Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive318

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Zara Kay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As seen here, Tahadharamsi added a name that Tahadharamsi's says is Kay's real name. The source? A linkedin.com source. One has to have a linkedin.com account to see it.

Any thoughts on this? Anyone with access to linkedin.com see that this name is verified? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen Apologies for the poor citation, I found a much better source from her alma mater Monash University that has a real name. Please let me know if you have further concerns. ThanksTahadharamsi (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Tahadharamsi, that source only shows that a person with a somewhat similar name and a somewhat similar picture went to Monash University. Saying that it's the same person is synthesis, which we want to avoid, especially for living people. Per WP:BLPNAME, we should not include it until we can get a better source that conclusively tells us that Zara Kay’s real name is that. Gbear605 (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Gbear605 I assume you did not read the information on the cited article, the information matches the contents of the article Zara Kay. The Alma Mater, Work Experience, Area of Study and furthermore the image on the cited article looks similar to Zara Kay's image on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahadharamsi (talk • contribs) 21:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have access to LinkedIn, and it doesn't verify the content. Neither does the second citation tahadharamsi added to the page. Though the photo of the woman in the second citation looks similar to the woman in the article photo, that doesn't indicate they're the same person. They may be the same person, but we cannot SYNTH what isn't said in secondary sources. Some other IP editor (geolocated to the subject's birth town in Tansania) added some content today that makes it seem like he/she personally knows the person or family, but no citations were added to support what was written. I do know that SPA editor tahadharamsi made it a quest to remove the article four months ago. See my detailed exposé at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zara Kay. Normal Op (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Gbear605. I just rolled back the version to prior to the personal-but-uncited-stuff. It doesn't undo your recent undo. I just wanted to tell you that I wasn't reverting your edit. Normal Op (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Normal Op How does it not verify the content? The second citation matches the content of article, i.e the university timeline, area of study, description of her work experience (she worked at Google) all match what is written in the article and picture should further establish the citation. I understand the article was not deleted, but now it is not even factually correct, Normal Op for an experienced editor like yourself I feel like this is now becoming a personal vendetta - especially the accusation of 'SPA Editor' as I have contributed to various other unrelated topics. I await your response Tahadharamsi (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" and WP:BLPNAME: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it."Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tahadharamsi: The article is on my watchlist, along with around 300 other articles. And it will stay there for as long as people keep vandalizing the article. Normal Op (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts As per your citation, the WP:BLPNAME policy stats "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. " I provided a proper secondary source as it is pertinant that the BLP's real name is used versus an alias. As it was noted in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zara Kay discussion that the BLP is "known" for more than one event, thus the use of her real name does add value to the article's context. Tahadharamsi (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence is not a gatekeeper or qualifier for the rest of the paragraph. Each sentence stands alone. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Tahadharamsi, that page is a primary source and since it does not state a link to the name "Zara Kay," it is synthesis to use that page to prove the name. In addition, the BLPNAME policy says two things that are positioned next to each other: Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event (which does not apply, since she is not known for one event), and When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Kay has clearly intentionally concealed her name - that's the whole point of using a pseudonym - and it has not been widely disseminated - doing a Google search for the two names only finds Wikipedia.

In addition, as the WP:BLP policy states, Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. ... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment ... The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. Including the name has neither regard for the Kay's privacy and is not a conservative writing, since the name isn't necessary for a complete understanding of Kay. On the other hand, it could potentially cause harm to her, if people used the easy connection between the names to find her and cause harm to her, which seems plausible given the topics that she talks about.

If you want it to be included, you should find both a reliable source that includes both names - to prove accuracy - and a reasoning for the name to be included. Gbear605 (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BLPNAME does not really apply to high profile individuals, such as this one. The issue is not a BLPNAME violation, it is a sourcing issue. It would fall upon WP:SELFSOURCE to be able to use this source, Linkedin is generally found not to be reliable, because the site does not verify identities (unlike, say, Twitter). Hence point 4 of WP:SELFSOURCE is failed. You would need to establish a reliable link between the subject and that Linkedin to be able to use it as a reference for their name. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader, I disagree that BLPNAME does not apply. BLPNAME specifically says When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it - Kay seems have intentionally concealed her name, which seems to meet the criteria to me. Gbear605 (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  Gbear605, yes, the key phrase is private individual. It is not meant to be for high profile individuals. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader I agree with you since she is considered "high profile" her real name need not to be omitted if not this would be WP:NPF and WP:BLP1E I see this whole conversation by other editors going to a WP:CRYBLP. I provided another source which was strong but other editors are using WP:SYNTH Tahadharamsi (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  High profile? Four months ago you nominated the article for AfD and you said she wasn't notable. What happened in the last four months to go from nobody to high profile that you know about but haven't put into the article? I'll quote you: "This article does not have any substantial biography or notability," and "the biography of this living person should not be on Wikipedia due to the lack of notability," and "this person does not meet the standards for a biography on Wikipedia, their contributions to the cause are not significant or notable." The term "high profile" is best described here: Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, where this supplement to BLP1E compares high- and low-profile people and uses examples. This subject is clearly NOT high profile according to those guidelines. Normal Op (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  Normal Op, not sure how you come to that. She's literally giving out media interviews. [1][2]. She is obviously high profile, per our policies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader: That theaustralian.com.au one requires a subscription to read it, so that's useless for evaluation purposes. Those are both from January 2019, and a search shows that there was a renewed push to ban burqas in Australia in January 2019 with lots of coverage of the subject of muslim head coverings (from all angles). Normal Op (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Normal Op: Sources being behind a WP:paywall is mostly irrelevant when it comes to their utility on Wikipedia. If you don't have access to a source, you can ask at WP:REX or probably just here since I assume others have access to it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  I can read it, and can confirm it's an interview. Paywalled or less accessible sources (eg books) aren't discouraged, see WP:PAYWALL. Regarding years, it's irrelevant to her status. Unless her position or activity has significantly changed since, neither has the reason for high profile-ness. BLPNAME does not exist to be gamed, it exists for legitimate BLP protection. And generally, I imagine few biographies meeting notability for their own article, bar perhaps a few certain niche categories, would satisfy BLPNAME protections. This is a WP:SELFSOURCE issue, not a BLPNAME issue. If a reliable source can be found, or SELFSOURCE can be satisfied, I see no reason why her real name cannot be mentioned in article text. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader: Your push to expose a person's FAMILY CONNECTIONS when the person clearly is not using her family's name and has repeatedly described the harassment and death threats directed to herself AND HER FAMILY, is unconscionable and violates the meaning of WP:BLPNAME. "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it", but you want to disclose it despite clear evidence that the subject is concealing her family's name by not using it ANY of the interviews she has done or things she has published. "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." — I see no value to the reader's comprehension to omit a family name or former name or whatever that other name means. But you would somehow push to have it disclosed... because why again? Please give me a reason that explains WHY a reader should need to know the information? Normal Op (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not pushing for anything, and haven't edited that article at all. I've opined here as I've done on many other BLP sections, and purely on the basis of policy. I don't know the subject and have no dog in this dispute. It cannot be added in anyway, as I've stated, since no RS or valid SELFSOURCE has been given for it, and it's unclear if one even exists, but if it were it would beat that point. It's a mere technicality, at this stage, on what policy is prohibiting inclusion. Note that BLPNAME is an additional protection in cases when a statement can be reliably sourced, but we still should omit (this is generally the cases of high-coverage but low-profile individuals), and in most cases it tends to be on articles about something else (eg on an article about an event, or on another person's bio). Selectively quoting parts of a policy that is preceded by a note that it doesn't apply to HPIs (and that has already been said above) is slightly disingenuous. Course, there's the general principle of responsibility towards BLPs. Death threats etc are all unfortunate and shouldn't happen, but they happen to many BLPs involved in anything political/controversial. We can't start enforcing pseudonyms-only for every bio on wiki ever involved in something controversial. You are misunderstanding the purpose of the policy, it's not meant to apply here. See various archive discussions, eg [3] (& related secs on page), [4] (& assoc rfc), [5]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  We've defended against the outing of people that you may consider higher-profile using BLPNAME in the past. For example, porn stars [6] We can separate Zara Kay the activist vs "Whatever her real name" the person in considering how high profile the subject is and consider the impact outing has. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  Pornographic actresses is indeed an interesting case. In spite of the proposer's comments there, though, it seems that discussion trended more on the ideals behind BLP, rather than the purpose of BLPNAME. Discussion 7 linked above, BLPNAME conflicting with WP objective addresses the exact challenge here. The RS/SELFSOURCE point I make seems like a fine standard for an appeal to privacy; if there exists an RS that names her with her real name, and connects these identities, I think it's sufficient to conclude we should be naming it too. Otherwise it's a very slippery slope indeed, and outside of the most high profile cases (politicians etc) where do you draw the line? We'd have arbitrary censorship on a self-determined notions of 'privacy' per article - that'd be OR in itself. Apparently every other thing related to Islam and people in the media brings up death threat claims (I remember the widely reported case of Mia Khalifa's substantiated death threats[7], with a combination of some of the things above, pornstar too -- we name her less well known name there). We're obviously not going to censor every single one. If top RS are choosing to name, it seems very arbitrary for us to decide this is rising to an unacceptable level of publicity and harm. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  A reasonable standard for pseudonyms, in my mind at least, is the same standard that we use for the deadnames of transgender people - include the name if they are notable under that name. That's a reasonable choice in my opinion, since the reasoning for exclusion is similar (avoiding harm, either from deadnaming/transphobia or from whatever other source), and the reason for inclusion is similar (reference for finding a person under a notable name). A single source, especially one that just mentions the name as an aside, doesn't make the name notable, but a significant number might. It is slightly different, since the standard for transgender people is that they needed to be notable when they went by the deadname publicly, not just have the deadname be notable, but I think the general concept of notability is reasonable.

  However, this is clearly not supported by current policies, so it'd need it's own separate discussion. Gbear605 (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A RfC has been opened is asking to revisit this question, should Andy Ngo be described as a journalist in wikivoice in the lead sentence of the article. In related discussions what other terms may be OK in wiki or attributed voice. Editors have suggested "writer" and "provocateur" be included in the lead in Wiki voice. Discussion here Talk:Andy_Ngo#RFC:_"journalist". Springee (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:2009 MTV Video Music Awards#new page for kanye-taylor feud. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello there have been several libelous changes added to this article over the past few years. This is in violation to the policies on articles on livings persons. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medguru (talk • contribs) 13:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• I have blocked the OP from editing this article as they have been vandalising it. There are no "libellous" changes as far as I can see, and the current version is certainly not. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• @Black Kite: OP has indicated on my my talk page that his blanking of the article was a well meaning attempt to delete it. Since User:Medguru created the article in the first place I think that it is probably an autobiography, so shouldn't have been created in the first place, and a courtesy deletion might be in order? I did suggest that he go through normal deletion processes but that wont be possible if he's blocked form editing the article. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  I came to the same conclusion as you about what edits the OP was unhappy with. In most cases like this, I think the reason why the person becomes unhappy tends to be when an article starts to include some more negative information (whether stuff they excluded or stuff that wasn't an issue when the article was started), so in that way this case is a bit unusual as the article looks similar to what they created and I don't think that's the problem. But still, there are enough other contributions that it's unlikely this is eligible for WP:G7, and even if mostly autobiography it doesn't look like it's eligible for WP:G11 or WP:A7, indeed fairly sure it was rejected for A7 already. And it looks like WP:PROD has been tried before so that's out, and it's not eligible for WP:BLPPROD. And putting aside the old vandalism, the article doesn't seem particularly negative so I don't think BLPDELETE would apply. So I think AFD is the only way. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE could come into play, possibly that's what you mean by courtesy deletion but frankly I'm not sure if it will be necessary. If it goes to AFD, IMO it may simply be deleted with consensus. I'm not seeing much evidence of notability under WP:PROF but I haven't looked for sources. (Why I haven't nominated it myself.) IMO the editor can still nominate it for deletion, they may not be able to complete the step of mentioning this on the article but it'll be fine to simply mention this on the AFD and let someone else take care of it. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  Actually I'm starting to think deletion may not be so clear cut. A quick search found [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] which while perhaps limited for WP:GNG purposes, do suggest their work could pass WP:PROF or something. Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Trying to reconnect (talk · contribs · block log · spi · lta) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The lead of the article uses the weasel worded phrase "the Mueller Report revealed that investigators found no direct evidence that Page coordinated Trump campaign activities", to imply that circumstantial evidence of such coordination was found. The sources used do not support that implication. Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Stick to the article talk page. -- Valjean (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly the right venue to raise BLP concerns. It says so right in the first sentence: "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons." Trying to reconnect (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but we normally don't use it until after attempts on the talk page have failed. -- Valjean (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

