Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive262

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

Vince Siemer‎ article

Eyes are needed at this article. There have been repeated deletions of text and poor sourcing in any version. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure that he's WP:Notable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

At initial glance there's a lot of issues with sources which conflict with WP:BLPPRIMARY. Watchlisted, but will not have time to make any edits for at least a few hours. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I've sent it for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vince Siemer, as a violation of NOT NEWS, NOT ADVOCACY,and containinging multiple BLP violations.I suggest it be deleted as a Speedy. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Charlotte Devaney

Can I get more eyes on this? This article has been plagued with single purpose accounts and socks who either add unsourced content, ([1]) whitewash reliably sourced claims they don't like, ([2], [3]) or swap out sources for self-published content like IMDB because the broadsheet source said something negative? ([4]) It's like pushing a rock up a hill. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Might need to either semi-protect it, or if the main SPA(s) is the problem, 500/30 protect it. Either way, they could place edit requests on Talk, so that shouldn't be a problem. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, trying to push through improvements in the face of sockpuppet and SPA opposition is a Sisyphean task. IMO, when there is evidence that socks and SPAs are involved in disruptive editing, the response should be immediate and indefinite extended confirmed protection, along with indefinite blocks for the offenders. Half-measures like short-term semi-protection may be effective against vandals, but socks and SPAs operate on a much longer time-scale. It's imperative to make it as hard as possible for the hydra to sprout new heads. If the reason you want more eyes is to build consensus for that WP:BLUELOCK, I've seen enough already; I'm with you.

—Syrenka V (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm making some revisions & comments there. See its talk p. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Nandini Sree

Identity of article subject

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

I just began cleanup of this article for the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS), and created its ARS rescue list entry. In the process of converting its references from bare URLs to full list-defined references, I found that all three of the English-language sources (I do not read Malayalam) refer to Nandini Nair, rather than Nandini Sree. I'm wondering if this article could be a hoax (or a confusion), attributing information about one individual to another individual. Alternatively, it could be a matter of two names for the same person, but so far I have been unable to verify that. If it is a hoax, probably the best solution would be to move the page to Nandini Nair, the person named in the sources, in a way that does not leave a redirect from Nandini Sree.

I first became aware of this article while doing proposed deletion patrolling, and I had never heard of either Nandini Sree or Nandini Nair before. If these two people are the same, I would really appreciate a link to a source explaining that; I have been unable to find any such.

—Syrenka V (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Syrenka V, although I am not an expert, I believe that "Sree" is not part of her actual name, but rather a respectful form of address more commonly spelled Sri and equivalent to "Ms." in English. Similarly, I believe that Nair is a reference to her caste, rather than her individual name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The article on Nair states explicitly, in the section Nair#Caste system, that "Nair" is itself used as a family surname, as well as a name for the group as a whole. The article on Sri does not say that it is used as an Indian surname, but I wouldn't be surprised given the plethora of uses that it does document.

Also, as noted on the Nandini Sree article's talk page, it looks as though they're the same person, and it's a matter of maiden name versus married name; for example, this autobiographical article gives her husband’s name as "Vinay Nair", and this article about her response to sexual harassment gives her name as "Nandini Nair", but links to her Facebook page, which gives her name as "Nandini Sree". Not ideal for the purposes of article sourcing, but enough to convince me that it's a matter of two names for the same person. I have accordingly removed the {{hoax}} tag. But sourcing to pin this down is really needed.

—Syrenka V (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Given that I no longer have any real doubts about the person's identity, and that all or nearly all of the best-quality sources call her Nandini Nair, I've moved the page myself and left Nandini Sree as a redirect, rather than wait for an administrator. I've noted this at the article talk page.

—Syrenka V (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

RFC about political parties

Please look at [[5]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

RYB Education

Not a biography, but multiple non notable named people, and the whole thing is an attack page. probably a G10 candidate. but it might be possible to write an acceptable stub. I have no way of determining if the Chinese sources are suitable. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

My G10 deletion request was removed by the artlicle creator. Govindaharihari (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the CSD. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ryk72: I have reverted your restored CSD since I am not the article creator. And @DGG: It is not an attack page, but just a page with some negative information about the company. It's understandable for the company is involved in a major scandal in China right now. All of the information is well sourced. And as a native Chinese speaker, I can say that the Chinese sources are suitable. --Neo-Jay (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Neo-Jay, could you explain to us what they are? Are they major national newspapers? And it would probably help to remove some of the detail, because we are NOT TABLOID. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: The Chinese media in the references (including Xinhuanet, Sina.com, ifeng.com, etc.) are notable and reliable, not tabloids. I have added internal links (this and this) to those Chinese media which already have articles on English Wikipedia. You may check them.--Neo-Jay (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Neo-Jay, NOT TABLOID means not only that we usually do not cite tabloids, but that we do not include the sort of lurid detail characteristic of tabloids. We are NOT CENSORED, but we uinclude only the level of detail appropriate to an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 14:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: Thanks for your teaching. But, you can make your own judgment on whether the ENGLISH contents of the article include "the sort of lurid detail characteristic of tabloids" and exceed "the level of detail appropriate to an encyclopedia", and do not need to ask me. I only help you understand that all of the information is verified by notable and reliable CHINESE media, most of which are major national newspapers or news websites. I think that I have already answered the questions you asked me in your last message. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Neo-Jay,I don't think you understood me, so I will be more direct: The subject might be notable, but in my opinion the only way from keeping it from being deleted under WP:NOT NEWS is to greatly shorten it. As you can read the sources, you will do it better than me.

And could someone else please take a look and comment DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: Thanks for your explanation. I think that RYB Education, as the largest early childhood education service provider in China (already stated in the article with source), is notable enough to be a Wikipedia article. Even if it should be, and has not been, greatly shortened, the article should not be deleted under WP:NOT NEWS, because the article itself refers to the company, not events. It only needs to be edited, not deleted. --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Siegfried Borchardt

We have an article on Siegfried Borchardt. He's a German neo-Nazi. The article started off as a translation from the German Wikipedia. The translation was rather literal and had German grammar constructs, so I've copy-edited it to try to make it read better in English. However, I'd appreciate more eyes on it, particularly from anyone who can read German and can check the current article against the original, or is familiar with the German political scene, as I won't have picked up on any factual inaccuracies as I don't speak German.

Also, I'm not sure whether he's actually notable enough for an article as seems to have only been involved in local politics, so views on this would be appreciated too! Neiltonks (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The sources don’t seem to be major. Don’t read German so can’t know for sure. Suggest list for deletion 221.121.135.92 (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. He was elected to the city council of Dortmund, a city of nearly 600,000 people, and has been a far right activist for decades. I consider him notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Alex Da Corte

Repeated vandalism to this page after multiple deletions. Page was granted temporary protection, I am making a request for extension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Housegoat18 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Housegoat18, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the place to go for for this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Edward Hammond (scientist)

Renaming? There appears to be no demonstrated link to any science background or formal practice by this Edward Hammond (scientist) other than perhaps political science. However, either implies some form of academic or practical background for which this Hammond appears to have neither. According to Hammond's website he has a BA in History and Masters in Latin American Studies & Community Planning. He's an advocacy group researcher, so perhaps the "scientist" modifier should be changed to more accurately reflect this subject's actual background and expertise? Perhaps (activist) or (researcher)? AliceStanley11 (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Researcher would seem reasonable -- there is only one other person, a politician, on the disambiguation page Edward Hammond.

However, I do wonder what leads you to be so concerned about this. Are not many properly accredited, academically trained, scientsts also advocates for one thing or another? Citizen scientists are a thing, and I can appreciate the impulse, even though I personally seem to be spending great amounts of my time and other people's money to try to become an actual accredited scientist. MPS1992 (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I did move it to Edward Hammond (researcher). Notability is also worth considering. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

emma dean (musician)

This biography has no semblance of a Neutral Point of View, and was written by the artist herself. Her own website is the source for many references throughout the article.

The tone of the writing standing also does not reflect a neutrality and is consistently overstating the artist's achievements. This is her uploaded CV and does not reflect the reality of her acclaim or success as a musician, as no musical work of hers has ever achieved a chart position, or won any significant award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music1019572 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No, but she does appear notable enough for an article, if I'm reading between the lines properly. It could definitely use some cleanup, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Edward E. Kramer

How do I request special supervision or lock this page from repeated serial vandalism? This rogue editor is not only making wrong assertions but poorly worded and offensively insulting assertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdbkarron (talk • contribs) 13:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you just stop vandalizing the article? Kramer pled guilty to three counts of child sexual abuse. All the material you object to is accurate and solidly referenced. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Cornell_Fleischer

Okay. I have no plans on ever making a future revision to this specific living person's Wikipedia page, but another Wikipedia user has just accused me of being a paid shill. So I feel that I must post this information here, in order to continue the open dialogue that is a vital part of making Wikipedia work. I do not know the subject of the article nor do I have any affiliation with him whatsoever.

My sole reason for being concerned is that the incident in dispute at least partially involved a person's child. There was a conviction, according to a link of published and reliable sources later provided by this other Wikipedia user, but the subject of the article is not necessarily a fully public figure.

I did three reverts, two with one Wikipedia user and a third with a second user. I understand the rules and I will not be touching this article again.

The article subject is someone named Cornell_Fleischer. I do not understand how to add a link to show the previous edits and because the circumstances may involve a person's child, I don't want to go posting information all over the place. Thank you.

He posted a message here on my Talk Page: User_talk:Beauty_School_Dropout

Thank you.

Beauty School Dropout (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. A case for inclusion can be made on the Talk page. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Should I remove this post? Beauty School Dropout (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Other editors may well disagree with my assessment; as is their right and wont. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. I just wanted to inquire, and now will back off and I am completely serious that I won't attempt to edit or revert that page ever again, even if one day I end up becoming an admin myself. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Julian Radcliffe

Two main editors have been disputing over inclusion of what one called 'malicious content' on this individual. As the accounts involved have only edited in this individual and their organizations, this could be a case of an advocate of some cause vs a holder of a conflict of interest with the subject.

Though the content is sourced, most of those sources are blogs that are potentially biased. I originally agreed with removing the content, but a new article included from The Guardian on a recent edit has me thinking at least some of the content involved in this dispute should be kept. I would appreciate other outside views on this. LynxTufts (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Plahotniuc

Arguments to cancel edits by User:AlbertPenfold

Statements like Interpol, human trafficking, bank raider, relation with Voronin added by User talk:AlbertPenfold are already inserted in the article;
Adding of sub-sections are done mostly in chronological order, and not by subject as the user did, this transform article into an attack page;
Inserting libelous headings just to draw attention on them seems less than neutral.Wikilaj (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that Wikilaj has been indefinitely blocked as a CU-sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Pardon of Joe Arpaio

The following allegation or what our readers could perceive to be a politically motivated "legal analysis" has been challenged as a BLP violation, especially considering it strays off-topic about the pardon itself and attacks the BLP. It was removed from the article twice. The editor who is now edit warring to keep it in, Softlavender, said in her edit summary that the article is not a BLP, seemingly to justify the BLP vio. Pardon of Joe Arpaio is already a highly volatile article that was relentlessly targeted by a persistent sock farmer and keeping it free of BLP vios has not been an easy road to hoe. Input, please? ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a violation. SPECIFICO talk 13:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a WP:BLP violation as a couple of editors have already told you. By the way, you're edit warring to remove scholarly content: [6][7][8] - Mr X 13:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It's an RS-cited analysis of the Pardon of Joe Arpaio, which is what the wiki article is about and why we actually have the article (we have the article because the pardon generated too much controversy and analysis and objection to fit into any other existing article). The quote is actually a fairly standard analysis of the pardon and notes issues that were brought up by numerous legal and political analysts. Softlavender (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree for the following reason: the statement is riddled with noncompliant value laden labels and challenged as a BLP vio per WP:BLPSOURCE and WP:V because it contains "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." It is cited to a "Perspective" which is the author's POV about Joe Arpaio, and not about the pardon. The headline substantiates the latter: The problem with Joe Arpaio’s pardon isn’t the process. The problem is Joe Arpaio. The inclusion of the author's unsupported allegations are highly defamatory which dismisses any ambiguity that a BLP vio exists. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not a BLP violation. It's well over the line into silliness to argue that Wikipedia may not contain material of that sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: Since when is The Washington Post a poor source? Also, the Cornell Law professor's view is supported by links throughout The Washington Post article. Did you think that no one would check? I have to say, you are teetering perilously close to being taken to AE so that your repeated provably false assertions and blatant misuse of policies and guidelines can be examined. I suggest you reel it in a bit.- Mr X 14:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Technically, as that is under their "Perspectives" by-line, it is an opinion piece, not a news report, which should be avoided in contentious topics for facts, though here it is being used for opinion and attributed opinion, at that. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

So, not an issue - like everyone else (except Atsme) already said? It's not being used as a source for facts and no one appears to be suggesting that it should be. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The only issue I really see with it is a bit of coatracking attacks on Arpaio by the selection of the quote that attacks Arpaio; the 2nd last paragraph "In other words, Trump pardoned Arpaio because of his actions as sheriff, actions that are consistent with the platform on which Trump campaigned and has attempted to govern. Those actions were appalling — and not only is Arpaio unremorseful, but Trump has actually held him up as a model to be emulated" is a better summary that should be included since it's the core of Chafetz' point - Trump pardoned Arpaio because his actions were consistent with Trump's values, in Chafetz' opinion. The source is otherwise fine. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Masem, thank you for your thoughtful input. I'm of the mind that in addition to WP:BLPSOURCE, there is WP:REDFLAG which also applies in this case. The value-laden labels are defamatory and usupported. Racial profiling is much different from being a racist, especially when one's grandchildren are of the race a BLP is being accused of being racist toward. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

"BLP" is short for "biography of a living person". Biographies don't have races. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

And pigs don't fly - so what is your point? ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

It was simply a reminder that the acronym BLP refers to the biography, not to the person. You said "... a BLP is accused ..." instead of "... the subject of the BLP is being accused ..." or just "... Arpaio is being accused ...". Not a big deal, but it is easier to communicate if we don't conflate the person with the biography. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV, one of three core content policies of BLP

It is unambiguously clear to me that the verbal attack against Arpaio by Chafetz who described him as a "xenophobe and racist" in a POV piece is a BLP vio, and I am dismayed that some of our veteran editors are not seeing it. Continuing along the same lines as what Masem described above as "coatracking attacks on Arpaio", I have listed the applicable policies I believe are unambiguous with regards to that quote:

WP:IMPARTIAL, which states: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The title of the Chafetz "Perspective", The problem with Joe Arpaio's pardon isn't the process. The problem is Joe Arpaio, further supports my position. The spin-off article is supposed to focus on the pardon, not the character of Joe Arpaio which brings us to the next issue...
WP:POVFORK: A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia. The attack quote helps to confirm noncompliance with this policy as well. The article was created as a spin-off of Joe Arpaio by a blocked sock master. Much of the clean-up being done now is subject to WP:BMB policy as well.
WP:BALANCE which ...involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. A personal attack on Arpaio by Chafetz in a POV article is not a disinterested viewpoint.

