal-intent, no matter how the recording and release were engineered and used.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One could argue (and indeed it has been argued) that the reason the Mail didn't give a fuck about it in 2021 is because it wasn't worth running when there was clearly no contravention of the rules; but then when Johnson got fined in 2022 the Tory party tried to spin it into something it wasn't, and the Mail gave it their best shot. But, of course, there's no reliable source for that, because those involved are hardly going to trumpet what they're doing. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that's precisely the point though. This was basically a non-story. It's therefore ridiculous to suggest the video was deliberately manufactured. It was simply a video of something which might look mildly bad that was recorded and was used as such at the time. There was no major conspiracy with recording the video which SpectreSceptre reports some sources mention, sources IMO we should probably not use for anything. The fact Daily Mail and others tried to manufacture a controversy using the video doesn't mean the video was manufactured. Whether the videographer was being entirely truthful with the context surrounding recording the video also doesn't affect that it was something which even the Daily Mail recognised was mundane. So the videographer's identity isn't of any real relevance since it was a mundane video that others, some with a connection to the videographer perhaps, later tried to blow up the video when the situation arose where they felt it might work. Nil Einne (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any need to be getting into conspiracy theories. I don't see any need to make comparisons to an extramarital affair (which if involving consenting adults in most cases in the Western world is not a crime) or claims of plagiarism (which in some cases could be a crime but often won't be) or cheating on a test (ditto). The son is not being accused of wrongdoing. That means that we should be somewhat more relaxed about naming him as no accusation of immorality is being made. It's like talking about Abraham Zapruder when discussing the Kennedy assassination. (Obviously, that's a limited comparison given the differing magnitude of events!) If random person Joe Bloggs had filmed the video, we probably would have named him and left it at that. But reliable sources have chosen to note the connection between the son, his father and Johnson for context. It seems to me that we should take our lead from RSs and do the same. Bondegezou (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there was a preponderance possibly, but as there's less than a handful, no. The question remains though, what value does naming him add? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What DeFacto said. If the videographer's identity was discussed as widely as Abraham Zapruder then yes we would include it. Since it's not we don't and yes we should do the same for random person Joe Bloggs. Also again, you can't say there's no accusation of immorality then say sources are noting there's a connection between the son, his father and Johnson. Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd also note that putting aside controversy over the recording, User:SpectreUser:Sceptre on the talk page said

To be honest, if people get the impression that Delingpole was trespassing just from reading the Wikipedia article (which I doubt would be the case; any speculation of Delingpole's physical position and whether he had a legal right to be there would, without reliable sources, constitute original research), then that's his own fault. If he was trespassing, nobody forced him to do so, and nobody forced him to go public with the video either.

While this was over different text, it seems to call into question even more the claim that there is no impropriety implied. Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorru for spelling Sceptre's name wrong twice. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, Starmer's visit was public knowledge (there was, after all, a by-election on), so I.D. most likely found out that way. What is being said in RSes isn't that the curry was being forced into Starmer's mouth; what is being said is that there is a definite air that the Daily Mail (et al) deliberately over-egged the pudding in order to vindicate their man in the eyes of the public. And the videographer's identity is part of this argument, given his father's involvement in the fake news industry for the past ten years, and said father's promotion of the video as if some random concerned citizen sent it through a tips line. Sceptre (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure Starmer's visit was public knowledge, but that is largely irrelevant to the issue. While perhaps someone could guess Starmer might eat during the evening, this would still require recording him for a long time or specific information leaking that he was about to eat. (Recording rivals in part with the hope you'd catch something that will be useful apparently isn't uncommon in the US at least pre-COVID19 going by George Allen (American politician)#2006 where the person the racist insult was used against was one such tracker who went around recording a rival to the person they supported hoping we can assume to catch something which would be useful to the candidate they supported. And semi-ironically did when the rival use a racist insult against them.)

Also more importantly, you said above some sources said "the whole affair was deliberately manufactured". My point was this is clearly so unlikely that any sources suggesting it should be ignored. Whether or not the video was later misused, doesn't mean the whole affair was deliberately manufactured. As I think you now agree, Starmer eating takeaways was clearly not manufactured. Daily Mail was not overegging the video at the time of the recording, it was something that only happened a fairly long while later.

If the father's involvement is significant enough as reflected in RS to mention in the article, then it may be fine to mention in the article, but you earlier claimed it was not. I suspect this is unlikely since realistically, even if the father was aware of the events that became Partygate before the controversy blew up, and was afraid they might blow up, and so was trying to catch something similar they could use as ammo if it was ever needed, someone with such experience as you suggest would surely be smarter to use someone other than their son to record it, a son who would complain about how it was being used.

So again, the far more likely explanation is mundane, this wasn't some major conspiracy trying to catch something that could be use to defend Boris Johnson. Instead, either it happened to be recorded when someone saw something which they didn't like or perhaps it was simply one of the probably many things intentionally recorded that rivals of Starmer were hoping might reflect negatively on him. Either way even Daily Mail realised at the time it wasn't very interesting.

It was only later after Partygate blew up that supporters of Johnson/opponents of Starmer thought it would be useful and tried to use it. There was no planning to make that video so it could be later used in that way, and the takeaways and beer weren't part of some plan to harm Starmer/help Johnson. In other words, while the controversy may have been manufactured, most of the affair including the video was not. And so the videographer is basically irrelevant, in fact as indicated earlier, I suspect the Daily Mail and others wish to was someone else who recorded it.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. I realised I confused the Daily Mail with the Sun, the Sun were the who we know didn't think it was anything interesting at the time since they put it on page they use for boring stories. However, although we may not have a specific indication how the Daily Mail felt about the video time as I thought we did, I don't feel this significantly changes what I said above. Realistically, it's likely someone at the Daily Mail who's job it was to find interesting stories must have seen it and also thought it wasn't interesting. They and the rest of the Johnson supporting media or Starmer opposing media some of who must also have seen it didn't think it was interesting until the situation arose where it was useful. Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • All that is needed is that a key player was the journalist's son, and nothing more, not his name or anything else, per BLP. Just because that name is out there doesn't mean we are required to include, and as BLP is about minimizing harm particularly to people that were not notable before or not public figures, we shouldn't repeat the name, only the relationship. --Masem (t) 19:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Masem: note that the disputed text does not specifically name the son but does name the journalist. [3] However the journalist is only named in the context of it being his son who recorded the video. His involvement is not discussed in any other way. Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As a journalist, he falls within PUBLICFIGURE, so there's less of an issue with his naming, but if its the case that all we're saying is that this journalist's son captured photos/video, and neither the father or son play into the events beyond that, then I completely agree removing both names are fine. Masem (t) 21:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The identity of the journalist is central to why it's notable; and he's a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, so it's reasonable for him to be named. I don't agree with the interpretation that doing so effectively names his son - by that logic we could never say anything about anyone because someone could figure out who it was. You could just as easily say eg. "we cannot say anything at all, because someone could click the sources and find out who it is." --Aquillion (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    @Aquillion: if the identity of the journalist is central, then why isn't he discussed in any way in the article? As I mentioned to Masem, the disputed text simply mentioned the it was recorded by a journalist's son, the journalist is not mentioned or discussed in any other way. As far as I can tell from a cursory check of the history, this isn't because it was removed, it was simply never there. Likewise a cursory check of the talk page suggests to me there hasn't been any real discussion about this either. Instead, there was initial discussion about naming the videographer specifically, and this was then changed to simply saying he was the son or said journalist. There is some brief mention above about the role of the journalist, but if I understand correctly while those arguing say he had some role in promoting the story, from the sourcing available it seems to be fairly minor compared to the role of the Daily Mail and perhaps others such that they're not actually arguing to expand the section and discuss the role of the journalist in the story.

    I'd further note that while the journalist may have failed to mention it was his son when promoting it, that doesn't seem to have caught on as a major controversy perhaps because it's a minor thing compared to the great concern that the video was being blown up into showing something it didn't. It's possible the controversy about his failure to disclose is significant enough to mention in the subject's article, even if we do so, it doesn't mean we need to mention it in the Beergate article if it's too much of a minor point.

    As I said earlier, if the sourcing is there to suggest the role of said journalist is significant enough to mention, then it will probably be okay to mention that it was his son. Since I haven't checked the sourcing that well, I'm not saying the sourcing isn't there, but so far no one has specifically our description of the role of the journalist. If editors want to do that, I suggest they try perhaps initially excluding any mention of it being his son that recorded it to reduce disagreement. Once consensus is reached on suitable text discussing the journalist, it would likely be far easier to get consensus for mentioning it was his son who recorded it. But unless someone is willing to make the effort, I would remain oppose to simply mentioning it was some journalist's son who recorded.

    One hypothetical which recently occurred to me which tallies well with my comments above. Let's say it wasn't said journalist's son who recorded it but someone else, in particular a supporter of Starmer or perhaps even a someone involved in the campaign at the time. This seems a fairly plausible scenario since the evidence involved no one involved thought it was anything significant or that they had to hide. And so for the same reason, it seems likely that the person recording would not have been careful to ensure they recorded stuff which may make it more obvious that there was nothing wrong, it could be simply some random video they recorded. And so how much difference would this scenario make to what happened?