BS. Take a look a the two entries right above this one. Trying to reconnect (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Although you don't have to open a talk page discussion first, on active articles where the talk page likely has a lot of watchers you're generally likely to have better results by starting there. Especially where it's something messy like anything to do with the Mueller report or Russian investigation. Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I did start the talk page discussion first - [13], and then came here to bring in more opinions. It is not really helpful to give BS information ("Wrong venue") and then obfuscate the fact that a talk page discussion was opened first. You don't have to comment here, but if you do, please stick to facts. Trying to reconnect (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Trying to reconnect: I never said anything about "wrong venue". That was someone else, please take it up with the person who said that and not me. Also HTF is someone supposed to know you started a talk page discussion when you never mentioned it before and instead acted like there was no need to open a talk page discussion? Not mentioning a talk page discussion is a good way to generate split and confusing discussion. In any case, I still think this thread was a mistake. There seems to be multiple participants in that talk page discussion, none of who seem to have come from here, and I expect none will be joining since existing participants seem to have it covered. Note that this is an important point in WP:dispute resolution. By bringing it here too fast, if you cannot resolve the dispute there is unfortunately a good chance by the time you realise that, this thread will receive far less attention so won't be very effective. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You didn't say "wrong venue", but Valjean did, and my comment was directed at both of you. You said "you're generally likely to have better results by starting [at the talk page]" - which is exactly what I did. As to "HTF is someone supposed to know you started a talk page discussion" - how about looking? Trying to reconnect (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll say it. This is the wrong venue, at least, it is in the way you've presented it. Now before you get all defensive, realize I'm trying to help you, and please allow me to explain for a moment.

Just because an article is a biography, that doesn't automatically mean that every problem rises to the level of a BLP policy violation. All the other policies apply here as well. The problem, as you've presented it, looks like an NPOV (WP:Neutral point of view) problem. Or may be a V (WP:Verifiability) problem. I don't know which, because I have very little interest in this subject in general, and don't want to dig too deep.

The point is, when you bring something to one of these noticeboards, it's a good idea to explain why it is, in your mind at least, this is a violation of the BLP policy. I don't really see what the problem is, but just by going from what you've written at the top, it looks like this is the wrong noticeboard for the policy that covers the vague issue that you're describing. Perhaps WP:NPOVN would be better? If you can show just what part of the policy is being violated here, or how it's some bigger issue that transcends policy maybe, you will have a much better chance of getting a reply at the relevant page. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. I thought I explained it will enough in my comment - implying that a living person committed a federal crime without a source to support it is a BLP violation, but in retrospect, perhaps it deserved a more detailed explanation. Anyway, I appreciate User:Atsme's intervention and I agree that his copy edit solves the issue. Trying to reconnect (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Trying to reconnect (talk · contribs) Zaereth explained it better than me and I apologise if I was a bit harsh. But you'd already directly reply to Valjean so I didn't see why you need to reply again to them in a commented which was indented at me. Even if I explained it poorly, I do stick by my talk page comment though. There was no way to know, and no reason to check out the talk page from you comments since it sounded to me like you were saying there was no need to discuss it on the talk page and so you didn't. While technically this is true, from my experience AP2 issues especially involving well known controversies don't need to be brought her to be resolved, it's generally better to at least give talk page watchers reasonable chance. Also, as with many boards, bringing things here prematurely tends to result in poor results as people will comment on some initial issues, which could have easily brought up by existing editors. But then discussion dies down and the more "meaty" issues which maybe do require more feedback aren't actually dealt with. Finally, while I nowadays try to focus discussion on the talk page, there is IMO still a lot of people, including me on occasion who comment here. Again with AP2 and well known controversies, this tends to result in split and confusing discussions; and maybe also people wasting time explaining stuff that someone already explained on the talk page. To reduce this it's better to invite people to the talk page discussion or at least mention it, when opening a discussion here which duplicates some existing talk page one. Nil Einne (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It's ok, Zaereth's explanation convinced me. Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm on the same page (no pun intended) as Zaereth. Let's discuss this on the article TP first because it appears to be a simple fix involving copy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The issue regarding multiple people was sorted out by Nil Einne. The article could still use some work, but the immediate issue is resolved. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Kathleen L. Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greetings folks -

We received an OTRS message last week (ticket:2020092210019304, for those with access) that indicates that there is information from a couple of different Kathleen Collins-es in this article. The OTRS ticket says that there are two different scientists named Kathleen Collins of similar age and working in somewhat similar areas. From what I'm gathering, one goes professionally by Kathleen Collins and the other goes professionally by Kathleen L. Collins. See also this recent edit to the article [14]. The ticket further mentions that external events may cause a traffic spike to this article in the near future, so it wouldn't be a good look if we've got this article wrong. I posted to the talk page pinging the author of the article (User:Jesswade88) but there haven't been any replies to that discussion. I'm not an expert in this area at all but this probably needs some untangling, can someone take a look? Thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Jess Wade (she's notable herself, mostly for writing Wikipedia articles!) is a bit busy, so often doesn't respond to pings; I'm going to copy on her talk page, which she sometimes responds to more. --GRuban (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears the majority of information about Kathleen L. Collins was removed from the article today. The article was also changed to Kathleen Collins.Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Thanks, Nil Einne (talk · contribs)!!

Thanks for the quick work on this (particularly Nil Einne), I'll circle back with the OTRS requester and see if they've got any more feedback! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

OTRS customer is satisfied with the resolution. In their words "Parts of the text describing the science aren’t entirely correct, but they are close enough." Sounds like we're back to a standard-issue WP:WIP, though. Thanks to all involved for the quick work! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Customer? Double your salary! --GRuban (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@GRuban: Believe it or not, they're actually called "customers" within the OTRS software, so sometimes that term pops out. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Was locked out of linkedin because i am a trump supporter. Have been a member since 2012. this new CEO will destroy this web site. Typical arrogant CEO that looks down on others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo 4157 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia (this place) and LinkedIn are unrelated. If you have a problem with LinkedIn, bring it up with LinkedIn. -- Hoary (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I started Grant Guilford years ago and recently it appears to have become overly negative. I now have significant COI here, could someone please take a look and trim some deadwood if necessary? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Reads as Puff Piece/PR Release — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.44.242 (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Any particular Earthquake (disambiguation)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

this seems like something for the geology portal, rather than BLP??--Licks-rocks (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Possibly the OP meant a person known as Earthquake. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think maybe Earthquake (comedian)? Most of the text was added by Hbasrid, an SPA, and sourced to biography.jrank.org with seems to be a SPS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert Friedman (producer)

Robert was born in 1956 (not 1946) and was born in New York (not Staten Island). Someone keeps consistently changing his page to the previous mentioned incorrect information. If someone attempts to change it again, please do not accept those changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.137.47 (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have sources for both of these statements, IP? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

A couple of ages given for Friedman in RS (i.e. Wall Street Journal) do indeed match up with 1956. No info on birth place though. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles § RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder?. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Shlomo Kramer reads like a resume/advertisement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.118.155 (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any egregious BLP violations other than some uncited info about his recent projects. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I wish to change the header from "is" to "was" and insert the date of death at Thursday 8th October 2020. ^[1] I am not able to edit it myself - not sure why? MonksCroft (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you couldn't edit the article - it's not protected. Anyway, the information on his passing has been added, with a reference to a reliable source. Neiltonks (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Sara Moonves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would anyone like to comment on a disagreement at requests for page protection (that may be archived, see permalink). The issue concerns this text:

On March 25, 2020, Moonves called a staff meeting, and told most of the magazine's employees they were being laid off.^ref1ref2 Employees in the online department were remaining, but at reduced salaries. Her boss, Marc Lotenberg, CEO of Future Media, said the magazine had to be put into "survival mode", because “[T]he bottom has dropped out of the luxury market.”

An IP has been trying to delete the above and I declined semi-protection of the article on the basis that the removal is not vandalism. It's a minor matter but any opinions would be welcome. Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Note: The IP editor tried to excise the information on multiple occasions, and three separate contributors, with established IDs, independently restored the passage four separate times. [15] [16] [17] [18]

  I thought protecting articles from questionable edits, from malicious or inexperienced IP contributors, was the main purpose of semi-protection.

  When he declined semi-protection Johnuniq called the excisions defensible because he incorrectly assumed the layoffs were due to yet another now sadly common covid 19 shutdown. But this assumption was incorrect. Geo Swan (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the text definitely isn't vandalism. At initial glance, inclusion of the text seems unbalanced, given the short size of the article; also seems a little WP:COATRACKy, not really about the article subject, and poorly phrased. The lack of Talk page discussion by any of those involved is disappointing. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Ryk72 Excuse me? Sara Moonves spent over a decade working her way up, from research assistant, to editorial assistant, to section editor, to editor-in-chief - the pinnacle of her career - only to have to lay off most of her staff, people she had known for years. So, how, exactly, can you claim that her announcement of the layoff is not relevant in an article about her?

  How exactly is it "unbalanced"? A layoff is a cruel blow. There is no bright side. Geo Swan (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• It's unbalanced because the article text is very terse about the "over a decade working her way up". Partly the issue is phrasing, because the essential information is that many of the staff were furloughed, not that the article subject called a staff meeting. But then that's essential information about the company, not the article subject. The same issue is there for the final two sentences, it's information about the company. There's also issues of accuracy: the sources say "many" or "17 of 58", not "most"; and "furloughed", not "laid off" - the latter may be a distinction without a difference, but it's a distinction made in the sources. - Ryk72 ^talk 21:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

If it stays, It does need to be fixed, the quote in last sentence does not have the citation (or its not in the right place) and that's a WP:BLP issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

There's support for that text in one of the sources used earlier, so I've added it & removed the cn tag. - Ryk72 ^talk 21:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Alanscottwalker, while some people sprinkle a huge number of RS throughout their contributions I think most people use them the way I do - use each reference no more than once per paragraph, after the first sentence in the paragraph were it is relevant. You are the 2nd person in the last six months to suggest that RS should be cited in every relevant sentence.

  As per WP:OVERCITE I think this is still a minority position.

  Just curious, are you an academic in real life? Geo Swan (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  You would be wrong about that. WP:V policy is that "All quotations . . . must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." And inline citation is given at the very end of the quote. Not in some other place in the article because you have to directly associate the source with the quote. And it does readers (and living people) a disservice to make them guess what source might, maybe support the quote, if any, especially with a source that is behind a paywall. (On a separate scenario, not applicable in this instance, if you are supporting several sentences with a single source put the inline cite at the end of the sentences, not in the middle of them, because otherwise it makes little sense -- but if there is a quote in the middle, than put the inline cite right after the quote and then also at the end of the sentences the source supports. Finally, if you cite one source, and then a second source, but then after you cite the second source, you want to go back to discuss material from the first source, you do need to cite the first source again, at the end.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

A potential BLP issue has emerged with the naming of certain articles around "assassination attempts". In the case of 2016 Donald Trump Las Vegas rally incident, it was suggested that the original title, which contained the phrase "attempted assassination", was inappropriate as there was no conviction to this effect. This has highlighted that there are several other articles with titles that appear also to be inappropriate given this - e.g. Assassination attempts against George W. Bush refers to the case of a man who was ultimately convicted of a firearms conviction and assaulting a federal officer, while Barack Obama assassination plot in Denver is about three men who were ultimately convicted of drug and weapons charges. Overall, a large number of the articles included in Template:US Presidential Assassination Attempts and beyond refer to cases where there was no conviction for assassination/murder. I would welcome input on how articles of this nature should be named and what bar should be passed before the word assassination is included in the title to avoid any BLP issues. Thanks. McPhail (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"Assassination attempt" requires conviction or consensus among in-depth WP:RSes confirming it was, in fact, an attempt. A mentally-disabled man impulsively grabbing a cop's gun at a rally or someone taking a random potshot toward the white house don't meet that threshold. Feoffer (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

My point is that there are multiple articles that do not meet this threshold. McPhail (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"Assassination attempt" implies that someone attempted to kill a prominent figure. We should only be using that wording if the living persons involved have actually been convicted of attempting to kill someone as per WP:BLPCRIME. Otherwise we should be referring to the events with neutral terms, such as "shooting" or "incident" that don't imply criminality as much as the term "assassination attempt". The exceptions would obviously be in cases where the assassin is dead and no longer covered by BLP (Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't convicted) and in cases where the assassination wouldn't be a crime.