One last point, the unsupported Chafetz allegation is contradicted by factual information about Arpaio, who is the son of immigrants, has been referred to as "a doting grandfather" of 4 children adopted by his daughter, each of different ethnicities, and his son's wife being Latino. I think strong political views too often create NPOV issues that may make editors less sensitive to BLP policy which unambiguously states: material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of this noticeboard is to get a sanity check on your view after it's been rejected on the article talk page. If nobody agrees with your interpretation of site policy, there's really nothing to be done and it will be time to move on to other matters. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

You've expressed your POV and so has Nomo, and your arguments are not convincing, (and our past history accentuates my need for additional neutral input). Masem's view was impartial and he saw it as "bit of coatracking attacks on Arpaio by the selection of the quote" to which I responded. Nothing is keeping you tethered here, so feel free to move on to something else, and allow me to be the one who decides if my concerns have been addressed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, what? *lol* Why are you here? Nevermind, don't answer. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, I think you're misunderstanding multiple policies, and then citing them very aggressively and refusing to listen to correction. You are misusing the highly inflammatory term "defamatory" in a way that suggests a great deal of confusion on your part. You are also confused about WP:NPOV, which applies to Wikipedia editors and edits, but not to the authors of third-party sources (which are governed by separate guidelines and policies). You seem to view opinionated criticism of Arpaio as abhorrent, but you cite opinionated praise for Arpaio (for instance, his "grandfatherly doting") as not only legitimate but "factual". This last issue suggests that you're bending policy to fit your pre-existing agenda when it comes to the article subject. Of course you don't deserve to be attacked by IPs/sockpuppets, and if I can help put a stop to that, then please let me know how. But you really need to stop posting, take a deep breath, and consider some of the things that people are telling you. We're getting into competence/WP:IDHT territory here, so let's turn the ship around before it goes much further. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I commented above, but I think Atsme has a point here, though agree other points are wrong. When I read Chafetz's statement, it comes down to "Don't blame the process; blame Trump for valuing what Arpaio values which goes against Chafetz's values". Whether Trump's, Arpaio's, or Chafetz's values are right or wrong is not what we should be trying to discuss on WP. To that end, we don't need to address claims Chafetz makes towards Arpaio to still get to Chafetz' point above, but the quote chosen was the one that 1) didn't get to the core point and 2) chose the most "vile" terms to paint Arpaio here. That's a coatrack for a BLP. The source is fine, the opinion seems fine, but the means of inclusion were not correct per NPOV. Unfortunately, its very easy when it comes down to politics and identity/social issues like this that editors that feel strongly for or against issues related to a person, and see a RS that expresses those same points, and be clouded in seeing what is appropriate and inappropriate to include. This is happening both ways here with this article, Atsme's not helping much, but they are right that the selected quote raising many POV questions when there are more direct, to the point, but less BLP-ish quotes that can be pulled from the same source instead. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  - Whether the chosen quote accurately represents the opinion piece is a question of WP:NPOV and editorial judgement. It is emphatically not a WP:BLP issue, and presenting it as such muddies the waters significantly and impedes an appropriate resolution. This is where competence comes into play. (Substantively, it seems to me that the chosen quote is, in fact, an appropriate representation of the author's thesis; it doesn't appear to be taken out of context, or otherwise used in a misleading or counterintuitive way. But again, this is a question of editorial judgement to be solved on the article talkpage, not a BLP issue, and Atsme's harangues here are thus counterproductive). MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    - Yes, it is a BLP issue. It's accusations from an opinion piece, and we have to tread very carefully with those. If the article was the BLP about Arpaio himself, then maybe they would be appropriate there, but we're talking about the pardon, and here, Chafetz's opinion on the pardon. What he thinks about Arpaio is unimportant to that, outside of saying how they align with Trump's (in his opinion). So there is zero need to bring in any of the accusing language towards Arpaio in this article about the pardon to still hit Chafetz's key point in his essay. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
      - It may be a BLP issue, but it is no way a BLP violation. The BLP policy is not meant to shield public figures from legitimate criticism. Your view about what part of that criticism should be in the article may be perfectly valid, but no more so than the numerous other editors who have a different view.- Mr X 23:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
        Sourced and attributed criticism of Arpaio is perfectly valid on the biographical page about Arpaio. But it is inappropriate when it is not central to the point of the page about the pardon, which is more an issue due to criticism of Trump and the pardoning process, rather than Arpaio himself. It's a coatrack issue. Per BLP we are meant to write impartially and that means in this case avoiding quotes that coatrack unnecessary opinions that are not essential to Chafetz's argument. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

MastCell, my focus is on the article, not the politics. Any use of contentious labeling raises a WP:REDFLAG for me, especially when there are other options to describe a person. Your use of "abhorrent" is a bit dramatic considering I'm a pragmatist, not a paralogist. From where I sit, competence is required for writing descriptive prose without using value laden labels. I came here in GF for input (discussion), and presented evidence to support my position and why I believe the quote to be noncompliant with BLP. I know we're not dealing with a BLP article but the person being disparaged is a living person and BLP policy applies everywhere on WP. I don't think we're as far apart as you seem to believe. We are expected to show a high degree of sensitivity where a BLP is concerned - you could say CIR applies to such editorial judgement. BLP policy unambiguously states that we must strictly adhere to NPOV, V and OR. The challenged edit clearly does not strictly adhere to NPOV and resulted in disparaging a BLP which is what made it a BLP vio. Do you see my point?

Arpaio is a living person, and NPOV is indisputably connected to BLP policy. Masem identified it as "coatrack for a BLP", WP:BLPSTYLE addresses the coatrack issue. He also said that "the means of inclusion were not correct per NPOV". I agree, it's noncompliant which brings us back to BLP policy. You said, "opinion piece is a question of WP:NPOV and editorial judgement." Yes, the way you put it is a bit conservative in my view but I will accept your explanation and say thank you very much. Quoting Yogi, When you arrive at a fork in the road, take it and we're there now, so here is my summary in a nutshell: noncompliance with NPOV that results in disparaging a living person (anywhere on WP) is a violation of BLP policy. A coatrack attack on a living person is noncompliant with BLP. I'm not wanting to get anyone in trouble for reverting or insisting it be included - I just want the quote removed. Calling someone a racist and xenophobe is far from showing a "high degree of sensitivity to a BLP", particularly when there is no proof that he is racist (per his own family structure) or a xenophobe - his parents are Italian immigrants (Latin). Oh, the irony! That is what I tried to demonstrate above. I'm appreciative of the input from you and Masem - I thank you both kindly - and I hope you can get the sock farm fenced in and site ban the farmer before he wears down all of our good admins. They all deserve a raise for what they've endured over the weekend. Enjoy your evening. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The material – as it's written – appears to be a BLP violation per WP:BLPSOURCES. The source, as an opinion piece, lacks meaningful editorial oversight, which means that it's a questionable source and hence not a suitable source for contentious claims about living persons. If the material is truly noteworthy, it should be easy to find a reliable source for the material. Politrukki (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? It's an attributed opinion, published in the Washington Post and written by a qualified expert. Its fine - arguing that it is UNDUE (though I don't agree it is) is at least within the realm of reason, but saying this is a prima facie BLP violation (and linking policies that very clearly don't apply) is just silly. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a BLP violation, although it can be improved by expanding on the reason given - according to the cite, here, we have a WELLKNOWN politician and law enforcement officer who was pardoned because, the politician who pardoned him said, Arpeo gave great law-enforcement service, and the contra analysis of that law enforcement service, as racist and xenophobic - that's NPOV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Just curious... Alanscottwalker, thank you for your input. Noncompliance with NPOV appears to be well-supported but here's my question to you - BLP policy states that we must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's three core content policies: NPOV, V and NOR. What I keep hearing in the NPOV argument is that even though the disparaging statement about a living person is noncompliant with NPOV it is not a BLP violation, and that perspective really has me scratching my head. Ok, so what actually does constitute a BLP violation if not failure to comply with the first 3 paragraphs of the policy, and in particular, strict adherence to applicable US Laws, NPOV, V and/or NOR? Why even include the aforementioned in our BLP policy if noncompliance with any or all doesn't constitute a BLP violation? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You must have misread what I wrote, I demonstrated it does comply with NPOV -- indeed, it's required to understand the issues around the pardon -- he was found by a court to be pursuing racial profiling, an unconstitutional policy, as it is racist, and that is what he was pardoned for -- the sources being in disagreement about the value of his legacy, an NPOV presentation presents that disagreement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The section begins by attributing opinions to the Washington Post. This is false. One article is attributable to an editor working for WaPo, while the second was written by an AP staff member and picked up by WaPo and other wire service subscribers. I hope editors understand that when reporting opinions it is really important to attribute them properly. The main problem with the section is that it lists opinions without explaining their weight. But it's not a BLP violation. TFD (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It's actually very simple. The non-compliance undeniably exists because of the non-neutral way that quote was chosen; it was cherrypicked to disparage Arpaio. The fact that it had nothing to do with Trump's pardon, which is what the WP article is about, is what caused the BLP coatrack. The article is not about Arpaio's views on racism and immigration - he didn't give Trump the pardon, he was the recipient of it. Allegations of racism and/or xenophobia would belong in a section of Joe Arpaio, not in the Pardon of Joe Arpaio. Alanscottwalker, you might want to read the Berkeley paper regarding the differences between racist and racial profiling in law enforcement. We should not conflate the two. Anyway, there were other statements in that same source that were central to the pardon without violating BLP, and should have been used instead. Read the comments by Masem - he explained it all quite well. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment It's incredibly hard to see how an editorial titled "The problem with Joe Arpaio’s pardon isn’t the process. The problem is Joe Arpaio." wouldn't be considered relevant for the entry on the pardon of Joe Arpaio. You could make a case for rephrasing or paraphrasing the quote, but the point that Arpaio was a racist/xenophobe is sort of central to the argument, and it would misrepresent the author to eliminate it entirely. There doesn't seem to be a credible policy argument for removing this. Nblund^talk 01:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

lol* Actually, the title supports my position. The opinion piece even tells us in the title that it's not about the pardon, it's about Arpaio which belongs in his biographical article, not in an article about the pardon. Scroll up and read the discussion and the cited article. Editors are not supposed to cherrypick derogatory information about a living person out of articles that are not about the topic itself. That's another issue to examine to see we have a WP:POVFORK violation. Let that soak in for a minute. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You either do not understand the article or you do not understand the comments here. There is no coatrack, BLP or otherwise. No one is claiming Arpeo gave a pardon. The article is about a pardon of Arpeo stemming from breach of an order against racist -- illegal racial profiling -- and the Berkeley paper says nothing different. There is "substantive" critique (that's the source) of the reason given for the pardon -- the lauding of his career -- the critique stems from the law professor's analysis of racism and xenophobia in his career. Not coatrack, at all. It belongs in the pardon article, as it is all about the very argument for and of the pardon. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well, Alan. If you've read Masem's explanation above, there's nothing further for us to discuss. WP:BLPSTYLE also addresses some of the issues you believe don't exist. We'll just simply agree to disagree, and I thank you for sharing your thoughts. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

If your contention is that this article isn't about the pardon of Joe Arpaio, then yes, you are misreading it. The argument is that the pardon may have been legal, but it was bad because Arpaio himself didn't deserve a pardon. It seems like you personally don't agree that Arpaio's character should be considered relevant to the question of whether or not he deserves a pardon, but it's clear that the author thinks that it is relevant. The entry also quotes Trump calling Arpaio "an American patriot", so clearly his defenders think that his personal record matters here. Nblund^talk 20:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope. I won't even try to figure out how you came to such a conclusion. Provide the diff where I said what you're claiming I said. If you want to know my contention, start with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, NPOV, BLP and WP:RS. This has already been discussed, so scroll-up ⬆⬆⬆ - read the discussion - and have a good day! ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

So then you do agree that criticisms of Arpaio's character are relevant to the question of whether he deserves a pardon? If that's the case, then it seems like accusations or racism would be worth considering. Right? Nblund^talk 04:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Rick Derringer

Concerns added here: Talk:Rick Derringer#.22homosexual love affair.22 vandalism Jim1138 (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

What seems to govern here would be the WP:BLP exhortation to write biographies conservatively and further the WP:BLPSOURCE note that "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." WP:WELLKNOWN adds, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." There is only one source being offered (with no page number provided), and one individual asserts that the material is not in the source. A search of google books fails to find anything that looks like corroboration in any other source. The only connection I see of the two named individuals is Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors ([9]; [10]). I do not see any signs that there are "multiple reliable third-party sources" documenting this. Until those are produced, this content doesn't belong. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 04:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Calvin Cheng

Which version below best meets WP policies based on the refs given? We are having an NPOV vs BLP dispute

1) Cheng often posts his views on socio-political issues in Singapore on Facebook, and is known for attracting controversy at times for his strong views^[1] and for cyberbullying a professor at National University of Singapore whose viewpoint he disagreed with.^[2]

2) Cheng often posts his views on socio-political issues in Singapore on Facebook, and is known for attracting controversy at times for his strong views^[1] and comments against viewpoints he disagreed with.^[2]^[3]

References

^ ^a ^b Tang, Lousia (15 July 2015). "The Big Read: In the Facebook era, whither quality public discourse?". Today (newspaper). Retrieved 16 November 2017.
^ ^a ^b "MLC member Calvin Cheng's online conduct comes under scrutiny". The Independent.
^ Chia, Lianne (27 July 2016). "Dealing with online lynch mobs: How companies should react". Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved 24 November 2017.

