Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive330

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

Possible BLPDOB problem

I'm on Wikibreak but made the mistake of checking out ANI and noticed this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lugnuts' mass-creation where a commentator seems to be completely ignoring WP:BLPDOB. I'm not sure if the IP's allegations are accurate, but if they are, it sounds like there could be a far bigger and more wide spread problem where an editor has added dates of birth sourced solely to some Olympics database. Hopefully others can keep an eye on that thread and ensure any possible problems are dealt with. Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Olympedia, the source in question, is a reliable source used in thousands of articles, and "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources" (from that very page). Olympedia is a peer-reviewed database, and therefore is a reliable source, and so I do not believe any BLP violations are occurring by using it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

No evidence has been given that Olympedia is not a reliable source, so I don't see the basis for the OP's claim of WP:BLPDOB violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Joseph2302 There was a tentative start at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_335#Olympedia, and if frequently used, Olympedia likely merits further discussion. After all, the policy (WP:BLPPRIVACY) states "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources" Edwardx (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Since no one else has really dealt with it I just logged in to mention this. @Joseph2302: you're missing the point. I never claimed that Olympedia is not a reliable source. However information only in a database like Olympedia cannot by any token be considered widely published. As I already said at ANI, BLP policy explicitly goes beyond requiring reliable sources when it comes to dates of birth and other information considered private. Therefore while Olympedia not being a reliable source would be relevant, Olympedia being a reliable source is irrelevant in terms of the specific BLP concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the concern over adding DOBs sourced to a single database. The concerns at WP:BLPDOB are about privacy concerns, rather than verifiability or reliability. If the DOB is only included in a single source, especially a mere database, then it should not be included in a BLP because it has not been "widely published" by reliable sources and there is no indication that the article subjects would not object to including it. This is even more important given that this discussion appears to be the result of creations of articles about many relatively non-notable individuals. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Wallyfromdilbert and Edwardx. Anyway I wanted to apologise as my follow-up was poorly worded and offer clarification to try and ward off possible confusion before I leave this dispute completely. Saying it being an RS is not relevant is unnecessarily confusing. What I should have said is that if it wasn't an RS, then yeah that's a definite problem that we need to resolve, call it a slamdunk no. But even if it is an RS, that doesn't mean it's definitely okay to use for a DOB, it's not a slamdunk yes. While I'm not certain Olympedia is an RS, I can see enough of an argument it is that I won't investigate further especially since I'm still on a wikibreak. However what caused my concern was the suggestion on ANI, repeated here, all that matters is whether Olympedia is an RS, which is not what BLP says. In my mind, it's clear that an exact birthdate only published in Olympedia or actually most databases, shouldn't be considered widely published and therefore fails BLPDOB. So it is a slamdunk no even if Olympedia is an RS. I don't think I'm willing to come back from my wikibreak to argue this point so if others disagree, well I'll just have to leave that for now. But at a minimum, it is imperative that anyone editing BLPs recognises that there are additional considerations beyond whether there is an RS that is why I was so concerned as editors seemed to be ignoring that important point. Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the issue here, Nil Einne, as I had a similar concern about the discussion, and I posted on the ANI thread as well about the higher standard for inclusion of personal information about living persons due to the privacy concerns discussed in WP:BLPPRIVACY. A single database containing DOBs of BLPs is not sufficient for inclusion under our current policy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a single source, even if reliable, doesn't constitute 'widely published in RS'. —valereee (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I think there's reasonable concerns about the notability of articles sourced only to bare statistical data on Olympedia/sports-reference.com/cricinfo and similar sources. I'm not sold on these as particularly high-quality sources - these sources are not "peer reviewed" (which is an academic process for research papers) despite what Joseph2302 says. It is not clear whether any actual real human review or confirmation happens between the data being recorded by some national/regional sports association and it appearing on this database. Regardless of the reliability of these sources, bare mentions, particular bare statistical coverage, is never going to be a WP:GNG pass. You might say that these are still WP:SNG passes, but if they are not obviously GNG passes then this makes them "borderline notable" for the purposes of WP:DOB, meaning we should "err on the side of caution and simply list the year" at least for living subjects.

TL;DR we shouldn't be publishing the full DOB of some guy whose played one game for the Chinese Taipei national football team or made a very minor appearance at the Rio games in *insert minor sport here* and is still living, and for who we only have database references. If they are clearly notable (i.e., are clear WP:GNG passes), this concern does not apply. FOARP (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

WNBA players described/categorized

WNBA players are being categorized as American emigrants to/expatriates in Turkey (or wherever), and described in the lead as being "American-Turkish", apparently because in order to play for the Turkish national team in the offseason they have to get a dual passport/citizenship. I do not think agreeing to obtain Turkish citizenship so you can play basketball for the Turkish national team makes you "American-Turkish" or an American expat in Turkey or an American emigrant to Turkey. I've seen this at two articles, Kiah Stokes and Alex Bentley, and after the second one I thought I'd better come discuss. I don't know if this is happening with players in other leagues, but I think we should see these folks describe themselves as "American-Turkish" or whatever in RS before we use this in articles about them. I think we should refer to them as 'holding a Turkish passport' or 'holding dual citizenship in order to play for the Turkish national team' or whatever instead of calling them something they may not consider themselves to be. —valereee (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

So can I assume I can remove such categorizations/descriptions? —valereee (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: I agree that calling them "American-Turkish" is not ideal (and calling them only "Turkish" would be even more misleading). One good phrasing in articles I've seen (e.g. Kho Sin-Kie, Giovanna Almeida Leto, Diane Chen, Laura Munana, Oei Liana): "is a CountryWhereTheyLivedMostOfTheirLife athlete who represented SomewhereElse in international competition", which covers various cases and avoids thorny POV questions about whether the person really identifies with whatever other country whose passport they hold or whether they just got it opportunistically.

You might get more response at WT:MOSBIO. In the first place, this is a real shortcoming of MOS:CONTEXTBIO; the lack of guidance on what to do when notable people add or switch citizenship after they've already become notable under their original citizenship, has led to awkward descriptors and perennial disputes on multiple articles (e.g. Tina Turner).

One more issue: some WikiProjects have a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that the lead sentence & infobox should list only the nationality of the team which the player represented internationally (or which they're eligible to represent under sport-specific rules like FIFA eligibility rules); see e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#cite note-nat-4. I'm not sure whether WP:BASKETBALL has some consensus like this about only using FIBA eligibility rules nationality. Cheers, 61.239.39.90 (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

61.239, the main issue here is that this isn't like male basketball players who didn't get drafted or got released so they go play their career overseas. They are just people who earn so little money (until recently the median WNBA player made $60K. That is not a typo.) that to support their families, they go play during the WNBA off-season overseas, then come right back home.

(background: Recently the WNBA and the players' union ratified a new CBA that increases salaries enough that the WNBA is hoping this can actually just stop -- that the players will feel they're earning enough to support their families without having to play two seasons a year, which risks injury that can take them out of a WNBA season and makes them unavailable for off-season promotion of the WNBA.)

To me this feels like a very different situation than for someone who was released at age 25 and decided to go play in Italy or wherever. These are side gigs.

I'll go check at WikiProject Basketball, thanks! —valereee (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athena_Salman#Controversy

I believe the controversy section was created by an anti-Palestinian hate group or someone with an animus toward Palestine. The author makes a false statement about Salman's comments. They claim she falsely accused the Israeli government and provide no evidence for this. Further, they cite a blog created on the Independent News Network, which isn’t a legitimate news organization.

Two editors were edit-warring over this but that seems to have stopped now and the section is no longer in the article. FWIW, the news article cited as the source is described as an opinion piece so it's not suitable for Wikipedia regardless of whether the website generally is accepted as reliable (I've no view on that). Neiltonks (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we got it worked out yesterday. All's calm now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

https://www.royalark.net/Morocco/morocco9.htm

The link provide valid reference for: Genealogy for biography of Princess Lalla Fatima Zahra daughter of Mohammed V of Morocco. The link provide evidence to Princess Lalla Fatima Zahra's maternal grand-father: Moulay Mohammed al-Mamun — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvaBrandon2000 (talk • contribs) 06:59, July 14, 2021 (UTC)

@AvaBrandon2000:, #1) please sign your posts. This can be done by typing four tilde characters ~~~~at the end of your post. #2) royalark.net is not considered to be a reliable source because it is one of a number of self-published peerage websites of variable quality. #3) It is not clear what relevance your post has or what article you are referring to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Oviya article

Hello. I am concerned that this article is devolving into a puff piece of sorts, as much of the content is meaningless. It would be helpful to have a few more watchers on this article to help bring it in line with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policy. Thank you for your time. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Mirza Masroor Ahmad

hi

Can you change this article please as its not presenting the truth. Mirza Masroor Ahmad is not a muslim. he doesnt beleive in the finality of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh). beleiving in the finality of the prophet is one of the articles of faith without which a person is not muslim. he is certainly not the Khalifa of the muslims at the moment. please make this change asap so people are not deceived.

many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.84.177 (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

As is very clear from discussions at Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad, Ahmadi Muslims are Muslims, and he is, within Ahmadiyya, the Fifth Caliph of the Messiah. —C.Fred (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Wang Zheng (pilot)

