Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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


Centralized discussion

Trump[edit]

Not a lovely topic I know, but on this page people are adding Trump's name to the list of "notable" participants. The most recent reference added was this piece from Newsweek. The article states "The veracity of the report and its sourcing have not been verified." I know it's all over FB right now, but until there's some very solid evidence of this taking place, I strongly urge others to monitor this popping up on WP. APK whisper in my ear 08:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There's this as well. Taking a look at the edit history, it won't be a fun page to deal with if kept. APK whisper in my ear 08:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


And I've just found this mess to deal with. It's the guy 4chan claims they duped into circulating the report. Assuming they actually wrote it and it is a hoax. Already had to clear some vandalism so it might get ugly too. I've left a brief explanation, hopefully that will keep them at bay. Liberivore (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The case at hand is a clear case where Wikipedia should in no way whatever contribute to such "allegations" per WP:BLP on the first place, and may be a good reason to revisit the WP:RS status of those who presented such allegations as fact in any way. Collect (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
This is sadly a combination of a couple of issues. Whats not 'fake' is that Trump was given a briefing about Russia compiling compromising material on him (surprise). What is 'unsubstantiated and unverified' is the content of that compromising material. What the press are reporting are the unsubstantiated allegations that definately should not be in any article (at this time). Should at some future point the intelligence community confirm the nature of the material allegedly compiled against Trump, that probably would be pass inclusion after extensive discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
We should report the claims made by those who claim to have seen the dossier, as long as we make it clear these are unproven allegations. This looks like censorship to remove material a given politician does not like.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking about having Trump's name under a section called "Notable urophiliacs". Is that what you're saying is fine as long as we say it's unproven? Because that's a massive BLP violation. It's not censorship, it's WP policy. If you're talking about reporting on the dossier in general, then yes, mentioning it exists on an appropriate page seems fine (as long as all of the unproven, derogatory rumors like urolagnia are not included). APK whisper in my ear 19:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep the unproven, derogatory claims out of Wikipedia pages as clear BLP violations - even if we weasel around it by reporting what someone else says the dossier says. There have even been several uploads of the entire 35 page document into Wikipedia articles, which I have reverted. Now someone has created an article which spells out all the unproven derogatory stuff and includes the 35 page document; it is at Donald Trump Russia dossier. I have nominated it for AfD and I have requested that the deletion be speedy since IMO it is a gross BLP violation to include this stuff here. This is not a matter of whether someone likes or dislikes Trump; this is a matter of adherence to core Wikipedia policies. --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

There are a hell of a lot of unsubstantiated allegations on a number of pages. These include Clinton's rapes, Pizzagate, et all. The fact is we often report on allegations if they have received enough coverage to make them of note.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Just because Wikipedia is not censored, doesn't mean we have to address the topic in a non-neutral manner. Healthy use of "alleged" and "unsubstantiated" and sticking to the facts as reported in reliable sources will allow us to discuss the topic without violating BLP. I don't see the problem with mentioning the contents of the dossier as long as we are clear about its origins. gobonobo + c 20:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Obviously, we can include anything that reliable secondary sources tell about content of this dossier. As about linking directly to this dossier (which is available all over the internet), I think it does not really matter precisely because it is available all over the internet. I would make a link simply for convenience of a reader. We do not claim that the content was "the truth" or highly reliable. It only matters that the content is highly notable and therefore arguably "due". But the source is actually credible. Otherwise no one would pay attention. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I would not make a link for the self same reason, precisely because it is available all over the internet. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The thing I objected to was not just a link - it was an actual 35-page PDF posted in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, we can opt to not include highly contentious BLP claims that may even be published by RSes, if the claim is extremely contentious at a personal level and lacking any supporting evidence. Case in point, during the Gamergate controversy, at least a handful of RSes republished several claims by one person (person A) towards another person (person B) that were not central to the main GamerGate situation. One portion of these claims were extremely contentious towards B that we opted not to include any mention of them because they were very much off-point from the topic. In this situation, the claims in the 35 page document are similarly contentious so we shouldn't have a separate article on that to begin with, and if we are to include any claims, they should be given in very broad strokes and avoid speaking directly about any highly contentious claim. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

We have the dossier, we have RS saying it is the dossier, we have Donny Tweeting about the dossier. I agree that we must be careful how we use it. It's contents must not be stated to be facts (so no including Donny on certain pages) but to exclude mentioning what Donny is accused of would make Wikipedia worthless as information about this subject.

Also what is it that is being objected to, the fact it contains unsubstantiated allegations? or the fact that the unsubstantiated allegations are unsubstantiated?.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Irrespective of its contents and the veracity or appropriateness thereof, the "dossier" can not be on Wikipedia per WP:COPYVIO and WP:F. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:2017 Trump dossier by Christopher SteeleJFG talk 15:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree, we cannot publish the dossier, but that is not what is under discussion here. Talking about and and reporting what RS have said about is violates neither WP:COPYVIO or WP:F, or are we discussing just it's verbatim inclusion? Can we have a clear statement as to what we are discussing?Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I was just commenting on the verbatim inclusion of the document. Discussion of its contents based on commentary by secondary sources is certainly appropriate, while being mindful of WP:BLPVIO and WP:BALASP policies. Good luck with that! — JFG talk 15:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
At least for myself, no one knows who actually wrote the dossier with any type of confidence. It would be one thing if it was affirmed to have come from , say, the FBI, even if the claims were contentious, because then we could say "According to the FBI..." but at this point, the ownership of the dossier is a big question mark (they have an idea, but that's not confirmation). As an encyclopedic site, where we are not supposed to be a newspaper, and we take great care in BLP issues, it would be much better to wait some time to allow those evaluating the dossier to make their conclusions before we get too far into details about it; if it turns out it is fake (there's some aspect that this might be a 4chan prank), we don't have egg on our face; if its legit, then we can work that in using what is determined to be the most basic elements. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose to discussion of any details of the dossier involving Trump's alleged sexual activities/proclivities in any article until/unless their accuracy is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. I note that we do not permit discussion of a subject's sexual orientation unless they confirm it themselves, even if it is common knowledge and has been reported in reliable sources. As one recent example it has been widely reported in multiple reliable sources that Shepard Smith is homosexual. But the community has firmly rejected introduction of any discussion of his sexual orientation until such time as he confirms it himself. The existence of the dossier is certainly a fair topic and I don't think we could ignore that it reportedly contains allegations of a salacious nature. But that is about as far as I think we can go without severely undermining BLP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Sexual orientation and Sexual activity is not the same thing. This is a total red herring.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Well you have a point there. The former is not that big of a deal in the modern world. The latter in many cases still is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this is all described in policy:
  1. Not including the contentious primary source directly is fine per WP:RS, exactly as MelanieN said,
  2. Please see this example: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." Note: it tells "allegations", it does not tell "the truth". So, yes, this must be included based on multiple good secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What are we discussing[edit]

I think at this point we need to know what is being suggested, what do people support?

