Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive310

Parth Samthaan

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

There's a bit of a dispute on this article around some accusations that were made today by someone else involving sexuality claims and a FIR/police report about molestation charges. of the edit in question (sources for all of this in diff). Some of the sources used aren't top quality, but several are solid and additional good source can be found for basically everything there. There's a start of a talk page discussion, but both sides are talking past each other, and there are some additional sources. The first issue are the claims made via Instagram post by Vikas Gupta - statement about Samthaan's sexuality and semi-veiled allegation of blackmail. In all of the sources I've read, the story is basically here's the Instagram post, restate what's there and that's about it. My thought on this is that this is a form of WP:BLPSELFPUB - the claims are from Gupta, the sources aren't doing anything but repeating what was said. Samthaan hasn't responded that I can see, so no declaration from them about their sexuality. Given that, I don't think any direct statement should be in the article. I'm not even sure if the sources, right now, support even a general statement about Gupta's social media posts. It feels mostly gossipy, but these are serious accusations about harassment that have been made and have fairly wide reporting (in the past few days, at least). There are also some articles from 2018 where Samthaan sued Gupta [1]. No idea how that turned out.

The second issue is the FIR (think police report) against Samthaan for molestation back in 2017. There are some responses from Samthaan around that time and some later source show that Samthaan was arrested [2] I've done some searching and I'm not finding anything on the resolution of this case. Samthaan should meet WP:PUBLICFIGURE, but given the lack of updates and minimal discussion outside of gossip / society pages, I don't think this belongs either. Thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome! Ravensfire (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

If covered, it should include his response, that the claims are "false and baseless". I also cannot find any resolution, and in that link he claims the charges were dropped after a police investigation. Mcfnord (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Keith Davidson

Keith Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sometime ago I came across the Keith Davidson BLP article. It is one of the longest Wikipedia BLP articles I had ever seen. I believed that this page has BLP issues including:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)

The article read as an attack page IMO. It was not and is still not objective. It contained unimportant but embarrassing "facts." It used judgmental language, gave undue weight to one source, and used extreme depth of detail to defame the article's subject. In addition, the article's structure, use of images, subtitles, quotes, hearsay, and expressions of doubt are unbalanced.

• Verifiability (V) & Reliable Sources

It contains circumstantial detail that is not properly supported, and is primarily based on one article from The Smoking Gun. The BLP is mainly a paraphrasing of the Smoking Gun article which was referenced 40+ times in January 2020 version. Also, the citations for the Smoking Gun article were divided into 4 different references - all titled differently, which made it look as if there were more sources for the article than there were. (It is hard to have good faith that this was done to reference page numbers when an article is so heavily weighted on one reference.) Approximately 50% of the remaining text (after edits) still relies on this one source - much of which is primary information.

@SJP89: I split the TSG article's references into four separate ones because the article itself is on four separate pages which the reader has to click through. If I linked only the first one, readers would justly claim the source didn't verify the article because the information referenced could not be found at the other end of the link. I would think that most editors would figure this out, but it seems there's an exception to everything.

@Daniel Case: Of course I knew what you were doing - but it was formatted in a way that made it look like they were separate sources. That in combination with the bias - made me question if that really was the reason why. And speaking of good faith, since you are of such high status - surely you should be giving me the benefit of the doubt?

And yet again you have failed to assume good faith ... if you had done that, you would have realized this and not maliciously and baseless imputed some sort of sinister motive to me.

I also do not see how the TSG article is "mostly primary information" ... while TSG as a site made its name by posting primary documents (which we have cited without complaint in other articles; you may cite primary sources as long as you do not offer any interpretation of your own. Most of it is the author's accounts of interviews with Davidson and others, as well as documents which support his claims. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Because of this, I tagged the article with relevant templates. I commented on the Talk Page. I then proceeded to make edits to neutralize the tone and depth of detail of the article. I also requested additional sources for information currently only supported by the TSG article. Within 12 hours of beginning edits, I have been threatened and admonished by the page's main editor - a long standing Wikipedia admin. I am asking for other editor's help and opinions on the page (as it stands now) after hours of editing. And for assistance in resolving the accusations and threats from the author. Your help is appreciated. SJP89 (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)SJP89

Which of Daniel Case's comments do you take as a threats and accusations? I don't see any in the talk page discussion or on your talk page. The request that you revert your unsupported COI accusations or the editor will raise the issue on an appropriate noticeboard is not a threat, it's a warning. Schazjmd (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

And consider that warning more seriously given now. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Instead of helping me with editing the page Daniel Case continues to bully me in his responses here, on the talk page, and on another page I edited. Even after, as he requested, I removed the COI and explained why I put it there. This is bullying. It is threatening because as an admin he has power.

I would really like to move the conversation back to the article itself and see how everyone feels about the lack of reliable sources and removing information sourced solely by the Smoking Gun. SJP89 (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)SJP89

I still have questions about the reliability of The Smoking Gun as a dominate source for this article but I believe over the last few days - many of the issues on the page have been resolved. Removing the BLP tag from the page. Thank you to those who contributed. SJP89 (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)SJP89

I agree that TSG article should not be the sole source for major claims, because they clearly just took the subject's word on many things. Mcfnord (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Captain Tom

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

User:86.21.249.196 persists in restoring uncited claims to Captain Tom, about the subject and other living people, despite warnings on the IPs talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Paul Anka

I have done a RFC for this but decided to post it here as well.

A consensus needs to be reached about how to state what Paul Anka has said in his autobiography about his origins. In page 11 of his book he states his parents were of Lebanese Christian DESCENT. He also said that with his own words in minute 3.25- 4:30 of his interview archived in NPR.org with link https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4793881?storyId=4793881&t=1593052812491 he was of Lebanese descent not of Syrian nor Syrian and Lebanese descent. When someone is of Lebanese descent it means his/her ancestors come from Lebanon.

Further in the same page 11 of his autobiography Anka says "in the small town in Syria called Bab Touma-where my ancestors came from" the told event with his grandfather and granduncle happened and "his grandparents immigrated to Canada" from there to escape revenge.

Since he first states his parents are of Lebanese descent the above statement has to mean that his grandparents moved from Lebanon to this small town in Syria, lived there and then immigrated to Canada after the incident. He stated his ancestors CAME from there (as CAME to Canada from there) not that they COME from there meaning originated from.

As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Using_sources Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. Also as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_context

User George Al-Shami is trying to merge his two statements in a way that implicates as if he is of Syrian descent and not of Lebanese descent as stated by Anka. He then goes on and adds less notable sources that say he is of Syrian descent to support his merge. Al-Shami also added his own original research by adding that the Bab Touma in Syria mentioned by Anka is the old district inside the city of Damascus when Paul Anka states that the Bab Touma where his ancestors came to Canada from is a SMALL TOWN in Syria

(For what is worth, since he stated his parents are of Lebanese descent, that small town of Bab Touma could even be Mar Touma in Ottoman Syria (modern-day Lebanon) but of course he didnt say Mar Touma so this is just my own original research to try to make sense of the two "seemingly contradictory" statements)

User George Al-Shami has previously quoted "exact" statements from sources in order to implicate Syrian descent of Queen Noor of Jordan's grandfather Elias Halaby when that Syrian descent has been put in question by experts such as Henry Louis Gates through his expertise and research. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Najeeb_Halaby#Najeeb_Halaby_Lebanese_Origins for this previous discussion.Chris O' Hare (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User Chris O' Hare removes Syrian ancestry from that person's background, even when it is backed by the totality of credible sources; and when credible sources state the person has both ancestries.

1) On March 24 he adds a New York Times source to Najeeb Halaby's article that states he is Lebanese/Syrian and adds the nationalistic designation "Lebanese", which I don't object to, because it's referenced with a credible source, the NYT.

Here's the diff

2) Then on March 26, 2020 after seeing that no one objected to his addition of "Lebanese" and his NYT source which refers to Halaby as "Lebanese/Syrian", he removes the national designation "Syrian"; even though that's what his chosen source states; this will clearly show that the said editor is not making edits in good faith.

:Here's the diff 

3) He brings up the PBS Henry Gates source to dispel what the NYT source and his memoir stated, so I explained to Chris O' Hare that this is against Wiki policy to engage in WP:OR. Henry Gates's research found that Najeeb's great-grandfather was born in Damascus, but it does not specify which city the family hails from. Najeeb's memoir states that his grandfather was born in Zahle, however his daughter contradicts that in her memoir and says that he was not born in Zahle, he lived there for a number of years; however both sources state that their family hails from the city of Aleppo, Syria.

He introduces Najeeb's memoir source that states his grandfather was born in Zahle (a town in modern-day Lebanon) and he uses that to claim that Najeeb is only from "Lebanese" ancestry....now on the next line of the very source that Chris O' Hare is using it says that Najeeb's family is from Aleppo, (a large city in modern-day Syria). So, I returned the "Syrian" national designation and kept the "Lebanese" designation, because both memoir sources state Syrian and Lebanese ancestry and remarked to Chris O' Hare that it is very deceptive to use one line from his memoir and then ignore the other line just to back his POV and remove "Syrian" ancestry from the article, even though the memoir source that Chris O' Hare is using states that.

I am willing to collaborate and improve the sentence flow of the biography section and make it more harmonious to the reader, but, if not for an agenda, it is not clear why the said editor keeps removing "Syrian" from the different wiki articles on Syrian-Lebanese people. Conversely I am not the one who is removing "Lebanese" from the article; I always strived to keep both when the totality of sources maintain the ancestries from both countries. George Al-Shami (talk)

References

Dino Costa

Can someone please cast their eye over the Dino Costa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. Bit of a new one for me having being an editor for fifteen years but I have somehow gotten myself as an 'involved party' by trying to explain on Costa Dino's talk page that he shouldn't edit war if he takes issue with the material within the article itself after he emailed me. He's taken an issue with the claim of plagiarism (which is sourced). Despite not heeding my advice IPs started edit warring today and I semi-protected the page. Just received an email from Costa to his lawyer stating I'm authorizing you to take whatever action against this individual "GLEN", and the Wikipedia organization, for slander and defamation of character. *sigh*. I'll alert WP to the legal threat but in the meantime would appreciate some uninvolved eyeballs on the article. Thanks. Glen 09:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The person behind the biography is reported by all sources to be extremely combative, so the response you experienced is par for the course. He gets his fame from being angry and abrasive on the radio. I don't expect the subject of the biography will ever be happy with a neutral summary of the literature. Binksternet (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no comment on any of this but I would encourage a discussion of awfulannouncing.com at RSN given it's a fanblog. It does not strike me as a particularly reliable source wrt WP:BLP. Praxidicae (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, Binksternet noted. I'll remove the plagiarism assertion while under dispute until clarity around the RS can be determined. Interestingly that site is sourced 11 times on the ESPN+ article though obviously not BLP. I'm stepping away from this now as my inbox is full of increasingly more threatening emails and whilst I'm not in the slightest but concerned I want Costa Dino to start communicating onwiki instead of emailing a barrage of threats to an editor. I have no issues anyone reverting my edit on the page - especially if a better source can be found. Cheers. Glen 20:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

AwfulAnnouncing.com is used as a reference in a bunch of sports radio articles: 2015 World Series, Criticism of ESPN, Get Up! (TV program), Tom Hart (sportscaster), Jon Sciambi, Mike Tirico, Major League Baseball on television in the 2010s, ESPN Megacast, Matt Yallof and many, many more. Dan Levy (journalist) is a staff writer at Awful Announcing. At Talk:2017 World Series/GA1, Muboshgu said it was a respected industry source. I don't see any discussions concluding that it was not neutral. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, thanks for the input. I'm not going to touch the article again for my own sanity (and the sanity of my inbox!) but will leave with you and other more competent editors than I in this arena to make the changes. I won't consider reversions to my edit edit warring goes without saying. Thanks again. Glen 20:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Najeeb Halaby father of Queen Noor of Jordan

Ongoing discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Najeeb_Halaby#Najeeb_Halaby_Lebanese_Origins. User George Al-Shami is quoting sources with the intention to implicate Syrian descent of these two personalities ignoring that this has been later questioned by experts such as Henry Louis Gates. Input is needed on how to best state the ancestral origins of these two personalities

User George Al-Shami is also using sources in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context for the same purpose. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Anka#Paul_Anka's_Lebanese_descent_in_his_autobiography_and_own_words_in_radio_interview.Chris O' Hare (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

My goodness, what untruthful statements. Henry Louis Gates did not "question" his "Syrian" nor his "Lebanese" ancestry; I read the whole Gates source (21 pages in total), he concludes that his research couldn't find out where Elias' family (that's Lisa'a great-grandfather) is from.

Again, false allegation, Chris introduces Anka's memoir, which is a credible source and removes the "Syrian" designation (a pattern of his, if you check the recent history of his edits), because Anka states on line that he is from Lebanese ancestry; but then the said editor ignores what Anka says on the following line that his family hails from Damascus, Syria; to ignore what the source says in the following sentence is not "consistent" with the source.