-- Jytdog (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC) (amended per suggestion away down below Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC))

I'd say User:Mailer diablo's edit (2) is more wikipedia policy correct, tagging him as a cyberbully seems a bit undue. Thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
According to the talk page, the Independent ref is being debated. That assertion in version 1) is a rather strong one (because cyberbullying has a very particular meaning and connotation, especially in Singapore law), and it warrants a strong reliable source. I had difficulty finding additional sources in my research that will back that particular assertion (partly because mainstream media generally do not criticize establishment politicians, and I also find that a problem myself). But what I did manage to find are sources that will back the more general statement in version 2) above, and hence it is reworded so that even if the Independent ref was removed for whatever reason, the statement is still able to stand on its remaining source. I think the word "negative" may be added to the word before "comments against viewpoints...", but I'll leave it for the community to determine if it is suitable to do so. I am also open to any other alternatives as long as it complies with WP:BLP. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

His online conduct wrt Professor Ian Chong is clearly an act of cyberbullying.^[1] There is enough coverage of this from various news source and screenshots of his Facebook page to verify what he wrote.

References

^ https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016/07/22/the-silence-of-the-media-literacy-council/

-- Jane Dawson (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source which labels it as such? Even so, is such a loaded term necessary? fish&karate 10:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Also the independent is not the paper it used to be. It has taken a decided turn to the tabloid. I would go with 2 unless more sources can be found describing his actions as cyberbullying. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Quoting from The Online Citizen, "But with their silence, the likes of Calvin Cheng threaten to make the entire Media Literacy Council a farce. How exactly do they credibly conduct public education and advise the Government on the appropriate policy response for cyber wellness, if one of their former Council members is consistently known for threatening, bullying tactics online?". --BukitBintang8888 (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Another quote from a different article from the independent = It was earlier reported that MLC council member and former NMP, Calvin Cheng, had seemingly threatened and insulted an NUS prof, Dr Ian Chong, on Facebook .--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
So, a blog and the Independent again (and this time not using the term)? I think item 2, it means essentially the same thing and is less perjorative. fish&karate 12:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

If cyberbullying is a criminal offence in Singapore and the subject has never been convicted, then it could be WP:Libel to label him as such. Description 2 for sure to err on side of caution 221.121.135.92 (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Singapore law is irrelevant here in WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

True but the reader who knew that he was in Singapore would naturally conclude that he had been convivyed of the offence. Juts as we would be wary of saying someone 'libelled' someone else - we would only say that if a court had decided so.Martinlc (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I will note a few things to folks ringing in here: a) this article has a very long and ugly history of PROMO editing (trying to pump up his CV and remove/downplay negative content) including apparent sock/meatpuppetry, and b) Singapore has laws controlling public speech in several ways, including online public speech and the press, c) so the "authorized press" there is not exactly free or neutral; d) and User:Mailer diablo at least, has already said that they feel constrained by those laws: ... I've added the proposed changes. There are other personal comments he has made on Facebook that has attracted flak, but unfortunately I can't add any para-phrases due to Singapore law (they come from non-establishment sources) .....

So the discussion about the The Independent is somewhat constrained by that context. I will note that as far as I can tell The Independent has managed to retain its license in Singapore, even in that constrained environment.

Because folks are questioning "cyberbullying" on the basis of questioning the reliability of the Independent in Wikipedia for this statement, I have asked people at RSN to come here and comment on the reliability of The Independent for this statement in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither version really complies with the spirit of WP:BLP. We do not need to use more words than are really useful for our readers:

Cheng is known for posting his views on Singapore social and political issues on Facebook, and for commenting on the views of others.

covers the territory clearly, and can save a couple of paragraphs. And we do not need to expound on every "controversy" in detail either. Gosh, a short couple of sentences would be a lot more useful than the mishmash on the BLP currently. The BLP now is too long by half, with every "appointment" the person has ever had listed as though it were of international importance. Collect (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Collect thanks for weighing in. The article could very much use more eyes, especially ones not from Singapore. The deal with the online commenting thing, is that Cheng was actually on a board set up by the government of Singapore to promote online civility at the same time he was doing this stuff. One of those kinds of comments received significant coverage outside of Singapore (the "killing children of terrorists" thing") In the small world of Singapore with its approach to free speech and monitoring/control of public behavior, Cheng's online activity is not a small thing.

User:Jytdog The press release in 2012 seems to be wrong. The Media Literacy Council was set up to promote Media LITERACY not civility. See their own website currently https://www.medialiteracycouncil.sg/About-Us/Vision-and-Mission Nowhere is civility mentioned. 43.252.213.37 (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Stunning effort to rewrite history. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog Would not count that out! But that means the references have to be updated and ‘online civility’ is no longer accurate 43.252.213.40 (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It was accurate during the time that Cheng was on the board, as the citations in the article make very, very clear. I will not respond further on this. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the overall article, yes it is still very detailed but the detail is at least now not skewed puffery (the article looked like this at one point, under relentless promotional pressure. I would be interested to see how you would trim the article from where it stands now. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I am happy for more editors outside Singapore to come in and do the editing (or trimming/addition, whichever is the best outcome). We definitely can use a couple of fresh set of eyes here. - Mailer Diablo 01:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I have done a quick Google news search. Only found a few local newspapers covering the “killing terrorist thing” from 2015 when police reports were made, and in 2016 when it was reported he was neither arrested nor charged. Definitely no “significant coverage outside of Singapore”. Would love to see some examples before commenting further. The international coverage is about Amos Yee, which I feel is taking up too much space on the article. 221.121.135.92 (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes you are correct that the world doesn't care much about Cheng. Really just The Star from neighboring Malaysia had an article on it, and another mentioning Cheng in the context of Yee being arrested after commenting on Cheng's post: (article. The Star has mentioned Cheng only a few times, so yes the "killing the children of terrorists' remark and its relationship with Yee deserves weight. Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok so there isn’t “significant coverage outside Singapore”. One article in 2015 in a neighbouring country. The second is about Amos Yee and doesn’t even mention the remarks outright. In that case, I agree with User:Collect. Condense the entire paragraph about the remarks into the description he suggested. Take out all the non-essential stuff. 221.121.135.92 (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Compared to anything else he is done that is significant. Jytdog (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Malaysia is not really a disinterested "neighboring country." The Star (Malaysia) has a Singapore Bureau, and Singapore was a part of Malaysia for some years. Singapore is only about 50 sq. mi. in total area, and for The Star to ignore Singapore would be like France ignoring Monaco, roughly, or Italian papers not writing about Vatican City. It is not like Singapore is a really large area, really. It does not make the article of international significance. Collect (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if the article would survive a deletion discussion....kind of borderline except for local coverage.Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog Great idea. He isn't that notable. List it for deletion.118.189.8.225 (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see why there has to be anything at all following "his strong views...", but if I just had to choose which one follows policy better, then I would choose to follow it with 2)"and comments against viewpoints he disagreed with". Huggums537 (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

He is "known for his pro-establishment views" (ref from the South China Poat - the only thing they mention about him per this search)) The sources provided in the examples make it clear that he does the cyberbullying when people criticize PAP/the government. Jytdog (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I think proving he is in fact guilty of cyberbullying is insufficient to justify not following the BLP policy that "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Just because it might be true doesn't mean that saying his Facebook posts are controversial isn't quite enough for the reader to determine further research is warranted in regard to his character/behavior. Wikipedia should probably avoid being the forum to make assessments about his character and/or behavior, especially since this enters dangerously close into the realm of influences and opinions. Your original post asked which edit follows policy better according to the sources provided, not which one is more true according to other sources found elsewhere. I responded correctly, I believe, to your original question. This idea that "We are having an NPOV vs BLP dispute" is a fundamentally flawed premise since BLP should almost automatically "take precedence" knowing that it is such a highly sensitive issue with possible legal ramifications much like copyright takes precedence for similar reasons. That being said, if you were to change the sources to exactly match what you are claimimg, (the specific mention of him bullying), then I would agree with you. Huggums537 (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

If The Independent in Singapore can be persuaded to add the word "cyberbullying" to the original article, would it address the above concern? It can be arranged.118.189.8.225 (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I amended the options per the proposal by Huggums. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

If this were any other article, then I would say maybe that would address the concern very well. However, since this is a BLP, and all indicators seem to point out that the subject of the article would not want these statements made about himself, then we should exclude them since WP:Blp states, "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.", "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic", "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced.", and "When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version.. Huggums537 (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The subject is known in public for expressing his views on Facebook, a continuation of his involvement in politics as a commentator (and attracting controversy for doing so). [This is found in ref 1 above]. It is important enough for inclusion in the lede as a general point and that itself should be relatively uncontroversial. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Jytdog, I commend you for your efforts since you are really bending over backwards to get the "truth" out there in a relatively NPOV way, but is it really necessary? Are these "cyberbullying" incidents among the things the subject is mostly notable for? Couldn't it be explained in terms not as less flattering as "cyberbullying"? Why such fierce opposition to not just use more laid back casual language? Huggums537 (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. What you wrote above about the subject not liking something, is not relevant in Wikipedia. We had advocates for Richard B. Spencer pounding Wikipedia all summer trying to get us to remove "white supremacist" from the article about him, because he says that he explicitly has said "I am not a white supremacist"; however many independent RS describe him that way. That is an extreme case but useful to illustrate the point. In this case it is very clear that Cheng has cyberbullied. He does that; the Independent quotes him doing that and describes what he is doing, not using that exact term, but we summarize sources, we don't quote them. There are lots of Singapore-based blogs that go into more detail on this but I am not citing them, since we don't use blogs for BLPs. The ...constrained nature of the press in Singapore, and Cheng's location in alignment with the powers that be, makes this a bit more difficult than it would be usually. But the correct answer is pretty clear here, at least as long as the article remains as detailed as it is. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess I can agree he's notable enough for attracting controversy, but can't we summarize sources just as effectively without using the "C-word" in order to be on the safer side of BLP? Huggums537 (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The source used does not use the term cyberbullying or anything similar, it is a conclusion one may draw but is original research. The article by the Online Citizen which uses the term bullying is listed under Commentaries, hence is not a reliable source per News organizations. Also, we should not be ending sentences with prepositions. TFD (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe the Online Citizen is actually a news website but is termed as a "commentary" website due to the situation in Singapore. It is reliable enough to be mentioned by the RSF. See this article RSF calls for end to harassment of The Online Citizen--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Based on the sources I found, it seems a bit more complex. Cheng's notoriety is not solely for"expressing opinions on facebook"or "for expressing strong opinions". Many others in Singapore express opinions on facebook and do not get the attention. Rather it is his online conduct (described as "uncivil" by multiple sources) which seems to be responsible for his notoriety. He is not known for "comments against viewpoints he disagreed with" (which doesn't even make sense btw) but rather his "uncivil online behaviour". This is also not a one off incident but is something which has happened multiple times. Given Singapore's Press Freedom Index ranking, I wouldn't put too much reliability on the mainstream media.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Listing some sources

Singapore doesn't need a Donald Trump, Yahoo ...“I am sure there are others who have the same view but to articulate them so publicly and in uncivil language, especially when he is a member of an organisation whose duty it is to advocate proper conduct in the online space should not be condoned.”...In many ways, Cheng is like this modern-day child who wants to see how far he can push the borders of decency.
Calvin Cheng still on board as MLC member despite prominent, Coconuts.co It’s classic Cheng really — who’s been known to make annoyingly contentious comments in the past — but it’s made worse due to the fact that he’s a member of the Media Literacy Council (MLC)... They’re against uncivil behaviours online, which seems like what Cheng is practising...
Cheng makes allegations against TOC; MLC chairman disagrees with Cheng, The Online Citizen ..In a Facebook post on 25 November, Mr Cheng charged that Ms Kirsten Han, who is a freelance journalist and who is also a member of the TOC editorial team, was a “treacherous journalist” who “galvanised” a “hate campaign” against him...Mr Cheng also charged the “editors” of TOC, along with Ms Han, for being “traitorous”...In his response, Mr Tan wrote:...in no way do I think that TOC has engaged in ‘traitorous’ acts.”... Mr Loh pointed out that Mr Cheng’s recalcitrant behaviour was neither a new phenomenon nor a recent one. “If you were to follow his online postings, you would find that he has displayed such behaviour over a period of time,” Mr Loh wrote. “Indeed, even in his postings which have led to this current controversy, his words and the manner in which he "engages" others are abhorrent. “They plainly and clearly go against all that the MLC stands for.”
Same source (but about a previous incident) ...Mr Tan has had to counsel Mr Cheng earlier this year when the latter made a Facebook posting alleging that playwright Alfian Sa’at was engaging in “irresponsible rhetoric, which allege racial discrimination against our Malay-Muslim brethren.”...Mr Cheng's attack on Mr Sa'at was roundly criticised online, come as it did at a time when Mr Sa'at was grieving the death of his mother...Mr Tan told TOC:...I told Mr Cheng that I do not agree with the manner in which he did so."...Mr Cheng has also ridiculed and belittled others who have disagreed with him, calling them “fools” and “idiots”. Under the MLC’s core values, which are stated on its website here, the council says: “[Uncivil behaviours online]...
MLC member Calvin Cheng's online conduct comes under scrutiny, The Independent Calvin Cheng called Dr Chong a “second rate academic who had too much time on his hands”. He also threatened the prof, saying that unlike him, Dr Chong has a boss and can get fired for engaging in internet activities. He went on to suggest that MOE and the public should make ‘enquiries’ about this prof. He taunted the prof, telling him he is “concerned” for the prof and that the “economy is bad”....MLC discourages uncivil online behaviours...One of its aims is to discourage online behaviours that are anti-social, offensive, irresponsible or simply mean...Yet, MLC member Calvin Cheng appears to be doing exactly what MLC itself discourages.
The silence of the Media Literacy Council, The Online Citizen...the likes of Calvin Cheng threaten to make the entire Media Literacy Council a farce. How exactly do they credibly conduct public education and advise the Government on the appropriate policy response for cyber wellness, if one of their former Council members is consistently known for threatening, bullying tactics online?
Tattoo artist disagreed with ex-NMP Calvin Cheng on arts funding, got banned from his FB page Another incident.