Blanket ban on all mentions of the dossier[edit]

  • Oppose per my above cmt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the existance of the dossier and specifically the role of Buzzfeed and others in reporting it are definitely fair game for some article. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Clearly this has been reported, and is of noteSlatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The existence of the document and the associated reporting is not contested. Only its sources and the plausibility of the contents are in doubt. — JFG talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think anyone has suggested this.--MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the dossier at this time is not a reliable source, its existence and its contents are very notable and therefore should be discussed in appropriate contexts. Bradv 19:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One might as well attempt to expunge the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; the impact of the document does not depend on its lack of veracity. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do not think anyone was trying to ban all mention. PackMecEng (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Qualified inclusion must meet BLP standards. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Even if the document itself is unsubstantiated, the fact that Trump has been briefed about it by US intelligence remains, which makes Schrödinger's Dossier notable in it's own right, even if it doesn't exist like the basement in Pizzagate. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above - we should treat this like high-quality sources treat it: i.e., report on the facts of its existence, and the basic claims that it makes, without implying that contested information is true, and quote/paraphrase/attribute the relevant experts/scholars' views. Neutralitytalk 02:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This would violate multiple policies and the very reason for the existence of Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This would not be in accord with Wikipedia policy.- MrX 14:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ban would conflict with policy and amount to censorship. Untenable. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Violates policy. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ban on it having its own page, but we can mention it in other articles[edit]

  • Support per my above cmt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support at this point. If it true out it is a fully legitimate document, that would be a potential to reopen, but that's crystal-balling. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified Oppose I am in two minds, but this is very notable (look at the coverage. It would seem odd we have pages on far less notable subjects.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – This document is just an element of the ongoing media/political circus about a purported Russian propaganda campaign targeting the US election. There's an article for that.JFG talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose I initially felt this way, and in fact I was the one who nominated it at AfD. (And that is where we should be having this discussion, not here.) But based on the changes that have been made to the article to make it neutral and BLP-compliant, I now favor keeping it - while watching it closely to make sure it stays neutral and BLP compliant. (The article has been semi-protected due to an onslaught by IP sockpuppets, and that will probably continue to be necessary.) There is currently a lot about this subject in the article 2016 United States election interference by Russia, but if the "dossier" article is kept that can be trimmed down since it isn't really the same thing. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Currently there are several different places where the dossier is being discussed. It may be helpful at some point to consolidate this information into one article, per the usual rules surrounding WP:N, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Bradv 19:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We should not waste our time for discussing page that does not exist. This should follow normal procedures. If anyone wants to create such page, they can do it. Than it might follow normal AfD process, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The fact that an article might not be appropriate now does not foreclose the possibility that, as events play out, it might be appropriate in the future. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As long as it stays BLP compliant should be fine. At this point until shown otherwise it is notable. PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The Document contents are unverified and should not be included unless the Document can be verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If we go into detail about the facts of Schrödinger's Dossier in the article about Russian election interference, it would push the article prose well beyond the 50 kB mark where a split is usually warranted anyway. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, and on procedural grounds: this is an AfD question. Neutralitytalk 02:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose a ban on policy grounds (it's notable, end of discussion), AND per the current snow keep at the AfD. Donald Trump Russia dossier is totally justified. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Neutrality and BullRangifer. - MrX 14:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - even if there were no article, we cannot assume that it won't become notable enough for one (CRYSTAL). EvergreenFir (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no good reason to ban this from having its own article if it's a notable topic on its own. If it weren't notable, standard rules would apply. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ban on actually repeating any of the accusations[edit]

  • Qualified Support per my above cmt. I think mentioning the doessier in Trump's article is acceptable. I also think it is not out of line to note that some of the unverified contents are of a salacious (or fill in your favorite euphemism) nature. But no actual details until/unless they are confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified support per Ad Orientem. Broad statements, that the dossier discusses potential ties between Trump and Russia, is needed, but anything highly specific seems unnecessary under BLP at this point. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified Oppose Again it seems odd if we discus the document, but not what it says. It all seems very Raputinesue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified support – People who care to read the document can see a multitude of allegations of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russian operatives. Such stories can be mentioned, analyzed, supported or debunked when covered by secondary RS. The gratuitous golden shower smears can't, per BLPVIO. — JFG talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a ban on repeating any of the specific accusations. In fact I have revdel'ed some of the more outrageous and sensational claims as BLP violations, and will continue to do so unless this discussion tells me otherwise. However I do think general characterizations of the TYPE of allegation, as published by Reliable Sources, can be used. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified oppose The dossier should be considered a primary source. It is not to be used as a reliable source for any claims itself, but we can definitely summarize and reference secondary reliable sources that discuss the dossier. Bradv 19:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified oppose - We should, as reliable sources do, refer to the fact that the document alleges that Trump & his advisers have close ties to Russian intelligence operatives, and that Russia holds kompromat over Trump, but we should absolutely avoid referring to any of the specific salacious claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This contradicts BLP policy on public figures [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. My sense is that much of the resistance to including any of the accusations centers around the hotel shower incident. I just worry that a blanket ban on mentioning specifics from the dossier (as reported in reliable sources) would deprive us of the opportunity to report on the debunking of the claims. For instance, if discussing Michael Cohen's alleged August 2016 meeting with Kremlin representatives in Prague is off limits, then would we be prevented from mentioning that Cohen tweeted an image of his passport and said that he's never been to Prague in his life? [2] gobonobo + c 23:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral Not really sure how I feel on this currently, but feeling the need to comment. I was all for a prohibition on mentioning the specifics a few days ago when the only way to access the claims was by intentionally going to BuzzFeed and seeking them out or going to 4chan/reddit, neither of which is a reliable source. Then SNL happened, which seems to me to have broken the US media's informal gag rule on the subject. Its starting to be mentioned in other press now (Newsweek alluded to it when discussing SNL [3] ). I'm fine with having a waiting period, perhaps, as I had supported on the Trump page re: inclusion of the intelligence briefing story by CNN, but really, when what is arguably the most notable political comedy show in the US starts discussing the contents, you're fighting a losing battle in the long run I think. So I guess, I would have a qualified support at this time, with the recognition that pretty soon it will probably become next to impossible not to include them. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No reason to conclude this can't be handled under existing BLP standards/ And what would we do if someone writes a notable satirical song on the subject, or if an SNL sketch goes macroviral? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on just block quoting the document, but generalizations of accusations by RS should be okay. PackMecEng (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - The Document contents are unverified and should not be included unless the Document can be verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified Support - We need to adhere to BLP and only use information that meets RS criteria. Therefore we can use reliable secondary sources to describe the dossier and any allegations being made. We cannot use PRIMARY sources. -- HighKing++ 18:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified Support per Ad Orientem and MelanieN. Let's see where top quality print newspapers and periodicals go with it, and toe that line ourselves. As others have noted, WP:V and NPOV already provide a useful guide. Edit with caveat: it goes without saying that by refraining from restricting discussion of the allegations, we'd be relying on the maturity and resposibility of our WP editors to not write obnoxious nonsense like this. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified support - Until the allegations, if true, are verified, it is certainly a BLP vio to repeat them. However, if they turn out to be facts, they should be reported as such here. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified oppose per all of the above - we should treat this like high-quality sources treat it: i.e., report on the facts of the document's existence, and report on the claims that it advances, without implying that contested information is true, and quote/paraphrase/attribute the relevant experts/scholars' views as to reliability/veracity, etc. It would be bizarre and confusing indeed to reference a document, yet give the reader no indication of what it actually it says. Now, I agree that very specific information may present undue weight problems - but that's a fact-intensive inquiry that needs to be hashed out on the relevant talk pages. Neutralitytalk 02:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose a ban. We have good policies which dictate how we mention and quote unverified accusations, lies, rumors, conspiracy theories, unscientific nonsense, etc. If RS mention it, we MUST report it. It's just a matter of how we do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if a particular piece of content is widely discussed in reliable sources then per NPOV we need to cover it. Of course due care needs to be taken and the subject matter has to be approached carefully. But that's best achieved on a case by case basis which is why a blanket ban is counter productive (and contrary to policy).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neutrality and Volunteer Marek. - MrX 14:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as ditto MrX EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban, but apply standard restrictions on how much can be quoted at a time in accordance with WP:COPYVIO. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you propose we treat this situation any different concerning COPYVIO, and if so, why? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I think this should go under standard copyvio rules (don't quote more than a few sentences at a time, and give a footnoted source and the quote's speaker in the body). epicgenius (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per neutrality. We strive to use the best sources and if any of them lend credence or discuss specifics we should (I would like to say "are obligated") to discuss them in the leveled manner in which we treat any information. WP:RS trumps all. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see a lot of support for this proposal, but would it extend to repeating accusations currently listed in the article Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations? FallingGravity 08:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ban on stating any of the accusation (either directly or by implication) are true[edit]