Among the 3 sources I added, is the 1960 Life magazine source, where Life had interviewed and quoted from Anka's father, which said on page 68 of the magazine The only place Paul was not an immediate international success was with his Syrian father, Andrew Anka, whose parents came from Damascus. If one reads the entire article, one will find specific quotes from Paul and his father. George Al-Shami (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Martie Maguire

Martie Maguire "Early life... and younger half-brother, R&B singer Ian Daviz, born in 1996." I don't believe this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:132F:2A3:50D9:4D08:1B69:72F8 (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced material from that paragraph. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Bessel van der Kolk

I am not familiar with BLP policies, but a BLP is currently getting reverts/re-reverts over van der Kolk's dismissal from previous role, he then announced legal action and nothing since can be independently confirmed re: unfair dismissal case, claim of being on sabbatical at the time he was dismissed, and possible settlement, loyalty of previous staff to him, amount of out of court settlement back in 2018. Have posted my concerns on Talk:Bessel_van_der_Kolk but no response from those editors, one of who is anonymous. I am not sure what to revert / if to revert. But fairly sure potential defamation/libel is being posted/re-posted. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Amousey, there is some epic resume-padding going on at that article right now. There are also red flags as his work has been cited by "recovered memory" cranks. Guy (help!) 05:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Wendy Mesley‎‎

anon made a series of edits to the article that are unsubstantiated and possibly offensive . I believe that they constitute a BLP for the subject and could be offensive to others. They should be deleted or at least hidden to all but admin oversight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Pavan Sukhdev

The article for Pavan Sukhdev, the former head of the World Wildlife Fund reads like a resume and is in need of significant trimming, if anyone is interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

[Edith Brown Weiss]

Corrections and edits to the entry in English for Edith Brown Weiss. The correct current title for Edith Brown Weiss is: University Professor Georgetown University. She is referred to in the Wikipedia article as Brown. The orrect name reference would be Brown Weiss. She was the Chairperson of the Inspection Panel at the World Bank, from 2003-2007, an appointment at the level of World Bank Vice President. She is also a Judge on the Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund and former President of the Administrative Tribunal of the InterAmerican Development Bank. She did NOT work for the United States National Academy of Sciences but served on the commissions and boards that are mentioned in the entry. Her most recent book publication is Establishing Norms in a Kaleidoscopic World (Brill/Nijhoff 2020), which is a pocketbook of The Hague Academy of International Law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edith Brown Weiss (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Tyrell Robinson

• Tyrell Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to sources he "admitted engaging in sexual activity with a child, making an indecent image of a child and distributing an indecent image of a child". Are the categories regarding his 'conviction' therefore strictly accurate? Also requesting input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. GiantSnowman 15:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

According to the source that affirms he admitted - in a court setting - to these, he will be sentenced on these at at a later date, so that's basically a conviction for all purposes. Seems appropriate here. --Masem (t) 16:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If he plead guilty, that's a conviction. Sentencing can be done later. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Now that they're resolved, I'm hoping to distill the these legal zig-zags, but another editor opposes more concise coverage. Please weigh in: Talk:Tyrell Robinson § Career v. Crime Mcfnord (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack Posobiec

The majority of his page is pretty libelous an open to legal action. In fact most of it opinion rather than fact. A lot of it is heinously mistated.

Example 1 " and conspiracy theorist[5] who is considered an Internet troll." Neither one of those things are fact, both are a matter of opinion and both libelous. Expressing one's belief on a public forum is not tantamount to being a theorist. It's a subjective label. I don't think we need to go over "internet troll".

Example 2. "Posobiec was one of the most prominent promoters on social media of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory," Prove it. While he may have expressed a belief in it, it doeesn't equate to "one of the most prominent promoters". THere's no source for that claim that proves it. It's again libelous as it's currently worded.

Example 3. The repetitive use of the word "Promoted". This is again subjective opinion and libelous. By defiition he isn't paying to promote these ideas, he isn't pushing them on people, he merely expresses his beliefs in a public forum. For what that's worth the activists hijacking his page are promoting libelous descriptions of him using Wikipedia as a willing platform.

Example 4. Listing any claim as "conspiracy theries, falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims" is in itself subjective and opinion base, and tantamount to libel per Example 5 as proof:

Example 5. Source number 24 uses a sourceless opinion article behind a paywall. and that's just the third claim under the heading "Conspiracy theories, falsehoods, and unsubstantiated claims" making it an unsubstantiated claim and falsehood in and of itself. The claim made in the opinion piece by the author is not sourced or proven. This is completely circular and not factual.

Example 6. Source 27 for the claims that Jack claimed Disney rewrote scenes involving Trump being called a racist is not backed with any provable source itself, It's a simple opinion piece that took the extra step of typing out it's claimed quote while direct sourcing other tweets in the same opinion piece. So rather than source that claim it's making itself, aka Jack's tweet or direct proof of the quote, it instead makes the claim without any proof of what exactly was said by Jack and offers no source to disprove it's claim or Jack's supposed claim even if he did make such a claim. The source is nothing more than a circular and libelous opinion piece.

Example 7. Source 27 is again an opinion piece with no direct quote, or evidence of the claim being made against Jack, nor is there any factual evidence that can disprove it. It doesn't even prove that Jack "promoted" a conspiracy so much as the opinion piece makes fun of him for having the belief. It doesn't prove the claim, disprove Jack's claim or even establish he"promoted" his belief. This is again libelous.

Example 8. Ridiculous headers like "Gun Violence". He hasn't participated in any. Why is it there, because he has an opinion on it? It gives the perception that he's involved or has been involved in gun violence the way it's being presented, keeping in spirit with the way bios of others are kept record of on Wikipedia, so why is Jack's done differntly in a way to promote this perception? Bias. It's again libelous.

I'm going to stop right here becuase the overwhelming majority of the claims made on this page are sourced with opinion pieces rather than any direct quotes or evidence and it's chalk full of opinions, libelous accusations and subjective choice of words in various places intended to pursuade the opinion of the person reading, which is itself, again, libelous. This isn't informational, its accusational and it's being held hostage by an activist.

Get your act together and stop the war against another living human being using his bio as a weapon, it's beyond absurd and far outside of any idological leftist belief I've ever encountered to do this to a living human being, yet here we are. Dislike people all you like, but stop being dishonest if we're going to claim someone else is being dishonest. An honest effort isn't being made here. Let people be who they are without all this bullshit editorializing and we can decide for ourselves what to think. We don't need people taking creative liberty with the bios of other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.78.211 (talk • contribs) 22:22, June 27, 2020 (UTC)

Neither one of those things are fact, both are matter of opinion and both libelous... This statement is, under United States law, self-contradictory. Something cannot be both "opinion" and "libelous" in the United States - statements of opinion are per se not libelous. Only false claims of fact are actionable. If you don't know the difference, you probably shouldn't be commenting on this sort of issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This is completely wrong and unsourced, try facts: If a statement of opinion implies some false underlying facts, it could be defamatory, hence libel, stop editing with false information.

It's neither wrong nor unsourced. You may wish to review Cornell Law School's legal dictionary. In pertinent part: To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Pizzagate is making the rounds on TikTok it seems... [3] I was about to collapse this as a time wasting troll, as the content is hardly libelous. And I wouldn't stop anyone else from collapsing this as a time waster. But the IP does raise one good point: about a third of the sources to Posobiec's page are opinion pieces, which strikes me as bad use of sources. But otherwise the IP's claims ring hollow and show a clear lack of understanding of libel, or Wikipedia, or wacky far-right thinkers. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Paula Bennett

Paula Bennett is a politician who has just announced her retirement. The section Release of private information about beneficiaries contains the names of living people whose personal information she leaked as a cabinet minister. Should those names be removed ? Stuartyeates (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Art Pope

IP 71.69.197.7 repeatedly edits and inserts same material with the source being a student's letter to the editor to a student newspaper, in a Biography of a Living Person. See: IP 71.69.197.7 would not go Talk page to discuss why this was or was not a Reliable Source. A letter to the editor is not edited by the publishing paper, verified, etc., it is simply the original work of the author of the letter. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page . . . Request if IP 71.69.197.7 continues to undo deletion or reinsert material that is Not a Reliable source, that he be blocked.

References

Let me remind the poster above of Wikipedia's principle of assume good faith. Perhaps some simple searching might have answered the question of whether the aforementioned letter to the editor is accurate, before rushing right to trying to get an IP block. In fact there are a number of good sources on this incident available online including the Daily Tar Heel article about the protest, and not one but two articles about the ensuing student court procedure in which Algenon L. Marbley, now a Federal judge, was acquitted. Finally Art Pope responded to the letter on his own website.

I've never heard of any of these individuals before so I won't insert myself into the argument or the edit war, but it appears to me there's plenty of good sourcing for this incident to be included in this BLP, and since it involves another individual that Wikipedia finds notable, I think it probably should be in there. --Krelnik (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate Krelnik’s reference to “good faith,” which is why I did not appeal to this notice board until the third time (now fourth) time that the material was repeatedly inserted. Also before I appealed, I asked in good faith for a discussion on the Art Pope article’s Talk page, and the poster IP 71.69.197.7 did not do so.

I asked for action because it is the express Wiki policy that for a BLP “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article . . . .” Note “immediately.” It further states “If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.” After three (now four) times that the material has been “repeatedly inserted” I am in good faith requesting the appropriate action on this noticeboard

In regards to Krelnik substantive comments and his sources:

First, the January 17, 1975 Daily Tarheel article does not refer to Pope.

Second, the February 20, 1975 Daily Tarheel article reports on the “Undergraduate Court” proceedings conducted by the “student Attorney General Nita Mitchell,” rather than Pope having personally “sued” Marbley. This and the later Dailey Tarheel Articles reference to Pope having "initiated" a complaint or charges in the context of the Student Court proceeding conducted by the Student Attorney General and jury, rather than Pope personally pursuing a suit against Marbley as stated in the 2017 letter to the editor.

Back on the main point, a student’s 2017 letter to the editor on events in 1975 is not a reliable source. Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources. At best it is the equivalent of a self-published or user-generated content, with the forum where it was published, but not verified or edited, being a student newspaper. Interestingly, Pope’s own letter to the editor might be a reliable source “about” himself, but not as a reliable source in regard to the events. Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves WP:BLPSPS

Being relatively new to Wiki I apologize if formatting and links not correct. I would appreciate further guidance and appropriate action.

IP 71.69.197.7 repeatedly inserted the material sourced only by the student letter to the editor for a 5th time. IP 71.69.197.7 further added a statement attributing to Pope statements made by David Duke about “white students,” and used an anonymous posting on a political blog call “CafinatedRage” as the source. This clearly violates so many Wiki policies in general, and for a WP:BLP in particular. See WP:BLPRS, WP:BLPSPS & WP:PRIMARY (source third party letters to editor). Also WP:SYN & WP:COATRACK by merging and attributing statements by Duke to Pope in an article on Pope. Overall failure to meet WP:NPOV. According to WP:BLPREMOVE these posts should be immediately removed and stay removed. Given IP 71.69.197.7 refusal to discuss on article Talk page, and repeated insertions and undos, with the apparent goal to attribute David Duke and Klan racism to Pope, is this not out right WP:Vandalism rather than a a good faith encyclopedia entry? Again, request assistance and appropriate action.

References

Krelnik not sure if those articles you found would help any; the Daily Tarheel appears to be a student newspaper, so rather doubtful for use in a BLP. I don't have access to newspapers.com, but a google search didn't pick up any other press that have noticed the incident at all. Unless there is something better, it looks WP:Undue to mention it. It is up to the original IP to source controversial claims adequately, especially for a BLP.

I posted a message to 71.69.197.7 on their talkpage alerting them to BLP policy and edit warring; if they continue, try WP:AN3. Btw, please sign with 4 tildes ~ <those things. It makes it easier to work out who is saying what. Curdle (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm..may have spoken too soon about nothing being out there- found this Print news and raise hell p 265-267 look interesting Curdle (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Kaushik Basu

Kaushik Basu I am Kaushik Basu. I tried to make some small changes on the page, such as changing the statement about my moral beliefs and also changing my photograph. But each time someone is removing my edits and reverting it back. In fact, today I changed the photograph. And now, a few hours later, I find it has gone back to the one that was there earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaushik Basu1952 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes people on Wikipedia can be really excessively obstructive. I've updated the image for you. However, I would suggest if you have any further suggestions for updates to the page, that you use the process outlined at Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

(EC) Hi, your attempts to change the image mostly didn't work properly which was probably one of the reasons for the reversion even if it may have been better to fix your mistakes. The image change has been implemented by User:Zzuuzz. I agree with them as the newer photograph to looks better due to the lower level of reflection in your glasses amongst other details. That said, you should bear in mind that your views on photograph that best represents you are only likely to be given minor consideration if there is dispute. In terms of the other changes, while I understand this may be confusing, unfortunately we cannot change your beliefs or anything else, based solely on what you tell us here. We may be able to make some limited changes to details based on stuff you have self-published elsewhere per WP:BLPSELFPUB. The best scenario is if other sources from reputable publishers have published these details ([[WP:RS|reliable secondary sources). If you identify anything that you feel is wrong or inaccurate, if you let us know we can look in to it. Unfortunately it can be a tricky situation when reliable secondary sources have published the details that you dispute. Given the complexities involved, and that you understandable cannot be unbiased about yourself, it is far better if you request changes on the article talk page Talk:Kaushik Basu or here rather than trying to make any changes yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Dhar Mann

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

Remove page under Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page.

Liable information is continuously added without sources Nikkidm (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

In fact the material you were deleting was the only part of the page that was at all well sourced. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

And it's just deen deleted under WP:G4. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Turning Point USA

See WP:BLPGROUP - This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. There is no doubt that the person, Charlie Kirk (activist), is synonymous with Turning Point USA. He was the founder of the organization at age 18.

• See this diff and my edit summary for removal.
• See this revert by Beyond My Ken and his edit summary.