Barack Obama assassination plot in Denver as you've said is a great example of an article that violates WP:BLPCRIME in this respect. The three involved weren't convicted of attempting to assassinate Obama and calling it an "assassination plot" is prejudicial. In fact none of the people involved were even charged with a crime relating to attempting to assassinate or even threaten Obama, meaning the article should be reworded entirely as it's not even an "alleged assassination plot" at this point. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 23:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You can have an unknown assassin. Someone shoots a sniper at the prez, escapes, identity unknown. Still an assassination. No BLPCRIME issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Stoneman Douglas High School shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm currently involved in a dispute over whether or not WP:BLPCRIME applies in the case of a mass shooting where "there is zero reasonable doubt about who this shooter was" and a suspect has confessed in police custody, but the suspect hasn't yet been convicted in a court of law. Let's call this person John Doe. The article currently refers to "the shooter, John Doe" when describing the shooting. I'm seeking to have that changed to "the alleged shooter, John Doe". Additionally, there's a CCTV image of the shooter in the school captioned with the name "Doe". I believe that should be changed to "the shooter" and not mention a person's name. (diff [19])

My main reason for wanting this is that WP:BLPCRIME is very clear. "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." Saying John Doe was the shooter is effectively saying he's committed a crime as the article goes onto detail the many things "the shooter" did inside the school, many of which are crimes. However, John Doe hasn't been convicted of any crime relating to this shooting, so saying Doe is the shooter clearly violates the presumption of innocence. Even if he did confess and even if there isn't any reasonable doubt, we as Wikipedia editors shouldn't be the one making that determination. That's for a court of law to decide. Additionally, practically every reliable source which describes this mass shooting refers to Doe as the "alleged shooter" or otherwise qualifies any statement connecting Doe to the shooting as an accusation. If we go by the consensus of reliable sources Doe still shouldn't be labelled as the shooter.

Finally there are legal issues involved here. Claiming someone has committed a crime when they haven't done so is almost always defamation. I don't think we should be setting the precedent that it's OK for Wikipedia editors to determine whether or not someone has committed a crime due to the legal liability involved. Waiting until a conviction is the safest possible choice. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 19:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, I've brought this directly to WP:BLPN since I've been reverted by three separate people. I think we're beyond talk page discussion at this point. We've had some in the past, see Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting/Archive 7#"Alleged killer" and "accused killer" are the wrong adjectives to use in the article and Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting/Archive 4#Improper use of the word SUSPECT in Section header.Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 19:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You have overlooked an important part of BLPCRIME (my emphasis): "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Editors have seriously considered this, and they have chosen to include said material (and to omit "allegedly"). Policy is never absolute, it can never cover every situation, and that's why we have WP:IAR. I have yet to see a single reliable source that says there is some doubt that Cruz was the shooter; if there are any such sources, they are vastly outnumbered by those that do not. He has confessed to being the shooter, and the conviction is a mere legal formality. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll give a different take on this, since I think such instances where we ignore BLPCRIME should be extremely rare and require very, very compelling reasons. And I am loathe to ever invoke IAR, but especially where BLPs are concerned.

Cruz falls under the exemption to BLPCRIME, which is PUBLICFIGURE. With nearly 300 refs in this article alone, not to mention all of the other coverage out there, we can say without a shadow of a doubt that he has risen to that level where there is no longer any point in trying to protect his right to be innocent until proven guilty. While we normally think of public figures as being celebrities and national-level politicians, in reality anyone can become one if they get enough, vast, widespread coverage in reliable sources. Now the incident itself has to be widely covered as well, and in this case we have both, to enough of a degree that PUBLICFUGURE is satisfied. This exception to policy is not just for the famous, but also the infamous. Zaereth (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I retract my reference to IAR as unnecessary. We have followed BLPCRIME as written, as I said; all one has to do is read it carefully instead of cherry-picking the parts that support one's position. And I forgot to mention that multiple eyewitnesses who knew Cruz said he was the shooter, and none have contradicted them. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that just because a person may be widely covered by the media does not make them a public figure. This, in essence, is the point behind the defamation lawsuits of January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation (which are still proceeding). A public figure usually voluntarily puts themselves in that position, it is not because they are forced into it. --Masem (t) 20:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not think anyone was forced into becoming a mass shooter, but they voluntarily put themselves in the situation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

My interpretation here is that the paragraph of WP:BLPCRIME discussed here has two parts. The first is that we should treat ANY living person as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The second is that for relatively unknown persons, we should also consider not mentioning their name at all in relation to the article. For example, there's a terrorist attack in a Blackacre and John Doe is accused of having aided and abetting the offence. The "not mentioning their name" part is omitting their information from the article at all until a conviction is secured. It's not an exemption to the "innocent until proven guilty" rule for public figures; it's an addition to the rule that emphasizes extra caution for non-public figures. See Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_46#Proposed_change_to_"People_accused_of_crime"; prior discussion is that the "innocent until proven guilty" rule applies to everyone. Public figures are NOT exempt. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 21:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

While I get what you're saying, Masem, and I agree (I take a very strong stance on protecting a person's right to privacy, especially in cases of crimes), there does come a point when it is pointless to try to protect the person's privacy. This requires a lot of coverage out there for an otherwise private citizen to rise to that level. By that, I mean the Casey Anthonys, Charles Mansons, and Mary Kay Letourneaus of the world. By "widespread", I mean it's already been covered in just every magazine and newspaper everywhere you look. People who have already become infamous. And you could say that while these people never planned on becoming public figures and household names, they did assume that risk when they committed their crimes. I believe, in this case, it would be a mistake and do the public a disservice by omitting the name. Now does that mean I think we should omit words like "alleged"? Of course not. But in this case we have more than enough to include the name. Zaereth (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is done a disservice. The point is that even the most high profile stories will die out after a few years, a good chunk won't even be remembered widely. Recentism is a powerful thing. Information on Wikipedia will persist though, especially when Google features it so heavily. High profile has zero to do with media coverage, and the existence of BLPNAME/BLPCRIME is purely due to that fact, otherwise both policies would be redundant to WP:V and its derivatives. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "seriously consider" it is applied far stronger than that. The point of BLPCRIME is not so a local talk page discussion can say "considered" and tick it off. Archive discussions seem to have tried to clarify it, but it was noted that policies are wikilawyered and there seemed to not be enough stamina to come up with a foolproof worded amendment. De facto, it seems to be enforced quite strongly (at least when it's brought up to extensive discussion). I'm not entirely sure how it extends to this case. At Kenosha unrest it was determined that: (a) very high profile media coverage; (b) recorded, video evidence of a person doing the shooting; (c) both defence and prosecution agreeing said person was a shooter is sufficient to carefully include a name, still making no judgement of wrongdoing. Before (c) was met, the practice was a mixture of exclusion and prefixing a lot of 'allegedly's. Just one case, definitely not precedent, but just FWIW. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I might start a discussion on the talk page to consider splitting the part about presumption of innocence from the part about protecting privacy. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 21:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue is in how they're inherently linked. When you name someone in the context of a shooting, guilt seems to automatically be implied. So, yeah, one can say 'it's okay with allegedly, we're not assigning guilt', and that'd be right strictly speaking, but it carries the implication nonetheless, so the preference is usually to omit name entirely. In some deep stories it becomes impracticable to do so, and in others coverage becomes so great that editors wish to name. I think in such cases it's usually tolerated, perhaps more as a matter of ambiguity than policy, but should still be carefully worded. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me this discussion has already strayed from the topic, which is whether the Stoneman Douglas article should name Cruz as the shooter without "allegedly". To my knowledge, removing his name completely has not been raised at the article, and discussions about policy interpretation/changes should be taken to the respective policies. If the relevant policies are revised/clarified, I have no issue with raising the question again at the article. The article's status quo is not inconsistent with policy as currently written.

As for common practice, how many precedents must I cite? Our article named Michael Slager as the shooter from Day 1, but he wasn't convicted until two years later. Our article named Darren Wilson as the shooter from Day 1, but he has never been convicted of anything. Need I go on? I can find precedent for non-LE shooters, too, if necessary, but is there to be a different standard for cops? On what rationale? Both cops were presumed innocent until proven guilty, but both cops were known to be the shooters without reasonable doubt and named as such in virtually all sources. Just. Like. Nikolas. Cruz. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Both Michael Slager and Darren Wilson are police officers. I would take the view that police officers, as with most public-facing government officials, are inherently high profile in relation to any events in their public-facing capacity. Also per WP:LPI # Eminence. High profile individuals are exempt from WP:BLPCRIME protection. Hence, we generally name police officers. I am guessing this 19 year old kid isn't a police officer, and if so that's an erroneous comparison. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that your argument is far from strong (while not being entirely without merit), I would take a different view, and that discussion belongs on policy talk pages, not here. Surely we can agree on that much. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, some may disagree with my view that police officers are high profile, yes, but the point is that de facto we exempt them (I simply give my view on why it's not contrary to current policy to do so). Either way, our treatment of police officers (which may be worth discussion) isn't relevant to this case, as it doesn't logically follow to extrapolate that exemption to all individuals that have media reporting behind them. To do so would actually totally violate the purpose and point of BLPCRIME. BLPCRIME is an additional protection on top of the burden of WP:V, so using media reporting/citing RS as a roundabout way to justify a violation as IAR beats the point. If there does exist a policy/precedent making this not a violation, that isn't it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said in this edit summary, "Normally I would agree here, but Cruz confessed and there is no serious doubt that he was the shooter". Cruz's confession, combined with the fact that multiple eyewitnesses identified him as the shooter and was captured on CCTV, mean that there is no serious doubt that he was the shooter. As for the privacy angle, a mass shooting of this kind is a matter of major public interest and debate to the point where it would be fruitless to hide Cruz's name. This CNN article decribes Cruz as the shooter and does not use the qualifier "allegedly", presumably for the same reasons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Ianmacm—the person should be named in the article but not in a caption to an image. I disagree with this edit, for two reasons. An image lends itself too easily to sensationalism. That is reason number one. It is the reason I rely most heavily on. Reason number two is the outside possibility of there being a second shooter. It is also the uppermost image in the article. This makes for more sensationalism. This is a tragedy, not light entertainment. We should address these situations with restraint. Bus stop (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I find it hard to understand any kind of justification on removal of Cruz' name from the caption when there is such overwhelming evidence to support that it was him. Not whether he has been found guilty or not - but that it's him. In the very first paragraph there is a sourced statement of "He confessed to being the shooter,^[1] and he was charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder and 17 counts of attempted murder", Cruz' name appears nearly 100 times in the article itself - 120 including references. It seems petty that people are arguing over removal of a single instance of his name. This is very much wanting cake and eating it as well. You can't claim that his name should be removed due to potential BLP or sensationalism, yet in the opening para also say - including source - that Cruz confessed to being the shooter. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

That's generally a problem overall. It should be one or the other, like that (with generally preference to not including the name per BLPCRIME until the conviction is made). Yes, the name is easy to find looking to sources, but we have a stronger BLP mission than most press. --Masem (t) 13:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason why I was suggesting his name be removed from the caption is it suggested without qualification that he was the shooter when that hasn't yet been proven in a court of law. Not out of "privacy" concerns. I'm open to an alternative wording that calls him the "alleged shooter", but not one that presupposes that it's proven that the alleged shooter is the one in the picture. I wasn't and am not saying his name should be removed entirely from the article. Someone confessing to a crime isn't proof they've committed a crime; false confessions have occurred in the past. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 23:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Firstly the comparison with Michael Slager and Darren Wilson is incorrect, even ignoring the public figures part of it. The key part of the policy is that it's living people accused of a crime, but as they are police officers they are, on occasion, permitted to shoot people as part of their job without committing a crime at all. There are no reasonable circumstances where someone can enter a school and kill 17 people and it not be a crime. Secondly, I find the attempt to try the defendant by Wikipedia editors to be wholly inappropriate, and I presume that's the reason the policy reads the way it does. It is not our job to determine, either by weight of argument or counting heads, whether a suspect is guilty of a crime and can be described as such in Wikipedia's voice. There will always be cases where people think the rules shouldn't apply. It'll start off as one article, then it will be ten, then fifty, then a hundred. There's always going to be an argument about how someone has confessed or there's overwhelming DNA evidence or some other reason. I object to this entirely, it's perfectly possible to write articles dealing with suspected perpetrators without pre-judging the case. FDW777 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Strong agreement with all of this, especially the second point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This is 100% on point. NPOV and BLP requires this even if it seems 100% the person has admitted to the crime, we still must write as if they are innocent until a conviction or sentence has been passed. --Masem (t) 15:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the comparison to the police is so clear cut as suggested. It may be true that police are more likely to be able to shoot someone without committing a crime, although this isn't unique to police, as I think most of us known self defence can come up when police aren't involved either.

