Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive286

Kyle Kashuv

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

The BLP on Kyle Kashuv suffers from a massive BLP problem. Kashuv, 18, is one of the survivors of the Parkland shooting and became known for disagreeing with his fellow survivors on gun gontrol issues.

The article is completely dominated by a "racial slurs" section which documents, to the most minor detail, allegations that Khashuv made racial remarks in a private chat when he was 16.

I tried to trim that down to the minimum necessary to understand the related political debate, but my change was reverted twice. My arguments on the talk page are ignored.

Also, one involved editor plastered my talk page with numerous ominous warnings about official sanctions. I have no idea if that is now considered standard practice, but I found it threatening.

I'd appreciate if someone uninvolved could have a critical look at it and enforce BLP where necessary. Wefa (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The warnings about discretionary sanctions have nothing to do with your edits personally, they're meant to notify you that you're editing a contentious article with a potential minefield of issues.--Auric talk 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, a few things:

• Your claim that My arguments on the talk page are ignored is false. I responded 12 minutes after you posted to the TP. I was writing up another response when you filed this. And, it has only been an hour since you posted on the TP.
• I placed discretionary sanctions warnings on your page because that’s standard practice. You didn’t bother to mention that I also said:” Sorry about all the turquoise above. That article is under a lot of possible sanctions.
• There are nine WP articles of student activists from this event, out of 900 students in building 2. (Not sure which building he was in.) None of the dead students have articles. I wouldn’t say a murderer put him into the public arena, as it didn’t with the other students without articles. Meeting with Trump, Melanie, Justice Thomas, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senator Orrin Hatch, becoming director of high school outreach of the pro-Trump group Turning Point USA and giving speeches about gun rights are what put him in the spotlight. Otherwise, why would there be this article? So, if this article is to exist, we must document according to the preponderance of reliable sources. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. He was 16 when he made these comments, and he was 16 when he gained national prominence. This story is heavily covered by RS (even on the front page of The New York Times today) and there is really not that much else about him that rates an encyclopedia article. So, it appears to be DUE. I could be convinced otherwise, given a discussion that was a bit more congenial. O3000 (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As you keep ignoring wp:blp and especially wp:undue even though I brought them up several times it is quite accurate to say you (and the other guy) ignore my arguments. Your post here confirms my impression - you essentially argue "the guy has it coming because he is a conservative". Why else would you bring up the fact he has met Justice Thomas or the First Lady. For the debate about the article those facts are completely irrelevant. Meeting Justice Thomas does not make you a public person. And for what its worth, of course Wikipedia is censored - you are supposed to fill that role as an editor. You are supposed to make well weighed decisions about what and what not to include, with how much text and in which form. The goal is to create a text that is essential truthful at its core as a whole and properly represents and explains the article's subject. All the rules we have only serve to get you to that result.

as for your threatening, this is the first time i got plastered with a ton of official sounding warnings for the crime of editing an article. And I have edited pages on politics before. Your ominous battery of warnings seemed extremely alarming to me, and I am pretty convinced you intended to scare me away. Wefa (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

beyond that, we should keep debate on the article on that article's talk page. Wefa (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• 1 I did not threaten you. That is a false statement.
• 2 I did not ignore you. I responded in 12 minutes.
• 3 I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by: "the guy has it coming because he is a conservative". I never said anything remotely like this.
• 4. You are the one that brought the discussion here when it belongs on the TP.
• 5. I didn't just mention Thomas -- I gave a long list.
• 6 If this was ANI or AE I would advise a WP:BOOM for WP:BATTLEFIELD. Try to AGF. Attack mode never brings consensus.
• 7 I suggest you avoid controversial articles until you have more experience. O3000 (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

re 1: I did not claim "you threatened me". I accurately noted your action and explained why I felt threatened by them. Those were true statements. I leave it to others to decide if my impression was reasonable. Wefa (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Wefa not only did you remove important context from that section, you actually inserted false information. You wrote "Kavhuv had made a number of racist comments in a private chat group among a hand full of friends". No, he actually wrote his racial and antisemitic slurs in a shared Google document. Also, "hand full of friends" is idiomatic. Such wording is best avoided in encyclopedic writing.- MrX 🖋 21:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I removed superfluous detail and replaced it with a short summary. None of the details in the article are "important context", and without proper understanding they are defamatory. That shared google doc IS shared among a few friends, thus private not public, and Kashuv actually spoke of a chat in his statement. Wefa (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

oh, and your allegations against me illustrate my concern quite well. Wefa (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You plainly wrote "chat". That is not correct. It is false information. Also, Google documents can be private, shared amongst select users, or entirely public. While were at it, what source says "They were published years later by someone opposed to his politics."? The cited source actually wrote "Kashuv’s racist messages were shared with HuffPost by a former student and a current student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.", so again, it appears that you added something not verifiable. Tell me again why we're here?- MrX 🖋 21:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

we are here because you insist on maintaining an article in a state that essentially defames a young man in violation of both WP:BLP and especially WP:UNDUE.

as for your claims, read the existing article sources. This one clearly explains the the publication came from a classmate who found his politics "hypocrisy". And the NYT says "A few weeks ago, documents leaked showing that about two years ago, when he was 16, some months before the shootings, Kashuv wrote racist comments in text messages and on a collaborative Google doc.". I made a good faith effort to summarize that as "in a private chat".

You may disagree on that. You may disagree on sources. But you reverted me without any explanation and brought nothing of that up in talk. Now you bring it up here. Why? And shouldn't we have this debate on the talk page? Wefa (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we should be on the TP. Why did you bring it here when the discussion had just begun? O3000 (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Because "I'd appreciate if someone uninvolved could have a critical look at it and enforce BLP where necessary."Wefa (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No BLP violation per PUBLICFIGURE, and also DUE. Kashuv is an activist who has given speeches about gun rights. He thus falls under BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. The incident is well-documented, sources are below. The incident is relevant because he made the remarks, then he criticized Bill Nye for cursing, prompting his classmates to release the remarks to show hypocrisy. The incident is noteworthy due to the world ramifications for him. (1) Shortly after the screenshots were threatened to be posted, he resigned from his organization Turning Point USA. (2) He was forced to make a statement denouncing his own remarks. (3) He lost his place in Harvard University. starship.paint (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The incident is DUE because it fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. This incident caused him to have his first article that was actually focused on him as the main topic (as opposed to a passing mention) on the news agency [1] Reuters, the American [2] Bloomberg, the British [3] BBC News, the American [4] ABC News, the Australian [5] ABC News, and the Canadian [6] Toronto Star. starship.paint (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

And another author of the Kashuv article who claims everything is perfect. It is not - basically you joined the "he has it coming because he is conservative" line. The article is grossly disproportionate with the focus on this one issue. This is not getting fixed by constantly claiming the contrary. You insist on defining a person by a few lines he wrote in private in an attempt of humor at the age of 16. Kashuv is a teenager who was catapulted into the spotlight by being victim of a school shooting.

and you bring up a straw man - I am not arguing for deletion of the issue, just for a proper summarization. So you arguing the matter belongs into the article is pointless; nobody claims otherwise. The point is that the mass of details is improper. Wefa (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you stop making false accusations against other editors like: you joined the "he has it coming because he is conservative". This does not contribute to consensus building, and frankly, does not reflect well on you on a noticeboard with 3,230 page watchers. O3000 (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I see your point; please propose a better name for the issue. The list of people Kashuv met keeps coming up as an explanation for unrelated content decisions. My general approach to BLPs is that we should grant every subject the same benevolent respect and courtesy we afford any person we meet on the street. This seems to not apply here, and I find no explanation why. Wefa (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the [Alex Jones TP], you will see that I and others are arguing against including of recent child porn stories. (And I am no fan of Jones.) That’s because there are actual problems with BLP and sourcing. Two editors added the claim that Kashuv is a racist last night, which I removed. We go by WP guidelines, not whether or not we like someone. We have explained why the text in this article fits those guidelines. O3000 (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wefa: basically you joined the "he has it coming because he is conservative" line. - have I, or is this only in your mind? I'll think I would have done the same if it was liberal David Hogg (activist) who had said these comments, assuming the same coverage. starship.paint (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You insist on defining a person by a few lines he wrote in private in an attempt of humor at the age of 16. - have I, or is this only in your mind? If you think merely quoting Kashuv's words from the age of 16 defines Kashuv forever (as opposed to all his other actions), perhaps it's actually you that is the judgmental one? Al Franken and Donald Trump both have sexual misconduct allegations against them. Does that define them? I think not, they've done many other things in their lives. starship.paint (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I will afford Kashuv the same benevolent respect and courtesy we afford any person we would meet on the street who at the age of 16 posted "NIGGER" multiple times if that person is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. starship.paint (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and please don't treat Kashuv like the only thing he's done is survive a school shooting while being conservative (I'm sure many other Douglas students are similar, and they don't have articles here). He is politically active [7] here's a video of him giving a speech to the NRA. This is what separates him from the non-notable students - his activism making him a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. starship.paint (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No, student activism does not make you a public figure. Certainly not, or only with extensive qualifications, if you are a minor. Decades ago I was chair of what can be described as my university's equivalent of the College Republicans; in due course I also became vice chair of the respective state association. Does that make me a public figure? I very much doubt so. Just a vanilla citizen doing his part in the machinery of democracy.

The same applies here; with the additional fact that we must make allowances for the fact that he was a minor, that we need to respect the fact that this was private conversation (no, he did not "post" this), and for the fact that we are basically incapable to recognize the humoristic component in this, as text only medium does not adequately transport what in a collaborative session with folks simultaneously working on a shared doc and talking to each other). None of this is accurately reflected in the article. Someone else may have overtly called him a Nazi, but you are doing exactly that in a veiled and insidious form by expanding and waffling on a few stupid lines of shit-talking that could easily be summarized in 10 words or so.

I offered you a summary that reflects what happened (we can gladly debate the chat vs private google doc thing) but you reverted me twice without giving any reasonable argument here. Instead all of you keep adding to this thing, making it the by far largest paragraph and mealy 30% of the article. You even have phrases only based on hearsay - when even your source Buzzfeed only claims that a text message "reportedly" says X, you put that in the Wikipedia article.

The clear purpose of this article is to cause harm. It shouldn't, we shouldn't, Wefa (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wefa: - the text messages are based on screenshots, not hearsay. The content is only harmful if you cannot find it in your heart to forgive him for his past. He is a public figure, there's no denying it, when you are arguing with the sources themselves. Fox News: a role model for young conservatives across the country ... a staunch defender of the Second Amendment. Miami Herald: gained a national following as a counterweight to the March For Our Lives. Associated Press: the most prominent conservative voice among the students. Also the content is less than 25% of the body. starship.paint (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• By my count here and on the article TP, it is six to one that there is no BLP vio. To save editor time, I suggest this be closed and referred back to the article TP instead of continuing two discussions, where it belonged in the first place. O3000 (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, it is three to one at this point (you, Mr X and Starship.paint - Auric did not comment on the article). And all three of you are active editors of the Kashuv article who are certainly not uninvolved. I came here to ask for an uninvolved third party's input. Wefa (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t count Auric. It’s now 7: O3000, Mr X, Starship.paint, Nil Einne, Space4Time3Continuum2x, GRuben, Gleeanon409. Obvioiusly I’m including the TP discussion. O3000 (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• It is obviously undue to expand to such an extent as it is on the page. We don't do that for anyone else. However, he is a conservative, so there's that. And that is the bottom line. For anyone else, we would just say that "he has made racial slurs, etc." we would never spell them out or go for three paragraphs. I don't think it would be a BLPVIO, but it is UNDUE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not obviously undue, but if you would like to show us your analysis of the sources that have reported about it versus sources that have reported about other aspects of his life, we can certainly have a meaningful discussion about proportional coverage.- MrX 🖋 00:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• WP:UNDUE is based on prominence in reliable sources. He is most prominent in reliable sources on this issue, as I have demonstrated above. It’s not relevant to bring up other people, because other people’s incidents may have lower prominence in reliable sources. starship.paint (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Uninvolved opinion. Looking at the discussion I must agree mainly with the thoughtful points made by O3000 and MrX, and to an extent starship. There doesn’t seem to be any BLP violation, and I don’t see the racist content as being undue as it’s undoubtedly had a massive impact on his life. His own comments about the controversial comments seem to be already covered. The main thing I suggest is to get all of it out of the “Personal life” section, it seems very odd there. This and related issues can be handled on the talk page. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Which section then Gleeanon409? starship.paint (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: I would make the main section be “Biography”, make “Shooting aftermath and activism” a subsection, move the entire racist comments section there as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  A bit of a problem Gleeanon409 - the whole article is actually his biography. So there wouldn’t be any other sections. Seems redundant to state a section on biography. starship.paint (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: I’ve seen it done many times, the main section would usually be “Career”, but in cases “Biography” can successfully be the main container for all the rest. Technically “Shooting aftermath and activism” could cover anything that happened after the shooting, but that’s for others to decide. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess the problem here is there is no career and everything relates to anything that happened after the shooting. Kind of like folks that write their life story at age 20. O3000 (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kyle Kashuv#A WP:DUE challenge - I invite editors to find other articles where Kashuv is a main subject of the article. starship.paint (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

George Pell

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

---

Editors at George Pell have been re-adding questionable, contentious material to the article after I removed it. They do not seem to respect WP:BLP. The disagreement started here. There is a group of editors that want to keep defamitory information based upon their own opinions rather than well published sources. - Fartherred (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The reference from Reuters [8] clearly states that Pell is a convicted child sex offender. The assertion is neither contentious nor questionable, it is a fact. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The expression "convicted child sex offender" is also published by ABC News, news.com.au, 7 News, 9 News, Financial Review and SBS News. It is factual and impeccably sourced. WWGB (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed this is well-sourced and non-contentious. GiantSnowman 12:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the assertion that George Pell is a sex offender is contentious and questionable is shown by its being contested on appeal as discussed here in the supporting published information I cited in my edit of George Pell. The fact that the prosecutor had nothing to say to some objections and that David Marr is quoted as referring to the proceedings as a trainwreck (sic) indicate that it is questionable from the same source. What Hughesdarren supports by his reference from Reuters is that many people have been convinced by published reports of the conviction. That does not make the conviction any more reliable. It is still based upon the testimony of one man claiming to have been a victim. Bret Walker found 13 reasons why there should have been reasonable of Pell committing the alleged crime. There have been men on death row for years because a jury convicted them of murder and they were freed by the Innocence Project. As Wikipedia records the Innocence Project exonerated 362 people of serious crimes by January 2019. Continuing to point out that many people have been swayed by the testimony of one man, including the jurors does not make that one man's testimony true. It is still questionable and contentious. No matter how many people have been convinced by questionable statements, no matter how many times their being convinced is reported as sensational news the fact of guilt or innocence is still contentious - Fartherred (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing contentious about Pell's guilt, a verdict which remains fact unless overturned on appeal. It seems that you are endeavouring to conduct your own "appeal" on the pages of Wikipedia. That is not how the law works. Pell remains a "convicted child sex offender" unless overturned by due process. WWGB (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