    The answer seems to be very little. Okay the person who recorded it did say they felt it was something wrong, but my impression is no one really cares about that, it was a very minor thing at the time. It was only later that it blew up as well discussed above and this doesn't seem to be because of anything the videographer said or did. Okay maybe the fact it was already sent as something negative, as a possible breach initially made it easier to find, but it seems perfectly plausible that even if it was simply uploaded at the time somewhere as a random innocuous video of something in the campaign, perhaps to some volunteer or staffers personal social media, it would have been eventually found by someone who was angered by it since they too felt there was something wrong. And it would have similarly made the rounds and then be re-found when it was useful and we'd be in a very similar situation. In fact, if Starmer's child or relative was a volunteer and had recorded the video, I suspect that Daily Mail etc would be making a big deal over this, and there would be argument over whether to include this which I'd likely oppose. IMO all these except the relative/child, which I use more to make the point, are perfectly plausible given all that we know. And they reflect why the videographer is so irrelevant to the story. Anyway having said all that, I think I've already said my fill so likely won't be commenting further.

    Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mandla_Lamba[edit]

This individual is the target of an organization in South Africa known casually as "The Stellenbosch Boys" with links into NASPERS and various other media brands IOL and News 24. This "post apartheid" organization is aimed at preventing various black businessmen from gaining traction in South Africa. The articles used as links in this article violate the Biographies of living persons since they are "Attack Pages". I recommend that this article be scrapped and that the user that originally created this be banned i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730

I will be submitting a variety of article updates over Mandla Lamba over the next few days and hope that this defamatory and libelous article not snuff the ideals on which Wikipedia is establish i.e. Collaborative and Neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GettingBaked1983 (talkcontribs) 18:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • GettingBaked1983, you will need to do a lot more groundwork to make this stick, particularly with the allegation that every one of these sources is somehow corrupt. That requires very specific proof. Having said that, the article is problematic, with at least somewhat sensationalist language and various other things. For instance, the images of Motsepe and Ramaphosa are not appropriate, certainly not in the DYK nom. User:BuySomeApples, I do not think this should be on the front page just yet. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That makes sense, the nomination should be on hold until the tone of the article can be worked on. That said, I'm a little skeptical that Independent Online (South Africa) and News24 are both compromised by an anti-black businessperson agenda. The only source that seemed unreliable to me was WP:FORBESCON. What kind of sources are you going to use to improve the page @GettingBaked1983:? You also probably shouldn't remove the existing sources until reaching consensus on the talk page, just in case. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Thank you for your responses. I am working on better content and will support with appropriate sources and keep the talks going as I aim to improve the accuracy of this page.
      GettingBaked1983 (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      After this attempt to replace the article with a promotional, barely-sourced, and suspiciously technically competent puff piece, I've blocked GettingBaked as obviously either a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gingie11 or someone in their employ. (One of their mercs accidentally said the quiet part loud recently.) It does seem like there's legitimate things to discuss here, though. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, looks like a lot happened while I was away. I will comment on three things:

1. Paid editors. Tamzin has already touched on the Gingie11 sockfarm involved with this article and the recent inadvertent admission of UPE. I'd like to also point out that there was another earlier round of articles on Simple English 123, so this isn't an isolated incident; there's a history of UPE hired for self-promotion and it looks like they haven't given up. This doesn't mean there aren't legitimate issues to be addressed, but it does mean we must remain cognizant that there may be bad faith actors attempting to abuse the process.

2. Sources. There are other sources besides IOL and News24 that reported on the subject. I ended up using primarily these two because a South Africa-focused editor offered them in the article AfD discussion as reliable sources that supported notability of the subject, and a quick check (1,2) indicates their size and market share as the online presence of a significant number of hardcopy newspapers as corroboration thereof. The secondary reason is that the sourcing seemed "enough" with a reasonable number of inline citations, so I wanted to avoid excessive ref-bombing with myriad sources.

One example of other sources that also had coverage is The Sowetan[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] which I am given to understand comes from an anti-apartheid historic background. Also worth noting, the investigative journalist who was lead writer on the initial expose is no longer credited on the news article, but a bit of digging[10][11] (not included in article due to OR) reveals it was Jacques Pauw, who "was a founding member and assistant editor of the anti-apartheid Afrikaans newspaper Vrye Weekblad".

Really compelling evidence would be needed to support the allegation that all these sources are somehow compromised; on the other hand it certainly wouldn't be the first time the subject of the article has blamed some kind of elaborate conspiracy against him.

The FORBESCON source mentioned by BuySomeApples was a miss on my part and as already indicated elsewhere, I'm willing to substitute other sources for it and remove any remaining unsupported and unverifiable content.

3. The article. My work may be imperfect, but trying to portray it as malicious to the point of warranting a ban is pretty far-fetched. I put in signficant effort to ensure that everything is supported by inline citations -- we report what sources say. In the last section, I sought to give balanced coverage to both allegations and the responses from Lamba and affiliates, including liberal use of direct quotes. Very recent activity and purported upcoming events were not included as TOOSOON.

In the content dispute department, let's discuss the subject of Motsepe and Ramaphosa: it is widely reported that Ramaphosa personally refuted Lamba's claim of a connection to them; coverage persisted well after the event, with the false claim receiving mention in subsequent articles such as those reporting on Lamba's arrest or court dates. I get that using their pictures in DYK when they're not the bold link is not optimal. But aside from that can someone please explain why it is not appropriate to cover this widely reported event or use photographs to illustrate the people, because I found nothing against it in WP:PUBLICFIGURE or WP:MUG and genuinely do not understand the objection.

As for tone, copyedits like this are absolutely welcome -- mea culpa, failure of NPOV on my part there. Other tangential issues: Drmies wrote in an edit summary: such overlinking is frequently a sign of poor writing Okay, I'll take the criticism about overlinking, that's certainly something I've been made aware of and need to work on. But "poor writing"? Care to elaborate more specifically on that and offer constructive criticism?

— 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, several days have passed and zero discussion has occurred. Rather, Drmies has, over my reasoned disagreement, unilaterally deleted pictures of Motsepe and Ramaphosa from the article, leaving an unhelpful edit summary of no this is not acceptable, while offering no explanation with respect to specific BLP policy as to why they considered use of the photographs to be inappropriate. I object to this. The pictures used were not photographed in a compromising context (WP:MUG) and do not demean or disparage Motsepe and Ramaphosa, nor does the usage allege any scandal or wrongdoing on their part. The photographs help convey that Lamba built a reputation not just based on purported wealth, but also upon claims being well-connected to other big businesses and influential public figures. Although his claims gained some traction initially, they were subsequently shown to be not credible and widely reported as such. In the specific case of the Ramaphosas, the claim was personally and publicly refuted in an unusual event that was covered by cited sources. Such context is made clear in both article prose and the photo caption. Therefore, I ask @Drmies to please clearly communicate your reasoning behind the deletion of the photographs.
Aside from that, I've been holding off on making edits to replace the FORBESCON source in the references, and am also considering addition of The Sowetan as an additional source to help pre-bunk potential future claims along the same lines as OP above. I expect these should be uncontroversial, but will wait a few more days in case there are legitimate concerns. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You just cannot add pictures of people associated negatively with the subject based on this reasoning. It's not that complicated. What you are doing, esp. in the DYK nomination, is the equivalent of namedropping: posting pictures of famous people to attract attention to something that involves them only tangentially, if at all. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Point taken with respect to DYK, which aims to attract attention to the article, so use of photo could be construed that way. What's there to be gained from namedropping in the article itself though? A distinction should be drawn between engaging in namedropping versus reporting on Lamba's namedropping. His quest to seek recognition from Motsepe and Ramaphosa went beyond just a casual claim — per Ramaphosa, Lamba somehow managed to acquire their private contact details (his work number; her cellphone number and e-mail address) through which to make unsolicited contact with them. This led to Ramaphosa personally calling the radio station shortly after Lamba's interview, an unusual intervention compared to, say, simply releasing a statement through the usual PR channels. It is not accurate to characterize the level of involvement as tangentially, if at all. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ "SA's 'youngest billionaire' arrested". May 11, 2011.
  2. ^ Mashaba, Sibongile (May 12, 2011). "Bogus billionaire's trail of debts".
  3. ^ Mashaba, Sibongile (May 17, 2011). "Billionaire's high life shackled".
  4. ^ Mashaba, Sibongile (May 25, 2011). "Bail too hot for Lamba".
  5. ^ Mashaba, Sibongile (June 9, 2011). "Court denies bail to 'child of God' Lamba".
  6. ^ Mashaba, Sibongile (June 28, 2011). "Lawyer wants client unshackled".
  7. ^ Mashaba, Sibongile (August 1, 2011). "Lamba fails to get rid of leg irons".
  8. ^ Seleka, Ntwaagae (September 9, 2011). "Lamba's court case postponed again".
  9. ^ Sithole, Bongiwe (May 31, 2012). "Man of no real address".
  10. ^ https://www.2oceansvibe.com/2011/08/01/billionaire-lamba%e2%80%99s-says-he-was-set-up/
  11. ^ https://www.news24.com/News24/lambas-denial-in-detention-20150429

WP:BLPSPS, WP:FRINGEBLP, and WP:PARITY[edit]

There's been some discussion on Talk:Kevin Knuth about using a WP:SPS to provide criticism on a BLP subject. I'm interested in broader community input on using SPS in WP:FRINGEBLP, and if that violates WP:BLPSPS, or if it can be acceptable because of WP:PARITY. This isn't particularly tied into Kevin Knuth, but it does provide an apt example.