The Shooting of Trayvon Martin was one such case where AFAIK from very early on the dispute was not over who carried out the shooting but whether it was a crime. Likewise Kenosha unrest#Fatal shooting of protesters and both the Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl. But how do we know that? We rely on sources and editorial judgement. As we are when we are concluding that there is no way the shooter in the Stoneman Douglas shooting can claim self defence. We clearly aren't relying on what's happened in court until the court case has happened.

Yet until the court case has happened, we have no was of knowing for sure what the defence will be. And this applies to police examples as well. It is theoretically possible for any police officer to dispute in court that they were the shooter. With modern forensics, and frequently video evidence etc, this may be a dumb thing to do although it depends on the precisely what is found, the investigation etc; and I'm fairly sure even to this day there are cases when an officer disputes they were the one who fired the fatal shot. Note that this doesn't have to be a clear challenge or even strong challenge. Instead the defence may query how the bullet/s and the gun they were fired from were identified in attempt to cast reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt highlight another point, defences don't have to be one thing, so a person can attempt to dispute both that they were the shooter, and that it was a crime, even if they were. And of course you also get more complicated cases like where there's a dispute over the relative contributions over different wounds/bullets to the death. Indeed there is the Killing of George Floyd where although we have a coroner ruling of homicide, there seems to be dispute over not simply the legality of the actions, but whether the actions were actually the cause of death given the stuff the defence of some of those accused keeps bringing up. (A big part of these tend to be playing for potential jurors.)

Again until the court case is settled, we don't actually have any court case resolving these issues, we are relying on sources and editorial judgment. (I mean it is theoretically possible that Chauvin's defence could at least in part be 'it wasn't me in that video, I was never there, never came close to Floyd' no matter how dumb that defence may be. Very very very slightly more likely is not an active challenge but trying to cast doubt on the identification.) Just to emphasise, what this means is that until the court case, we had no way to be sure there wouldn't be a dispute that Darren Wilson was a shooter regardless of whether it was a crime; which isn't actually that different from the way we have no way to know for sure what will happen in the Stoneman Douglas case.

I'd note that as I understand it Timothy McVeigh wanted his defence for the Oklahoma City bombing to be a necessity one. I'm not sure, but I don't think he wanted to dispute he was the bomber in any way. This was ridiculous enough that his defence team didn't follow, still I'm fairly sure it can be complicated especially if a person chooses to represent themselves. The Trial of Anders Behring Breivik highlights the other possibility namely that their may be no dispute over the actions, but over criminal responsibility for the actions because of the defendants mental state at the time of those actions.

And back to my earlier point and speaking generally these don't have to be mutually exclusive especially with a system like the US. The defence could theoretically challenge the evidence that the defendant is the perpetrator to try and establish reasonable doubt, while simultaneously arguing even if they did it, they cannot be held criminally responsible and they could even also say it wasn't a crime because there was some justification. Remembering until the court case happens, we have no way to know for sure what the defence will be. In some cases of course, it's not even a dispute over the commission of a crime but whether it was murder or manslaughter, or even degrees of murder.

I'm personally glad that I never had to find out what the defence was for the murders and attempted murders in the Christchurch mosque shootings, still for a while it looked like it was headed that way. (I exclude the terrorist charge, not because I wanted to find out the defence but because it's a much more complicated charge. Indeed it was always possible it could end up being the only point of dispute.) Because of those issues etc, after a court case, especially if it's a jury trial and the result is not guilty, we still may not have definite resolution. Although I'd note that juries in the US like to, and often are allowed to, talk a lot, so we can get some idea that a jury did indeed reject a coroner's finding of homicide or the actions causing death or they were the shooter or whatever.

I would also note in a lot of these cases even when someone is dead, we still have BDP so we have to consider not simply those accused of killing them, but the people who died as well. Which brings up the other issue, unless something extremely weird happens, there is never going to be a court case which resolves the criminal responsibility of Michael Reinoehl towards the death of Aaron Danielson. So how do we handle this? Do things change the moment Reinoehl died and was was a problem before becomes fair game simply because it can't be resolved in a court case? Do we wait 2 years to ensure that there is no BLP issues then it becomes fair game?

The TLDR version of all this is that I don't think it's actually as clear cut as the FDW777 suggested. In reality until there has been a court case, we are relying on sources and editorial judgment about the likelihood over dispute over various parts of a case. If you are saying X is clearly a crime but Y isn't so clear. And so person A who carried out X we can't say they did so until the court case even if there's no dispute over this even from A at this time. But person B who carried out Y we can say they did so because there's no dispute over this from B at this time although it's possible it may happen and indeed we may not have even heard from B yet. Then you are making editorial judgments from sources on what may happen in the future. And I'm not convinced that these judgments are always sound.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Analyzing disputes relating to the anticipation of events that won't actually occur (e.g. killing of Michael Reinoehl and whether he "murdered" Aaron Danielson if no trial can happen) will likely turn into some hauntological discussion that's beyond the scope of BLPN. I think this discussion should be kept limited to avoid post-structuralist snafus. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 17:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777: articulated it better than I could. Police officers are allowed to and are sometimes expected to kill people as a part of their job. There's no practical way someone could've walked into this school and shot 17 people without it being a crime. Saying a police officer shot someone doesn't imply they've committed a crime in the same way that saying John Doe walked into Stoneman Douglas High School and killed 17 people does. There are some convoluted exceptions to the general rule that saying someone has done a school shooting has committed a crime (a raid on a terrorist training camp would be a shooting in a school) but I don't think there would be any applicable here. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 18:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

At this point I don't think we're getting anywhere. Is it time to start a formal RfC? If so, what should the parameters of the RfC be? Should it be limited to just this article or should we start an RfC to clarify WP:BLPCRIME with respect to police officers, alleged mass shooters, and other "public" figures? If so we'll still need to have another discussion over whether referring to someone as "the shooter" is equivalent to saying they've committed a crime and in what cases it isn't. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 16:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Chess—any RfC should be limited to just this article. The "parameters" should be just this one single question. The question is: should the individual in the image be identified? We are talking about one specific image in one specific placement in this article. We have to be as specific as possible: should the uppermost image, also known as the Info-box image, in the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting article, have a caption that includes the person's actual name? Bus stop (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: The original question was whether or not the shooter should be qualified as the "alleged shooter" or whether we should without qualifications state that John Doe was the school shooter. The caption issue is ancillary but is relevant because stating the person in the caption is John Doe is equivalent to saying that John Doe is the shooter. For whatever reason many people are saying that the protections of WP:BLPCRIME only apply if the person "isn't a public figure" and that if someone is a public figure we no longer have to give them the presumption of innocence; such that whether Doe's name should be mentioned at all and whether Doe should be called the shooter in WikiVoice are the same issue. In my view these are two separate issues; I believe it's OK to mention Doe's name in the article as the alleged shooter but that it's not OK to definitively say they are the shooter. Clearly there's significant dispute over what this policy is and I believe that needs to be clarified. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 17:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"Alleged shooter" in article text and omission of name from caption of image. I regard policy as serving as a guideline, Chess, for those editors well-versed in policy, but we are not bound to policy. What a boring project this would be if we were trammeled to policy. I don't think artificial intelligence is yet available to replace us. So why would we at this time give up our autonomy to policies and guidelines? I am not advocating disregarding policies and guidelines. Rather I'm suggesting adapting policies and guidelines to individual situations. If an RfC is to be held, it should be on one specific question pertaining to one specific article. I guess that would mean 2 RfCs in this instance—one for the image-caption question, and one for whether "alleged" should precede the name in article text. Bus stop (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

BLP is supposed to basically work like this on fraught questions:

• Some number of editors make the point, "well, BLP allows us to do X so lets", and their arguments -- right or wrong -- are reasonable and cogent.
• Some number of editors make the point "we shouldn't do X due to BLP considerations" and their arguments -- right or wrong -- are also reasonable and cogent.
• We shouldn't do X.

When the issue is in doubt, always take the more protective action, in other words. If the articles on one side aren't really reasonable and cogent, or if there's only one editor objecting against several, that'd different. That doesn't apply in this case. It's not going to hurt anybody if we say "alleged". Herostratus (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

While I agree generally speaking it's best to err on the side of caution in relation to living people, on this occasion there is no grey area. The policy does not say A living person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty, unless a few editors on the talk page agree otherwise. If editors want the right to pre-judge a court case and pronounce a living person guilty, then they need to change the policy first. I can't imagine that happening though. FDW777 (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I have less interest in the precise wording of rules that in figuring out what is the right thing to do and what the spirit and intent of the rule is. The right thing to do is always to avoid saying bad things about people if it can be avoided, and the spirit of the rule is always to avoid saying bad things about people if it can be avoided. And if a number of editors disagree with you on what is the right thing to do or how to interpret the spirit and intent of a rule, it's possible that you're right and they're wrong, buy its also possible that you're wrong and they're right. Since you can't know, the more conservative option is indicated. Herostratus (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Yes, I agree, Herostratus—err on the side of caution, or that which is conservative, act with restraint. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"Alleged" is the minimum required. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

David Ray Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Griffin sent a representative to argue for him to remove the "conspiracy theorist" label, and the representative has asked why all the people who watch the article are not coming to discuss him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Hob Gadling, for bringing this to the attention of the noticeboard. Here, and before the notification is scrolled off into an archive, I wish to correct the incorrect impression that Griffin sent me to deal with the article. I had not seen it in several years, and when I did in August I noticed that he was being identified as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, a designation that had appeared in the article previously but had been replaced. I communicated my concern about this to Prof. Griffin, who authorized me to represent him on the matter. It was not, then, at his instigation, and I apologize for having so implied. –Roy McCoy (talk)

Hi, I am a relatively new wiki editor and so I asked on 6 October the wikipedia: help desk what can be done with a BLP-wiki article Makau W. Mutua that is obviously not neutral, disproportionately focused on the "negatives" and downplays other aspects of the person's life. I was told that in general "negatives" were not a problem as such (which I am aware of) - as long as they were well sourced; another wiki editor recommended to get into 'talk' or contact this page.

I decided to manually edit the article on 6.-7. October so that it complies to the standards of BLP. I tried to make the introduction more balanced and to sound more neutral, inserted subsections concerning the controversies for more clarity, and removed some redundancies. Then on 7 October "Nonpareil76" changed it all back. Those changes were however immediately reverted by "XLinkBot". As of 8 October "Nonpareil76" has again changed the introduction to an old version that lacks neutrality.