What seems to confuse WWGB is that an innocent man can be wrongly convicted. If an innocent man is found guilty of a sex offence then he is guilty of criminal sex offence but he is not a sex offender and has never been one. When a man is innocent he remains innocent if he is wrongly convicted. That is why the innocent people can be freed by the Innocence Project. If George Pell's conviction were not contentious then there would not be an appeal with Bret Walker contending that George Pell should not have been convicted. Where does WWGB get the absurd notion that simple conviction can turn an innocent man into a sex offender? Did he just make that up? Hughesdarren and GiantSnowman agreeing with him does not make WWGB any better as a source of information - Fartherred (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fartherred: please WP:DROPTHESTICK. GiantSnowman 13:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with WWGB, Should Pell be found not guilty on appeal then maybe the lede statement could be edited to reflect this. Until then the statement that a Pell is a convicted child sex offender is a well supported statement of fact. The only person that seems to find it at all questionable and contentious is Fartherred. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, agree with this. We can review wording if and when an appeal is successful. GiantSnowman 12:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman wants me to drop the stick but this argument is not to be decided by a number of editors just agreeing with some absurd notion. Hughesdarren claims that I am the only person that seems to find sex offender status at all questionable or contentious. Bret Walker is a person that finds it questionable and contentious. Until the appeal is settled it is a question that is not settled. How much simpler can I put it that the matter is questionable? The WP:BLP states that "...the possibility of causing harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". There is no exception made for causing harm to Catholic Cardinals. Callous indifference to harming Cardinal Pell is what WP:BLP is trying to prevent. Please consider that policy. - Fartherred (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

"this argument is not to be decided by a number of editors" - no, that's precisely how we sort things. WP:CONSENSUS. GiantSnowman 14:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

In WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion The title of the policy page tells it all. Verifiable facts from reliable sources and statements of policy should matter more than the number of editors. There should be time to get all of the pertinent considerations aired. - Fartherred (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not a poll, though. GiantSnowman 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

While certainly a convicted child sex offender is 100% truth, its forced inclusion in the first sentence of the lede is a violation of the impartialness aspect of BLP. Not that this isn't lede material, it's just not lede sentence material if the person was significantly notable for other things as well. Forcing it in to the first sentence creates a tone that this is going to be a "negative sounding" article, which we cannot write as under BLP or NPOV. --Masem (t) 13:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to moving the point of contention out of the lead, but would still object to calling a man definitely guilty while the case is still in appeal. - Fartherred (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, frankly, I think it's completely accurate to say that he is best known for being a senior cleric convicted of child-sex offences. You might not think that is 'fair', or you might think that it is, but it's not really in question that it's true. I don't really see how it fails to be 'impartial' either. -- Begoon 14:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem with putting it in the lede sentence, giving it seemingly equal weight to his past work in the clergy, is that we don't know with hindsight how he will be remembered in the long term. We know prior to the arrest that Pell had some respectable work in the clergy so that is certainly what he was notable for in the long term, but we are far too soon to say that this conviction is as important. --Masem (t) 15:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

"it's completely accurate to say that he is best known for being a senior cleric convicted of child-sex offences" is spot-on. GiantSnowman 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Is that the long-term view? We have no idea, and we won't know for several years. That's definitely the view this moment, but WP avoids writing for the moment and looks to the long-term coverage per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. --Masem (t) 14:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

What the REUTERS piece actually documents is not Cardinal Pells guilt but the harm that can be caused by people piling on to a heap of condemnation when an accusation is made. People who knew nothing but news reports about the incident and nothing about Cardinal Pell other than that he is a cardinal suddenly were sure that he deserves to have his name erased. I can understand people thinking that the name Pell is now associated with sexual abuse but people should think if many of the complaints against him came to naught this last one might too and be prepared to restore the name. The CNN article suggests that the complainant's knowledge of the interior of the sacristy indicated his truthfulness but he could have gained that knowledge being there with anyone other than Pell and at thirty years of age you cannot say that he must exhibit childhood truthfullness by being incapable of the mentally difficult task of lying. - Fartherred (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The simple fact is that he IS a convicted child sex offender. You may believe that the conviction was in error, but at Wikipedia we rely on what's stated in Reliable Sources, and they completely support that characterization. If his appeal is successful, then the article will clearly need to change to reflect that, but absent that, it's entirely appropriate and accurate to keep it as it is. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@BubbaJoe123456's assertion is neither simple nor factual. The articleCardinal Pell back in prison while judges consider appeal @CNN contains an assertion that Bret Walker SC, representing Cardinal Pell, gave 13 reasons why the jurors should have been reasonably in doubt of the guilt of Cardinal Pell. These 13 reasons should not have all slipped by the judge, the barrister for the crown and Cardinal Pell's defense. It is possible that this case never should have gone to trial but three senior appeals judges had to look at the case on appeal. The 13 reasons were "stated in Reliable" text from CNN. This text does not "completely support that characterization" that George Pell is a sex offender. WWGB has still not responded to the question I asked at 13:13 hours above, "Where does WWGB get the absurd notion that simple conviction can turn and innocent man into a sex offender?" Well, BubbaJoe, do you want to take a stab at describing the source of this notion that your assertion relies upon? - Fartherred (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman and BubbaJoe. He is a convicted child sex offender. The fact that he is appealing his case does not change that. And while you didn't ask me, I'll take a stab at answering your question anyway: A "sex offender" is someone who has been convicted of a sex crime. Therefore, by its very definition, being convicted has turned a man into one. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lilipo25 A handy way to win an argument is to make up a definition that makes you right "by its very definition" and then just stick to that definition. The tactic is not very helpful for communication because it results in two opposing sides effectively talking in different languages and not listening to each other. I define a sex offender as one who violates a sex law. By my definition it is possible for a person who is not a sex offender to be wrongfully convicted of violating a sex law and still not be a sex offender. By your sort of definition those wrongfully convicted of murder would have been turned into murderers and when some of those were freed by the Innocence_ Project they would have been transformed again into innocent men. More people than just Lilipo, WWGB and GiantSnowman use the magical transformation definition but I suggest it is neither helpful nor universal. It does not seem to come from a dictionary as a source but is saved from being original research by its status as common knowledge. Even though many elements of common knowledge contradict each other, we cannot communicate without it. - Fartherred (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fartherred So you're criticizing me for "making up a definition that makes [me] right" in your first sentence, and then in your third sentence, you make up a definition that does exactly that for yourself, even saying "I define a sex offender as..." and "By my definition...". Interesting tactic.

But I'm sorry to tell you that you're wrong: I didn't make it up, and it does indeed "come from a dictionary as a source" - two dictionaries, in fact. I checked both the most widely-used dictionary in the United States, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and the most widely-used dictionary in the United Kingdom, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary, in order to get it. Here's how the Merriam-Webster defines "sex offender":

sex offender noun

Definition of sex offender

person who has been convicted of a crime involving sex

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex%20offender

And here's how the Oxford Learner's Dictionary defines it:

sex offender noun

BrE /ˈseks əfendə(r)/

a person who has been found guilty of illegal sexual acts

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/sex-offender

And there you have it - not a "magical transformation definition" at all. Just a plain old common dictionary definition, I'm afraid.Lilipo25 (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Well my plain old Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, ELEVENTH EDITION (c)2007 contains no definition for sex-offender as a hyphenated pair of words. It defines offend as "to violate a law or rule". One is forced to add to the definition by adding the meaning of the suffix and the word "sex" if one is to come up with a definition for "sex-offender" by my plain old dictionary. That is how I came up with the definition for sex-offender as "one who violates a sex law". I intended it as the tactic of the plain honest truth. I recognize that the internet dictionary definition for sex-offender has been in use by some people for some time. That should be how the definition got reported by the internet dictionary. We must live with the consequences of people using that definition. I looked up murderer on Merriam-Webster.com and it at least agrees with my plain old paper dictionary. It is "one who murders". I had not anticipated that such definitions would be available to me on line without buying the service. The internet definition of sex-offender might qualify as plain but I doubt that it is old. We are faced with the prospect of it being possible for someone to be both a sex-offender and perfectly innocent of committing any sex offence at the same time since Innocence Project demonstrated that people can be perfectly innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. - Fartherred (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Firsty, I am confused about why you think that "sex offender" is hyphenated. It isn't, either in common use or in either of the two dictionaries that I just gave the links for (or, I would guess, any other dictionary).And secondly, if you click again on that first link to the Merriam-Webster definition and look at it, you will see this directly below the definition:

First Known Use of sex offender

1911, in the meaning defined above

So that makes it clear that this definition of "sex offender" is indeed old. I don't know when it was first included in the M-W dictionary, but as I don't have a hard copy of the Eleventh Edition on hand to check, I am unable to verify your statement that it isn't in there one way or the other and will have to take your word for it. At any rate, it was in use under this definition over a hundred years ago, well before the internet was even a glimmer in Al Gore's eye. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I saw sex-offender with the hyphen somewhere while searching for related material. It would not be the first time I misspelled something. Thank you for taking my word that "sex offender" is not in my dictionary. It would be between "sex object" and "sexology". That's where I looked and it is not there. I do not recall ever seeing "sex offender" in a dictionary. I have not been looking for it until just lately. I do not think we must document just how new or old "sex offender" is to dictionaries. The meaning is important to the article and It seems to me that both meanings are used. When editors wanted to have "convicted" modifying the meaning of "child sex offender" in the article they gave evidence that the meaning of "sex offender" does not always include "convicted". Otherwise there would be no need to add it separately. - Fartherred (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The portion of child victims that know the offender is greater than 90%. The two share some established relationship. The portion of child abusers that are part of the child's family or closely associated with the family is greater than 70%. Pell was new to his position as archbishop, trying to meet people. It is very unlikely he was well known to the accuser. The headline grabbing news is often about an allegation of clerical abuse of a child or children. There is some reason behind this. Clergy who put forward rules against sexual impropriety are expected to model propriety. Sexual assaults from decades ago occurred in a social climate in which it was usual to hush up such crimes. Whether this was thought to be for the good of the child or not it happened and the Catholic church as part of this social climate hushed up sex offenses. Now they pay for it with clerical crimes being dug up from decades past even for dead priests. This keeps plentiful fodder for sensationalist news. With clerical abuse in the news so often many people get the idea that clerics are the main perpetrators. This sort of attitude could easily contribute to an innocent man being found guilty. If the jury is actually in error in Pell's case, then Wikipedia is contributing to the problem in letting an innocent cleric be presented as a sex offender. I want the article on Pell to hold off on naming Pell a sex offender until the appeal is decided and published to avoid what seems to me as harmfully distorted news. Sorry, I have forgotten how to format references in discussion. - Fartherred (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Sorry. this is a combination of original research (see WP:No original research) and personal opinion (see WP:Neutral point of view) and therefore violates two out of three of Wikipedia's core content policies. It cannot be considered when editing a Wikipedia article. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The assertion that sexual abusers of children are mostly members of their own family or familiar persons is well documented. I gave reference. The assertion that Pell was not likely well known by the accuser would qualify as "original research" in the Wikipedia jargon. It can not be published as an article. Here in discussion it is just a statement that people can find more or less convincing for whatever point might be supported. The assertion that clerical sexual abuse is more prominently reported in news sources than family member sexual abuse is a fact that I could support with citations if I were to do an extraordinary amount of work but it can be stated here in discussion with the assumption that readers of this material do not need the citations to know that it is a fact. Discussions on ANI are not limited to statements supported by citation. We should just be factual and stick to the point. - Fartherred (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that the assertion is documented - you misunderstand. You are doing research into percentages of sexual abusers who are related to their victims to try to prove here your assertion that Pell is likely not guilty of the crime of which he has been convicted. That is original research that cannot be used to determine the editing of a Wikipedia article - it does not relate directly to Pell or his case. It isn't up to you to argue his innocence through research and statistics about sexual abuse in general. That violates the WP:No original research core content policy. You have no idea how well-known he was to the accuser, and again, you are trying to prove his innocence with conjecture about the closeness of their relationship. It is never up to Wikipedia editors to try to prove guilt or innocence of those convicted of crimes. That is not being "factual" or "sticking to the point" at all; we are here (and this is the BPL Noticeboard, not ANI, btw) to discuss what can be included in the article, and nothing derived from your personal opinions or from original research can, so it's all pointless to argue it. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to Pell’s status as a convicted child sex offender being accurately and impartially explained in the body of the article. I also have no objection to that fact being summarised in the lede. However, I object to it being mentioned in the first sentence in the lede, for two reasons. Firstly, Pell’s notability and his contribution to society are historically and primarily related to his roles in the church so these roles should constitute the first sentence. Secondly, Pell has appealed his conviction on the grounds of unreasonableness; the Appeal has been heard by three judges of the Appeal Court. We wait to hear their verdicts. The appeal process is a legitimate part of the criminal justice process so Wikipedia should give due deference to it by refraining from using the first sentence to proclaim Pell’s guilt while that guilt is being assessed by a Court.