I'm of the mind that FRINGEBLP specifically says that BLPs on fringe-related subjects must adhere to the BLP policy, which specifically forbids the use of SPS. Taking PARITY into account, I can see some instances where SPS might be usable, but it should be the absolute minimum usage necessary to provide context and balance. I'm very interested in the views of the community on this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:BLP policy seems clear enough on this, and WP:FRINGEBLP explicitly states that WP:BLP has to be adhered to. Having to resort to questionable sources for content regarding fringe beliefs is generally an indication that discussion of such beliefs doesn't belong in an article in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even WP: PARITY says that we don't suspend BLP for fringe topics. Upholding BLP is taking PARITY into account. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, to start with, that article reads like a resume. The first source is a university profile; a primary source but ok. Source 3 is a simple profile from "The Conversation", which is not much different from the university profile. Sources 2, 4-11 are all papers he has written.
Now, the way this is written is: we are saying he has written papers on such and such a topic, and then using the papers he has written as evidence. There is nothing from secondary sources. No peer reviews. Nothing even about what he has written. Just that he has written. This is just OR.
Source 12 is the same thing. We're using the website he's an editor of to prove he the editor. Source 13 is SciProfiles, which is just a list of his published works, not much different from 1 and 3. The last three sources are the only secondary sources we have!
As for the blog in question. No, that should not be used. But in looking at the article as a whole, it all just reads like a resume --even the UFO section! "He is vice president of..." "He is a member of..." "He has been quoted in..." But it doesn't really tell us anything about the person, does it? It's all stuff a future employer might be interested in, but as the reader I want to know what he believes in. What was he quoted as saying. I want to know if this is a person or just a collection of job qualifications. As written, I would have to support the nomination for deletion. I really don't see much for independent notability. Zaereth (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zaereth, scholars are governed by WP:NPROF (if they meet the criteria), and therefore do not have to have secondary sources discussing them. This bio is typical of all academic biographies on people who don't also meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A big problem here is that there has historically been a WP:CRYBLP faction that advocates for special treatment in living person articles that removes WP:PARITY-based criticism but allows for all sorts of poor sourcing to support their fringe activities because WP:BLPSPS says that self-published sources by the subject are okay as an exception. Thus the BLP becomes a WP:COATrack for fringe theories. See the problem? Perhaps a way out is to remove all sources that do not stand up to the WP:FRIND standard. If we avoid all sources that are not reliable for fringe claims in BLPs, this would solve a lot of problems. jps (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SPS by the subject of a BLP are only ok for uncontroversial factual claims (typically degrees, job titles, and dates), not for anything that involves an opinion (the fringe theories in question, or even the fact that the subject has promoted these opinions). For instance, the self-sourced "Education" section of the Knuth BLP is fine, but the description of what research topics he is known for in the "Academic career" section, sourced only to his own publications, is more problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can agree with that. My particular opinion of articles like these is that they usually become pseudobiographies that are all about the particular fringe theory rather than the person who believes in them. This is often a big problem with the BLPs for scientists and professors and the like, because we very often have little in the way of actual biographical info on the person themselves. So Wikipedia articles often become a vehicle for them to push their theories, fringe or otherwise-- and other works in the guise of a biography. In an article about a person we need to know what that person believes in to be able to understand them, because that's a part of who they are. We shouldn't promote those beliefs, but at the same time, in a bio I see no reason to try and refute those beliefs either. If the article were about the fringe topic, then sure, but it's not. It's supposed to be a bio about the person, so all I need to know is what they believe.
Now this article is different because it really doesn't tell me anything about his beliefs, or anything else that would give me insight into him as a person. There's nothing being promoted and thus nothing to refute. Zaereth (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps a way out is to remove all sources that do not stand up to the WP:FRIND standard. If we avoid all sources that are not reliable for fringe claims in BLPs, this would solve a lot of problems. This is an inspired idea that I can completely get behind.
Either we note that the guy's a UFO proponent and move on, or we include details about his advocacy/beliefs, and treat those details according to WP:FRINGE, meaning WP:PARITY applies. Happy (Slap me) 21:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Knuth is best known for his advocacy of the notion that UFOs are most likely the work of aliens. His academic career is not the focus of RS coverage of him. His Newsweek opinion piece and The Conversation piece are cited in a number of media, usually with click-bait headlines about governments hiding evidence of aliens. His primary notability is in relation to his WP:FRINGE ideas and not his rather unremarkable academic career. If his bio survives, it shouldn’t be downplaying his ufology advocacy in favor of his non-notable academic works. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then we use WP:FRINGE to guide how we write about his advocacy. The whole situations is remarkably simple, and I really don't understand the hand-wringing about this. There's no contradiction in the policy.
In this case, a well known skeptic commenting on Knuth's arguments isn't even addressing Knuth himself; he's addressing the arguments. As far as I can tell, BLP protections don't extend to arguments.
There's a world of difference between saying "X said something ridiculous" and "X is a ridiculous person". Happy (Slap me) 21:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we are writing about material in a BLP, it must comply with the sourcing requirements of BLP. We can't hide behind the excuse that when we write about some specific aspect of a living person, especially their beliefs, it is somehow not about the person. If we cannot provide neutral mainstream-POV sourcing for his beliefs, then per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE we cannot cover those beliefs. If those beliefs are the only thing he is notable for, then we cannot cover him. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
when we write about some specific aspect of a living person, especially their beliefs, it is somehow not about the person. By that logic, English language is subject to BLP standards because it's about an aspect of [insert native English speaker of choice here].
We can't conflate every aspect that goes into defining a person with that person, unless we're going to subject the entire project to BLP standards. Knuth's beliefs aren't unique to him. They're shared by many others, and we even have an article on them. Happy (Slap me) 14:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we aren't talking about Knuth's individual beliefs it doesn't belong on Knuth's article. If we are talking about Knuth's individual beliefs then BLP applies. That others show similar beliefs and we can write a generalized article elsewhere does not mean we don't apply BLP to Knuth's individual beliefs. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are arguing now that a bio article cannot discuss beliefs a person shares with others. That covers religion, politics, etc.
What an amazing contortion of logic. Happy (Slap me) 21:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take a look at a really good biography. Let's say ... Joe Biden, for example. Do you see how remarkably well-done it is? Now check out the section on his beliefs, titled "Political positions". Does it talk about a lot of other people's beliefs? Do we need to add Republican beliefs to make it "neutral", or other Democrat's beliefs to support them? No. It is just about the beliefs of the subject of the article. Why should this bio be any different? Zaereth (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have never seen nor heard Knuth claim that all UAP are "aliens". That would clearly be preposterous. What he has said - quite clearly - is that the extraterrestrial hypothesis cannot be ruled out and should be considered as one possible explanation for some of the cases for which there is, as yet, no other feasible resolution. This approach is absolutely consistent with the scientific method. The Colavito quote in question blatantly misrepresents Knuth's words. This seems to be an effective tactic, since it'd appear that many now believe Colavito's misinterpretation of Knuth's statement represents the intent of the statement, despite that conclusion being absurd by any reasonable and objective reading of what Knuth actually said. Cosmoid (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We aren't here to fight about whether Colavito is correct or not in his analysis (I happen to believe he is correct, but I'll leave that argument for another venue). The issue here is whether and how arguments from Knuth that are at least partial to allowing for the possibility of aliens being the result of UFO reports can be couched appropriately given that this position is so profoundly marginalized in the mainstream. It does the reader no good to pretend that this isn't the case. This is precisely why we have a WP:FRINGE guideline. It's because it's often the case that WP:PROFRINGE prose ends up being promoted if we aren't careful. jps (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LuckyLouie stated "Knuth is best known for his advocacy of the notion that UFOs are most likely the work of aliens." This implies that Knuth believes that all UAP are the "alien" in origin - which is precisely the way that Colavito's comment, that provoked this discussion, misrepresented Knuth's position. The misrepresentation is clear. And that is why this is the place for that discussion. The offending comment was taken from the personal blog of someone with an agenda. As such, it should not have been included in the article. Cosmoid (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By that argument, none of Knuth's commentary on UFO/UAPs which have, to the exclusion of none, all appeared in either self-published articles or articles in journals over which he has editorial control deserve inclusion. Removing that from the article makes the notability angle even harder to justify. jps (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moreover, I'll add that I'd have accepted the less egregiously misrepresentative aspect of Colavito's criticism appearing in the article, for the sake of parity (even though I now see that violates rules on SPS). This is not about preventing factual critique of one notable aspect of Knuth's biography - it is about preventing the inclusion of deliberate misrepresentations of the subject of the biography, which were published by a critic on their personal blog. Cosmoid (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, there is no objective measure we can point to here to decide that you have successfully identified a "misrepresentation" here. I am fairly convinced that Colavito is not misrepresenting Knuth, but it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to make that determination one way or another. Otherwise we are doing original research. If you want to show that Colavito is misrepresenting Knuth, you'll have to find a source which indicates that. But this is rather beside the point. Deciding whether and how to include text and ideas in an article is subject largely to a question of relevance rather than the judgement of the editor that the rhetoric is sound, for example. jps (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Knuth actually stated "A scientist must consider all of the possible hypotheses that explain all of the data, and since little is known, the extraterrestrial hypothesis cannot yet be ruled out."
Those were his actual words. Please explain how anyone could reasonably arrive at the conclusion that Knuth was intending to convey that, as a scientist, he considers all UAP data indicates all UAP are "aliens". Good luck - because that is precisely not what he said. Cosmoid (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, this is beside the point. But briefly, the reason that Colavito correctly identifies Knuth as holding water for his predilection for a belief in aliens being the cause is because by his argument any extravagant hypothesis can't be ruled out. The fact that he focuses on the "I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens" discussion is the basic name of the game and basically has always been that way. jps (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No - that's the way you choose to interpret it, based on your biases. What Knuth actually stated - in so many words - is there for all to see. Knuth has never claimed that any UAP case was "aliens" as far as I have seen, never mind all UAP cases. He has stated that he's seen accounts and some evidential data that, in his view, merit investigation and that, in the small subset of UAP cases that appear to exhibit extraordinary capabilities and cannot be readily resolved, extraordinary solutions cannot be immediately ruled out. That is entirely reasonable and in concordance with scientific method.
Come on, be reasonable. The suggestion that Knuth would believe all UAP are "alien" in origin is utterly absurd. People like Colavito - and apparently yourself - may desire to put those words in his mouth. But, you're simply creating a straw man. By all means, criticise Knuth for what he actually said. But, it's extraordinarily disingenuous to infer that "he said this, but really he must have meant that" just so that you can fit him into a box of your own creation. Cosmoid (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This may be the last time I respond to you since, again, this is not relevant to this discussion, but you aren't really dealing substantively with the point that the "U"-boosters entertain aliens because that's what interests them in spite of "U" taken at its most straightforward admitting literally any wild hypothesis. They rarely entertain, I don't know, huldufólk as a possible explanation, for example. Knuth sure doesn't. jps (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To say Knuth isn’t pushing a fringe view is to ignore his many appearances on UFO conspiracy podcasts and the like. He’s even a featured speaker at events such as Phenomecon: Utah's Paranormal Conference "We Believe". - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This chosen tactic of WP:PROFRINGE always perplexed me. They will, on the one hand, argue that they are being conservative in their proposals, but insist that they not be judged by the company they keep. "I don't agree with everything that is said at the woo-woo conference, but I think they deserve to be heard." We only have a limited amount of time in this mortal coil to entertain ideas. Why these ideas? They must find something they think is worth considering. The irony is that I do as well! It's just that I think agnotology is fascinating and they categorically reject the proposal that their pet idea falls under that umbrella! jps (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appearances and even featured speaker status do not make someone notable. What has been written about him in reliable sources? I'm not talking about sources that simply quote him or use him for a soundbite. I mean, has any reliable sources taken enough notice to actually write about him?
Just to be clear, when people use the word "fringe" it is often done with a negative connotation, as if anything fringe is automatically something psychotic. When Alfred Wegener first proposed the theory of plate tectonics, he became the laughing stock of the scientific community. His theory was fringe at the time, but only because it hadn't been accepted yet, but now it's gospel. Ask any astronomer if they believe there is life somewhere out in the universe, and you'll get an almost unanimous "yes". With all the billions of stars surrounding trillions of galaxies, the odds are too great. Besides, it would give a great boost to the evolutionists to shove in the face of all those intelligent design-ers out there, and billions of dollars in space explorations is done in search of life. But you ask those same astronomers if we've been visited by spaceships, and most are likely to say the odds are greatly against it, although few would probably give you a direct no. I think Richard Feynman said it best:

Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said "I don’t think there are flying saucers’. So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?”

But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.
The problem is, these are all great opinions to have on the Flying Saucer article, where we can worry about parity and all those good things that any theory should really have. A biography about a person should be about the person. Take the J. J. Becher article, for example. This is what a biography should look like. Do we spend a lot of time promoting his phlogiston theory? Do we need to spend a lot of time debunking it? No. We save that for the phlogiston article and use the bio to describe the man.
And really, when you're talking about flying saucers and aliens, you're no longer in the realm of science but off into the realm of modern mythology. You may as well try to refute Jesus, Buddha, or Scientology. Those who believe will regardless of what you tell them, and those who don't, won't.
But this article is not about any of that. It's about a person, isn't it? This is yet another example of why I think we need much, much higher notability standards for BLP articles. We should never even create an article about a person unless we have enough biographical info to make a decent C or B-class article. That's what would save us a lot of these problems. Save stuff like this for the UFO articles and create a bio when secondary sources take an actual interest in the man himself. Zaereth (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly that we should make biographies only on people who have been discussed at great length in several SIRS. There really should never be a circumstance where a contemporary subject's death or criminal transgressions or other major events are not covered in multiple such venues. If we can only report on a small snippet of someone's life without relying on primary non-independent sources, that subject does not merit a standalone article because it can never hope to be neutral. JoelleJay (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • WP:BLPSPS cannot be used as done on Jess Phoenix. WP:PARITY does not enable someone to use SPS and personal blog posts to attack people personally. You can use that if the original source was not scientifically peer-reviewed to respond to it with equally unscientific, but still reliable, material. And BLP still applies, it is not suspended or in any way contradicted by the WP:COAT essay. Andre🚐 01:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Andrevan, theres nothing in WP:COAT that contradicts WP:BLPSPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a person makes a fringe claim and that claim is included in their biography, then, per WP:BLPSPS that is allowed to be sourced directly to them. However, a similar SPS that criticized that claim would be removed. This means that the article becomes a coatrack. And I have seen this happen! The solution is either to (a) remove the fringe claim or (b) allow for the criticism. I see no alternative. I think (a) may be more palatable. jps (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The simple answer is to delete the fringe claim as well as the response to it, if the fringe claim was from an unreliable source to begin with. Maybe in some cases delete the whole article. I haven't looked at other examples other than Jess Phoenix so you can feel free to be more specific. Andre🚐 02:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed with your idea of removing both. However, WP:BLPSPS indicates that the subject of the article can be used as a source for their own ideas and in the past was used on certain articles about global warming deniers. Tim Ball, Judith Curry, and Anthony Watts come immediately to mind as examples from the distant past. You might have to dig far back in the archives for how those arguments played out. jps (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thats not what a WP:coatrack is, a coatrack is when you focus on tangential rather than directly related subjects, its not possible to use WP:SPS for WP:ABOUTSELF in a way thats tangential. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've seen it done. jps (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it can be used as a source for statements about themselves like their own birthday. Not statements about external things like climate or the planet's warming. See the exception here, it's clearly spelled out: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves Andre🚐 02:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its literally impossible to use a source for WP:ABOUTSELF and have it be tangential, SPS can only be used for "information about themselves" on the condition that "it does not involve claims about third parties;" so it does have to be about the subject of the article and therefore directly not tangentially related.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've seen the argument made, "This is just attesting to what the person believes. It's not attesting to the fact of the matter." The argument is that because it is their opinion, it's not a statement about external things. "John Doe believes the Earth is flat and argues extensively that gravity does not exist because he is able to fly.[cite to his blog]" That sort of statement has been argued to be okay because it's not asserting the fact, it's merely documenting what John Doe says was his opinion. Maybe we can say that sourcing a person's opinion to themselves is not okay if the opinion is somehow controversial. But that seems not to be quite where we are when it comes to WP:ABOUTSELF. jps (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What the person believes is directly related, thats not tangential. It would be a WP:DUEWEIGHT issue and consensus may well be to not use the blog at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly my point? I mean, what has happened here is that by changing the rhetorical syntax of the argument, it becomes "directly related". But the effect is that we now have a fringe theory being promoted as an opinion and our PAGs seem to be okay with that. jps (talk)
Your point is that you have fundamentally misunderstood and misapplied WP:coatrack which has nothing to do with the issue at hand? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Either you are being deliberately obtuse here in not understanding that covering a BLP subject's opinion can end up serving as a coatrack for that opinion, or you missed your own point. jps (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, but nobody's making that argument now, right? And if they do, I will disagree with those people. Andre🚐 02:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I appreciate the support, and while I don't think it is happening right now, it's definitely something that will show up again at some point. That's why I think it would be nice if there was some policy statement that explained why it was the right thing to disagree. WP:ABOUTSELF gets almost there, but not quite. jps (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The exceptions for self-published sources aren't a free license to promote fringe theories - nor are they a carte blanche to use them to attack perceived peddlers of fringe theories either. Sources must be reliable - regardless. Self-published sources are sometimes reliable in certain contexts for certain limited information only. It's a very narrow exception, and consensus of editors will keep out the abuses. Andre🚐 02:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am glad you have a faith in consensus of editors like that, but, as it is, I don't think it so cleanly gets resolved. jps (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just don't use unreliable sources, for, or against fringe theories, and if you see them, remove them. Andre🚐 03:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I want to emphasize here that WP:BLPSPS makes an exception for sources that are by the subject of the BLP. What would normally not be "reliable" can and does get argued as being reliable. There isn't a clear explanation of this problem nor a satisfactory solution documented in the WP:PAGs right now. jps (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If their opinion on a matter hasn't been covered in RS, it is not DUE and cannot be sourced to BLPSPS. That solves the issue entirely and is already supported by our P&Gs. JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen instances where opinions were mentioned in RS in a somewhat off-handed way. "John Doe has famously supported the flat Earth![Impressive Newspaper of Record]" and then that gets used to launder the opinion into the article. jps (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This reminds me of a big RfC we had[4] a while back about Michael Greger. The important outcome there I think was the consensus that

there indeed is a difference between commenting on someone's work and commenting on someone directly. Wikipedia uses a similar rule in discussions where users are required to comment on content and not the user writing it.