  • Strong Support per commonsense. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Duh Core of BLP, NPOV. These are accusations of vague origin, they must be stated as claims and definitely not facts. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This would be a massive BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Only mention them as attributed and unverified allegations (unless later proven otherwise). — JFG talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course. Did this question even have to be asked? --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. As per usual rules, we should only reference reliable secondary sources, which the dossier is not. None of these accusations should be repeated in Wikipedia's voice. Bradv 19:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Of course, as reliable sources have not stated them as true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I would even support requiring a qualifier stating that the claims have not been verified should they be included. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified support. There are accusations in the dossier that are plausible, even likely to be true. The first page of the dossier asserts that Russia has been trying to "cultivate" Trump and unsuccessfully tried to ensnare him with lucrative real estate deals. Common sense calls for treating statements regarding relatively routine political maneuvering differently from sensationalistic kompromat. Ordinary claims do not require extraordinary proof. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support It would be a clear unambiguous BLP and NPOV violations. PackMecEng (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - The Document contents are unverified and should not be included unless the Document can be verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified Support - Until the accusations, if true, are verified, it is against the very core of Wikipedia's policies to repeat them here. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified support - this is really the only position that is consonant with our policies and guidelines. I do agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's comment. And of course, this would not prohibit us from including relevant analysis from relevant experts (i.e., "Professor John Doe, a scholar of Russian studies, writes that some of the claims are likely to be true and others false. Former high-ranking intelligence office Jane Smith says..."). Neutralitytalk 02:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    • For future reference, I should further qualify—as others have below—that if the reliable secondary sources state a particular allegation as true, then we obviously should follow the sources. Neutralitytalk 00:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified support - unless of course something else pops up and they do turn out to be uncontroversially true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support that we state they are allegations, but we do state them. We state what RS state. These are allegations, so we state they are allegations: "It is alleged that he hired prostitutes to put on a golden showers show to defile the bed which the Obama's had used." Now, was that so hard? We have plenty of very RS which document that that allegation is made in the dossier. That is only one instance. Other sources than the dossier also allege that sexual activities occurred and were filmed in other places than Moscow: "U.S. intelligence agencies warned Donald Trump about claims Russian operatives held potential blackmail information against him involving alleged “perverted sexual acts” during stays in Moscow and St. Petersburg, according to reports."[4] Note how "claims" and "alleged" are used? That's how we are required to write. We do not refuse to write. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. "It is alleged that he hired prostitutes to put on a golden showers show to defile the bed which the Obama's had used" would be an obnoxious, childish, and wildly inappropriate bit of WP prose, and even mentioning it here as a joke is pretty obnoxious and childish. Please don't continue. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not a joke, but practically quoting from RS. The prose is very accurate. Those are the exact allegations. Keep in mind the topic of this subsection: "Ban on stating any of the accusation...are true". No, we should never say such a thing "is true" without proof.
    In this type of situation we may never know the exact truth, not because the allegations aren't true, but because the author and sources must be protected because their lives are in danger.
    "Unverified" does not diminish the possibility that the allegations are 1,000% true. The degree of trust we place in the content is totally dependent on at least three things: (1) The impeccable reputation of the author; (2) The character and history of Trump, which makes this type of behavior totally in character; (3) Outside verification from numerous independent sources which say this is true, and that there are other witnesses and videos, including from other cities than Moscow.
    We are supposed to say what RS say. They say that these are the allegations, so we are required to say the same. That's how NPOV works. It's about editorial conduct. Editors are not allowed to censor what RS say. We are required to faithfully present the content without diminishing or enhancing it. I have been here since 2003 and my fingerprints are embedded in the NPOV policy. I have also written an essay about this subject, so take a look: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified support - If the accusations are described as true by reliable sources, then we too can directly or implicitly write that they are true in articles. That is common sense and common practice.- MrX 14:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified support - qualification being that we already do not allow negative allegations to be claimed as true per BLP without caveat (e.g., specifying that they're allegations). However, should current allegations come to light as true as reported by RS, they no longer become allegations but merely statement of fact in which case we can say them as fact (so long as they're sourced appropriately). I fear this discussion generally assumes no single allegations will be substantiated, which seems dubious to assume. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support unless sources prove otherwise. Per BLP, there are no sources saying this is true now, though this can change in the future. If such sources come up, then this is invalid anyway. However, don't let this preclude mention of it at all. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose If reliable third party sources corroborate the information we must report this. I understand the intention of this point, but it risks being misinterpreted to say that we may never state that any of the information in the dossiers is true even if explicitly mentioned in other reliable sources. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ban on including the actual text (either partial or in full) of the document[edit]