I do not intend to get into a back and forth with other editors - but strongly believe that this article particularly the introduction lacks neutrality and should probably put on a watch list. Thanks! Whatadifference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatadifference (talk • contribs) 05:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious what links triggered the bot revert of nonpareil76 edits. I do see some issues of neutrality with description and undue weight of coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It says in the edit summary it was the link to Twitter. (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed some of the excessive detail that didn't seem to be directly verified by the cited sources. I also am concerned about how much weight should be sourced from the student newspaper versus the city newspaper when it comes to the faculty conflict and resignation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: .. User:Nonpareil76, User:Masoomulla and User:72.69.140.75 are likely the same person (DUCK) and likely a COI. They are responsible for most of the article content for the past 12 years. Masoomulla got blocked for it. There are probably other accounts. The article has been a problem for a very long time. I fixed all the citation formatting problems in August, but now they are all back again.. readded by Nonpareil76. In fact if you would revert it back to revision October 7, 2020‎ the last made by Whatadifference it would immediately clean up a lot of problems introduced by Nonpareil76 on October 7 and 8. -- GreenC 04:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I doubt nonpareil76 and masoomulla are the same person due to their inconsistent edits. One seeked to exclude the faculty dispute[20] while the other reinstates it.[21]. Mutua seems to be a very polarizing figure in Kenya, and we may be viewing two different factions. What is troubling from Masoomulla's last edit is that it looks like reputable sources did exist at one time for the Chief Justice application information I recently removed although the detail still seems too much. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and reinstate Whatadifference's last stable edit with the citations and then reinstate some of the chops I made due to BLP concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

You could be right. It's hard to tell who is pro and con there is so much sourced controversy. Oddly some recentish IP geolocate to Burma and Whatadifference has only edited two articles, this one and one on a Burmese subject. Well I guess it doesn't matter either way, just a lot of IP and SPA involved. -- GreenC 14:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Humphrey_(MLM)?action=edit#Personal_life

It should say MLM in the title. There is no source that is cited for that or can be found. I know this company and know that this false. This company is even listed on (bbb.org). Also and MLM sells its own products, is subscription based, and has recruiting as a main priority. This company has none of those features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmanoj15 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is in terrible shape. Most of it is unsourced. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated this for AfD. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

An editor is referring to these people as "rogue scientists" on the article Talk page: Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University. Not sure if it constitutes a full-blown violation of BLP, but it needs looking at. Arcturus (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot more leeway on the talk pages in discussing the views of people in terms WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Don't use this noticeboard as a sword to stifle discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't. And your comment is particularly stupid. Arcturus (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Your comment can be seen as a personal attack? See how that works? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't a stupid comment. There are a number of reliable sources discussing the motivations of the GBD scientists, and as long as editors do not go way over the line on a talk page, discussion of such is permitted. Black Kite (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. BLP applies on talk pages. It's possible to argue that these scientists' views go against the mainstream without resorting to insulting them. Editors should be advised to abide by BLP - it's not hard to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Any attempt to stifle discussion of this issue will fail. Perhaps they are not "rogue scientists" -- but the only way for editors to work it out is to discuss whether they are rogue scientists. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please brief yourself on Wikipedia core policies, such as that noted immediately above. Arcturus (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to the ridiculous assertion above (User:Morbidthoughts), nobody is trying to stifle discussion. "Rogue scientist" is a pejorative term when used to describe the likes of the scientists in question. It should not be used in articles or on Talk pages. Arcturus (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally (or maybe not), the declaration has been "signed" by Dr Person Fakename and Harold Shipman [22]. Not rogue at all... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed Shipman's infamous defence ("they would have died anyway") is grimly in line with the line being pushed. Alexbrn (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion is fine; assertions against living people which are unsupported by evidence are not. It's far too easy to slip from "minority view" to "fringe view", and then from "fringe view" to "rogue scientist", but nobody should be calling Sunetra Gupta a "rogue scientist", even on talk pages, without at least some direct sourcing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: I don't know what "rogue scientist" even means. It sounds like a villain that would appear in a Hollywood film. It's just a pejorative term with little actual meaning, and it's completely unnecessary to use that term in order to argue that a view is fringe. "This scientist's views on this issue are rejected by most scientists in this field" is an appropriate way to discuss the issue. "This person is a rogue scientist is not." We should not have a culture in Wikipedia in which editors feel that it is okay to needlessly insult living people on talk pages. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If you don't understand it, how come you think it's an "insult"? Rogue in this sense means "broken away from the mainstream" and derives from the phenomenon where elephants detach from the herd. You've watched the Star Wars film Rogue One' right? There's an interesting piece on the etymology here.[23] Scientists that offer a view opposing every mainstream medical body and who conduct "science" via champagne reception and political briefings have - yes - "gone rogue" in this way. It's no wonder they're seen as self-important, naive and detached from reality while harming science!. Alexbrn (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't "understand" it because it's a vague term with little actual meaning. However, it's clear that the word "rogue" is being used in a pejorative sense. If an editor wants to argue that a statement made by a group of scientists does not represent the mainstream scientific view, then that editor should state exactly that. Referring to the scientists as "rogue" is completely unnecessary. Referencing a Hollywood space opera does not convince me that this is a neutral term that should be used on Wikipedia to refer to scientists who are outside of the mainstream. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't understand it, but think it's "clear" what it connotes? That makes no sense, and indicates your prejudice. If you want to educate yourself further and aren't a Star Wars fan, read some more. To quote: "The expression today is more likely to be used to indicate that someone is displaying some degree of independence or failing to follow an expected script". A beautifully apt wording choice for this situation I'd say! This section is really one of the most pathetic attempts to WP:CRYBLP I've seen in a long while. Alexbrn (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't understand how a term can be simultaneously vague and pejorative? Calling someone "rogue" is clearly pejorative, but what "rogue scientist" actually means in the real world is unclear. It evokes an image of a Hollywood villain plotting in a cave to destroy the world, not of any type of person who actually exists in the real world. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, you don't understand it and it's triggering strange imaginings for you. Nevertheless I've explained what I myself meant, and have pointed you to good third-party definitions to show how the world at large understands it, in this context. Basically we all need to be able to communicate in English with a reasonable degree of competence so I'm not sure there's anything to add here to what has already been said. Alexbrn (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is seriously going to buy the argument that "rogue scientist" is not pejorative. I'm certain that you yourself don't buy what you're arguing. I'm not telling you that you can't argue a certain set of scientists are promoting views outside the scientific mainstream. I'm telling you that you can't insult living people on talk pages. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Bad faith noted. I can assure you, I understand WP:BLP, I understand English, and I understand what you are doing. If you want to see a contradiction to your assertion about how this is understood, just look below. Anyway, this is now becoming a waste of my time so forgive me if I ignore this thread now. Alexbrn (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That's an interesting take. I'll admit, I haven't even looked at the article, as I have way too much on my plate right now, but it does interest me studying the thought processes that make people decide upon whether something is an insult or a compliment. It really all depends on how one feels about themselves. For example, they stopped making Eskimo Pies, because someone saw that as an insult. Now why would someone be insulted by an ice-cream bar, and what does that say about them? My best friend from childhood, who is Eskimo and proud of it, took an insult to them changing the name, "What, they think we're not good enough to name a pie after us?"

Personally, I find the term "rogue" to be a compliment. The best scientists, the ones that really made a difference, were the rogues of their time. Antoine Lavoisier had his life threatened for daring to speak out against the phlogiston theory. Thomas Young was beaten up for claiming that light was a wave rather than a particle. Alfred Wegener was ridiculed for his theory of plate tectonics. These people were rogues, one and all. From Copernicus to Einstein, it took someone with the vision to see outside the box, and the guts to stand up to the Aristotelian view that all current theories are absolute and that the world is exactly as it seems, to take the science to the next level. I say hooray for the rogues, because without them we'd still be living in the stone ages. Zaereth (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally, that's fine for you to say. But you know that this is meant as a pejorative, and that that's how it will be seen by most people. That's why it does not belong in any talk page discussion, and if editors are unable to refrain from needlessly insulting living people, they should face sanctions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Please note that I have little to no experience with editing Wikipedia entries and simply wish to bring attention to this entry to someone that may want to edit it themselves. Also note that my concern with this article is not to condone the content or the subject of the article himself. My intention is to bring it to light in hopes that it does not tarnish the reputation or credibility of Wikipedia.

The entry for Ben Garrison is left biased. Many of the citations come from the opinion pieces of verifiably left-leaning publications. To name a few:

The entry consists of 30 citations, most of which come from opinion pieces, or from articles with no sources cited themselves. I do not see any reason the vast majority of the current entry couldn't be labeled in a "Controversies" section, but as it stands it simply reads like a poorly thought-out hit piece.

The following quotation is pulled directly from the "About Ben Garrison" section on his amazon store:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.33.231 (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The short answer to a long question is: The policy on Biographies of living persons means that if reliable sources characterize a subject in a certain way, then so does the Wikipedia article on that subject. To expand slightly on that: In Garrison's case, the best source we have make it clear garrison has chosen to take a certain point of view in his work and the neutral point of view is to actually report that lack of neutrality by the subject. Neutral Point of View as a policy means that the editorial selection is neutral, not that the content is. If you have reliable sources that you think are not otherwise represented in the article, the best place to discuss them is the Talk:Ben Garrison page where interested editors can consider improvements to the article. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

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

In September of 2019 an IP user added a new "Influences" section to the Blue Man Group article. This podcast episode is the only source given for the entirety of the new section. No timestamps are provided to locate the claims in the 79-minute podcast episode. I listened to the episode and created an annotated timeline, determining that the source does not appear to support a single one of the claims made in the Influences section.

It is my understanding that encyclopedic content must be verifiable, therefore I have reverted the addition of this section when IP users continue to re-add it. I would appreciate another set of eyes and ears to verify my current understanding that this edit and attempts to restore it constitute vandalism. Robert lavery (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I’ve protected the page for a week. Please continue to hash out on the talk page. If you don’t get enough input from posting here, you can also ask a relates WP:WIKIPROJECT for input as well, or start a WP:RFC. But that’s really more if you find yourself in a stalemate. Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This edit added the weaselly expression "considered by some" to the summary sentence about Przemysław Czarnek's homophobic statements and I reverted that with an explanation.

Is it homophobic to associate an LGBT-and-other-minorities march with pedophilia and to ask for the march to be banned, or is that just "an opinion by some"? There are some other sourced quotes by Przemysław Czarnek#LGBT rights, such as, according to Czarnek, the "LGBT ideology" deriving from neomarxism and having the same roots as nazism. Boud (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether he is homophobic or not is a subjective opinion. That Czarnek's statements are *considered by some* to be homophobic is an undeniable fact, yet I'd like to remind that "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes". Whether or not Czarnek is homophobic is a dispute which Wikipedia should describe not engage in by giving him that label. On WP:NPOV for instance it says: "For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." To avoid WP:Weasel I can write *who* considers Czarnek homphobic. T Magierowski (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Let us not confuse two separate two things: whether (a) Czarnek "is homophobic", or (b) whether he "has made homophobic statements". There is currently no proposal for adding the text (a) to the article. So let's focus on (b), on Czarnek's statements that are widely cited in the mainstream press. There is currently no source that disputes that Czarnek's statements are homophobic. Wikipedia is not obliged to use euphemisms to avoid using a descriptive word. Boud (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, conflating LGBTQ people as pedofiliac is a longtime accusation of the religious right to instigate hatred of LGBTQ people. Similar save the children alarmism has been used against other minorities historically but against LGBTQ people it persists as a huge fundraiser for religious-focused bigots. Glee^anon 12:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not Czarnek is a "religious-focused bigot" would be an extension of question (a), which is not currently proposed for the article (most of the references are in Polish, so you might have to use an automated translator to decide if that's justified from the sources). Currently the question is only (b) - can/should Wikipedia objectively describe Czarnek's statements as homophobic? Boud (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to rely on reliable sourcing to do that. Glee^anon 12:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not think we need to rely on reliable sources to say that a person whose current official political position is that "[LGBT] people are not equal to normal people" is homophobic—this is trivial, uncontroversial inference. Now, if we were to say that homophobia was bad or a negative moral characteristic, then this would be non-neutral, but "homophobic" is a word the Wikipedia community have by-and-large chosen that this word is appropriate for encyclopedic use, as the most common English-language term for an ideology opposed to gay rights. The bigger question is whether we can call Czarnek's assertion that LGBT rights are derived from Hitler a false conspiracy theory, per WP:FRINGE—some history sources about this conspiracy theory (not necessarily relating to Czarnek) are needed. — Bilorv (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• I concur with Boud and Bilrov. I am surprised that using the adjective "homophobic" to describe someone whose homophobia is manifestly obvious is controversial. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the article talk page about mention of Black's business relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

