Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.


    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:



    Martin Kulldorff tone dispute (2nd attempt)[edit]

    Posting again here, last time didn't get any feedback on the post that I saw. The page for Martin Kulldorff is a contentious topic related to COVID-19 and a biography of a living person. I believe there are some tone issue on the page, specifically that it is not written "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" and therefore violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Writing style." The talk page is devolving into discussion on the accuracy of the statements, rather then neutrality and encyclopedic tone. The current text does not sound scholarly or disinterested in my opinion. I don't agree with Kulldorff, I have added to the article citations that back criticism of his statements and tried to be collaborative, but trying to discuss improving the tone of the text is resulting in accusations of "POV pushing," pointing out that I don't think the tone is appropriate for a BLP results in accusations of "Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!"", and my suggested alternatives "Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing."

    Current text is:

    "In December 2021 Kulldorff published an error-laden essay for the Brownstone Institute in which he falsely claimed that influenza was more hazardous to children than COVID-19, and on that basis illogically argued against children receiving COVID-19 vaccination."

    I believe this text is unencyclopedic, and that "error-laden", "falsely" and "illogically" in one sentence are too much and bad style. I do not disagree with the overall content of the text, but think it can improved, and am open to suggestions. I've proposed a few on the talk page, but feel that the status quo is being stonewalled, and alternatives are not being proposed. I'd like to see some back and forth to improve the current text, as any text can be improved, but really feel that people can't get past there point of view on this to discuss the text outside their opinion of the content.

    Based on the criticisms from other editors, the text I propose to replace the current is:

    "Kulldorff published an essay titled "Vaccines save lives" for the Brownstone Institute, a right-wing think tank, that has been criticized for factual inaccuracies. Jonathan Howard published a critical response to this in Science-Based Medicine, detailing errors and factual inaccuracies, such as pointing out that while influenza was responsible for one child death in the 2020/21 season while public health mitigation of COVID-19 was in place – COVID-19 had, in contrast, killed more than 1,000."

    More eyes on this appreciated, and constructive feedback would be welcomed for how to improve the tone/wording of the sentence or page as a whole. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If the sentence is cited to a blog on Science Based Medicine, it should be attributed as such. Howard is an expert in his field but this blog article is still WP:RSOPINION and assertions about Kulldorff should be presented as criticism from Howard. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. The article is cited as Howard J (23 December 2021). "I Disagree With an Article Called 'Vaccines Save Lives'". Science-Based Medicine. in the article. I agree that it should be attributed to him clearly though, which I have stated on the talk page, however that has not really gotten anywhere and several users are insistent on the current text. Does the proposed replacement text address your concern, and do you have any suggestions to change it further? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SBM is a generally realiable source, so attribution is not necessary (and indeed would bring POV problems by making it look like just a 'view' that these COVID-minimizing views are erroneous). Bon courage (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RSOPINION requires attribution even when published by otherwise RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not an 'opinion' that erroneous comparisons of COVID and flu mortality rates indicates that COVID vaccination is disadvantageous (unless one thinks everything in medical science is 'opinion'). WP:YESPOV is policy, and non-negotiable. Assert facts as facts. Bon courage (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a clear commentary article with the headline "'I Disagree With an Article Called “Vaccines Save Lives'". Learn the difference between expressions of expert opinions versus facts as YESPOV demands to "Avoid stating opinions as facts". Pointing out Kuldorff or his article is wrong, erroneous, or error-laden is an expression of opinion even when correctly supported by facts. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an 'opinion supported by facts' that influenza was not more dangerous than COVID in a given year. It's a fact in itself. Presenting it as just a difference of 'opinions' is both-siding reality in a WP:GEVAL way. Bon courage (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can prevent your N/POV concerns by assigning more weight (space) on the correctly asserted supporting facts that Howard brings up to contest Kulldorff. His opinions should still be attributed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're concerned with "the omissions, the factual errors, and the logic flaws" detailed in that article. Those are not matters of opinion. Pretending otherwise gives credence to the antivax talking points. Bon courage (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FACTS! Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what that is. But Wikipedia is indeed concerned with the facts here, not with Howard's (sardonically expressed) opinion on how he 'disagrees' about vaccines saving lives. Bon courage (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Facts need citations. If a point is likely to be contested, or if criticism is particularly harsh, Wikipedia:Fringe theories says it should be attributed. Kulldorf publishing an article is a fact, and the article is about Kulldorf. The criticism of that article is based on the source from Howard, not Wikipedian editors looking at the various case counts within the article by Kulldorf (that would be original research). It is Howard that did the work of disproving Kulldorfs publication, and the critique in Howard's publication, while accurate, can be perceived as harsh. Attribution of the content avoids this entirely.
    Even if it is a minority opinion, it is obvious that the current text is not universally accepted and the tone is disputed. I have preposed several alternative wordings that could avoid the perception of anything but a neutral and disinterested opinion on the part of Wikipedia. Is there an alternative text you can prepose that would address these good faith concerns? Or do you think the Status quo is the best possible wording? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If sources are disputed by other reliable sources, that is of interest. But the 'dispute' of editors doesn't count, especially if it's PROFRINGE or flies in the face of our requirement for NPOV. Some editors seemingly want to give weight to antivax arguments. We've already had one blocked for doing that. Bon courage (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to give weight to antivax arguments, and I've repeatedly tried to make that clear. I've given weight to arguments against Kulldorff, and provided citations to support the arguments in Howards rebuttal. My CURRENT preposed text based on the points I've seen made on the talk page is above. I don't see how it is "profringe" or flies in the face of "NPOV". It is my best attempt to be objective and attribute the criticism of the publication.
    Bringing this antivax point up seems to be an attempt to "discredit or eliminate an editor with an opposing viewpoint." Are you accusing me of misconduct? Or implying I could end up blocked for preposing alternative wordings based on my good faith suggestion to attribute what I believe is particularly harsh wording? Because implying anyone who wants to change minor wording is pushing antivax agenda is harsh, and bringing up a ban feels like an attempt to disparage discussion. Stating an editors point doesn't "count", and refusal to consider alternative wordings that simply attribute statements, really seems like Wikipedia:Ownership of content behavior. Am I one of the editors who's dispute doesn't count?
    Assuming I'm not an antivax conspiracy theorist, is there an alternative text you can prepose that would address the good faith concerns? Or do you think the Status quo is the best possible wording? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Inconvenient as it might be, I would point the editors here to the discussion at article Talk, in which one editor has gone to some lengths to refute the critique published in SBM. Meanwhile the editor who opened this section is proposing article language implying that the anti-vaccination argument by Kuldorff should have the same weight as the scientific consensus. I hope editors weighing in here will take a look at the Talk discussion and not be unduly influenced by the more limited scope of the discussion these editors have launched here. Newimpartial (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree the conversation needs to go to the talk page there.
    I don't agree with your framing of my proposal as implying I think the anti-vaccination argument should have the same weight of scientific consensus. In the quoted text you inserted, I stated:
    "This topic is clearly disputed between researchers, and factually the rephrasing I did is accurate, more neutral, and less judgmental. The sentence in question is uncited and uses the words "error-laden," "falsely claimed", and "illogically argued." I added the citation to the sentence in question to clearly show where it was from."
    I'm sorry if you didn't understand the full context of what I mean. Kuldorff is a researcher, and this is a dispute between him and the broader scientific community. I get that people don't like him, or agree with him, and personally think he is very wrong on this, but he is someone who has published relevant literature that would suggest he has a more informed opinion then someone like Alex Jones. The proposal I've made is to reword a single sentence, a sentence that has come up repeatedly as possibly not sounding the best to all editors, and that does not have a citation at the end of it. I have asked for proposed revisions from anyone that could compromise on it, but no one has proposed any alternative text, and are adamant that even a tag stating the tone is disputed be removed without any counter proposal change. I'm not trying to discuss the content of sources, or who is right/wrong (I strongly believe that Kuldorff is wrong in this publication), just the wording of a sentence. I personally am very much in favor of vaccinations and have professionally done research involving COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccine distribution. I have made edits to the Kuldorff page supporting arguments against his claims, including elaborating on the claims in the Howard article and giving an additional peer-reviewed citation here. As someone who is against misinformation, I believe that appearing anything but objective on these issues will only feed conspiratorial thinking, which is why I care that this is worded as professionally as possible.
    I feel like this part of your comment is not civil, and does assume good faith. I'm sorry if I've said anything that has provoked a defensive, irritated or fed-up response, I'm frustrated that what I think should be a simple issue is resulting in such strong opposition. I have opened this discussion here because I don't believe the editors are approaching the wording of this sentence from a neutral, disinterested, view and wanted more eyes on it. This is following the guidelines on Wikipedia:Consensus. Following the suggestions on the page for Wikipedia Civility, please "strike through" that part of your comment. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, GeogSage, I am unaware what part of my comment above you might consider uncivil - but that is off-topic here, so perhaps you could explain at my Talk page or yours.
    I thought I was reasonably precise when I said you proposed article language implying that the anti-vaccination argument by Kuldorff should have the same weight as the scientific consensus and linked to the language I meant. I certainly did not say, or imply, anything about your views on vaccines or Covid. I simply stated my reaction to the proposed text: namely, it offers FALSEBALANCE between the views it contrasts. I would also point out that the additional source you proposed to add in the link above, while it seems to offer a fairly mainstream view on Covid in children, does not as far as I can tell mention or cite Kuldorff, and its inclusion would seem to be WP:OR.
    To be clear: I welcome more eyes on the article and would also welcome new language proposals for that paragraph that result in improved clarity (and, for that matter, encyclopaedicity) in the article text. However, your proposal does not achieve this, for the reasons I have outlined, and much of Tikitorch's comments on article Talk have amounted to WP:OR refutations of Kuldorff's critics or arguments premised on his authority as a scientist - neither of which is a policy-compliant argument relevant to article text. Newimpartial (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is reading the first two sections of the cited source and noticing the straw man argument considered original research? I am not proposing to change the BLPN article with any of the evidence from my “research”; the goal is to point out to other editors that the current text takes Howard’s most salacious claim, a straw man argument, and amplifies it by inaccurately summarizing Kulldorff’s supposed factual error. It even has Wikipedia’s assertion of factual error, not just Howard’s.
    It is probably not settled science that Kulldorff made factual errors in this essay if we can’t accurately summarize the purported error from Howard’s article. Howard’s article is a ok source because it is an expert opinion and he has the integrity to accurately quote Kulldorff in his article. Wikipedia should show such integrity. Tikitorch2 (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer your question, other editors do not agree with your interpretation that Howard is making a straw man argument. It is your argument elaborating that position, in which you bring in othet seemingly unrelated "facts" to suport your position, that engaged (fairly extensively) in WP:OR, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I only cited facts taken directly from the cited source (Howard), plus a general knowledge that people get the flu shot every year. I critiqued Howard’s critique to show you its flaws, but did not propose to include any of that reasoning in Kulldorff’s page, which would make it WP:OR.
    I do not think asserting WP:OR is compelling when editors are claiming scientific consensus and false balance to maintain the current hit piece in Kuldorff’s article. Based on what scientific study are we certain Kulldorff’s essay had a factual error? (Thank you for linking to my comments which go through how Howard did not use a scientific methodology in his critique.) Tikitorch2 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer your question, I am not interested in carrying this discussion any further into WP:OR. The errors in Kulldorff's essay were evident to me on first reading, I was happy to read some of the same errors noted in RS, and I am unintrigued by your original readings of the two sources that flatly contradict the plain meanings of both. Newimpartial (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The other difference is that your opinion is reflected on Kulldorff’s Wikipedia page as if it were a known fact with universal scientific consensus. Howard’s article is not a scientific study and it fails to use the concept of a control group when comparing the risk of Covid and influenza to groups with different vaccination status. This failure was necessary in order to effectively straw man Kulldorff. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither Howard nor Kulldorff uses the concept of a control group, and the concept doesn't seem particularly relevant to the argument Kulldorff made against childhood vaccination against Covid. In spite of what you say, I believe there is a universal scientific consensus on that topic, and wikipedia is obligated to present that consenus without BOTHSIDESism in deference to Kulldorff's status as a scientist. Newimpartial (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is Howard’s opinion that Kulldorff did not control for vaccination status when he wrote that Covid risk to children was less than the annual influenza. Howard’s critique compares covid and influenza deaths without accounting for influenza vaccination rates—an unscientific methodology because it fails to control the control group.
    There is no scientific consensus backing the claim that Kulldorff made factual errors, unless you assume this straw man, unscientific comparison to a non-control group as Kulldorff’s statement of fact. This assumption is baked into the Wikipedia text as fact and is thus original research.
    There is no scientific study I am aware of that finds Covid mortality risk is greater than influenza for children in a typical year, which is what you would need to cite to argue for suppressing half of both sides regarding claims of factual error. Tikitorch2 (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To my knowledge, neither author discusses influenza vaccination rates, and Tikitorch's argument that either should have done so is an original intervention in scientific debate, which is not what we do on Wikipedia.
    What we have is a source (Kulldorff) arguing against what turns out to be the scientific consensus about childhood vaccination against Covid, and another source (Howard), in line with the consensus view, offering critique of Kulldorff's intervention. Placing the two on a BOTHSIDES level would be an WP:NPOV violation.
    As far as whether Covid mortality risk is greater than influenza for children in a typical year, that isn't the question either source is addressing and it is WP:OR, if not a red herring, to introduce it. The question addressed by the two sources is the risk posed by each virus in 2021. Newimpartial (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia: “In December 2021 Kulldorff published an error-laden essay for the Brownstone Institute in which he falsely claimed that influenza was more hazardous to children than COVID-19,” that is what we have. Tikitorch2 (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kulldorff: “Their [children’s] Covid mortality risk is miniscule and less than the already low risk from the annual influenza,” is what was addressed. Tikitorch2 (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Howard: If we assume Kulldorff was not referring to the average year influenza risk, which his readers would understand, and compare two groups with dissimilar vaccination rates, then Kulldorff was wrong. Tikitorch2 (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to put them on "both sides," I am preposing that we attribute the criticism of the publication attributed to the author who the page is about to the scientist who made the criticism, rather then making that point ourselves in an unsourced sentence. The existence of the publication itself is just a statement of fact, the content of that publication has been criticized by Howard. Is there an alternative text you can prepose that would address these good faith concerns? Or do you think the Status quo is the best possible wording? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer your question: no, I don't think we have the best possible wording. I would prefer something like:

    In December 2021 Kulldorff published an essay for the Brownstone Institute in which he argued against children receiving COVID-19 vaccination, falsely claiming that influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid. In a critical response, Jonathan Howard noted errors and factual inaccuracies in Kulldorff's essay, pointing out that while influenza was responsible for only one child death in the 2020/21 season - while public health mitigation of COVID-19 was in place – COVID-19 killed more than 1,000.

    In other words, my view is that "influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid" is an objectively false claim to be stated as such in wikivoice, while "illogically" and "error-laden" represent unnecessary editorializing. The errors can be described by summarizing what Howard said, and readers can discern illogical thinking for themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this is much better! THANK YOU!!!!
    If we cite both sentences, and add a second citation for "falsely," this would address my concerns. I might suggest something like:
    "In December 2021 Kulldorff published an essay titled "Vaccines save lives" for the Brownstone Institute in which he argued against children receiving COVID-19 vaccination.<Citation1 Howard> In this essay, he made the false claim that influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid.<Citation1 Howard><Citation2>... In a critical response, Jonathan Howard noted errors and factual inaccuracies in Kulldorff's essay, pointing out that while influenza was responsible for only one child death in the 2020/21 season - while public health mitigation of COVID-19 was in place – COVID-19 killed more than 1,000.<Citation1 Howard>"
    For citations, I recommend the following in addition to Howard's publication:
    I added the title of the essay, and split the "falsely stated" into a second sentence which can have additional citations for verification. Basically, the first sentence states the essay exists, and what it argued, with a citation to verify. Then, the elaboration on the false claim in the second sentence, with several citations for verification. Then third sentence with the attribution to Howard with a citation to verify his view. I think this maintains both the appearance of neutrality and disinterest on our part, while giving the full picture on the scientific consensus that Kulldorff is considered to be wrong here.
    One note: These concerns are now minor. I would accept your version of the text over what we currently have, and drop the tone dispute, if you can agree to include the citations I offer. Thank you for giving a counter suggestion instead of just blocking change. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence "In this essay, he made the false claim that influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid.<Citation1 Howard><Citation2>" is not supported by any of these sources unless one assumes Kulldorff was comparing the unvaccinated mortality risk of Covid to the vaccinated mortality risk of Influenza, when it is at least as likely he was comparing equally unvaccinated groups. It is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims.

    Citation 1:
    Compared patients 0-<5 years hospitalized with Covid-19 in 04/21-03/22 to influenza in 04/19-03/20. Amoungst these impatient death was 0.5% with Covid, 0.3% with influenza.
    The findings of this study should be interpreted in the context of its limitations. Other pediatric outcomes, such as MIS-C and long-term COVID-19 and influenza complications, were not examined. Information on maternal COVID-19 and influenza vaccination or general immunization history for the children in this study population were not captured in the data source. Therefore, we did not evaluate the impact of maternal and child influenza immunization on disease severity...
    During the 2019-2020 influenza season in the US, amoung children aged 6 months to <5 years (estimated vaccination coverate: 75.5%) the CDC apporximated 82 deaths were avoided with influenza vaccination (compared to 124 deaths (ref 35)).

    Citation 2:
    Researchers compared 179 children with influenza infection to 381 with COVID-19 at 16 United States hospitals. Patients with critical COVID-19 stayed longer in the PICU than kids with critical influenza and mortality was low (2-3%) but similar in both groups.

    The odds of death or requiring life support in children with influenza vs COVID-19 were similar (adjusted odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, .78-2.15; P = .32).

    Some of the differences in severity may also be explained by the fact that all children with COVID-19 had not received SARS-CoV-2 vaccination because enrollment preceded vaccine authorization. In contrast, some children with influenza were either fully (69 of 179, 39.0%) or partially (17 of 179, 9.5%) vaccinated, which likely attenuated influenza severity [5]. Therefore, the similarities in the severity and outcomes of children with influenza or COVID-19 should be interpreted with caution until future studies include a cohort of COVID-19–vaccinated children. Tikitorch2 (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You conveniently ignore the systematic review, which discusses MIS-C, a complication that children can get after a COVID-19 infection. This is something Citation 1 states it does not examine. The Howard article DID mention it. In Citation 3 "
    Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: A systematic review"
    "A notable finding was that 11 of 662 individuals (1·7%) did not survive. The death rate in this review is comparable to that observed in adults with severe COVID-19 between the ages of 55–64 years (1% to 3%) [29]. While low, it is much higher than the 0.09% mortality rate observed in children with COVID-19 [24]. While writing this manuscript a new study was published involving 570 US patients with MIS-C [28]. The percentage of deaths for the cohort was comparable to the one observed in this review (n = 10, 1·8%)."
    COVID-19 is uniquely hazardous to children in that roughly 30 out of 100,000 COVID-19 patients under 21 will experience a MIS-C.
    GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not trying to ignore it--I deliberately included the sentence "Other pediatric outcomes, such as MIS-C and long-term COVID-19 and influenza complications, were not examined" from citation 1.
    So (11/662)*(30/100,000) = 5 MIS-C deaths/1,000,000 covid cases...add that to 0.009 and the result is...still ~0.009.
    Are you saying these MIS-C sources support the claim that "In this essay, he made the false claim that influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid"? Or is it meant to reinforce a later sentence about Kulldorff omitting MIS-C in his essay? Tikitorch2 (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Howard made that claim. These sources just provide some additional validation for the statement. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are interesting studies but for each of the three reasons cited above, their conclusions are not strong enough to support an assertion that Kulldorff made a "false claim that influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid," without significant original research on our part by assuming a non-apparent, unlikely interpretation of what exactly Kulldorff meant by influenza risk. This assertion should not be made unless attributed to Howard by an in-text source description.
    Since attributing it to Howard's opinion piece would be redundant, I suggest dropping the sentence "In this essay, he made the false claim that influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid." entirely. Tikitorch2 (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the thread between Geog and Tikitorch illustrates why I think we need to be careful in choosing additional sources for the passage besides Kulldorff and Howard. The first two sources proposed above deal with the risk to children once hospitalixed with Covid or influenza, and the third study addresses the intersection bwtween Covid and MIS-C. To my knowledge, neither Kulldorff nor Howard is addressing health risks specifically among those hospitalized with these two viruses and neither addresses MOS-C explicitly. If these assessments are accurate, then I don't think any of the three sources are suitable to be added to the text in question, because of WP:SYNTH issues. Newimpartial (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that neither Kulldorff nor Howard were that specific as to what exactly they were addressing with their comments, so we have to rely on outside opinion's like Howard's for the other side. If the underlying data had more information, maybe the magnitudes of the results would be so strong this discussion would have never arose. Personally I am happy to now know more about these studies. Tikitorch2 (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In Howard's publication he states:
    "Others needed lung transplants or amputations. 5,973 children have had MIS-C thus far, though this may be a substantial undercount. In one study, 80% of children with MIS-C went to the ICU and 20% needed mechanical ventilation. 52 children have died of MIS-C."
    GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For comparison, Howard's article also said 1000 children had died from Covid 19 so, like the MIS-C studies provided above, MIS-C Covid deaths are apparently a minor portion of overall child Covid mortality (perhaps about 5% based on these two numbers from Howard). Given this, MIS-C is likely irrelevant to the un-sourced original research at issue here, which was described as: in other words, my view is that "influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid" is an objectively false claim to be stated as such in wikivoice".