  • Support per my cmt in the above discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support at this point, yes, as per the ban on discussing any specific aspect of the document. At the level of broad claims, inclusion of any specific quotes is a problem. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Qualified Oppose There is some dispute an to it's copyright status, and we do include the text of other documents in other articles. If (however) this was a copyright issue this would change to support.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support per WP:COPYVIOJFG talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support per BLP regarding unverified material - and regardless of its copyright status. There have been repeated attempts to upload the entire document, in PDF form. I strongly oppose that and will continue to oppose it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There may be contexts in which the dossier should be quoted, keeping in mind WP:NPOV, and especially WP:UNDUE. A blanket ban on quotes from the dossier is not helpful at this point. Bradv 19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per our BLP policy on public figures [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose barring brief quotations of the dossier as reported in reliable sources. Per policy, we of course won't be using the dossier as a source for claims, but, where appropriate, we should be allowed to include brief quotations of the text when reliable sources are doing the same. gobonobo + c 23:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It would be inappropriate to include the unverified actual text of the document at this time. Its a BLP and this material is unverified as true, and is a primary source that is not quoted directly in any reliable source, even the BuzzFeed article that just did a document dump. Copyvio issues are also a concern. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There may very well be circumstances where stating exactly what this document says is the best way to achieve encyclopedic goals. However, given that our NFC policy and general fair use principles require prior authorized publication, we should not cite the document directly, but only excerpts from it presented in reliable sources, and only when verbatim text is particularly useful, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support unless any of it gets verified beyond a reasonable doubt it cannot be included. PackMecEng (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - The Document contents are unverified and should not be included unless the Document can be verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Gobonobo and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Quoting a document does not imply truth, and a quotation with proper context might in some cases be the best way to achieve encyclopedic goals. We should of course be mindful of weight and quotefarm concerns - but a flat ban on quoting finds no support in our policies and guidelines. I think a good guidepost is this: Have the reliable secondary sources repeated the quote used? Neutralitytalk 02:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose unwarranted censorship. If the allegations are mentioned in RS, we are required to include them, but must also make it clear they are unproven allegations, albeit from an impeccable source. The ex-spy is a highly respected expert who has an excellent reputation in the intelligence community. They consider him very credible. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - again, needs to be dealt with on case by case basis.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neutrality, Volunteer Marek, and WP:NOTCENSORED.- MrX 14:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blanket ban. Again, we cannot predict the future of the allegations, so preemptively banning them makes no sense. Moreover, there may be cases (however rare or nuanced) where quotation is appropriate. We have enough protection with BLP and LIBEL that any unwarranted or inappropriate quotations can be dealt with as needed. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See my comment under "Ban on actually repeating any of the accusations" above. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose only as much as WP:COPYVIO dictates. WP:QUOTEs are allowed, and any denying this right is in violation of policy. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No restriction of any kind[edit]

  • Oppose We can't ignore this. But it needs to be handled with the greatest possible care, and pending confirmation the details must not be repeated on Wikipedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is clearly a BLP/NPOV issue that has to be handled with care, so not having any restrictions is a problem. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose More or less what all the above say.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Obviously. — JFG talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose and while this may seem obvious, I"m glad to have it formalized here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia's policies are sufficient to address this, but yet we need to be extremely vigilant and enforce these policies consistently. Any new rule or restriction that specifically applies to this event would itself be an indictment of Wikipedia's existing policies. Bradv 19:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Its a notable topic that needs to be addressed in some capacity, but it is also a BLP and needs to be carefully presented. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As written, this carves a loophole in BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is notable, just needs to be presented with caution for all the BLP and NPOV issues. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The Document contents are unverified and should not be included unless the Document can be verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is a very sensitive political matter and we must tread lightly about it. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No special rules or restrictions are necessary. Our existing policies are good enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - We already have policies and guidelines that cover this type of material. There's no need to reaffirm them.- MrX 14:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - we already have restrictions, lots of them. Perhaps what is meant is "no special restrictions", but it's unclear. Regardless, the dossier and allegations are already subject to strong restrictions. What we need to do is make sure we enforce them. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose a no restriction. See my comment in "Ban on stating any of the accusation (either directly or by implication) are true" above. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, I'm treating this section as a ban on additional restrictions beyond those that apply generally to articles and topics under BLP. It is not neutral to level additional restrictions on content (not behavior) only because the topic is controversial. We must strive for neutrality and respect of WP:RS. Additional restrictions do not serve that goal. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I disagree with blanket restrictions here. Whether specific content should be added depends on whether it meets our policies and guidelines. If the dossier is discussed in reliable sources in relation to a topic, then so can we, in proportion to the WP:WEIGHT. This may not be easy; it seldom is with contentious topics. It seems totalitarian and antithetical to our principles to decide, without any reference to sources, whether the dossier should be discussed, and in what context. On the other hand, material that violates our policies and guidelines should not be allowed. But this has little to do with whether or not something appears in the dossier, and more to do with how it is covered in secondary sources, etc. For example, suppose that some of the items in the report are validated by reliable sources. Then it would be absolutely wrong to have a ban in place preventing us from reporting that content as factual. In contrast, it would be equally wrong to report content in the dossier as true if it is not independently verified by reliable news sources. As to the contents of the dossier, likewise our coverage should try to be neutral and proportional. I don't see any kind of banning as supportive of that goal, especially since this continues to be a developing story, and at this point we don't even have a completely comprehensive picture. Things could change at any time, and it's important that we remain flexible. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion

Note I know that number two maybe a bit broad, but you can still also vote elsewhere (and the at one is included just for completeness, I doubt anyone will vote for it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Also I know this is not AFD, my purpose was to try and find out what people are actually talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


I think we now have an idea about what we are discussing. I will collapse those options that clearly have zero support.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I think this event (among countless others), show the need that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and there is no deadline to get content into WP. In a case like this, given how much BLP there is involved and that this is a story about the media itself (Buzzfeed among others), we absolutely should hold off on detailed coverage until we have better hindsight of the importance of this event. Editors on recent events are far too much in a rush to create articles or insert materials without considering that we have many other policies and aspects that weight heavier on content than having up-to-the-second content updates. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. We should consider introducing a policy or guideline imposing a 3-day cooling period before inserting detailed coverage of any sensationalist stories that happen to make the news. This is not censorship: such stories can be mentioned briefly, but hopefully we can avoid the "breaking news – NOTNEWS discussion – saucy details – BLP discussion cum revdel emergencies – article fork – AfD fight" cycle which wastes everybody's energy, readers, editors and admins alike. — JFG talk 17:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the discussion above, nothing of importance was decided. This is waste of time. All such matters should be discussed on the case by case bases on talk pages of specific articles. My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
While everything similar to this should be case-by-case, there is a general lack of anyone working in these areas to consider NOT#NEWS and DEADLINE. We need that to be kept in mind when covering breaking, controversial information that we should sit and wait and not try to be up to the minute. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
And consider whether any news story might have a chance to pass the WP:10YT. — JFG talk 04:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Just my 2¢, but I think what we need is vigorous enforcement of policy and guidelines, even if it means being deletionist or bitey when it comes to the dossier and allegations. To me, this is one of the "act first, ask questions later". We can always undo a deletion or restore an edit. But we cannot undo BLP harms or allow them to linger due to bureaucracy, wikilawyering, or indifference. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Except that I've seen people acting on trying to at least take a conservative (cautious, not the political sense) and get set to ANI/AE by those that insist the information must be kept (not on this dossier issue, but several times over the past year). A lot of it has to do with left-vs-right politics, where because of the media's general left-leaning bias, that BLP issues favoring the left or against the right are said to be fine to include because they are backed by the left-leaning sources. This type of approach (that is, taking a much more cautious if not deletionist view) needs to be used alongside the caution that we don't need to be first to report breaking controversial events as they happen. --MASEM (t) 07:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Masem: I've seen some of what you refer to. I'm not one to buy into the "liberal media" narrative, but I've seen folks try to use media sources to justify POV and blp-violating edits (like trying to say the dossier is true, for example). That behavior is not acceptabled and what I meant by wikilawyering... they argue DUE (inclusion likely is warranted at times for divisive issues) but the wording is the real issue usually. I absolutely agree with you about the breaking news problem. Every politician's passing gas and every bureaucrat's burp seems to get news coverage these days. I'd almost like to see a guideline about a delay, especially with things like shootings where the initial reporting is invariably incorrect. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Seth Rich[edit]