If the Appeal Court rejects Pell’s appeal, it may then be appropriate to promote Pell’s conviction to the first sentence of the lede, but that is something we can discuss if, and when, Pell’s appeal is rejected. Dolphin (t) 01:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I would like to help the closing admin. If everyone has had their say, write that User:Fartherred is topic banned for two years from articles that deal with sexual assault or the legal response to sexual assault. Warn User:Fartherred that if the behavior is repeated results could be more severe. Take the usual steps to close an ANI and go on with you day. - Fartherred (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise - until the appeal result is announced - is to change the wording to "... an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church who was convicted of child sex offences and is currently appealing that conviction". This is undeniably true (he has been convicted) - and would be true even if the conviction is overturned in future. We can revert to the current wording if the appeal fails, or reword if it is successful. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Very many convicted criminals are appealing their sentences, it doesn't mean much and isn't particularly worthy of mention anywhere in the lead. On the other hand I agree with removing this from the very first sentence of the lead. For example Idi Amin is known for his crimes but they are not clearly mentioned until the end of the lead. This may be incorrect in the Idi Amin article (I think it should be in the first paragraph of the lead because it's what he is known for), but there should be some consistency in this sort of thing. In both cases, I think the first few sentences should clearly describe what the person is best known for, flattering or not. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The Idi Amin article and the George Pell article are both biographical Wikipedia articles. So, there is some reason for comparing the two. However the fit is not perfect. The Idi Amin article does not qualify for WP:BLP considerations because Idi Amin is dead. I've seen no evidence of anyone suggesting that Idi Amin shares no guilt for the atrocities in which it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of Ugandans died. Many people are not convinced by the jury conviction of Cardinal Pell and have contributed to his legal defense to reverse what they see as injustice as indicated in THE Catholic Weekly - Fartherred (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

You have highlighted there the big problem that must be mentioned, and I'm brave enough to do it. The Catholic Weekly, and most of those questioning Pell's guilt, can never be considered objective observers here. Their support for Pell is going to based on faith and religious love, not logic. So it is irrelevant that those people question the jury conviction. On this matter, that journal can certainly never be considered a reliable, independent source. Please stop wasting our time telling us what religious people believe about someone they have been repeatedly told to obey from the day they were born. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@HiLo48: What are your grounds for writing “most of those questioning Pell’s guilt can never be considered objective observers here”? Do you have some objective position or evidence that supports this extraordinary statement? If not, surely it is just vulgar original research. Dolphin (t) 14:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

My grounds for writing that are simple logic. HiLo48 (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Some atheists might maintain that religious people are all biased and only atheists can be objective. Religious people might disagree. We cannot, on this page, settle the question of whether or not religion is an inescapable cause of bias and we should not try. The prosecutor and the defense in the case are certainly biased, each for the job they are paid to do. If the jury has made a mistake, it won't be the first time. It should be reported that there is disagreement. - Fartherred (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not argue that Pell is innocent, only that there are people that do argue that case. I do not argue that those questioning Pell's guilt should "be considered objective observers", only that there existence is reported by reliable sources. The Guardian reported here that advertisements for donations to Cardinal Pell's legal fund are placed by the Sydney archdiocese. - Fartherred (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@HiLo48: makes an argument that is a distortion of Wikipedia policy. WP:Reliable_sources states: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." So, in order to best represent differing views, including significant non-majority views, the biased publications of opposing organizations can be reliable sources. They are reliable in reporting their own biased views. - Fartherred (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Your final sentence is true, but does not justify using them in Wikipedia. It would open a humongous, Pandora's box of worms. HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fartherred: Of course Idi Amin is dead, I was pointing out that the primary reference to the bad things he is known for is left until after a discussion of the rest of the major points - which you could argue bolsters your case because Idi Amin is under looser standards than a BLP. On the other hand if the bulk of primary reliable sources (about either Amin or Pell) are about the crimes I think it is hard to justify leaving it until the very end. Perhaps the second sentence, or just after the main context has been established. And if a person has been convicted of a crime is appealing and there is disagreement about the guilt, there needs to be equal coverage in mainstream reliable sources as of the allegations and conviction to justify including this in the same place of the lead. This is both a WP:DUE and WP:RS issue as well as WP:LEAD. Anyway, if Idi Amin is handled as deferentially or light-handedly as it is due to policy reasons, that only helps your argument. Notwithstanding, I propose the following:

George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church. He was convicted on 11 December 2018 of sexual offenses against juvenile boys in the 1990s. [...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

Pell lodged an appeal against his conviction on three grounds, including a claim that the jury verdict was unreasonable. The appeal was heard on 5–6 June 2019 and judgement has been reserved; meanwhile, Pell remains in prison.

With the mention of the conviction being the second sentence, and the appeal of the conviction being the last paragraph of the lead, since it is the most recent and deserves to stand out on its own. If there is significant RS coverage of doubts about his guilt there could be a brief mention in that last paragraph, but only very brief I would say. Any more details discussion can be left for the body of the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There is some coverage of "doubt" about his guilt, but that doubt is not coming from reliable, independent sources. HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There is considerable cause for doubting Cardinal Pell's guilt in the matter of alleged abuse of choir boys. The first jury could not come to a unanimous decision. The jury is considered independent.

About the appeal, David Marr referred to the prosecutor as often having nothing to say in response to a judge's question. He referred to events in general as a "trainwreck". Monsignor Charles Portelli had testified to being with Cardinal Pell at the time the crime is supposed to have taken place. Cardinal Pell's legal defender said that the jury should have accepted Portelli's testimony as cause for reasonable doubt in the face of the sole witness of the alleged victim to the contrary. Cardinal Pell said that the accusations were merely imagined. At his sentencing hearing, written character reference from former Australian Prime Minister John Howard referred to Cardinal Pell's "exemplary character". Altogether Pell's defense led by Bret walker offered 13 reasons for doubting guilt so the jury should not have been beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt. The prosecutors lack of answers for the judge is not a good sign for the prosecution.

References

- Fartherred (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Despite Fartherred‘s lengthy and comprehensive original research I’m convinced that “convicted child sex offender” should be prominently placed at the very top of the article with no mention that he is appealing the judgement, unless the appeal is victorious. This fact of his life is quite surprising given his career as a trusted religious figure, and shouldn’t be hidden in any way. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This has now been talked over extensively, and despite a great deal of original research by Fartherred arguing his innocence, Pell remains a convicted child sex offender and that is most likely at least partly why most people have heard of him. I see no reason to mitigate those facts in the article because of an appeal. Almost all felony convictions are appealed - if it's successful, it can then be added to the article. I would leave the description of him as a convicted child sex offender in the opening paragraph. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The abc.net.au source above did not put forward the idea that the first jury failing to come to a verdict was sign that the appeal might be successful. However the CNN piece definitely did put forward that the performance of Pell's defense was impressive in the appeal and the prosecution was faltering. That is well documented from a reliable source, not original research. If you look at the George Pell article talk page, you can see that the reason that it was deleted from the article was that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. - Fartherred (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Please, Fartherred, enough. You have made your argument about his innocence over and over, using a ton of original research. Multiple editors have told you that none of that can be used to edit the article, and everyone else has reached a consensus that as he is a convicted child sex offender, that should stay in the article and the information about the appeal can be added if he wins it. At some point, you just have to accept it. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Not only is Pell a "convicted child sex offender", he's also a convicted child sex offender who is now in custody having been sentenced to six years in prison. You can't find any dictionary that gives a conclusion quite as clear as that. I'd suggest this thread should be closed now and a new one opened, if necessary, after the decision on his appeal has been announced. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

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

RfC of possible interest

A request for comment regarding a rape allegation against Bill Shorten, an Australian politician, may be of interest to editors on this noticeboard as the dispute relates to BLP policies. – Teratix ₵ 02:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

People's Mujahedin of Iran (2)

I've been only able to find one source that claims a person (Ms Soltani) is being recruited by Iran as an agent:

According to Col. Leo McCloskey (former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf), Ms Soltani had been recruited by Iran as an agent of the Iranian government.

Is it a BLPvio to include this in the article if there is only one source making this claim? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

References

This issue was discussed on RSN here. El_C 14:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I also don't see an issue if proper attribution is given. Multiple sources are not required. As far as the due weight concern, if other views are documented by reliable sources they can also be added, as well as clarifications of the relation if needed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Since the linked discussion at RS/N has been archived I'll reply here. I would tread very carefully about including statements that a living person is an agent of an antagonistic government on the basis of one senior member of the United States Military. They don't have the best track record for honesty.Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Kasie Hunt

• Kasie Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fake news (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MSNBC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles may need more attention due to recent events. A current discussion is at Talk:Fake news. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Shane Bugbee

greetings.

there are many edits to the page that are slanderous. they link to articles with no mention or even within the context of what was added.

there are quotes added that are out of context to make me seem as if I'm working for the white working class. semi-racial additions that have no where in my context.

there are substantial accomplishments deleted... like speaking at harvard twice or donating a full project to the internet archive.

I'd like to know how to bring the page back to one before the ugly edits.

I am the subject of the article and am here to defend my name. I am fine with proper historic listings, I'm not afraid of my past but do not want my history re-written to fit someones political fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4328:4490:244B:882B:A844:A107 (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Pete Farndon

In the final paragraph of Pete Farndon's biography it says he was found dead of an overdose by his BOYFRIEND!. Most sources cite his American wife finding him. As a lifelong friend I can attest to his very active hetero lifestyle and your article implies that he was gay. Please correct this...someone may be playing a prank. Geoff Townsend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:446E:8C00:909A:A02F:DBEB:D700 (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed the death section at the Farndon article. I might point out, though, that Farndon died in 1983 and is of no concern to this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

John Christodoulou

This page contains inaccurate information as follows:

Some 'anonymous' person has added the “Controversies" section to John Christodoulou wikipedia entry which contains completely incorrect information.

Such as 'where Christodoulou's Marathon Estates was removed from controlling the site by the property tribunal in October 2016.' John Christodulou does not own or has ever owned Marathon Estates.

The word Controversies just by itself is a slur to Christodoulou as stated the information provided is incorrect.

Please remove this section as I thought Wikipedia deals in facts not people incorrect/false opinions. Interesting that the person who added this has posted anonymously so they can't be that certain that the information that they added is correct.

Regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by DuvellsCat (talk • contribs) 05:41, June 18, 2019 (UTC)

If you would like other editors to consider the merits of this content in the John Christodoulou article, why remove it six minutes after posting about it here? Now restored to allow others to comment. Edwardx (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You are right. The language should be changed to ensure there is no misunderstanding over the ownership of Marathon Estates. Christodoulou does not technically own Marathon Estates, and never has.

However, Christodoulou appointed Marathon Estates and it was Marathon Estates that was removed by the courts for mis-management of the estate. That is fact. By having Marathon Estates removed, and replaced with a manager accountable to the courts (and not Christodoulou), Christodoulou lost control of the site. In that sense, it was his MA. But point taken.

Not sure having a controversies section in itself is a slur. See the pages of Alan Sugar, Richard Branson, Philip Green, Martin Sorrell and Michael Ashcroft. The controversies have to be notable, so these have received media interest, and must be well sourced. The section has to be written in a neutral voice. 'Silenced' at the end should be changed to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.236.231 (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Wesley Weber

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

IP's have been slowly blanking this article. Needs attention.--Auric talk 16:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist and currently fixing it. I think temporary semi-protection may be helpful. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Semiprotected for one month by El C. Thank you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Byron Case

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

There's been some claims made at Talk:Byron Case#Possible COI editing that supporters of Case might be editing the article to ensure in a manner that tries to WP:ADVOCATE on his behalf. At the same time, a recent contributor to the article has declared they are related to one of Case's victims and is only editing in response to what they percieve to be COI editing by Case's supporters. Looking at the article, there does seem to be (at least in a layout sense) what amounts to really two sub-articles: one about Case the writer and one about Case the convicted murder. Part of the problem might be finding a proper balance between the two. Right now, the bibliography section seems quite large and a bit WP:UNDO and might over shadow the content about the "other" Case. I'm also a bit concerned about the "External links" and the "Freebyronchase" website linked in the main infobox since they all appear to be either advocating for or against Case.

Anyway, I'm wondering if some others might take a look at this and see if they are of the same opinion. The article was moved to the mainspace by it's creator here; so, it never got reviewed by AfC. It's not clear (at least to me) whether Case's Wikipedia notability primarily is derived from WP:NAUTHOR or WP:CRIMINAL which makes it a bit tricky to figure how to achieve a proper balance between the two. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC); {Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to remove "to ensure" which accidentally left in while copyediting. -- 06:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)]

The article needs a major revision. Many parts are unsourced, others references are non RS and most of the content is referenced by primary sources I have removed the bibliography section as its only sources were the publications themselves with no independent coverage by reliable sources to give indication of their notability. I will continue latter, but it needs a lot of work so extra eyes would be welcome. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The biography section reads like a PR piece and is primarily sourced to a non RS advocacy sire for the subject. It's neither an RS nor is it self published so it can't be used on a BLP for even basic information. On my way to work right now, none of it's so bad it needs immediate removal that I would risk it on my phone, but it does need to be excised or sourced to an RS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Crystallizedcarbon and Only in death for taking a look. Any opinion on the external links and infobox link? What type of article do you think this is: one about a notable author who later on got convicted of a crime or one about a criminal who later on gained some notability as an author? To me, it appears to me to be more of a case of the former than the latter which makes it seem as if the content about the crime should come first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No opinion on that, mainly because I'm on a bus, but also until the unreliable sources are weeded out it's difficult to say what is the primary notability driver, and I just havnt taken a close enough look at it yet. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The content of the article should be based on the coverage of the subject by secondary reliable sources which in this case is not much. I have done an extensive removal of content sourced by blogs and primary sources. I have taken care of the most obvious problems but the article can be further improved. I have added some citation needed tags and will be watching the article. I have also removed the blog link from the infobox as it does not seem like a personal page of the subject. I left the first two blogs about the case (for and against) in the external links section as I don't have a clear criteria on whether they meet WP:EL. I have removed the other two. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon I may noted that I absolutely agree with the postion that the article needs a review. In the way, how it is looking now it definetly needs more reliable sources to be inserted in and of course some other inputs in terms of further improvements related to the reducing to the bibliography section which is for my taste is too extensive, adding some citations, etc. --IuliusRRR (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Should "perpetrator" be used to describe someone acquitted of an offense?