    You seem reasonable, but we have been discussing this for several days and so far you are the only editor who both holds this view and has tried to find studies to properly source it. However, even for subsets studied like hospitalized children under 5 years old, none of the four studies so far show that Kulldorff made a factual error when he wrote "[children’s] Covid mortality risk is miniscule and less than the already low risk from the annual influenza.” (Without relying on an explicit WP/OR interpretation that he meant the 2021 influenza specifically, or that he was comparing the risk to a child lacking the Covid vaccine with the risk of influenza to children with vaccinated immunity?)

    Is there some point where you would conclude the public health data out there is not strong enough to show Kulldorff in error on this point? Or even it is possible he could be proven correct after more endemic seasons? Tikitorch2 (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Endemic seasons are irrelevant, since both our mainstream source and our dissenting source were addressing specifically whether or not it was a good idea, from an epidemiological perspective, for children to be vaccinated against Covid in 2021. Newimpartial (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The text at issue is more focused, using Wikipedia's voice to assert that "In December 2021 Kulldorff published an error-laden essay for the Brownstone Institute in which he falsely claimed that influenza was more hazardous to children than COVID-19," which is not a neutral point of view because it is only supported by an opinion piece. Eventually Covid vaccination rates for children may get close enough to Influenza that, even though the risks are similar, scientific studies may be able to conclude on average which one carries more risk.
    By the way, based on the current child Covid vaccination coverage of <15%, it seems strained which source you are presenting as mainstream. Tikitorch2 (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the relevance of current child Covid vaccination coverage, since we are talking about a public health response to the population immmunity characteristics and virus strains of 2021.
    And I prefer my version presented above to the current article text so I don't feel the need to "debate" the merits of the latter. Newimpartial (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your proposed text is the exact same unproven allegation of factual error: “In December 2021 Kulldorff published an essay…falsely claiming that influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid”. Instead of a scientific study you base this assertion of fact on ‘my view is that "influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid" is an objectively false claim to be stated as such in wikivoice.’ Tikitorch2 (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because the view that influenza was less hazardous to children in 2021 than Covid is objectively true, is part of consensus reality and is documented in a huge mass of high-quality sources. The data on which this assessment is based are referred to by Howard, the source we cite in the Kulldorff BLP: the same source that notes Kulldorff's errors.
    Tikitorch, this appears to be a WP:1AM situation. You have had more than one opportunity to present your perspective - that Kulldorff's argument against vaccinating children for Covid was not based on obviously false claims - to editors sensitive to BLP concerns, and no other editor appears to ageee with you about it. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK, I think. Newimpartial (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had previously recognized your comments as intentionally changing the subject and stonewalling rather than a good faith discussion, the I would not have kept trying to articulate the straw man argument which you continue to circle back to—-that Kulldorff was referring to the 2021 influenza risk—-the plain reading is he was referring to the historic influenza risk, which his lay audience would understand.
    I am not the only editor who has recognized that Howard’s piece—-the only cited source—-is an opinion piece and as such is inappropriate to use as a one-sided, objective statement of truth. Tikitorch2 (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please WP:AGF - my argument isn't a straw man, it represents a plain reading of the debate. And I haven't seen any other editor raise this opinion claim in relation to a revised text like the one I have proposed - Tikitorch raiding this "concern" looks like a moving goalpost to me.
    The whole situation continues reflect a WP:1AM project on the part of Tikitorch, as far as I can tell. Newimpartial (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that there is ongoing dispute and discussion. It looks like Newimpartial's proposed revision is generally acceptable. @Newimpartial, do you feel comfortable updating the text with your version? I will drop the tone dispute and you can remove the tag if so. I'd prefer not to antagonize anyone by being the one to make the change if possible. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Newimperial's proposed revision is not generally acceptable. As Morbidthoughts pointed out, the assertion of a false claim and factual error is based on an WP:RSOPINION source and these assertions about Kulldorff should be presented as criticism from Howard. I have pointed out that, even in 2024, there seem to be no scientific studies which show Kulldorff in error without WP:OR, i.e. choosing to add unlikely specifics to Kulldorff's general claim which transform it from a probably (/possibly) true statement to provably false.

    Newimperial's text contains a straw man argument cited to Howard, that "influenza was responsible for only one child death in the 2020/21 season - while public health mitigation of COVID-19 was in place – COVID-19 killed more than 1,000." But problematically, Newimperial's text asserts false-claims/factual-errors and follows with this straw man fact, while not providing balance by accurately summarizing or quoting the supposed error--this is in-and-of-itself circumstantial evidence of a straw man argument. Ironically, Howard himself has enough integrity to quote Kulldorff and only directly accuses Kulldorff of "...like Dr. Kulldorff, trying to trick their readers with word games."

    We would need to remove the WP:OR assertion "..., falsely claiming that influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid." Or alternatively provide an in-text attribution to Howard's opinion piece. Tikitorch2 (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would pose the three folliwing questions in response:
    1. On what basis is it asserted that Howard's piece was published by SBM as "opinion"? I don't see evidence of that (and using the first person does not imply "opinion" in this genre).
    2. On what basis is it asserted that Howard's statement is a "straw man" of Kuldorff's argument? I have seen nothing more than one editor's original - and improbable - attempts at exegesis trying to show Kuldorff "must" have meant something else "because he is a scientist"!?
    3. In two sub-questions: GeogSage, do you still want me to edit the article text as previously proposed? And does anyone (besides Tikitorch) object? Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. See Morbidthoughts comments above. Also, SBM calls itself a blog that deals with controversial topics on its about page.
    2. Howard acknowledges "Yes, a young child with the flu might fare slightly worse than a child with COVID-19" because it is apparent that Kulldorff's statement was comparing case-fatality ratios, while in Howard's opinion the population-fatality ratio is more relevant to the debate. Even still, he is unable to provide evidence Covid mortality was worse than the annual influenza risk to the unvaccinated. Indeed his own statistic shows that the 2009 flu pandemic (the only comparable year when vaccination was similarly unavailable or in short supply) was more deadly to children than the Covid-19 pandemic.
    3. I pose three questions back to you: How do you know Kulldorff was comparing Covid risk to the 2021 flu risk vice a historical norm? How do you know Kulldorff was comparing mortality/population ratios instead of mortality/case ratios? How do you know Kulldorff was comparing mortality risk of children unvaccinated against Covid to children vaccinated against the flu? This last one is inherently unscientific--why do you think Kulldorff did not account for confounding factors (i.e. vaccination status) when comparing the mortality risk of two different diseases? (Because he is not a scientist?) I am not the one doing "original exegesis" here--your proposed text details asserts a false claim that Howard goes out of his way to not explicitly state. Tikitorch2 (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer the first question: my sense is that, while not listed under Perennial Sources onwiki, Science Based Medicine is generally regarded as having reliable and effective editorial oversight and as a reliable source, when issues have been raised at RSN. It is certainly considered a more reliable publisher on Covid-related matters than is the Brownstone Institute. Morbidthoughts' opinion that Howard's piece was opinion has not had any evidential support presented, at least not here.
    To answer the second and third questions (which are really aspects of the same issue) the plain language reading is that Kuldorff in his piece is arguing against vaccinating children for Covid. In this argument, only the actual immunological characteristics of those children (for Covid and for flu) are relevant, as in, the relevant question is which disease poses a greater threat for that population to that time given its actual characteristics for vaccination and prior infection, and its actual risks of exposure. So either Kulldorff is making a non sequitur argument about a population with different characteristics than the relevant one, or he is making a claim about the population and time that is relevant - in which case Howard's criticism is both apt and valid. Newimpartial (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So “I disagree with…,” “how sad,” “I was dismayed,” “I would speculate”, and the numerous psychoanalyses on Dr. Kulldorff’s character and motivations don’t seem like signs of an opinion article, as Morbidthoughts indicated? Even if its reliability is to be based on that of SBM vs the critiqued article’s publisher, how does that translate to assertions of false claims/factual errors in Wikivoice without attribution?
    Regarding your plain reading, what you consider relevant regarding the flu and the subsequent either-ors are themselves non sequiturs; how does the mortality risk of the flu during the covid pandemic have anything to do with whether children should have been vaccinated for Covid? The definition of a standard foot has no impact on whether on my right foot (child Covid) is longer than my right hand (child Covid vaccine), other than it being a better unit to visualize the problem with than a mile (elderly) or a light year (annual deaths).
    Howard even discovers this later on in his article, ironically pointing out “My children can easily grasp this very simple concept.” His writing style is like a middle school book review, describe the plot diagram to prove you did the reading, while simultaneously posing moodily as a critique to regurgitate the prompt. Tikitorch2 (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like more WP:IDONTHEARTHAT - the view that Howard is writing 'opinion" because of their prose style isn't really relevant to this discussion.
    As far as how does the mortality risk of the flu during the covid pandemic have anything to do with whether children should have been vaccinated for Covid?: I don't know - it was Kulldorff who argued that children should not be vaccinated against Covid because flu was a higher risk, not me. The non sequitur, if there is one, is his not mine - or Tikitorch's non sequitur of comparing childhood vaccine to a hand and annual deaths to a light year (Buzz Lightyear, perhaps).
    GeogSage, would you like for me to edit the text as I proposed earlier? It doesn't seem likely that others will weigh in. Newimpartial (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes what you preposed earlier as written would be adequate to address my concerns on tone and wording. Thank you for doing so. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The analogy is more accurate if a light year was Covid deaths/population, if that is what you mean.
    You are incorrect, Kulldorff does argue that, read the quote at the top of Howard’s article. Kulldorff used the flu as a reference point for one of the risks of everyday life. You can speculate as to why he chose to compare to the flu instead of car accidents, but it could have been he wanted to highlight an example of vaccine success in his article “Vaccine Save Lives.””
    Geogsage’s original proposed revision at the top of this discussion is an acceptable way of attributing the disparaging assertions of factual error/false claims to Howard; it is still pretty harsh in its weighting but at least it attributes its claims so readers can do a quick logic check.
    Again we have not achieved consensus here. Read Morbidthoughts comments above, it is not just me/earlier geogsage who have noted this specific, problematic claim. , why did you bring the conversation over here, only to ignore the single different editor who has weighed in since? Tikitorch2 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note, I also don't agree with the "strawman argument" interpretation, and if I did that assertion would require a citation anyway, so three editors. In the same way that calling Howard's argument a strawman would require a citation, attribution of the critique Kulldorff's arguments requires one. Is there any room to compromise on the existing text? Or is the status quo really the only thing you consider acceptable? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never proposed asserting it was a straw man on Kulldorff’s page and had repeatedly concurred or supported your proposed revision for its improvements. However, now that I have had a day to recognize this whole thing as a straw man argument, I no longer concur. What about:
    ”Kulldorff published an essay titled "Vaccines save lives" for the Brownstone Institute, a right-wing think tank, that has been criticized for factual inaccuracies related to risks to children. Jonathan Howard published a critical response to this in Science-Based Medicine, detailing errors and factual inaccuracies.”
    This basically drops the straw man issue, since we likely won’t agree on balancing Howard’s 1 to 1000 deaths statistic by also including the quote of Kulldorff’s that it purportedly factually corrects. Tikitorch2 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted before we moved over here, I think your proposed text is an improvement in tone and attribution. As for feedback, I'd recommend:
    "Kulldorff published an essay titled "Vaccines save lives" for the Brownstone Institute, a right-wing think tank, that has been criticized for factual inaccuracies. In a critical response published in Science-Based Medicine, Jonathan Howard refuted the claim that child Covid mortality risk is less than the risk from the annual influenza, pointing out that influenza was responsible for only one child death in the 2020/21 season, while public health mitigations of COVID-19 were in place–-COVID-19 had, in contrast, killed more than 1,000."
    This allows the reader to see Howard uses a straw man argument so they can follow the citation and see the full critique. Tikitorch2 (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stepping into discussing if Howard is making a "straw man argument" or not is not something we can do without sources saying as much, so I would not pursue that line of reasoning. However, as we can't say Howard is making a straw man argument without original research on our part. This is the same reason I want to attribute the criticism of Kulldorff to Howard, it is not our place to do original research or fact check the primary source Kulldorff wrote. Kulldorff wrote something, Howard pointed out it had factual inaccuracies in a response. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were writing an article I would want to state what Kulldorff actually said to balance the stated evidence of factual inaccuracies. This would be good practice even if Howard didn’t straw man Kulldorff—-Howard even does so at the top of his critique.
    Regardless, I think your proposed text is a significant improvement even without this feedback, but it does worry me if we remove the obvious Wikipedia bias readers might not be driven to follow the link and investigate Howard’s article themselves. Tikitorch2 (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Christina Hoff Sommers[edit]