These are some of the documented incidents in reliable sources not affiliated to mainstream media in Singapore. If you search online, it becomes clear that his uncivil online behaviour is what contributed to his notoriety. Most of the sources I have quoted btw are usually the ones which are licensed and allowed to operate by Singapore government's Media Development Authority. If we look for others, there will be numerous sources. I think it is definitely OK to call it Uncivil online behaviour if the term cyberbully is too specific. --BukitBintang8888 (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Huggums537 (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Exxept every single one of those sources is a commentary. Even the yahoo news one is an op ed. 43.252.213.38 (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't invalidate anything.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Bukitbintang888 is being deceitful. Almost every one of the persons behind his sources is linked.

Kumaran Pillai who runs The Independent was the former editor of The Online Citizen TOC. The current editor of The Independent Ravi Philemon is also a former editor of TOC. PN Balji who wrote that article in Yahoo is a co-founder of The Independent. Essentially its the same small group of bloggers who are writing for these sites.

And that ‘license’ means nothing. All websites that comments on sociopolitical issues in Singapore with 50,000 unique visitors a month have to put up a bond to be ‘licensed’. This does not make them news organisations.

Finally, the TOC is doubly not a news license. The Government gazette it as a political association. It is also a one-man-show now.

See here: http://www.straitstimes.com/politics/the-online-citizen-now-a-one-man-show

The Online Citizen has also had to apologise for making false posts against the authorities and the establishment , most recently here :

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/police-refute-online-citizen-story-that-their-officers-accused-a-wheelchair-bound-man-of

And here:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/the-online-citizen-apologises-to-pm-lee-for-post-on-oxley-castle-9402980

The Independent has also been caught out for publishing fake news several times:

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/singapore-news-site-apologises-after-report-youths-treatment-jb-hospital

http://www.unscrambled.sg/2017/09/29/the-independent-tisg-lied-about-the-workers-party-wp-being-blocked-from-raising-motion/

An independent survey by Blackbox Research showed that 43% of Singaporeans thought that TOC published fake news, 41% thought that of The Independent, and 44% Mothership.

In contrast, only 13% thought the same of The Straits Times, and 15% TODAY. Both mainstream news organisations.

See here:

http://www.blackbox.com.sg/fake-news-also-growing-worry-singapore/. 124.6.143.131 (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Instead of dealing with the facts, you pull a Trump move and call it "fake news". Your comments here are not valid in WP. We care if the source is reliable for the content. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

These sources are not reliable because it is the same 4 or 5 politically motivated bloggers setting up sites and writing anti-establishment stuff. The TOC in particular is a political association 124.6.143.131 (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Straits Times et al has its fair share of media gaffe, like reporting SR Nathan as Singapore's first elected President^[1] or repeatedly quoting a very satisfied commuter Ashley Wu. Even the Blackbox research company has been accused of carrying the government's propaganda using a bias sample.^[2] The editors you quoted dared put down their name on the articles and submit $50k performance bond in Singapore's oppressive media environment speaks volume on their reliability. Jane Dawson (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

References

^ https://mothership.sg/2016/08/straits-times-cna-got-it-wrong-sr-nathan-was-never-spores-first-elected-president/
^ https://statestimesreview.com/2017/05/01/government-linked-company-publish-fake-survey-87-of-singaporeans-believe-straits-times-is-credible/

I don’t think they had choice but pay the 50k. There is also no instances of a blog who hit the criteria hits and didn’t pay. Breakfast network changed itself into Middle ground and paid bond eventually. And did Jane Dawson just use States Times Review as a reference??? 124.6.143.131 (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The MDA ruling applies to news website only, not any blogs.^[1] Please provide evidence that all news website that hit the MDA criteria pay. If not, your credibility is as good as FAKE NEWS. Jane Dawson (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/mda-rolls-out-licence-scheme-for-news-websites

I’m user who was at 124.6.143.131. Any blog or website that “report an average of at least one article per week on Singapore's news and current affairs over a period of two month” is automatically classified as a news website. If any website like this was asked to post a bond and they refused or were unable to (you need to be well-visited at 50k hits), we would have heard of it like Breakfast Network before they became Middleground. Gov even had to put out statement here to refute false claims (again) by TOC that Breakfast Network was banned or refused a license https://www.gov.sg/factually/content/was-the-breakfast-network-banned-by-the-mda 210.213.241.242 (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Saying "we would have heard of it" does not equate to producing evidence. So there goes the credibility of our FAKE NEWS expert who claims "There is also no instances of a blog who hit the criteria hits and didn’t pay." There is no need to reply further since you have already deviated from the topic. Jane Dawson (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's clarify some points since we have someone pulling a "fake news" move without looking at the facts

The Online Citizen is a news website and has been described as such. Of course, the government has however gazetted it as a "political association" which constraints its ability to seek foreign funding. This gazetting as a "political association" doesn't invalidate it as a news website though and multiple sources describe it as such
- ...editor of local news website The Online Citizen...Yahoo Singapore 1, Yahoo SG 2
- ...told the news website, the Online Citizen.Reuters
- ...two prominent online news websites...The Online Citizen...In the case of TOC Ltd., the parent company of The Online Citizen, the government previously compelled the TOC to register in February 2011 as a political association, so the company is already subject to foreign funding restrictions.Human Rights Watch
- ...two prominent news websites, the Online Citizen and the Mothership...FreedomHouse
- ...One of Singapore’s first independent digital news providers, 11-year-old The Online Citizen...NiemanLab, Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University
- ...According to socio-political news website, The Online Citizen..Today (Mainstream media in Singapore - owned by SPH/Mediacorp)
- ...editor of The Online Citizen, an influential source for local news...NYTimes
Regarding The Online Citizen and Independent apologizing for incorrect reports, yes, it has happened and apologies are what makes a website credible. It doesn't mean it is a "fake news" site. If it was a fake news site, it would have been dealt with like this case by the government. As for the comparison with mainstream media (Singapore Press Holdings/Mediacorp), there have also been cases of incorrect reports in the mainstream media such as one about the personal life of an opposition politician (Ref 1, Ref 2, Ref 3 where AsiaOne apologised. So by this logic, the mainstream media would be called "fake news" as well.

There are multiple reports about Cheng's uncivil online behaviour. As Jytdog has mentioned, these sources are reliable for the content.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The ‘multiple reports’ are written by a small group of linked writers though? Sounds like character assasination. 211.75.30.50 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Your hasty generalizations sound more like it. There are only a few alternative news website in Singapore, it is no surprise that some editors came from the same previous organization. Similarly, there are quite a number of editors coming from the ISD working for the Straits Times. So are you implying that the Straits Times is unreliable? Jane Dawson (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Listing so-called "relevant individuals" without explanation

This isn't a BLP issue per se, but I'm not sure where else to post it. Could one or two experienced editors please weigh in at this discussion about the "Glossary of relevant individuals" at Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, as I think it borders on inadvertent mudslinging of sorts. Thanks. nagual design 04:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Michel Chossudovsky

Fellow editors, Is this source[11] sufficient for inclusion of "conspiracy theorist" in the lead sentence; per this edit? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

You linked a Google search of the author's name, I think you meant to link the book? Greenwood is an academic press and that source is peer-reviewed, I don't see why not. It's not exactly an extraordinary claim, it's well documented that Chossudovsky subscribes to and promotes a number of well-known conspiracy theories. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Right you are (w.r.t the link). I have amended it in the comment above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Where is the peer review documented? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to find a link to document that, but: Greenwood is a well established and generally well-regarded academic press, I'd be very surprised if they publish anything that isn't reviewed. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate it. I note that the imprint on the book itself is Praeger, which is part of the same ABC-CLIO group; so not affecting of the general well-regarded-ness. There is a distinction between "reviewed" and "peer-reviewed"; the latter a technical term with a specific meaning. (Even in the "what I did on my holidays" world of some fields.) I would concur that it is unlikely for the book to be un-"reviewed"; I do think it is unlikely to be "peer reviewed", simply because it is not a research paper. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The author of the source is a politics reporter and former fellow of the Shorenstein Center at the Harvard Kennedy School. The press is reputable. Furthermore, this source, even though it is RS, is not even necessary. Literally half the Chossudovsky page is about the conspiracy theories that Chossduvosky personally promotes or that his conspiracy website promotes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There are numerous sources in that article that amply justify the description of "conspiracy theorist". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Cullen, just to confirm, conspiracy theorist is a derogatory term, see the lede of Conspiracy theory. WP:LABEL states that value laden labels (my underline) may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.^{Atsme📞📧} 14:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

But if someone is a conspiracy theorist, they should be called that, no? Drmies (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, if the person proclaims their profession is conspiracy theorist, we most certainly say that in the lede in WikiVoice. Kenn Thomas is a self-professed conspiracy theorist. He authored Popular Paranoia and other conspiracy books, and is openly promoting himself as a conspiracy theorist. Look at WP's lede sentence describing him: Kenn Thomas (born 1958; St. Louis, Missouri) is a conspiracy writer, archivist, and editor and publisher of Steamshovel Press, a parapolitical conspiracy magazine. Editors could have said "Kenn Thomas is a conspiracy theorist, archivist, yada yada yada." It's not a derogatory label when used in that context. Quite the opposite is true if an author (a) denies being a conspiracy theorist, (b) there are opposing views in MSM, or (c) the intent is BLP coatrack or WP:BLPCOI with the intent to denigrate and defame. We avoid using WikiVoice, we use in-text attribution, and avoid inclusion in the first paragraph of the lede, which is typically what shows-up in the Google searches. Details can be added in the body. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

If a person claims they're a conspiracy theorist, given your answer the lead should say "self-professed" or something like that. But if they are in fact not one, even though they claim to be one, what then? And why don't we have these discussions over actors or railroad workers? Most conspiracy theorists aren't going to acknowledge that they are conspiracy theorists since, as you claim, the term is seen as pejorative (according to whom?) unless they declare it themselves (I find this hard to understand, BTW--it's only pejorative if they deny being one?), but if they are, they are. If you believe that 9/11 was an inside job by the Mossad, you're a conspiracy theorist. This isn't like saying "Person X is a person of poor taste and the CEO of Microsoft" or "Person Y is the commissioner of A and was appointed to the position in a sneaky, backhanded way". Drmies (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Ryk72, the question isn't whether the source you give is sufficient. Even if it isn't, we can simply summarise what is in the body of the article, which is more than enough to use "conspiracy theorist" as a core description. Given the feedback already supplied here, I will reinstate it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Claims in ledes don't need sources; ledes should summarise articles and the article itself should have sources, which this one does. That book is clearly RS - written by an academic, published by an academic press. Praeger is a predominantly academic press, now owned by Greenwood Publishing Group so it was almost certainly peer reviewed; the book has a reasonable number of scholarly citations and reviews in scholarly journals. And I'm sure it would be no problem to find and add numerous additional reliable sources backing up the term in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

That is normally the case. However the WP:BLP has a separate requirement that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" - this applies to the lede as well for biographies of living people. No exceptions. In practice this means biographies generally follow the 'doesn't need an inline cite if its something uncontentious', but any contentious label gets an inline citation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

To add to what Oid stated, it requires in-text attribution which I explained above, just below Cullen's comment. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

So we should list all the people who have described him as a conspiracy theorist? That seems like an unattractive way of writing... I also think it matters that the article doesn't tell us there are people who dispute the idea that he is a conspiracy theorist. Why on earth is this in doubt?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

We really need to get that policy clarified - this is exactly the same issue that came up in the recent rfc at Jared Taylor (where attributing it would make the article into a laundry list of "x, y, z, c, s, h, and w all describe this person as..."). Note that the consensus there was ultimately to use the label without attributing it. Probably something that needs case by case evaluation, but I don't think that policy should necessarily prohibit calling a spade a spade when very large numbers of RS agree that it is one. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Uhm, just pick your most RS, attribute the value laden label using inline text attribution and be done with it. You can add 1 or 2 other third party RS that support it. It's really very simple to do it correctly. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE - that creates the impression that it is the view of only one or two sources when in reality the view is widely held and the characterization treated as factual by RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

No. You dont need to overcite. The lede is still a summary of the body. If it has multiple cites in the body that describe him as a conspiracy theorist you just pick the strongest one for the inline in the lede to satisfy the BLP requirements. Its not creating any false balance as there are plenty in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this reasonable line of policy and logic is what leads to the disconnect of such labels in the lede and body in a properly developed BLP article. Take a person such as this guy who clearly is regularly called a conspiracy theorist in sources. In the body of a proper BLP, we'd start with their early life, their career, and then likely move on to criticism of his views and opinions, at which point we could include the laundry list of sources that describe his as a conspiracy theorist, with appropriate inline attribution (even if it as simple "He is frequently considered a conspiracy theorist by the media", without having to name all names. This is all well as good. We would not include these claims earlier before introducing his career because narratively it would not make sense 99% of the time - someone usually becomes labeled as a theorist due to the path their career takes, not because they set off in life to become one. So in the body, we're in good shape, no issues.