At this article there's been some back-and-forth about ongoing lawsuits, between an IP claiming to be the subject of the article and a couple SPAs with no edits to any other articles. This should probably be looked into in more detail. jp×g 04:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been meaning to get back to this article and do some reconstruction, but it's not high on my list of priorities. Mrs. Wang is no stranger to this board, and this ongoing battle between the two have been going on both on and off wiki for a long time now. It should probably be page protected so only autoconfirmed users can edit it, or maybe pending change reviews would be a good option. Mrs. Wang would be best to open an account and get it confirmed at ORTS, and declare her COI. Although I find the whole thing to be quite boring, I do have an interest in flying, and still plan to get back to it someday, if no one else beats me to it. But not today. I'm partly hampered by the fact that I don't read Chinese, and google is no where near as good at translating it as French or Swedish. It could really use some help by someone who is fluent in both Chinese and English. Either way, something should be done to stop the battle from continuing on wiki. Zaereth (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

2 Cold Scorpio (and others): continued addition of unsourced material

IP user 125.142.221.231 has been adding large blocks of WP:UNSOURCED material that he calls "Professional wrestling highlights" to BLP articles about professional wrestlers, with details about different wrestling moves, managers, and even theme songs for wrestling matches to various BLPs including this, this, and others. IP has been warned and has continued the disruption past final warning. Johnnie Bob (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Christian Rowan

https://www.couriermail.com.au/amaq-boss-christian-rowan-sidelined-after-backing-newman-government-doctor-contracts/news-story/34add335362ff5705e3d56f35218d593 This information is defamatory or libelous information which has already been subject to proceedings. It was retrieved for partisan political purposes during the 2020 Queensland state election campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.87.6.230 (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-vax activist and COVID-conspiracy tags

What is the standard for adding these tags to BLP pages? I noted a number of articles where the use of these tags is in dispute. What is the evidentiary standard required for each. Take the Ricky_Schroder page. It was tagged as American anti-vaccination activists. Looking at the article it appears that Schroder has voiced his opposition to mandatory COVID vaccinations. I'm not sure this rises to the level of "activist". Also, if someone is only concerned about the COVID vaccinations but not vaccinations in general (fine with MMR etc) does that make a person anti-vax or just anti-COVID-vax? I have a similar question regarding COVID-conspiracy tags. In Steve_Hilton's article it appears he was tagged as a COVID conspiracy theorist because he supported the lab leak theory Steve_Hilton. Is that the standard? It would seem to me that many of these tags would violate WP:NONDEFINING since, in many cases these are not the defining characteristic of the subject. Ricky Schroder is an actor (at least was... not sure if he still is). His opinion on COVID vaccines is hardly his defining characteristic. Looking for group input. @Masem, Calton, TJD2, and RandomCanadian: as editors whom have been involved with the general topic (ie I saw them make related edits/comments). Springee (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC) (and @Jaydoggmarco: for the same reason) Springee (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate to me; the COVID category is currently at CfD for reasons similar to the ones you've brought up here. To me, the primary issue is the presence of categories based on vaguely defined political views that don't include activism. For example, Barack Obama admitted to having smoked weed when he was in high school, but this doesn't mean he belongs in Category:American cannabis activists. Similarly, John Hickenlooper (the governor of Colorado who issued an executive action adding 2012 Colorado Amendment 64 to the state constitution and legalizing weed in that state) is not in the category either. Indeed, a large number of famous people have said that they vote for Democrats or Republicans, and they are not in Category:American political activists. jp×g 22:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Why yes, the category CfD, but, no, you're not getting a lot of buy-in for your claimed reasoning. --Calton | Talk 03:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I am having trouble understanding this comment. What do you mean by "claimed reasoning"? jp×g 05:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee asked for my comments on this on my talk page earlier and I'll readdress them here: I think these categories are inappropriate, similar to the climate change deniers/skeptics aspect. These are very subjective classifications which should never be used for BLP, though RS sourcing in the article body is fine to talk about it within the article. --Masem (t) 23:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place for that argument: if you're against the category to begin with, take it up at the CfD itself. Doin it here is just a back-door attempt to render the category moot. --Calton | Talk 03:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Not really. The question isn't if the category is legitimate. I personally think Andrew Wakefield absolutely fits an anti-vaccine activist category. He is know specifically because of his anti-vaccine efforts. That is different than Ricky Schroder who has only made a few comments on the subject. That a category might be problematic is an argument for removing it but if we set some understandable limits I think the BLP questions/concerns can be addressed without removing the category. However, if the category is fundamentally a BLP problem then the BLP policy has to take precedent. Springee (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: I've made my opinion clear on Calton's talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems that those on the losing end of the CfD are attempting an endaround... Zaathras (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

There are currently ten "keep"s and ten "delete"s at the CfD, so I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. jp×g 05:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to add the conspiracy theorist tag at Matt Gaetz as another example. The article cites the COVID lab leak theory but nothing else in the body of the article suggests the tag applies and I can't see how this would pass NONDEFINING. Springee (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Great, more of these contentious, BLP-sensitive categories. Most of the time, the category is either (i) not verifiable from the body or (ii) if it is verifiable, it makes up one sentence from the entire article. WP:COPDEF states that biographies should be categorized by the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. Categories are not supposed to be a coatrack of every contentious label the person may or may not be associated with. Unless we're dealing with someone like Wakefield, as Springee mentions, then we're always gonna run into WP:SUBJECTIVECAT or WP:BLPRACIST issues. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone who has been around BLPN for any length of time has already heard my views on categorization, so I am loathe to repeat myself yet again. For anyone who hasn't, you can read about it at User:Zaereth#Little boxes. Zaereth (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Everybody who's seen my edits knows my views on this topic, but these discussions are getting too volatile and toxic for my taste. I'm going to recuse myself from these political pages - feel free to add any sort of bias or crazy labels to people. I'm going back to editing music and gaming pages. Everybody on the right is a conspiracy theorist anti-vaccine anti-science racist homophobic bigot, you know!TJD2 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Everybody on the right is a conspiracy theorist anti-vaccine anti-science racist homophobic bigot" Actually that's 100% true especially for trumpers (Even though you meant it as a joke), The only one with a bias is you and all of the people who are having this discussion to remove the category. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

When did I say ANYTHING about Trump? Trump has absolutely nothing at all to do with what we are talking about here. On a side note I don't even personally care for the guy but I don't link everything in my life back to him. Stay focused, we were discussing conspiracies and whether or not disliking a single vax makes you against ALL vaccines. I wasn't even going to respond to this comment but it made me laugh out loud. At least we now know what this is really about.TJD2 (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, when people say stuff like that about others, regardless of what side they are on (or not), they are almost always unconsciously describing themselves, and unwittingly letting everyone else know. Zaereth (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the kind of statement that should immediately disqualify someone from editing American politics related articles. If you had already been notified of the discretionary sanctions I would have requested a topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If one believes in the right to bodily self-determination, they may have received the Covid vaccine, recommended it to their friends and acquaintances and yet oppose mandatory vaccination. So, opposition to mandatory vaccination is not the same as anti-vaxxer. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been trying to make these same points in an orderly manner in multiple talk pages for the better part of a month, even inviting discussion from opposing sides. It doesn't matter what we say or how many points we have - this is WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING run amok. Like I said above - if a person doesn't get the covid shot - to these editors they must be an anti-vaccination activist or a conspiracy theorist. Black and white, no middle ground. You can't debate these points. I'm trying not to make it about the editors themselves but it's getting very difficult - which is why I want to be focused on how ridiculous the assertions are. You are absolutely correct - being anti mandatory vaccinations does NOT make you anti-vaccination. That said, it doesn't matter apparently.TJD2 (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday (1972)

Bloody Sunday (1972) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Soldier F is a living person whose identity is protected by a court order and anyone breaching it leaves them liable to prosecution for contempt of court. Following a politician in the UK revealing his name using parliamentary privilege, there have been repeated attempts today, by at least two editors in the UK, to add this name despite the name not being published by the media due to the court order. I feel the name is a clear and umambiguous violation of WP:BLPNAME, but thought it better to bring it here for wider attention. FDW777 (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The Ryan Giggs super-injunction affair, and Wikipedia's role in it, can help elucidate this issue. A decade ago, the encyclopedia as a whole took a dim view on the use of court orders to suppress widely-known information that's in the public interest, and Jimbo literally said that if it appears in reliable sources, injunction be damned, it's eligible for inclusion. Hansard is a reliable source for the statement "Colm Eastwood named X as Soldier F", and such an extract from Hansard is explicitly protected under parliamentary privilege per the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. Additionally, as a member of the armed forces during Blood Sunday and an alleged war criminal, I would argue that Soldier F cannot in good seriousness be considered a "private individual". Sceptre (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed: the only case this would be an issue is if the case was in the US and the protection was specifically extended to any media outlet with servers in the US (which I have never heard of happening before in contrast to a few notable UK cases). --Masem (t) 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Even in the case of a universal injunction (which I believe was the case in the Trafigura affair), it's a constitutional principle that the proceedings of Parliament are unimpeachable, and under PPA1840, reporting the proceedings of Parliament is protected. Sceptre (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it would be extremely extremely rare to ever encounter a case where by law WP should not include a name sealed by courts but otherwise widely reported by trusted RSes. (On the other hand, if trusted RSes are keeping mum, while sources like Daily Mail and Fox are blabbing it all over, that may give us cause to think...) --Masem (t) 00:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

That's the thing, trusted reliable references are keeping mum since they are subject to the court order. They are reporting Colum Eastwood said it, but not including the name. FDW777 (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hansard is a "trusted reliable reference". It's entire existence, and statutory protection from censorship, is derived from the fact it is a true and accurate record of the proceedings of Parliament. Sceptre (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the reason why other sources are witholding from reporting the content of Colum Eastwood's disclosure can be speculated upon but are ultimately irrelevant; Hansard stands as the primary source and I doubt anyone is realistically considering challenging it's reliability. Hibarnacle (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