Murder of Seth Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The BLP policy is being cited in this edit, but that BLP argument makes absolutely no sense to me. The removed material is longstanding, there's no consensus whatsoever to remove it, so the editor in question seems to be imagining some "conspiracy" that somehow triggers the BLP policy. More eyes requested, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor might be prevailed upon to explain how BLP applies. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Essentially the argument is that by including details of the reward offered by Burkman, it is publicising/bringing attention to the conspiracy theory that the search/reward for the killer is a smokescreen designed to cover that he (allegedly) leaked documents (a criminal act) to wikileaks and was then (allegedly) assassinated by Hilary Clinton. The BLP issue being a)it implies he was acting illegally, b)Clinton was acting illegally, c)Burkman etc are acting illegally. Its conspiracy-nutjobbiness all around.
I generally reject that argument as its certainly relevant that an extremely large reward has been offered for info on the killer. The conspiracy crap can easily be completely left out of the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
There are also some arguments that his family are not involved in the reward, which in light of this (see video of Burkman and Rich's parents near the bottom) are a bit out of date. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The edit in question did not remove any conspiracy crap at all. The mere fact that Burkman offered a reward is no more suggestive of a conspiracy than that the D.C. police offered a reward (or that Wikileaks offered a reward).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh I know, but the argument is that including the reward leads onto it. Dont look at me, I think its a silly removal too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's a completely implausible argument, and an abuse of the BLP policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
That is a pretty elaborate theory and reminds me of the sort of logic conspiracy theorists use. I do not see how Burkman offering of a reward for "providing information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person(s) responsible for Seth Rich's murder" is acting illegally or alleging that Hillary Clinton has. TFD (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Its not neccessarily all of the above, some people go with just one tinfoil hat, others use the entire roll... Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It would be refreshing some day in the future if editors who bring questions here for community discussion would start by presenting a balanced and reasonably complete summary of the issue. We can start sorting this out as a community when all the facts and views are clearly and neutrally presented. I'll try some of that but not all, as it's a long story: A young man was murdered in the course of what the Washington DC police call a botched robbery attempt around 2 AM in an area of DC where there has been a recent spate of street crime. The victim was employed at the Democratic National Committee in DC. Shortly thereafter, out of the blue, Julian Assange of Wikileaks was being interviewed on European TV and stated to the amazement of his interviewer that Wikileaks would double the standard reward of the DC Police for information leading to the conviction of the killer(s). Assange then went on to make some crafty remarks about how Wikileaks protects its sources. According to RS coverage, this stoked conspiracy theories and what one account called "tinfoil hat" Reddit chatter about how the Clintons had plotted the crime. There is no evidence or any credible suggestion to link the crime to the victim's employment at the Democratic Committee. Subsequently, a Republican lobbyist and provocateur, host of a Newsmax podcast stated that he would offer an even larger cash reward, along the lines of Assange's. The statements of these two, unrelated to the crime, are being used (according to numerous RS) to insinuate the Clinton conspiracy theory into the narrative. In the process, they are suggesting that Mr. Rich betrayed his employer and possibly committed criminal acts sharing privileged DNC information with Assange. The stuff about the "rewards" -- assuming the grantors even have access to these amounts of cash -- has nothing to do with the topic of the article (the murder) and WP does not detail the statements of unrelated parties when they smear living or recently demised victims of crime. There is ample policy to support that, and the burden for inclusion cannot be demonstrated, hence this excursion to BLPN. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