Our articles on two recent high-profile police shootings in the U.S. state of Minnesota are the subject. In one, Justine Damond, the officer was convicted of an offense and is referred to as the "perpetrator"; in the other, Shooting of Philando Castile, the officer was charged and acquitted. The question is whether "perpetrator" should be used to refer to the latter officer. I have started a discussion at Talk:Shooting of Philando Castile#"Police", or "perpetrator", or "accused"?. Third opinion(s) would be appreciated. Kablammo (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. "Perpetrator" and "Accused" have two different implications, consequently two different uses. Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I can see no circumstances where someone acquitted of a charge could be described as a perpetrator. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This one strikes me as a bit difficult; while I would agree that 'perpetrator' carries the connotation that the act in question was wrongful, 'accused' rings wrong to me (unless heavily qualified) for a case such as Mr. Castile. That is because there is no doubt that the act was committed nor as to by whom it was committed--the question, rather, is whether it was justified. I could actually make arguments for why either word is, strictly linguistically, appropriate. Having said that, it would be my instinct to try to avoid both terms. You're welcome for being totally unhelpful! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I chose "accused" as middle ground, but I agree with you. Kablammo (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I take it the real issue is that section heading? Dumuzid (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Kablammo (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

To "perpetrate" is "to be guilty of a crime", or other "shocking acts", according to multiple English dictionaries. Certainly, even when there is no dispute as to who shot whom, to refer to the accused as a perpetrator is to imply the shooting was criminal. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I support use of "accused". Meatsgains^(talk) 01:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

For me, I would simply use the officer's name for that section, I think, though I understand I may be drastically outvoted. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Definitely do not use perpetrator. Legally dangerous. Moriori (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that if the subject is acquitted it does not make sense to choose perpetrator, The change of the section title to "accused" by Kablammo solves the problem. I would have chosen "shooter" as a section title as I think it better describes what the sources say and does not carry a connotation in either direction towards a criminal intent. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Using perpetrator if the person was acquitted implies we have some special knowledge that they were guilty but evaded conviction.--Auric talk 10:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I would avoid both perpetrator (since it certainly implies wrongdoing) and accused (which implies that the act was wrong, but whether the individual committed the act is in doubt). Neither apply in the Castile case. There's no doubt the officer shot him (ruling out accused), but a jury has ruled that there was insufficient evidence to deem the shooting a crime (ruling out perpetrator).— Preceding unsigned comment added by BubbaJoe123456 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe another possibility would be "suspect"? But I agree that perpetrator seems inadequate. —PaleoNeonate – 14:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If already acquitted, he's no longer a suspect. He's not a perpetrator either. If the shooting itself is not disputed (the legal dispute being over whether the shooting was criminal or not) - then "shooter" could be used, but it does have a negative connotation (usually criminal or terrorist). Police or police officer is probably the only one without a value judgement. Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz, Police or police officer seems like the best choice for the section title. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

What about "shooter"? That seems nonjudgmental and just a factual description, such as "victim". Having one section as "victim" and another as "police officer" seems strangely inconsistent to me. I think "victim" and "shooter" or instead "citizen" and "police officer" would make more sense. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Should absolutely not be "victim" or "perpetrator", this may be accurate characterizations but they are opinions and not in line with Wikipedia's practice of court decisions defining the fact of guilt. "Deceased" or "citizen" and "police officer" work. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"Victim" has nothing to do with guilt. It is a simple statement of fact that someone has been harmed. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Some points: if you want to get technical, "perpetrator" just means "person who does something". A person who plants a garden is a garden perpetrator. It is true that the word is virtually always used in a negative sense, so it strongly implies a bad action. According to dictionary.com, it doesn't necessarily mean criminal tho: "Who perpetrated this so-called comedy?" is given as a usage example. Shooting a person for no good reason, even if a court decides it's not a criminal act, is still a bad thing to do. Technical acquittal notwithstanding, I think most every disinterested and informed person -- the man on the Clapham omnibus -- would conclude that shooting Philando Castile was not an act of charity, helpful to Castile, or a non-bad act in any other way. Right? Anyone here who thinks the shooter is a hero is invited to speak up.

Now, in almost all cases, we don't want to use terms that strongly imply bad actions, if we can avoid it. In almost all cases, but not necessarily in absolutely all cases. We don't want to try to fool the reader by implying that something isn't true that is. Is this case an exception. Hmm. Maybe. Let's think of some examples.

Claus von Stauffenberg was certainly guilty of treason and murder (he tried to kill the chancellor, and did kill three people), and was convicted of this. We don't use terms that imply to the reader that he was a bad guy, tho. And there are a lot of people who have been convicted of crimes who weren't actually guilty of anything -- either by mistake, by "mistake" due to egregious racism, or just flat out on purpose (Grigory Zinoviev etc. etc.) And a lot of people who have been acquitted of crimes who were actually guilty (e.g. [famous person] who was acquitted because the state botched the prosecution, not because he didn't actually do it).

So, just as we often ignore the technical legal name of an entity (per Wikipedia:Official names) in order to better inform the reader, , we can also ignore the the technical legal standing of an entity in order to better inform the reader. We are not beholden to the judgement of courts, which are human institutions which get things wrong often enough. What a court decides is worth reporting, and its a data point in how we're going to present the subject; a data point, but not the only data point. We don't have to pretend to be morons, or mislead the reader, just because a court makes a mistake.

So, it's really a question of where are the margins, and does this case fall outside the margin of our usual rubric of not implying that technically-innocent people are bad actors? Yeah in my book it does. If the person in question doesn't want to be described as a "perpetrator" or "shooter" he might have considered not going around shooting people. Herostratus (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Way off. It's a fact he's a "shooter" but "perpetrator" needs something to back it up. Especially as a BLP. If you can find WP:RSs using "perpetrator" to describe him after the conviction then maybe you have an argument. WP:LABELing Castile a "victim" is also injecting an opinion in a contentious topic, in an article covered by WP:BLP, but it is much less contentious because it is fair to say he was the victim of a shooting, but the problem is it implies (along with "perpetrator") that he is the victim of a crime. Maybe we should just leave out the headings altogether? —DIYeditor (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that 'accused' is better than 'perpetrator'. GiantSnowman 14:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"Perpetrator", from the Latin origin, means "person who did it", regardless of whether that action was good or bad, but when it crossed over to English it immediately took on the connotation of mal-intent, eg: "the person who meant to do a malicious thing" (as in "pointing the finger"). No one in history has ever perpetrated a garden, although if you tend to it and keep going you'd be its perpetuator. "Perpetrator" is used almost exclusively in the field of law enforcement to denote a person who intentionally committed a criminal act. Therefore, it's wholly inappropriate in this context. It's all about intent. (A person who commits murder is a perpetrator, but not someone who commits manslaughter.)

"Victim" on the other hand, has a whole slew of meanings and connotations. You can be a crime victim or an accident victim. "Victim" can be a psychological representation of the self, or an outward representation of the foolhardiness of others. (Literally, the antonym is "victor".) As such, it doesn't automatically carry the same connotation of a criminal act, as does "perpetrator" or "transgressor", and is wholly appropriate in this context.

I agree that "police officer" is an odd choice of section heading. "Accused" only fits before a trial. The section heading should briefly symbolize what the section is about, in the most precise yet concise way possible. At this point in the article, we obviously know it's about a shooting, so we already know there must be a victim and a shooter. The term "shooter" also does not imply a criminal act, since it only describes someone shooting a gun (eg: maybe criminal, or police, military, good Samaritan, etc.; we know there's a gun, and someone has to be on each end). It is factually the most correct term under the circumstances. The connotations are not good, but we're not here to give an overly sweetened glaze over the facts. We should just use the most accurate term and let the connotations be what they are. Unfortunately, there is no single word that means "one who caused an accident". If this were a car wreck, then the sections should be "victim" and "driver", but as it's a shooting, then "shooter" seems the obvious choice. Zaereth (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

If this were a car wreck, then the sections should be "victim" and "driver", but as it's a shooting, then "shooter" seems the obvious choice. That makes total sense, but I still do not see that subsection headings are even necessary there. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, please let me break this down into points. From a BLP standpoint, I see no problem with the section headings as either "victim" and "police officer" or "victim" and "shooter", nor do I see a problem with removing the headings altogether. However, I do see a big problem with the term "perpetrator".

Form writing standpoint, "police officer" just looks weird. I'm expecting to read about a first-responder or something, not the person involved in the incident.

From a purely writing standpoint, I'd avoid "perpetrator" in this and, really, any other article. Leave the Latin legal-jargon to the cops and lawyers and use more-accurate descriptions where ever possible.

From both a BLP standpoint and a writing standpoint, what we've done here is create two mini-biographies within this article about what are essentially non-notable, private citizens, save their involvement in this one incident. One of those happens to be a mini-BLP. I seriously question the need to know all of this personal info about these people with the exception of how it relates to the incident. How long the officer was on the force is relevant, but why is where he went to school or who his friends are relevant to the story? Same with the victim. I think it'd be better to whittle it down to the essentials and then weave that into the text of the incident which this article is really about. Zaereth (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I would definitely avoid the word perpetrator, because it has the bad implications by definition. And I totally agree that it is really hard to find out the golden average to please everyone. For me accused would sound more neutral.--IuliusRRR (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Since there's no dispute that the accused in this case killed somebody, I'd say in this circumstance, killer is neutral, accurate and clear. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the previous comment. Killer is not neutral and has negative implications. The definition at our own disambiguation page reads: "A killer is someone or something that kills, such as a murderer." --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Carlos Maza

Additional eyes are needed on this article; Maza is a minor journalistic figure who's become a target of conservative ire, and that's meant his article is being flooded with IPs, throwaways and new accounts declaring RedState to be a reliable source and claiming that we simply must include Tucker Carlson's description of Maza as a "fascist." There's no consensus for any of this, but that hasn't stopped IPs from reverting 10,000 times. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It should be page protected. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed and I've requested that on the appropriate page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Nowhera Shaik

• Nowhera Shaik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kazmiimran2005 (talk · contribs)
• Ram, Theja (2019-06-18). "Tracing the meteoric rise of IMA Jewels scam kingpin Mansoor Khan". The News Minute. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Belagere, Chetana (2019-06-17). "Mansoor Khan: Mastermind behind IMA Jewels scam was a Shivajinagar boy with Hyderabad training". New Indian Express. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

As you can see, newspapers link the founder of I Monetary Advisory to Nowhera Shaik's Heera Gold, and there have (elsewhere) been direct comparisons made between the twain, as part of commentary on the current problem of businesses passing themselves off as "halal" in order to lure Islamic investors. Our coverage of Heera Gold is terrible, and the article is written quite badly, from the perspective of style and grammar alone. (And "Queen"? I doubt it.)

One might treat the complaint on Talk:Nowhera Shaik as a whitewashing attempt (compare Talk:Edward Banayoti, currently at AFD, and see also Kazmiimran2005's edits to the article) but the person with the account actually has a point, possibly by accident. Nowkera Shaik has not been sentenced to prison. Formal charges have only just been filed in court, ironically while the IMA house of cards was toppling.

Unfortunately, I am too swamped to give this bad biography the sort of attention that it deserves. I have put some sources on the article's talk page for others to use for at least getting the part about the legal status correct.

Uncle G (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Steve Butz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Butz

This page is being used solely to defame a living person. None of the sourcing provided backs up the inflammatory assertions made in the article. The article is not neutral in tone, is not properly sourced and therefore cannot be verified. The article violates multiple sections of the wikipedia living persons policy. The article should be deleted and the account used as well as the IP address used to edit the page should be banned.

"He was elected in Missouri's 2018 Democratic primary despite his anti-union background and his allegiance to the Republican Party. [1][2][3]" He is a member on the Missouri Democratic Caucus. https://house.mo.gov/MemberDetails.aspx?year=2019&code=R&district=081 The information is false, improperly sourced and not neutral in tone. The source does not prove his "allegiance" and cannot be verified.

"After his election, Butz was criticized for lying to voters about his opposition to healthcare and women's rights.[4][5]" The sourcing does not discuss or refer to him being "criticized", "lying to voters", "Healthcare" or "Women's rights". The information in not properly sourced, not neutral in tone and cannot be verified.

"Butz first ran for State Representative in 2016 as an anti-union, anti-women's rights candidate." In addition to being false, it is not neutral in tone, not sourced and not verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agonzoman00 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I've wiped out most of the article, as it was expanded with obvious POV violations. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Steven Crowder

Steven Crowder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like to raise awareness that a section of this article deals with a dispute between Crowder (a YouTube commentator) and Carlos Maza (an employee of Vox Media). I've removed one particular line (per WP:BLPREMOVE) which is a quote from an article on The Verge, which is a Vox Media company website, on the grounds that the WP:SOURCE is not WP:INDEPENDENT enough to be used for the quoted claim or in any other way related to this topic. This is essentially an article where the author is defending their co-worker, and the particular line quoted from the article is cherry-picked by Wikipedia editors. The line itself is also factually incorrect, because YouTube has stated that the videos do not violate their policies. I've explained on the Talk:Steven Crowder#The Verge source that there are plenty of other sources which could be used instead which are independent of both parties. Sources by Vox Media should be excluded from this topic. -- Netoholic @ 14:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Just so I get this straight: Vox and the Verge are owned by the same media conglomerate, thus they can't cover disputes related to each other? Would this also apply to newspapers owned by Gannett and Tribune Publishing? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The "depth" between Vox/Verge and their parent as with most other internet-only properties is much more shallower than the traditional newspaper organizational structure. Yes, they each have independent organizational boards, but they do tend to collaborate across sites more often than newspaper siblngs. It is a fair question to consider, but I wouldn't immediately cry out "not independent" for it. --Masem (t) 15:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

There's no justification in policy for excluding a reliable source merely because someone who works for that source has been the subject of criticism by an article subject. Otherwise one could negate every reliable source simply by criticizing or attacking reporters for those sources. "I called a Washington Post reporter an ISIS-supporting commie socialist, now The Washington Post has a conflict of interest and you can't use it!" No, not how it works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

And actually this is even more disconnected — Carlos Maza has never written for The Verge, the source in question. The purported connection is merely that Maza works for a different publication produced by the same media company. This is simply not what our conflict-of-interest policy had in mind. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to remove the line indicated, I would only add that the videos in question are those made about Vox Media/Verge, since the rest of the paragraph appears to be about Maza's take on those that are targetting Vox/Verge. The line is otherwise fine by itself since its talking about the videos and not directly about the BLP. --Masem (t) 15:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: It is the videos which are the major conflict of interest - Crowder regularly commentates on Vox Media content, and his response videos tend to have roughly equal views to Vox's originals - so Vox Media naturally has strong financial interest in getting Crowder's videos removed. The specific author of this article also has a natural interest in defending a co-worker. The specific line quoted from Verge was selected by a Wikipedia editor - not chosen because it represents mainstream opinion - and in fact is provably false because YouTube has stated the videos do not, in fact, violate policies. Being false, makes it defamatory to this BLP. -- Netoholic @ 16:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC) '

The line remove specifcially attributes to the Vox Media content as the claimant, not YouTube. If we have a source that says YT says they are not, that should be added as a counterpoint, but the line by itself has no issue in BLP. --Masem (t) 16:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: The line is factually incorrect and doesn't represent the mainstream, and we cannot be a platform to host unchallenged, defamatory comments made by financial rivals to be hosted in BLP articles - regardless of whether they are attributed to them, or even contradicted by other sources. -- Netoholic @ 17:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there a stataement - specifically from YouTube - that the content doesn't violate YT's terms? If you don't, then you are using original research to say the statement is factually wrong, which we can't use. As long as we have attribution to Vox Media, the statement is fine. (Just because YT has not taken action against the videos doesn't mean they violate their content policies. Maybe YT's backlogged , maybe they're still considering it, etc.) --Masem (t) 17:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: - I'd never state this based on original research - here is confirmation: "YouTube says a popular conservative host is not violating the company’s policies...". -- Netoholic @ 17:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

In the context of this story, that statement from Youtube came after Maza's statements about the video. Maza's statements are clearly not false if Maza had no idea how YouTube responded, so as long as that Time article is included, it is still nowhere close to a BLP violation. It would be different if Maza now is saying that the videos violate YT's policy (though I would assume Maza now would be critical of YT for not sticking to its policies closer given the reply). --Masem (t) 18:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: You still seem to be misunderstanding - the line is NOT a quote from Maza, but rather it is a line of prose from a Verge article written in the author's voice. And yes, this source pre-dates the YouTube statement - all the more reason it should be removed. We do not leave defamatory, factually incorrect information in BLP articles when new information comes to light proving it so. There are PLENTY of other, independent, and more recent sources to draw from which give overviews which draw upon new information. -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Criticizing someone's work (like a YouTube) is not the same as criticizing the creator directly. (just like on WP, its a content-vs-commentator aspect). It would be one thing if Maza was directly attacking Crowder, but no, the commentary is on the videos, and by indirect connection, dislike for Crowder, but that's not a BLP violation by any means. This is fair criticism that can be added. --Masem (t) 18:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: This is now the 3rd time you've attributed the line to Maza. Its not. Can you please acknowledge that? -- Netoholic @ 19:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