My reason for deleting is primarily that it is a violation of BLP:GROUP, WP:NPOV and WP:V and as such certainly should not be in the lead of that article. BMK's edit summary states that the revert is part of an RfC but I disagree. The RfC specifically states that the material is in the section "2020 Presidential election" not in the lead which is what I removed. The material for inclusion subject to the RfC is as follows:

In May 2019, Kirk created a new 501(c)(4) organization, a political action committee intended to target Democrats, called Turning Point Action,[1] which purchased the assets of Students for Trump.[2] Students for Trump had been founded in 2015 at Campbell University in Buies Creek, North Carolina by John Lambert and Ryan Fournier. Lambert left the organization some time after Trump's election, and in August 2019 he pled guilty to creating a fake law firm and posing as an experienced lawyer. The scam netted him over $46,000, which he will forfeit. Lambert also faces prison time. After Lambert's arrest in April, Students for Trump distanced themselves from him.[3]

I will not include the material I removed from the lead because it contains allegations of racist activity which I consider an exceptional claim per WP:REDFLAG and a violation of WP:V and WP:BLPGROUP. I also believe there are blatant NPOV issue in the presentation of that material. The edtor responsible for restoring that violative content should be dealt with in an appropriate manner as he has been problematically reverting material that he should not have been reverting. I wasn't sure if I should bring this issue here, or to AE. I look forward to your comments. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme fails to note that his deletion came in the middle of an open RfC [4] in which the material in question was being discussed. He denies this, but, in point of fact, his edit is simply another way of removing material in order to help to whitewash the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

As for the open RfC, see BMK's edit summary in this diff which states: (Undid revision 963452242 by Atsme (talk) Restore collapse of side discussion not pertinent to the RfC) and the comment in the collapsed discussion which states Ctop. How much more evidence of BMK's misrepresentation of my action is needed? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Atsme is a woman. But yes, this looks like WP:FORUMSHOPping. Guy (help!) 17:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme: My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Forum shopping, Guy? This is the only forum I posted in. What other forums are you referring to? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I meant canvassing. If you want to attract people to an RfC you must use a neutral statement. You know this. Guy (help!) 17:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong on that one, too, Guy I am not canvassing. I came to this BLP forum as I am obligated to do because I strongly believe there is a blatant violation of BLPGROUP and you need to be very careful of what you're saying here because you are making false accusations against me and so is BMK. Back-up your allegations and stop the aspersions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I can see why you would say this was canvasing since the comment mentioned the RfC. However, I think it was mentioned to illustrate that the disputed edit from earlier today was not related to the RfC material. I agree that they aren't related. I'm not sure about the policy related justification for the removal from the lead. I'm not saying it's right or wrong only that I don't understand the thinking at this point in time. Springee (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I can see the concern regarding is this a neutral heads up regarding the RfC. However, I don't think this was meant to be a RfC notification. The RfC enters into this because BMK claimed the material removed earlier today was the subject of the RfC. It is not. This edit [[5]] is not related to the RfC. The RfC involves a subtopic. The material removed from the lead is not related to or supported by the subject of the RfC. BMK really needs to tone down the incivility. Springee (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

BLP concerns apply with regards to the RFC, not just because of Kirk but because of the SYNTHING of Lambert into the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It's absurd to call it SYNTH, although I've agreed to partial removal because the events described occurred before TP Action's purchase of Students for Trump. The RfC was triggered by the attempt to claim that Turning Point USA's political action committee was not connected to TPUSA, even though it was created by Charlie Kirk and controlled by him, and takes action based on TPUSA's ideology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I note the rfc is reaching a compromise solution. As for the revert here, Atsme removed too much. Most of it is appropriate sourced material to show the nature of the organization. However, the sentence "n December 2017, former employees " about the charge of being racist should be removed from the lede, (but of course not not the article,, because it's a single specific charge by a single group; it is overemphasis in the lede . DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with DGG on removal from lede, but not from article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree with DGG. In BMK's comment above he unequivocally states ...even though it was created by Charlie Kirk and controlled by him which makes the material noncompliant with WP:BLPGROUP and WP:REDFLAG. It is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary RS so the ONUS is on the editor who wants to restore the material. I actually did a bit of research for RS to cite to that extraordinary claim, and did not find any. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Charlie Kirk founded Turning Point USA - a fact, not controversial.

Charlie Kirk is the head of TPUSA - a fact, not controversial - 2017 IRS Form 990,

Charlie Kirk founded Talking Point Action as TYPUSA's political action committee - a fact, not controversial - CNBC article,

Charlie Kirk is the head of Turning Point Action - a fact, not controversial - 2017 IRS Form 990O.

QED. Nothing extraordinary here, except for the attempt to ignore plain facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Atsme's analysis of this section and agree it needs to be removed in whole as it is a blatant violation of WP:BLP:GROUP, WP:NPOV and WP:V, as well as WP:REDFLAG. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Why is there both a discussion here and an RfC on the page? Seems redundant. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Please read my opening statement which explains that my removal of noncompliant material from the lead is not relevant to the RfC. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC) ^{Apologies, Horse Eye Jack, I did not realize a new RfC had been opened several hours after I filed this case, if that is what you were referring to. 13:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)}

• Some of the material removed is completely unambiguously not a BLP violation. The rest is just a summary of what's already in the article, with the only real BLP objection potentially the "illegal" business... but it seems silly that people are edit warring and trying to claim BLP (and now fully protecting it) with that full block gone, including material clearly not a BLP violation, and leaving available the material it summarizes. Here's the good plan: Close this thread, unprotect the page, restore the material, revise so as to summarize without BLP-objectionable content, and then finish the RfC (which has implications for, but is not about this matter). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

As already mentioned, any admin should feel free to reverse my protection and/or text removal. I do not object and do not need to be consulted further in any way whatsoever. El_C 04:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• BMK's list of uncontroversial facts above states clearly why the racist allegation is a violation of BLPGROUP - it relates directly to founder Charlie Kirk. What I removed from the lead included 3 sentences as follows;

1. the racist allegation and "potentially illegal involvement" statement was cited to The New Yorker. Neither allegation is proven/verifiably accurate, nor do they belong in the lead or body of the article. If anything, it could be used as an example of false allegations and biased spin by The New Yorker.
2. the second sentence was another LABEL by the Anti-Defamation League, a biased advocacy. Any editor who needs verification of their bias can simply go to their website and search "Joe Biden". I'm happy to provide 2 examples: this article and this one. Search Turning Point USA and you will see the stark contrast and obvious bias in how the articles are presented by ADL.
3. the third sentence was passing mention of an unknown author's opinion of TPUSA, saying that it is "shunned or at least ignored by more established conservative groups in Washington, but embraced by many Trump supporters". A comment that cannot be attributed to an author, much less verified as anything beyond a biased opinion is UNDUE and does not belong in the lead. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• There is no logical connection between my proof that Charlie Kirk runs both TPUSA and its political action committee TPA, and Atsme's restatement of their complaint. Certainly it does not support it in any way, and baldly stating that it does support it doesn't change that. It's simply a non sequitor, and can safely be ignored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• It is absolute logic, and should not be ignored. Charlie Kirk (activist) is referred to as "Leader" in the TPUSA infobox. Allegations by former employees that the organization is "engaging in racist practices" is not only a false reflection directly on Charlie Kirk but may be considered libelous - see the BLP TP template: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. I consider these allegations to be poorly sourced per WP:REDFLAG which requires multiple high quality sources. Read my edit summary as it clearly demonstrates why the sentences were challenged and removed from the lead. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

BeyondMyKen Charlie Kirk is synonymous with TurningPointUSA, Wikipedia has put lots of precautions (such as WP:REDFLAG ) in place so that irresponsible edits (like the material in dispute) don't confuse a reader into wrongly thinking Charlie Kirk and/or TPUSA involve themselves in racist activities (as opposed to a select few isolated incidents which I do believe Charlie Kirk publicly condemns racism). Its very, very misleading and with the traffic that Wikipedia gets, especially a lead paragraph, it could result in extreme irreversible damage. EliteArcher88 (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

EliteArcher88, Charlie Kirk carefully positions TPUSA in the "mainstream" of the radical right fringe. The close afficinty for the Trump administration, "All Live Matter" propaganda etc., positions them solidly in that part of the right which is cool with racism, not cool wioth anything done about it, but doesn't usually use the n-word when anyone is likely to be listening. That's what the sources show. It's also what their social media feed shows. They say they are not racist, but the racists sure as hell think they are. Guy (help!) 13:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, what I see as the problem - your use of broad terminology and WP:LABEL. Kirk may be radical right in your perception of the term but he is conservative in his basic beliefs which is nowhere near radical right in the beliefs of others. His POV is different from the left - each side believes what they believe and labeling people because of their beliefs when the label doesn't fit is noncompliant with NPOV and other core content policies. Labeling white people as racists has been so overused by the left that it has lessened the significance of real concerns about racism, and it does far more harm than good as evidenced in quite a few articles, including The Atlantic, Chicago Tribune, The race card slowly loses its sting through overuse as we head toward 2020, and I'll use an opinion piece in the WSJ because the author is a member of the WSJ editorial board, and accusations of racism are not always based on facts but opinions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I am delighted that you are able to read Charlie Kirk's innermost thoughts. Me, I am forced to look at the external evidence, which shows them to be an astroturf group funded by billionaires who are known for trolling, mainly on social media.

All of which is fine and normal for 2020 (there is an endless list of billionaire-funded astroturf groups, after all), but right now Charlie Kirk is online claiming that lockdowns don't work, Democrats want to destroy the Lincoln Memorial, Bubba Wallace is a "fraud", that an exemption from a mask mandate for "People of color who have heightened concerns about racial profiling and harassment due to wearing face coverings in public" is racist, and a whole bunch of "Obamagate and other conspiracist claptrap, including that Roger Stone was "framed" and so on.

Literal quote from Kirk: Yesterday ALONE, 40 people were shot and 6 were killed in Democrat-run Chicago. This is on top of 100+ people shot and 12+ killed over the weekend. I wonder if Black Lives Matter will be rioting over all their deaths? Or does that not fit their narrative?

Exactly as I said: radical right and "all lives matter". Guy (help!) 16:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, your comment includes multiple unsourced criticisms and I'm not getting your point. How does any of it relate to the BLP vio under discussion? The NYTimes refers to Kirk as a "conservative activist", and/or young right-wing provocateur, and that is a long way from "radical right", racist or white supremacist. He tours with Candace Owens. Re: the lockdown, are you talking about Kirk's appearance on Fox back in March when he suggested reopening states with lower infection rates while leaving more heavily infected areas in quarantine? Again, not relative to this discussion. Re: the Lincoln Memorial, The Hill: In Washington, D.C., fires were set near the White House, and historic landmarks, including the Lincoln Memorial, became the targets of vandalism over the weekend. WSJ: Congressional Democrats in recent weeks have backed removing statues of people who are tied to the Confederacy or who are remembered for promoting white supremacy, especially in the U.S. Capitol building. And? Re: the BLM and black on black criticisms, see The Atlantic article, and USA Today. WP is not a SOAPBOX or a place to RGW. This discussion is about the removal of violative content per BLP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, they are not unsourced, they are taken directly from the first page of Kirk's Twitter feed as of the time of writing. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, you know.

Kirk is 100% Trump Train "all lives matter" radical right. It is impossible to read his and TPUSA's social media feeds without concluding this. Guy (help!) 06:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, with all due respect, sticking a false label on the young man doesn't make it so. It stirs memories of what happened to Nick Sandermann. I'll stick with WP:PAG and verifiable descriptions used by the NYTimes, USA Today, and Chicago Tribune lest I fall prey to false accusations of political SOAPBOX, ADVOCACY or some other inane political agenda. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I get it: you want to think the best of him despite the undeniable evidence from his own social media feeds. But it won't wash.

https://twitter.com/charliekirk11

"Why are Republicans pushing a police reform bill, surrendering to the left, and not fighting to defend our country from terrorists? Or our history? Why is the Republican Party okay with the burning of our country?"

"Fact: You're more likely to be targeted for a hate crime for wearing a MAGA hat as a regular American than you are as a multimillionaire, black celebrity like Bubba Wallace or Jussie Smollett."

"The FBI acted quicker to solve the Bubba Wallace noose hoax than they did to hold the Obama Administration accountable for spying on President Trump What a disgrace."

You can ignore this as hard as you like, it's not going to stop being true. Guy (help!) 13:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I think you are illustrating one of the problems with many of your comments on this and other subjects. You have a very strong POV and are often very certain that the way you read something is the only correct way to read it. (Disclaimer: I am someone not in your head telling you how your comments come across to me. That doesn't mean your intent is what I perceive) First, we have to remember that hyperbole is, unfortunately, an often used rhetorical tool. Hence those who were for Obamacare would claim those who are against don't want what Obamacare claimed to deliver; affordable healthcare. Those who oppose some education bill don't want good education. Those who are against an equal pay law are against the idea of equal pay.

So going down the list, the first one is the one I would find hardest to defend. There certainly are police reforms that we needed and if the GOP can use this an excuse to get some of them done I'm for it. However, we also see stories about municipalities deciding not to prosecute those who were actually doing harm (rioting/looting vs civil protest). I can understand why someone might ask, why shouldn't those who broke into a store be prosecuted? However, absent more context I can't really be sure what Kirk was talking about.

What is the problem with the second one? I don't actually know what the statistics are but I think the comment focuses on how intolerant some people on the left have been towards people who have supported Trump/wear MAGA hats. There definitely is a level of irrationality towards anything Trump (and I think the guy is pond scum). So I guess its factually questionable to say a wealthy black person is less likely to be assaulted than a person in a MAGA hat, I'm not sure how this is a alt-right claim? I think it condemns those on the left who presume to claim that anyone wearing a MAGA hat is clearly racist etc. Perhaps they are an Ohio factory worker or West Virgina coal miner who is out of work and ignored by the Democrats.

As for the Wallace case again I'm seeing hyperbole but not racism on Kirk's part. The Micheal Flynn case has made it very clear that there has been problems with the FBI targeting people associated with Trump for political reasons. That doesn't mean the FBI did anything wrong with respect to the Obama-Trump period but his concerns are clearly not without any merit given how the FBI abused the system to go after Flynn.