As you know, User:SPECIFICO, the edit in question did not remove all of the info about rewards, for a very good reason: we already had an RFC about that. The issue now is why it's okay to mention some rewards but not others.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I would like to see the sources that say Burkman is promoting Clinton conspiracy theories. Then I would like to see sources that say his $105,000 reward money is promoting Clinton conspiracy theories. As an aside, this source [6] has text and a video that shows Burkman and Rich's parents are in agreement with using the reward money to solve this case. Here is one quote "The Rich's, who live in Omaha, Nebraska, are in D.C. to bring attention to a $125,000 reward. $100,000 of that reward has been put up by Burkman". I might not believe the text by itself, but the video clearly shows them in agreement (for lack of a better word). Also, Rich was shot on July 10 - seven months have passed. If the family were in distress BLP applies from up to six months to two years. But the family is not in distress about Burkman's reward. I doubt BLP applies to Seth Rich, who is deceased. Additionally, I think this reward is a small item compared to larger issues surrounding this topic. The reward money as bare factual information is of minimal importance. If some editors were actually trying to add conspiracy theories then that would be a different matter altogether. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
You would need a source to say that Burkman was doing this in order to stir up a conspiracy theory. Even if that is his motive, there is no reason not to mention his offer. Also, the D.C. police have not called it a "botched robbery." When asked if it was a botched robbery, the chief said maybe. That gets reported as police saying it was "possibly" a botched robbery. TFD (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
As you know, the family sharply repudiated Burkman's ploy at the outset. Now, with dwindling public attention, their only hope of shaking loose any unreported public knowledge is to take advantage of his showmanship and access to the media. Is it a deal with the devil? I wouldn't go that far, but it doesn't change the views they and their family and Seth Rich's friend earlier expressed to RS. After all, Pres. Obama was willing to ally us with so despicable a character as Putin in order to get the historic Iran nuclear deal done. These are the choices people make in extreme circumstances. We can't infer that Obama and the Rich's endorse Putin and Burkman. None of this changes the BLP issue or the UNDUE/off topic issue. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Please clearly explain, with specific reference to that policy, how BLP applies to the information removed in the edit linked by the original poster. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I've explained it roughly a dozen times in various threads, so I'm willing to accept the fact that I am an inarticulate wretch. Therefore I will let someone else take a shot. SPECIFICO talk 01:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I think SPECIFICO's position is that Burkman's offer was made to promote a conspiracy theory that implied Rich had leaked DNC documents, which would be a breach of trust and that people in the DNC ordered his murder. By mentioning the reward we would be helping to promote the conspiracy theory. There is some merit to the argument. The media held back on the Trump Moscow hotel story because it was derogatory and unsubstantiated, just as the claims about Rich and the DNC are. Where I differ from SPECIFICO is that I do not think editors should make that call because they are not journalists and should accept the media's decision to report stories following "Balancing aspects." TFD (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't recall that the family sharply repudiated Burkman's offer (or "ploy") at any time. Could you please provide sources that show this is so. I think you are referring to WikiLeaks and mis-remembering. Burkman has the family's support as shown by this source [7]. If they had a problem with Burkman in the past, it is not relevant to "now". Equating Obama's relationship with Putin to Rich's parent's relationship with Burkman is spinning yarn, is probably a false equivalence, is not related to presenting sources and not presenting policy based arguments. Well, maybe there are sources that equate Obama and Putin with Rich's parents and Burkman. If there are please produce them. Even to claim this is a BLP issue, sources are required to back up that argument.---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, I left notes about this BLPN discussion at the article talk page, and at User talk:Volunteer Marek.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - The discussion above is rife with all sorts of theories and assertions. Would an editor supporting the removal, on the basis of BLP, please make a clear articulation of how that policy applies. It is suggested that at a minimum such articulation would require:- reference/quotes of relevant sections of the BLP policy (what applies); description of the content removed (to what it applies); a link between the policy secitons & the content (how it applies). Absent such, it is difficult to make a determination on inclusion or exclusion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I will restore the info, because no one has articulated why a BLP exemption plausibly bars mention of this reward but does not bar mentioning other rewards.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
You know better than to do that. You recently came within a hair of a TBAN for this kind of stuff. Let this thread arrive at a consensus. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with your comment above (the one in which you said "I'm willing to accept the fact that I am an inarticulate wretch"). It seems that User:Volunteer Marek does not want to come here and explain why removal of one reward is required by BLP but removal of two other rewards is not required by BLP. I would not want to defend such an odd position either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
And what did the rest of my comment say? Oh? Cherrypicking isn't really effective when it's so easy to see the comment you misrepresent. I know that WP is a full time job for some folks, so you may have a distorted sense of time. In general, these noticeboards are intended to allow the community to come together and comment. Anyway since the burden is on you for inclusion and since there is a BLP violation in the content if you do make good on your threat to edit war it back in, you're not really helping resolve the issue, are you. The purpose of these boards is not to replay the talk page. It's to get thoughtful fresh input -- something you are not in a position to do. SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • BLP compliant - Assuming that the statements above from SPECIFICO, Only in death does duty end and The Four Deuces are an accurate reflection of the case for BLP violation (I have no reason to doubt that they are, and I thank them all), it is difficult to reconcile this position with the policy itself.
    In summary, the position articulated is that "conspiracy theorists" have used (continue to use?) the reward offer as "evidence" for their conspiracy theories; that, based on this (mis)use, information on the reward offers should be suppressed; that this is despite the reward offers being well sourced to, and (apparently) broadly covered in, reliable sources. Even assuming that this is true, BLP policy does not mandate suppression of well sourced information on the basis of potential misuse by "tin-foil hattists". The information removed in the edit provided by the original poster is limited to simple facts of reward offers, and does not include any mention of any conspiracy theories themselves. The information also appears well sourced - to a local TV affiliate of ABC News and to Newsweek.
    Looking through WP:BLP, I am unable to find any section of the policy which provides a basis for removal or suppression of the information - there is no apparent issue with writing style, sourcing, or privacy. I am happy to comment further if solid policy based arguments are put forward; but without a clear articulation of which parts of the policy are considered to form a basis for removal, and how they are considered to form that basis, removal per BLP is not supportable. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If you were to ask yourselves "why does this article on a sad but routine crime exist" you'd be led, as if by magic, to the right actions. I won't hold my breath.Dan Murphy (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If the question were "should this article on a sad but routine crime exist?", my inclination, both personal and policy, would be to answer in the negative. The article is at AfD. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
"Why does this article exist?" Because people like to read/hear about murders and news organisations like to write/report about them because it makes them money. Since WP for the most part is based on what is published, that we have an article about someone who was murdered at a sensitive time (even if totally unrelated) and was widely covered is not a surprise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No BLPVIO – When the victims of the alleged BLP violation (Seth Rich's parents) publicly support the reward, it is not the job of WP editors to speculate on their motives. I see no merit in the argument that mentioning this reward factually and neutrally somehow would trigger vast conspiracy theories in the minds of readers. Quite the opposite: arguing vocally against inclusion draws undue attention to such theories! — JFG talk 09:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Sippenhaft and Donald Trump[edit]

Talk:Sippenhaft.

At Sippenhaft 3 editors are in favour of including from the following source

information in that article citing directly D Trump's idea not only terrorists but also terrorists' kin and family should be killed. The article on sippenhaft deals precisely with this notion. The source likens Trump's position to that of sippenhaft.