We would need much more reliable sourcing beyond Hansard to include the name in Wikipedia. Even if this weren't a BLP, in general we need coverage from secondary sources for extraordinary claims, and especially because this is a BLP, the relevant policy is WP:BLPPRIMARY, which states Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Additionally, my understanding of parliamentary privilege is that it gives government officials protection against liability from exposing the identity of Soldier F, but it is not clear to me whether this same legal immunity extends to private individuals who use Hansard to expose the identity of Soldier F. Importantly, the BBC source that FDW777 mentioned declined to identify Soldier F for legal reasons. We should follow their lead. Mz7 (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hansard isn't primary, so it should be included. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it not? It bills itself as the "official report of all Parliamentary debates." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, not of court proceedings which is what it would need to be considered primary. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Not "other public documents"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's not correct. The specific source we are attempting to use is the official transcript of a parliamentary debate. Surely that's a primary source per WP:PRIMARY. A secondary source would be a news article (or something of the sort) that reports on what is written in the debate transcript. Mz7 (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Primary would be court documents or public prosecution service documents. Obviously no news article would mention (Redacted) because that would breach the UK court order. I believe that wee should reinstate this edit [1] but with the deletion of "as (Redacted)" Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

From my memory of the now deleted edit, that would basically involve saying that Colum Eastwood revealed the name of Soldier F using parliamentary privilege but without actually including the name in our article? I would have no problem with that, since it's only the inclusion of that name itself that is problematic. FDW777 (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the inclusion of the content of Colum Eastwood's disclosure notwithstanding we can state that he made the disclosure and refer to the nature of it without issue. There may be some discussion about whether that itself is notable enough for inclusion.Hibarnacle (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

So, nobody has actually read WP:BLPNAME apart from me then? Where are the secondary references reporting on this story that actually include the name? FDW777 (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Sources in the UK can't report it but maybe it has been reported in other countries? Most US news outlets are either unavailable in Europe or hidden behind paywalls so I'm having difficulty checking: maybe someone based outside the UK can have a look for sources? Neiltonks (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

A quick samping of the main Irish media outlets confirm that while they are reporting on the Colum Eastwood story, they exclude the name despite not being subject to the UK court order (I read somewhere a while ago that other countries tend to respect anonymity granted by courts, as I did not understand how a UK court had the power to issue a worldwide ban regarding the new identities of James Bulger's murderers). See for example RTÉ, Irish Times and Irish Independent. I can't find any US or other countries media reporting the name. As WP:BLPNAME says, When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. As Soldier F already has an accepted and widely used pseudonym, I do not see how any context is lost. FDW777 (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPNAME we should not be including the name it has not been "widely disseminated". Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

But it has been widely disseminated; apart from the fact that Soldier F's identity has been an open secret in Derry for decades, the identity of Soldier F (according to Colum Eastwood) is now in the public record as part of the official proceedings of Parliament. Sceptre (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If it's as widely disseminated as you claim, you should be able to provide many references. Where are they? FDW777 (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

He does not need to provide "many references." Per WP:BLPNAME what is required is a primary source and that particular weight be given to the name's appearance in "scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts." This has clearly not happened with Soldier F, but it does highlight a particular issue with Soldier F and BLP. BLP asks us to consider "whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." Soldier F's name would add immense value here for at least two clear reasons; it would identify the perpetrators of one of the worst atrocities in British and Irish history in living memory, and secondly it opens the topic to discussion that the state attempted to defend this person from justice for 5 decades. This is an immense topic in it's own right and I would argue too complex to discuss here, but it's weight is inarguable, and these two reasons alone add massive weight to the arguement for including Soldier F's name now that Eastwood has provided a primary source disclosing it in Hansard.Hibarnacle (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

BLPNAME asks for secondary sources, not primary sources, so we need more than just Eastwood’s disclosure in Hansard. So far it seems that no other reputable secondary source has been willing to include the name. As a compromise solution, I don’t think I would be opposed to mentioning the fact that Eastwood revealed a name in the article (without actually including the name), but I remain opposed to including the name itself until multiple secondary sources can be provided. Mz7 (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sceptre: Then please provide some reliable secondary sources that demonstrate the name is "widely disseminated". Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

We have no obligation whatsoever to follow an injunction by the UK on this matter, unless there is a ruling by WP:Legal that we must do so. (I think it's they who have the obligation of saying what is legally permissible to write on WP--we can decide here on what is ethical, or what is appropriate, but not on what is illegal. ). But the problem with using Hansard as a RS is that although truth may be said there regardless of an injunction, so can untruths (subject of course to the jurisdiction Parliament has over its own members for what takes place there). I am not aware of any recent instance of this, but perhaps those in the UK may know of some examples. So I think there does have to be another RS, though of course it need not be a UK source. And if the name is restored, common prudence would suggest it not be done by someone under the jurisdiction of the UK. I'm deliberately talking here in general terms. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You're essentially asking the question about whether Colum Eastwood was truthful in identifying Soldier F. This is a bit of a difficult issue, as we can either take him at his word or say we simply don't know, but the fact of the matter is that Soldier F's identity has been an open secret for decades, and the reason that it has not been publicized for so long despite being known by so many for so long is ... murky.Hibarnacle (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Has it really been an open secret for decades? The soldiers were granted anonymity at the 1972 Widgery investigation. This was further extended at the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Soldier F's identity would have been revealed at a court hearing in September 2019, and certainly there would have been many interested observers from Derry and elsewhere present, but the media were banned from reporting the name. That's the first time the name would have become public knowledge, as far as I'm aware. The BBC stated in September 2019 that "Soldier F" had been in use since 1972, so this isn't just a recent attempt at privacy. FDW777 (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Picture of a cake as a source of year of birth

There has been constant pushing to include the date of birth of Dream (YouTuber), in part based on this tweet from August 2020 with a 21 on a cake, the only text accompanying the image being the word "yummy". A second tweet from the same day states that it was his birthday. In my opinion, the cake tweet is not a explicit enough source for YoB, I don't think we should use the second tweet to infer that the cake refers to the birthday, but others over at Talk:Dream_(YouTuber)#Birth_date_and_age_inclusion disagree. Thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This has come up here time and again, and Twitter has never been deemed a reliable source for birthdates. Especially one where it is not implicitly stated, but where we have to infer the date ourselves from vague statements or pics. We not only need secondary sources, but multiple secondary sources to be able to reasonably infer that the subject will not object to us publishing the date. In my opinion, we should never use Twitter as an RS in and of itself. Unless tweets are discussed and interpreted by RSs, then we shouldn't be trying to do so ourselves. Zaereth (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

In the specific case, no. Nothing says it's his birthday cake or that the pic was taken the day of the tweet. On using tweets for YOB:s/DOB:s in general, that can work per WP:ABOUTSELF and Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Tweets_announcing_"Happy_birthday_to_me!_I'm_21_today!". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If we use a search engine for "dream youtuber 21", there are several decent sources that mention Dream being 21. So we could at least use {{birth based on age as of date |yy|yyyy|mm|dd}}. Edwardx (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I get 3 google hits for that, none of which screams "BLP-good". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Once you get to the second page or so, there are quite a number. Edwardx (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The thing is we do know that it is his birthday due to [previous tweet he made the same day]. Posting a cake with a number on it after he established it was his birthday is pretty obvious what he means; claiming there's a meaningful chance he meant anything else is just unreasonable. BappleBusiness (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the cake produced by a bakery with a reputation for fact-checking and corrections? I mean, we can't accept it if it was produced by Fox Bakery, with their history of politis-icing their cakes, but Cake-SPAN or the Confectionary Broadcasting System, sure. (Pies can sometimes be used for date reference, but only if they're Marie Calendars) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's worse than that, afaict the cake is anonymous. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No, no cakes are reliable, as they are frequently lies. JoelleJay (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

So you're telling us the cake is a lie? --Masem (t) 17:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

While we would allow self-made Tweets that are very clear that they are speaking directly and factually about their DOB, this is not such an example since there's not sufficient context to know if it is a cake meant for them , or if the "21" has any implication on his age. There's the Occum's Razor factor, but we cannot use that for BLPs. --Masem (t) 15:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

To expand on Masem's point. Selfpub would cover unambiguous statements. We are talking someone using a verified twitter account posting "21 today!" or "Its my 21st birthday today". Not a cake picture. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Not unambiguous enough as a statement that they don't mind their full dob be published, so a no for me. —valereee (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that it should not be used as a source. To be valid it should be explicit. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say no, especially without more background as there is always a possibility that the number on the cake is inaccurate for comedic purposes or other reasons. An explicit statement on social media is flimsy enough, this takes the cake. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ouch. —valereee (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Matt Gaetz conspiracy theorist category tag

I wanted to get a few more eyes on this. The Matt Gaetz article has been the subject of a category tag debate (with a few back and forth edits). The core issue is if the article supports the use of an American Conspiracy theorist tag. Given WP:NONDEFINING I would think almost no politician should be tagged. Additionally, I'm concerned that one of the examples used to support this tag is his promotion of the lab leak theory. Per a recent CNN article the Biden admin considers lab leak and natural origin theories to be about equal in likelihood [[2]]. Given the undated information how should we handle cases where a BLP subject said, "lab leak is possible" in the past? At the time many were dismissed but it now appears they could have been making a reasonable claim. Extra eyes on Matt Gaetz would be helpful. Springee (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

article Denis Vidal

I made two sorts of corrections about an article of wikipedia which concens me personally

- I rectified false or imprecise informations ( wrong dates for my degree, wrong academic and institutional affiliations, etc.)