But then suddenly, this approach completely changes for the lede, per arguments presented above. We suddenly focus on calling a spade a spade, rather than follow the same logical flow that the body developed (career path and then criticism/labeling). And while I would agree that as long as we have the body well sourced that we don't need the lede to be sourced, this suddenly "reordering" of importance, particularly when we're talking broadly-shared criticism rather than 100% factual data, is problematic and will make it harder for people seeking the citations for the "conspiracy theorist" claims to find them. Arguably, this is one of the ultimate forms of POV pushing, even if that POV equates to the near majority public opinion about someone. The court of public opinion is not a reliable source, effectively. I know I've argued many times on this before and I don't want to repeat myself, but when it is phrased in the context of how we need sources in the body and the ability to leave sources out of the lede, the issue takes on a new light that shows this as a serious BLP/POV problem. To stress: in cases like this, its not an issue of having the claims of things like "conspiracy theorist" in the lede (as long as sourced in body), just the fact that editors want to strive to push those aspects out as the first sentence rather than focusing on the 100% factual "who, what, and where" parts of a BIO that nearly all other biographical articles are written to. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Eloquent explanation, Masem. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ OID, I'm not sure we're discussing the same thing here. I agree with what you wrote about needing citations above, my issue is with textual attribution (ie, a lede that says "BuzzFeed has called Joe a conspiracy theorist" when in reality 40 major newspapers and multiple academic works agree that he is a conspiracy theorist, and no or very few sources contest that). My point is that there's a point where that policy reaches a reductio ad absurdum that should really be fixed. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Reading that (yes, very confusing) policy line, "in-text attribution" could just be "by multiple sources" or something like that. Volunteer Marek 06:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

But honestly, even that isn't necessary. When something is the main reason someone's notable, and is described as such by so many sources, common sense argues against attribution. This appears to be a misapplication of the policy, along with a good bit of WP:WIKILAWYER thrown in. Volunteer Marek 06:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem extends from the fact that the person is notable for what other people think about them, which is not a factual element ("X is a conspiracy theorist" is a statement of opinion; "Most source think X is a conspiracy theorist" is a statement of fact). Nowhere else on WP do we start an article (BLP or otherwise) with a non-factual statement. In no case of a first sentence in a lede do we talk about how great certain past world leaders have been, how terrible and vile that dictators and warmongers in the past have been, how well a creative work has been taken, how poorly taken the worst movie flops have been, how successufl a business has been, etc - except on this slim subject area of BLP articles of people and entities linked to the alt/far-right of late. I can fully understand why it seems sensible from "common sense" that we should lede off with that - the bulk of the media talks poorly of these people, we should reflect that, etc. etc. but that's ignoring the situation of the media today where there is no separation of fact and opinion. WP:RECENTISM is very important to keep in mind here. We bury our heads to the problem when we say its okay to consider the court of public opinion as "factual" to put these opinions front and center before any other non-disputed factual elements have been laid out. As a non BLP example. take Ishtar (film). It's claim to fame is being one of the worst films ever made. Does the article lede off with that? No - it gets past the facts (type of film, when released, who starred, who made, what the development was) and then introduces this worst-film-ever element by the last part of the lede. Same with these BLPs. Get a few sentences past the non-controversial facts that is written in a disinterested and inpartial tone, and then you're in the clear to establish why that person is really notable, if those core facts are not the reason why. There is zero policy or guideline that requires the lede sentence to establish notability, only that the lede at some point needs to state the reason for notability. But pushing these types of opinions to the first sentence is pretty much a POV against BLP that only occurs in this subset of articles, and it is inexcusable for us being an impartial work as well as against core policy. --MASEM (t) 07:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Your argument is undermined to the extent that it's incorrect to say this is a new development, pertaining only to alt-right dudes. (Anyway, is Chossudovsky alt-right? Not that I'm aware of...) I doubt you'll be persuaded by other examples, but: David Irving. Surely you don't see a problem in that first sentence... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read Masem's explanation again...there are key points in his explanation that are indisputable because they are unambiguously supported by policy. ~~I will also note that the following 2 replies are suspect at best. It is an unusual pattern for new editors to jump right in at BLPN. Perhaps CU needs to investigate.~~ ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC) ^{strike "suspect" comment - sock block done. 22:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)}

Uh, what are there "indisputable points"? Cuz I don't see any. Volunteer Marek 22:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Late reply to Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) but I would change it slightly to be David John Cawdell Irving (born 24 March 1938) is an English author who has written on the military and political history of World War II, with a focus on Nazi Germany. His works include The Destruction of Dresden (1963), Hitler's War (1977), Churchill's War (1987), and Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich (1996). He is a Holocaust denier and in his works, argues that Hitler did not know of the extermination of Jews or, if he did, opposed it. Same information, just tempered to be more more impartial, to start with 100% facts, and then hit the aspect of criticism for what he is known for and the focus of much of the article. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

James McEnteer, in the highlighted excerpt from Shooting the Truth: The Rise of American Political Documentaries, appears to suggest that Michel Chossudovsky's view is correct. The term conspiracy theory implies falsity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotyacd (talk • contribs) 21:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC) The article is transparently biased even if its one-sided assertions are supported by equally biased though conventionally accepted sources. In fact, as evident from some of the very material presented in the article, Michel Chossudovsky is an accomplished member of the academy who has dedicated himself to the pursuit of knowledge which is suppressed in the academy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotyacd (talk • contribs) 22:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

“whom some consider to be a conspiracy theorist”. 221.121.135.92 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Masem, I think there's too much focus on where those descriptions enter the lead paragraph, but this isn't something unique to conspiracy theorists or the alt-right. Marshall Applewhite was a cult leader, Pygmalion is a melodrama, and Pinochet was a dictator. BLPs also generally don't begin by reciting the chronological career path of the subject - otherwise the entry for Richard Branson by describing him as a high school dropout. Nblund^talk 00:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The question is how describing him as a conspiracy theorist adds to the article. Readers can make up their own minds after they read the body of the article. I see no multitude of sources saying he is a conspiracy theorist 221.121.135.92 (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Uh... it adds to the article because it adds important information to the article? What kind of question is that? And yes there is a multitude of sources saying this, whether you see them or not. Volunteer Marek 21:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me that "conspiracy theorist" is verified well enough by reliable sources. That this is what others say about them, rather than what he may say about himself, well, that's life: if you want to work on an encyclopedia that has WP:V as a pillar, that's what you get, and you can't throw a fit. "X is a conspiracy theorist" actually isn't a "fact"--it's a statement, and as it happens, in this case the statement seems to be accurate, as far as we can tell. No amount of post-truth epistemologizing can alter that--sorry, Masem. We can fight over what we mean with "conspiracy" or over the sources, but it is what it is and, frankly, I don't understand the defensive wiggling over these terms, nor do I understand why this invariably pops up when we're talking about conspiracy theorists, hoaxers, alt-righters, neo-Nazis, etc--that is, characters on the left. Years of editing time have been spent on the lede for Trump; did we do the same for Clinton? Are left-wing figures this controversial on Wikipedia? Not in my experience--not even the old "terrorist!" term gets as much mileage as these rather pedestrian kind of qualifications. Passing strange. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully the explanation I provided above in response to your question will prove helpful, Drmies. Masem also provided an excellent example of dispassionate tone & NPOV while maintaining an accurate description using encyclopedic prose in the paragraph. And the clock strikes 5...it's Happy Hour 🍺! 22:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem with a term like "conspiracy theorist", just like "terrorist", is that they are pejorative terms; rarely, if any, do people use them to describe themselves, but instead used by others to attack their character (I've never seen the term used in a positive manner to describe someone). Just as "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", someone who is a conspiracy theorist by some may be seen as a whistleblower by others. Key here is to understand that a "conspiracy theorist" is not an objective term. When it used in the lede sentence as it currently is, it is effectively treating it as a scarlet letter on this person, which is not neutral writing nor appropriate per BLP. A core thing to keep in mind that we cannot be passing judgement on someone called out as a conspiracy theorist, as for all purposes, they have not done anything illegal or the like - they simply are seen as crimes of thought by the court of public opinion, which we cannot treat as a "bad" thing no matter how much one might agree with that assessment. That the mass media call him and his group as conspiracy theories should definitely be called out in the lede, but only after one asserts fundament, objective, 100% factual statements (his nationality, profession and current affiliations) in the first one or two sentences. Trying to force in a pejorative term, even if it is seen to be fully accurate, within the first sentence or two of the lede does not make for an impartial tone. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The BLPN archives are full of examples of people arguing about whether someone belongs to a particular nationality. Some people even debate the characterization of their own professions: Leo Strauss, for instance, insisted that he was not a "philosopher" but simply a scholar, and politicians routinely deny that they are, in fact, politicians. There are no such things as 100% objectively factual labels, and the determination that something is "pejorative" itself seems kind of like a subjective distinction. It is objectively true that Michel Chossudovsky has gained notoriety for groundless conjecture about 9/11. This does undermine his credibility, but Wikipedians aren't judging him by simply mentioning facts that reflect negatively on the subject of a BLP. Nblund^talk 19:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

There are still things that can be objectively determined by clear documented evidence - its cases where the evidence isn't clear that the material is contested, but it is not due to subjective decisions made by others. That's going to be elements like nationality and career/professional work. As soon as you turn to some classification that is based on what that person believes, where that cannot be readily documented, that's where one enters the realm of details that cannot necessarily be objective. This includes self-claims like with Strauss (there's nothing to document him as a philosopher, only a scholar).

I do think you bring up a different way of thinking about this when you talk about notoriety, which is the equivalent of notability for us. Outside of a few core topics, notability is based on how others have judged a topic, not merely that the topic exists. If you take any random article, biography or whatnot, you'll find that our standard writing style does not typically include what that topic is notable for in the lede sentence - it establishes what the topic is as it fits into its topic area's broader taxonomy on a documentable factual approach in that sentence, and then later goes into where notability (read: how others see the topic) fits into that. Whether that is the next immediate sentence, or later in the lede, it depends on the topic area, and how significant that notability is. This keeps our ledes, broadly, in an impartial tone either direction, since we are basically saying "Here is what X is. Here is what X is seen as by the world at large." We are not pre-loading that first sentence with praise or criticism, which has a significant effect on the tone otherwise. We absolutely should not be deviating from that for notability related to pejorative labels, though if that's really what the person's principally known for, that probably means it can go into the next sentence of two of the lede (like in this case). --MASEM (t) 14:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

J. Roberto Trujillo

Advertising and unverifiable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.181.253 (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2017‎

As an assistant professor he doesn't seem notable as an academic, and a Google search doesn't find anything that's non-routine (though there being a musician with a very similar name doesn't help!) Does anyone know whether being a recipient of the Ohtli Award is considered a notable thing? If it's not, I think the article is an AFD candidate. Neiltonks (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Using talk pages to request reliable sources for a probably "true" claim that one heard in a self-published source?

I know that, per WP:BLPSPS, this would never be acceptable for citation in the George Lucas article for the claim that Lucas unsuccessfully sued the producers of a TV commercial for unauthorized use of the name "Star Wars", but the self-publishing producer in question is generally reputable (he could definitely be cited for non-controversial content in non-BLP contexts) and is probably "right" in this assertion.

I considered posting on the talk page asking if people had seen this in citable sources making the same assertion, since it really seems like the kind of thing that should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, but it then occurred to me that since BLP applies to talk pages, maybe posting on the talk page to request sources for something one had heard in a source (which per the specific requirements of BLP policy was itself unacceptable) would be a violation.

Am I right in this interpretation?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It depends on how you ask. There is a difference between saying "So-and-so did such-and-such. Just see for yourself." and "I read somewhere that so-and-so may or may not have been involved in such-and-such, but am not sure if it is true. Can someone please help?" Since BLP applies here too, your question as you've phrased it should be acceptable there as well. Zaereth (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Rata

Could someone please check my new creation Elizabeth Rata please? This is a person who has taken a strong position on race relations in New Zealand and there many sources saying or implying that she's a racist. I've picked a single one, by another notable academic at the same university, and quoted an entire sentence to preserve context. Is this appropriate? (I wouldn't have written the article, but I made a foolish commitment to write articles on every female New Zealand professor, so I'm stuck with it.) Stuartyeates (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

My two bits, Stuartyeates: I believe that incorporating a sentence from a notable person is appropriate, but if I were writing the article would probably use language such as you have in the lede ("polarising figure") in the body with a number of citations to reliable sources discussing her controversial works. Doing this demonstrates that Pihama's view is representative of a larger debate and that she is not "a small minority" (ala WP:BLP#Balance), but adding too much more content would likely throw the material out of balance. If possible, I would also include a very brief mention if Rata has responded to such statements or if any academically respected defenders do. You wouldn't want to bulk that discussion up much given the overall tone and length of the article, but being a polarising figure means you have defenders as well as detractors and right now the pro-Rata position is not reflected. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Rata? Collect (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Nut sure the question, but I'll try to explain what I mean rather broadly to make sure I get at it. :) A polarizing figure is one that causes people to divide on opinion - to take two extremely divergent stances, or opposite poles. If there aren't two sides, she really isn't polarizing. An article on a polarizing figure can't really be balanced if it doesn't present both poles. If one extreme is calling her a racist and is opposed to her views, what does the other extreme say? Presumably they agree with her, but the article doesn't really demonstrate that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

See WIKT:pro rata Collect (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh! Yeah, I missed that completely. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyedited to be as neutral as possible in wording. Collect (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Nursing Council of New Zealand

Could I get someone to have a look at Nursing Council of New Zealand please? It's horrid but I would might be perceived as a conflict of interest so I can't purge it. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It's now on my watchlist, and I purged the BLP vio. Horrid is correct. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 15:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Mikhail Blagosklonny

Why did the discussion about Mikhail Blagosklonny on the BLP noticeboard get archived without consensus ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive261#Mikhail_Blagosklonny

On the BLP page:

(cur | prev) 13:40, 20 November 2017‎ Jytdog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,666 bytes) (+2,052)‎ . . (Undid revision 811238984 by MakinaterJones (talk) Quite obvious edit warring from the IP. Please take it to talk. Thanks) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 10:45, 20 November 2017‎ MakinaterJones (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,614 bytes) (-2,052)‎ . . (This is an unacceptable and prima facia reckless addition to a BLP page - do not revert this without finding consensus on the BLP noticeboard - I will be removing beall from wiki and nominating his page for deletion) (undo) (cur | prev) 02:08, 20 November 2017‎ Jytdog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,666 bytes) (+2,052)‎ . . (Undid revision 811167632 by 63.139.102.133 (talk) removal of sourced content) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 23:13, 19 November 2017‎ 63.139.102.133 (talk)‎ . . (9,614 bytes) (-2,052)‎ . . (Removed reckless off wiki dispute/gossip - misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

This content is contested - it should be removed from the BLP page while in discussion...I did not bring it to talk because there was already an issue created here.