The minority say that to liken Trump's position (kill terrorists' kin) to that of sippenhaft (kill or punish criminals' kin), even if reliably sourced and used with attribution, is a BLP violation. Is it? Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to expand a bit, on why it might be a potential BLP issue is that the article only includes actual cases of Sippenhaft, not proposed. So in a way, if you include only Trump's statement as a proposed usage of Sippenhaft into an article of actual usage, then that might be BLP and UNDUE. And besides, even if it's not BLP, it should not be in the article since the article is only actual usages and including proposed is off-topic. We don't include every proposed statement made in history and we shouldn't start just for Trump. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You also did not include the required template on the article's talk page. Failure to do so might be seen as trying to hide the discussion from certain talk page participants. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean when you say "the article only includes actual cases." Who decided it includes only "actual" cases? It appears the consensus of editors is that the article should include both proposed, as well as practiced ("actual"), cases of Sippenhaft, and that what constitutes a "proposed" case and what constitutes an "actual" case, and whether each case should be included, needs to be decided by the normal consensus process, not because two editors (SJ and Bradv) arbitrarily decided that only one "kind" of Sippenhaft should be included. Nobody on the talk page suggested that we "include every proposed statement made in history" -- that is a strawman. The consensus is only that a political candidate, who is now the chief executive of the most powerful country on the planet, and has the power and authority to implement the policies he so passionately advocated during his campaign, merits inclusion. Ijon Tichy (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
There's no need to rehash talk page arguments. As I pointed out to Nishidani many, many times, if he wants to include the Trump section (regardless of BLP issues) he should follow procedures, namely dispute resolution, mediation, and RFC. A 3-2 is not a consensus. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The proposed text would be a WP:BLP violation in my estimation because Trump's campaign statement is not an example of sippenhaft. Also, citing only one source would be WP:UNDUE.- MrX 12:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
There is something very odd in all of this. Not only myself, but the very editors who monitor I/P pages with an ethnonationalist defensiveness, editing exclusively in the interests of the image of one party to the conflict, have no problem in listing every remark threatening Jews collectively on the pages related to those people. If Hassan Nasrallah states that Israel: "is a cancer that must be eradicated.” we put in on the page,-I'd be the last person to object- and do not secondguess the source by defensively arguing:’it’s a BLP violation since there is no evidence he would treat Israelis as a surgeon treats cancer cells.' If Dov Lior declares:’ Jewish women should not use sperm donated by a non-Jewish man, and a baby born through such an insemination will have the "negative genetic traits that characterize non-Jews", . .Gentile sperm leads to barbaric offspring". we put it on his page, and don’t try to censor it. What's so special about the president of the United States?
Wikipedia documents scrupulously, when neutral, important statements made by people who direct the affairs of the world, threats or otherwise, because they are part of the notable public record.Attempts to introduce rationalizations to exclude such comments are nothing but tokens of editorial partisanship, wishing to cleanse one kind of political figure’s image, while (invariably) dredging up muck (truthful muck) to stick on the other side. I don’t care what political, ethnic profile a public figure has: if (s)he states (verifiably) something that is widely reported and criticized, it goes into the record irrespective of the costs to reputation or the potential political spin this might lend itself to.
I go by reliable sources. If the source is reliable - no one contests that Trump said what he said- and the source states that (a) the kin of terrorists should be killed (Trump) and (b) the notable (conservative) political analyst notes that this is an example of the doctrine of kin liability, which in German and more broadly (in discussions of the practice in North Korea/the Soviet Union, totalitarian regimes etc., is called sippenhaft), then I add that view. It is not our task to say whether 'Trump's campaign statement is not an example of sippenhaft' - that would be an example of an editor making a subjective (and flawed, in my view) interpretative challenge to what a reliably sourced commentator states. Editors do not have a right to challenge the putative veracity of what reliable sources say, unless the interpretation is demonstrably unfactual. Trump said: 'the kin of terrorists can be killed'. Sippenhaft involves punishing the kin of people deemed culpable of some act'. The terms are identical, and the commentator's gloss is not an extraordinary claim. As shown on the talk page, German sources reporting Trump's remark naturally said it was what they call 'sippenhaft'. (Sie nehmen damit eine ganze Religionsgemeinschaft und die Angehörigen einer Religionsgemeinschaft in Sippenhaft.)(2) or Silke Mülherr, Malala verurteilt Trumps „Kommentare voller Hass“ Die Zeit 16 December 2015, which relates sippenhaft implications in other remarks by Trump regarding Muslims collectively.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you are saying—particularly the part about censoring comments just because he is the president. However, there are several reasons why this statement doesn't fit in the article.
1. This isn't a generic article about kin liability or collective punishment. It is specifically referring to the German concept of sippenhaft.
2. The source you have provided (John Fund's editorial) is the only source that compares Trump's statement to sippenhaft, and it doesn't even make a direct comparison at all. The word sippenhaft is mentioned only once in the editorial, and it's in the context of Nazi Germany, not Trump. If this really is a straightforward example it should be trivial to find multiple sources for this comparison.
3. This article includes exclusively real examples of Sippenhaft or kin liability—Trump's statement is merely a proposal. Not only has it not happened yet, but it's very unlikely that it will—Trump says a lot of stuff that is completely preposterous and will never happen.
4. I think that all examples of kin liability that are not connected to the German concept and German usage should be removed from this article. Perhaps there should be a generic article about kin liability, or perhaps these examples should be moved into collective punishment. Either way, it is my contention that they should not be here. Bradv 15:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Whats the BLP violation? That Trump's views have been compared to Sippenhaft? Unless there is any doubt about what he meant - advocating collective punishment is certainly within the definitions of Sippenhaft. I wouldnt include it based on one source however, as that hits UNDUE. I cant see any BLP violation here though if it was. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Sir Joe/Bradv. We come here for third opinions. I don't think it salutary to rehash the talk page here. Third parties will read it, and make up their minds. I'll just note that sippenhaft means 'kin liability', and the page deals with this in several historical contexts, not just Germany (b) I gave you the German links which clearly supplement what the National Interest commentator stated: in German reportage, Trump's remarks were naturally identified as sippenhaft(ung), in prestigious centralist newspapers like Die Zeit, underlining its relevance. You have misread the paper: it clearly contextualizes Trump's views as sippenhaft (c) the distinction 'real example'/'stated belief' has no basis in wiki policy as both of you have been reminded often. (d) as long as the page stands as it is, the fourth objection is hypothetical. In any case, no intelligible case, in my view and that of several editors now, has been made to show why what Trump stated cannot be noted here because it violates his rights to privacy or whatever as a living person. This, as I showed, would mean 99% of I/P articles alone are in violation of WP:BLP, and no one, of whatever political persuasion, has noticed it. Now, can we just wait for further external independent input?Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
And yet you're the one posting paragraphs. You will notice my comment up above, asking not to rehash the talk page. And again, I've asked you not to call me Sir Joe. And again, you need to stop insulting others with your claim of why people edit.Sir Joseph (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Could we have more neutral external comment please. So far MrX says it is a WP:BLP violation, while Only in death does duty end says it is not.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Besides treading into forbidden BLP territory, the article itself violates WP:SYN. For example, a North Korea prison camp is mentioned as a "modern" example of Sippenhaft, but the source does not make the comparison. Well, we cannot do the same thing WRT Trump. (I intend to revert that material once this issue is settled.) Now if a modern reliable academic source made a connection between Trump's supposed policy and Sippenhaft, then that particular source might be acceptable in a Trump-policy related article. But the topic of Sippenhaft is the historical practice, not un-sourced modern analogies; especially when the analogies have political motivations. We cannot let Sippenhaft be used to criticize (or praise) Trump in Wikipedia's voice. – S. Rich (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's one of the published sources that directly calls Trump's views Sippenhaft [8] Here is another [9] SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Leonard Lance[edit]

Leonard Lance

I removed content created by user Tomwsulcer that was not neutral in its point of view or was unsourced. This is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonard_Lance&type=revision&diff=760939057&oldid=760934326

A local paper, the Mount Olive Chronicle, ran an editorial based on an interview with the subject of this page. It suggests that Tomwsucler's content is not only subjective opinion, and therefore questionable, but possibly even inaccurate. Here is the editorial: http://www.newjerseyhills.com/mt_olive_chronicle/news/reluctantly-lance-still-backing-trump-for-president/article_5c3b2155-74f3-5c8c-ac83-588d1f195710.html

The information I replaced Tomwsucler's partisan content with with was factual.

In less than an hour after I made the change, Tomwsucler reverted the page to the previous version, which was based on subjective opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northnj1994 (talkcontribs) 23:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Do we report celebrity dating?[edit]

Is reporting when a celebrity is dating another celebrity (or for that matter, non-celebrity) appropriate content for the Wikipedia articles for those individuals? I'm thinking no. I don't think a encyclopedia is the right place for such tabloid reporting. It's also something that's likely to become outdated and inaccurate.