- I deleted excerpts of reviews about one of my books which are are critical of the book and may express the views of some reviewers but which are neither fair in my opinion nor représentative of the whole content of the book nor particularly representative of its academic reception. One could have chosen as well other excerpts of other reviews of the same book and given a very different view of it

I dont't think that it is the function of a wikipedia article to give either false academic informations or to express indirectly personal views of a written work by selecting some excerpts of reviews and not others about it

And I don't see any reason why the initial author of this article has been trying twice to delete my rectifications — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erreurscorrigées (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Your changes were undone because you gave no reason for them to have been done, nor any sources to verify any changed statements. Wikipedia relies on a principle of verifiability, particularly when it comes to articles about people who are still alive. As anyone can just come in here and edit, we want people to provide sourcing footnotes to provide where the information can be verified from a reliable source. Does that mean that some errors made in normally-reliable sources work their way in here? Absolutely... although when that arises, it can often be addressed by finding sources with the correct information. But we are dealing with situations all the time where people are adding unsourced and incorrect information, often deliberately.

Now you may think that you're a better source on yourself than whatever reference we are using, but realize that we don't know that any of the accounts you've used are actually you! Anyone can create an account and claim that they're any specific person. We do have processes for verifying identities when it's needed, but up until this posting, you don't even appear to have claimed to be the subject of the "Denis Vidal" article. So there was no reason at all to treat your edits as if you were who you now say you are.

One problem that we do face when people edit articles about themselves, or really any article where they have an interest in the success of the topic, is that they have an understandable instinct to delete anything that casts them in a bad light. We strongly discourage people from editing articles about themselves, but do encourage them to use the talk page of the article -- Talk:Denis Vidal -- to request and suggest changes and updates. Other folks who edit that page can then see it and either make or discuss the suggested change as they see fit. You can learn more about how to deal with a conflict of interest at our page on conflicts of interest. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Matthew Parish

This article is subject to persistent edit warring in which users are re-inserting historical and long-deleted defamatory materials about complex lawsuits that have been terminated or compromised. The defamatory material that keeps being re-inserted from edits to the article long ago updated typically appears every evening, as some malicious person apparently seeks to continue inserting it. The legal disputes are long since over and any fair comment upon them would require resolution of large quantities of legal documentation that it is not reasonable to expect a Wikipedia editor or administrator to undertake. In the meantime the defamatory material reappears every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandypandy (talk • contribs)

The lawsuits happened and appear to be well documented (I'm seeing NYTimes, Reuters, Bloomberg, AFP, AP, and other top level sources that mention these suits). It seems inappropriate to not mention them but since any fallout from them are long since over, it may not be necessary to go into as much detail on them. --Masem (t) 21:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Masem here. I am admittedly new to the topic, but it would seem to me that the "defamatory material" is in fact the most notable thing about Mr. Parish, from a Wikipedia point of view. Based on an initial scan, I believe that inclusion in some form has the better part of the argument, rather than hand-waving away prima facie legitimate news stories. Reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Pandypandy Would you like to explain your relationship with Mr. Parish? You come across as deeply invested, being the creator of the page and almost solely dedicated to it for over a decade. If you are or are a representative of Mr. Parish, you must disclose that per our WP:Conflict of Interest guidelines. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Matthew Parish and the recent anon edit-warring at the page under discussion. My suspicion is that this is the subject himself, unhappy with the content of "his" Wikipedia page. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Kate Dillon Levin

Kate Dillon Levin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a page about me that is about 60% accurate. I have repeatedly tried to edit for accuracy and is repeatedly, immediately reverted. Some of the erroes: I am not in video games, I was not featured in many of the campaigns listed, I am not a plus size model, I am not an actress. Wikipedia claims that untrue articles can be edited and this appears not to be true.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LucyJean74 (talk • contribs)

I have attempted to address several of your objections. Please review Wikipedia's guidelines on autobiographies and itemise things that you believe are untrue or unsupported by the given citations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

mizkaf

References to life story/details are entirely based on self-reporting via content creator's youtube channel. Highly specious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5e9a:10:e8f3:44d9:b568:67e8 (talk) 18:53, July 19, 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous user, 1) we don't have an article with the title "mizkaf" so it's impossible to understand what you're talking about. 2) I suspect you mean "highly suspicious" instead of "specious". 3) Please sign your posts, which can be done by typing four tildes at the end like this:~~~~. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Quimbe

Quimbe article; fully parody / defamatory. Broken English, humorous content, false references, crude language (in Portuguese). Racially charged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.155.36.215 (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I just reverted some vandalism from 2018 that introduced that problematic content. I am not confident that the stub article that remains is worth preserving and would appreciate another opinion. However, this is no longer a BLPN issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Chris Crewther

I don't have free time at the moment to look over this article in detail. The edit history suggests single purpose accounts actively editing, along with possible sock puppets and / or meat puppets edit warring. One side of the debate is adding what the other side calls defamatory content, which on my quick glance looks to be reliably sourced. I intend to look over the edit history in more detail hopefully later today but some extra eyes on the article meanwhile may help to bring some stability to this article for now. -- Longhair\^talk 03:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Dave Sharma

My name is Dave Sharma. I am an elected representative in Australia. A prior version of the page about me was "Good Article" ranked, thanks to the efforts of @Callanecc: and @MPJ-DK:. However, someone added a "Controversies" section and made other changes throughout the page that seem to be geared towards emphasizing negative things. I believe much of this content violates Wikipedia's BLP and other rules. For example:

Citation 32 describes itself as "Tips and rumors" and asks crowd-sourced readers to submit tips anonymously.
Citation 37 appears to be a guest post on a personal blog.
Citation 38 is an op-ed from someone that sued me.
Citation 41 is not a reliable source (this will become obvious if you read it).
Citations 40 and 42 just say that I have made numerous investments, not that I have been "criticized for a number of insider trading offences"
Saying "This move was considered tone deaf by some" does not seem like Wikipedia's preferred tone
Is this image of protestors swarming and mocking me really appropriate?

These are a few examples and there are similar issues throughout the page. Would someone here be willing to review the article to ensure Wikipedia's policies are being applied? It seems a lot of the content has been removed and re-added a couple times already.

PS - There are similar issues on the Tim Wilson (Australian politician) page (a fellow liberal party colleague) involving some of the same user accounts. For example, there is an LGBT section discussing asylum seekers using male sex workers to prove their sexuality citing some kind of advocacy website. Davesharma (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me take a look at these and offer my input. If edits need to be made to the article, I'll be happy to make them on your behalf.

Cite 32: Crikey seems to be a generally reliable source, but the article linked doesn't read like an RS. I think it might be worth discussing this at the talk page.
Cite 37: You're correct, and as a blog, it's not a generally reliable source. John Menadue seems to be a notable figure, and as such, his own views might be worth including with attribution, but this entry wasn't written by John. Melissa Parke, the author, is also a notable figure however. This may be acceptable, as long as it's properly attributed.
Cite 38: There's a paywall there, so I can't read it. Is Melissa Park the same person as Melissa Parke? If so, this may be used with attribution, just like the blog entry.
Cite 41: You're correct. That's a generally unreliable source.
Cites 40 & 42: Again, it appears you are correct.
"Tone deaf" language: That seems to be an appropriate summary of the source.
Image: That's up to editor judgement, really. At least one editor seems to believe it belongs.

I'm going to head over to the article and make some changes. I'll leave a note at talk. You should feel free to engage at the talk page of the article, but you would do well to leave the actual editing to others. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Split the controversies section's content into the other sections. Removed the op-ed. starship .paint (exalt) 10:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

denis vidal

Erreurscorrigées (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)the author of this article is giving repetedly false informations about my cdegrees; moreover , he is giving a partial review of one of my works through selected excerpts of reviews about it. Other excrpts would give a very different perspective I would be grateful if he stopped doing so.

just one exxample of a mistake that I corrected twice now without any sucess because it was chnaged repetedly,I completed my Phd in 1981, not 1988 and I can prove it without any difficulty

Is it the function of wikipedia to dissseminate false informtions and to express obviously partial points of view ?

Earl Belle

(refactored from Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons)

I can find no sources confirming the death of this individual, and it's possible he still may be alive. The article creator stated the subject died in 1995 but cited no source.4meter4 (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Lee (entrepreneur)

The article is about someone who claims to be the crown prince of Korea, following a nomination by Yi Seok, a pretender to the defunct Korean throne. No cited sources describe how exactly the subject is related to the House of Yi (more than just describing him as a "relative"), and the article did not claim any genealogical descent, only that the current pretender had designated him the crown prince.

An unsourced claim was added in Special:Diff/1033827729 that questioned the relationship between the subject and the former ruling house. After I removed this, George6VI, who had originally added the claim, disagreed that it was unsourced, and restored it. He wrote that "there is no source to prove that he genealogical is one" as justification for adding the claim questioning a genealogical link.

Lack of contradicting sources is not enough of a reason to support adding claims to a BLP. A claim has to be supported by sources that specifically support it. So I am removing the claim again per WP:BLPREMOVE.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

What if the statement is rewritten to something like "his genealogy is uncertain in public sources", in a more neutral way? The most simple thing is, we don't know which Joseon king is exactly Andrew Lee's ancestor yet. There is no known public source to support that he is related to the royalty, and if only using the existing sources, some the references are already biased (I mean, they call him "King Yi Seok" while Korea is a republic for decades.) If not adding something like that, it would be like a propagation. Previously discussed in the article's talk page, there is already a consensus that his "crown prince" shouldn't be addressed in the beginning, as we did agree that this claim happened, but it doesn't mean it's neutral and accurate. - George6VI (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

A reliable source would have to say that his genealogy is uncertain, for it to be mentioned. If sources are not specifically talking about his genealogy, then it is not even relevant. The House of Yi has been out of power for more than a century, and titles like "King" and "Crown Prince" are just labels used by media, so whether Andrew Lee is related to this family is of no actual relevance.