The nub of this issue is that editors sometimes mistakenly argue that a person's views, particularly scientific or science-adjacent views, somehow inherit the full protection of BLP as if those views were people. They don't, and fringe views need mainstream context wherever they appear, even in biographies, because NPOV (which is not negotiable) requires it. I wonder if we need to add something to BLP about saying this. Alexbrn (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of which refers to the content in this diff: [5] Andre🚐 03:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might, it anybody claimed that a documentary enjoyed the protections of BLP. Documentaries do not inherit the BLP protections of the people who worked to make them. Alexbrn (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the article is a BLP, it's a self-published attack blog post, so it was correct to remove it. The act of including this line on the person's article is the attack. She was affiliated with the production, but she is not the documentary. The criticism could potentially be on the documentary's article, but not cited to a self-published blog post. Andre🚐 04:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a common misunderstanding. The scope of BLP is "material about living persons" on any Wikipedia page (even here). A biography is typically a conflation of several notable topics, usually at least The Work of X and The Life of X but per WP:NOPAGE these are combined (sometimes for very large topics, they are separated). BLP applies to the material "about the living person"; it does not necessarily apply to their work/views/historical context/etc. This is the whole point of the RfC I linked ("there indeed is a difference between commenting on someone's work and commenting on someone directly". Alexbrn (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I'm not being clear. I agree that the work, and the person, are different. That is why it would be inappropriate to put a bunch of stuff, which frankly in this case is not even about its veracity: "worst, most incoherent, poorly written, and badly produced pseudohistory documentaries", about the documentary on a person's BLP. The person does not lose BLP protection from this undue opinion simply because it a fringe documentary - which, I mean, it sounds more like entertainment that vaguely masquerades as sciencey content. Saying that it's really bad, cited to some guy's blog with a BA in anthropology who has written a few self-published books, that has nothing to do with the case of the RFC you cited. Andre🚐 04:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There may be an argument the material is undue, but if the criticism of the documentary may be admissible somewhere, with no BLP issue (as you acknowledge it might be) is is admissible on the biography page, with no BLP issue. The scope of BLP is explicitly "material about living persons", it is not "the entire HTML page which is a biography". Again, this relates back to the RfC I linked the upshot of which was that it admissible to use a blog to debunk scientific misinformation from somebody even it it's on their "biography" page. TL;DR - BLP applies to content, not to pages. Alexbrn (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The diff in question is not debunking anything, it's just trashing it. Andre🚐 04:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe, I'm unfamiliar with the documentary but obviously the one guy quoted seems to think it's pretty bad. That's a conversation you involved editors can have between yourselves. My point is simply that criticism of a documentary cannot be excluded with a kind of BLP trump card; that's WP:CRYBLP stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the criticism were from a reliable source, not a self-published blog. Just because the documentary is about Atlantis stuff doesn't mean you get to add all the self-published blogs that said it was poorly written and badly produced, and claim that was equivalent to an expert scientific opinion debunking misinformation. That itself is a real twist of BLP vs reasonable critique of work. Andre🚐 04:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What criticism is WP:DUE or WP:RS is another question (and not one I intend to get into). My point simply was that a documentary is not protected from adverse criticism by WP:BLP, and making mention of a documentary within a biography is not a way to protect it with some kind of magical BLP forcefield. Alexbrn (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you're the one who is confused, the scope of our BLP policy is "material about living persons" on any Wikipedia page but a page can also *be* a BLP (a biography of a living person), as the one here is. "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy... This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's possible for a page to be a "pure" bio, yes. But it's more often the case that a BLP is a mixture. This was the issue at the centre of the big RfC I linked. Alexbrn (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this context what do you think? Is that an appropriate use of the source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no view on that (I don't really "do" Atlantis). But this is BLPN so I was concerned about the policy aspect here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If their opinion received coverage sufficient for not only DUE but also the stricter sourcing reqs for contentious content, then a general RS rebutting that opinion in general (e.g., "[opinion][ref], a view that is widely rejected by the scientific consensus on climate change[ref]") may be used as non-awkwardly as possible if leaving it unchallenged would violate FRINGE. And an RS that meets BLP standards may also be used with attribution to rebut that specific person's comment. However, IMO if a topic appears fringe but there aren't any sources generally or specifically discounting it, then either it's not actually fringe or it's such a minor perspective as to be UNDUE even with media repeating it. JoelleJay (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While material about the living person requires "an RS that meets BLP standards", material about their work does not necessarily. This (again) is the whole point of that huge RfC I linked, which also commented that BLP policy as drafted (then and now) is amenable to multiple interpretations, but that it does not preclude the use of blogs in biographies ("if policy is meant to stop these sources [i.e. blog posts] from getting included, it should be fixed to avoid such ambiguity"). Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The exception is quite narrow for parity: countering unscientific sources with other unscientific sources. The exception for self-published blog posts is very narrow and applies to debunking claims by a known scientific expert. It isn't a general permission to use unreliable sources. RS still applies. Andre🚐 18:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm reluctant to base policy interpretation on a 6-year-old RfC that took place on some guy's talk page... My position is that FRINGE claims just shouldn't be repeated if we don't have both exceptional sourcing for them and criticism of them in indisputably reliable sources. We're cautioned against using expert SPS for even clearly non-BLP content, I don't think it's a stretch to handle them much more cautiously when they're direct responses to statements by a BLP even if they're not passing value judgments specifically on the person. JoelleJay (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
jps argued at AfD that there were insufficient reliable sources for this article and I agree, although I did not participate in the AfD. But I don't think that means we can lower the bar for rs to include criticism, even if that makes the article less POV. It's better to reduce the article to a stub, try again for AfD and hope that rs appear in future. We could also try to merge the article into one whose topic is notable. There is nothing btw to prevent us from developing an article about the theories that Knuth and others promote. TFD (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stubbifying is another way of saying "remove all mention", I guess. I think the problem comes when we host an article and the primary notability is the fringe promotion, as is the case here. The question then becomes what is an appropriate source for criticism. WP:FRIND seems to argue that if there is no criticism, then it does not belong. WP:BLPSPS seems to argue that if the criticism is all self-published, then there is no criticism. That would mean removing the fringe promotion entirely from biographies if that was the case. It would be nice if this were spelled out. jps (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think we need to spell this out further. If there are indeed biographies that are fringe coatracks, you should trim them heavily and remove self-published source material. In situations where you do want to use the parity argument, it does exist to be used to counter fringe material. However it is not a free license to use self-published blogs to generally attack the credibility of anyone in the orbit of the fringe world. It's a narrow exception used to counter specific fringe claims. If a claim isn't there, it doesn't need to be countered. Andre🚐 17:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everett Stern[edit]