    Christina Hoff Sommers is a conservative philosopher and critic of feminism. She describes herself as an equity feminist, and is listed in the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy as one of equity feminism's main representatives. Some of her critics have alleged that she is anti-feminist, which she has denied.

    Until recently we had her denial included in the biography, but now we have a dispute about including it. We have both secondary and primary sources which state that she denies being anti-feminist.

    • The argument to include is based on the WP:BLPPUBLIC, which states for public figures we should include their denials of allegations.
    • The argument to exclude is more complex, but basically that her denial is self-serving, and therefore should not be included, pointing to WP:MANDY.

    The text in question is a sentence to be appended to the paragraph where it is alleged that she is anti-feminist: [1].

    Any thoughts? - Bilby (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Had we not already included her self-descriptor as an "equity feminist", then I would say that we might need the denial. However, given that we have the self-description, denying being "anti-feminist" just seems redundant. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to that. But the argument seems to be that saying she is an equity feminist is not the same as denying that she is anti-feminist, as only an explicit denial has been accepted. - Bilby (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify the situation, we currently state that Sommers has "called herself" an equity feminist, and then write extensively about how she is regarded as an anit-femininist. The clarification is simply to note that she has explicity stated that she is not anti-feminist, and therefore has denied the allegation. While I personally feel that being an equity feminist is not conducive to also being an anti-feminist, others have disagreed, hence the need for the one line clarification that she has denied the allegation, as per "if the subject has denied allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." It simplifies things to include her statement, no matter whether we agree with the subject or not. - Bilby (talk)
    Bilby is misrepresenting the strength of secondary sourcing for Sommers' contention that she is "not an anti-feminist". I'll have more to say later, but for now please see Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers#Sommers' denial. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The main secondary source reads:
    Although Who Stole Feminism? is a full frontal assault on the feminist establishment, and on such feminist icons as Gloria Steinem, Susan Faludi, and Naomi Wolf, Sommers repeatedly stresses that she herself is no anti-feminist. Rather, "I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become." [2]
    It isn't exactly ambiguous. - Bilby (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated on the talk page, Cathy Young, the author of that book review, seems to be exaggerating. In the preface to Who Stole Feminism? that Young is quoting, Sommers doesn't say anything about being called anti-feminist. Young was a colleague of Sommers at the Women's Freedom Network, where they both held leadership positions.[3] So this is not really an independent source.
    Young's review was also published in 1994, several years before the cited sources describing Sommers as anti-feminist: Anderson (2014), Jaggar (2006), Projansky (2001), and Vint (2010). It would be very convenient for Sommers to be able to say I'm not an anti-feminist as a defense against any and all future allegations of anti-feminism. I don't think that's what WP:PUBLICFIGURE is meant to achieve. When Donald Trump says he is the "least racist person in the room", should we include that denial any time he goes on to do or say allegedly racist things?
    The other issue concerns self-published sources by the subject of the article, in this case a tweet replying to to Jessica Valenti (who is not cited or mentioned in the article). Valenti's tweet no longer exists, so we don't know what the specific "allegation" was, if any. In this case Sommers' contention that she is "not anti-feminist ... Just far more moderate" definitely seems self-serving in that her entire post-academic career (including book sales for Who Stole Feminism?) is based on her claiming to be a feminist while attacking feminism.[4][5][6]Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The tweet specifically says "I'm not anti-feminist". You can argue around that, but just as with Cathy Young, the statement is unambiguous. And if Young's statement predates the specific examples added to the article, that just shows that she has been denying that allegation for a long time - not that she did not deny it. We can get more, though, if that will help you, but fundamentally you seem to be trying to say that she is not denying that she is anti-feminist, when it is clear that she is. If nothing else, she says that she is an equity feminist. Isn't that stating that she is feminist, not anti-feminist?
    It is not self-seving to make that statement. Self-serving is "I am the greatest philosophy", or "my theories are all sound". This is simply a statement of her position. If this was self-serving, then any simple denial of an allegation from any person would have to be regarded similarly. Just saying "I am not <insert allegation here>" is a simple statement of how one percieves one's stance. - Bilby (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the tweet is self-serving, just like Trump tweeting "I don't have a racist bone in my body" is self-serving. Public figures often have a vested interest in denying accusations, whether or not the accusation is true. Especially when their reputation directly affects their career prospects. If we had an actual independent, reliable source for Sommers' denial, that would be fine, but so far no one has provided any.
    The article already states that Sommers' positions and writing have been characterized ... as "equity feminism" and She has described herself as an equity feminist, equality feminist, and liberal feminist. Extrapolating anything about anti-feminism from this would be original research.
    As I stated on the talk page, the word "antifeminist" shows up only a handful of times in the book Young is quoting from, and none are about Sommers herself. So there's no "denial" there that I can see. The policy about public figures specifically mentions allegations and incidents. Just saying "I am not an anti-feminist" as a way of deflecting any and all future criticism is not the same as responding to an actual allegation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Trump is self-serving, but we still include his denial that he is racist when we make allegations.
    The core problem is that you are seeing two parts of BLP - if someone denies an allegation, we include thei denial, and if claim in a primary source is self serving we don't use it - and choosing which one to follow based on your feeling as to what is self serving and what is not. Any time someone denies an allegation they are trying to help themselves, but we still should include that denial.
    It is frustrating that you belive that we don't have a secondary source, when we clearly do - you just want to discount teh unambiguoius statement it contains because you, personally, do not know specifically how it was derived. But even then, that is not what BLP asks for. BLP only asks that we include an denial against an allegation on BLPs. Not that we only include that denial if there is a secondary source. WP:MANDY is explicity counter to BLP, and we do not follow essays over policy. - Bilby (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The full text of Sommers' book is available online. Young seems to be simply incorrect in claiming that Sommers states at any point that she is no anti-feminist. Young also has a clear conflict of interest as a close colleague of Sommers. We still don't know what "allegation", if any, prompted this statement to be made in 1994, several years before the sources critical of Sommers cited in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter what prompted it, Young is stating that Sommers has denied being antifeminist, and we know that Sommmers has herself directly denied being antifeminist. I do not see that the existance of a denial is a problem. What I see is that you regard such a denial as self serving and tehrefore wish to exclude it, while I see such a denial as necessary to include per BLP. Anyway, that's how I see the issue. - Bilby (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's essentially correct, and in addition, the article by Young is not reliable in this context for the reasons I've already stated. That leaves only the self-serving and self-published tweet, unless somebody comes up with additional sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with you about Young, and I certainly disagree with you that Sommers is being overly self-serving. But we'll see, if anyone cares to try to wade through this. - Bilby (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether Sommers is an anti-feminist or not is a complicated question without a clear answer. That she has denied it does not seem to be complicated, nor in question. I think including it in the article _very briefly_ is worthwhile. The Young review is certainly sympathetic, but it appears to have been subject to editorial control in a reliable source, Commentary (magazine). Comment that the YouTube video discussed appears to be published in root by Independent Women's Forum, also likely reliable enough for a denial if provenance can be established. I have some concerns about the appearance of some WP:OWNERSHIP around the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The IWF video where Sommers comments about being excommunicated from a religion I didn't know existed is in reference to some academic conference drama. There doesn't seem to be any explicit denial of anti-feminism. If someone feels like watching the whole 52 minutes, that could help clear things up. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While we can quote RSes that describe her side as antifemist (of which I presume there's a fair deal of to be the DUE position), from a BLP side, we should have a section that briefly describes her side, eg that she claims to be an equity feminist for whatever reasons that RSes site about her. If she has selfstated she's not antifemist, this should likely be included but only need a briefest of mentions. Eg "Sommers has said she is not antifemist (ref), but instead considers herself an equity feminist. (ref) etc. etc.", presumably after iterating why RSes consider her antifemist. MANDY is a very dangerous essay that overrides key provisions of BLP and NPOV in a case like this. Masem (t) 12:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, the self-serving aspect of Sommers' denial was discussed specifically in regards to WP:BLPSELFPUB, not just WP:MANDY. Bilby is once again misrepresenting things.
    The only source presented so far in which Sommers explicitly says she is not antifeminist is the 2014 tweet. If others want to include this as BLPSELFPUB, I'll go along with it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd normally let this ride, but to be clear I mentioned WP:MANDY for two reasons: one was that it was the justification you gave when first removing the denial here, and the other is that you specifically referenced and linked to it in the comment I was responding to [7]. Otherwise, I have been refering to "self-serving" per WP:BLPPRIMARY. No, I was not misrepresenting things by mentioning it. - Bilby (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked to that essay by way of arguing that it is inherently self-serving for a self-styled feminist to deny being anti-feminist. Not as a justification for including or excluding anything. It's important to determine whether a claim is self-serving when applying policy regarding sources that are unduly self-serving. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand how anyone can arrive to a conclusion that very basic denial is "unduly self-serving". Per the 2014 RFC (and to my knowledge, the RFC has been superseded) even a self-published denial should always be mentioned and/or linked. It is up to debate how much weight a denial should be given, but the amount can never be zero.
    The conclusion that a denial – in some form – should always be included is obvious. Politrukki (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Gebhard[edit]