Ultimately, you posted those quotes to prove Kirk was racist etc but they don't prove any such thing. His arguments are strong with rhetoric and hyperbole. You might be right and he might be an alt-right racist and these things might something an alt-right racist would say. However, they also might just be something a frustrated, non-racist would say. I would hope we all could agree that it's bad any time the FBI conducts an investigation for partisan, political reasons and that a person's political opinions or that they helped "the other side of the isle should never make a difference in how they are treated by the law. None of what I've said proves Kirk isn't racist or isn't supporting things that society should condemn, only that what you have posted thus far doesn't support the conclusion that he does. Again, I respect your thoughts but I think you are too narrow in your thinking here. It's kind of like admitting the French are right about... well anything ( :D insert British vs French humor here). Springee (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Its like arguing with a Wookie...all you get is the same growls and roars yet its mostly unintelligible.--MONGO (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Its an encyclopedia , and it should be treated as such, not a place where editors interpretations of racism get to override protocol and Wikipedia BLP guidelines, if there were exceptions to the rule it wouldn't really be an encyclopedia would it, would be more of a personal blog which frankly is what this thread and the TPUSA article reminds me of. Sure we can debate Charlie Kirk's inner thoughts, but its not who we are underneath but what we do that defines us. The fact is Charlie Kirk publicly repudiates and rejects white supremacy, he doesn't tolerate it in his organization, at the moment there are 4 isolated incidents (out of an organization with hundred of thousands of student members over a an eight year span) whom he quickly got rid of. Four isolated incidents doesn't merit a label in the lede for racism. Turning Point hosts a Black leadership summit, the nations largest young latino leadership summit for the past five years. TPUSA has a very diverse panel, Candace Owens was their communications director, David J Harris jr, Joel Patrick, Rob Smith, Anna Paulina were/still are TPUSA influencers/ambassadors. The racist argument gets really thin really fast. Even if you don't like the guy, if you disagree with his views, slandering him as a racist is really rough and it really diminishes the weight of that word sadly. Talk about it lower in the article, and give it due weight and be very careful with how you word it. EliteArcher88 (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I have a POV, and I am aware of it. |The awareness is not evident in some others here. The contention that Kirk is an "all lives matter" troll is trivially proved by reference to his Twitter feed.

I am not calling him racist. I am calling him Trump-train "all lives matter" radical right. That doesn't mean racist. It does mean sufficiently unconcerned about racism to make comments like "all lives matter" when it's the Black people who are being killed by police.

Trump is not racist either, in my view. He is just fine with racism when it's to his benefit - whether that is excluding black tenants so white people will pay higher rent, or pursuing a white nationalist immigration policy. I think he is genuinely puzzled that comments like "shithole countries" attract opprobrium. America is on fire, and Trump decides that it would be a great idea to threaten long jail sentences for pulling down statues of traitors erected in the 20th Century by racists pushing back at black equality. I don't think he's a racist, but the racists certainly do.

I do think that Charlie Kirk, friend of the Trump family and vociferous Trump booster, is smarter and has a much wider exposure to differing views. It is vastly harder for him to plausibly argue that he genuinely thinks "all lives matter" is an appropriate response to "black lives matter". But the most likely explanation is not actual racism on his part, but that racism is less important to him than tribal point-scoring.

To pretend that Charlie Kirk is anything other than completely cool with racism from his "tribe", based on his recent tweets, is wilful denialism.

• "If Black Lives mattered to Planned Parenthood, why would they position 70% of their abortion clinics in predominantly African-American communities?" [6]
• "If black lives mattered to Black Lives Matter, they would be protesting outside of Planned Parenthood not trying to tear down statues of Abraham Lincoln" [7]
• "Planned Parenthood is more systemically racist than any other "institution" in America" [8]
• "The European Union is putting travel restrictions on all Americans. Will the media call the EU racist for protecting their continent?" [9]
• this arm-waving denial of systemic racism.

Again,. I am not calling him racist. I am saying that if you want to remove any mention of his involvement in racially charged statements, you have a hill to climb on NPOV grounds. Guy (help!) 23:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I hope I am correct in posting here and in the ongoing RFC, sorry for redundancies but want to remain consistent across forums, I do think Atsme was correct in removing the content she did, trying to correlate Racism with a person and/or company is extremely damaging and in this case I believe it to be untrue, even speculating at racism on a Wikipedia article is wrong, especially in the lede.Eruditess (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I feel it is wrong and in error that the editor who started this section deleted the content that Beyond My Ken put in. I also think it is wrong for the editor who started this section to issue what appears to be a veiled threat to Beyond My Ken in the last paragraph of this diff [10]
  

I feel WP articles that include the reliable source's reporting on racism within TPUSA does not violate any WP guidelines. It does not violate WP:BLPGROUP, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, or any other WP guideline that I can find. TPUSA is large, national organization and I have found no reliable source to support the (above) claim, "Charlie Kirk is synonymous with Turning Point USA" so WP:BLP does not apply and neither does WP:BLPGROUP. Also, from my take, including the racism within TPUSA does not violate WP:REDFLAG, NPOV, or WP:V

Below is a short list of sources reporting on the racism within TPUSA:

1. (Newsweek) Trump Praises Conservative Group After Former Member's 'I Hate Black People' Text Surfaces: "i hate black people. Like fuck them all . . . I hate blacks. End of story," Crystal Clanton wrote according to the magazine's report Thursday. " \"Other employees also reportedly stated they felt some racial tension within the organization." [11]
2. (Politico) There is undeniably a racial component to the message often delivered by Turning Point USA .  In a December 22, 2017, story in the New Yorker. In that article, Jane Mayer uncovered two troubling things about the organization. The first was that its No. 2 executive had allegedly once sent a text message stating, “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all … I hate blacks. End of story.” The executive, Crystal Clanton, was fired 72 hours after the New Yorker told Kirk about the text message. The issue is tied to Turning Point USA’s founding. Kirk told me—and has said in public several times—that in high school he received a congressional appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, but lost that slot to a different candidate—a person he told me was of “a different ethnicity and gender.” [12]
3. (Azcentral) Gov. Doug Ducey was not aware that conservative group Turning Point USA had faced repeated claims of racism and anti-Semitism when he appeared at its Arizona facility opening earlier this month, he told reporters Thursday ... charges of racism and other forms of bigotry have plagued the group for years, making headlines as the organization's influence has spread. [13]
4. (Conservatives at Washington Examiner report on TPUSA racism) "To make matters worse, TPUSA has a troubling track record with racism.   The group claimed to have taken “decisive action” in removing the employee within 72 hours. But the racism within the organization didn’t stop there. Ironically, Kirk replaced his national field director with someone who had quite a bit of baggage of her own. In since-deleted tweets, the newly hired employee repeatedly used the N-word, bragged that “I love making racist jokes”, and stated that if you are “any other race than white”, she promises to “make racist jokes towards you.” Turning Point’s bad faith engagement goes beyond racial lines." [14]
5. (Even Fox News reports on TPUSA racism): "A prominent Christian pastor and author tearfully apologized this week for liking posts on social media by Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk which were considered racially insensitive." [15]
6. (NYTimes) Mr. Kashuv revealed on Twitter that the university this month rescinded its admission offer over a trail of derogatory and racist screeds.  Kyle Kashucv was high school outreach director for Turning Point USA, a conservative group with ties to the Trump family. [16]  
7. (Buzzfeed) Kyle Kashuv stepped down from his role with right-wing group Turning Point USA in May, just before the racist screenshots went public. [17] 
8. (USA Today) A viral video clip showing a member of the University of Nevada Las Vegas’s Turning Point USA chapter shouting “white power” and using a white supremacist hand sign has led the conservative group to ban him. [18]
9. (Huffington Post) Turning Point USA Keeps Accidentally Hiring Racists. “I love making racist jokes,” tweeted the woman who replaced the person who wrote, “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE.” [19]
10. (Daily Beast) Conservative Campus Org Turning Point USA ‘Rife’ With Racism, Possibly Illegal Campaign Activity [20]

There are many more reliable sources that report on the racism within Turning Point USA so including the reliable source's reports of racism within TPUSA does not violate any WP guidelines. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, the sources above reinforce my opinion that while Kirk and TPUSA are not themselves actively racist, racists think they are, and feel at home within the group. "All lives matter" BS is not racist, it's anti-anti-racist. Racist enablement, not active racism. To say that TPUSA has a problem with racism is legitimate, to say it is racist is not, based on the sources here. It's like saying the UK's Labour Party has a problem with antisemitism, even though the party itself repudiates antisemitism and most members are absolutely not antisemitic. Enough sources mention it that exclusion would be basically whitewashing.

Spokesman Rob Smith here firmly establishes TPUSA as part of the "all lives matter" radical right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0w9H7jJp7I. Charlie Kirk denies that systemic racism is a thing, or that Black people are victims of a history of racism around housing and the like, a historical fact which is essentially unchallenged in the academic literature.

"Most recently, Kirk has been one of the more visible proponents of the belief that, while racism is evil, claims of systemic racism are not true or are exaggerated. In this, Kirk represents a significant number of Americans, many of whom identify as evangelical." [21]. Yeah, we know. The Southern Baptist Convention went to bat in favour of slavery and segregation.

Denial of institutional racism is not racism, it's white privilege. The two are different. Guy (help!) 10:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Guy, but you're mistaken. I brought concerns to this noticeboard because of the blatant BLP violations, which I explained in more detail in this TP discussion. I also provided an analysis of the sources, the misrepresentations, echo chamber, etc. I summarized the most disconcerting aspects of the material as follows:

I have demonstrated serious policy violations per the above - Kashuv was only 16 yo at the time of his insensitive comments, and in Clanton's case, it happened 4 years before she joined TPUSA. WP:REDFLAG clearly states: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Some of the sources are misrepresented, others contain sensationalized clickbait opinion, most represent passing mention of TPUSA and are not the crux of the article. I cannot impress upon editors enough that our concerns here should be focused on the unambiguous BLP violations and the ages of the named teenagers per WP:NPF and WP:BLP1E. I fully support BLP policy which states: Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Anyone can claim something is "racially insensitive" - it is an opinion - and anyone can say whatever they please in the US per 1st Amendment. As WP editors, we do not repeat opinions and unverifiable allegations in WikiVoice which is why I have been removing material from the lead. BLP requires strict adherence to BLP & NPOV. Another consideration is WP:10YT which carries a lot of weight. The fact that the accused offenders have either quickly left TPUSA on their own or were removed is important, not the attempts to lay guilt on TPUSA by association using SYNTH or weak arguments that are based on media echoing & sensationalism of the same two events, opinions by non-notable people or biased organizations and advocacies. Atsme Talk 📧 11:46 am, Today (UTC−4) (reply)

To ^Atsme - There is no "blatant BLP violation." In fact, there appears to be no BLP violation.

The topic of this section is whether you were justified in deleting the edit (in green) at the top of this section.  I feel that the the ONUS to restore the edit is satisfied based off of comments in this section & from the reading of the WP guidelines. As for your deletion, on the one hand, you say you deleted edit due REDFLAG; then when you are presented with several, verifiable high-quality RS who report the same thing - which proves there is no REDFLAG - you then complain (in this diff [22]) that the RS can't be used because the multiple RS presented are all reporting the same things - and even though that makes no sense - in the same diff, you also claim the RS provided to you can't be used because they do not report on what you deleted -- but they actually do report on what you deleted -- and several RS report that more than just two events of racism were being complained about.

In your deleted edit (here [23] you said you deleted due to NPOV, REDFLAG, and BLPGROUP. Now, after being given information that do not support any of those violations, you're now including: POV, BLP, NPF, BLP1E, SYNTH, V, 10YT, UNDUE, misrepresenting RS, guilt by association, cherrypicking, echo chamber, spin, and clickbait. Wow! Those allegations sure are way, way more than what you first claimed.

I have no doubt that you included those additional accusations in good faith. I also feel that as WP editors, we need to be very thoughtful, mindful, and careful when alleging a multitude of violations of guidelines in order to avoid giving any appearance of Gaming the system

Your claims of violation do not appear to be accurate; there appear to be no policy violations that I can see. And there is no guilt by association, no spin, no echo chamber, and no clickbait.

• There appears to be no violation of REDFLAG & no UNDUE: the TPUSA employees complaining of racism within TPUSA by several different TPUSA officials is well-sourced and covered by multiple high-quality RS as was the allegation of "possible illegal campaign activity" by TPUSA employees saying they were made to work with Ginni Thomas on Republican campaigns in the 2016 election.  I have not found any RS support the claim that the New Yorker article is "spin." I have not found any RS to support the claim that the well-sourced RS articles about TPUSA are "clickbait." Also, I cannot find any WP guideline that says WP editors are to dismiss reports from high-quality RS just because one or two claim the RS headlines are "clickbait"
  
• There appears to be  no violation of BLPGroup: the organization, TPUSA, is a large national organization whose so large, that their convention speakers include: the US President, [24] [25] members of the US Senate, [26] members of the US House, [27] and whose Board members include the wife of a US Supreme Court Justice, Ginni Thomas. That sure is a pretty dang large national organization.  From what I see, BLPGROUP does not appear to support the claim that 'if Person A founds or *co-founds & controls the organization; then reporting on the organization's employees complaining in racism & possible illegal campaign activity violates BLP.'  In fact, the way I read BLPGROUP, just the opposite is true. 
• There appears to be no violation of BLP: The TPUSA employees complaining of racism within TPUSA and being forced to work on Republican campaigns relate directly to the organization TPUSA (not to Charlie Kirk). Therefore, no BLP violation.  The TPUSA employees complaining of racism within TPUSA have been verified by well-sourced and multiple RS and by several different TPUSA officials.  I found no RS to support the claim "Charlie Kirk is synonymous with TPUSA" so no BLP violation. (And it's a good thing for TPUSA that TPUSA is not synonymous with Charlie Kirk; otherwise, TPUSA would have absolutely violated federal campaign laws when Kirk joined the 2016 Trump campaign & with all of Kirk's other personal activity in Republican campaigns.) The "racially insensitive" writings by TPUSA Director Kyle Kashuv and the racist texts from the then-second-highest TPUSA Official Crystal Clanton do not appear to be an "opinion" - Kashuv, admitted he engaged in racist activities - so it is a fact he admitted to doing and a fact that caused Harvard to reject his application.  So, no BLP violation  Also, I found no WP guideline that says WP editors are to dismiss allegations of racism with an organization (TPUSA) if the TPUSA official, sent racist texts to their fellow TPUSA coworkers - nor if - the old, or young adults TPUSA Directors admit that they did engage in racist activities in their teens, so no BLP violation & no "guilt by association" either."
  