While the verge article from Julie Alexander has that statement, it appears that Maza also had made the same claims (hence why Verge is writing about it) But as Maza’s video recap on Twitter clearly shows, Crowder’s videos routinely contain egregious violations of YouTube’s policies against cyberbullying, including repeatedly referring to Maza as [unnecessary content redacted] But either way, whether its the Verge or Maza making the claim, as long as its attributed doesn't make it a BLP Violation, its speaking to complaints on the videos and not Chowder. (Now in constrast, the stuff I redacted above that you can see in Alexander's article? That would be a violation of BLP if we included it somewhere without careful attribution and reviewing the need to include it.). --Masem (t) 20:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fine for a BLP. The association is mentioned in the article, it is about what they thought was a violation of policy. It isn't the same as YouTube's conclusion of the content, but it's still important to the overall context and is revelant to the article. Clovermoss (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Abby Martin

Abby Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wikipedia article appears to be sourced from people who actively dislike Abby Martin. She is notable for being the RT journalist who with colleague Liz Wahl criticized the annexation of Crimea on air in 2014. The contrast with Wahl's bio is jarring. Since Martin apparently criticizes an entity she calls the "Corporate media," there will be a wealth of published 'hit piece' sources attacking her in turn, but they should not distort the article. Right now the article does not reflect a balanced tone or understanding, violating WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:PROPORTION and potentially WP:BLPCOI.PLawrence99cx (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You say that the article "does not reflect a balanced tone or understanding, violating WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:PROPORTION and potentially WP:BLPCOI." But how so? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like MPS1992 went to work on the article after you posted here. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Changes seem helpful, but "9/11 conspiracy theorist" is not Martin's Career - just like JFK/Grassy Knoll or Moon Landing Hoaxer is personal belief, not Career. Abby Martin is not even mentioned on the "9/11" page, but this is: "In 2008, 9/11 conspiracy theories topped a 'greatest conspiracy theory' list compiled by The Daily Telegraph. The list was ranked by following and traction." The article still makes it sound like Martin was a key figure in this movement, not a random adherent. PLawrence99cx (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Article contains POV jems like "Journalist Michael C. Moynihan states that Martin’s politics are odious and frequently incoherent." - no further explanation given. The informational value is that Martin has a giant laundry list of enemies, of all political stripes. Maybe that should be a section. PLawrence99cx (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Marianne Williamson's opposition to mandatory vaccines

Is the following text a WP:BLP violation?:

• In June 2019, Marianne Williamson said that mandatory vaccination policies were "Orwellian".[9] When pressed on this, she stated that she misspoke, saying "I support vaccines. Public safety must be carefully balanced with the right of individuals to make their own decisions."[10][11][12] According to the Los Angeles Times, she "has a history of skeptical comments about vaccinations."[13]

Editors on her Wikipedia (she's a longshot presidential candidate) keep removing any the text on history of skeptical comments, so that the text looks like this (and they cite WP:BLP in doing so):

• On the subject of mandatory vaccinations, her position is that she supports vaccines, and that "Public safety must be carefully balanced with the right of individuals to make their own decisions."

To me, it seems like if there is a BLP violation, it's removing text that provides full context (as provided by RS) of her views on the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Williamson retracted those off-the-cuff remarks: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Therefore they are not her official position on the matter, which is what that section of the article covers. Softlavender (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The additional content should be included. Wikipedia is not a resume and does not only report official positions. Wikipedia is based on the content of reliable, independent sources. Her initial statement was covered in multiple reliable sources, and the LA Times statement is backed by several examples, including her own statement: "I think there's a skepticism which is actually healthy on this issue of vaccinations." Her initial statement and the comment about her history on the issue seem particularly relevant given that she is a presidential candidate, and I do not see how WP:UNDUE would apply given the coverage. EDIT: The HuffPost article posted by Softlavender also discusses her history on the issue similar to the LA Times: "Though Williamson apologized for her comments this week, she has indicated some sympathy for vaccine skeptics in the past." [24] Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies. Softlavender (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally I would support inclusion adding as many explanations as may be needed to clarify that the comment is not her official position, finding consensus on a NPOV version of the text, etc. Reviewing WP:BLP I could not find anything that would justify not including a previous point of view on a notable issue because it was latter changed or originally misspoken, if it received enough coverage by multiple reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A quick google reveals that there's plenty of recent, reliable coverage of Ms. Williamson's vaccine vacillation, for instance this, from ABC News: [25]. I think it's absolutely appropriate to include some language along those lines, and also, appropriate and called for to include her denials/clarifications. There's enough in the reliable sources that neither position can be ignored. But there's always the chance I am completely wrong. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Include. I agree with the consensus here. We don't remove a BLP's statements just because they've been retracted. She still said that stuff, it still received lots of news coverage, and it's still noteworthy. R2 (bleep) 06:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion This gives the completely wrong impression of the candidate's nuanced position. Opposition to mandatory vaccines is not something she is running on: her campaign website makes that abundantly clear. You can put it in a "Gaffes" or "Controversies" section but it's totally wrong to call it one of her "political positions". SteveStrummer (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

She said the vaccine controversy is no different than the abortion debate. That sounds like a political view to me, even if it's not one she's emphasizing in her run for office. R2 (bleep) 15:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

And that is pure WP:SYNTH. Her campaign website (and the RS provided by Soft Lavender) are fuller and more descriptive of the issue. She has repeatedly said "I support vaccines":, and any verbal missteps in that regard should be treated like any other candidate's, and go in a "Gaffes" or "Controversies" section. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

So, SteveStrummer, to be clear, you think we should ignore reporting in the reliable sources in favor of what is on the candidate's website? Dumuzid (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

As someone who has absolutely no faith in the medical (particularly the pharmaceutical) industry, I can definitely see why more and more people are becoming distrustful of them. (Many times I've given myself stitches with dental floss, reset my own broken bones and dislocated joints; for most wounds, just rub a little dirt in them and keep on going. I have to be on death's door before I'll go to a hospital.) That said, we'd be a poor source of neutral information if we rely on a candidate's own website as the main source of info on their positions. If the info is reliably sourced, we should definitely include it, but also any counters to it she may have made, to get the full story. We're not here to run campaign ads, and a candidate's platform (what they're "running on") may be very different than their actual views and intentions. Zaereth (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The candidate has said she misspoke and has appeared on MANY reliable sources to explain her position which is clearly not a cut and dried "anti-vaxxer". This story from just three months ago - "What every 2020 presidential candidate has said about vaccines" - explained her position more accurately: "Marianne Williamson discussed vaccines during a 2015 appearance on Bill Maher's show, saying "there’s a public health issue that over-rides individual liberty here, even though I don’t want the government, as a rule, telling me what I can do and can’t do with my body for medical purposes." And no, I never said to ignore reliable sources - in fact I suggested a few that SoftLavender found. What I said was: this anti-vaxxer hullabaloo doesn't belong in a NPOV "Political positions" section, but instead in a "Gaffes" or "Controversies" section. Otherwise it is a BLP violation. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@SteveStrummer: No, it is not a BLP violation when the content is reported in numerous reliable sources. Wikipedia does not ignore reliable sources because someone "misspoke". In addition, the article subject has a history of making statements that contradict your statements about her position (including her own statement from that same TV show that "I think there's a skepticism which is actually healthy on this issue of vaccinations"). Her history of vaccine skepticism is further discussed in the LA Times and HuffPost articles linked above. Also, her Wikipedia page has never described her as " a cut and dried anti-vaxxer". That seems like a straw man. Finally, "controversy" sections are discouraged, and the content should instead be included in the main sections of an article as per WP:CSECTION. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

They're discouraged, but oh so frequently used, aren't they? And the current Wikipedia page does indeed say "she opposes mandatory vaccination" - cut and dried (and misleading). And as for the RS, the most honest comment to make is that they present multiple viewpoints. Thus they should be presented in a separate section, whatever you want to call it. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@SteveStrummer: The word "mandatory" makes a pretty big difference. Also, the current version actually says "She appeared to oppose mandatory vaccinations". I personally prefer the version posted by the OP that is more direct and doesn't editorialize about her "opposition" at all. Her past history on an issue, however, is not a gaffe or controversy. It is directly relevant to her current stated policy positions. What sources state that she has not expressed skepticism about vaccines in the past? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

ZaerethI totally support the position that if the info is reliably sourced, we should definitely include it, in this case we will have the full picture. Because Wikipedia is not the news magazine and political platform for the candidates. Moreover, the vaccination is a very sensible topic itself, and each of us can change the views and positions on this even on spot, depending on the situation and people (relatives) involved. Moreover, I really support the position that what the candidate is "running on" can be opposite to their actual intentions.--IuliusRRR (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• It is improper for us to say that she opposes mandatory vaccinations because she called them Orwellian. That's clearly synth. I would argue that her position on vaccinations is not clear; while she has called them Orwellian and compared them to abortion debates, and clearly thinks that the individual's right to chose is important, but that doesn't mean she's 100% against it. Much more careful wording is needed, and if her position is really not that clear from sources, we shouldn't be trying to construct it ourselves. --Masem (t) 16:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Beth Chapman

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

Asking editors to keep an eye on this article. A famous bounty hunter by the same name died today and people are incorrectly reporting that the Alabama politician who is the subject of this article has died. A request for page protection has been pending for a while but there seems to be a shortage of active admins at the moment. Much thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That is a lot of people making the same mistake. I semi'd for 2 weeks. Hopefully that's enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Thank you! Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Tau Lewis

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

Hello,

I am the assistant of artist Tau Lewis and have been asked to edit her Wiki page on her behalf as the current article contains information that is out of date and/or incorrect. I have attempted to edit her page previously and the article has been reverted to its previous state. Tau is unhappy with the way this article represents her in its current state, and would appreciate the opportunity to rectify it. Please advise on how we can effectively make the necessary changes to ensure that Tau is correctly being represented through Wikipedia.

Thank you,

Hilary

Hello Hilary, and thanks for bringing this here. There are many things we need to know, and things you need to know as well. Number one is that both you and the subject have a conflict of interest here. What that means is, that for the sake of neutrality, neither of you should be editing this article directly. Instead, we recommend that you go to the article's talk page (you'll find a link that says "talk" at the top of the page). There you should carefully explain exactly what you want changed --in detail. The next is that we require reliable sources for any info added, meaning it should already be printed somewhere, in books, magazines, newspapers, critiques and reviews by notable critics, etc... We don't do original research here, meaning we can't just take yours or the subject's word for it. (I'm assuming on good faith that you are who you say, but we really can't be sure.) We just report on stuff that has already been reported elsewhere.

I took a look at the article, and must say that it is in need of a lot of work. In some instances it seems very promotional while at others almost incomprehensible. It really lacks any flow or coherence. I'm also not sure about the reliability of some of the sources, so those should be looked into deeper. Things like birthdates definitely need, not just one, but multiple reliable sources in order to comply with BLP policy, so that should definitely go. I'd suggest taking your specific concerns to the article's talk page and ask people there to make the changes for you. Just be very clear about exactly what you think needs to be changed. Zaereth (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sukavich Rangsitpol

• Sukavich Rangsitpol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Posts about this article were recently posted here by WP:LTA socks, but it's my turn to post one. My involvement was detecting and reporting socks at WP:SPI (SPI page) and reverting edits per WP:BE (including some IP addresses). The article is semiprotected and a mostly sleeping account recently removed the contested material (I didn't file a report, it may or may not be the same editor, pinging Bbb23 who has recently handled the case). Apart from TLAs, there seems to be no recent discussion at the article's talk page so I thought a notification here may useful. The contested material is supported by a book published by ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute which mentions a controversy. My impression is that the source may be reliable, but I also don't have an opinion on if the material is due. If the material remains, the article may need more watchers; if not, the LTA may be happy and finally move on. Eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 13:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• (comment moved here from my talk page) (User Talk:PaleoNeonate):

* I strongly believe that, as a citizen of the world, any person has the right to learn

• and should be entitled to have access to education according to their competency and needs.
• It is essential that the government provide educational services that respond to the people’s needs.
• Education, therefore, has to be organized in such a way that people from all walks of life can participate in educational activities at levels and times of their preference.
• With regard to the learning society, as I mentioned earlier, optimistically, people from all walks of life should be able to have equal access to education according to their needs and potentials.
• All sort of boundaries, be their gender, age, socio-economic status, physical or mental disabilities have to be eliminated.

Reference "Asia-Pacific Regional Consultation on Adult Education, Jomtien, Thailand, 16-18 September 1996: His Excellency Sukavich Rangsitpol Speech page53-56". Unesdoc.unesco.org. Retrieved 6June 2019.

I study about History, Politician, Book, Culture and everything in Thailand, but I never heard about this. That book is unreliable reference, because we have speech of Sukavich in UNESCO Sources which reliable more than these.

In Thailand, We had many LGBT and this is never problem. comment added by Yosakrai (talk • contribs) 16:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Yosakrai (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• I commented on the article's talk page; comment is reproduced here: Looking at the material, it seems to be well-sourced (relevant book pages here), and got coverage in the Bangkok Post (the leading Thai English-language newspaper) at the time. The link provided above to a UNESCO speech has several problems. First, it's a primary source. Second, we can't say "because he said gender shouldn't be a boundary, he wouldn't support a policy deemed homophobic." That's OR. Finally, looking at the substance of the issue, the statement from the speech isn't actually entirely incompatible, since the speech was talking about gender being a barrier, while the ban was regarding homosexual and transgender students. So, I don't see any BLP issue with including the material. The question I have is a WP:UNDUE issue. Honestly, I'm not nearly familiar enough with Thai politics over the past thirty years to have a good read on whether this is a significant part of his notability, or just a footnote. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the subject, but the nature of the topic pretty much suggests to me that it would have been no more than a footnote. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it is undue: First, only one and a half sentence in an article of five paragraphs deals with the Rajabhat/LGBT conflict. And second, this seems to be one of the few, if not the only context where Sukavich is mentioned in English-language academic sources. So it is definitely notable enough to be mentioned in this article. And the mention could hardly be briefer than it currently is. It does not take a disproportionate part of the article. --RJFF (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The following seems to be the other one , that Sukavich is mentioned in English-language academic sources.