    The opposite of the usual type of report: instead of adding unflattering material, Jdlebanon1079 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing it. The material in question is fully sourced and seems relevant to the subject, but I'm not prepared to edit war to keep it there. A second opinion would be good. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:74C9:F21C:7D37:E976 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with the removal. I have concerns about the sourcing (lots of references to legislation or records of debate) and a degree of original research with the inclusion of some items. Proponents of inclusion should discuss this matter on the article's talk page, including showing where the legislation in question has gotten significant coverage in independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I started a talk page discussion because I agree with C.Fred that its inclusion (with the present sources) is questionable. Schazjmd (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I stand corrected! Thanks to both of you 😀 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:74C9:F21C:7D37:E976 (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's good to ask for more eyes. On first glance, it did appear like someone trying to remove content critical of the subject, so I do understand the editors who've reverted the removals over the past year. Schazjmd (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Priscilla Presley[edit]

    Priscilla Presley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Random editors (or same person with different IPs) disrupting this page for months to restore WP:BLPGOSSIP. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure much can be done about this other than interested editors adding the article to their watchlist so that future additions are assessed and, if necessary, reverted. The material isn't added often enough (4 times in 3 months) for a request for page protection to be successful, and the IPs are from different ranges so blocking them won't help. I've added the article to my watchlist. Neiltonks (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So have I. I requested temporary semi-protection but am not hopeful — Iadmctalk  10:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Convicted felon" in first sentence of Hunter Biden[edit]

    Regulars here will be familiar with past and present discussion about our use of terms like "convicted felon" in the first sentences of biographies. We have a similar dispute happening at Hunter Biden, being discussed at Talk:Hunter Biden#Convicted felon in opening sentence. More attention would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Such a weird phrase and one which we should never be using even beyond the specific context here... Its entirely redundant, there is no such thing as an unconvicted felon... A felon is a person who has been convicted of a felony crime. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Something I hadn't considered before. Maybe a point to add to WP:Crime labels? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support that. Phrases such as "convicted felon" should be avoided in the lead, especially the first sentance, but rather the conviction should be mentioned and sourced with reliable sources; but only if it is notable Iadmctalk  17:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It already does basically provide that guidance Instead of “is a felon”: “was convicted of felony X” I think "Convicted felon" vs just felon is more an americanism than anything else, I'm not sure why we say it but I've never encountered a non-American who does... So not a BLP issue but a regional English language issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    British people say "criminal", usually... Felony isn't a thing for us — Iadmctalk  17:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that most of the time felon just mean serious criminal (we seperate crimes into felonies and misdemeanors)... But we don't actually have a word as far as I am aware such as "misdemeans" for those who commit misdemeanors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yes, felon is an Americanism in the literal sense that a felony is a specific concept in U.S. law. Other countries that derive their legal traditions from the U.K. mostly use "indictment" instead; Canada uses "summary offence" for the rough equivalent of a misdemeanor, I don't know if that's common throughout the Commonwealth or not. And for people who commit misdemeanors, I suggest "misdemeanies". (not a serious suggestion) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are summarily indicted to go... — Iadmctalk  20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. I have never seen a case where "is a convicted felon" is better than describing why the subject was convicted. Politrukki (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have we got the word "felon" in the first line of Trump's biography? No. So it doesn't belong here either. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is already a discussion about this on the article's talk page. Can we please avoid having two parallel discussions? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is meant to call attention to that discussion, and I agree that it'd be preferable if editors went there to leave comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Along those lines, pinging @Horse Eye's Back, Black Kite, Peter Gulutzan, and Ianmacm: you've all commented here but not at the talk page discussion. Some of you have made comments on the more general situation, so no pressure to get involved if you don't want to. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the prior discussions on WT:BLP was "Convicted felon" in the lead. There was a village pump proposal around the same time. For Dinesh d'Souza there was some discussion and it was left out. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No.... let me think about it. No. We should never open a biography that way and even when the crime is mentioned we should say what the crime was rather than just using the vague and arguably contentious label "felon". Springee (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. The only time we should even be mentioning it in the opening sentence is where the subject's notability actually originates from their criminal activity. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it's within WP:LEAD notability for a mention, but as with previous arguments over this sort of thing, not in the opening sentence.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on this discussion, and the fact that there is a strong consensus against saying "convicted felon" in the first sentence on the article talk page too, I left a hidden message to try to head off having to ECP the article (it's been added approx 6 times this morning, I believe all by people who were not officially notified about this being a CT). I'm uninvolved, but I have usually run away from anything having to do with contentious topics. If I've overstepped what a single admin is allowed to do, or if there's an i I forgot to dot, someone please let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You apparently forgot to log your action in WP:CTLOG. Politrukki (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think adding a hidden note is the type of AE action that needs to be logged. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding a hidden note is definitely not arbitration enforcement. You don't need to log it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Me neither, but "being added in my capacity as an uninvolved admin dealing with disruption in a contentious topic" is the phrase that makes this CT action. Politrukki (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't. The CT log logs enforcement actions, which a hidden editing advisory is not. Any editor could make that comment, it doesn't become arbitration enforcement just because the editor who did so happens to be an admin. If we were required to log everything that might possibly be seen as adminning in CTOPS, the log would be so long as to be useless. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who can remove/edit the hidden note before discussion, a) anyone, b) any uninvolved admin, c) only Floquenbeam? Politrukki (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. The only reason I did it was to avoid, if possible, applying ECP to the article. I suppose if anyone removes it, I wouldn't sanction them because this process already seems like quicksand, I'll just ECP the article (and log it, of course). And I'll note for myself in the future that trying to avoid ECP is more of a hassle than just applying it. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to Politrukki for pointing out that page (if i do end up ECPing it, now I know where to log it), and FFF and IV for the notes about not logging it. I was mostly concerned (as Politrukki just noted while I was typing) about marketing myself as an uninvolved admin enforcing CT, but doing something that wasn't really enforcing CT. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and since you asked, you also forgot to sanction Muboshgu for violating the BRD page restriction:
    1. 17:14, 11 June 2024 first revert removing "convicted felon"
    2. 18:12, 11 June 2024 second time removing "convicted felon"
    So, the page is under BRD restriction, which is separate from 1RR (see the article's edit notice). Muboshgu did not wait for 24 hours before reinstating their reverted (nearly identical) edit. They were aware, were informed on their user talk page of the breach hours ago, and asked to self-revert. Instead of admitting their error they are trying to obfuscate, even though the restriction should be crystal clear for people who have familiarised themselves with the rule. Politrukki (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think this is what a BRD restriction means, the restriction seems to be intended for people adding something and getting reverted. There is no 1RR so I think those edits are ok. Floquenbeam (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The BRD restriction applies equally to additions and removals. Regarding the HB article, there is already at least one example of a user being sanctioned for breaching the BRD restriction by removing content. On another article with BRD restriction (no 1RR), a user was brought to AE and sanctioned for twice removing the same or similar new addition to the article. Back then you said that the reported user violated the restriction, adding "I imagine myself in Jeppiz's shoes, I would think it was pretty unfair that I have to follow "bureaucratic procedure" and Mandruss doesn't. That's not a crazy attitude, and isn't completely unimportant." So...?
    Let us return to the HB article. I removed three categories. One or two users (it is a bit unclear whether editor two reverted me or editor one's partial self-revert) reverted me in three edits: [8], [9], [10] I have not discussed my edits on the article talk page, hence I'm not allowed re-remove the categories. I would say it would be crazy to think that I must not have to follow the same "bureaucratic procedure" someone else does. Politrukki (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then, please excuse my ignorance, what is the difference between a BRD restriction and 1RR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to know also. Does it have a formal definition as WP:BRD is an essay. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should have looked at the link, you need to post to the talk page before reverting again. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Inserting "convicted felon" into the very first sentence of a biography has turned into a kind of Wikipedia meme, but I cannot think of any article where the first sentence should include that label (even people only notable for criminal acts should have something with more specificity). I support BLP tbanning anyone who makes one of these edits as it nearly always betrays POV or ignorance of WP:NPOV and/or WP:BLP and turns into a massive time sink. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Donald Trump last sentence of lead!. 2A00:23C6:7532:C700:684E:5B2E:E674:F54C (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Conveniently, the last sentence is not the first sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It also, as of when I checked it a few minutes ago, says he was convicted of crime X in year Y. It doesn't say he is a felon. Springee (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fun fact: it looks like the phrase "convicted felon" appears in 1,065 articles. As for how many are the first sentence, it's unclear (TIL Quarry can't search article text). Yikes, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be an interesting project to work on, 2 of the first 4 hits were to BLPs and first-sentence usages. I removed it from Jen Shah and Brandon Browner, if someone decides to revert I'll bring it up in a new section on this board, if needed. Zaathras (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to return to normally editing until I deal with other stuff but since this has come up again, editors might want to look at the many previous discussions and examples of this. Notably Klete Keller while it has lost the convicted felon wording, still has "American former competitive swimmer and a convicted participant in the January 6 United States Capitol attack". Also while not a BLP, some of the objections don't seem specific to BLP so I'll mention John du Pont currently says "John Eleuthère du Pont (November 22, 1938 – December 9, 2010) was an American convicted murderer. An heir to the du Pont family fortune, he was a published ornithologist, philatelist, conchologist, and sports enthusiast. Du Pont died in prison while serving a sentence of thirty years for the murder of Dave Schultz." Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Firefangledfeathers stated in the OP, the attention to this belongs at Hunter Biden. There we can discuss the death toll of this weapon. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've always said, using the terms "convicted felon", "convicted sex offender", etc. in the first sentence of the lede for people not known exclusively as criminals is almost always WP:UNDUE and frankly lazy writing. Curbon7 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well said. JFHJr () 03:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Wikipedia notice board,

    I am writing to you in relation to the recent addition of the following section Sexual harassment allegations to the bio of [Dolkun Isa]. This is an ongoing defamation case, and lawyers are involved. Therefore, it would be best to delete this section for now.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    Best,

    (above unsigned by user:ChloeLulu user talk:ChloeLulu)

    The section is sourced and well written in a neural point of view. It is fine to stay— Iadmctalk  08:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The section right now is sourced mainly to an article [11] in Notus, a new source of uncertain reliability (although initial signs look good). I did some searching, and also found a partisan source in Turkish [12] and a reliable source in Turkish [13]. It is not clear to me whether or not this is enough for a contentious statement in a BLP. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTUS is good, its what Allbritton's new org ended up operating as. They're new but have an excellent repuation as a result of their blue chip leadership, staff, and fellows. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything its actually skewed towards the article subject... Ironically the NOTUS article is about the very thing ChloeLulu is doing now... The supression of claims against such men. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The organization itself has been pretty candid that it happened and acknowledged the apology, at [14]. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article section could use more sourcing, but the fact that the article subject admitted "serious errors of judgment" and apologized means that there is something that happened. It may help to revise the section to include more details about the broader context, rather the heavy focus of the details in the one particular incident. – notwally (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Donald W. Parry[edit]