I asked that it not be restored till we reached consensus on the BLP noticeboard - I will not revert myself - but I encourage an admin to do so - or even strip to basic version while we consider if this is RS for BLP

Can someone help me get an RFC?

MakinaterJones (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussions are archived automatically after a few days of no activity. This is a very busy page watched by many people, so any lull in activity either means no one thinks it's a BLP issue, don't fully understand what the complaint is, don't want to get caught up in a long discussion, or were simply not persuaded. There are many great people here who take BLP very seriously, and are usually quick to speak up when they see a real issue.

I only had time to do a quick check of the sources and disputed paragraph. (I had to search the history for it, as no link is provided here.) While the information is indirectly negative toward the subject, it does not directly implicate him in anything. For this reason alone I don't think it falls into the realm of a BLPvio. It's basically a negative review of the magazines he edits, thus I think this puts it more into the realm of a content dispute of sourcing and relevance. Despite the fact that I don't think it's a BLP issue, I'll give a brief opinion of it:

The article never mentions who this Beall guy is, nor why I (the reader who has no background knowledge of any of this) should care what his opinion is. I shouldn't have to follow the link to his article for this article to make sense. As is, it leave me with the feeling of "why should I care?"

The sources are poorly written (in the second person even). Beall may be a well-known expert in the field, but I couldn't tell that from reading his blog. They read like flat-out opinion pieces written in persuasive rather than expository style. WP:RS/N would probably be the place to discuss the reliability of it.

Foremost, the information seems very relevant to articles about the journals, but looks extremely out of place in this article --for the same reason I don't think it's a BLP issue. It simply has no direct information about the subject. However, that is more an issue for the article's own talk page. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion of Beall and predatory publishing is entirely appropriate. The links to the articles on Beall himself and on Predatory open access publishing, give the information required to understand what is going on here. I wouldn't want to see that information repeated on Blagosklonny's article; it's sufficient that there are links for readers to follow. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with that, because using links as a crutch to avoid a proper explanation is just poor writing and laziness. It's like reading an article on atoms and having to look up what a proton, electron, and neutron are before being able to finish reading the article. It doesn't take a lot of extra effort (or words) to define jargon in mid-sentence. To the reader, the reliance on links to define an article just becomes a nightmare of bouncing back and forth between articles when all they want is a simple answer to a question. Easy writing makes hard reading. Zaereth (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Also in discussion on the BLP talk page[[12]]

MakinaterJones (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Raymond Hunthausen

Under the sections "Episcopal Career" and Church Investigation" there are newer insertions that seem ideologically driven rather than objective. The tone and content of this article are at considerable variance from previous versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.164.62 (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the badly-written unsourced and poorly-sourced material cited to a non-WP:RS per WP:BLP. Almost all this material was sourced to The Wanderer, an online source that has a questionable editorial history and openly biased editorial policy. The editorial oversight and independence of this site are open to question and this material violated the WP:NPOV prong of the BLP policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

John Rosemond

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

Controversial figure as an advice columnist and author, with a history of edits by those who have bones to pick, as well as protective contributions by family members and associates of the subject. Could use clean-up re: legal history, as well as watchlisting and long term attention. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Iain Lee

Your site says Iain Lee lives in slough Buckinghamshire. Slough is in Berkshire - has been since the boundary changes of 1996 when places like Milton Keynes left bucks to become a unitary authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:26C0:9F00:18AD:7B61:FBDD:ACF1 (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It says on his page that he was born in Slough in 1973... which would have been in Buckinghamshire? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Anand Chandrasekaran

This is a person non grata and should be removed because it is promoted by his PR agency from India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalengineer (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Where or to whom is he a "person (sic) non grata"? I have removed some promotional wording from the article. MPS1992 (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Steve Miller (musician)

Steve Miller (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wiki page for him both describes him as the 'eldest son' and having taught his 'older brother' to play bass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.248.136 (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, but which is true? MPS1992 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

None of the sources look very good, but as they are youtube I can't access then from this particular computer. However, see this interview from the Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame, in which he says, "I had this band booked every Friday and Saturday night for the entire school year. I eventually taught my older brother how to play bass so that he could drive us." I don't have time to fix it myself, but that would probably be a better source than what we have. Zaereth (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Johnny Hallyday

Multiple editors have been changing Johnny Hallyday to say he's dead. This may be true, but no one has cited a source, and I can't find one. Update: found a BBC story [13]. Probably needs a "recent death" template and close watching in the next few days. He's not well known in the English speaking world but very popular among French speakers. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Jeffrey Tucker

This biographical article, under the subheading "Alleged role in Ron Paul newsletters"[14], presents some unspecific claims about the subject of the article, suggesting that he helped to produce newsletters that contained racially offensive material. The three sources cited for this accusation seem weak. The first presents hearsay; the second quotes from a comment box at a magazine website; the third cites anonymous sources. Should some or all of this material be removed? The same controversy is discussed more extensively at the article Ron Paul newsletters.-- Bistropha (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Gayla Drake Paul

Hi, I am Gayla Drake, formerly Gayla Drake Paul, and I'd like to get my name corrected if possible. I can't seem to do it in the main title, though I have done some correcting and updating in the body. Can someone instruct me or do it for me? I would be happy to provide whatever documentation is needed, driver's license, divorce decree . . . My divorce became final in 2014 and I reverted to my maiden name.

Thank you. Gayla Drake — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaylaD (talk • contribs) 03:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've "moved" the article to rename it to Gayla Drake. --Bistropha (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Christopher Cerf (school politician and businessman)

Christopher Cerf (school politician and businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This ostensible biography of Christopher Cerf has strong flavors of a coatrack, essayism, and soapboxing, even after a section titled "Controversies, Scandals, and Connections to Billionaires" was removed (see discussions on Talk page). Some very non:RS sources were removed, but some existing sources have a clear slant, and even reliable news articles seem to be cherry-picked to support a narrative. There are a lot of issues, including potential WP:SYN (see Cerf once talked about "beloved" teachers,[67] but some evidence suggests... and also Cerf claimed that state control of Newark Public Schools was legitimate, a political arrangement that was partly justified by claims that Newark had too much nepotism.[32] However, in Class Clowns, author Jonathan Knee wrote that Cerf hired his brother, Monty Cerf, when he ran Edison Schools.) Myself, jcc, and Alansohn, have been trying to help Bellshook understand concepts of WP:DUE and WP:BLPSTYLE, among others, but I think we all agree that additional eyes and editorial scrutiny is needed. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Marc Anthony Richardson

I would appreciate it if someone with more experience look into the Marc Anthony Richardson article. See also the discussion on the Talk page of Stream of consciousness (narrative mode) [15]. Rwood128 (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

There's definitely a COI issue, but the content does not appear to be BLP issue. It's most likely someone writing on behalf of the subject of the article, using both user:Malaou and User:96.61.0.138 . I see no reason not to believe the explanation that the named account was shared and the subject himself made some of the edits. It's a common fake claim, but in this case there's no advantage to making up such a claim. Whether it's the author, the author's agent, or a combination of both makes no difference. The IP does not seem to realize that the COI is still present. I'll let them know and watch the article. Meters (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

What EXACTLY do you need to resolve this issue, so that tag can be removed. What in this article needs verification? This is very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaou (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll put it simply. Wikipedia does not publish autobiographies. In your own edit summaries, you admit to either being the subject or someone close to the subject. Aside from that, the article has all the signs of an autobiography, from style to narrative perspective. Thus it is obviously written by someone who either is, or is close to the subject. This is called a conflict of interest, because it is impossible for someone to write an unbiased autobiography. (Similarly, a judge couldn't preside over the trial of someone accused of killing their child, because, no matter how good a judge they are, it is impossible to be unbiased about themselves due to their conflict of interest.)

As long as the article is an obvious autobiography being edited by people with ties to the subject, the COI tag will remain. The way to remove it is to undo all your edits and never edit the article yourself again.

The way to verify information is to provide citations to reliable sources, which are things like books, news outlets, magazines, and things like that. (Not blogs, social media, youtube, or other things like that. Zaereth (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

And using multiple IPs to make the same edits you have already been warned about, after youalready said you would stop editing the article is a very bad idea. Meters (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Peftiev

Hello,

One of the editors of the article placed numerous pieces of possibly bias and detractive information, supported only by links to tabloid newspapers, some of which are not even written in English language. Statements of issue was marked by "unreliable source" template. One statement is exeptionally defamatory and was marked by "citation needed" template.

Due to the rules of living persons biography, those edits must be removed and editor's ability to edit pages must be limited, due to violation of mentioned rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.84.29.220 (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:American people who have committed sexual harassment

This probably need some type of public evaluation, so I'm posting it here. Looks like today @JimmyJoe87: created this category and then added about two dozen BLPs to it, with most likely varying degrees of applicability. Round about a half dozen were contested, and it's unclear how many of the uncontested additions have been thoroughly evaluated for accuracy. Needless to say, this is a contentious label and needs to be applied carefully re BLP.

Also pinging involved editors @Objective3000: @Galobtter: GMG ^talk 15:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggest listing at MfD where I'd !vote speedy delete. I'd argue it's a non-notable intersection ("Gosh, aren't a lot of Americans known for having committed sexual harassment?" said nobody, ever) and with the BLP concerns... it's potentially even a G10. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I see someone has removed the Cat listings in the actual BLPs, which is good work. Still, it's impossible to police a Category like this, as Watchlisting it won't show you that an article has been tagged to appear in it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

For anyone interested: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 7 GMG ^talk 15:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I already proposed a CSD as an empty category. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joseph Don't work like that. WP:C1 requires a cat to be depopulated for seven days and doesn't apply for cats that have already been nominated for a deletion discussion. GMG ^talk 15:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I removed all of those as clear BLP vios. Mass rollback comes in handy :). Only one I saw had someone convicted, even then the conviction was being contested; others it was only allegations. I was going to nominate it for CfD; good to see it has been. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Lacrim

I don't speak French, but I enjoy French music. I was looking at Lacrim's Wikipedia page to see his discography, but I stumbled across its biography. It does not make a great deal of sense to me (which might be just because I am moderately incompetent), so it may need review in that respect. It says he was "pretty much homeless," kicked out of school, and, from what I understand, was in jail for four years. It does not have any sources, and the claim that he was in jail for four years may be interpreted as libelous.

I don't often edit Wikipedia, so I may be entirely wrong here. I just thought I would bring it to attention in case it is a problem.

HarryOtter (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced contentious claims now removed unless someone re-adds them. Collect (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Lots of poorly sourced claims re-added, using what might be construed as non-neutral language. I am possibly barred from making any further edits there per ArbCom, - so would some person fix this trash? Collect (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The claims are definitely written in a very French syntax. I removed the info that was not found in the cited source. I fixed a little, but not all of the syntax to sound more neutral in English.

I don't really speak French, but (etymologically speaking) it's nearly identical to English, so it's easy to parse through. I left the info that was in the cited source. However, I'm not sure about the reliability of that source (Purepeople.com). It looks very well-written and composed in really good journalistic style, and looks more like the French version of People magazine than some tabloid. Someone who speaks French fluently should evaluate it further. Likewise, the video sources are useless to me because I can't parse through spoken French.

I do question the balance that this info provides. The source describes his arrest as being due to his fingerprints being found on a weapon, which he says he borrowed to use in a rap video. It seems to me we shouldn't mention it at all without giving all sides of the story. Then there's the balance of the entire article, because the rest of the biography consists of one sentence, making it seem like the arrest is what he is notable for. In my opinion, it should all probably be deleted on those grounds until the bio contains enough info to properly balance this, but I wanted to get others' opinions before going any farther. Zaereth (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

dennis toeppen article

blp violations have been reintroduced to this page after a ~18 month hiatus, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.161.18 (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Augustus Sol Invictus

Alice Walton

Alice Walton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I’d like to address the Automobile incidents portion of Alice Walton by bringing to your attention three points: 1) It details two car accidents that never resulted in charges, so I question their appropriateness in an encyclopedia; 2) The language used convicts Ms. Walton of a crime for which she was never charged nor convicted (and in fact, the arrest was expunged); and 3) It includes speculation.

For the sake of brevity here, more detail can be found at this edit request. I'm bringing this to the attention of this noticeboard as I believe this issue may fall under BLP guidelines, and I'm eager to get input from editors who are experienced in this area.