UNESCO-ACEID ,His Excellency Mr. Sukavich Rangsitpol laid out his plans for education in Thailand. According to John Cogan (Professor of Education, University of Minnesota, USA) and R. Derricot in ‘‘Citizenship for the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Education’’, Rangsitpol saw education as “the instrument for human development, creating peace for mankind and national security”.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8Gt9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=New+aspirations+for+education+in+Thailand.+Towards+educational+excellence+by+the+year+2007&source=bl&ots=22hG_N5FUo&sig=RIpoqeZDgX2NiNtiiblApGVmkiM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi88Y_UrMbQAhUMLcAKHcnKC3IQ6AEIJzAD#v=onepage&q=New%20aspirations%20for%20education%20in%20Thailand.%20Towards%20educational%20excellence%20by%20the%20year%202007&f=falsehttps://books.google.com/books/about/Citizenship_for_the_21st_Century.html?id=8Gt9AwAAQBAJ International Conference in 1996 entitled ‘‘New aspirations for education in Thailand. Towards educational excellence by the year 2007,’‘USA, International Business Publications (2008-03-03). Thailand Education System and Policy Handbook. Int'l Business Publications. ISBN 9781433068485. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)

USA), Cogan, John (Professor of Education, University of Minnesota; Derricott, R. (2014-05-01). Citizenship for the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Education. Routledge. ISBN 9781134730261.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The ban had never been approved in Thailand . The text said he was criticized by newspaper should not be mentioned Yosakrai (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE in a WP:BLP

This here (comment here from talk page) Yosakrai (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The original story

On 26 December 1996, in a report in the Bangkok Post, the Rajabat Institute Council, the collective governing body of all of Thailand's colleges, declared that it would bar homosexuals from enrolling in any of its teacher training schools, the idea of Deputy Education Minister Suraporn Danaitangtrakul.[41] The announcement was strongly criticised by human rights groups and many others, who urged the repeal of the policy. On 25 January 1997, Danaitangtrakul proposed that the Institute set new criteria to bar people with "improper personalities", but not specific groups such as homosexuals.

https://www.outrightinternational.org/content/thailand-gays-and-lesbians-banned-enrolling-teacher-training-schools

In view of his speech it is not surprising that his deputy Suraporn Danaitangtrakul proposed an LGBT ban didn’t get approved.Yosakrai (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk page

• At my request the talk page was semi-protected earlier because of IP address disruption. However, this seems to still occur with the above account. Yosakrai: If this persists I will have to report you for disruptive editing. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

RFC

Update: There is an ongoing RFC at Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I was asking to delete the whole article. Yosakrai (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I was asking to delete the whole article

The original page was translated to many languages with false information. Example https://nl.qwerty.wiki/wiki/Sukavich_Rangsitpol?fbclid=IwAR0aIf-6kW99OiICAFs09-wqn_cUmoJ5R37tizJ3psPmxXC0j69JnmF4CBs

Reason for deletion - False Information

1) RJFF used Thai manager was later correct as Business Executive by Paul_012 (talk)...

2) RJFF only appears to be recently involved as well —PaleoNeonate – 17:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, RJFF is the main contributor to the article, creating most of its content in November 2018. Almost all the later changes have been disruptive edits. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Yosakrai cites the same UNESCO speech by Sukavich again and again (see talk archives), which is a primary source and has nothing to do with the issues mentioned above, in my view. The other source cited by Yosakrai ([26]) does not mention Sukavich at all, so it neither confirms nor refutes the contentious statement. RJFF (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC) Yosakrai (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

After reading the comments,I hereby insist on Deleting the minister of education biography.

2.1) The main contributor did not do any research and the book based on mistaken piece of news. Yosakrai (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

2.2 He doesn’t know this is the original story. https://www.outrightinternational.org/content/thailand-gays-and-lesbians-banned-enrolling-teacher-training-schools Yosakrai (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

2.3 the original story with Rangsitpol email. (If this article is not created as discrimination of Asian or Thai Politician ,please use his last name) http://www.qrd.org/qrd/education/1997/misc.news-09.09.97 Rangsitpol only involvement was the Duputy Minister use his email to email the message.

The ban has never been improved because it was against his policy.

It is not clear whether the ban was ever enforced or whether any student was denied enter to Rajabhat institutes.

• Professor Dr. Peter Jackson (academic) Australian National University edit by Russell.Hiang.Khng.Heng https://books.google.co.th/books?id=4wyh6DqlDuQC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=sukavich+rangsitpol&source=bl&ots=hedj3CZOQo&sig=ACfU3U1rF2ZVdoc2w8aioiDJHvgpn8DEIw&hl=th&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjblqOztvXiAhUO8rwKHW4TDp44FBDoATAHegQICRAB

Yosakrai (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Yosakrai (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

2.4 His Speech about His Education Reform Policy

The minister of education speech recorded by UNESCO."Asia-Pacific Regional Consultation on Adult Education, Jomtien, Thailand, 16-18 September 1996: final report". Unesdoc.unesco.org. Retrieved 6 February 2019.

* I strongly believe that, as a citizen of the world, any person has the right to learn

• and should be entitled to have access to education according to their competency and needs.
• It is essential that the government provide educational services that respond to the people’s needs.
• Education, therefore, has to be organized in such a way that people from all walks of life can participate in educational activities at levels and times of their preference.
• With regard to the learning society, as I mentioned earlier, optimistically, people from all walks of life should be able to have equal access to education according to their needs and potentials.
• All sort of boundaries, be their gender, age, socio-economic status, physical or mental disabilities have to be eliminated.

Yosakrai (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

2.5 Wikipedia:Reliable sources sources Questionable sources

The book that the main contributor used as a major source might based on the sources that omitted the original incident.

Suraporn Danaitangtrakul, a Deputy Education Minister, proposed that the Institute set a new criteria to bar people with "improper personalities," but not certain groups such as homosexuals.

Therefore,the books that was used as a source may be based on the political lies .

1) http://realthailand.blogspot.com/2006/02/ It was in the news that he would again be minister of education in 2006.No wonder there were many political lies in 2006 including this Incedent

2) http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/world/092497wo.htm

3) http://www.josken.net/33.htm

4) http://www.skeptictank.org/files/newest/argengay.htm

The following was deleted

1) https://www.zoominfo.com/p/Sukavich-Rangsitpol/33341622

2) http://royalarchives.ohm.go.th/E_Viewer.php?Book_B_ID=00049060

3) https://issuu.com/qxtra/docs/qx-mars-1997

4) http://www.grandriver-rainbowhistory.ca/OutlookMagazine/OutlookIssue26.pdf

The following link can not be load now. Either it was delete or not ,I do not know. I only know it was Deputy Minister Idea and it has never been approved

1) http://www.ibrarian.net/navon/paper/Table_of_Contents.pdf?paperid=5516864 Yosakrai (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Yosakrai: Actually, I think it is the other way round: The proposal of deputy education minister Suraporn Danaitangtrakul to ban "improper personalities" (rather than homosexuals and transsexuals, or "gender/sex deviant" and "wrong-gendered" as it was initially termed) was a reaction to the outcry over the original LGBT ban. Suraporn's statement was on January 25, 1997, and was supported by the lesbian group "Anjaree". The original report about the ban was on December 26, 1996. Sukavich's statement ("homosexuals are no different to drug addicts who need treatment") was reported on January 23. So Suraporn's proposal came after Sukavich's statement, rather than Suraporn's proposal being the "original incident". There is no source that blames Suraporn as the originator of the ban in the first place. It rather looks like he tried to limit the damage. --RJFF (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Lee J. Carter

Section on Military Service needs review. Someone who only served 5 years in the USMC and did not achieve the actual rank of E6 SSgt. would not have attended the Staff Non-Commissioned Officers School. They may have completed the Staff Non-Commissioned Officers Correspondent Course, in order to be considered for promotion to E6, but only E6 and above can actually attend the School. Lee Carter did not achieve the rank of E6 SSgt. as he had insufficient time in-service to even be eligible for this rank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.71.155 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The claim in our article Lee J. Carter seems to be supported by the source. Although it's a primary source, as the Virginia general assembly official website is probably good enough for a claim like this. We cannot change it based on WP:OR. You will need to present a reliable source which disputes the claim about Lee J. Carter's military career or alternatively convince the reliable source to that they are wrong. BTW taking part in a correspondence course from the academy would seem to count as attending the academy to me. If you believe things are different for the academy you are welcome to propose a wording which is better without relying on OR, e.g. educated at. (We cannot say he did a correspondence course as we have no RS which says he did.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Jasbina Ahluwalia

This entire page is basically written like a sales pitch rather than a source of information. I don't want to edit it as someone could report me as it would be my first edit. Might wanna check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradox2700 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Lukens

• Dennis Lukens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tbmartinwiki (talk · contribs)

@Tbmartinwiki: is a SPA adding questionable content to the above BLP, further eyes welcome. GiantSnowman 13:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson (2)

Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson covered the vaccination debate in a January 2019 episode of her show, Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson. A Snopes.com review of the episode currently used in her BLP contains the "serious allegation" (according to the Wikipedia community in this thread) that she "mischaracterized" the position of a respected scientist.

• Snopes

Additionally, criticism sourced to Respectful Insolence, referred to as a blog of David Gorski, has been added to the Snopes material

• Respectful Insolence

Creating the following section:

In a January 2019 episode of her television show Full Measure, Attkisson mischaracterized statements made in 2007 by a medical expert, Andrew Zimmerman, regarding a hypothetical relationship between vaccines and autism. Attkisson falsely said that the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP), which refuted claims of a causal link between vaccines and autism, was based primarily on Zimmerman's testimony, and that Zimmerman's nuanced views on the subject were kept hidden from the public by the federal government until 2018; the program called it "one of the most consequential frauds, arguably in human history." In fact, the OAP's verdict that there is no causal link between vaccines and autism was based on testimony by nine expert witnesses, and the views that Attkisson said were kept secret had already been made public in 2006 and were noted in the OAP. David Gorski was sharply critical of the segment, calling it a "propaganda piece" and a "conspiracy theory".

FWIW, Attkisson has called this excerpt from Snopes "false and libelous on its face". Sharyl Attkisson.com

• Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

• Per WP:BLPREMOVE: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that ... relies on self-published sources

Pending the addition corroborating WP:RS, should the section and sources be removed to comply with Policy? petrarchan47คุก 07:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Jesus Christ dude, you seriously won’t stop fishing for reasons to remove these.

As you can already tell from above, we’ve already discussed Snopes. Gorski was mentioned by another user on this board as a reliable source as well. Petrarchan has disruptively attempted to remove any and all mention of the Snopes criticism from the article - first because Snopes “isn’t reliable” (it is), then because Snopes “wasn’t corroborated” (it was), then because two sources wasn’t enough, and now because Gorski - a respected professor and medical expert - is a “self-published source”. FWIW, other sources like Raw Story have covered this, although I assume Petra will find some reason to say how that one is bad, too. This is getting ridiculous and each claim of policy Petra makes us getting less and less credible, and this tendentious editing is really starting to get disruptive. Toa Nidhiki05 10:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Other sources criticizing Attkisson’s “reporting”;

1. The Hill opinion piece from Peter Hotez criticizing a written article but Attkisson reprinting her claims in the Full Measure video
2. Dr. Zimmerman himself rejected Attkisson’s interpretation

I think this is more than sufficient criticism (five reliable sources disagreeing with Attkisson) but I am sure Petra will find a reason to contest these. Toa Nidhiki05 11:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I was sent here by El_C, so your complaints about this noticeboard thread should not be directed at me. Your claim that Zimmerman has rejected Attkisson's interpretation is not at all true; to use a BLP to make accusations of a serious nature requires multiple RS (and no, a blog, being a SPS, no matter how well respected it's author, does not suffice). If there are RS that corroborate the claims by Snopes, they should be added to the section. You conflate 'criticism of Attkisson's reporting' with the specific issue: the Snopes article which makes serious allegations but does not have the required sources to back it up. Policy requires that we don't willy nilly accuse living people of being lying shitheads without proper evidence. I'm not clear why Wikipedia requires me to beg that policy be followed, or to deal with folks who misrepresent the situation and make personal attacks. petrarchan47คุก 09:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - See WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and the following statement which corroborates what Attkisson reported at the time: Thompson 2004. There is also the piece published in Time: Wallis 2008. I think the section should be reworded for accuracy. Attkisson has denied being an anti-vaxxer but her reporting of controversial topics have caused that label to rub-off on her. I think the following expresses the issue well:

BLPs wherein a subject's work, beliefs or ideologies are perhaps more controversial than the actual subject, should not become focused on bolstering and subsequently refuting the subject's views or theories rather than actually defining the subject. In many cases this may in fact be due to the subject trying to push their own ideas, while others work diligently to refute them, but many such cases involve editors who have no affiliation with the subject other than a personal belief/disbelief in their work. A person's biography is not a good place to debate scientific theory or ideological beliefs; such debates belong in the articles that focus on those topics. For BLPs, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views. (quote by Zaereth edited for brevity; Jimbo Wales agreed with Zaereth’s explanation.)