• There appears to be no violation SYNTH: The TPUSA employees complained about racism within TPUSA & multiple RS report on that - and that is not SYNTH.
• There appears to be no violation WP:NPF and WP:BLP1E: Several high-quality RS report that the second-highest official at TPUSA, Crystal Clanton, sent racist text messages to another TPUSA employee (John Ryan O'Rourke); and several RS report that TPUSA's Director of High School Outreach, Kyle Kashuv, admitted he engaged in racist activities.  Both of which are notable material that is relevant to high-quality RS reporting that 'TPUSA employees complain about racism within TPUSA' - so no NPE violation, no BLP1E violation, no BLP violation, no SYNTH, & no REDFLAG.  Also, I cannot find any WP guideline that supports the claim that we have to dismiss the racist activities of TPUSA officials based on age.
  
• There appears to be no violation of NPOV, and no violation of WP:V - The edit you deleted is neutral, and does not seem to incorporate any personal prejudice from the editor who included it.  
  
• There appears to be no violation of 10YT: the TPUSA employees complaining of racism within TPUSA by several different TPUSA officials & employees allegation of "possible illegal campaign activity" by complaining they were made to work with Ginni Thomas on Republican campaigns is noteworthy and relevant about TPUSA - and any other organization for that matter - and will be in 10 years. Hopefully, 10 years from now, TPUSA will no longer have employees making those complaints, but those complaints about TPUSA are relevant today & will be in 10 years - just like they would be in 10 years for any organization.
  

Sorry this comment is so long, but you added way, way more questionable claims of violating policy guidelines than what you originally started off with that needed to be responded to. I feel the ONUS to restore the deleted edit has been satisfied. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

BRM, many of us in the WP community who have been around 10+ years or so truly enjoy new, enthusiastic editors like yourself who are WP:BOLD, and not at all hesitant about jumping right in and joining the discussions in some of our most controversial articles. But, there comes a time when it gets to be too much. For example, adding walls of text that range anywhere from 7,500 to 11,000+ characters like this comment and this one. Apologies, but that is tl;dr territory. I'm truly happy that you feel confident about your knowledge of WP:PAG, especially after having racked up 51 edits in namespace since you first registered in April. It took me much, MUCH longer...and I did make newbie mistakes...and I'm still learning. You must be an extremely fast learner, or perhaps you've edited WP as an IP in years prior. Regardless, we obviously have different perspectives regarding what constitutes a WP:BLP violation, so let's do this - you and I back away and allow others a chance to participate and share their views. Thanks in advance!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

To ^Atsme - I'm sure you will agree that sometimes it takes a "wall of text" to combat misleading, erroneous information, and sometimes it takes a "wall of text" when responding to an editor's original 3 allegations of policy violations and then having to respond to that same editor's additional 14 allegations (totaling 17) after their first 3 allegations seem to get discredited. And, you are mistaken, I am not a BOLD editor. In fact, I am a very cautious editor who feels that all editors, no mater how many years they've been here, should be very thoughtful, mindful, and careful - when, let's just say, piling on additional allegation after allegation, etc., - in order to avoid giving any appearance of Gaming the system - even though/if/when the additional allegations are added in good faith.

To answer your first questions: No, I have never edited on WP prior to April 2020 - so I guess, according to you, that makes me a "fast learner" - oh & please feel free to check my IP if you need confirmation. To your second question, respectfully: No, I will not promise to back away - and I doubt you will either. Like you, I will continue to help improve this article. When needed, I will also continue to use WP guidelines to express my view that Beyond My Ken (who has 11 years editing experience) was correct to revert your edit; there are no BLP violations; and no violations to other 16 allegations you added. Finally, when needed, I will continue to express my view that based on WP guidelines, the ONUS to restore the deleted text has been satisfied. BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

BMK sez: Actually, 15 years [28]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. ^Atsme - You say you didn't read my comment due to tl;dr and that is a shame. If you had taken the time to read, instead of replying without knowing, maybe you would have learned a few things, like why I, and others, feel you are wrong about BLP and the other 16 allegations you tossed out. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Steve Russell (politician)

• Steve Russell (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe that Regular122 is the subject of the article. Here's a sentence from the bio with added emphasis: During Operation Iraqi Freedom, Russell commanded the 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry 'Regulars'. Regular122 comes periodically, insistent on not including information about how Russell lost to Kendra Horn in the 2018 elections, which is a pretty big detail for Russell's biography. Russell's role in the capture of Saddam Hussein is, in Regular122's view, important enough to keep in the lead. I've written on Regular122's talk page and gotten no response. What can we do here? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

As always, it is probably better to worry about the edits than the editor. If the editor is removing information that should not be removed, I suggest someone speak to them, and if they keep at it without discussion, they can be blocked. Who they are doesn't matter much unless they chose to speak about it, or there is a belief they are in violation of WP:PAID (as that is a terms of use requirement, among other things) or WP:SOCK. While I'm normally a strong advocate of keeping discussion about articles on article talk pages; if an editor keeps removing sourced information without a good reason, or keeps adding unsourced information and the editor is inexperienced, that is one time when it's good to speak directly to the editor about it. It doesn't seem anyone has tried that. The only things I see on the editor's talk page including via a quick check of the history are a bunch of permission related deletions for images, one comment about how we've stopped including religion and this [29] which only talks about COI stuff rather than about why any edits were actually a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the contested edits, IMO they're not an improvement but not so bad that it's worth demanding the editor stop and start a discussion or be blocked. So instead I've opened a discussion on the article talk page and told the editor they should join it. If the editor refuses to join the discussion and keeps trying to implement their changes, or joins it and there is clear consensus against their proposal but they keep trying to make their changes; it should be simple to ask for a block. Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Golden State Killer move request discussion

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Golden State Killer#Requested move 30 June 2020. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Natalia Dyer

• Natalia Dyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is being used as a gossip sheet, with repeated addition of unencyclopedic content. It's already protected, so perhaps a stronger lock is needed. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like there's plenty of reliable sources[30] establishing that she has been in a relationship with her costar for 4 years to be edit warring about. I understand Wikipedia is not a gossip rag, but this type of information should not be contentious. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Elaine_Crowley_(presenter)

Most, probably all, of the entries in the Filmography section of [[31]] are bogus. Elaine Crowley is a TV presenter. She hasn't been in any films, as far as I know. The nature of roles cited suggest these are entered here as an attempt to bully Elaine Crowley. I suggest their removal in their entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amunnelly (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The hoax filmography has been removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

BJ Fogg

My name is BJ Fogg. I am an academic and scientist focused on behavior science. The Wikipedia page about me has a "Criticism" section. Well, I have some criticisms of that section. For example:

• The last paragraph is cited to an opinion piece in a college paper run by students.

• Most of this book chapter is gushing about me, yet the only thing it is cited for are criticisms in the very last 2 paragraphs.

• None of these sources actually criticize me as alleged by the Wikipedia page. Neither does The Economist.

The rest of the section is similar. Citations to Twitter, cherry-picking an ounce of criticism out of an ocean of praise, citing guest blogs, and making neutral/positive content look negative by labeling it a "Criticism." In looking into this issue, I was told about WP:BLPBALANCE:

The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

My request is that the section be moved to the Talk page for storage, until a neutral editor writes a balanced Reception section with proper sources. Drbjfogg (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to agree that this section needs to be rewritten; but to better summarise the criticism rather than keeping it as an overwhelming quote bank. Where possible, criticism should be integrated along with praise and accomplishments as much as possible in the previous section about his career. Otherwise, whatever leftover in the criticism section should be organised by theme. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed and I took action to move it to the talk page for condensing. This is a violation of WP:BLPBALANCE "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints": since the critique section is mostly about a singular issue of ethics and not about his overall body all work, yet it takes up half his bio. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Although several of Fogg's critiques to the Criticism above are irrelevant (e.g., are Stanford student publications only considered reliable sources if they have flattering opinions about the subject? ) and a more advanced, editorially-minded rewrite of the Criticism section would be welcomed, this does not justify the purging of the section by moving it to the Talk page, nor is it justified from Dkriegls who has an undisclosed conflict of interest in the subject through financial association with Live Neuron Labs, and its past associations and continued evangelism of Fogg's work on its website and through its co-founder (Dkriegls' brother), Robin Krieglstein, who worked with Fogg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:f80:d30:e42a:627c:cdc4:626d (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

New editors are welcome, but SPAs intent on adding criticism of living people are a problem. Ultimately, attempts to force your point of view will fail. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

After some research I now see we may have a sock puppet on our hands. The edits made to create and expand the criticism section of B.J. Fogg's biography are almost exclusively made by a series of IP address that all track back to the same Comcast account. I won't out the account, but here are the relevant IP address edits and their edit history of almost exclusively editing this section.--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

1. This IP initiated the critiques and then expanded them into a critique section back in December 2019 [32]
2. This IP continued those edits on the same day [33]
3. This IP was again continuing the edits on the same day with a single edit [34]
4. This IP edited a few days later, removing several of Fogg's own edits and adding more critiques of him. [35]
5. This IP didn't edit the section but made similar edits critiquing his research credentials [36]
6. Finally, this IP came back to defend the critique section this month [37]

IP editors can't be blamed for constantly changing addresses, so this is a SPA rather than a sock puppet. But yes the IP's editing is problematic. The proper approach is as suggested by Morbidthoughts. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Jonathan, I only suspect a sock puppet given that the IP response to my edit of this work 6 months after the initial IP additions was almost immediate, as if monitored by a user account. Not necessarily true and not conclusive proof of a sock puppet. I'll do some more investigation to see if any of those IP's line up with a user account conducting similar edits. Thanks again for your insight. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 17:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Graham Linehan

In our BLP of Graham Linehan we cover criticism of his anti-transgender activism in multiple reliable sources, which is fine. However we also say he drew criticism on Twitter for its storyline of a 2008 episode of The IT Crowd. This is based upon an interview where Linehan said he was "called a bigot on Twitter". We also use a podcast from Resistance Radio as a source.

I have no problem with any of the reliable sources that criticize him, but I question whether we should list some unnamed twitter users or someone with a podcast along with the legitimate sources. The citations to high-quality sources such as The Sunday Times, The Telegraph.'The Guardian and The Independent do a great job of documenting his anti-transgender activism. Do we really need to pile on opinions from podcasts and unnamed twitter users?

I also question the use of inews.co.uk, attitude.co.uk, and beyondthejoke.co.uk. in a BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I definitely would say no to the podcast, on the basis that inews and attitude are not reliable sources.

To make this generic: A BLP goes on some interview on a show, or says on social media, that is clearly itself not an RS, and says something maybe off the cuff or intentional that can be taken as a negative against the person (*). If that was the extent of it, it would be fully improper for a WP editor to use that source and bring it up into the article per BLP reasons, even if it is already supporting other "charges" against that BLP.

In constast, if that is clearly picked up by RSes, and subsequently made into an issue covered in RSes, (as it was the case around JK Rollings recently) then it becomes fair game in a BLP assuming all other factors considered like PUBLICFIGURE. But this is where the line has to start, is the coverage in RSes. So the case where some third-party sources that aren't RSes or are weak RSes (as I'd see these source), that wouldn't pass the bar for sourcing an issue like this for BLP, so that itself should be kept out. We want our quality RSes to note "This was an issue for this BLP" , and not a WP editor nor weak RSes.