I will not direct edit the article because I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; I work with the Walton family office, as I disclosed on my user page and Talk:Alice Walton. Thanks, Kt2011 (Talk · COI:Walton family) 22:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Kianoush Rostami

Kianoush Rostami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mobabansos (talk · contribs)

Persistent mention of ethnicity in opening. I've asked that the user--whose primary interest here is to add Kurdish identification to biographical ledes--be blocked. And I don't want to edit war over this. Page protection is probably necessary, as it has been in the past. Thanks, JNW (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

JNW Probably should just report to ANI to be blocked as NOTHERE. AIV is not really appropriate for this. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going through some of his older contributions and fixing problems. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Galobtter. I see he's been blocked as a self-proclaimed sockpuppet. JNW (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Dashni Morad may need some reversion, because the impetus there, too, has been to remove mention of Iraqui and Dutch ties in favor of Kurdish. JNW (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Giancarlo Stanton

Persistent addition of trade reports, before official confirmation. The article is already protected, so more eyes are needed here. JNW (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

C. Christine Fair

Needs more watchers, someone keeps trying to add some rather contentious/silly stuff based (I think?) on a comment she made on facebook. Can't be sourced to a RS and quite unencyclopedic. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I note that Samsara has applied pending changes protection. --joe decker ^talk 19:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Adnan Gabeljić

User Rolejaran (talk · contribs) who claims to be the subject of this article has tried nominaing it for deletion twice [16], and [17]. The nominations are both malformed and I directed him to this board but seems he doesn't understand. In the latest AfDing attempt he he made this claim, so I think this should be brought here for OTRS verification of his identity and appropriate next action. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added the things that he did not.--Auric talk 17:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, he may not know that, but do you think that's the way of handling issues like this? What if people vote keep?, The BLP policy seems to be crafted in strong and clear-cut tone in dealing with isues with BLPs but this noticeboard is not lively to offer help. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A keep vote seems unlikely at this point.--Auric talk 00:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've closed this delete. I think the case for closure under SNOW is stronger than the case for holding on to the AfD a few more hours. --joe decker ^talk 19:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Rick Tocchet

Alan_Dennis_Clark

This article seems not objective, since it presents a person as a researcher, despite the fact that this person as no research formation (no PhD) no rresearch position and there is no material from this researcher published on peer review journals or similar, so no approval at all from the scientific community. There is only one book with comments as "The book "Physics in 5 Dimensions" describes in detail an objective view of physics." or " Compared to classical physics, "Physics in 5 Dimensions" is a physically objective and significantly more unified theory of physics and the extensive results make a good case for replacing the "Big Bang Theory" with the "Theory of Physics in 5 dimensions" as the model of the development of the universe." while there is absolutely no objective proofs of those assessment. In fact, this article looks more like a kind of advertisement of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.65.155 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not clear that the subject meets the notability criteria in WP:PERSON. Perhaps a proposal for deletion is in order per WP:DELPRO. Also, please note that much of the editing has been done by someone named Clark. It may be necessary to contact the user through her user talk page to check for any possible conflict of interest per WP:COI -- Bistropha (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Perry Marshall

I created an RfC a while ago and am putting it also here, in the hope that I may get your thoughts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Copywriter12/sandbox/Perry_Marshall

I have NCOI status, relating to a friend whose BLP has been flagged. The editor who flagged it listed a bunch of issues, which I addressed point-by-point in a sandbox version (so I don't violate NCOI rules). That editor is now not responding to repeated requests over months to view the modifications, so we're stuck in limbo. I would very much appreciate your thoughts about this RfC. Thanks. Copywriter12 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Jennell Jaquays

Editors are repeatedly deadnaming the subject of the article in the lede, and including unsourced claims about her birth name. The article already contains more than adequate information to identify her as the author of works written under her previous name, including an article redirect for that name. Pawsplay (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Jennell Jaquays linked for convenience, first. Second, I don't know. She did have some notability within the gaming circles under her former name, and was on the main page of the Wikipedia under that name 8 years ago, Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2009/December#8_December_2009. Could we compromise and make the first mentin in the "Early life and education" section? TheValeyard (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do we feel the need to delve so much into her early life? Is the mention in her works section not sufficient for encyclopedic purposes for a biography of a living person? Pawsplay (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the deadnaming concern, but she was known for something under her previous name, in fact it appears that the bulk of her most known work was done in the past. It seems unwieldy to not mention the name at all in the body of the article. Right ow it is just in the Works section, and as the title of several citations. Caitlyn Jenner was a prominent athlete under her previous name, for example. TheValeyard (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

An editor made the change again, despite not sourcing the subject's name at birth. I have again removed the unsourced statements. Pawsplay (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

My sympathy here is starting to wane. Are you now asserting that this person was not born "Paul Jaquays" ? TheValeyard (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you asserting they are? If someone wishes to assert this person was born under a certain name, that is a factual claim, and must be sourced. For all you know they were born Samuel Clemens. Pawsplay (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Pawsplay is risking WP:BOOMERANG at this point, as they have been edit-warring rather than trying to find a consensus in the talk page discussions. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:2DED:4B2B:9D14:7218 (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when there's 25-30 years of sources that cover this individual's work, work performed a different name, that means something. We have to have a balance here between respecting a trans person's identity and accurately covering past events. TheValeyard (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Maximum: put it in the "early life" section, but not in the lead or the infobox. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggested that above but was rebuffed. TheValeyard (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that she objects to it? I'd be sympathetic to that. If not, then it could be a reasonable compromise. Anyone who wants to go further could encourage her to make her views known via OTRS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the subject of this article does object to the deadnaming in the lede and mentioned it recently on Facebook. In any case, BLP quite clearly says that information must be clearly sourced, and there is no source given for the subject's birth name. Further, while public information can be used, BLP is also quite clear that editors should not go mining and otherwise engage in original research to publish biographic information that is not widely published. Edit-warring implies some kind of contention about the content of the article. There is already a consensus that unsourced information cannot be used in a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure how the concept of compromise applies to simply inserting assertions into an article because, first of all, you don't respect the privacy of a living person, and second of all, you don't care if the information is true. I don't know for a fact what her birth name was, and if you do, I'm asking you to show your sources. I feel like there is some kind of agenda here, like some people feel it's very important to deadname this individual, to the extent they are completely willing to ignore Wikipedia's fundamental commitment to sourcing information. This is ridiculous. Further, someone keeps removing the listed previous name from Works, which I can only describe as vandalism. While I don't have a crystal ball, it seems difficult not to infer that the usefulness of the article is being deliberately compromised in order to bolster the case for deadnaming the subject in the lede and in Early Life. I have been completely transparent about the process here, and active both on this page and on the article's talk page. If anyone should be sanctioned for edit-warring, it should be the editors who continue to restore unsourced statements about a living person to the article. Pawsplay (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me also note there is a section on the talk page titled Complaint of excessive focus on former gender by subject of this article dating from 2014. There is no question at all that the subject of this article's privacy and personal wishes are being disregarded, and have been for some time. Sangrolu reverted edits at that time and has done so again recently. I don't understand why exactly but there is a clear, longstanding agenda to deadname the subject of this article. Pawsplay (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please encourage her to make contact via WP:OTRS. That's the only way to put this issue to bed. I personally will support respecting her preferences, but this is the way to have a proper record of her preferences. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Even if this happened, the fact we can readily document her original name as part of the reason why they are notable would seem to prevent us from wiping that name together. We have had plenty of past BLPs that have asked for some type of well-documented "negative" information removed from their article that we have refused to act on because that information is a fundamental part of their biography and/or notability; I can't see how this type of issue would be any different. I agree minimizing the use of the name is critical to respect the wishes and our own policy on such transitions, but we cannot outright eliminate it. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't advocated completely removing the information. I'm not sure why you are raising such a point. I personally added the previously used name to the Works section. The issue I am focused on is the inclusion of the previous name in the infobox, lede, and early life, despite the lack of any source, of any quality specifying the subject's birth name. Of course that may be hard to obtain, but BLP specifically says that only widely, publicly available information should be included, so I don't see the objection. Pawsplay (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It is common for us to include the "deadname" (god I hate that term, everything offends everybody, everytime, everywhere) of a person who is known famously under the former name. We do so for Caitlyn Jenner, and we should to for Jennell because there are still hundreds of publications and titles that this person contributed to and was credited with under the name "Paul". We are a factual encyclopedia, not GLAAD - the opinion of the subject is irrelevant. The solution to pawsplay's non-concern goal-post moving is to have the lede say "(formerly Paul Jaquays)," as we do with Jenner. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with that view, and I don't think it should get in the way of encouraging her to use OTRS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

As you have stated you hate the term deadname, and by implication you don't accept that basic private personal concern, I have a concern you may struggle to maintain a neutral viewpoint and I am going to suggest you refrain from editing this article any further. Pawsplay (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

If having a strong opinion on a topic is grounds for recusal, then you would be out the door as well, if I may be blunt. This person was born Paul Jaquays, and your pedantic meanderings to the contrary do not affect that. I am fully appreciative of the fact that Jennell Jaquays felt that that name and persona was a false front that she had to maintain back in the day due to societal norms, but that cannot send 2 decades of gaming work an accreditation down the memory hole. Keep in mind that this person was deemed notable by the Wikipedia before transitioning, not after; this is the state of the article in January 2012. If we don't want it in the opening, that's fine, but it should appear somewhere. At present, it does not appear until the "Works" section. TheValeyard (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about strong opinions. The issue is hate. In any case, your frustration with my so-called pedantry does not change the fact that you may not insert unsourced information into a Wikipedia article, all the moreso in light of BLP. As for the Works section, I was the one who added it there, it is others who keep removing it. Pawsplay (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Is the subject's previous name of any great encyclopedic value other than as a name of their previously published works, for which she is notable? I'm just curious why the previous name needs to be mentioned in any other context, unless you think this really is a famous biography. This isn't Bob Dylan, after all. Pawsplay (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Because a change doesn't erase history. I dobn't care about the GLAAD guidelines, I care about our policies. Yes, she is now Jennell, yes, I will use female pronouns, NO, I will not disavow of the 55 odd years that this person became famous and was known by another name, which still exists on numerous publications. The name is factual, the change is personal. We stick with facts, not personal opinions. Paul Jaquays should be mentioned right off the hop, if not in the infobox as well. We make it clear this is a formal name, and we do not insinuate that this person continues to use that name, but we include that name. If this is hate, then call me a bigot and I will wear it as a badge of honour. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

So if you believe in policy, then I assume you are ready to agree that listing a birth name requires a source that lists it as a birth name and not just a previously used name. Pawsplay (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

: The page has now been protected by an admin, and the present version includes mentions of birth name that do not meet WP:V.Pawsplay (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is under discretionary sanctions, so users should be warned to avoid active edit wars on live space or find themselves blocked for editing behavior, not for their positions. The state of the article under protection may not agree with Pawsplay's view, but this and the talk page discussions are ongoing to find a consensus which honors policy and best practice. I have every confidence that participants in these discussions are here to improve the pedia, and these discussions will soon conclude. BusterD (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

We may actually not have 100% WP:V sourcing on the birth name, but we do know that she transitioned into her current name and what that prior name was, by reliable sources. Heck her website mentions it. ----Masem (t) 07:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

On the merits, I have to side with User:Pawsplay to the extent we need a source for "birth name". That's not unreasonable at all; IMHO we shouldn't calculate or infer birthname. Either we can source it, or we can choose not to assert it. And there's no deadline. However, like several editors commenting above, I feel we have an obligation to tell the whole story, no matter what the subject wishes. Some of the content is sourced through Jaquays' own writing (number 6 is Jaquays' Classmates page!), and that isn't an ideal situation. The subject has a different interest than ours: she'd prefer us to present her biography as she desires. Thusfar the subject has been respectful of the pedia, not editing the page herself or directly instructing minions to do so. As wikipedians, we wish to create the best online encyclopedia, using multiple reliable sources independent of the BLP subject. The vast majority of the sources, particularly those which assert the notablity of the subject, use the previous name. It's poor encyclopedic writing not to mention this in a significant way. If I wasn't already aware of the Jaquays story, and began my enquiry by reading the Pawsplay versions, I would find the article very confusing ("Why didn't they say this before?"). I believe we have a need to make the article more clear and factual with some reasonable use of the former name (which is well documented and not disputed). What are our options? BusterD (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

An admin removed the name "Paul" entirely from the article, and asked us to discuss the suitability of the following references in establishing the birth name of the subject.

"Jennell Jaquays: The Reinvented Girl". Jaquays.com. Retrieved March 22, 2012.
"Paul Jaquays: What's the Story?". Jaquays.com. Archived from the original on October 10, 2009. Retrieved March 22, 2012.

Those sources, both written by (or at least attributed to) the subject of this article, claim many of the same things as each other, and therefore from my reading they appear to establish that "Paul Jaquays" and "Jennell Jaquays" are at least the same person. On the other hand, the admin removed the name Paul from the body of the article entirely, so unless we can accept that these two links establish them as the same person, how can we know that they actually are the same person? If we can't establish that Jennell used to be Paul, then we should remove everything from the article that can only be attributed to Paul, which is nearly everything in the article.