My opinion (and opinion only) is that the repeated reversions of the well-documented information with regard to this matter are likely to reflect poorly on Wikipedia's own reputation. I never thought I'd be participating in a project that suppresses the independent press, in favor of billionaire associates of predatory pedophiles. - AppleBsTime (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

My name is Prerna Gupta. The article about me was created in 2012 by @Missvain:. I created a draft at Draft:Prerna Gupta as a proposed updated/expanded version with stronger citations. Missvain suggested I share the draft here. If anyone can spare a minute to review and consider incorporating some or all of the proposed draft, I would be very grateful! Prernagupta1 (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Joey Soloway#MOS:GENDERID with regard to article titles. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:GENDERID being used in place of WP:Article titles and for category arguments. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The resignation of Ethan Berkowitz as mayor of Anchorage was just announced a few minutes ago in response to a scandal brewing the past four days. This started out on Facebook but quickly received high-level coverage. Anyway, the article is attracting both juvenile edits lacking sources and mindless reversions which are similarly blind to existing sources. Hope someone is going to step up and do something, because I won't have the time to babysit it. ADN, NYT, WaPo RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Schumacher

A debunked Wall Street Journal article regarding alleged sexual misconduct by the subject is being perpetually re-posted, with the justification "The article has not been retracted; the reporting stands." Suspect this is being done to defame the subject by a disgruntled ex-employee, its inclusion has no relevance to the biography of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Kurtti (talk • contribs) 15:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff Kurtti:, if you want to claim a report in a reliable source that meets our biographies of living persons and core content policies is "debunked" you need to provide a similar source. Edit-warring to remove it without discussion on the talk page is grounds for blocking. Similarly, don't edit-war your preferred version into the article. Finally, please ensure you read, understand, and follow the Conflict of Interest policy, including the required disclosures, if applicable. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn - Agree with your answer. There is nothing in the summary of the WSJ article that violates Wikipedia policy. It clearly states the accusations in the article as reported in a NPOV way. If there was later WP:RS information from a reputable publication adding further information, it would also be worthy of inclusion. None had been provided or cited. Go4thProsper (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

More of a heads up than anything, but Alexanderbelice has continually removed tags from Ron St. Angelo without resolving the issues, despite an explanation at Talk:Ron St. Angelo § Multiple issues tags and in the edit summaries. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if being the official Dallas Cowboys photographer is enough to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether the article goes to WP:AFD. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The user account Alexanderbelice is a single subject editor with repeated edits on the St. Angelo page. The account has been deleted but had extremely probable WP:COI relationship with the single subject of the account’s edits. I also agree that St. Angelo may not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"if the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same."

Persistent addition to intro of racist behavior during a tv reality show thirteen years ago. This is well covered in body of article, but the insistence on adding to the lede looks disruptive. Would appreciate more eyes. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

(other) IP blocked for 24 hours - every edit today of theirs has been reverted or otherwise tagged as a BLP violation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

My apologies 2601, I thought all edits were you - it didn't look obvious these were 2 separate IPs then again I've had sleep deprivation for the past week!, Anyway apologies for missing this. –Davey2010^Talk 17:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Michelle Steel needs some more eyes. For example, it currently says she has been implicated in a ballot harvesting scheme and that she is under investigation by the Secretary of State, but neither of those statements look to be verified by sources. These seem to be serious legal accusations that WP:BLP would apply to. Marquardtika (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Bueller? I'm finding it pretty concerning that we have a page accusing a living person of a crime and no source to corroborate. Marquardtika (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. That whole biography needs a going over for neutrality. Mo Billings (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Marquardtika and @Mo Billings - I agree unsourced accusations of this nature would be of concern. I will take a look at this article with a fresh set of eyes with particular emphasis on the issue at hand. Go4thProsper (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Marquardtika - I reviewed the article with emphasis on the ballot harvesting accusations. The accusations contain citations from WP:RS and are worded in a WP:NPOV way. The Secretary of State inquiry is also mentioned in the Orange County Register article, so I added that as a source to that sentence. Both the harvesting and SoS inquiry are documented and sourced and therefore merit inclusion in the bio. I also clarified that Steel herself is not under SoS investigation according to the article but that the incidents in question were. This should address the concerns that have been raised. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Go4thProsper: I'm confused. In the Orange County Register source, Steel and her campaign are only mentioned in the following contexts: "a young man wearing a mask with Orange County congressional candidate Michelle Steel's name on it" and, later in the article, it says this same man "is listed on Steel's campaign website as part of "Veterans for Michelle Steel," a group supporting her election bid." Then we have "A Democratic party operative...alleging the unofficial drop box was at Steel's campaign headquarters." There is no confirmation of this in the article. The other source says "In one social media post, a supporter of Orange County Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Michelle Steel’s congressional campaign is seen touting the use of an unauthorized ballot collection box." Nowhere in either of these sources does it say "Steel's campaign has been implicated in the act of ballot harvesting via use of unofficial ballot boxes, which is illegal in the State of California." This is not at all verified by the sources. So it remains a major issue that this article is alleging a crime for which there is no verification in reliable sources. Marquardtika (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Marquardtika - The quotes you attribute to the articles are correct. Both articles mention Steel’s campaign as part of the issue, as evidenced by the individual in question with a campaign shirt and appearance on the candidate’s website. I heard your concerns and modified the language and citations to address them. I believe the article as currently written is a fair and neutral portrayal of what the articles say. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Yikes. Someone wearing a campaign shirt and being listed as a supporter on a candidate's website does not equal "the campaign." That would be like saying everyone in a MAGA hat is a Trump campaign staffer. Again, nowhere in either source does it say Steel's campaign has been implicated in an illegal act. In fact, the term "ballot harvesting" is only used in the source in reference to it being a GOP operative term. This article remains a rather fascinating example of Wikipedia's issues with systemic bias. Marquardtika (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it and asked for editors to discuss it here. Mo Billings (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Mo Billings for weighing in. I’ve included @eccekevin and @Snooganssnoogans who have also been involved in these edits. I will agree with the group consensus, but as I’ve said I believe this informal should be included. It was reported by two different RS sources in the district and both made the connection with the campaign. The subheading under which this information appeared in the article dealt with the 2020 campaign. That’s what the news articles were about. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The news articles indicate that those things happened. What they don't say is that Michelle Steel did them or is even accused of doing them. Mo Billings (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Many sources reference her implication in the affair (together with that of the state GOP), and the accusations of her involvement by Congressman Rouda. Additionally, the viral tweet that sparked the investigation featured a GOP staffer tied to her campaign, who was voting and referencing her in said tweet. The wording needs to be accurate, but it definitely deserves inclusion. Eccekevin (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Birthplace is WA not "according to James Brayshaw" NT

Ridiculous comment he won a tv and doesn't know where to put it. He is in Queensland and lives in Victoria and will not be back for two weeks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.109.202 (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism has been removed. An actual proper ref for his birthplace would be nice, though- the footy stats sites that list a birthplace all say Perth WA, but I don't know which of them are R.S. Curdle (talk)

the link to his "official site" is clearly wrong. it is https://chriswebby.com/, not listentowebby.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.53.157.84 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

was only the external link that was incorrect (now fixed) Curdle (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

invalid personnel information repeatedly posted by anonymous IP https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disha_Pandey&oldid=984452713 need help on locking the edit option for page Disha pandey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratishtha18 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm head of PR and Media at Gresham College (free lectures since 1597). I wondered if Dr Wendy Piatt's biography could be updated to include that she's now Chief Executive of Gresham College? This is the article about her: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Piatt I know that we can't edit Wikipedia articles if we're connected to the subject so I haven't! https://www.gresham.ac.uk/about/governance/wendy-piatt/ This is the link to her CV and https://www.gresham.ac.uk/news/new-provost-and-ceo is the link to the press release about her appointment on 1 August Best wishes Lucia Graves Gresham College contact details are here: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/contact/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.205.22 (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

A recent IP editor in the past few days has accumulated hundreds of additions to this BLP which are unsourced and read like a poorly written story. I have considered just reverting as per BLPREMOVE, but these past changes in the last few days have amassed to a significant amount of content. Would like some feedback on whether or not reverting is the proper action in this scenario, as the page is still in pretty bad shape prior to this BLP violator. The revision prior to these mass additions can be found here Thanks, Transcendental (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

In the previous version there were six references, in the current version still the exact same six references. I'd revert all the recent changes and remind the most recent IP about referencing. FDW777 (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have reverted the changes and have left a message on their talk page. Best, Transcendental (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Subject: false adding of birth name to Mikey Walsh. Numerous people adding a false Born Name to Mikey Walsh's biography that is un-cited and not factual. when it is removed it is put back again. There is No source of this being fact. untrue & libelous. Also recent interview links posted that lead to dubious libellous sources in the links comments. could these falsehoods be deleted and page protected from vandalism? thank you so much HodderMBooks (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Great_Barrington_Declaration, there is a reference to a living person as a pet which violates WP:LBL that was added in revision 984620411. I tried to reverted twice but it was re-added again twice by two different users. I discussed the reason why it is considered WP:LBL with one of them on my talk page User_talk:Knowledge_Contributor0#Undo_at_Fringe_Theories, but the other user was not convinced. I believe it is libel and removed it based on the definition in WP:LBL "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is a Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.". The definition of Defamation is "Defamation (also known as calumny, vilification, libel, slander or traducement) is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime.". Now is it a false statement? Yes. Does it harm a human being to call him/her an animal? Yes because it is Dehumanization that does harm to the person's reputation. Is it just? No, because the living person didn't stand trial to defend against that description. Therefore it fits the definition of WP:LBL and should be removed immediately without discussion according to WP:BLPREMOVE.

The user argued that calling Richard I "Lionheart" is not defamatory and I argued back that calling Richard I "Lionheart" with the implication of courage doesn't "unjustly harms their reputation" as courage is good reputation. Unlike describing a person as a pet which implies that the person acts willingly like an animal with no mind or willingly accepting being treated that way. Now in law, "Defamation refers to harming another person’s reputation by making a false written or oral statement about that person to a third party. Defamation law is not about protecting pride; it is about protecting reputation and offering restitution to people whose reputations have been wrongly damaged."^[1] and "A publication is defamatory only if a defamatory sense is conveyed to an ordinary person."^[2]. Since describing Richard I "Lionheart" didn't damage his reputation and won't be conveyed by an ordinary person in defamatory, it cannot be considered libel. While calling a person a pet aims at doing harm to their reputation and can be conveyed to an ordinary person in defamatory sense.

Th other user raised the argument that this was the protected opinion of the editor, but I replied the causing harm to another person's reputation is not protected. In addition, editors should not write their own opinions about living persons without reliable sources which warrant applying WP:BLPREMOVE. Please let me know if my judgement here is wrong. Thank you. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I am, in fact, the other user here. I have some thoughts, but am happy to hear what others think. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Knowledge Contributor0, that's a novel interpretation of BLP. To refer to someone as AEIR's "pet zoologist" (or "tame zoologist" or similar construction) is a normal rhetorical device that reinforces the fact that AEIR is not an honest broker and has gone out deliberately to find an expert that supports is pre-existing beliefs, rather than to formulate a policy based on the best evidence. This process, usually known as policy-based evidence-making, is one of the signature characteristics of think-tanks so the claim is not particularly controversial.

Removing the entire comment is unwarranted. Asking the user to choose a different phrase would be fine., Go do that instead. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Saying that AEIR is not an honest broker and has gone out deliberately to find an expert is a personal opinion with no secondary RS to support it. And even if there was a RS that supports it in case of Sunetra Gupta, this won't explain the case for other signers/co-signers of the declaration which means that these scientists sought each other not being sought by AEIR, which makes this unfounded original research. Also, saying that AIER didn't sought policy based on best evidence implies that we know the best evidence but this will require the support of systematic review or again we will be doing original research. So, the claim itself violates WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:SYNC, and WP:NPOV. Now based on that claim that didn't have any WP:RS, some contentious description about a living person was published that is likely to be challenged (at least by the living person if not other Wikipedia editors like me) and potentially libelous. Since some people may not share the same belief in that claim, their view about the meaning will be different and will consider it defamation. Furthermore, even those who share the belief in the claim wouldn't hold the context as positive view instead it is a negative view that implies that that the living person is so naïve that she can be used by others or worse if she is aware and agreeing to this. In all cases it harms the living person's reputation and falls under the definition of false statement that causes harm to the person's reputation.