The page is under attack by an individual and they are stating I committed a crime. I NEVER committed a crime and I have NEVER been convicted of a crime. I have served the United States with the highest honor. I testified to the January 6th committee and that is not in the article. I am entitled to due process of law. I did not do anything wrong and again have Never been convicted of a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everettstern (talkcontribs) 00:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The allegation has been reported by NPR [6], so it's not unsourced or poorly sourced. Whether it is due at this stage is another question. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have never been convicted of any crime. To have it in the Wikipedia like this is not right. I testified against General Flynn and that was in the New York Times and Guardian and that was not put in the article for me testifying against the January 6th committee. I have a right to due process. This is libelous as it infers I committed a crime. Everettstern (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have never been convincted of a crime. However, you are currently accoring to NPR: set to be arraigned in a Pennsylvania court Thursday following accusations [you] masqueraded as a public servant while pulling over a vehicle occupied by four young women in late March, according to a police affidavit.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an accusation. That is it. To have it in the top of the Wikipedia completely destroys me when I did not commit a crime. Everettstern (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC
If it was just a baseless accusation, then why are you being formally charged? Whether or not you committed a crime is up for the court to decide. That said, the coverage of this has been pretty thin so far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hemiauchenia, please do not make these kinds of comments here. It's like "why did you run from the cops". Focus on the material. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not what happened. They were on my property. I used a Tactical Flashlight to get them off. I said I was a federal candidate! Not a Federal Agent! Everettstern (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The facts are not being presented accurately. Even according to the story. Everettstern (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please add to the article that I testified to the January 6th committee against General Flynn as reported in The Guardian and New York Times. If this is going to be reported against me then this is fair. Everettstern (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure if WP:PUBLICFIGURE is being met here given every story I could find on this is authored by Bryce Schuele from Fresh Take Florida ("a news service of the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications"), published to two local NPR affiliates and one local newspaper.[7] We have to ponder about NOTNEWS also since the news stories are not more than 24 hours old. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's an article from the 23rd by a different author about Sterns' bail conditions: https://www.dailylocal.com/2022/07/23/senate-candidate-facing-charges-can-travel-freely-judge-says/
Here's the Court Summary [Redacted]
Here's the docket: [Redacted]
The complaint that the page is "under attack" is not in the least supported. It is a lie that the article claimed he committed a crime. No version stated this. The claim was that he was arraigned, because... he was arraigned. This is not an attack, it is simply relevant and well-documented information about a political candidate. A published description of his innocence claim was then appropriately added, fairly airing his views.
The account bringing this complaint seems to claim to be the real person, and if so he has been curating his own wikipedia page for years, while keeping it filled with misleading information not backed up by any sources, and now, complaining loudly about factual accurate edits. Battling McGook (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that I'm unsure if those court summary and docket links are permanent links. They may be tied to the search I ran on their website and might expire. Not sure how to check this or how to cite these documents. Battling McGook (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have put back the section and added additional information and references. References now include three articles by two authors, as well as a link to the PA court docket. Battling McGook (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have redacted the court documents per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Please don't post those anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages and noticeboards. Zaereth (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll abide, but I have to confess I'm a bit baffled by this rule. There is no personal information divulged in that docket. Only factual things relevant for use as a source, such as arrest date, hearing dates, etc. I can see how transcripts would be problematic. Or records that divulge his address or something like that. But I see none of those issues in the PA docket record. Battling McGook (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sources is NOT an NPR source. "This story was produced by Fresh Take Florida, a news service of the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications." It is a work of a college paper, and for that reason, that is a terrible source to include such a claim. --Masem (t) 21:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have moved the criminal charge to the body of the article, and included detail of the incident/his denial of the accusation that was published in the cited source, as recommended at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Denial. Endwise (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Primefac Guy Marchjuly Drmies There appears to be a user who is making signifcant unfounded accusations against me on the pages talk page. I have not been maniplulating anything and yes it is me who is responding to people. I do not have a third party hence my lack of knowlege on Wikipedia. The page is not mine but Wikipedias as this is community consensus but I am obligated to jump in and input my opinion when there are major factual errors or there appears to be an attack on the page. Wikipedia is the gold standard for people conducting preliminary due dilligence thanks to the volunteers at Wikipedia therefore when my reputation is harmed I of course will input my option. I sincerely ask the Wikipedia community to debate what I say in this paragraph and come to a fair consensus as my page causes me harm right now not becuase I disagree with it, but becuase it is not based on fact. Please note I am being sued by General Flynn for 250 million dollars and I belive one of the users attacking the page or saying I did not find billions of transactions at HSBC and making other harmful changes is one of Flynns operators. I find it interesting that I am running for Senate in PA and the incident occured in a small town courtroom in PA yet the college newspaper running the story against me is coming from where Flynn is in Florida. Moreover, I do not understand why I testified to the January 6th committee against General Flynn and that was in the New York Times and The Guardian and that is not in Wikipedia, but when a college paper writes something false about me it is put in the article. Also the On the issues should be removed from the bottom as it does not accurately reflect my views. My campaign manager filled it out and I have reached out to that website numerous times to test the candidate test again to no avail. Ballotpedia is a better more accurate and credible site. Also on the top paragraph, it says I am a member of the Republican Party when I am not. I left the Republican Party. Overall the entire scandal involving Flynn is not in the Wikipedia where I took a major risk defending democracy but this Battling Mcgook keeps inserting that I am a criminal harming my reputation. It is libel and slanderous what he is doing and the page is not fair and accurate. Please see the Guardian article that is not even mentioned whereby my action was extreme in defending the United States. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/21/michael-flynn-allies-allegedly-targeted-republicans-back-election-audits

We are now in the General Election and people need to know where I stand on certain issues and the actions I took defending democracy. My information is coming from credible verifiable sources unlike what battling mcgook is trying to insert from a college paper. Why does a college paper have more weight then the New York Times or the Guardian? I will let the community decide on these issues but I sincerely ask this is taken very seriously becuase my reputation is on the line and what is written in the Wikipedia article has real implications on my life. I will repeat this again, I did not commit a crime and I have lived a life of the highest integrity and honor. Everettstern (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everettstern, thanks for pinging me. Please, though, be concise, and write in paragraphs that are easier to bite into and digest. I can't comment on why something is NOT in the article, but I do know that the disputed content pertaining to this matter should not be, and I see that Primefac agrees with me. (No longer a Republican? Can that be verified? On the talk page, please.) I am not going to speculate on Battling McGook's motives, but I will say that they are on shaky ground here--that we need to be conservative with including BLP content, and that edit warring with an admin over BLP matters is often a bad idea. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your help. I know everyone is volunteers and I appreciate the time. Please see my FEC filing which shows I am an Independent and I left the Republican Party. It also states it in this article which is the Flynn Extortion plot I exposed, reported to the FBI, and Testified under oath to the January 6th committee. For senate that I am a registered Independent is https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/S2PA00315/ For the Flynn Extortion Plot I uncovered please see as it is significant that I testified to the January 6th Committee. That was a major move and shows the credibility of my allegations. The fact that General Flynn filed a 250 million lawsuit against me shows what I am saying is a threat to him and the trump org. Flynn is adding to me credibility. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/21/michael-flynn-allies-allegedly-targeted-republicans-back-election-audits
-
Flynn lawsuit https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flmdce/8:2022cv01250/402221
I cannot thank you enough for your help. Everettstern (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, Everettstern, if you win and you run the joint, you can slip me a whole bunch of money one way or another, or, alternatively, I'll write up some legislation for you to pass. Mind you, I am a BLM/LGBTQ supporting cultural materialist tree hugger. No, we can't go to those primary documents for verifying such material, but if you see the edit I made, I think that is the best way to tackle that problem. As for your activities that aren't in the article, I will have to leave that to other editors. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Everettstern (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of serial rapists[edit]

I started a discussion about List of serial rapists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on Jimbo Wales talk page. Frankly, I am disgusted by this page, which looks like a scoreboard of the most prolific rapists. It is sorted by number of "proven cases". One of the problems is that "proven cases" is not defined and it is immediately apparent that the numbers in "proven cases" are not "proven" in any sense. Just as a convenient example, the most recent addition was yesterday by Adakiko. The person added has been convicted of 9 sexual assaults, but the "proven cases" reads "9+". There are also "proven cases" like "1000+", "950+", and "14-24". It should be obvious that claiming that someone has "proven cases" of such a heinous crime as rape is a violation of Wikipedia policies.

Another issue with this list is that "rape" is a somewhat loose term. As Wikipedia's rape page says "The definition of rape is inconsistent between governmental health organizations, law enforcement, health providers, and legal professions". Having a scoreboard of cases like this encourages people to lump cases together to make a single, higher number. One entry says Erik Anderson was "Convicted of sexually abusing and assaulting 60 boys by frotteurism and oral rape". The "proven cases" number for this entry is 60. The page on Erik Andersen (child molester) actually says "The more serious offenses he is alleged to have committed include oral sex, which in some cases borders on the Norwegian criminal code's definition of rape". So he was not convicted of "rape" at all, let alone in 60 cases.

A further issue that needs to be dealt with is that the list includes people who have been accused of sexual assaulted or charged with sexual assault but not convicted. I pointed out the example of actor Danny Masterson (which was removed) but there are others, like Richard Alexander (exonerated convict) (listed in the table as "River Park rapist"), a man who was exonerated by DNA evidence after he was wrongly convicted of two sexual assaults. Peter Nygård is another example of someone charged but not convicted.