If the question is, do either of those sources establish Paul as the "birth name", then my question is, how do we actually establish what someone's birth name actually is? Do we need a birth certificate? Should we remove the birth name from all BLP articles that have not somehow established that through a reliable source? Should we not assume that the name a person has gone from my their childhood into their adulthood is not a name they were born with? Does a subject have to prove one way or another that the name they use is their actual name? Does the subject of this article actually dispute that her parents chose the name "Paul" for her when she was born? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that we have no RS-based confirmation on the birthname. We do have confirmation that this person, presently known as Jennell Jaquays, had previously been known and published as "Paul Jaquays" from those sources and other RSes we see. We're making an improper assumption (though an easy mistake) that "Paul" might have been the birth name; there's nothing clear from before "Paul" was notable what the person's background was, so there could have been another name change we don't know about. So we should not say "Paul" is the birthname, but that Jennell was known as Paul before. Also, he's another RS [18] - it is going off a person (Ed Greenwood) who is an expert within the tabletop/computer RPG and would be considered an expert on Jaquays' contribution to the RPG field. --Masem (t) 17:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to assert in the person life section that she was previously known as Paul Jaquays as she was notable as Paul Jaquays. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

For my part, I'd prefer to use reliable sources independent of the subject. IMHO, the Varney interview is one such source. I'm good with the Greenwood quote as well. Since the subject's notability is almost entirely accrued prior to the name change, I'd prefer, in the lede "previously known as" or "previously published as" or perhaps "using Paul Jaquays as a pen name" although that last is a stretch. The mention should not appear in the Early life section; the name change didn't occur until 2012. At the very least the name change should be mentioned and explained under the LGBT advocacy section, where the documentation is strong. BusterD (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly omething like that. The lede sentence could include the statement "(previously published as Paul Jaquays)" (since that redirects here). The body, for all purposes should stay to "Jaquays" and use her/she pronouns. Only then in the Personal life section, we should state something like "Around 2012, she changed her name from Paul Jaquays to Jennell Jaquays", after the statement about her gender identification, using the mentioned sources. That way, outside of references, "Paul" is only used twice but sufficiently to establish that anyone researching this person further knows where to look for sources before 2012. We don't make any claim it is a birth name, simple that Jennell was known as Paul before. --Masem (t)

Seems reasonable enough. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty satisfied with Masem's wording. It's what I've suggested since the get-go. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm finding it a little frustrating, to be honest. This article was under one name until around 2012, there was no question raised at the time as to that name being the person's name at birth. Thousands of BLP articles will have the same presumption unless noted otherwise; the person's name is "John Doe" because they were born "John Doe", thus that is the article name. Now it is and issue because of gender transition, and someone suddenly insists that the birth name must be sourced? Again, I'm all for moving everything to a person's preferred pronouns and minimizing the deadnaming, but I'm concerned that history is being obliterated in the name of political correctness. TheValeyard (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a problem with a loooongstanding presumption on WP that if no source mentions a change of name at any point in a person's life, that we have assumed that the earliest name we can find with a person is their birthname. That's a reasonable fair presumption - outside of marriage, very few people change their name - but the presumption is a sticking point when we talk a situation like "deadnaming" like here. That means its not so much this article being the problem, but the rest of our BLPs when we incorrectly make that presumption. --Masem (t) 23:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Most articles don't list a "birth name" they just list one name, unless the subject changed their name, when a verifiable source will be used. The content of this article is only a problem because when it went from being a one-name article to being a two-name article, someone inserted the phrase "born as" without actually sourcing that claim. Pawsplay (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm good with Masem's wording, it's what Floydian has been suggesting all along. BusterD (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

So if we have an acceptable wording, can someone add that to the article? 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I challenge whether any mention of a previous name should be in the lede. Per BLP I think it's invasive, irrespective of whether it was previously a notable name. My suggestion is that it appear under Works as "previously written under" and it may be appropriate to mention it under Personal Life using the subject's page to identify a date at which she started using her new name. I reject the claim there is any difficulty in identifying who this is. Either a Wiki reader knows her by her current (notable) name, is searching under her previous name and will find the article, or is searching for her works and will still find this information (and more easily if the name is included as a previous professional name). A redirect is already in place, a mention under Personal Life will solve any lingering questions of legitimate biographic concern, and listing her previous name under Works will not only help address this issue but provide clarify what name goes with this body of work for all readers. Pawsplay (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So are you the only person still challenging the notion that the previous name this person wrote almost all their works under should be more than a footnote tacked on to the end of the article as an "oh yeah, by the way"? Because I don't think you have anything resembling consensus on your side for that one. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:C48C:8D96:5762:C40A (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I hope I am not the only person concerned about the harm and disrespect aimed at this person, and for so little benefit to anyone. If BLP doesn't cover throwing someone's deadname in your face in the lede, for someone who is notable in only a narrow way, then I would like to see BLP amended to cover this situation. Pawsplay (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

In fairness, Pawsplay, the best place to try to make changes to policies like BLP is on the policy page. If it came down to pass from there that transfolk should only be mentioned under their current name, then this discussion here would not have even been necessary. But you may find that a very uphill battle, but only you can decide if that is one worth fighting. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:A142:1567:FA7D:846F (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid moving any mountains, but I have decided to test the waters on BLP on the talk page, as you seem to be suggesting. Pawsplay (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

jessa

I do not believe that this auto-biographical article should be included on wikipedia at all since it does not meet the standard of "notable person" This person has not won a widely recognized award in their field. The article does not even include the last name of this person which is confusing. This person is also under age 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.144.16 (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit WP:TOOSOON, I would tend to agree. The statement in the lead "She has performed alongside Kris Kristofferson, Lucinda Williams, John Hiatt, Shawn Colvin etc." probably suffices as a credible claim of significance in order to pass CSD-A7, so I would take it to AFD. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Julio E. Rubio

Julio E. Rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tagged for notability since its creation, virtually all of the article was written by a single author who has minimal other contributions. The article has referenciness, but I just found a known predatory journal in there. Can someone with the correct language and subject matter knowledge have a look at this please? Guy (Help!) 10:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Naomi Oreskes

I think a few more eyes (and opinions) would be useful at Naomi Oreskes. There is a short exchange at Talk:Naomi Oreskes that summarises the issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falen

The Falen supercar is a 2008 design that can be viewed on Google images, [Falen "Concept 17.1"]. No cars were produced as of 2017. In 2017, a sports writer called the designers' phone number and reported that one of the designers was upstairs in a bedroom, and that the woman who answered the phone was middle aged.

The deleted article had a link to a WayBack business webpage for the designers, who identified themselves as a "design consultancy".

This AfD page includes an uncited charge that the design consultancy was really a kid or kids who pranked sports writers in 2008 for the purpose of having a laugh. There are also repeated uncited claims of a hoax.

I have already made one BLP removal from this page. I have stated, "AfD does not create license for BLP violations, as talk page claims about living people require citations, and AfD is a talk page." This was my last edit to the page before the AfD was closed, whereafter the statement was made, "I don't know where all this nonsense about BLP violations preventing us from identifying a hoax came from but it is as I described it...nonsense." What is the point of having a BLP policy if editors can call it nonsense with impunity? Unscintillating (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a hoax. The fact that after an initial press release, nothing has happened over 9 years (and no evidence that a firm with the ability to produce cars was ever behind it) is enough to say it's a hoax. HOAX HOAX HOAX. There's no BLP violation in that. I doubt that summarizing an article published in a magazine would rise to the level of a BLP violation in a situation where no persons are named. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment The design consultancy was called Dowdeswell and Hardie. Regarding whether small businesses are covered by the BLP policy, note, "A harmful statement about a small...organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group." Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment Further research shows that the sources from 2008 understood that this was a computer design and needed funding, and that credibility for the continuity of the project was a topic of interest for readers.

Kilt not included "Not bad for first-timers"
Scotland gets in on the supercar game with 800 hp Falen "At least it will be, once the vehicle gets off the computer screen and onto the road."
Falen Supercar By Dowdeswell and Hardie – A Scottish First "That is, if it goes into production."
Scottish Supercar - The Falen "Currently existing in SolidWorks, a limited run of 4 models are to built (funding dependent)"
Scotland’s supercar. Ultra-exclusive Falen to get 800bhp V10 "...but before you go thinking this is another pie-in-the-sky creation that will never make the leap from CAD drawing to road-going reality, it’s worth pointing out that respected engine builder Judd is already on board with the project."

Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Disputed statements:

"it's something a kid, or kids, made up one day and pulled the wool over peoples' eyes with for a lark" [19]
"I don't know where all this nonsense about BLP violations preventing us from identifying a hoax came from but it is as I described it...nonsense." [20]
"HOAX HOAX HOAX. There's no BLP violation in that." [21]

Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Who are the individuals that make up the group? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The design consultancy was called Dowdeswell and Hardie, who still have a working phone number as of February 2017. The above quote states that "respected engine builder Judd [was] on board with the project". That appears to be Judd (engine). Unscintillating (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but who are the individuals who make up the group, do they have names? And is there any evidence beyond the defunct website and the press releases churned by the media that the business ever existed? (I have searched Company House) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It is central to the discussion at the AfD that a sportswriter from Top Gear called the company and talked to one of the principles before February 2017. A webpage for the sportswriter is [22] if you want to contact the sportswriter. The 2008 business webpage address is at the Glenruthven Mill business park in Austerarder, Perthshire, Scotland.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is the burden of those making defamatory statements to provide citations. The Top Gear article's English title uses the words "almost made it" not "hoax", and the design remains visible on Google images. AfD participants are told that AfD is a public-facing forum. I have no reason to doubt that these are the responsible rural folk that they claim to be. Unscintillating (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure whether Unscintillating is disputing the close, or accusing me of a BLP violation. Disputing an AfD close should be done at WP:DRV, and I am exceptionally confident that my calling this a hoax project is not a BLP violation. Part of the reason it's clearly a hoax is that there are no living persons who appear to be publicly associated with this at any time over the ten years since there was the (hoax) announcement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Asaad Al Eidani

All important references are in Arabic, and cannot verify key information.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you clarify? Don't they cover the material, are they unreliable sources, or is it just that you (and I ;-) cannot read the language? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability is satisfied as long as someone can read and access the source, not everyone. We have always allowed non-English sources. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with above; will remove tag.Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Simon R. Taylor

Much of this article appears to be based on sources which are not credible, or do not appear to exist. Per BLP I think it should all be removed. On that basis, is the author notable? No mainstream media appears to have ever covered him. Given the history, this may be a (malicious) prank.

http://simontaylorbooks.co.uk/about-simon/4538819698 - his own website, now defunct
OutPost: The story of Monday Morning Post|work=BBC Radio 4|publisher=BBC|date=23 July 2011 - this does not appear to exist
Monday: Impossible - The Encyclopedia|date=2014|publisher=The Phoenix Media Estate - Self-authored book about his own work, also cannot trace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afriendlyeditor (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a WP:PROD on it now, citing lack of notability, so let's see where that goes. I believe he's not notable - I can't find anything other than routine coverage of him. If the PROD gets removed, the article should probably go to AFD. Neiltonks (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Me Too (hashtag)

There is currently a request for comment open in relation to the inclusion or exclusion of a list of public figures who have been named in sexual harassment/sexual assault allegations in connection with the #MeToo campaign. There is a lack of consensus as to whether the list meets the BLP requirements, and also as to whether it is a result of WP:SYNTH. There is currently a limited diversity of views amongst editors on the article's talk page, so some other opinions would be appreciated. Kb.au (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who knows me around here has heard my thoughts on this matter in general. Rather than repeat myself, I'll use someone else' words about the evils inherent in categorizing people and reducing them to mere groups or lists. From the book Psychology by David G Myers, from the chapter titled Cognitive Roots on Prejudice: "In categorizing people into groups, however, we often stereotype them. Stereotypes may contain a germ of truth, but they bias our perceptions." From The Communicated Stereotype: From Celebrity Vilification to Everyday Talk by Anastacia Kurylo: "Tajfel (1969) explains that people who are not prejudiced can become prejudiced if categorization is promoted in a particular circumstance, such as what occurred in Nazi Germany."

I could list source after source. The point is that categorization of people leads to prejudice (a term that means "prejudgment", or irrational conclusions based on the smallest of facts). For this reason I believe we should be very careful about making lists or categories of people, especially based on factors like race, religion, or even unproven allegations. People, their lives, and situations are far more complicated than any list or category can reveal, and therefore they are inherently biased and off-balance. It's one thing if talking about people convicted in a court of law, but something entirely different when convicting them in the court of public opinion. Categorization always seems innocent until it happens to you. Zaereth (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I have been bold and removed that list, despite the article being protected. There are massive inherent and unavoidable BLP issues in Wikipedians synthesizing a laundry list of perceived sexual offenders from a multitude of disparate sources. The RFC is heading in the direction of removal anyway, but if consensus does a 180° then the list can be reinstated, I guess. I would suggest that while discussing whether or not content violates BLP, it is always better to remove the offending content and potentially reinstate it if the RFC discussion reaches the conclusion that the content is acceptable. fish&karate 11:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

While I'm aware of the pitfalls of unsupported allegations about living persons, #metoo lists appear in sources we usually consider WP:RS. NBC News deserves credit for publishing a list containing two high-profile former employees, Matt Lauer and Mark Halperin.

The existence of #metoo accusations is, itself, a notable event - the #metoo accusers were, collectively, named Time's Person of the Year for 2017.

This is a case where notoriety and notability (documented in reliable sources) overlap for our purposes. I plan to take part in the request for comment, because the reasons I'm seeing so far here to take our #metoo list down, apart from the always valid one of removing a potentially defamatory article about a living person, are WP:OR. Thanks, fish, for being proactive. Better safe than sorry. loupgarous (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Richard Wolstencroft

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

This site has been hacked and filled with defamatory and libelous material and removes large swathes of biography.

Mr Wolstencroft was involved in a Free Speech issue and controversy that attracted the ire of the New Left SJW and Antifa - who have created a slanderous profile.

Resort to pre October profile - after that it is often libelous. I know his true life and story and can create a balanced and fair portrait with fair links to controversies.

Wolstencroft's new film The Debt Collector is a bout a guy who FIGHTS and kills Nazis - not a guy who sympathizers with them - for just glaring one eg recently added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎RichardMasterson (talk • contribs)

I don't see a problem with the material on the David Irving film; the sources check out. Certainly nothing defamatory. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

also known as Richard Masters "RichardMasterson"..hmmm Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm more surprised that someone who directs films for a living can't string together a coherent English sentence. Black Kite (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly you have never seen Night of the Lepus.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

We now have administrators such User:Oshwah inserting libelous and unreferenced material here all while falsely declaring that his "ADDITION" is the removal of unreferenced material. Michael Ronson (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Explanation has been provided here. No need to panic; I wasn't trying to "insert libelous and unreferenced material" anywhere :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

[today-facebook-1] Tang, Lousia (15 July 2015). "The Big Read: In the Facebook era, whither quality public discourse?". Today (newspaper). Retrieved 16 November 2017.

[MLC-2] "MLC member Calvin Cheng's online conduct comes under scrutiny". The Independent.

[3] Chia, Lianne (27 July 2016). "Dealing with online lynch mobs: How companies should react". Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved 24 November 2017.

[4] ttps://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016/07/22/the-silence-of-the-media-literacy-council/

[5] ttps://mothership.sg/2016/08/straits-times-cna-got-it-wrong-sr-nathan-was-never-spores-first-elected-president/

[6] ttps://statestimesreview.com/2017/05/01/government-linked-company-publish-fake-survey-87-of-singaporeans-believe-straits-times-is-credible/

[7] ttp://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/mda-rolls-out-licence-scheme-for-news-websites

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]