Assuming we're talking the tweet that Linehan alluded to in the 2008 interview, there's absoluletely no need to reference it if the person is not a public figure. If it were someone that met the public figure standard, maybe, but there's no need to dredge up an unknown name for our readership. --Masem (t) 19:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(*)On the other hand, if the BLP is speaking factually about a project they did , like providing development information, behind the scenes details, or anything else to flesh out info like that, that's fine to use the source without a problem, as we're not talking a BLP issue here. --Masem (t) 19:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I say stick with well known reliable sources. I have looked a a few episodes of The IT Crowd. Some themes are very... unreconstructed. Guy (help!) 22:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree, though I'd just point out that inews.co.uk is a perfectly good source. Black Kite (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Heads up: Ed Henry

• Ed Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ed Henry has just been terminated by Fox following accusations of sexual abuse. Please watchlist. Guy (help!) 22:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

One accusation of historical sexual misconduct in the workplace, before anyone else wastes their clicks, hoping for something particularly shocking. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

WSJ:“Ed Henry denies the allegations referenced in Fox’s announcement this morning and is confident that he will be vindicated after a full hearing in an appropriate forum,” Catherine Foti, Mr. Henry’s lawyer, said Wednesday evening. Scott & Wallace reacted far too quickly (same day), unlike what NBC did when it was Matt Lauer, and they were even aware of the NYTimes and Variety investigations. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

If that's meant for me, I have no knowledge of the people and events in black letters. I already added the bit about what Catherine Foti said, so agree, I guess. I remember Lauer going down for something, but forget where, when, what and how. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Russian Olympic anal rape, wow. Turns out I never knew that in the first place. I would've remembered. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Policy question

closed per suggestions of OP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lead of a BLP includes harsh WP:REDFLAG criticism and WP:LABEL. The BLP publicly denies the criticism and label. WP:PUBLICFIGURE states: If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported. Survey question: Can editors override BLP policy and exclude the denial, be it via a local TP survey or RfC? Please respond YES or NO in the Survey section, and be brief with any explanation for your iVote. Also keep in mind a DISCUSSION section can be added if necessary. Atsme Talk 📧 17:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Survey NO - the denial must be included in response to the criticism/labeling, and the only option would be a community-wide consensus to change the BLP policy itself. Atsme Talk 📧 17:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Discussion This is not a proper survey. It seems obvious that your post was prompted by the proposal at Talk:Donald Trump, where you support the addition of text in the lead section saying something like "Trump has denied accusations of racism." Putting forth a loaded question ("Can editors override a BLP policy?") does not get anyone anywhere, especially when stripped of context. There are many factors at play. What is "harsh"? What is "criticism" (as opposed to well-sourced descriptors supported by citations to reliable sources)? What is a "label" (as opposed to a description)? Saying "Many of X's comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist" is different from saying "X is a racist." You link WP:REDFLAG, which applies only to "exceptional claims." To determine whether a claim is "exceptional" requires a fact-specific assessment of what the specific statement is and what the support in RS is for it. In the Trump bio case, this is about judgment and the application of policy, not about "policy itself" or "local consensus vs. community consensus." If you actually are looking for editor feedback on a specific point, you need to put a neutral pointer on a noticeboard, not a distorted version of the inquiry at issue. Neutralitytalk 18:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC) 100% agree with the above post by Neutrality.Smeat75 (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC) This is push polling. Stop it, Atsme, you know better than this. Guy (help!) 22:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia:Consensus#By soliciting outside opinions supports what I am doing. You and Neutrality are interfering with an editor trying to reach a consensus about a very important matter that involves BLP policy. I did not name a particular instance for a reason - it will apply across the board, not just to one article. This needs to be clarified for many reasons as it effects NPP/AfC/AfD and so many other arguments regarding policy. I don't know on what authority you are attempting to stop this survey because IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy, and neither is the marketing article you wikilinked. Atsme Talk 📧 23:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC) looks more like WP:canvassing to me. Your message seems worded specifically to get a predictable and obvious result that you can then use to bludgeon people over the head with in a discussion that is probably a lot less straightforward than you claim it to be here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Seems unfathomable to me that when the subject has been vilified and labelled in such a polemic manner that their denial of the accusation wouldn't be, if they had publicly uttered it, mandatory for inclusion.--MONGO (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC) It is per BLP policy and MOS:LEADBIO - a denial is certainly relevant to the accusation and should not be suppressed. Atsme Talk 📧 00:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC) I mean, honestly, any denial from him (which, you know, have there been?) would be undue for the lede, because deeds not words. We're talking about a man who thinks preserving monuments to white supremacists is more important than battling a pandemic. That's pretty racist. There's no other word for it. His merchandise store sells a baseball for 88 dollars alongside a Nazi iron eagle flag design shirt.--Jorm (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC) I know that's what you think, Jorm - that we're talking about Trump - but that was not my intent, and therein the problem lies. The survey question is: Can editors override BLP policy and exclude the denial, be it via a local TP survey or RfC? I purposely did not make it about a specific BLP or controversy such as racism, white supremacy, sexual assault, pedophilia, homophobia, terrorism, etc. Neutrality wrongfully assumed it was about Trump, and JzG didn't help matters with his comment. By doing so, they poisoned the well and politically charged my survey with total disregard for my intentions. I was after something much wider ranging that would apply to all public figures, be it Trump, Joe Biden, Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Bill Cosby and many others. It was about allowing a person's denial to follow an allegation in the lead. BLP policy doesn't care who the public figure is, and neither should we, but that isn't what's happening in our articles. BLP policy obligates us to adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies which means editors don't get to choose which BLPs can or cannot include a denial in the lead when policy obligates us to do so as I pointed out in my original statement. This survey is pointless now because of the interference, so it might as well be closed. Atsme Talk 📧 02:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Experienced help needed at Cedarville University

A new editor recently added some information to Cedarville University that might raise some BLP-related concerns. If you look at the history section, the last several paragraphs discuss allegations of sexual assault and coverups by the university's president, the now-former chair of the university's board of trustees, and others. The material was initially added as a separate section but I've integrated it into the history section as some of it was already there anyway. I'm not familiar with many of the sources that have been cited for this new material and the seriousness of the allegations they are supporting demands further scrutiny from and perhaps removal by other Wikipedia editors who are more familiar with BLP. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Certainly some strong statements here. I'm not familiar with many of these sources either, but from a glance at WP:RSN's archives, some of these haven't been discussed in the context of controversial statements (eg Christianity Today), and others, which were used constantly and for some of the most controversial statements (like julieroys.com or rightingamerica.net), haven't been discussed at all. It's worth getting the opinions of folks at WP:RSN for some of these sources. I would imagine the more concerning sources, like julieroys.com and rightingamerica.net, should be considered unreliable for controversial statements about BLPs. For the others, seems like a toss-up, depending on the specific statement being made. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on tagging BLP with template messages signaling COI and OWN

There is an RfC on the following link: Talk:Boris_Malagurski#RfC_on_Template_messages_and_Article_sections. It concerns dispute over tagging the BLP article with template messages which point to the possible COI and OWN issues that plagues the article for more than a ten years.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Calling Chris Brown a convicted felon in the lead of his Wikipedia article

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

Every now and then, we get an editor wanting to add "convicted felon" in the lead of Brown's Wikipedia article. As seen at Talk:Chris Brown/Archive 4#Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2019, I have argued against this. And the following is the talk page section on the matter: Talk:Chris Brown#Convicted Felon (permalink here). Right now, JoeyJ (talk · contribs), who recently added "convicted felon" to the Felicity Huffman article, is insisting that we add "convicted felon" to the Brown article. He has argued that since we do the same for the O. J. Simpson and Bill Cosby articles, we should do the same for Brown's article. I don't see the Brown case as the same as those. Maybe if someone demonstrated that Brown is mainly known as a convicted felon.

Thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Chris Brown is not notable for being a convicted felon, so I wouldn't include for him. At a skim of the article, seems like his offence was a plea to felony assault of his girlfriend at the time. I'm not sure if it's a BLP issue, but it does seem to tread the lines expressed in WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:LABEL by extension. If not a BLP issue, it'd be editors' discretion on talk. Other comments may help determine whether this would go against BLPSTYLE and LABEL.

Felicity Huffman gained a lot of notoriety for it, but given her long acting career and this being a smaller event in that, I'm not sure it's an accurate label to use, and is indeed controversial. Sources do not describe her as a 'convicted felon' when referring to her, indeed she committed a felony, but even that took less-than-obvious digging. So that I'd say is a BLPSTYLE and LABEL violation. It deserves a mention in the lead, of course.

Obviously, the difference is that OJ and Cosby are incredibly well known - indeed, notorious - for it. Do sources say "convicted felon" when talking about Brown and Huffman, aside from WP:RECENTISM? If not, label should be avoided imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The edits on Chris Brown were reverted by someone else. I've reverted the ones on Huffman. There wasn't even a source for the controversial labels. And honestly, since all they do is go against consensus, argue and threaten editors with noticeboards, and add "convicted felon" around, and claim to mercilessly fight for the truth (WP:BATTLEGROUND) in their unblock request, adding African-American to Elon Musk, and making other insane propositions, I think it's a case of WP:NOTHERE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Zak Smith#RfC: Allegations of Rape Sourced to Game Blogs and Fanzines

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zak Smith#RfC: Allegations of Rape Sourced to Game Blogs and Fanzines. This invitation particularly pertains to those who are knowledgeable of the BLP policy. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 04:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do not upload any reference to Khawar Qureshi Qc

Dear Sirs,

We request you to please delete the URL page listed below. The person does not wish to have a biography on WIKIPEDIA.

Thank you for your understanding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawar_Qureshi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivannyt (talk • contribs) 06:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look at the article Khawar Qureshi and do have to wonder if this meets WP:GNG. It was created on 26 June 2020 and seems to be more like a résumé, and is tagged as such. The best thing here would be to nominate the article for deletion, but I'll wait to see what others say.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• First, subjects of articles don't really get to decide on whether their article stays or not. However, the subject can email [email protected] if they wish to make any private statements.

As far as the Wikipedia process goes, the main way this article would get deleted is by failing to meet notability policy. Taking a skim of the article, if it's not currently exaggerated and this person is QC and did represent (as a lawyer) a sovereign country in the ICJ, I'd say there's a credible claim of significance here (which isn't the same as notability, but it does mean we should do the legwork to see). The sources currently aren't great, so more digging would need to be done to see if it can be improved before AfD, per WP:BEFORE. There's no hurry here, no BLP violations in that article from what I can see. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Since Ivannyt has initiated an AfD the discussion should move there, especially as there doesn't seem to be any BLP issues here. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

For reference however: while the subject of an article do not get to 'decide' if an article stays or not, they can request deletion and it carries significantly weight depending on their notability and the outcome of a deletion discussion. See WP:BIODEL and WP:BLPDEL. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The AfD is not formed correctly. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 08:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It's been fixed now. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Primary & self published sources used to make statements about a BLP

There have been recent additions to Ben Shapiro that are either relying on editor interpretations of primary sources or unreliable WP:SPS. The Twitter & Creation.com sources are both primary sources with no secondary source backing and popular.info is a SPS from what I can tell. I attempted to revert them here but Beyond My Ken has reinserted these BLP vios stating These are NOT "inpterretations. Should they be removed? PackMecEng (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The primary sources are indisputably Ben Shapiro himself and hence are permissible under WP:BLPPRIMARY; the question would seem to be whether or not those primary-sourced statements are being given undue weight. You're right that generally we'd want secondary sources discussing those statements to demonstrate that due weight. I would suggest opening a discussion on the talk page and looking to gather consensus around that issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is interpretation of those primary sources by our editors to make statements about a BLP. The other issue is the use of an unreliable SPS. This is not a weight issue. PackMecEng (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Where those primary or self-published sources are published *by* the subject of the article they are fine for demonstrating their own views as long as they are factual and do not interpret or otherwise opine on them. I cant see those highly imflammatory and racist views have been interpreted or commented on at all (see what I did there?) as they are quoting directly from his own views. If someone writes "Arabs are to blame for everything", we can write 'X says "Arabs are to blame for everything"' and source it to their own published materials. The only question is should we per UNDUE, not can we per BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

These do not seem to be interpreted in any way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

So taking a random tweet not covered by a secondary source and slapping it at the top of the race section does not strike you as interpretation? Neither does picking and choosing from creators.com article to make implications not made by the subject? Also again just glossing over the unreliable SPS? No these are not appropriate and not weight issues. They are BLP violations. PackMecEng (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Shapiro is a 'political commentator' who routinely writes, tweets and broadcasts right-wing conservative views. None of the material is controversial in any way given his political viewpoints, the subjects he covers etc. Any more than any other ultra-conservative republican. If you are claiming Shapiro is an unreliable source on what Shapiro says, well I cant help you with that, because its idiotic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

While I can appreciate the argument of well he is a racist in my opinion so taking primary sources out of context and presenting them without secondary sources to prove that is okay. That is not how BLP policy works. I mean seriously, how on earth could you think that is okay? Honest question here. PackMecEng (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Well its been explained to you more than once, by different people. That you still dont understand is a you problem, not a me problem. And its not my job to repeatedly explain things that you dont understand. The BLP does not prohibit that material. It may be WP:UNDUE because its not discussed in other sources. But it is not a BLP issue for a right-wing conservative white republican (whose entire career is loudly spouting right-wing conservative white republican views to other right-wing conservative white republicans) to have those uncontroversial (for a right-wing conservative white republican) views in their profile. If anything it is likely to make him more attractive to his fans. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point there. Just because you consider white conservative republicans racist and therefor calling them such regardless of the source uncontroversial, policy does not allow for your original research. Not how contentious labels work here or how we are supposed to use primary sources. PackMecEng (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think my edits were material taken out of context, please add the relevant context instead of removing the information.Ajak 9 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ajak 9: I would prefer you get consensus for the edits before reinstating them over other peoples objections. The onus is on you to get consensus to include. PackMecEng (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would note that PME brought this here without even giving the editors of Ben Shapiro any times to express their views on Talk:Ben Shapiro#Reinserting primary sources and SPS into a BLP. In fact, this was opened two minutes after my last response to him there (which was, basically, let's see what editorial consensus is). Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yes because I see the revert as a BLP violation that you edit warred in. PackMecEng (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  it would seem you were a bit too hasty in drawing that conclusion then. Besides, the appropriate course of action would have been to discuss your outlook on things on the talk page first. This seems a bit of an overeager escalation.--Licks-rocks (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC) I just took a look and uhm. An edit war would be more than one revert, PackMecEng. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  The material was added, I reverted, and then BMK reverted me. The article is under 1RR so good that no one reverted more than once. It should be noted that edit warring is not just the number of reverts. PackMecEng (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's the normal sequence of events when there's a disagreement. now go talk it out on the talk page, which is where you should have gone in the first place.--Licks-rocks (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  While looking at your edit history it would look like yes edit warring is a normal part of how you deal with disagreements. It is not actually how it should be done though. In this situation you should refer to WP:BRD. There was a bold addition, I reverted, and then a discussion should happen. Not another revert. PackMecEng (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Based on what PME reverted [38], the material added are 100% violations of BLP - they speak of OR and POV in WP. That FB demoted Mad World News and warned the Daily Wire is fine but then suggesting it was associated with a specific post is 100% OR. And simply pulling in articles or other SPS a person wrote on a point that they are known that they are contentious for just to add to the pile is inappropriate. We don't make laundry lists like this. If secondary sources saw problems with these, then they can be added. --Masem (t) 15:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing it, I'll be honest with you. that one thing happened shortly after another is neither original research nor "suggesting it was associated". It's just the sequence in which things occurred. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  It's full on speculation, which is disallowed by OR and definitely when BLP is involved. If FB pointed to that point as the definitive reason, sure, then you're fine, but if FB just said they were warned, you cannot make any specific assumptions of why, period. --Masem (t) 16:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  I just explained why that isn't the case. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  Which is begging that suggstion to the reader in Wikivoice. This is basically what WP:SYNTH warns against. --Masem (t) 16:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". "Multiple sources" are barely at play here because the two articles sourced are from the same place, and I'm not sure what I could implying in my edit that isn't explicit in either of the sources. Ajak 9 (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  Multiple sources of SYNTH can be from the same publishing source (in this case, this "popular.info" site). Also, that itself is an SPS ([39] "Popular Information is written by me, Judd Legum.") which WP:BLPSPS cannot be used to source BLP articles period. Now you can use Gizmodo or The Daily Beast (which both replicating popular.info's findings but that's why BLPSPS is there to prevent one person's analysis to be used like that). And as both the latter point out the reason why is made explicitly clear in FB's own terms: "We’ve found that these Pages violate our policies against undisclosed paid relationships between publishers." which you can quotes. Up to that is fine. That makes the need to site the second post absolutely unnecessary. --Masem (t) 21:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