I would like this entire scoreboard of rapists to go away, but I don't think that is likely to happen, so I am asking for adult supervision some attention by responsible and careful editors. Thanks. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've commented in both places but agree this list is a problem as is. It needs to be trimmed to only those convicted, or to cases of where the identity is unknown, and that the main sorting should default to something alphabetic or chronological that doesn't "rank" these (though with sortable tables, the reader may opt to see it that way). I also agree that this should only be for convictions of rape under the appropriate local laws, and the counts should only include those they have been convicted with , not possibly higher numbers. --Masem (t) 21:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Masem and Jimbo Wales (suggests date sort) on a different sort order. I would suggest by last name. Dates are often vague, unknown, and/or have a range. So a date sort would require more discussion. Should a new section on talk:List of serial rapists be started on which sort order?
Polycarpa aurata (talk · contribs · count) also started a discussion on Talk:List of serial rapists#"Proven cases" column removed. This in addition to here and on the previously mentioned Jimbo Wales: List of serial rapists which, BTW, Jimbo replied to. This is the third venue. I believe this is getting into the realm of forum shopping. WP:FORUMSHOP
Polycarpa's original addition above I am asking for adult supervision some attention by responsible and careful editors. (strike out added with original edit) could easily be seen as a personal attack. This is unnecessary.
Polycarpa for some reason, doesn't remove entries that are not convicted rapists. Richard Alexander (exonerated convict) aka River Park rapist. I just removed the entry. Adakiko (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Polycarpa did not add a notice to the article's talk page per suggestion above. I added one talk:List of serial rapists#Notice of discussion on BLP/N. Adakiko (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adakiko Thank you for adding that note. I'm not willing to fight with a bunch of people who can't see the problem with making a scoreboard for serial rapists. If you don't like how I'm doing things, report me to the Administrators Noticeboard. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The list is now ordered chronologically. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Anythingyouwant Thank you. Now can you work on getting "proven cases" defined? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wikipedia has a policy WP:Verifiabilty that says, “Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.” For living people, the standard is even higher per WP:CRIME: “A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law.” Those rules seem sufficient, don’t you think? I just added this info as a comment at the list’s talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Anythingyouwant Those poliicies and guidelines would be probably be sufficient if they were followed but they are not be followed on this list. That is why I started this discussion. Two high profile people who were accused of sexual assault but not yet tried or convicted have already been removed. One person who was exonerated by DNA evidence has been removed. None of these people should have been on this list. This list needs to be gone over carefully by people that understand the policies and guidelines, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User:Polycarpa aurata, it’s good that the improper stuff you mentioned has been removed, and hopefully you or someone else will be able to check the list carefully to see if more stuff needs to be removed. If there’s resistance to removing it, then that would be something very much worth discussing here at BLPN. I already spent a ton of time putting that list into chronological order, and doing a few other miscellaneous edits, and it’s not really an area of interest for me, so I’ve removed it from my watchlist. But I’m sure other editors here will be willing to spend some time helping with that list, as necessary. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main editor of the list, ContributingHelperOnTheSide, who has written literally 50% of the list, just said on the talk page "I don't even know what BLP means...". Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanjay Kumar (business executive)[edit]

An IP has been repeatedly adding a claim that this individual has died recently. I haven't been able to find a source confirming that. Is anyone able to track down confirmation either way? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cannot find any reliable source that verifies his death. I have semi-protected the article for one week. Cullen328 (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mel Alexenberg[edit]

At the top of the Wikipedia page on Mel Alexenberg, there are three requested changes made in 2021. All three requested changes have been made in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Please remove the three requests from the top of the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malexen (talkcontribs) 06:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of them still stands in that this wikipedia page looks like an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Buddy Hart and Buddy Joe Hooker[edit]

I've come across a problem that I've never seen before and therefore have no idea how to correct it. I'll cut to the chase: Buddy Hart and Buddy Joe Hooker are the same person. I made a couple edits to the Hart article, then immediately discovered after some quick Google research that they're definitely the same person. If you read both the Hart and Hooker articles on Wikipedia, you'll see that their info is the same. The Hooker article even includes content about his use of "Buddy Hart" as a stage name early in his career. Also, if you search for Buddy Hart on IMDb, it redirects to Hooker's listing, whose description says "aka 'Buddy Hart". Hart/Hooker started his TV career as "Chester Anderson" on Leave It to Beaver from 1957 to 1960, then as an adult became a stuntman. He was credited as Buddy Hart as a minor, then as Joe Hooker, Buddy Jo Hooker, and finally Buddy Joe Hooker. I found this article which gives a great summary of the name confusion. In any case, can someone with expertise on this type of problem please fix it? I assume you would either merge the two articles, or redirect the Hart article to Hooker? Thanks. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I've redirected Hart to Hooker as the former article was completely unsourced anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, BK. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jessica Matten[edit]

The current version of Jessica Matten, which I've reverted before, states that she is "s an actor of Chinese[1] Canadian and self-identified Indigenous actress."

The body of the article says "She is the daughter of Theresa Ducharme and self-identities as Cree/Ojibway through her grandfather without sharing his communities, [2] and now self-identifies as Red River Métis, an Indigenous culture separate from Cree and Ojibway." The source used doesn't mention her, although Ducharme is her mother who is described as a Métis activist here.[8] Sources differ about her father, eg [9] says Chinese British. And [10] says "she is also of Chinese, Ukrainian, British and French as well as of Métis/Saulteaux Cree descent."

Confusing to say the least with some OR thrown in. Doug Weller talk 07:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead now says "an actor of eurasian and self identified mixed-indigenous Canadian heritage." Doug Weller talk 10:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:Sorry, can’t get reflist talk to work, just says something about thee lua module so refs keep dropping to bottom. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This should work. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lead sentence should emphasize her nationality (Canadian); not WP:ETHNICITY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Morbidthoughts happy with that, but are these reliable sources, and if so for the text they back?[https://newlegacyinterviews.wordpress.com/][https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/canadas-pocahontas-theresa-ducharme-is-a-powerhouse] Doug Weller talk 18:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
New Legacy seems self-published and not RS. ICT seems reliable but does not mention Matten (or Yee) so there are synthesis concerns. There is also a profile about her in Elle that verifies parts of her background.[11] Reading her article talk page, we should respect WP:BLPNAME and not go into detail about her family without strong sourcing just to "prove" that she is indigenous) Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The editor continues to edit war to put the synthesised heritage in so I filed a 3RR report.[12] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Larue, Frank (2011-03-16). "Jessica Yee: Positive Beauty". First Nations Drum Newspaper. Retrieved 2022-07-11.
  2. ^ Montana, Cate (2000-05-10). "Canada's 'Pocahontas' Theresa Ducharme is a powerhouse". Indian Country Today. Retrieved 2022-07-10.

Georgina Wilson[edit]

I tried to correct this article with real facts, but they keep changing it back. It was not Georgina Wilson who competed in Mutya ng Pilipinas 2006 and won the title of Mutya ng Pilipinas Asia Pacific International 2006. It was Kirby Ann Basken. I should know because I'm Kirby's mom and I was there when she won the title. Would appreciate it if this can be removed from her biography, thanks.

<https://www.facebook.com/opmb.live/photos/mutya-ng-pilipinas-memorable-momentsthe-theme-of-this-years-search-is-beauty-tou/190673464354028/?_rdr>

https://archive.ph/mmhuR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtvasquez827 (talkcontribs) 11:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears that on April 4, 2022, two related articles were vandalized by IP editor 103.89.236.160 to remove Kirby Ann Basken's name, which had been there for many years, and replace it with Georgina Wilson. The first disruptive edit in each of the two articles are here in Mutya ng Pilipinas 2006, and here in List of Mutya ng Pilipinas titleholders. Then, on April 5, these changes were made editor Faytatrenjoshua in Georgina Wilson. Faytatrenjoshua was then blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet on April 10. Please wait for a response from editors who are far more experienced in cleaning up messes like this. Also, please note that Kirby Ann Basken has some serious problems with sources; there aren't any. I removed the lone reference, which was clearly unacceptable, as well as all the external links, which violate WP:ELNO. I would also suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:COI. Good luck. Stoarm (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On the one hand, looking at the sources in Mutya ng Pilipinas 2006, the claim that Basken won is corroborated by the cited source.[13] On the other hand, the cited source is a forum and not reliable. I'd like to find a reliable published source to verify this and put the matter to bed—and photographs on a Facebook profile do not qualify. —C.Fred (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure if you came across this ref. Stoarm (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stoarm: That's exactly the kind of source I was looking for. Thank you! —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're very welcome. Stoarm (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pat_Corrales[edit]

Pat Corrales' Wikipedia page lists a date of death, but he is not deceased. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Corrales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.80.219 (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rolled back. —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cassandra_Clare[edit]

Plagiarism accusations have been added yet again, after being ruled a BLP violation many times in the past leading to the article being semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oryu~enwiki (talkcontribs) 00:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is it a BLP violation? Seems reliable sources have picked up on the drama: [14][15][16]. Endwise (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you look back thru history it has all been previously arbitrated. There is already coverage of the Kenyon lawsuit higher on the page. Oryu~enwiki (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From a scroll through the talk page, the last time the plagiarism stuff was substantively discussed was in 2013, about 9 years ago, and before the 2016 lawsuit. So I'm not convinced we can just say that this has been previously dealt with. I didn't see that it was duplicative of the (shorter) bit in the personal life section though, you're right about that. Endwise (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A little googling leads to Cassandra Clare's version, which states the plagerism claim was dropped from lawsuit and copyright claims were settled. Though can't find a source to verify. Do think this is a problem that needs to be addressed, as we can not hide behind reliable sources said when they fail to do the neccessary follow-up. At a minimum, her statements should be included as a rebuttal or the section should be removed as Wikipedia can not verify the current status of the claims. Slywriter (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Unification movement people[edit]