I'm not talking about long-term non-marital relationships like the one between Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel, which has gone on for decades and resulted in children. I'm talking about the kind of dating reporting that is usually reported on blogs and in tabloids.

The specific issue that raises this for me (although my interest is in general, not just these articles) is the reported dating relationship of singer BoA and actor Joo Won: "In January 2017, it was revealed that BoA had been dating actor Joo Won since mid-2016." Leaving the issue of whether PopCrush is a reliable source, is this appropriate Wikipedia coverage? TJRC (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Such relationships should only be included if the couple at the center of it have affirmed they are in such a relationship with a reliable source (which does happen). We absolutely want to avoid media speculation that because X was seen with Y at a dozen-some places, that X is dating Y (something tabloids readily jump on). --MASEM (t) 00:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Working consensus has been that (1) well-sourced reports concerning current relationships maybe included, but (2) non-current/defunct relationships should not be included unless of demonstated significance to the subject's life or career. Having deleted hundreds upon hundreds of such claims with very few objections, I admit that there are a few articles where attempts to have such fancruft expunged have been unsuccessful, but over the long run the principles have held quite strongly. A few years back, when a similar discussion spilled onto Jimbo Wales' talk page, he declared that chronicling the "twists and turns" of celebrity "relationships" was not part of an encyclopedia's mission. I'm not really thrilled about the "currently dating" exception, but I suspect that allowing well-sourced information of that type is generally harmless, while debating such claims on a case-by-case basis would not be productive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Just to confirm that the general practice (when noticed) is as Wolfowitz says. Current reliably sourced relationships are generally included. Past/Ex relationships unless specifically relevant are not. If the ex-person is non-notable, you can generally remove the name in most circumstances anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Note For the umpteenth time, "celebrity gossip" is intrinsically rumour, and is not encyclopedic, nor of any long-term value to readers and users of any encyclopedia. It is the bane of BLPs, and is a mine-field at best, and, in my lone opinion, should be excised utterly. Collect (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

To be fair it is not always rumour. Quite often there are primary sources where celebrities confirm details of their relationship. And a professional biography of a person would contain details of their spouse if their relationship led to children or there was some other relevance (charitible foundation work etc in both their names being one example). I agree however the vast majority of 'X is dating Y' stuff should just be punted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Joe Lhota[edit]

(Please feel free to move this to any other more appropriate Noticeboard, COI, NPOV, etc.) I have tried to work along with the user (both at User talk:JoeLhota and User talk:Lindyharmony) to help him understand the conflict of interest in editing his own biography. At first I thought it was a fan for the use of phrases such as "Use Mr. Lhota's proper name, not his nickname." as an act of deference, when WP:COMMONNAME suggests the article say "Joe" everywhere except for the beginning of a BLP when we always give full names. I've incorporated quite a few of their requested changes, but have tried to draw the line a few times. E.g. the individual does not want to be called a politician, but that is unfair to the encyclopedia that someone who was a major candidate for one of the most high-profile positions in the US, Mayor of New York, not be listed as a politician, or as a compromise "former politician". The user also has been removing well-sourced data, quotes from interviews, and references left-and-right and adding things like LinkedIn profiles. I don't want to keep fighting this user and a few times let it sit for a day (the 17th and the 19th) in the hopes that another disinterested party would come along and take up the mantle. It seems for the most part the user is, perhaps in good faith, seeing this as "his page" which is why he is focused on refactoring it as more of a prose resume and less of a biography, so it will fit his image of how he wants to be presented rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. JesseRafe (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Claudine Longet[edit]

Is it appropriate that "murderer" is listed as an occupation for Claudine Longet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grizzopks (talkcontribs) 18:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 18:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Pretty good old SNL sketch, but not exactly a reliable source. Dumuzid (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Axel Bergstedt[edit]

In the article Axel Bergstedt about my person is used much libelous tabloid jornalism. My children are suffering bullying in the school because of the articles in wikipedia in four languages. So I think, it should be the best to delete the article or to delete the harmful parts. As you can see, someone changed in november the portuguese wikipedia writing a hateful article, and hours later the articles in spain and english were changed, too. The articles are full of lies and mistakes. Still today there is no accusation against me. No website of mine were deleted, no picture were deleted. I am reporting about raped girls in some muslim countries, what they call "pedofilia", but still today google and microsoft didn´t delet any picture in my blogs. So it´s only for revange and hate that someone is writing such a libelous article about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel Bergstedt (talkcontribs) 10:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the BLP implications here, it's an English Wikipedia article with zero English sources. I'd say nuke the article on that basis alone. Let a more appropriate language community fisk the sourcing. Just a thought. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I've just removed an inappropriately-titled section that contained incomprehensible (in English) accusations like "Brazilian police also found issues of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.", lacking inline citations to most of the specific accusations. User:Fbergo has reverted the section back in, commenting in edit summary that the information comes from "brazilian and german news groups [sic]". Last month Fbergo was edit-warring names and ages of living non-notable minors (at time of the mentioned incident) back into the article, using "RVV" as his justification. I think page protection or some other measures might be necessary. MPS1992 (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
All information in the article was properly sourced. The pedophilia section was backed by news sources by major brazilian media group Grupo Globo, in portuguese (as the crime occurred in Brazil) and by a major german newspaper, Die Welt. I will no longer revert your edits, have fun protecting the privacy of a murderer (Redacted) who keeps ISIS beheading videos on his personal notebook. Fbergo (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I've copy-edited Axel Bergstedt and checked the sources. What is there now is well cited. The accusations of paedophilia have not yet been proven and anyway needs far more WP:RSs per WP:BLP, and anyway accusations should not be introduced until proven in court (WP:BLPCRIME) so I have not reintroduced them — Iadmctalk  17:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Erik Angra[edit]

Can someone help to make this living person's biography more neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.49.198 (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Bruce Nicholson[edit]

Bruce Nicholson This article is poorly written although it is not inaccurate. It also needs updating. I would rewrite the article as follows: Bruce Nicholson (born 1948) is a visual effects artist who has won 2 Academy Awards for The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), and also nominated for Poltergeist (1982). Nicholson was born and raised in Los Angeles, CA and entered the film business in 1974 after attending film school at UCLA and Sherwood Oaks Film School. He was hired at ILM to work on the original Star Wars (1977) after working at a small optical effects facility, Ray Mercer & Co. He remained at ILM for 19 years, and then went on to work for Sony Imageworks, Digital Domain, Rhythm & Hues, and Tippett Studios as a Compositor and Visual Effects Supervisor on nearly 50 films. He currently teaches Visual Effects at Academy of Art University, and is actively engaged in independent filmmaking. Nicholson is married to the Set Decorator Gretchen Scharfenberg.

sources: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0629785/?ref_=nv_sr_1 https://admin.academyart.edu/myProfile?18

I can provide a picture, but don't see an attach icon. Please advise. Thanks, Bruce Nicholson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnichols6 (talkcontribs) 19:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)