This is a single, short paragraph near the end of an article that otherwise does not mention anything about claimed royal titles. It is not propagation to report what multiple reliable sources (Korea IT Times, Los Angeles Times, South China Morning Post, The Daily Telegraph) are saying, when they are all saying the same thing. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says that articles should "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Neutrality does not mean that unpublished views can be represented, especially in a BLP. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Makarand Paranjape

Want someone to look at this. There seems to be persistent low-level vandalism on this page from IPs, newly registered users, users with <5 contributions.

My edits, which were intended to clean up the article, and to conform the article to BLP and NPOV, are being reverted. The issues are:

In the introduction, the edits/reverts persistently add the fact that "he has been involved in a dispute with the institute". This fact has been covered in later paragraphs, and is getting undue and unacceptable emphasis in the introductory paragraph.
In the section on 'Politics', the content from the references are being misrepresented, or being given undue importance. For instance,
- The article on the Nehru Gandhi family didn't mention anything about ousting Narendra Modi.
- The article on Priyanka Gandhi doesn't 'pre-empt' her victory.
- The 'right wing criticism' seems to constitute of a single article from another academic, and does not seem to be important enough to get a mention.
The section on 'Works' was expanded by me to include a summary of his work, but the persistent editors remove it, and replace it with a summary of one novel (Body Offering), to paint the person in a negative light.

Here's a diff, which illustrates the persistent changes. The changes are minor, but are inaccurate and persistent.

Please let me know if the edits conform to BLP and especially NPOV. Should I stop reverting the changes? Ranban282 (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits by 122.161.66.47 (talk · contribs). Each claim has to be directly supported by the cited source without having to use original research to come to the conclusion, which was not satisfied here. There was nothing in the source about ousting Prime Minister Narendra Modi, nor about pre-empting election victories. The dispute with the institute and the Body Offering novel were being given undue weight. It is fine to include details of the 'right wing criticism' if it is sufficiently noteworthy. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I have directed the user to this thread so that they can defend their revisions here. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Grant Guilford

Grant Guilford is the head of Victoria University of Wellington. In the last couple of months the article has been significantly changed by a small group of editors who show no apparent interest in unrelated articles. The changes focus appear to focus entirely on content related to the performance of Victoria University of Wellington during his tenure. I have a minor COI here, so I won't comment on the quality of the changes. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Jimsorzo/Hank Kunneman

User:Jimsorzo/Hank Kunneman

The church's website was recently spammed elsewhere leading me to find this stale userspace draft. Searches suggest the subject may pass NBIO, but the current sourcing is suboptimal. I thought I'd leave a note here in case anyone is interested to work on it and move it to draft or mainspace. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 20:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist)

More eyes on this would be welcome. FDW777 (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Assassination of Jovenel Moïse

Assassination of Jovenel Moïse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A bullet list of twenty arrested suspects continues to appear on Assassination_of_Jovenel_Moïse#Identities_of_suspects. Rather than perpetuating an edit war, I am soliciting feedback from other editors about whether this bullet list is appropriate at this time, as no convictions have been made, and this is still a rapidly evolving current event. Do the names add sufficient value to the article to justify including them?Hadron137 (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That looks almost exactly like the stuff that WP:BLPCRIME suggests to avoid. The names don't give us any useful information. One assumes that the suspects have names, and it's not like any of those names are linked to Wikipedia pages. Naming them is pointless and problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiple sources have discussed their names and why their identities and nationalities are important, being entrepreneurs and ex-soldiers ensnared in the assassination. If naming them is pointless then one can say naming any suspect at all is pointless. In fact naming any suspect in any article is pointless by that standard if names here are pointless. The Haiti police already believe they are guilty to some extent. If you think including names of suspects is wrong, then remove names of suspects from every article. WP:BLPCRIME allows exception. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The names do not tells us their nationalities, do not tell us their jobs. Those things can be discussed without invoking the names. And yes, to a large degree naming suspects who are not otherwise notable is pointless.... and we have WP:BLPCRIME to reflect that. Police believing someone is guilty is not a conviction or even a charge; it places them in the category of "suspect", which is very much in the realm of what WP:BLPCRIME is meant to cover. If the list of suspects included W. C. Fields, Manuel Noriega, and Dolores Umbridge, that would indeed be conveying information of interest, but a list of names that the reader is not going to recognize just tells us that these people have names, which is generally assumed. If the fact that there is a sourceable name for a suspect is enough to overcome the BLPCRIME guideline, then why would it exist? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

They do if you try to notice how their names are different than common American names and are clear French or Spanish, and names are used to identify who the suspects are in any investigation. Plus are we supposed to leave people unidentified? You say they are not notable but what's your criteria of that? Because these people have been discussed by dozens to hundreds of sources. Yes people can become notable just for one act per Wikipedia policies and that's why we include names of suspects. WP:BLPCRIME has exceptions for reasons and it involves coverage by other sources. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Except becoming a suspect is not an act one takes, it is something that is done to one. And if we don't have a source discussing the nationalities of the suspects, but are supposed to be making some point based on what kind of people the reader thinks they sound like, that's weak-ass encylopedaling. We are not a news organization, where bringing forth the name can be part of bringing forth people with more information. Our goals are different, and we can wait out the seas of suspicions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

By the logic you used we don't need to wait it out. Because as you said their names don't tell us anything about them. We should never include their names even if they are convicted. These people were witnessed and even recorded by multiple people. There's already enough evidence to convict them. Their identities have already been discussed many-many times. We aren't a news organisation but real encyclopaedias aren't run by personal emotions over anything. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue that NatGertler brings up is valid: none of these twenty names are notable in any way, and outside of the two dead ones, mostly interchangeable in describing the event, and so less a BLPCRIME issue and just "information overload", there is no need to name them at this point, which also defers wisely to BLPCRIME until they are actually arrested under charges, as a minimum standpoint. --Masem (t) 13:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I can argue with that logic there's no need to ever name any criminal even if convicted. Because it can't tell us their motive, jobs, or anything. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Here it is the fact there are twenty people involved, none of them notable. What's notable about them is the number, and their nationality, which can be included more simply. Now, maybe when all is said and done, and the remaining 18 are convicted, then a list of names would be most appropriate as well as meeting BLPCRIME to flesh it out as to complete the article without any BLP issues. But we have the questionable factor of if these yet meet inclusion for BLPCRIME yet, atop that its just noise for the most part, so the intro section to that paragraph captures the best way to currently sum them up until convictions are made. --Masem (t) 15:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

They are notable for the murder itself. Yes one act makes people notable enough and why we have articles for criminals too. Even ones that may not have been convicted. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

BLPCRIME specifically says that convicted suspects in a crime are not immediately notable and we dont create articles on them unless they have more notability beyond having just committed the crime. --Masem (t) 15:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no mention of anything you are saying in WP:BLPCRIME and yes we do create articles for people notable for just one crime. Mohammed Atta would never have an article if it wasn't for 9/11. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

For Atta, there has been an intensive study of why he committed 9/11 and the events leading up to it, the subject of multiple indepth sources. We have zero information on these people at this point and because they acted as a group, it is likely only one or two of them are the masterminds that may have planned it out. It is far far too early to be discussing individual notability here, and that's why BLPCRIME say even to wait to name them until a conviction comes around. --Masem (t) 15:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Those studies would have never been conducted if it wasn't for 9/11 and people don't really care for his psyche or background. Just that he did it. So yes Atta is only notable for 9/11 no matter how you want to put it. BLPCRIME doesn't prohibit naming suspects and there's already clinching evidence. Studies on criminals are always done because they committed that crime, they are not independent of it. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The BLPCRIME and BLP1E guidelines do not apply to Mohammed Atta as he is not an LP. Wikipedia has both ethical and legal reasons for being more circumspect regarding living persons. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Those guidelines apply even after death depending on cases. The period depends up to the editors. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

And anyway when we can have names of Guantanamo Bay detainees like Shaker Aamer who were suspected of terrorism but never once charged, I don't see a problem here. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Aamer has more about him than just being suspect of terrorism - it is the fact he had been incarcerated in G.Bay and fought that over the year drew additional notability to him, so BLPCRIME doesn't apply. Again, the key about BLPCRIME is that if all we know is that a non-notable person (beyond the crime) is only known for the crime itself and nothing else, we generally avoid naming them until a conviction is made, and whether they then are notable beyond that for a standalone article is based on whether there's more indepth coverage that extends beyond just the crime (eg like in Atta's case), which is also covered by WP:BLP1E. At the current time, these 20 people are not notable for any other activities beyond their suspected involvement in the assassination, so there is clearly no reason to name them under BLP policy, and even if they are all convicted, we have to wait to see if there is any further coverage of them beyond the scope of their involvement in the assassination to judge if they should have separate articles - as I said, as a group, I expect one or two would be the masterminds and may be given such but the rest were likely hired mercs and not notable otherwise. --Masem (t) 16:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

He's incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay solely due to being suspected of terrorism. And again he was never convicted yet we have an article of him. This could lead to victimisation of him being a possible terrorist despite him never being convicted. The killers of the Haiti president are also notable in the news for more than just the murder, they are notable for being ex-Colombian military turned mercs. It's not something I'm making up, it's been discussed a lot of times. So that argument doesn't do you any good. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Also the Unabomber is another person notable due to one crime. Talk about studies or whatever but those are not what led to Atta's article or Unabomber's article. It was their involvement. Then there are people like Robert John Bardo. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. For Aamer, the fact he was in G.Bay without charges, fought that, drew attention to his questionable incarceration, all gave him significant coverage beyond any criminal act itself, and thus made him notable well beyond the basic caution of BLPCRIME; we have a wealth of sources over time to know this now. Kaczynski's criminal acts were subject to a wide berth of psychology analysis to try to understand his criminal intent, so there's far more than just "he did a crime, that's it". In the case of Bardo, his crime influenced subsequent law and the popular culture; if these events didn't happen, we'd likely not have an article on him in the first place per BLPCRIME but there's far more than just the crime here. But key here is that we have the passage of time for sources that have told us in all these cases that these people are individually notable beyond the bounds of BLPCRIME.