It appears Attkisson depended on what a reputable scientist with the CDC told her in an interview - one of the hazards of investigative journalism when covering controversial topics as told by whistle blowers/informants. It is sometimes difficult to focus only on what she, as an investigative journalist, was attempting to root-out to present to the public at the time. If it were politics, we'd probably think nothing of it - anonymous reports are commonplace - but in this case, it was a real scientist with the CDC. She would have been criticized for not covering it. She has also disputed the allegations that she is antivax, and while the criticism should probably be included, her denial and the facts that led up to it should be included as well with close attention to DUE. We need to distinguish the difference between investigative reporting and science. I don't think anyone expects news media to qualify under our MEDRS specifications as a RS. This is a BLP, and not about the science itself. There should be wikilinks in the article that point to the actual science articles. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The label hasn’t “rubbed off on her”. She’s explicitly been accused of being anti-vaccine or promoting anti-vaccine stories in a slew of reliable sources. She was also not informed of anything here, as demonstrated by Snopes as well as by Zimmerman’s statement about being mischaracterized: she found an old comment that was known, acted like it was new, and used it to promote a vaccine-autism link. This story was widely criticized, as evidenced by the fact I have found at least four reliable sources (Snopes, Raw Story, Gorski, and Zimmerman himself) criticizing it. People deny things all the time, but that does not exempt them from valid criticism. Whitewashing the section would be a disservice to readers and doing so has been roundly rejected on the article talk page by a variety of editors. The idea that her widely covered reporting on vaccines and the accompanying criticism have no place on her article is, frankly, ridiculous and it is verging on tendentious to continue to try to ram this through over the consensus of the editors on the talk page. Toa Nidhiki05 15:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No one at the BLP talk page, or here, is arguing that criticism be eliminated. Please stop making things up and then badmouthing fellow editors based on easily discernible falsehoods. If you can't stick to the topic, please refrain from participating in these discussions. petrarchan47คุก 10:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Include. Attkisson's creation of the Full Measure segment (the "allegation or incident") is not in dispute. What is being complained about here is the criticism of the segment two reliable sources, one of them a self-published expert source. The portion of WP:PUBLICFIGURE that is being cited here (If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.) doesn't apply to criticisms of events--only to the events themselves. Otherwise, we'd have to exclude every single criticism that wasn't covered by multiple sources. Is that really how WP:BLP is supposed to work? I doubt it. In any case, we do have multiple reliable, independent, non-self-published sources covering these criticisms. We have Snopes.com, Raw Story, and Salon (republishing Raw Story). R2 (bleep) 16:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I clearly state what has been agreed: the serious allegation is made by Snopes that Attkisson mischaraterized Zimmerman's statements. Now you've turned it into "criticism of the segment". I don't see how the Raw Story/Salon article supports Snopes claim or how it is relevant here. Her bio has many, many criticisms of her journalism, etc., and I have not asked that any of it be removed - I am only claiming that Snopes' allegations are much more than mere criticism and to stand alone in it's claim is indeed a violation of policy. petrarchan47คุก 09:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Between Snopes, Dr. Gorski, and the Raw Story article, as well as this The Hill article, I think you do have enough to include, but I do want to caution that BLP/PUBLICFIGURE and all that should not mean that BLPs that are public figures should be mentioned every single complaint or criticism against them that has a couple RSes behind it. Otherwise, we'd have to exclude every single criticism that wasn't covered by multiple sources. Is that really how WP:BLP is supposed to work? Yes, that is how BLP is supposed to work. BLPs are not be scarlet letters, shunning or shaming these people that often are written negatively about in the press. Broad criticims (as here, Atkkinson being called a vaccine skeptic) is fine, but far too recently we've included every little nuanced criticism towards a BLP that has little impact on the long-term picture. That's not appropriate per BLP overall. UNDUE/WEIGHT has to be considered as well. --Masem (t) 15:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Masem, did you get a chance to watch the segment and compare a transcript to how the claims were actually worded by Snopes? When you compare the transcript, Zimmerman's affidavit and his statement, the claims don't quite corroborate the aforementioned 3 items. She also begins that segment endorsing vaccines. Her entire presentation focuses only on the modified version of Zimmerman's written testimony that was omitted by the DOJ when they presented it. Zimmerman notes that in his affidavit and statement, so please explain why the other sources do not corroborate it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps I haven't been clear. We have an unsubstantiated claim within the Snopes piece, mirrored now in our BLP, that a highly decorated veteran journalist misrepresented a statement from a CDC scientist. Even Gorski agrees with Attkisson that the Snopes piece got it wrong in this regard, and that Attkisson represented Zimmerman's position accurately. So until we have multiple RS corroborating it, airing this accusation on WP is not supported by Policy. (I would say that if Gorski and Attkisson are correct, then the Snopes article should not be considered RS for this bio.) At the very least, the accusation should be removed. petrarchan47คุก 19:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Remember that a core principle of WP:V is "verifyability, not truth". At best, this means anything coming from Snopes should be attributed to Snopes, but we cannot outright state Snopes got it wrong because we have no source that says that. --Masem (t) 01:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Masem, V would also include primary documents (Zimmerman's affidavit & statement) published in secondary sources, like CBS Evening News, the New England Journal of Medicine (which cites the CBS report), and Attkisson's site. Attkisson report is supported by the documents so we satisfy V by citing her report. I'm not sure if we should just eliminate the Snopes article because of the contradictions or better to include it and let the readers decide? If we do mention it, then the published documents verify Attkisson's statements which contradict Snopes the same way we included Snopes criticism of Attkisson as it relates to the reporting only. Not our job to delve into the science itself - we're just saying what the cited sources say. Following are the sources: Snopes article includes the Jan 16, 2018 statement by Zimmerman, Attkisson's article, Thompson's statement, CBS News, New England Journal of Medicine article which cites CBS News story. I think that pretty much covers it for verifiability, doesn't it? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• None of those sources specifically say that Snopes got it wrong; and putting these sources together to say that Snopes is wrong (or to say Attkisson is right) is OR.
  (As an aside, a NEJM article - even a correspondence, as that link is - is copyrighted by the NEJM and should be cited directly to the NEJM, not to a site that copied the text; given the copyright situation, there's a strong possibility that the Age of Autism article linked to above violates the NEJM copyright.) Ca2james (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: Snopes and Wikipedia make a potentially libelous claim. I am not saying inclusion of general criticism of the segment isn't warranted, but we cannot say that she mischaracterized statements unless multiple RS supports that. This is common sense as well as policy. So for now, we should at the very least put Snopes' claims in their voice. Yes, other sources mention the segment, but they don't support Snopes. I imagine editors would agree to that change.

(Attkisson's last article pointed out a myriad of errors on the page that will likely never be addressed given the amount of effort required for something this simple.) petrarchan47คุก 06:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment about copyvio allegation by Ca2james - see this explanation.
• Include. There's potential to shorten it (are the quotes really necessary?) but this event did receive coverage and continues a pattern of antivaccination reporting by Attkisson that has been criticised. Plus her denial will be included per the above section, right?
  I also object to the framing that this she is reporting a "vaccine debate"; this framing is classic false equivalence used in WP:FRINGE topics. Ca2james (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Just for clarification: the second sentence in this discussion reads A Snopes.com review of the episode currently used in her BLP contains the "serious allegation" (according to the Wikipedia community...) that she "mischaracterized" the position of a respected scientist. In other words, this is "defamatory or libelous material" in a BLP.

What "event" are you referring to and how does it relate to the issue at hand? petrarchan47คุก 19:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The "event" I'm referring to is the episode of the show. The issue at hand can be summarized as whether to include the event, its criticism, and her denial, or not. This is not "defamatory or libellous material" because the broadcast did occur and it was criticized in reliable sources. That she questions the validity of the criticism does not make that criticism defamatory or libellous. That she is called out by Snopes and others for mischaracterizing a scientist's conclusions is not defamatory or libellous. Ca2james (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, from the beginning of this thread: the Snopes article "contains the "serious allegation" which is unsubstantiated and is echoed by WP, in WP's voice. petrarchan47คุก 06:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding: I do think that if Snopes was the only major RS that criticized the show, that criticism should be attributed to Snopes. Ca2james (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The other sources don't agree with or mention the particular criticisms Snopes had. They simply said she was quite horrible for reporting on the issue as if there was a debate, and Gorski called her a conspiracy theorist. I would not argue that criticism of the episode should be excluded. But the unsubstantiated (beyond Snopes) claim that was considered "a serious allegation" should be. This is the most glaring issue at the Attkisson article, a low hanging fruit I had assumed, since it is such a clear case: to make a serious allegation in a BLP required multiple RS. The fact that even this elicits such backlash (in general, not from you) says something quite bad about Wikipedia. petrarchan47คุก 06:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude as presented as a statement in WikiVoice, and use editorial judgment regarding the wording of their claims which were considered false by Snopes. We must adhere to verifiability using sound editorial judgment when comparing the claims in Snopes to what was actually presented in the CBS episode - corroboration is key. I don't oppose inclusion of the Snopes article but it needs to be presented per NPOV/DUE. I am among the most cautious editors when it comes to citing news media. I have been criticized by a few for being overly cautious but this situation supports my position, only this time the media is Snopes the fact checker, not CBS News. Exercising caution and taking the time to check verifiability with corroborating sources is a good thing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Ted Wheeler

Apparently subject is in the news? Probably could use a few people watching. GMG^talk 18:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Carl Benjamin being right-wing

An editor has tried arguing that Carl Benjamin is not far-right, and now is attempting to add a sentence that Benjamin denies being far-right.

Here is the content they have added:

He has called out as "lazy journalism" an attempt to link him with far-right movements due to hand symbology.

Here is the change I made:

In May 2019, he denied a report that he had used a far-right hand gesture and stated that journalists "think that calling someone a Nazi will shut down debate".

Here is the news report used as a source [27]:

Mr Benjamin - who caused a furore when he tweeted that he 'wouldn't even rape' Labour MP Jess Phillips - ended his canvassing in Truro by having a drink with supporters outside the city's Wetherspoons pub.

Posing for a photograph they used an OK hand signal, which many claim is a gesture used by white supremacists in America.

Mr Benjamin completely refuted this and has called Cornwall Live's story "lazy journalism".

In a statement shared by UKIP, he said: "Strangely, some journalists who should know better, want to attribute politically neutral gestures to extremist groups.

"Presumably because hypersensitive communists think that calling someone a Nazi will shut down debate, saving them the trouble of engaging a few brain cells. It is also lazy journalism."

He added: "Liberals, like myself and Stephen Fry, know that the OK symbol is not controversial despite their best attempts to make it so."

I personally believe that the entire sentence should be removed as it is poorly sourced and not a particularly relevant incident. A discussion on the talk page is here. Additional input would be helpful. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Kiwi Farms

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

I'm just throwing this out here so that people can put this on their watchlist. It's a trolling website sort of similar to Encyclopedia Dramatica, so it's something that I figure will be pretty prone to BLP issues at some point in time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Came up a lot during Gamergate, 120% not usable at all anywhere on WP and should be blacklisted. --Masem (t) 21:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Prone to BLD, NPOV, AGF issues today. I reverted your change to the page AGF. The key diff between ED and KF is the level of privacy intrusion. Delta Jackson (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson

Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative journalist. In January she released an episode of her show on Sinclair Media, Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson, in which she covered the vaccine-autism issues. This was heavily criticised by Snopes.com [28], and currently in her biography we write:

In a January 2019 episode of her television show Full Measure, Attkisson mischaracterized statements made in 2007 by a medical expert, Andrew Zimmerman, regarding a hypothetical relationship between vaccines and autism. Attkisson falsely said that the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP), which refuted claims of a causal link between vaccines and autism, was based primarily on Zimmerman's testimony, and that Zimmerman's nuanced views on the subject were kept hidden from the public by the federal government until 2018; the program called it "one of the most consequential frauds, arguably in human history." In fact, the OAP's verdict that there is no causal link between vaccines and autism was based on testimony by nine expert witnesses, and the views that Attkisson said were kept secret had already been made public in 2006 and were noted in the OAP.

Attkisson has since specifically denied some of these claims made by Snopes.com and our summary, stating among other things that she did not mischaracterize Zimmerman. Should we include her denial of these allegations? The currently suggested wording is to add:

Attkinsson has denied mischaracterizing Zimmerman's statements in her report.

This would be sourced to Attkisson, per [29]. - Bilby (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Include: But with a different source article - [30]. This is the article where Attkisson specifically rebuts the Snopes article. I would advise Editors to read both the Snopes and Attkisson articles in full. The Snopes article's Bottom Line: "Zimmerman, a scientist with serious credentials who was once a government expert on vaccines, believes that narrow circumstances might exist in which the combination of pre-existing mitochondrial dysfunction and vaccination could trigger ASD." That's literally what her report on the topic claimed. CleoDulane (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude. Editors who check the link provided by Bilby will see Attkisson has made self-serving comments on her self-published blog because she doesn't like reliably sourced content in her Wikipedia article. The argument on the talk page is that WP:BLP entitles her to a rebuttal. However Attkisson has not been accused of committing a crime or engaging in some sort of misconduct. This is just routine RS coverage of a BLP. Nothing in WP:BLP modifies WP:ABOUTSELF to turn unduly self-serving self-published blog posts into reliable sources that should be placed on par with Snopes.com. Moreover, Attkisson used Zimmerman to press the fringe theory that vaccines sometimes cause autism. Per WP:FRINGE, we must not hide behind WP:BLP to create false equivalence between fringe theories and scientific consensus. R2 (bleep) 05:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

She has been accused of mischaracterizing the central figure in a story she ran as an investigative journalist. It isn't a crime, but it is a serious allegation. Per WP:WELLKNOWN, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported". Her own site is a reliable source for the claim that she has denied the allegations. (As an aside, WP:FRINGEBLP specifically states that we must abide by BLP when covering living people who hold fringe views, but we're not talking about presenting the autism-vaccine link as being valid, only about being clear that she denies mischaracterizing the views of the person she used in her story). - Bilby (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a conclusion based on a reliable source's analysis, not an "allegation" akin to the example given by WP:PUBLICFIGURE/WP:WELLKNOWN that a politician had an affair. This not an allegation because the reliable source, Snopes, was not relaying some sort of accusation made by other people. It looked at all of the available evidence and concluded that Attkisson had mischaracterized someone's statements. It's routine RS coverage. If someone had accused Attkisson of violating journalism ethical standards or something, then that might be a different story. R2 (bleep) 06:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of a person's response to allegation in their own article is required by policy. It's a single sentence at the end of a long paragraph on the subject; there's no weight problem. It's not promoting a fringe theory, it's simply noting that the person has denied the accusations. You can try to redefine "allegation" all you like, but you're just equivocating. A source says a person did a bad thing; the person denies it. We have to include the denial. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not obligated to include fringe theories or to print self-published conspiracy theory blogs. If Donald Trump posted an op-Ed saying his inauguration crowd sizes were bigger than everyone else and that Wikipedia is wrong, would we be obligated to post it? Are we be obligated to post an article by Alex Jones explaining why 9/11 actually is an inside job? Of course not. Toa Nidhiki05 06:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It is true that we are not obligated to include fringe theories or to print self-published conspiracy theory blogs. However, this is neither - this is simply a BLP subject denying an allegation made about her, and whether or not we include a brief mention of the denial along with coverage of the allegation. - Bilby (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That doesn’t answer my question and it isn’t accurate. It’s a link to a blog where she continues to perpetuate unsubstantiated and ridiculous conspiracy theories about “big pharma” paying editors to edit her wiki pages, government coverups, and vaccines causing autism. We aren’t obligated to print that, we aren’t obligated to link to that, and not including it is not a BLP violation as she is not being accused of a person scandal, which is what WP:BLPPUBLIC clearly is referring to. Toa Nidhiki05 07:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

We're not talking about perpetuating conspiracy theories, but about including her denial of a single serious allegation. We will need to provide a reference to the source, yes, but that does not mean that we are agreeing with any of the content, including her denial - just that we are stating where that denial was made. If you would rather a different reference, she states much the same elsewhere. - Bilby (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

But we are perpetuating them. Some claims that “article” makes:

• They want the public to believe “there is no debate” over vaccines and autism
• The entire Snopes article is written to try to convince people to dismiss vaccine-autism links.
• government lawyers, who defend vaccine companies in federal vaccine court, misrepresented his opinion in order to continue to debunk vaccine-autism claims.