    Donald W. Parry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This BLP seems to be suffering from WP:NOTCV and bloat. Full professor, likely notable, but should it be pared down? Sourcing seems pretty shoddy, but I'm not sure what direction to go in. jps (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah looks like he meets WP:GNG/WP:NPROF, but little sources outside of the LDS publications (which, given the area of study, doesn't seem unusual). I've pruned the article back a bit anyway. Mdann52 (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Merrick Garland[edit]

    This IP user has made a serious of inflammatory, conspiracy theorist-laden and potentially libelous vandalizing edits on the Merrick Garland article. Here are the difference of revisions in question: [15] [16] [17] [18]Red Shogun412 (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it best for the article to be page-protected in the interim to avoid future instances of such incessant vandalism from occurring. Red Shogun412 (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RPP might be your best venue. Most of us aren't admins here. Cheers. JFHJr () 02:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Semi-protected for 2 days. Let me know if the nonsense persists. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Elon Musk[edit]

    More eyes are needed here, as editors are repeatedly including/supporting a claim that the subject had incited his own hospitalisation by beating as a child by calling another boy who lost his father to suicide "stupid". It's clear from the sources ([19] and [20]) cited that this is the contested account from Musk's own father that neither source (noting that the Business Insider is just quoting the book) accepts Musk's father's account as fact. The relevant pages of the cited book are fully available on Google Books and they describe the incident in question and outlines how both Elon Musk and his brother describe the father's claim as "unhinged and that the perpetrator ended up being sent to juvenile prison for it. They say their father is a volatile fabulist, regularly spinning tales that are larded with fantasies, sometimes calculated and at other times delusional." Arguments for including this claim from the subject's allegedly abusive father as fact in Wikipedia's voice include: "As we do not know what relevance it has, but RS seems to think it has, it is logical to assume they know stuff we do not." [21]

    Full talk page discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#%22In_one_incident,_after_having_called_a_boy_whose_father_had_committed_suicide_%22stupid%22,_Elon_was_thrown_down_concrete_steps.%22 BoldGnome (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that the content side of the matter is resolved, I'd be interested in exploring the conduct of those who restored this contentious material who either don't understand WP:BLP, or think it doesn't apply to Elon Musk. BoldGnome (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I get your drift. But BLPN is for content; behavior stuff is at WP:ANI mostly. The majority of BLPN volunteers are not admins capable of sanction anyway. JFHJr () 01:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we know that the content side is resolved yet. I removed the contentious statement for now, but neither of the two restoring editors has responded, and it's been less than an hour. I also don't think there's necessarily ANI-worthy behavior here. It seems like a good faith misunderstanding of the source material. Worst case scenario is a trout. AlexEng(TALK) 01:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlexEng The content has apparently been restored by a different editor. Ergzay (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's incorrect: quotes are now directly attributed to Errol and Elon, not wikivoice. Feoffer (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kogonada[edit]

    I would like some editors' attention on Kogonada (history) and Talk:Kogonada#Kogonada's given name. Nardog (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Catherine Tait[edit]

    In the article about Catherine Tait, current President and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada (Canada’s public broadcaster), I recently added tags to flag that two of the sources used in the introduction of the article were unreliable (one is an opinion piece from a tabloid newspaper, the other is a conservative social commentary website). In both cases, I provided in the history of the page a Canadian government source directly contradicting the claims made in the introduction and originating from those sources (see: http://ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/CHPC/meeting-106/evidence).

    It also seems uncommon for such specific information about the compensation policy of an organization to appear in the introduction of an article about a living person. In Tait’s case, there is also further down on her page a section called “Executive Bonuses Scandal and Summons to House of Commons,” which already covers the same topic. Adding poorly sourced information about “bonuses” in the introduction with a point of view that is not neutral seems like an attempt to damage her reputation more than anything else. As you can see on the talk page of the article, misleading and false information about Tait (for instance, about the city where she resides) regularly gets added to her Wikipedia page.

    As displayed on my user page and next to my latest edits, I work for the organization that Tait leads. For this reason, I would like to call on uninvolved editors to review the article and determine the most appropriate course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien.faille (talkcontribs) 14:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Even ignoring issues over the specific sources cited, the claim that "Tait has come under great criticism..." is unsupported editorialising, and none of this belongs in the lede, since it isn't discussed elsewhere in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked at the sources, and taking into account my concerns above, I've removed the content for now. This does not preclude adding policy-compliant material on the matter later, after discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was all done in an edit by an IP on June 1; I completed reverting the edit, which had little to recommend it. --JBL (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A 'Duplicate Submission' accusation keeps being inserted and re-inserted in spite of the fact that it is poorly sourced, and not in compliance with Wikipedia BLP regulations. This is contentious material about living persons that is poorly sourced. According to BLP, two admissible sources are needed for any BLP material published. Two sources were cited in the initial version of the section: one admissible (Analysis) and one inadmissible (Pub peer, self-edited source). I have intervened and deleted it, and explained that there are several problems with this paragraph: (1) any such material needs to come with two admissible references; however, pub peer is not an admissible reference source, since any internet user can freely edit (2) the allegation is in conflict with the UK Research Integrity Policy in that the two papers are cross-cited (3) Springer (Philosophical Studies) have denied the allegation, thus it is a matter of controversy between the two journals that is yet to be decided. Several days later the user SocialEpisteme intervened and reinserted the section, in bad faith: it now cited two impermissible, self-published sources (pub peer and a personal blog); and it also falsely pretended to have two different citations to Analysis, although both lead to the same text. This latter interventions makes me think this user is not neutrally intervening in this article. I have intervened again explaining that the intervention violates Wikipedia policy for biographies of living persons; only one permissible source cited (Analysis); all other citations from self-published sources (pub peer and Leiter blog); accusation in violation of UKRIO research integrity policy, in that the papers are cross-cited, which is a condition that excludes duplication. SocialEpisteme has intervened and re-published the section, although it is in violation of BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.118.72 (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    After trying to discuss this matter on the Talk page, without a response there, I came here to report on the same page:
    Mona Simion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    A section from this article has been deleted 3 times in the last week. The section was created in March. In response to the first removal, some sources were added. In response to the second removal, a discussion was opened on the Talk page [22], but the other user(s) did not engage with the arguments there and deleted the section again. (The above issues are addressed there.) The removed content can be seen from this diff: [23]. I think the removal should be reverted, since the content is not contentious (based on an official public statement) and it seems exceptional enough to warrant mention. -- SocialEpisteme 09:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourcing you are using is either primary sources or blogs. If you had a reliable secondary source discussing this then there would be a case, but until then this material can and should be removed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, @Jonathan A Jones. It is unusual to refer to PubPeer as a blog: it is open to contributions, but like Wikipedia the website expects verifiable content, and in this particular case the claims do check out. While PubPeer does have a blog [24], that isn't what the section linked to.
    On the talk page, I added two links to another source: [25], [26]. SocialEpisteme (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The page you linked to on PubPeer is obviously a blog. These new links are primary sources. You need to actually address the issue that you don't have reliable secondary sources supporting your edits. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary sources in this case are these two articles authored by Simion: [27] and [28]. So far, the section does not refer to them, although they can be added if that seems appropriate. The question is whether these constitute a case of duplicate publication.
    The main secondary source is the interpretation given by Oxford University Press: their official statement refers to both primary sources and concludes that it is a case of redundant publication (according to their interpretation of the term, [29]). This type of source is usually regarded as the most reliable by Wikipedia's standards.
    The other sources give more context. In particular, the PubPeer page refers to the same two primary sources and excerpts parts that overlap, including the conclusion of the second publication. SocialEpisteme (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SocialEpisteme, Wikipedia requires independent, reliable sources, not original research or synthesis of published material. Also, do you have any personal relation to this topic? Your only edits are pushing this pretty minor claim, which may suggest a conflict of interest. – notwally (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:User-generated content like Pub Peer and WP:SPS likes blogs are unacceptable in a BLP. Primary announcements by affiliated orgs, like the university, are not sufficient to support contentious material. JoelleJay (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Pub Peer is right out. If a proponent of the source feels otherwise, I advise asking at WP:RSN before adding it anywhere. JFHJr () 03:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here from RSN per WP:SPS Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. and WP:BLPSPS Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. (all bolding in the original). These sources don't require reliability discussions, as there are unusable in BLPs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for all replies. When I added section, I was convinced that the info was reliable and verifiable. I now understand and accept that this doesn't mean it meets the standards for BLP.
    What still puzzles me is that in the same article all other claims are only supported by one source each, either primary such as from a university or self-published on a blog not written by the subject: should these all be removed? Or are the rules for critical info more strict than for congratulatory sources? If not, should the article even exist if there are no reliable secondary sources??
    To be clear, I'm not planning on removing anything here! Just wanna avoid rookie mistakes in future. SocialEpisteme (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What still puzzles me is that in the same article all other claims are only supported by one source each There is no requirement that any content be supported by more than one source. So long as the source is reliable, a single source is absolutely sufficient.
    self-published on a blog not written by the subject Nothing in a BLP should be supported by self-published sources, except with very limited exceptions when they are self-published by the subject and are uncontentious claims of fact. I'm not seeing anything currently in the article cited to self-published blogs at a quick glance, though: can you give an example? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder whether SocialEpisteme is confusing secondary source with second source, as several of their comments make much more sense if viewed in that light. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Caeciliusinhorto Two of the links (7 and 10) go to Justin Weinberg's Daily Nous. It's very similar in scope to Brian Leiter's philosophy blog, which was judged as insufficient for BLP. The other links all seem primary sources. SocialEpisteme (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PRIMARY are allowed, secondary sources are just preferred. I'm not sure the Daily Kos is a blog, Weinberg maintains the site and is the editor, but it's not just his personal posting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But if he is maintaining and editing the posts, then the ones he writes himself (which appear to be both of the ones cited) do qualify as WP:BLPSPS and are thus a problem. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've swapped out both Daily Nous cites to be on the safe side. The article still lacks secondary sourcing, however. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Craig Butler (football manager)[edit]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Butler_(football_manager)

    Issues: Tone, Balance, Quality

    This article is poorly written, has bad punctuation, is poorly sourced and resembles more a PR press release than a Wikipedia article. I believe there are reasons to believe it has been written by Craig Butler himself or someone connected to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.69.137.70 (talkcontribs)

     Done - WP:BEBOLD and clean up yourself. GiantSnowman 19:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is written based on favoritism it should be modified and include correct information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danyal_Chaudhry

    The editor provided incorrect information by chewing the facts. The editor provided those references which are in favor of Mr. Daniyal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbroad34 (talkcontribs)