In regard to the general question, I agree with Only in death does duty End and NorthBySouthBaranof that if Person X writes "XYZ", then us writing "X said 'XYZ'" not a BLP issue. One must, of course, ascertain whether a particular quotation is DUE (and this is where secondary sources covering a quote would establish weight), and obviously one can't present it in a SYNTHy way or something ("X divorced his wife in 1904. X later said 'Arabs are to blame for everything.'"), but plenty of BLPs cite "primary & self-published sources" for ABOUTSELF material. -sche (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that we should very rarely be using self-stated SPSBLP inclusion in the absence of any third-party or secondary coverage to give it weight. The only cases I can see this would be for fundamental basic biographic information, like birth date and location, family information, schooling, past and current nationality/residency, and family information. Anything else needs some type of relevance to use self-stated sourcing. For example, even if a person came out about their sexuality on Twitter, but there's nothing at all alluding to this in the secondary sourcing, we should not comment to that point (but it is useful to keep that Tweet in mind). As soon as we move past basic biographical information, and include a self-statement that we as Wiki editors deem important (beyond the biographic facts), we're engaging in OR and possible POV (particularly when those are controversial statements) so we should avoid those. The specific case here is absolutely one to avoid because these are opinion pieces and even farther removed from biographical information. --Masem (t) 00:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This article needs to be deleted. The creator has essentially just copied the CV of a non-notable private person. The fact he was involved in a case that received public comment does not mean he has ceased to be a non-notable private person. There is already a page for that case anyway. This page serves no purpose and needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JD220891 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Radoslav Rochallyi

Hoping this is the right place to discuss this issue. Please redirect me if not.

I have serious concerns about the bio page of Radoslav Rochallyi, and am left wondering whether the information on this page can be trusted, and even more, whether in fact this individual meets the level of notability that Wikipedia strives to maintain for such pages. My concerns are as follows:

1. The vast majority of the contributors to this page are single-purpose accounts: Logicaterra, Tattinger, Artemis85, Kenetse, Aidelocyne, Gesthalt, Got You On My Mind, and Messierri have edited no Wikipedia pages other than the biography of this individual.

2. In addition, there are many issues with the sources for this article. For instance, one of the sources is an apparently unobtainable self-published book by an author with no other publications to their credit, and no known publisher (the characters 出版社 translate to "publishing house"). No library or bookstore has a record of this book, and there is no online version I can find either:

—Kim, Dr. Doyun (2017). "Chapter 3:Structured poetry". Mathematical structures and equation poetry. Soul: 出版社. pp. 25–26. ISBN 1094779628.

3. Several of the sources are books or poems written by the subject of the bio but are presented as if they were written by others. In many cases, the putative "author" in these citations is the editor of the journal or anthology in which the poem was published:

—Carlaftes, Peter (2020). "The Media Promises". MAINTENANT 14-Contemporary Dada Art & Writing. New York, USA: Three Rooms Press. 14. ISBN 978-1-941110-91-1.

—Kuypers, Janet (2020). "Scythes". Down in the Dirt. Illinois, USA: Scars Publications. 1 (1). ISSN 1554-9666.

—Pufpaf, Tyler (2020). "The Media Promises". Variant Literature Journal. North Carolina, USA: Variant Literature Inc. 1 (3). ISBN 9781714921188.

4. Several of the sources are drawn from Audiency Journal, which employs his wife as Editor-in-Chief:

—Varga, Maria (2019). "Review of Mythra Invictus". Audiency Journal. EOCN. 1–19 (1): 30–31. ISSN 2644-5484.

—Horvath, Peter (2020). "Interview with philosopher and writer". Audience Journal. Bratislava: EOCN (02). ISSN 2644-5484.

5. Of the remaining sources, many are from what appears to be the marketing-and-sales arm of the writers' association that the subject belongs to, the Slovak Writers Association. This organization has a website (https://www.spolok-slovenskych-spisovatelov.sk/), journal (https://www.spolok-slovenskych-spisovatelov.sk/literarny-tyzdennik/literarny-tyzdennik-2020/), and press (https://www.litcentrum.sk/institucia/vydavatelstvo-spolku-slovenskych-spisovatelov) dedicated to enhancing the exposure and reputation of their members. These sources include:

— "Dielo – Mechanika všednosti" (in Slovak). Bratislava: The Centre for Information on Literature. 2019.

— BÁSNICI 2018 (Poets 2018): The Dictionary and anthology of Slovak poets (in Slovak) (1nd ed.). Bratislava: Spolok slovenských spisovateľov. 2018. ISBN 978-80-8194-101-6.

—Cifra, Stefan (2017), Rochallyi's medallion (in Slovak), Slovakia: Association of Slovak Writers

—Baláž, Jan (2019). "Rochallyi's married poetic duo"(PDF). Literary Weekly (in Slovak). Bratislava: The Cultural-literary academy. 32 (7–8): 17. ISSN 0862-5999.

—Mikolaj,Valek,Cifra, editorial office (2018). "Reader's price" (PDF). Literary Weekly (in Slovak). Bratislava: The Cultural-literary academy. 26 (39–40): 14. ISSN 0862-5999.

—Antológia slovenskej poézie o Dunaji. (Anthology of Slovak poetry about the Danube.). Bratislava,Slovakia: Spolok slovenských spisovateľov. 2020. p. 128. ISBN 978-80-8194-123-8.

In sum: numerous attempts appear to have been made to artificially puff up this individual's resume in order to make him seem worthy of a bio page. Of course, it is also possible that I am over-interpreting. It is possible that some of these issues could be fixed by a good research editor. I'd welcome input from others on these issues.

Helenlace (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I see the cause for concern. Indeed, all the content was written by SPAs (some have global contribs on other wikis, entirely consisting of adding this person's article to other wikis as well [40]), and having checked a couple of the references I see your concern there. I think the process would be to see to what extent the amount of puffery is here, remove/fix where possible, and if it seems completely unsalvageable to send it off to AfD. Thank you for doing your own digging and clearly laying out your findings, will be of great help :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Francis Gurry

Could somebody have a look at this edit? I have removed similar material quite a few times [41][42][43][44][45] over an extended period but did not manage to convince Torm65 (talk · contribs) that better sources are needed for such controversial material. In particular, IMHO, this source is insufficient (as further explained here). Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Lou Dobbs – conspiracy theorist?

There's a content dispute on the Lou Dobbs page about whether he can be called a "conspiracy theorist".[46] The body of the lead extensively documents Dobbs's conspiracy theory peddling, which includes but is not limited to birtherism, George Soros conspiracy theories and Deep State conspiracy theories. Can a person who promotes conspiracy theories not be described as a conspiracy theorist in Wiki voice? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources call him a "conspiracy theorist", rather than just saying "Lou Dobbs has spread yet another conspiracy theory"? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The answer to Snooganssnoogans's question is: yes. Sophistry about the variant of words (e.g. conspiracy theory vs. conspiracy theorist) is utterly beside the point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Would a solution for the time being be a description of "Dobbs has previously stated support for/[insert better words] a number of discredited [and/or] highly-controversial theories regarding blah blah blah", or is that me being a little too wish-wash? --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a step in the right direction as long as they are a significant part of his life or notability. PackMecEng (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful with controversial labels on people like this. If we don't have an RS to support the claim, I'm not sure it should be in the opening sentence. Honestly, the labels are already excessive, e.g. "opponent of immigration". This can be written in the lead, but it's just expanding an already long list of roles in the opening sentence: it isn't what he's (most) notable for. But that part is a discussion for editors on the talk, not BLPN. There's a difference between "is a conspiracy theorist" and "Lou Dobbs has spread numerous conspiracy theories, including ____" ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there, though? What is a conspiracy theorist, other than one who propagates conspiracy theories? XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump spread the birther conspiracy theory, right? Would we write: "Donald J Trump is the 45th President of the United States. Formerly a businessman, television personality, and conspiracy theorist". Probably wouldn't go down well. For that reason, and since it's a controversial label to use, especially in "ambiguous cases", we need an RS calling him a conspiracy theorist to use the label ourselves imo. We even use a source (5 of them) for the statement at Alex Jones, and he's an obvious conspiracy theorist. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That's the fun problem with labels, they are that subjective. I would tend to think that a theorist is the one that comes up with said theories (eg Alex Jones) rather than simply propagates them, but that's my opinion and by no means a definitive answer. This is why one has to survey the sources, see if the term is used enough to even state it (per UNDUE) and if it is, make sure proper attribution is used. Otherwise, if he's not labelled as such, you can only say about promoting certain theories. --Masem (t) 16:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I've wrestled with this before. Breaking it down, it would seem to only include the developer. The only two dictionary sources I can find for conspiracy theorist [47] [48] do include propagators. On the word theorist, the OED includes: …one who holds or maintains a theory; sometimes a framer or maintainer of a mere hypothesis or speculation., which would seem to include propagators. That’s from the 1933 version. This is just to feel comfortable with this use, once RS is found. O3000 (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That's why I'm saying that its not really a good idea to claim a dictionary definition and then see if the person pigeonholes into that, but instead see if a source survey gives reason to use it. It is very very tempting to want to use a label which may seem appropriate but if that's not backed by sources, that's putting a label in Wikivoice which is not allowed, even if it seems to match one possible definition. That's the whole point and caution around labels and why sourcing on their use is of utmost importance. --Masem (t) 18:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep. O3000 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

According to the first sentence of his wikipedia article, Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist who developed the theory of relativity. If one promulgates the theory of relativity, that does not (necessarily) make one a theoretical physicist. Sbelknap (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a completely different argument and trying to apply it to a hard, well-established job/academic title that there's no consternation about. "Everyone" knows and agrees on what a theoretical physicist is in the same manner that everyone agrees that the sky is blue. But not everyone agrees on what a conspiracy theorist is, that's why its a label and more care has to be used. --Masem (t) 19:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Not so much. Einstein was employed as an examiner at the Patent Office in Bern, Switzerland, during his annus mirabilis. He had a drawer in his desk at work where he kept his scientific work. He called this drawer the “Department of Theoretical Physics”. Thus, Einstein *was* a theoretical physicist when working as a patent examiner, though not many would have considered him such at the time.Sbelknap (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't get your point. Do people argue that Einstein was not a theoretical physicist? It's not a controversial term. The label "conspiracy theorist" is, and can be defamatory. "Theoretical physicist" is never defamatory (well, unless you're a conspiracy theorist who says theoretical physics doesn't exist, then I guess calling them a theoretical physicist would be defamatory to their good reputation as a conspiracy theorist). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" is a pejorative term and ought not be used in a BLP in the absence of a high-quality reliable source. Sbelknap (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This article could use more eyes and a review

Please take a look at Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz. I am concerned whether recent changes to the lead are indeed in line with BLP: [49]. Short summary: this is undeiably a right-wing publicist but is it neutral (WP:UNDUE) and BLP-fair to say in his short lead that he is "Far-right" and "antosemitic" and such? Comments welcome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Did he or did he not call the Holocaust a "myth" and refer to Jews as "scabby"?[50] François Robere (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Aubrey Aloysius

Not a notable personality. The page is self-promotional content by a middling, and unknown, person trying to engineer popularity that has no basis in facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeonticScorekeeper (talk • contribs) 13:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've created an AfD for the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ronald Graham

Rumour that Ronald Graham (mathematician) has passed away. Two sources for the rumour are credible, but I can't find any corroboration yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtlens (talk • contribs) 05:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ronald Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If anything becomes known, you might like to post a notice at WT:WikiProject Mathematics. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ve removed the claim again as there’s still no sourcing and nor can I find anything online. Neiltonks (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

We should wait for RS. There is more damage in calling an alive person dead, than there is in not being quick enough updating a dead person to dead. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've protected the page for two days. That should be sufficient time for a RS to pop up if he has indeed passed. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Question that didn't get a section header

Hello. Please tell me when Roberto Carnaghi was actually born. And it is not clear whether July 14, 1936, or may 13, 1938 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.227.14.248 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Idris Elba - English or British (again)

Attempts to change Elba from "an English actor" (based on his statements that his nationality is English) to being "a British actor" are underway again, on the grounds that "A criminal in a court of law describes himself/herself as innocent; THAT DOES NOT MEAN however that HE OR SHE IS INNOCENT IN ACTUAL FACT." and, as an editor put it earlier in the same thread, "English is an Anglo Saxon ethnicity not someone who is just born in England" if they're black or Asian. My understanding from reading the previous discussions is that we were going with his statements about his nationality (and that nationality was not race-dependent), but other editors should please take a look. -sche (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• The "guilt or innocent" is fully different from the "British or English nationality" aspect. A person does not have control if they are guilty or innocent - that comes from the court of law. On the other hand, as long as the person is known to have residence in the country of England, then they can be free to describe themselves as English (the country) or British (the British Empire), both being proper, and if they have expressed one or the other, we should defer to that. Obviously if the person only had residency in Japan and tried to claim they had British nationality, that would be a flag to raise, but that's not the case here. --Masem (t) 18:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Per MOS:LEAD that sentence isn't about 'ethnicity', it's about (notable) nationality. Typically, you defer to RS. Second, "British" is not the "British Empire". British is the nationality of any UK national, English is, well, a self-described nationality with no legal bearing. See WP:UKNATIONALS and the various talk page discussions in MOS. Effectively, it comes down to consensus in talk, and shouldn't be changed arbitrarily. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "Listen guys: I'm English". Self-identification with such clarity means we're done here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Self-identification is the best tool for resolving all British versus English content disputes. If Idris Elba self-identifies as English, then that is how Wikipedia will describe him. The notion that people born in England of African or South Asian or any other ancestry cannot be English is, quite frankly, racist. This man was born and raised in London. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