Now according to WP:BLP, an editor should be very firm and should remove it without waiting for discussion "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.". And the Template:Infobox_person states "All content displayed in this template must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy if applicable. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately from the article and its infobox, especially if potentially libellous." Also according to WP:BLPREMOVE "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:

1. is unsourced or poorly sourced;
2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research);
3. relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see #Using the subject as a self-published source); or
4. relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards.".

So, I acted according to policy given that the removed content didn't just satisfy one of the conditions but satisfied almost all of them. If all what is written in the policies doesn't indicate that these should be removed, then the policies should be changed to use lesser tone that allow the editors to express their opinions about living persons more freely and not call for immediate removal. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Knowledge Contributor0, that's a novel interpretation of BLP. To refer to someone as AEIR's "pet zoologist" (or "tame zoologist" or similar construction) is a normal rhetorical device that reinforces the fact that AEIR is not an honest broker and has gone out deliberately to find an expert that supports is pre-existing beliefs, rather than to formulate a policy based on the best evidence. This process, usually known as policy-based evidence-making, is one of the signature characteristics of think-tanks so the claim is not particularly controversial.

Removing the entire comment is unwarranted. Asking the user to choose a different phrase would be fine., Go do that instead Guy (help! - typo?) 07:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Knowledge Contributor0: Your judgement here is wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Please elaborate. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

There are many flaws in your logic. 1.) Humans are in fact animals. 2.) The only reliable source for an editor's opinion is the editor themselves. 3.) A person's opinion is protected under free speech. 4.) And biggest of all, the definition of "pet" in this context is: "Something a person devotes unusual attention, kindness to, or consideration for, or that they feel strongly about; a darling." (ie: my pet project; pet peeve; pet theory; teacher's pet; etc...) This was the original meaning, coming from the sense of a "favorite child". The use of the word for a domesticated animal with no utilitarian use (other than being a favorite) comes much later, followed even later by the use of the term for "stroking or rubbing".

In this context the term is obviously being used with the older meaning in mind. Context is everything. And even if it were being used in the sense of an animal, it would still be a huge stretch to call that libel, but that is not the case here, so that argument is moot. Zaereth (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Zaereth: 1.) Biologically, there are different species Homo Sapiens, and legally animals has less rights and lack mental capacity. 2.) Not according to Template:Infobox_person which states "All content displayed in this template must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy if applicable. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately from the article and its infobox, especially if potentially libellous.". So the editor's claim about what they meant is not enough as the most important part is how it was perceived. This is in line with the legal definition mentioned above "conveyed to an ordinary person in defamatory sense". 3.) Not according to WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:STICKTOSOURCE WP:SYNC, and WP:NPOV. 4.) No, the context as mentioned above by Guy is implying that AIER used her which is defamatory claim as I explained in my reply above.

Now if the meaning is perceived in the sense of an animal, it is clearly libel as it accurately fits the definition of defamation explained above. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Knowledge Contributor0 is a WP:SPA who has now has started sections on the Great Barrington Declaration at two noticeboards (RS/N and here), is arguing at FT/N that this Declaration is not covered by WP:FRINGE and whose first edit was to add a problematic "Support" section[26] to the article itself before a WP:BLUELOCK was applied. All of this appear to be getting no traction, but is consuming a great deal of editors' time because of apparent WP:IDHT issues, while contributing zero knowledge to the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know if that's true or not. A look at their contributions do show mostly edits to various noticeboards, and a handful to this subject. I guess you could say this is their pet subject. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) But you could have said the same for me when I was new, because I picked one article to use as my learning experience, and stuck with it when it was the most controversial article at the time, before ever deciding to branch out into other areas. The difference I think is, it was a subject I was fairly knowledgeable about but didn't really care that much about, in a topic area that I truly despise (Politics! Eeew! Yuck! Gross! Ahhh, get it off! Get it off!) That's what I always suggest to newcomers, is pick something you're not very passionate about to begin with. It makes learning so much easier when you come as a student rather than a teacher. Zaereth (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Alexbrn: As User:Zaereth mentioned (thanks by the way), I made only one edit to Great Barrington Declaration and two minor edits right after and this was it. The fact that there was a section for Great Barrington Declaration in WP:FT/N is not something I added and questioning the lack of secondary sources is more interest in Wikipedia policies than interest in the article itself. The fact that this is my "pet" article as User:Zaereth mentioned is due to the fact that the amount violations (in my opinion) to Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines in this article is overwhelming. For example, after this discussion I will move to discuss calling living persons idiots in Talk:Great_Barrington_Declaration#Organizing_the_Reception_section. Actually the main reason I contributed to the article the first time was the note that on the page that it violated WP:DUE. So if I have a purpose, it is mainly enhancing Wikipedia's controversial articles by trying to reach consensus on the content in light of the policies and guidelines. It just happened that the discussions related to the first article almost took all my time.

Accusing me that I have "apparent WP:IDHT issues" is not true, as any person who looks at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Clarification_about_applying_WP:IAR_for_interviews_done_by_Daily_Mail_on_Great_Barrington_Declaration_due_to_lack_of_media_coverage can clearly see that I took the time to discuss the argument of every person who took the time to respond and at the end went with the majority opinion even though this was not an official WP:RFC. But I seek consensus and collaboration not an edit war. Also accusing me that I contribute "zero knowledge to the Project" is not true. Actually I can claim that I contributed the most WP:RS to every section I edited even though they are noticeboards but I always try to express my view in the discussion based on WP:RS to avoid any bias. I can claim that always assumed good faith WP:GF and never attacked a person, and my discussions were always about contents and policies not the persons, despite being attacked as a person more than one time so the claim that I am wasting time is also not true. I applied Wikipedia's spirit of being bold WP:BB and I really don't see that discussing Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines is waste of time. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, even a cursory glance at Oxford Department of Zoology research and staff, and Gupta's published works, shows that your characterization of her in the edit is widely inappropriate. If you wish to continue to question her qualifications or motivations you should do so with reliable sources and focused on article content decisions. fiveby(zero) 14:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• • • Wise words. Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby -- your comment would be incisive and meaningful if GPinkerton had questioned anyone's qualifications or motivations. Because they did not, I declare it a bad take and you should feel bad for having posted it.Stricken because apparently my reading of GPinkerton's commentary was incorrect. Mea culpa. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fiveby: Well I glanced at it cursorily and I don't agree. I refer you to the comments of Rupert Beale, quoted and cited in the article, who describes Gupta as "someone who has a track record of saying stuff that is total rubbish, and then moving on to the next thing which is total rubbish, and she's not being held to account. That makes people pretty annoyed." and "That's everyone being polite … What everyone really thinks is, 'this is all fucking stupid'." In any case, Knowledge Contributor0 is only raising this here because of not getting their way with citing swathes of the article to the Daily Mail on the talk page, and then again in the various fora in which they have tried to air their grievance about this already. Knowledge Contributor0 is in any case a SPA, as noted above, and worse if you ask me. GPinkerton (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: The proposal I made was in WP:GF and was based on the advice of an admin. I don't see any problem if a proposal gets rejected, as the matter is about collaboration to make articles better not WP:WINNING. I don't think you can prove this unfair claim you made about me, and I hope you follow WP:AVOIDYOU and focus on the content we are discussing not on my person. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal/Reversal of this edit as per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTDIARY and WP:UNDUE. Previously, in this discussion, admin Johnuniq also termed these edit typical gotcha nonsense and suggested to report the subject here. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I have just become aware that someone, and I do not know who that is, created a biographical page for me that includes many errors and omissions. How do I correct these errors, and is it possible to know who created it? I find this very puzzling to have been done without contacting me first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.19.177.245 (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I recommend that you bring it up on the talk page, Talk:Elizabeth A. Walker. There, you can identify any specific errors and omissions. The article's editors can be found here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact they aren't all called suspects, in the Boogaloo killings they are named as the killers. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The entire article needs to be reviewed and changed to comply with WP:BLPCRIME. First of all, any living person not convicted should be referred to with the words "alleged" if they're subject to active prosecution. This is necessary to comply with the presumption of innocence and I'm going to try to edit the article to put that in. Second of all, I believe a good ground rule for complying with the privacy requirements would be to remove all names of living people if there's no Wikipedia article about the event and the person hasn't been convicted of the offences characterized as terrorism. If there's not enough coverage for an article the person likely is "relatively unknown". Thirdly, I believe we should remove everything where the people involved weren't prosecuted for the offences characterized as terrorism. The Barack Obama assassination plot comes to mind, where three people were never actually prosecuted for the act they were accused of planning. They were convicted of minor weapons charges and I don't think it's appropriate to imply they're terrorists who tried to kill Obama when the government never prosecuted them for attempting to kill Obama. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 21:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention this before, I don't think it's appropriate to include any event on this list without a source, especially ones without a Wikipedia article. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 21:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I am David Mejia's Father. The picture you are showing with the wikipedia info on him is the wrong person. How do I send you a correct person of my son David Johan Mejia Crawford, who plays for Atlanta United 2 soccer team?

Thank you.

Johan Mejia [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C2:C101:9C70:94F9:A575:87:C97D (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no picture on the Wikipedia page at David Mejia (soccer). The picture you are asking about is probably one provided by Google, over which Wikipedia has no control. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

If you own the copyright to an image of the person, such as one you have taken yourself, you can upload it to Commons, and it could then be inserted into our article. That often leads to Google using the photograph, but we can't guarantee that - the images their algorithms decide to use are entirely unrelated to anything we put on our articles. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

No one can any new content to this page at all. Certain person delete anything new on both the English and Japanese page.

Last content by stone3000 was all deleted though it was valid, and all referenced properly. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:8CAA:A47C:4800:A65A (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There have been no edits to Fiona Graham since July. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

They appear to be referring to the Japanese version of the article, which is of course not a matter for us here. FDW777 (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The en-WP article is WP:BLUELOCKed, for good reason it seems. Anyone interested can make WP:Edit requests on the talkpage, citing WP:BLP-good sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

A person claiming to be the subject of the article is asking that it be deleted because it is contributing to real world harm. See Talk:Terry Keith Ashwin. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Jordan_(talent_agent)

The page on Joanna Jordan (talent agent) is incorrect and must be removed ASAP.

The sources used in the page on Joanna Jordan are unreliable, often irrelevant and evidently incorrect.

A key example of the sources being unsuitable for the article is that Joanna's age being incorrect.

Fundamentally, information on Joanna's career is grossly wrong and damaging to hers and her companies reputation. No sources are cited when discussing her career, the page is beyond the point of being edited - it needs to be deleted immediately.

Joanna's personal life is wrongly described also, again with no or unreliable/irrelevant sources being cited. Joanna did not grow up near Battersea Bridge and she is not married.

Thank you for your assistance in deleting this page. Joanna Jordan does not approve of this Wikipedia page about her and considers it factual incorrect, damaging to her personal and professional life, and is confused as to how it was approved considering the lack of sources referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelyFox (talk • contribs) 14:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

JoelyFox, I'm a bit confused as to why you are saying it is lacking sources. I just checked the specific things you mention;

• When I look at the her age, which you say is incorrect, I see a citation to an article in the Independent, published in 2002, which describes her as a 35-year-old - so, the date of birth given in the article seems reasonable.
• The assertion that she grew up in Battersea Bridge seems to come from an interview in the Guardian, in which she says "I was a normal English girl. I lived over Battersea Bridge".
• The stuff about her husband comes from the Independent again: "There is just time to ask about her husband. "He's French. Works for Credit Suisse First Boston...""

I'm not sure what else you think is inaccurate there, but I can't see any grounds to nominate it for deletion, or indeed to trim any of that content. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply!

Though the preferred option is to delete this article due to the outdated information (no sources later than 2005), if it is possible to rewrite an updated version that would be ok. How do I go ahead with this? Making small edits is not ideal and the content is just incorrect (the sources are misguided - Joanna was in her 20s when she lived in Battersea and is divorced).