    • @Chrisbroad34 is trying to add WP:OR using fake ref and are removing well-sourced content. Additionally, they are accusing me of writing in favor of the subject, which is not true as anyone can see the BLP. In brief, @Chrisbroad34 literally claiming that the subject is not a Member of the Parliament. Not here to build an encyclopedia!— Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chrisbroad34: Could you please explain why a "Controversy" section takes up half of this BLP? What reliable source calls it controversial? It's certainly negative and sensational. But "Controversy" sections are usually undue, unless the controversy is the/a claim to fame, and sources call it so. JFHJr () 21:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • JFHJr, The issue isn't that they're adding a controversial section. I wrote that section, and it's relevant and well-sourced. The problem is that @@Chrisbroad34, is claiming that the subject is not a Member of Parliament and that the subject won the election through rigging, for which they have NO source. This is my version of the BLP. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Looks good. Well sourced, decent tone, and no controversy section. I restored it. Cheers. JFHJr () 22:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        JFHJr, Thanks, but @Chrisbroad34 is edit warring. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        But you're at 3R today because you're *not* edit warring? This isn't WP:EWN though. Content discussions are more helpful and productive than focusing on behavior. Cheers. JFHJr () 22:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        JFHJr, I was just trying to revert obvious WP:OR backed by WP:FAKE. I generally avoid edit warring but they're clearly WP:DE and WP:NOTHERE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand. I don't doubt your good faith. EW is not about who's right. It's about seeking consensus and support instead of battling. I saw this mutual reverting has significantly happened in the span of about 12 hours. The other editor posting here was a good step to get attention; I would suggest doing that instead of a second or third revert. Please give it time for more input from other BLPN volunteers. Cheers! JFHJr () 23:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        JFHJr, Point taken . Thanks! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I politely disagree with Mr. Saqib and you. Thousands of references are available in the media which have already proved that the gentleman who won the election is based on form 47 but not form 45. The members of parliament who possess the form 45 are considered as true winner. The editor has either close ties with MNA or he himself editing his profile. So, why does he insist on putting unnecessary information and hiding the truth. I will try to include more references to prove that my point of view is correct. Chrisbroad34 (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chrisbroad34, could you please point out the individual claims and their supporting sources that you find problematic? A numbered list might be helpful for discussion purposes. Please remove the <ref> and </ref> markup if you do so. Same applies for any reliable sources that support your proposals for any corrections or different wordings. Please see WP:NPOV for why we will follow what reliable sources say instead of entertaining viewpoints that are not supported, biographically significant, or otherwise encyclopedic in nature (something that should appear in a tertiary source like this). Cheers! JFHJr () 23:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, he became member of the parliament based on form 47 that is manipulated election. The parliament member does not possess form 45 that actually does not reflect the genuine results of his win. I suggest that he should include the member of parliament was declared as winner based on form 47 but not 45. I have neither personal conflict with member of parliament nor editor but I want to see true information in this platform. Chrisbroad34 (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Please provide non-primary reliable sources for your claims above. JFHJr () 23:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks and I will do it Chrisbroad34 (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        JFHJr, You're missing their point. They don't have an issue with the current content. Their claim is that the Danyal Chaudhry is not a member of Parliament or that we should add information that he won the election through rigging (Form 47). However, the issue is they don't have any RS to back up their claims. Regards, — Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not missing the point. I don't need you to tell me I'm asking the wrong questions. I did ask for reliable sources. Stop taking about/for the other editor. JFHJr () 00:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you and I will point out individual claims and their supporting sources that are not reflecting the facts sooner. Chrisbroad34 (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Mr. Daniyal contested election NA-57 from Rawalpindi Davison. His win remained doubtful after the statement of Rawalpindi Division commissioner Liaquat Ali Chattha on 17 February. Liaquat Ali Chattha resigned from his post after admitting his role in electoral fraud in the locality where 11 out of a total of 13 national assembly seats were won by PML-N candidates. "Commissioner Rawalpindi Chatha quits out of 'guilty conscience' for abetting election rigging". www.geo.tv. 17 February 2024. Archived from the original on 17 February 2024. Retrieved 17 February 2024. He claimed his office helped candidates, who were trailing in the actual vote counts by approximately 70,000 votes per candidate, to secure victory using fake stamps."Top bureaucrat in Pakistan's Rawalpindi resigns after admitting responsibility for manipulating poll results". Arab News. 17 February 2024. Retrieved 17 February 2024.; "'We convert losers into winners': Rawalpindi Commissioner Liaquat Ali Chattha resigns for rigging Pak poll results". Firstpost. 17 February 2024. Archived from the original on 17 February 2024. Retrieved 17 February 2024. He implicated Chief Electoral Commissioner Sikandar Sultan Raja and Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa in the scheme. "Pakistan elections: Rawalpindi commissioner resigns admitting to tampering results". The Independent. 17 February 2024. Archived from the original on 17 February 2024. Retrieved 17 February 2024.Naseer, Tahir; Sheikh, Adnan. "Rawalpindi commissioner says poll results 'manipulated' under his watch". Chrisbroad34 (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Which of these sources discusses or even names this subject? JFHJr () 01:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Gentleman "Danyal Chaudhry" contested election from constituency-57 that belongs to Rawalpindi Division. The commissioner of Rawalpindi resigned his job and took responsibility of rigging election of entire division. So gentleman "Danyal Chaudhry" belongs to Rawalpindi Division. So, he won election based on rigging and provided 04 references. If you feel that is not important to highlight, I stop to modify it. Thanks Chrisbroad34 (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        No source says what you just put together. You just demonstrated WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:POV problems. My advice is that you stop editing this BLP. You probably shouldn't be touching any contentious BLP for that matter. JFHJr () 02:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Through discussion on the talk page, there's disagreement on whether this article constitutes a BLP. As an article about a webcomic made by a sole author, is discussion on content within the comic necessarily discussion of the author? The scope of the article only includes the author in the context of the comic genesis and should be written to avoid direct discussion of author commentary outside of the comic context. I am not looking to litigate self-published content and other contentions here, purely the claim of this being falling under the umbrella of a BLP. Kontakr (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Content about a living person is under the auspices of WP:BLP, whether the article itself is a biography or not. Schazjmd (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The content is not about the person, it is about the comic they make. Kontakr (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is about the comic. Any content in the article about the creator of the comic is content about a living person. Just like an article might be about a movie, but any content about the actors or directors (etc.) is content about living people. Schazjmd (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the confusion. I do not disagree that content discussing a person directly is BLP. The concern is that references to the content of the comic (in this case, antisemitic content) falls under BLP as discussion of the author being antisemitic. Kontakr (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't brought any specific content to this board for discussion. You just asked "whether this article constitutes a BLP". You'd need to provide the specific text about antisemitic content and its sources for a discussion about that. Schazjmd (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refer to the prev revision. [30] Disregarding quality of sources, a separate and valid discussion, is the specific content of the overview a BLP? This is mostly in response to the revision note of "Self-published sources should not be used for these sorts of accusations per BLP"
    I believe clarification on what in this article constitutes a BLP is necessary. Kontakr (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any mention of Tatsuya Ishida or his views constitutes a BLP for Wikipedia purposes. Even commentary about the comic needs to be well sourced and carefully written - you would be best advised to assume it's BLP content itself as the comic is so closely associated with him. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read WP:BLP, it tells you: 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. (emphasis added) Schazjmd (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the conflict here is that the content of the comic itself is a reflection of the author's views, such as how it went from regular feminist issues to radical feminism to now pushing far right wing conspiracies. The question being proposed by OP is whether a discussion of the views presented in the comic fall under BLP because they are the views of the author. I would say no. However, I would also say that you still need proper reliable sources discussing the comic and these views in order to include them and a lot of the sources that have been presented on the talk page are just random website blogs. Which are not reliable sources. Unfortunately, as the popularity of Sinfest waned over the past decade due to the bizarre topic shifts of the author, so too has waned reliable source coverage of the comic as a whole, meaning there's little to no sources actually covering the subject matter shifting. It's an unfortunate Catch-22 situation. SilverserenC 23:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Platforms[edit]

    I removed reporting of Ishida's removal from crowdfunding platforms based on UNDUE and ABOUTSELF grounds.[31][32] This was disputed and partially reverted. If a bear shits in the woods and no one else gives a shit about it. Err... Why should this de-platforming be included beyond WP:ITSIMPORTANT if no one reports on it besides Ishida? Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    False information by a writer named saqib[edit]

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


    A writer named Saqib is editing false information based on his political likeness. Pleas remove the false article name danyal Ch . Thank You

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

    A front page article in New York (magazine) details six anonymous women accusing Huberman of dishonesty, infidelity and manipulation. One said he infected her with HPV. Some editors feel this is mere gossip, but the NYM is reliable. Huberman's advice spans the spectrum from medical to spiritual, so his personal conduct seems relevant to me. Huberman himself has discussed the article on various podcasts. Here is an opinion piece which makes the case for the import of the article:Mahdawi on HubermanDolyaIskrina (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For context, previous discussion appears to be at Talk:Andrew Huberman#Huberman and suspected mistreatment of Women Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rossi Morreale[edit]

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


    Rossi Morreale has been a barely-sourced BLP since forever. The current sources are an interview, his own website, and IMDb, none of which confers notability. Of the sources Cunard found on the talk page, I don't think any is WP:SIGCOV. The first one is a pre-fame fluff piece from his hometown newspaper, which is the equivalent of saying I'm notable because two newspapers did articles on me after I was on Wheel of Fortune. Of Cunard's other sources, one is an article about Temptation that only mentions Rossi in passing, one is a directory listing from Rotten Tomatoes (?!?), one is a blurb about Junkyard Mega Wars that only mentions Rossi in passing, and one is a fluff piece from People. I did a deep dive and could only find articles on Temptation, directory listings, and press releases on shows he hosted. The fact that I can't find anything other than IMDb or fan wikis to prove where he's even from is telling.

    @Donaldd23: suggested a redirect/merge to Temptation, but I feel that's unwarranted since he has hosted other shows. However, it seems pretty clear that despite his hosting a couple semi-notable shows, he fails WP:ANYBIO due to the utter lack of sourcing. The article has been tagged for sources since 2018, and for notability since 2023. If not even Cunard could find anything of substance to salvage this article, then I don't think anyone else will either. What say you? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I say the ten pound cleaver. I would, but I'm a little busy. I'm certain the article will still be there when I get hungry enough time. Otherwise I'm watching in case anyone else brings this to the morgue. JFHJr () 04:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me retract the AFD morgue recommendation. But the cleaver is still on the table re crap sourcing. This subject approximates WP:NACTOR: significant roles in multiple notable [...] television shows[...] or other productions. Hosting all that makes even me back away after a second look. There's no reason to support unsourced content though. Surely there's an innocuous third party that's reported even fragments of his serial hosting jobs. Open to questions about significance once there's more to look at. JFHJr () 05:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any good? This? People. The Boot. Not great but something. — Iadmctalk  05:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Meh (BLPSPS interview). Yes. No again. Cheers. JFHJr () 05:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK — Iadmctalk  05:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the People source is the only one I've found that's any good here. Anything else is no good. There's just nothing here. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest a prod for now... — Iadmctalk  06:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iadmc: Someone else may do that, as I am topic banned from XFD. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Prodded — Iadmctalk  20:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iadmc: It was de-prodded literally seconds later, with the creator adding the mostly unusable sources Cunard found. Do you feel it should go to AFD? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AfDed. It really is poor pickings out there. — Iadmctalk  04:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Josh_Burns_(politician)[edit]

    Josh_Burns_(politician)

    Incorrect, defamatory and fake-cited claims being serially inserted and reverted claiming he is an Israeli “asset” ie spy; and that he is a member for “Israel” i.e. effectively a double agent/spy in Parliament.