2nd this, and it’s what I was trying to get at when I said English is not an ethnicity. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• One has just as much control over their ethnicity as they do their criminal status. Taking myself as an example, I myself am a Croatian-Brit and I have no control over that. I can call myself Canadian or Senegalese but ultimately it has no bearing on the actual fact that is my identity. I simply do not belong to any single one of Britain's ethnic groups as much as I wish to, regardless of my volition and that is tautological. THERE IS NOTHING RACIST ABOUT STATING SOMEONE'S ACTUAL ETHNICITY. I might want to be a Frenchman for eg. but unfortunately I am not and there is nothing I can do about that. What's more is that I would not be offended nor be a victim of racism were I to be therefore referred to as a Croatian-Brit, when I actually identify as a Frenchman. Richard Dawkins for example was born and bred in Kenya, but he remains a Brit. He is not by any stretch a Kenyan and it would be an insult to the Kenyans to call him Kenyan. Subjects within an ethnic group have a shared history and a shared suffering at that. You cannot just join an ethnic group with a fleeting throwaway comment. I myself, as much as I would like to integrate into England's established communities, can never be considered ethnically English as much as I would like that to be the case. I do take immense pride in being British however which I can duly legitimately claim due to bearing the requisite documents. Idris Elba's multitude of national loyalties is totally disregarded with the use of an exclusive adjective such as 'English'. He has done a fantastic job and immense work for his people in his ancestral home country of Sierra Leone which is to be marvelled at and to say hence that he is as English as Richard Dawkins is quite honestly saliently erroneous as well as dishonest. He is unequivocally a Briton and British but scholars of ethnology would be in great disagreement as to whether 'English' is his certified ethnicity given that he has also pledged allegiance to his ethnicity of descent. Chris Tomic (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  If you think that non-white people cannot be English, you're just a plain and simple racist. If nothing else, I suggest paying close attention to the fact that Elba was born in London. If you'd like, we can discuss it at ANI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Chris Tomic - you typed this out instead of doing what, exactly? Jesus Christ. A solid yikes out of ten for this - these attitudes are not Wikipedian in the least, nor is Wikipedia the place for, or supportive of, anything you just said.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Let's keep this discussion uniformly formatted if you'd be so kind. Chris Tomic (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  In the vast majority of Wikipedia articles about Black Britons, the word 'British' is used instead of 'English'. I would argue that the demonym 'British' is more suitable on the grounds that it incorporates the idea of the Commonwealth and the concept of nationality. As has already been stated, 'English' has no legal bearing as a nationality, 'British' however, does. Idris Elba is more often referred to as British in the mainstream press. He has made one throwaway comment about being English, which has been stapled to his biography with no prospect of change or debate. I say that this is wrong. The argument that due to Elba's being born in London that he is automatically English is also misjudged, the editor above Chris Tomic has already raised the example of Richard Dawkins, who was born in Nairobi but has no claim to Kenyan identity. Chris Tomic did not mention the word white and clearly stated himself that he is a white person yet does not claim to be English. And let us not make the argument that one Wikipedian speaks for the whole of Wikipedia. That is wrong. Ryan Soul (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Please don't edit other editors' formatting. We aren't all replying to each other, some of the replies are to the main point, so the indents shouldn't be stacked regardless. I've kept bullets, as the original editors intended, since it seems to improve readability here imo, even though this isn't a poll. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I've edited the article, after Nomo's point above, "Listen guys: I'm English" -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Chris Tomic, that is a whole paragraph of what I'd consider to be at best mistaken and at worst racist, but either way, it's irrelevant. As I stated, see MOS:LEAD and the discussions in archives surrounding "British or English". The point of that sentence is nationality, not ethnicity, for one. That's why we don't use "African-American" to describe every black American's biography. As for British v English for it being nationality, it comes down to editors' preference, ideally based on self-identification and what RS' use. In this case, that debate is settled with English, not British, because both of the aforementioned categories use English. I'm sorry to hear that you have issues with describing yourself as English due to your foreign ascentery, but that's an issue you need to come to terms with yourself, and you can use any self-description as you see fit. For Wikipedia, however, we follow the policy and extensive discussions on the matter. You can't go around editing other subjects' articles just because of your own belief of "non-whites can't use English". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

No mate, you're wrong. Slavishly throwing that accusation at me w/o backing up the claim is quite frankly disrespectful as well as wrong. I wish people would actually read what I said before making callous unbacked claims, which I clearly did not say. Please at the very minimum attempt to comprehend what it is that I have imparted before rebuking it. I did not say non-white people cannot be British as Nomoskedasticity might like to think that I said and as Ryan Soul kindly concurred with me on. I clearly averred, regarding myself, that I cannot be English and I say that as a white person. I have a very good black friend who has an English grandmother and his other grandparents descend from elsewhere. He can be classed as ethnically English whereas I cannot, and I am white and he is black. His first language is English, mine is not. None of my grandparents originate in England and nor do any of Idris Elba's. We are two such people along with many others who are not 'English'. We are British but not 'English'. There is nothing racist about that. In the same way, to say I am not a squirrel, does not in any way, shape or form disparage squirrels. An absurd example but the logic at hand is the same. I have no 'issues' with that and as I say, I am quite comfortable calling myself a Croatian-Brit, as indeed governments would refer to me as, but I cannot render myself part of a specific ethnic group such as 'the English', at the touch of a button, a well worded quote or indeed based on the nation in which the paving stone on which I slipped out my mother, is located in. The fact of the matter is, in America, where Idris Elba works considerably, he is referred to as a 'Brit' and where there is no debate at all in regard to him being classed as British, there is with the use of the term 'English' and as such, I think it is far too better that we go with the unanimously agreed adjective as opposed to the one there is clearly a debate wrt its use. There is no racism present here at all, just a mere differing understanding between folk as to what constitutes definitions in ethnology. Chris Tomic (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(1) Idris Elba was born in Hackney, and is therefore English (and thus also, by logical consequence, British). (2) He also describes himself specifically as English, not British. Therefore "English" is the appropriate demonym. I don't think there's much more to say about it. -- The Anome (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Where you are born has no bearing on your ethnicity.
• 'English' is an ethnonym not a demonym.

Chris Tomic (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There's so many misunderstandings in that message I don't want to tackle each one. I'll address the accusation part, for clarity: it isn't a sly comment. You made 7 sentences about yourself and your "belonging" and how you don't feel comfortable calling yourself English. I don't think it was a mischaracterisation, based on your statement, to make the statement I did. And it is genuine: I'm sorry if you feel you can't use the label, but legally you can, and the rest is personal preference. But this isn't about you. It is accurate for one to call themselves English, if they are a citizen of the UK and for some reason identify with England (perhaps due to birthplace, or where you grew up, or any other reason). The labels "English, Scottish, Welsh" have no legal bearing. They're purely self-descriptions of nationality.

The benefits of being an encyclopaedia with the policies and guidelines that we have is that we get to defer to external sources for many tough decisions. For the parts we do need to debate on, we have, in 2007 and several times since, and we've generally agreed that it's a matter of self-identity and what the RS' say, that editors in talk should decide on this, and that it shouldn't be changed arbitrarily. As for the rest of the debate on who can use English and who is lying to the world, this isn't the place, per WP:NOTFORUM. Again, familiarise yourself with the policies, past discussions, and MOS:LEAD, particularly MOS:ETHNICITY, to realise that the statement there isn't about ethnicity. It refers to English as in the nationality, not English as in the ethnicity. I'm not sure how many times I'll have to say this before you stop ignoring it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

If I revert again, and Chris does the same, would we both be edit warring, or just Chris? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Chris Tomic, you've reintroduced your change at Idris Elba 5 times over 3 days, being reverted by 5 different editors, despite discussions here and in talk being against you. Almost a dozen editors have disagreed, and no editor has agreed with you, yet you're making the change against existing guidelines. If you reinstate your edit again I will open a discussion at ANI. As another editor has suggested, you need to let this go. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Chris Tomic You have been given various links above, I don't know whether you've read them, but read these: MOS:OPENPARABIO - the nationality should be in the lead. MOS:ETHNICITY - ethnicity should not be in the lead, unless it is central to the subject's notability (it isn't - he's a famous actor, not famous for being black). These tell us that we should be referring to the subject's nationality, and explicitly that we should not be referring to his ethnicity. WP:UKNATIONALS tells us to look for evidence of what the subject themselves uses. If he describes himself as English, that's what we do. If he describes himself as British, that's what we do. So, unless you have reliable sources showing that he prefers to be identified as British, rather than English, this discussion is over. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed: born in England, says he's English, much as I'd like him to be Scottish, that's what counts. Not racist ideas of "ethnicity" which are irrelevant. . . dave souza, talk 16:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I would just like to bring up an article I quite like from the BBC [51] wherein people offer their thoughts on what it means to be "English." While the notion of fair play comes up repeatedly, the quality of "not being black" is absent. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

According to the opening line of English people, the term refers to "a nation and an ethnic group". A black man can be a part of the former, but would need more than a birth location to be part of the latter. Seems to me that Chris is applying the latter definition, in which case he's technically correct, but Wikipedia biographies apply the former definition. That's why Maya Angelou is an American poet, not an African-American poet. This seems to me like a case of terminology confusion, not racism. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Argento Surfer, that opening line is, bluntly, bollocks. It looks like it was written by Nick Griffin. Guy (help!) 08:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

(I had to look Nick Griffin up.) Regardless of your opinion of the wording, the statement does appear to be accurate. I see no reason to cast racist aspersions on Chris when there's a good faith alternative. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Born in England, self-identifies as English (even in passing). Good enough for me. Backwards racist ideas about not being English (or Welsh, or Scottish) because your parents were immigrants is something non-white children of immigrants have had to deal with for decades. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Only in death, I'm as English as you get. My ancestors include Huguenots and Irish, and my family name has the same root as the German Kaufmann. The ONS does not have "English" as an ethnicity, it has "white British". It also has "black British". If the English nationalists had their way and "British" was split itno English and Welsh this would still be "white English" and "black English" (and "Asian English"). The idea that Englishness is defined by colour is incorrect and obnoxious. We have an article on Anglo-Saxon people which defines the ethnic group. Guy (help!) 09:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Amber Renae

Amber Renae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I did the ever exciting random page and this article came up. The article has numerous templates. Two placed in 2011 and two more in 2012. 2012 - one each for notability and neutrality 2011 - one each for no inline citations and needs additional for verification.

I’m a relatively new user and I wasn’t sure if I should bring these here or not and the reason I did was because of the dates listed on the templates.

I’m open to suggestions on what should be done.

Thanks, Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{My Contibutions} 11:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP. PRODed. - Ryk72 ^talk 11:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ryk72, technically, I believe external links are accepted as 'references' for the purpose of BLPPROD (per WP:BLPPROD: To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) which support any statements made about the person in the biography.), so I don't think it's eligible for PROD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that no independent reliable sources are referenced as either inline refs or external links, I have, according to the letter of the policy, removed the BLPPROD; and replaced it with a regular PROD, which does not suffer from the same impediments. - Ryk72 ^talk 13:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan Oppenheimer

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

Request for Assistance

To the editorial community,

Please could I direct you to the Talk page of the Jonathan Oppenheimer Wikipedia page as I have recently provided some suggested changes to increase the relevance and accuracy of this article? In accordance with Wikipedia Community guidelines I have not made this edits myself due to my conflict of interest but I would be grateful if another editor would review and consider these amendments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppgen (talk • contribs) 13:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for following the COI edit request process. I've added the request template to your request on the talk page, so that your request is more visible to editors in the COI request list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Alycia Debnam carey is not dead. Please remove

Alycia Jasmine DebnamCarey is not dead. whoever did this its not amusing. please remove. she is still very much alive thank heavens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max061096 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The only edit I can find that refers to this is about a url being dead, not her [52] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The article has been subject to some silliness and vandalism recently. The recent stuff may have started off with genuine confusion over the URL status [53] [54] don't know for sure, but it degenerated into silliness which is difficult to AGF on [55] [56] before it was reversed [57]. It's not the first time as the end of June the same crap happened [58] although one of? the editors involved seems to have had a change of heart [59]. There has been other clear vandalism recently [60] too although it's been about 3 days now so let's just hope for the best. If it reoccurs, longer protection may be called for. Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Reference_desk/Humanities

Please review Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Is_Walter_Breuning's_death_record_available_on_Ancestry.com? and worse, the follow-up at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#If_someone_has_esophagus_problems_and_they_proceed_to_die_from_starvation,_is_the_likely_explanation_for_their_death_that_they_starved_themselves_on_purpose?. Could this speculation about the death and possible suffering of a recently deceased person please be removed? Thanks 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It may be possible to blank the sections per courtesy blanking, although they're probably not eligible for revision deletion. Although anyone can make a courtesy blank, it might be worth asking an administrator specifically to consider. You can contact one on their talk, or cross-post your request at WP:AN. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought you were administrators here - I have no idea how to know who is and who isn't. Will use your link. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The administrators took action. Thank you again.70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)