Here, in this assassination, we have people that okay, they may have been former militia, but they have no notable facets of those careers before that point, nothing in-depth at all about any individual in that block of 20, at this time. If they didn't carry this out, they would have remained non-notable ex-militia members. And again, to stress, they are still only suspects, no convictions have been made. While they were all involved, it may be only one or two will be convicted of the actual assassination, the others maybe charged with some related conspiracy charges, I don't know, no one knows. BLP tells us to take caution before naming people until we know this for certain. The assassination is notable, and clearly once the suspects rounded up, the investigation completed, and legal resolution completed, we'll likely have a few named people, but we should not be doing it now when there are too many questions up in the air, per BLP requirements. --Masem (t) 16:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Every criminal fights charges and it gets reported. My example of Aamer wasn't about him being notable due to his crime. Yes he's actually notable being imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay rather than his terrorism, even though his imprisonment stems from it. Regardless it's just one or two things he's notable for. And two isn't a dramatic improvement either. However the reason for bringing him up was, the accusations against him were never dropped. And someone like the US military accusing you of terrorism is something that shall remain forever with you. The article will lead to victimisation because more people will know.

The suspects are soldiers, not militia. And them being ex-soldiers who were recruited as potential bodyguards, as well as their past activities have been discussed as well at least in some cases. And their names are a key aspect to differentiating them and knowing about their past. Or in the cases of the Americans them and their background has been discussed as well, has been a subject of discussion in many sources. Just because you say nothing else is notable about them doesn't make it so. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability beyond BLPCRIME requires significant coverage about these people as individuals (not as part of the group), which is the case for Aamer, Kaczynski, etc. All we know is tidbits of these people but nothing close to significant coverage to qualify for notability as to be beyond the BLPCRIME issues. That may come in time, but it is not there now which is the key point. --Masem (t) 17:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

And? That's why we didn't build whole articles for them yet and only included them in the article itself, because there isn't enough material. Because not a lot of details are available. But the ones that already are, are significant. If it wasn't for Guantanamo or their crime, no one would have even bothered to find out any life details of Aamer, Unabomber and Atta. No one would care for them it wasn't due to one significant thing that happened to them. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

No they are not significant compared to what the other cases are. They are unknown people that were in the military. This is not significant information by any means. And they have yet to be convicted, they are only suspected, so we are not to include these names under BLPCRIME until conviction happens. --Masem (t) 19:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

All criminals are relatively unknown before they do a crime. People who run their own businesses and are decorated veterans don't fall within that group.

WP:BLPCRIME does not prohibit naming people nor it is a rule about that. Please don't add something to a guideline what it doesn't even say. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

No, not all criminals are "relatively unknown" before they do a crime. In the past couple days, I've edited Michael Avenatti, (a lawyer who was famous for his representation of Stormy Daniels before he did the crimes he was just convicted of or is supposed to do have done ones he still faces charges of), and Thomas Radecki (well known as an anti-TV violence, anti-D&D crusader decades before he set up the program wherein he traded opioid prescriptions for sex, thus landing him in prison.) O.J. Simpson's record-holding football career, advertisements,and film career had made him one of the best known folks in the country well before the actions he was convicted of, or even the earlier actions that he was tried and cleared on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

One of the major themes I have seen in this issue is that editors keep inserting their own statements into a guideline even though it doesn't say anything such. Most notably is WP:BLPCRIME, which is simply about presuming innocence, not about whether you can name suspects. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I was myself getting confused on this but it's because I keep forgetting things. The rule that concerns naming criminals is WP:BLPNAME. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BLPCRIME, also known as WP:SUSPECT, very much applies to the naming of suspects, as "[...] editors must seriously consider not including material [...] that suggests the person has committed [...] a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Stating that someone is a suspect is indeed suggesting they committed the crime. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

NatGertler Assuming someone's innocence does not apply to their name. If naming someone simply makes someone think that thwy are guilty then it is their fault and not anyone else's. Naming suspects is a usual police procedure and not intended to cast doubts. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If we really assume these men are innocent (as we must, regardless of what the police think, what their lives are like, or even what the evidence is) then there is nothing interesting to say about them. We wouldn't include a list of twenty of Moïse's neighbors, or the last twenty people that he met with on the day of his assassination. Doing so would be useless and boring. When truly assuming innocence, we must treat the arrested suspects similarly.Hadron137 (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence doesn't mean absence of suspicion. Besides just because we included a person's background doesn't mean you are treating them as guilty. It's just simply a desire to know more about a person and sometimes also used to know what might have lead them to do a crime. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I really should stop monitoring BLPN I'm wiki break but I didn't so just couldn't resist the urge to point out that "The period depends up to the editors." is partially incorrect. The maximum time suggested by WP:BDP is 2 years. Perhaps an argument could me made to extend it one or two years beyond 2 years in some extreme case although I've never seen that. But nearly 20 years total? No way. Also User:LéKashmiriSocialiste sorry but part of your argument is flawed since it seems to lack any support from our current article. I'm not American but I do have a lot of exposure to American culture. Many of the names I saw sound like they could easily be from many of the large number of Latino/Hispanic Americans. I have no idea how on earth I'm supposed to know the names are not common American names unless I embrace bigotry and assume you must be a WASP to be a "real American". If their names not being common American names is a significant issue as supported by level of discussion in reliable secondary sources then we should add this to the article first along with these sources, so that readers know and don't have to be experts on American names since as I said for someone even on the slight outside, these sound like they are common American names. Perhaps then we can consider whether it's also necessary to add these names to help the reader further understand, especially if there is discussion/analysis of what makes these names uncommon. The fact some random Wikipedian thinks this is the case is irrelevant to us if that's all we have, so it's not an argument for adding them. Nil Einne (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm even more confused now. I had heard that many of them were Colombians. I assumed from the above discussion it a number of them were also Americans. I now see only two seem to have been? Why do we need to add so many names to establish these two don't have common American names. And I definitely don't understand the relevance of Colombians not having common American names. Maybe there's something I'm missing but that's why our article needs to be improved first with sources explaining all this. I assume American means someone from the US since as much as I sometimes find the weird that American means this, if someone wants to use a different definition I think this should be made clear first. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If it helps clear up the weirdness, Nil, it's easy to call people from Canada "Canadians" or people from Mexico "Mexicans", but what do you call people from the United States of America? "United Statesians" just sounds weird, and United States of Americans sounds like property, so we just shorten it to Americans. But yes, that refers to people from the USA, whereas North Americans and South Americans refers to people from the continents, respectively. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:BDP says in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death. Although I admit that I hadn't correctly read the two year part. I'm sorry for that. But my reason for bringing up Atta was that we do create articles for people notable only for one thing. In Atta's case it is 9/11. Even living criminals notable for a crime as I pointed out have articles like Robert John Bardo. There are many others, I could give a long list. Without their crime no one would care about them. And anyway I'm not some random Wikipedian, nor any user here is. Please don't try to reduce people to irrelevance here. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the identities of the suspect due to there being a clear consensus. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The list should be reinstated. The efforts to delete the list have referred to inapplicable rules. WP commonly mentions names of arrested people as having been arrested, in major terrorist attacks and in assassinations. The important thing is to reflect the RS statements that they have been arrested. And - if they have not been charged - to not indicate that they have been charged. And that indeed is what the language in the indicated policies refers to. But these people were being listed for being arrested in connection with this investigation, which is by itself perfectly fine. The made-up notion that they need to have an independent article on each named person is .. made up. That is not wp policy at all. How can we have intelligent discussions here if people base their views on made-up rules, rather than existing wp policy? I think what we have now, the stripping out of the article of mention of all the arrested, including the Colombians, the Haitian doctor, and the two Haitian-Americans, is absurd - their names have been in dozens of articles .. what do people seriously think they are doing that is sensible here? Have they lost sight of the goal here - which is not one that is present when you have dozens (hundreds?) of articles on these people? And don't editors here realize that information is added when names like this appear - information on people arrested in relation to such events are typically built up on pages such as that one, over time. Deleting the names of the American, the American-Haitians, and the Colombians is not in keeping with wp rules, with wp practice, or with common sense. How are you going to tease out the info that person x (as has been reported) was the second-most senior member in the Colombian group, and appeared to be a primary contact .. which just came out today? Or tie their names perhaps into the visits of the Haitian security head to Colombia of late .. no doubt info will come out as to who he met with in Colombia, and what forces they commanded, if they did command forces. BTW - does anyone think that the 9/11 attackers names cannot be mentioned, because they were never tried? --2603:7000:2143:8500:643C:473C:C984:2D47 (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