This garbage has no place on Wikipedia. None. We should not be promoting FRINGE conspiracy theories. She is not being accused of anything and is not entitled to a rebuttal any more than Alex Jones is entitled to rebut anything here. Toa Nidhiki05 11:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Include. - she has the right to denial, use the second reference. starship.paint (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Include. - she has the right to denial.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude - Wikipedia is not obligated to print WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories. Attkisson is not being accused of a crime, divorce, affair, or personal scandal - she’s just incorrect, and is not entitled to a rebuttal, especially one that argues her Wikipedia page was written by Big Pharma, that the government covered up links to vaccines and autism, and that vaccines do cause autism. The interpretation of BLP claimed here would demand giving FRINGE conspiracy theorists a platform to promote their conspiracy theories. Toa Nidhiki05 11:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Include, right to denial. I am troubled by Toa's contention that our opinion of what accusation is important enough for her to be allowed to deny it is somehow more important than hers. Clearly it's important to her. --GRuban (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  It clearly is important to her, yes, enough that she’s tried to edit the page for nearly seven years now to remove mentions of the vaccine coverage and has been blocked multiple times for legal threats. She clearly does not like any criticism of her vaccine coverage being featured on the page. That does not mean we are required to post ridiculous articles that blame an evil cabal of Wikipedia editors and attributes a government conspiracy to cover up vaccine autism links. Here’s what of the proposed articles to cite says:

  Wikpedia’s vaccine industry agenda editors are at it again. Besides the other longstanding false and defamatory information edited onto my Wikipedia bio page, new false information has appeared.

  Additionally, at the government’s request, the court sealed a landmark case where the government secretly agreed vaccines caused a child’s autism.

  This has no place on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not required to publish it. WP:ABOUTSELF clearly refers to allegations of things like divorces, affairs, crimes, etc. - not standard criticisms of work. There is not a magical right to rebut reliable sources and promote pseudoscience here. Per WP:PROFRINGE:

Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to promote their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable: Wikipedia is not an advertising venue.

• Toa Nidhiki05 12:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  First, WP:BLPPUBLIC, granting the right of denial, is a Policy, which means it trumps WP:PROFRINGE which is merely a Guideline. But if you read carefully, you'll see they don't even conflict. The point of PROFRINGE is that we shouldn't introduce fringe claims based on Attkisson's blog. But per BLPPUBLIC, if another source attacks her by accusing her of supporting fringe views, she is certainly entitled to defend herself; note that her defense isn't a promotion of fringe views, it is that she is merely reporting on both sides as a reporter is supposed to do. --GRuban (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Include: A person can deny something, but that does not mean that it is true. A few, objective, words about her denying the claims made against her should be included since WP:BLPPUBLIC says that "if the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." The example given is about a poltician having an affair, but it is revelant in other situations. Politicians are not the only public figures around and affairs are not the only allegations people ever deny. Simply reporting her denial is not the same as supporting it and reporting the denial is revelant per policy. I don't think that including the denial would go against WP:ABOUTSELF, as though it is likely within her best interest to deny the claim, it does not count as WP:FRINGE to simply state that denial. That would really only be revelant if this was about including information about doubtful claims like the evidence being a conspiracy or that evidence doesn't exist, which is not applicable in this context. Clovermoss (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Include - We should make clear what reliable sources say, but we should also give Attkisson the space to reply to those sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Include and keep as brief as suggested as to stay within the context of UNDUE. We are bound to include a BLP's counter-statements to claims made about them, but if that's only coming from their blog/other SPS source, then we only need to give it minimal "air time" to keep within BLP's scope. To not include when we know it exists would be a violation of BLP. --Masem (t) 15:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Include - it is compliant with policy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Include as required by policy. Obviously the wording can be hashed out later, but in her post, Attkisson denied multiple accusations put forth by Snopes, and there is no reason not to succinctly summarize her rebuttal in its entirety. It should be noted that minutes after the non-compliant version was reinstated, the article was locked with the BLP violation in place. Shouldn't it be the other way around? As well, the cemented version of events taken solely from Snopes was created by cherry picking, and excludes the fact that Snopes ultimately agreed with the essence of Attkisson's report, including her characterization of Zimmerman's testimony *. petrarchan47คุก 18:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Also we are ignoring the requirement for "multiple reliable third-party sources" that agree with Snopes. We are making these claims based only on Snopes, as no RS has corroborated this (nor has Zimmerman complained about being misrepresented). If Attkisson suddenly went off the rails, and got everything wrong in one of her reports, it would make serious news. I conclude the Snopes article should never have been added. At the very least, if we're going to ignore policy, the claims should be attributed to Snopes, and the summary of the piece should have input by the group rather than one single editor. petrarchan47คุก 20:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude. Her blog piece does nothing to back up her denial with facts, which makes it an empty denial –– just words thrown out in blind defense. And we should not be linking to that blog piece because it contains a rehash of her pseudoscience stance. Finally, our readers will not need to be told that Attkisson is unhappy about her work being challenged and her reputation being harmed. Nobody would be happy about that. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • To not include her counterclaim to otherwise published statements made against her is a violation of BLP. We don't have to go into any depth of her own theories, just that we should say something as brief as "she denies the claims". Lacking that implies that the claims made against her went unchallenged, which is harmful to a BLP. --Masem (t) 03:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Note: A consideration should be made that Attkisson is not the only living person under consideration here. Zimmerman is also under consideration and Attkisson's insistence that she did not misrepresent him is not corroborated by him. I see no problem with noting that Attkisson takes issue with Snopes' fact checking, but to say anything further would subject Zimmerman to possible WP:BLP violation. jps (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Ball v Johnson

Ball v Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ball v Johnson was discontinued after the High Court (of England and Wales, in London) yesterday (4 July 2019) granted permission and allowed an application for judicial review against the original decision by the lower courts which had allowed an application for private prosecution against Boris Johnson to go ahead. Should the previous edits be at least rewritten in a more NPOV (neutral point of view) tone, instead of the present, which reads awfully like Marcus Ball himself (or the supporters of this crowdfunded case) writing (otherwise, large parts of this short article seem to be written in the first-person-narrative), "[My name is Marcus J Ball, I am here to prosecute Boris Johnson, and] [H]ere are the facts..." ? Some here in Wikipedia seem to think that BLP doesn't apply because this is about Boris Johnson, because Boris Johnson is 'fair game'. Also, isn't The New European an inherently biased/partisan source, given its avowed political stance? 194.207.146.167 (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

If we're going to look at "inherently biased/partisan", then how about an IP editor who has been trying to delete this article from the outset, including speed-tagging the draft?

A claim of "This is against BLP!!!" carries zero weight and there is no justification for you repeatedly deleting most of the article. If there is an issue, then say what the issue actually is. Don't just claim "OMG BLP!!!". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see any problem. Either The New European is WP:RS or it's not? Has any of its perceived editorial bias been mistakenly brought into the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources WP:RS doesn't mean that The New European is inherently reliable and can/should be used everywhere for all purposes. That is a misinterpretation of the RS policy. The New European is a weekly opinion magazine (but) published in a newspaper format, more similar to The Spectator and The New Statesman, than say even The Guardian. A large number of their (named) writers are not actually (bona fide full-time) journalists (Mitch Benn, Tony Blair, Brad Blitz, Alastair Campbell, Louise Chunn, Charlie Connelly, Sophia Deboick, Barbara Ellen, Suna Erdem, Sandy Grant, A C Grayling, Bonnie Greer, Adam Jacot De Boinod, Hardeep Singh Kohli, Denis Macshane, Marion van Renterghem, Chuka Umunna) [31]. That is my opinion on this publication. Everything they write or publish has (or is likely/going to have) a heavy political slant/spin. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

So who wrote that piece and why can't they be trusted? Have some opinions been misrepresented as facts? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• You have added the unsourced text, "the court also found that the original private prosecution application vexatious in nature". This is grammatically unclear, probably a typo, but maybe you will yet change it and its meaning. There is no indication that the court found any suich thing, i.e. you have added a seriously misleading claim against Marcus Ball, right against BLP. You might yet claim that [32] (BBC, June) supports this, yet it does no such thing: it's a claim by Johnson's barrister that the claim was vexatious (that's a significant claim in UK law) but that is not the judgement of the court! Portraying this as the judgement of the court is quite wrong.

This whole last paragraph is wrong, unsourced, and seriously misrepresents the source [33] (BBC, July) that it does give. To read the paragraph, one might think that it was some new supplementary judgement by the court. In fact, it's merely Ball's comments (and the possibility of appeal) in response to the publication of a judgement that was given a month ago – the same judgement as coverered in the paragraph before. The commentary on the judgement in this para is largely UNDUE and you have also embroidered it in a misleading fashion. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It is in the actual published judgment. ("Though it is not necessary, given our conclusions above, we would also have quashed the decision on the basis that the finding that the prosecution was not vexatious was flawed." Para[graph] 46, Page 11 [34]) Hard to disprove there is no editorising agenda going on or ax(e) to grind when you just pulled out a big porkie (a blatant lie) like that. -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Take another read of WP:BLP in particular, WP:BLPPRIMARY. Primary Certain primary sources like court documents cannot be used as the sole sources for claims that deal with LPs. If It's easy to misintepret such sources or any primary source and in any case, if no secondary source thinks it matters then we don't either. Nil Einne (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 01:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Legally speaking, there is a substantial distance between the appeal deciding that the lower court was wrong to decide that the case should have been allowed to proceed (i.e. their implication that it was not vexatious) and the appeal court deciding that the original case was specifically vexatious. Unsurprisingly, they did not go that far in their judgement. It is thus WP:SYNTH for you to claim that it is. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure exactly what is going on here but my best guess is that it is just a vexatious attempt at venue shopping after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball v Johnson didn't pan out the way our anonymous friend had hoped. I think it is time for the stick to be dropped. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Reading the IP's comments in the AFD I wonder if they are confused about how wikipedia works and what it is for. While I make no comment on the specifics of this case, there is no requirement that a case or trial is successful for us to have an article on it. It all depends on whether it meets our WP:Notability standards and whether whatever content we should cover is best mentioned solely in another article. We even have a Category:Criminal trials that ended in acquittal which is quite small but probably fairly incomplete. Two examples from there which are from the UK in some form seem to be HM Advocate v Coulson and Cyprus Seven Trial. If the OP is concerned about sub judice, we have a template Template:Sub judice UK for the talk page but for better or worse we don't consider the requirements of any laws other than those of the US to have much relevance to our content although it does have an effect in that editors and and more importantly our sources are going to be influenced by the laws that affect them. As long as we have the article, the fact that the case has been thrown out doesn't mean we shouldn't explain what it was about, as supported by reliable secondary sources and with due care taken to our policies and guidelines on what we should and shouldn't do. Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC Announce : Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram?

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram? regarding using Breitbart as a source. Your input would be a big help in reaching a consensus on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not the talk page of the article it was added. It should be closed or moved. QuackGuru (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That is not true. It is on the talk page of one of the places it was added (it was added to the top of that same talk page, using a template). The other pages where it was added and the template talk page have RfC Announcements, so the readers cae easily find the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That place where it was added is not an article. It should be on the talk page of an article rather than where there is heated debate on the topic. QuackGuru (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Which article (It has to be an article that discusses Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram) would you suggest? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I strongly recommend closing the malformed RfC first and wait a bit until an expanded stand-alone article is created. QuackGuru (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want to re-start a RfC now I recommend the talk page for List_of_Wikipedia_controversies. QuackGuru (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Abdulrazaq Atunwa

I have concerns that the subject of the article is trying to clean up his image. He is the subject of an investigation which was reported here, and he keeps removing the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OskarJacobsen (talk • contribs) 03:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The IP user is edit warring WP:EW and has violated the 3-revert rule WP:3RR. Report it to the admins on the Edit war/3RR noticeboard WP:AN/EW and ask for the page to be protected.Lilipo25 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sexual harrassment accusations in an article introduction

• The New Indian Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• "'I lost all the respect I had for you': TNIE journo resigns after boss named in MeToo". The News Minute. 2018-12-06. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Sharma, Swati (2018-12-30). "Salute to the women who dared". Deccan Chronicle. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• 117.195.200.129 (talk · contribs)
• 122.171.122.64 (talk · contribs)

I am unable to find the DC article mentioned. Uncle G (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I assume you mean "Me Too Peeps Under Scanner" mentioned in the lede, but I can't find that either. We need sources on the accusations (which appear to exist, not that they're non-existant), and mentioned the #MeToo stuff in the lede is far too much weight on something that hasn't seemed to result in any charge or the like. --Masem (t) 13:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The accusation is presented in a very biased way ("several of whom were young enough to be his granddaughter") that does not belong in an encyclopedia at all, much less in the lede.Lilipo25 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the whole thing from the lede, which I think is the only place that it appeared? A more cautiously worded, and better sourced, version might be added somewhere else in the article, keeping WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS in mind. MPS1992 (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I found the article: "Media#MeToo perps under scrutiny". Deccan Chronicle. 11 October 2018., however the editor is only named as "the Editor of the south Indian newspaper chain The New Indian Express".--Auric talk 18:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Nishtha Jain

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

Most is unsourced. Please check authenticity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braganzapun (talk • contribs) 13:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The only paragraph in this stub that is unsourced is the lede, which doesn't require sources.--Auric talk 18:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Gaurav Solanki

There are 2 persons named Gaurav Solanki. Gaurav Solanki - This page title should be Gaurav Solanki (Boxer) because the other page is of the screenwriter and fiction writer Gaurav Solanki named as Gaurav Solanki (writer).— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShooterHooter (talk • contribs) 12:39, June 13, 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that would be needed. There is GS the writer and the other GS. If there were an article on another GS, then that might be needed, but there isn't--Auric talk 18:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

bizarre, inappropriate Mexican sexual slang in Ramón Ayala biography

Ramón Ayala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This biography contains two Mexican slang words - tula (cock/tool) and chupatula (cocksucker)[at least this is my understanding of what they mean] which, aside from being inappropriate, don't even really make sense in the context. I went back through the history of the versions of this article and see they were introduced as part of a substantial rewriting and augmentation to the article on November 28, 2017. This was done by luislsilva, the assigned student editor in a WikiEducation Foundation-supported course assignment. The immediately prior version, also reportedly edited by luislsilva on November 7, 2017 did not contain any of this material. There have been very many edits to the article since then, and unless I'm way off-base, I'm quite surprised that given that Ramón Ayala is a Mexican musician, no one knew enough Spanish to notice this. Diane Winters

I don't think those words mean what you say, but I'm not an expert on Mexican slang. However, the article was a wall of unsourced, often incomprehsible text. It's now a stub.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a (deliberately?) poor quality translation from the Spanish Wikipedia article. The words replaced were mother and accordionist.--Auric talk 18:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)