Is it possible to know who the author of this article was because I find the content confusing.

Thanks for any help you can offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelyFox (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

JoelyFox, I'm going to give you some advice on your user page about this. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, actually, that article in the Independent had an incorrect date on it -- it's a 2014 article, not 2002, so she must have been born ~1980. I've corrected. JoelyFox, I can certainly understand why anyone would feel it was damaging to be described as being 12 years older than you are! I've made an edit to the personal life section to mention that she mentioned a husband in interviews in 2002 and in 2014, does that correct the situation for Ms. Jordan? —valereee (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hold on...I'm on her linkedin, and it looks like she lists attending school from 1980-1983, which would indicate the original year of birth was correct. Hm. —valereee (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, this is just weird. Googling the full article name vs. what comes up. —valereee (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, thanks for digging a bit deeper than I did, it does look like that Indy source had the wrong date. If she was 35 in 2014, that would mean she was born in (thinks for a bit...) 1979ish? That school (according to this unreliable UGC site) is apparently for girls from "six weeks to eighteen years", so those dates could be correct - she might have gone to nursery there? Anyway, if there is a serious question about the date of birth, I think we should cut it entirely - calculating date of birth from the year of a source is kind of OR anyway, so I'll cut the dates entirely. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh - I see you've cut it already - good move. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The article in the Independent is from 2002. I don't know why they would have changed the date on it, but perhaps they updated something. Mo Billings (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Mo Billings, that does look more like the article that I looked like when I first looked into this - it ties with the Guardian article, which came out at about the same time and is also about her work with David Letterman. Still, I don't know if the article really needs a date of birth, especially if we have to figure it out by looking at the date of the article and the age they say she is in it - probably fine to leave it out. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Both the Guardian and Independent state she had a job finding guests for The Word (TV series). Since that ceased transmission in 1995, that means any birthdate of 1979 onwards is bogus. The Guardian say she left school at 16 with dismal O-levels and enrolled at the Lucy Clayton secretarial school. The Independent say she worked as an au pair, then a junior secretary to a stockbroker, then a secretary on Today newspaper, then a children's TV presenter, then finally the aforementioned job at The Word (which obviously has to be before 1995). Since the school leaving age is 16 in the UK (and the Guardian say she left school at 16), a 1979 onwards birth date is mathematically impossible. FDW777 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel that birth dates (or ages) are a fairly innocuous piece of information that can help readers form some context for a person's activities. It seems like a fairly standard detail in most biographies. Mo Billings (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There's {{Age as of date}} for situations just like this, so {{Age as of date|35|2002|5|13}} displays 57–58. FDW777 (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

On including birthdate, see WP:DOB. Like anything WP:BLP, when in doubt, exclude. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, and if there was any doubt I would agree. There was some unnecessary confusion over a date of publication, that's all. Mo Billings (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why this keeps coming up as an issue. The article was put up for AfD once before and voted as a delete. Some how it has reappeared as an article again. Not sure how to return it to a #redirect or nominate for a speedy deletion. Thoughts? Maineartists (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

[27] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I made that edit. It was an initial edit just to put as a placeholder because I was in the process of writing a full article. Thomasgilbertie (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You need sources for anything you write about a living person, even things like birth dates and such. I would suggest writing your article as a draft and, when you're ready, submit it to WP:Articles for creation to be reviewed. Keep in mind that even in your sandbox, info about living people needs to be sourced to reliable sources, and all BLP rules apply there as well. Zaereth (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There are ongoing issues with the birth date of Pia Bajpiee, see the article history, User_talk:Mike_Peel#Pia_Bajpiee and commons:User_talk:Mike_Peel#Hi, with a dispute between 6 Jan and 22 December. In the latest round, a reference for the latter has (finally!) been provided, [28], but I don't know whether this is an acceptable reference here. Either way, more eyes on this issue would be useful please. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• Allison Pearson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I will start by saying that I know little about this person, but I stumbled upon this article through looking at the contributions of a new user, who had added content to a Conservative MP that did guilt-by-association with The Daily Stormer and Anders Behring Breivik (I won't link to the diff, but the user is User:Sqatorsquare). I noticed the user also made edits to Pearson's page, which had a huge controversies section.

The controversies section is disproportionately long, even after an IP removed two examples a month ago [29]. I removed several more which were primary sources from Tweets, WP:SYNTHESIS of primary sources when Pearson has said contradictory things in columns, or from unreliable/polemic sources. And even with secondary sources, we have to remember that every time a columnist from Newspaper A says one thing, Newspaper B will call it controversial and that's just WP:NOTNEWS.

There seems to be a lengthy campaign on this page to list every polemic tweet by Pearson, as some of them predate Sqatorsquare even though they are formatted the same way (fully formed "cite Tweet" reference).

The page looks like, and seems to only exist, as a dossier of "bad stuff" she's said. What to do? Protect the page, integrate the "controversies" into the main section, or do away with the section completely? Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick heads-up that ALCALDE GEORGE FORSYTH (talk · contribs) claims to be George Forsyth (footballer). I have reverted. GiantSnowman 08:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The lead of this article contains the following disputed paragraph:

In August 2019, footage from May was published showing Ngo with armed Patriot Prayer members prior to an alleged attack on a bar frequented by antifa protesters. Ngo did not film the alleged planning of the attack, but did film parts of the attack itself. Ngo disputes that he was aware of the details of the plan. Following this incident, Ngo left Quillette.

The subject of the article is a journalist in Portland that covers protests. He is somewhat controversial for his criticism of "antifa" and has been called a "conservative journalist" by the New York Times. He was present at an event with a right-wing group called the "Proud Boys." A piece by The Daily Beast was critical of Ngo for this and drew a connection between Ngo and the "Proud Boys," a violent right-wing group, based on his presence at the event. Ngo denied the allegations and said he was covering the event. The Daily Beast article linked Ngo's leaving his job to the publication of this video of him at the event. Quillette, where had worked later "pushed back"[30] against this claim and said that he had been on leave for several months prior due to an injury from being assaulted at another protest.

The current article presents none of this context and repeats a dated, disputed claim (by both Ngo and the publication) that he was fired for his presence at a protest (with his video equipment). Editors have irresponsibly ignored these discrepancies and reinstated the text through edit-warring as it is presented above. This is clearly a BLP violation, both for the insinuations about Ngo being fired and for unduly emphasizing thinly sourced allegations in the lead (multiple other controversies are already addressed -- the lead is compliant with MOS:LEAD and anything but a whitewash). I'd appreciate some feedback here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

There is already an RfC going about that very paragraph. This is clearly forumshopping because consensus in the RfC is so far trending strongly against you. Notably, none of what you said is the reason anyone has argued for leaving the paragraph in the lede, nor does the lede say he was fired for that incident. The reason for leaving the paragraph in the lede is because it's a notable controversy that involves the subject of the article: we source it to four RSes and there are clearly even more that have been linked on the talk page in the various discussions about this. This is all stuff I've said over at the RfC, for the record, so I know you're aware of it. Loki (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a very legitimate reason to bring this up here (and/or NPOVN). There are several issues related to the material in the lead that are a problem. The first is a question of DUE with the assumption that the coverage of material in the lead is meant to be roughly proportional with the coverage in the body (that makes it a NPOV question).

Second is does the specific mention of this question follow any sort of summary style? Just look at the conclusions drawing from the appearance of Ngo in that video. The conclusions ranged from Ngo is too cozy with the right and ignores their sins while concentrating on the sins of the left to Ngo is actively collaborating with the far-right. For argument sake, assume Ngo is actively collaborating. Then the summary that should be in the lead is the view that "Ngo is collaborating with far-right groups". The supporting evidence is the video, statements by far-right members, examples of bias in his reporting etc.

Third, and this is the BLP issue, is the video is being used as evidence that Ngo is did "something wrong". Perhaps he did but we should never leave the reader making assumptions. We don't say "Mr Smith was found with the bloody knife" if the body then says "the significance of the Knife is disputed". In the body of the article it's clear that the significance/meaning of the video is disputed by Ngo (and others is also disputed). However, that dispute is being excluded from the lead. Thus the lead is implying Ngo is doing "something wrong" without presenting the counter evidence which is saved for the body. That is a BLP issue, an IMPARTIAL issue (wikipedia picking sides) and a NPOV issue (not presenting both sides at the same time).

Really, we should spend less time fighting over the lead and just get the body right. Once the body is done correctly it should be easy (or easier) to agree on a summary for a section then add that to the lead. The supporting facts/evidence shouldn't be in the lead (per WP:INTRO), rather it should be the high level summary of events and views. Yes, there is an issue here but honestly it's more about NPOV than BLP. Springee (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

If there is an RfC then it is unwise to split discussion by bringing it here in this way. It would be fine to leave a neutral notification about the RfC, but further discussion should be directed the RfC. This includes any description of alleged problems with the wording (e.g. what's in the opening comment here). It is confusing to everyone involved when discussion on the exact same paragraph is taking place in 2 different places and also not fair to existing participants of the RfC if editors go to it and start addressing points that were never raised in the RfC and so participants cannot respond to within the RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Users have refused to address these factual inaccuracies and clear BLP problems with the content. A small number of editors have made comments openly disparaging the subject (he is politically controversial) and dismissed these concerns. There is a need for specialized attention on the BLP issues here that is not being given at the RfC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: If an RfC comes to a conclusion, some random comments here are going to achieve zilch. As I said, if you feel participation from BLPN editors would be useful, it's fine to leave a neutral notification here to invitation people to participate. That actually has a chance of changing the outcome of the RfC. Splitting discussion here will not and just wastes everyone's time. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: This concerns a pattern of editors repeatedly adding inaccurate and thinly sourced information into the lead of an article that predates the RfC, which is only about minor wording and placement changes. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: except that your opening comment was specifically about the exact same paragraph that is being discussions at the RFC rather than about any other problems with the lead. Also it's generally a bad idea to raised behavioural concerns at BLPN. Please take that to ANI or WP:ARE. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: The RfC glosses over the inaccuracy of the content and asks about placement. This content obviously fails verification and is still being repeatedly reinserted into the article. The comments by editors are indicative of why the issue hasn't been addressed adequately at the talk page and why the input of BLPN is needed. I'm not singling out any user. I am raising a specific issue that is not currently addressed by the RfC and that's wholly within the scope of BLPN. Instead of bickering with me about the RfC, feel free to weigh in on the specific issue I raised re: the article, otherwise this is just wasting space. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, no, the subject is not a journalist, it's Andy Ngo, a right-wing provocateur. That's part of the problem: concerted efforts over many months to try to frame him as a legitimate and independent reporter, when he clearly is not. He's a reporter in the same way Michael Moore is a reporter. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:, here we go, more ranting against about Andy Ngo, now by an admin. The New York Times called him a journalist[31] along with the majority of other sources (including Vox, the Washington Post), so I suggest brushing up on those. He has also been described as a "provocateur" and other negative labels. As I said, he is politically controversial. That is not the issue here.

The issue here is that the article is putting undue emphasis on factually inaccurate claims. An article suggested something—that Ngo was fired from Quillette—that was later repudiated by both Quillette and Ngo. They said he was on leave months before the made-up controversy ever broke out. It fails WP:V and therefore WP:BLP to present the former account as the text above does. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, no, not ranting, just a comment.

I wonder, is there something going on in the outside world that would account for this sudden massive increase in pressure to represent fringe right-wing figures and concepts as if they were part of legitimate civil discourse? I might go and check the news. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

If you have an interest in the WP:V and WP:BLP issue I raised, I would welcome your input. If you want to turn this into a political debate and make bad-faith accusations, maybe this isn't the place. Thanks. Whether or not he is a fringe or mainstream figure, claims in the article mainpage must meet WP:V and WP:BLP. That's a fundamental policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, There is an inaccuracy in the opening statement. The Daily Beast does not mention the Proud Boys in the article cited, they only mention Patriot Prayer, a regional group tied to the Pacific Northwest. The Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer are separate groups with individual leaders and distinct histories. Although there is crossover with members of Patriot Prayer also being affiliated with the Proud Boys, the same is not true in reverse. For a contentious article such as this one, accuracy is especially important. Please remember to use the strike-through function when editing corrections to your own comments after there have been replies. Thank you, Cedar777 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)