    Claims have references, which just demonstrate that he has been opposed to local protests on university campuses (which as reported by mainstream media have been infiltrated by extremist international religious organisations, hence opposition to them is not proof the opposer is an Israeli spy)

    The IP who inserted this claim is currently blocked. If disruption on the article continues from different accounts, WP:RFPP is the place to request protection. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Modi Rosenfeld[edit]

    Hi there,

    My name is Leo, I work with Modi.

    I was wondering if someone could help us add some additional information to his Wikipedia page.

    For example, we'd like to include his recent special, "Know Your Audience". Link: https://deadline.com/2024/03/modi-rosenfeld-special-know-your-audience-release-date-1235844939/

    We'd also like to include info from a few of the below articles: Meet Modi Rosenfeld – the Comedian Helping the Jewish Community Laugh Again

    Modi Rosenfeld is Pausing for Laughter

    ‘Flipping the Script’: Israel comedian Modi speaks about finding humor after Oct. 7 attack

    Can you connect me with someone who can assist with this?

    Thank you so much,

    Leo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.213.210 (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Leo, this noticeboard isn't the right place to request changes to articles (unless there's defamatory material that needs to be removed immediately). The best place to make edit requests is on the talk page of the article, in this case Talk:Modi Rosenfeld. As you have stated that you work with the subject of the article, see Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request for more information on how to go about doing this in the right way. IffyChat -- 12:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia[edit]

    Feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia#Discussion re: removed section "Private Practice Scandals", concerning the inclusion or exclusion of serious claims about individuals in a more general article. It concerns this section (which may warrant revdel) and the "June 2024" section here. Fram (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that entire article's salvageable as it stands. It looks like a string of unrelated marginally notable incidents presented as a tacit invitation to "join the dots", conspiracy-theory style. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. Why is this article here? To answer OP: private (no public life) living persons don't need WP:BLPCRIME even if the article is ostensibly about a phenomenon and not a person, by its title. Any content in any article or talk or wiki forum about living persons is a BLP concern. But back to the point Daveosaurus and now I would like to raise: how is this article encyclopedic, and what unrelated source covers this as a discrete phenomenon? It's not normal here to see, basically, "MedMal in X second-level (including federative) nation members" as a title. Cheers. JFHJr () 01:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To the question about how the article is encyclopedic: The existence of Category:Medical scandals and Category:Scandals in Canada and Category:21st-century scandals shows that scandals are, in general, encyclopedic. There are a few longer-titled scandals on there, such as Controversies surrounding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Royal Newfoundland Constabulary sexual abuse scandal and Canadian Indian residential school gravesites that have a place within an encyclopedia. Within Canada, it is quite unusual for one health region/university combined to have so many scandals related to a toxic culture of bullying, discrimination, entitlement toward colleagues' bodies, entitlement toward accessing anyone's records like a friend's, etc., such that there are a couple dozen articles on these topics. And all are related because any physician trainee studying at Dalhousie University is by default an employee of Nova Scotia Health Authority, and all of the Nova Scotia Health Authority physicians involved in scandals were also working on research or training with Dalhousie University at the time. Some of these scandals involved big lawsuits in the 6-7 figures. That's significant, at least as relevant to even if repeated big lawsuits in the 6-7 figures are not a big deal elsewhere. The kinds of scandals that have happened repeatedly within healthcare in Nova Scotia are usually supposed to be very rare, yet happen at an unusually high frequency in Nova Scotia and with significant taxpayer dollars wasted as a result. Scandals are valid within an encyclopedia, especially when the integrated summary of all of it demonstrates overall systemic problems. Ask anyone in Nova Scotia trying to access healthcare or trying to work in healthcare and they will tell you that there are very visible systemic problems, and a combination of over a couple dozen news articles about these things happening within the past decade is evidence of this.
    Now, that is beside the point here. Is it right to tear down the entire article because of a dispute over whether or not one section makes sense? That doesn't seem fair, seems almost retaliatory to do that to a new editor who is debating the inclusion of one portion into the article. I don't care that much about the Dr. Steele scandal that I put in there, so please don't try to destroy all of the hard work I put into this by making a mountain out of a molehill and punishing me for trying to understand. If the consensus is that the Dr. Steele scandal stays out, then I accept that and ask that we leave it out without destroying the whole article as punishment for my even daring to question this, even though I currently do not understand why the Dr. Steele scandal is not worth including.
    My questions about the Dr. Steele scandal are:
    1. This guy died in January, how far back does BLP cover? What is considered "recently deceased" and at what point does that not count as recent any more? Does 6 months count as not recent any more, such that the information is worth putting back in there next month, or is it 1 year or longer?
    2. If BLP does apply, does Dr. Steele count as an "involuntary public figure" given the discussion around his behaviours with a minor when you look him up, and therefore WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies?
    3. Is it fair to say that he has only been "accused" of having committed a crime, given that the criminal charges were withdrawn, or if we remove just that section about the criminal charges, is it fair to include the rest of it where he lost his medical licence for his actions with a minor? Is losing one's medical licence after an investigation and hearing from one's licensing college not considered a "conviction" in that sense? Is Wikipedia reducing the outcomes of medical licensing boards to "accusations" and not "convictions" on the matters of losing the licence because of professional misconduct?
    4. Do we consider the investigations and hearings from a medical licensing board to be a "judicial proceeding"? If so, then that outcome of losing his licence because of his actions with a minor seems to be in contradiction to the outcome of having no criminal charges for those actions, which relates to the WP:BLPCRIME point of "If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[f] include sufficient explanatory information." And again, if you read the actual documents and articles, he lost his licence because the alleged actions were confirmed to have happened. The victim just refused to testify and that's why it was not pursued criminally - because she was visibly shaken in the courtroom and backed out. Seemed to me when writing this piece that this was worth including as the withdrawn criminal charge is a "seemingly contradictory outcome that does not overrule the other" and it was worth including the "sufficient explanatory information" that the victim was afraid to testify. It was already confirmed that the man did take the nude photos of the teen, and that is why he lost his licence. This is the tip of the iceberg of similar things that have happened in the culture of doctor entitlement in Nova Scotia. Basically the whole article is about toxic medical culture, with several examples of an overarching systemic issue of entitlement to mistreat other human beings because one is a physician/dentist.
    MrHaligonian (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does any reliable source indicate The kinds of scandals that have happened repeatedly within healthcare in Nova Scotia are usually supposed to be very rare, yet happen at an unusually high frequency in Nova Scotia and with significant taxpayer dollars wasted as a result? After that, without any WP:NOR, do two or more others also say so? This quote seems to well state the basis for notability. But the underpinnings are not clear. JFHJr () 02:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even without the BLP angle and the crime but no conviction issue, the whole section would be WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK: an individual doctor doing something sufficient to get his license revoked is not evidence of any systematic problem at the province level and is, unless reliable sources make the connection explicitly, unconnected to the topic of the article. Whether the article as a whole may exist or not is up to others, but I see no reason to include individual cases (this one or any similar ones) if there is no clear connection, as noted by reliable sources, of the individual cases to a systemic issue. Fram (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello all. I just started up this page about Morris who has recently been in the news for sexual misconduct revelations. The article deals with things that are traditionally difficult to navigate in BLPs, and some second eyes looking over everything to ensure policy and guideline are being followed is always appreciated. Thank you. R. G. Checkers talk 07:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it should be re-directed back to Gateway Church (Texas). Like you said, this is an "in the news" situation, and the allegations are adequately covered in the church article. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Morris passes GNG with his history with notable ministry, work with Trump, and now sexual abuse scandal. R. G. Checkers talk 15:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Isaidnoway. Work with Trump doesn't help him WP:INHERIT anything; his pastoral role and his misconduct go just as well in the organization's article, as much as it is WP:DUE the weight it takes textually. JFHJr () 02:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The content that is presented in the Gateway Church article right now might be UNDUE for the church's article because it is a separate entity from Morris. The allegations and subsequent resignation of Morris should be mentioned in that article, but more focus should be on how the church has responded to the allegations than the allegations themselves. R. G. Checkers talk 05:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Judith Sewell Wright biography of living person violation[edit]

    Plugaru has been undoing my revision on Judith Sewell Wright, which I have documented with a link showing the truth of the content. The undoing of the revisions portrays Judith in a poor light which violates the biographies of living persons rule here. I have shown the link that makes my change accurate. There is no reason to keep reverting to the older, incomplete information. I will admit I didn't log in the first time I made the change, but I've been clear about the reasoning for why my change should be up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KreftMM (talkcontribs) 14:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless there are secondary sources covering this, neither the prior version or the current version belong in a BLP, and it should be removed, since the only sources used - illinoiscourts.gov and caselaw.findlaw.com - are unacceptable sources for a BLP. See WP:BLPPRIMARY - Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.14:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Isaidnoway (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be fine with the whole section being removed about the court cases. The reason for desiring the change was to NOT include the court information that made Judith appear in a bad light. Would that be acceptable? KreftMM (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Renée DiResta[edit]

    Per this post by the article subject on Threads, I took at the Renée DiResta article and found this edit by an anon. The claims made in the edit are at best SYNTH, and appear to be aimed to harm the article subject. Although the edit has been reverted, it stood for almost a day (and probably was only revered in response to her social media posting.

    Since this is a BLP I semi-protected the page, but I would prefer a second opinion on this, especially since my action was prompted by something I saw on social media. Thanks! Guettarda (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Certainly, there are at least vast problems with that edit, both in POV phrasing (such as the subject's supposed plan "to legally violate First Amendment rights") and in sourcing (I noted such sourcing as a Substack, which runs into WP:BLPSPS, and the New York Post, which runs into WP:NYPOST.) That is not to say that there's absolutely nothing that could reasonably be included on the topic covered, but it would require at minimum a hefty rework from the material as posted. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish all BLPs were semi'd by default. It would save so much time and effort dealing with nonsense. I bet socking incidents would also fall noticeably. If randos and SPAs are forced to go though edit proposals and COI disclosures on talk pages first, it would improve the project. JFHJr () 01:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick Treacy[edit]

    Another sockpuppet of Joyland2017 has tried to remove a section about a criminal conviction against this subject, and later admitted to being employed by Mr. Treacy. They have been blocked, but the section they were trying to remove is cited to an article which has been removed by its publisher, evidently because Mr. Treacy threatened to sue. It was restored in good faith by MrOllie with a link to an archived snapshot of the article, and user Brammarb suggested that using an archived snapshot of the taken-down article is fine because no retraction was published. This seems dubious to me, particularly as I can find no other source for the claims made in the article. I don't think either of MrOllie or Brammarb have done anything wrong per se but I think this needs closer review, as Mr. Treacy is a living person. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]