As you will see mentioned in the above discussion, WP:BLP issues do not apply to the actual 9/11 attackers, as they are not living persons any more. If there are individual arrestees of note, that may overcome the concerns listed above for them, but a mere name dump tells us nothing of value. The idea that the fact that the names have been published overcomes WP:BLPCRIME concerns doesn't work; if it was only meant for names that had not been published, we wouldn't need BLPCRIME, as that's simple failure of verifiability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the names should be reinstated. It seems like there has been a lot more reporting since this thread started. Per WP:BLP, the names of suspects have now been "widely disseminated", which means we can probably start relaying them. NickCT (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

As I'm still on Wikibreak, I have not and will not be evaluating the sources so have no comment on whether the names need to be excluded. I also have not and will not be evaluating the discussion. However if there was an earlier consensus against including the names, these 2 comments cannot be reasonably be taken as an indication consensus has changed. Nor do I see anything approaching that on the article talk page. So if consensus has changed, there's no clear sign of it yet. I'd note that 2603's comment has a number of obvious flaws. Maybe someone said there needs to be articles on each person before we name them, but definitely many people opposed to inclusion never said that. NatGertler has already explained the flaw with the 9/11 point, which as they also pointed out, was discussed before 2603 commented. Finally there is zero reason why we should treat this as a binary. It may very well be the case there is merit to discuss certain specific individuals and their alleged actions or roles and background and to do so effectively it will be necessary to name them. (To be clear, it's sometimes possible to discuss background or other such details without naming the person.) That doesn't mean it is necessary to name them all. It's perfectly reasonable we may name certain individuals but not others. Again, I'm not saying this is what we should do in this case, simply that it's something we can do. So the argument that we need to name them all because otherwise we cannot discuss the roles of certain individuals is clearly flawed and not supported by any policy or guideline. Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I looked into this a bit more and it seems to me one of the big issues is that editors seem to be conflating different things. This discussion started of about a list of all suspects names with no context. There were several editors opposed to such a list. It seems now some editors want to name certain suspects and discuss their roles in more details. As I said above, there may be merit for this, there may be merit to name them so we can do this. Discussion can resolve this. It's a related but separate issue from just including a list of names. If editors only want to discuss and name certain suspects, they should be clear if this what's their advocating rather than the earlier issue of a list of all suspect's names. I'm not actually sure if anyone above said under no condition whatsoever can we name any of the living suspects until a conviction is secured, but I'm not going to check. I suspect the dispute is more likely to be over under what conditions we should name them and how many and who. Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Not appropriate per WEIGHT. I think coverage focus is on the number, nationality, and backgrounds. It would be slightly preferred to cite to source that goes into details like a list of names, but the Wikipedia article should not list names. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Zina Bash

She was falsely accused of flashing a white power sign during Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing and now a number of new accounts have simultaneously taken an interest in this page. Marquardtika (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup. It is quite clear from the multiple reliable sources being cited that there is no evidence Bash was making any sort of 'white power sign', and frankly there seems little justification in including any content at all on what seems to be a rather silly conspiracy theory. Wikipedia can do better than this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Nope. We are not at liberty to interpret accusations as being either true or false. Accusations can be made and denied. Proof, here, does not exist. Attic Salt (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You seem not to understand WP:BLP policy. There is nothing in the policy which requires accusations based on obnoxious conspiracy theories about a person of Jewish-Mexican heritage making 'white power' signs to be included in an article at all. This is supposed to me an encyclopaedia, and while it may not always live up to that standard, it certainly doesn't have to sink to the level of 4Chan-inspired clickbait drivel. " Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am certain that, contrary to what Marquardtika keeps asserting, for example above [3] and here [4], and here [5] and here [6], is that the accusation is not shown to be "false" or "debunked". It can be denied, yes, but not falsified or debunked. Attic Salt (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

What part of "There is nothing in the policy which requires accusations based on obnoxious conspiracy theories about a person of Jewish-Mexican heritage making 'white power' signs to be included in an article at all" do you have difficulty understanding? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me suggest that this discussion should not be personalised. Perhaps the only thing that is noteworthy enough to justify a Wikiarticle on Zina Bash is this accusation. If there is to be an article on her, then the accusation needs to be discussed. Though not in unrealistic terms, like whether or not it is debunked. You can see, here, that I am open to the entire article being removed. Attic Salt (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

If the only reason a biography exists is to promote obnoxious and sensationalist tabloid conspiracy theories, then yes, the article should be deleted. But meanwhile, including said obnoxious and sensationalist tabloid conspiracy theories in a biography of a living person is a violation of policy. Wikipedia is under no more obligation to discuss such matters in a biography than it is to discuss assertions that subjects of such biographies are shape-shifting lizards from Zeta Reticuli. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I acknowledge that you consider the accusation, reported in the news, to be obnoxious. Attic Salt (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup. All sorts of obnoxious things get written about. Wikipedia is under no obligation to repeat them, and has specific policies in place that make this clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This ANI concerning a possible BLP violation at Zina Bash may be of interest, although I think it should have been brought here first. There is a dispute over whether Attic Salt (talk · contribs) and TrueQuantum (talk · contribs) violated BLP based on their edits regarding a controversy involving allegations of sexual abuse and a white power gesture, and similar concerns about their conduct regarding Eugene Gu. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please tell me how I have anything to do with BLP violations regarding Eugene Gu. If you look at my edit history, I routinely go through RFCs of many types, including BLPs. I saw Marquardtika place an accusation of sexual assault against Eugene Gu on Zina Bash's BLP as a way to discredit Gu and his accusation that Bash made a white power hand gesture as covered by a Vox News article. Upon further investigation, I found that Marquardtika repeatedly and contentiously edited Gu's BLP despite the fact that a unanimous RFC stated that it was inappropriate. When I brought this up to Marquardtika's attention, Marquardtika replied, "Maybe Eugene should have looked up the BLP policies before he used his public platform to falsely accuse a Mexican Jew of flashing a white power symbol. As for the accusations of sexual assault, it's right there in the reliable source: "Eugene Gu, a prominent anti-Trump doctor who recently made news when he was accused of sexual assault..." Marquardtika (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)." This can be found on Marquardtika's talk page. In spite of all this evidence, I now stand accused of BLP violations against Gu? Please help me understand how this makes sense. TrueQuantum (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It was discussed here, see the thread above, started by User: Marquardtika on the 19th. Sadly, some people seem to think that unless discussions here go the way they like, they can be ignored. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The ...in which Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault part is pure WP:SYNTH (and rather WP:POINTY). The stuff about the white power gesture is such a mess, and, at least, a WP:BLPGOSSIP vio. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I should probably make it clear here that as far as my assessment goes, after looking into the history of the Zina Bash article in more detail, it seem that the problems go back much further, possibly right back to its first creation. A proper assessment of the concerns raised by the article needs to involve more than the latest episode, and with more than what the latest participants have been doing. For example, as I noted on the ANI thread, one of those brought up at ANI regarding the insertion of questionable content into the Bash biography, TrueQuantum, had earlier made an edit removing material which appeared to be an obvious WP:BLP violation - an absolutely correct thing to do. From what I can tell, the entire history of the article seems to have revolved around endless faction-fighting over content regarding hand-signal (non)events, with little concern for anything but who 'wins' the latest attempt to spin the article their way. None of this reflects well on the participants, or on Wikipedia in general. If this is the sort of behaviour that can be expected with biographies of living people, maybe it is time to ask whether Wikipedia should be tightening up notability standards so such biographies can be better monitored by uninvolved contributors. Either that, or stop claiming to be an 'encyclopedia', and rebrand yourselves as the worlds largest massively-multiplayer online political combat game... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Logan McCree

Hi, please could someone cast an eye over Logan McCree. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

For anyone else editing while at work: the article's subject is an adult-film actor. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed some material that seemed undue and/or poorly sourced - it was rather quickly put back. I agree this could use more eyes. Spicy (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Common Name: Jose Gonzalez

A few years ago an WP:SPA created Jose "Joe" Luis Gonzalez about a muralist and restorationist from Southern California who received an art commission from TELACU in the early 1980s. A muralist and restorationist named Jose "Joe" L. Gonzalez who received an art commission from TELACU in the early 1980s was involved in a well-known federal fraud scheme that received significant media attention and for which he copped a plea deal to keep him out of prison. I added the below, sourced to two different issues of the Los Angeles Times, an issue of the Washington Post, and two books from academic publishers.

Gonzalez was sentenced to five years probation in 1983 after admitting to a felony charge of enrolling in a federal jobs program for the needy and subsequently being paid thousands of dollars for work he didn't do. The program was administered by The East Los Angeles Community Union (TELACU), a social service non-profit. Gonzalez was also paid at least $458,000 by TELACU for contracts awarded to his art companies at the same time he was serving as vice chair of its board of directors, which was cited as a possible conflict of interest by the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

Shortly after doing that, the SPA rematerialized and removed the content, declaring it was "erroneous and disproved".[7] While Jose Gonzalez is a common name, I personally know that Jose Gonzalez and Jose Gonzalez are the same person. However, for those unfamiliar with this case, as described by the sources: (a) Jose 1 and Jose 2 both have the middle initial "L.", (b) Jose 1 and Jose 2 were both awarded art contracts by TELACU in the early 1980s, (c) Jose 1 and Jose 2 are both restorationists and muralists, (d) Jose 1 and Jose 2 both go by the name "Joe".
Question: For purposes of WP:BLP, are the preceding points a sufficient nexus for WP to present Jose 1 and Jose 2 as the same person? Or, is the matter ambiguous enough that the content should be removed out of a preponderance of caution? Chetsford (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

References

^ "TELACU: Agency Told to Repay $1 Million". Los Angeles Times. April 17, 1983. Retrieved March 18, 2021 – via newspapers.com.(subscription required)
^ Chávez, John R. (1998). Eastside Landmark A History of the East Los Angeles Community Union, 1968-1993. Stanford University Press. p. 207. ISBN 9780804733335.
^ Bauman, Robert (2014). Race and the War on Poverty: From Watts to East L.A. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 104. ISBN 0806185201.
^ "TELACU: New Book on Agency". Los Angeles Times. April 27, 1999. Retrieved March 18, 2021 – via newspapers.com.(subscription required)
^ Kurtz, Howie (August 12, 1982). "Audit Says Anti-Poverty Agency And Subsidiaries Misused Funds". Washington Post. Retrieved March 18, 2021.