List of Unification movement people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This list has been getting a lot of attention lately, due to recent events. The part I am concerned about is the last section the list of "supporters." Should we even have lists of "supporters" of something? Especially when that something is controversial? At the very least there should be stronger standards of what kind of evidence is required to list someone.Mightyherculescalifornia (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So long as reliable sources indicate that such people are unambiguous supporters, then it is fine. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources do, and if someone is a clear, unambiguous, and vocal supporter of something, and such is well documented in reliable sources, I don't see a problem with including it. Of course, if any entries on the list lack sourcing, remove them. --Jayron32 14:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds good. I just took someone off the list who was sourced to only one newspaper story. Mightyherculescalifornia (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Edi Rama[edit]

Hi all--we could do with a few more editors who can help assess the sourcing for a BLP matter. Please help out on the talk page--thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David_Leigh_(journalist)[edit]

@SPECIFICO: There is a discussion at Talk:David_Leigh_(journalist)#'Agreement'_with_Wikileaks about a section talking about the disclosure of a password by David Leigh in a book he wrote. BLP is being quoted as a reason for removing any hint that he might have done anything silly or made a mistake. He worked for the Guardian and SPECIFICO wants to use the Guardian statements about the incident without attribution. [17] was the latest before this business and it just stated the facts without saying anything about them making a mistake or being silly so even so they had no cause to argue and I can't see a BLP violation. The latest version [18] threee times states that Wikipedia had said they would remove the file and it has made a mess of the entire paragraph with the aim I guess of trying to downgrade that Leigh published the password. Other sources have described the publication of the password as reckless or a mistake or that they had been cavalier about possible harm but I am quite happy not to stick that in. I just want the article turned back into a straightforward factual description of what happened rather than a polemic against Wikileaks and a whitewash of David Leigh.

Is there any BLP violation in what was there before the changes? Is there any BLP considerations that stop reliable sources being used for him or justify using the Guardian without attribution when they were so closely involved and Wikileaks started litigation with them over this. I'm happy to use [19] but I think statements in it ought to be attributed to the Guardian unless they correspond with other sources. To me it looks like an ass covering exercise. NadVolum (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please frame the question to reflect the views of other editors on the article talk page. You've been requested to find additional sourcing and to frame the text in a way that reflects the mainstream narrative, rather than to suggest -- as you recently did on the article talk page -- that Leigh enabled the publication of sensitive data by willful or negligent disregard of the possiblity that the information would be accessed. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't believe any source has said anything like that what he did was wilful and I've never said anything like that. NadVolum (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And at the talk page you asked [20] for a BLP compliant draft - somehow the BLP has disappeared in your description here. I am trying to find out here what was non compliant about the text before you got at it which you said you changed for BLP reasons. NadVolum (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am proposing the article be reverted to the before state [21]. The reason I didn't revert to that ws because the next edit by SPECIFICO had the edit comment 'Per cited Guardian source. The Guardian source was not written by Leigh. Attribution not needed. The previous version was a BLP violation. Further clarification and copyediting may be needed". I fail to see any BLP violation in what was there before but we mustn't include BLP violations. Can anyone here see a BLP violation in the part of the article there about the book and password or anywhere in fact? NadVolum (talk) 07:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I stated at ANI, the diff you wish to revert to contains something directly contradicted by the reference. As per SPECIFICO's edit, the statement about the temporary password was made by the Guardian not Leigh. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 15:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

. Comment This discussion has moved back to the articles talk page. Were how the details, and how much of the details of the issue should be included in the article. Other voices would be welcomed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 23:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sensitive article about child abuse[edit]

I've an offline draft that I've been working on for a while. It concerns a case of child sexual abuse which was surprisingly well-written upon, including repeated naming of the once-underage victim—both by sources and the victim themself. Everything is very-thoroughly cited, but I'm nonetheless wary of even posting the draft given the... sensitive? and/or unpleasant? nature of the subject matter. I don't often write articles from whole-cloth, and I guess what I'm asking for is reassurances and advice from the BLP community about how to tread carefully and avoid both drama and unintentional violations of anything BLP-related. (I considered asking at WP:PAW, but it seems pretty dead, and I'd prefer a wider audience.) Thanks, all. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean it was surprisingly well-written? Did someone else write it, or are you just patting yourself on the back there? There are too many variables to give you any kind of specific answer. Is this an article about a person or an assault? In most cases we don't name victims even if the sources do, unless there is some very compelling reason it needs to be there, or if the victim is possibly of celebrity status and has talked about it. Especially children. Likewise, we don't name suspects unless they have been convicted in a court of law. Don't use trial transcripts or court documents. You know what, just read WP:BLP, because this is all in there and more.
Is this a very notable person or crime? I mean, has it gained national --sustained-- attention? My suggestion would be to carefully read BLP policy, and all of the other core policies, and make sure you have a really good understanding of them before submitting your article. I haven't looked at your history, but if you're new here, or if this is your first article, you may want to put it on the back burner and start with something a little less touchy, at least until you get a good understanding of all these rules and why they exist. When you feel it's ready, create a draft on Wikipedia and submit it to WP:Articles for creation, so that others can view it before it goes online. If you like, ask us then and I'm sure we'll be happy to take a look before it goes to mainspace. Zaereth (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you mean it was surprisingly well-written? Sorry, I meant it's been surprisingly well-written about in a quantitative sense, that is to say the case had a surprising amount of news articles written on it. Is this an article about a person or an assault? It's a case of abuse, covering the acts, their recording and dissemination, the arrest, the perpetrator's fugitive status and capture, trial, conviction, aftermath, and lasting victim-recompensing litigation. Most if not all of the news articles named the victim, who themselves went on national US TV to discuss the abuse; sources specifically note that the then-adult victim went out of their way to eschew privacy regarding the case. Is this a very notable person or crime? As for attention, the case was written about from at least 2007–2016, with sources located in Georgia, California, Washington state, and Houston (as well as citing SCOTUS and America's Most Wanted).
I mean, it's not my first new article, but I was around when WP:PAW was started in the wake of a lot of controversy, and as such, I just wanted to lay out my thoughts and get feedback. Last thing I want is to be embroiled in that sorta thing. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. Just wanted to be sure there wasn't some copyright problem. Like I say, it's hard to give any specific advice without seeing something in specific. I would still recommend taking it through the article creation process. That way we can comment on it specifically and clean up any possible problems before it goes "live". Anyhow, that' all I got. Every case is different and needs to be weighed on its own merits. But who knows, maybe someone else will have some better advice than mine. Zaereth (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naomi Wu[edit]

At Naomi Wu an IP has added inacurate material about Wu's sexuality. See [22] and compare it with [23] (especially starting at timestamp 26:50). We should keep an eye on this, given the nature of the subject. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

She used a lot of words, and I regret even touching these links with my mouse, but that video is the only source, and with closed captions enabled, I distinctly did not detect her stating "I am a lesbian" nor "I am attracted to women" nor "I am asexual" or any related phrases that might indicate the nature of her orientation. She did give a strong impression, while not stating directly, of having no sexual attraction to men. Correct me if I'm wrong. Elizium23 (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't watched the video but IMO this example illustrates why we should take great care and generally just avoid saying anything about sexuality, gender identity, ethnic identity, religion, relationship status or pretty much anything than can get complicated to when we are sourcing it exclusively to comments people make when they aren't covered in RSS and when such statements are more than a single line which we could quote if necessary. (Relationship status can't of course be covered by WP:ABOUTSELF unless it's a simple "I'm single" or something with no mention of anyone else.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daniel Chalifour[edit]

Daniel chalifour is not a former but still racing actively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.224.151 (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like you fixed it.[24] Happy cycling. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jackie Hill-Perry[edit]

An anonymous editor keeps adding a BLP violation to the Jackie Hill-Perry article. Specifically, they keep restoring this, a link to a Christian fundamentalist tabloid/gossip website. The specific article doesn't even give the name of the author. The claim this link is supposed to support is that Jackie Hill-Perry tweeted her support of Louis Farrakhan, despite her specifically nuancing the tweet with "say what you want about Louis Farrakhan (because there's a whole lot to say)". I keep trying to remove it but the editor keeps restoring it. I don't want to get in trouble for edit warring. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have indefinitely pageblocked the IP editor from Jackie Hill Perry. Cullen328 (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Billie Lynn Daniel[edit]

Hello, Someone created this Wikipedia page regarding my mother, Billie Lynn Daniel, and I'd like to correct (edit) several errors. First and foremost, Billie Lynn Daniel- though a notable NYC classical singer- is no longer living. She passed away in 2002. I'd like to create a new page that isn't under the restrictions of a "biography of LIVING persons".


Thank you, Andrea Frierson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scriptdiva (talkcontribs) 03:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Scriptdiva. Thanks for bringing up the issue. I edited the article to note her 2002 passing. Someone with more user rights than me can change the BLP edit notice. Please read and adhere to WP:COI; I don't think a new article needs to be created, but the policy has some content on how to do so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]