Probably worth xposting to WP:COIN, as Ehonza5 likely has a COI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

That's possible but I suspect it's also possible they're just a fan of Gonzalez or possibly an owner of some of his work. I'm really more interested in getting a sense of whether or not this is an accurate read or if I'm letting personal knowledge bias me in this case. Chetsford (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

They have a photo of him from 2015 as their own work. It's from city hall so may be something a fan would have, but definitely not just a run of the mill one. Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Since no one else has responded yet, I'll offer this. The way I see it, if a source mentions some criminal conviction of someone with the same name as some notable subject but makes no connection to the subject of the article (i.e. whatever makes them notable), other than the name and maybe an age, using that source is a problem. Besides mistaken identity, there's big question mark over WP:DUE weight.

However in this case, it sounds like the sources for the criminal conviction make an explicit connection to the area of notability i.e. as an artist and indeed the same award. In that case, while we cannot rule out there being two people, if it's feared that is the case then IMO we need to delete the article. Putting the criminal convictions aside, how do we know which of the stuff is by artist 1 and which is by artist 2? If no sources have mentioned there are 2 artists with the same name working in the same area, then I guess neither person is really notable since no source thought to mention this fact, and we could very well be conflating two different artists each who've made different artistic contributions.

That said is anyone actually saying there are two different people? I know User:Vexations did suggest this earlier but they don't seem to have gotten involved since the sourcing was improved. From what I see User:Ehonza5 has just said that the information is "erroneous and libelous", "disproved", "totally untrue" etc.

From my experience SPAs, and especially those with a COI, more commonly claim that criminal convictions were overturned (although they cannot present any real evidence of this, not even unacceptable ones like primary sources/court documents or the sources they present don't support their claims) or that the criminal convictions weren't overturned but still they're very wrong etc, perhaps with links to blogs or something where the subject or their representative explains why the criminal conviction was totally unfair etc. The comments by Ehonza5, especially the "disproved" one reminds me of this sort of complaint rather than someone saying it's another subject.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Peter Hotez / contentious claim

Multiple violations of the biographies of living persons policy. This page should receive some kind of lock or slowdown to prevent further abuse.

Dr. Peter Hotez is a virologist, an expert on coronaviruses and tropical medicine. Someone has appended a long, contentious claim made by a writer against Hotez, including quotes from supposed lawyer's letter addressed to Dr. Hotez. Diff is here.

WP: IMPARTIAL -Section makes contentious claims about Hotez and rewords a legal response as a demanded action. Not remotely impartial, uses italics to accuse Hotez of deliberately engaging in contentious actions (which cannot be found other than on the journalist's personal blog). Basically, it reads like it was written by the journalist's lawyer or the journalist herself. -Quoted website has no direct links to claimed defamation on social media, but linked articles have comments critical of Hotez and other health professionals, and there are numerous blog posts on this personal site critical of Hotez and other health professionals (e.g. readers asking the writer to intervene in local disputes over coronavirus vaccines, mask policy, etc., "unscientific polls" of 2000 readers suggesting that "Dr. Anthony Fauci should be removed from positions of authority", comments by readers such as "Unleash the attorneys of defamation!").

WP:QS - Obvious conflict of interest.

WP:SPS,WP:ABOUTSELF - Website that is source of claim is self-published site about journalist who has made the legal claim. Material is self-serving, an exceptional claim (Godwin's Law applies in reverted text), involves claims about third party.

Dr. Hotez is almost as well known as Dr. Fauci and of great public interest currently. Can someone set the Hotez page up for WP:PCPP? Visitgoths (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This content should certainly be kept out of this BLP. It is about a trivial legal dispute and is sourced entirely to one of the disputants. However, it has apparently been added only once and was promptly reverted, so the article does not need protection at this time. I will watchlist the page. Thanks for calling it to my attention. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Rick Dennison

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

Sources conflict regarding whether this person was recently fired. Per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTNEWS, we should wait to see what happens. I have added a hidden note to the page to hopefully deter editors from re-adding statements indicating that he was fired, but I won't be able to keep eyes on the article for a bit so I'd appreciate anyone else who wants to help patrol the article. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the article has been semi-protected for a week. Hopefully by that time the issue will have been resolved. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Chris Pratt ‎

An editor has repeatedly tried to insert serious NPOV vios into Chris Pratt. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Problematic editing continues. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at the article just now to see if it needs protection. The article is under indefinite PC protection, but that has not helped since the problem editor is EC confirmed. That editor has repeatedly inserted a long edit with serious BLP implications, and has been given a 24-hour topic ban. So it appears the situation is on people's radar. There is discussion at the talk page but it does not appear very constructive. Right now there is a sourced, balanced paragraph about the controversy, which does seem to have received widespread enough news coverage to be included in the article. So things seem to be stable for now. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Kevin Paffrath

Kevin Paffrath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe the inclusion of the paragraph in the lead about Paffrath's past legal troubles is WP:UNDUE, as these are mentioned in only a few of the sources. I've attempted to begin a discussion about it at Talk:Kevin Paffrath#MrsSnoozyTurtle edits, but have not been able to engage the editors involved in adding it. The page has been the target of edit warring recently, so trying to bring in some outside eyes. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I commented there. IMO it does not belong in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Aaron Coleman - Page violates Wikipedia style guidelines on balance, accusations of crimes for public figures and tone

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

Orange1861 is last person to reply to talk page on January 1st 2021. He writes:

"While the subject of this page, Aaron Coleman, is quite a controversial figure who has done questionable actions, this page has been written in a way that is clearly hostile to him. I do think the sources are legitimate, but mostly negative information taken out of the sources without the other parts. I believe that the rules of Wikipedia biographies are being violated in multiple parts:

Balance:

"BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. BLPs should not have trivia sections."

The page mostly talks about recent scandals of Coleman, while neglecting anything positive about him. It does not discuss the nature of his campaign beyond one sentence and even talks more about a sex exhortation bill than it. This clearly violates the balance part of the guidelines.

Accusation of Crime

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced." Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported."

Not only does the article take a negative tone regarding Coleman, but frequently neglects Coleman's denials, his reasoning for them and the lack of convictions in many cases. For example, "On December 8, 2020, Kathleen Lynch, a Wyandotte County, Kansas judge, issued an anti-stalking order against Coleman after Brandie Armstrong, the campaign manager for Frownfelter, accused Coleman of sending her harassing messages, showing up at her home uninvited twice, and attempted to get her evicted." there is no statement from Coleman, no information that states that it was temporary and clearly slanted against Coleman.

Tone

"BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. BLPs should not have trivia sections."

The article is clearly written in a passionate tone against Coleman, while using loaded language and giving undue weight to recent events. For example, "supporting abortion up to the moment of birth" is clearly loaded and could easily be made in a neutral tone of "supporting abortion".

Overall, the article is improperly written in an inappropriate way toward Coleman. Almost none of the sources cited have a negative tone as dark as this article and this place seems to be more of a dark list of allegations than a biography about a person." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8090:1340:239a:dad1:3b7a:d010:fcc8 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I hope that we will be able to reach a consensus here. OsagePizza72 (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Passion Richardson

Passion Richardson also grew up and ran in Fairbanks, Alaska, setting records there. See Anchorage Daily News: https://www.adn.com/sports/article/ex-lathrop-track-star-wins-olympic-appeal/2010/07/17/

"Richardson dominated Alaska sprinting for a couple of years in the late 1980s. In 1988, as a 12-year-old, she won the 200-meter national championship at the ARCO Jesse Owens Games in Los Angeles. In 1990, as a 4-foot-11, 96-pound freshman at Lathrop, she set Region III records in the 100 (12.3 seconds) and 200 (25.4). A week later at the state meet, she blew away the competition in the 100 (12.5) and 200 (25.5) and anchored a state-record performance by Lathrop's 800 relay team.

"Her family left Fairbanks shortly after Richardson's freshman year when her father, who had been stationed at Fort Wainwright, was transferred to another post." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.74.93 (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a WP:BLP-related issue? If you are advocating for including a summary of that source in the article, you might either boldly add it yourself or bring it up at the article's talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a BLP violation?

It looks like it to me, but I wanted to get the opinions of more experienced editors. Is this section a BLP violation? The subject hasn't been charged with a crime as far as I can tell (not even arrested), and the sources used look more like opinionated articles filled with rumours and speculation, and no actual evidence to substantiate the author's potentially slanderous claims. I've gone ahead and removed the section pending any advice given here. Thanks. – ².O.^Boxing 14:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those are all sketchy opinion or gossip articles. Absolutely not sufficient for negative or controversial claims about a living person. Woodroar (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

There might eventually be something that goes there with better sourcing, that a figure has a criminal past can be included without a conviction but I’m not really seeing justification for "A family that had always been good to him, and who had essentially made his life what it was, rich and carefree.” etc... Thats just gratuitously awful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Woodroar and Horse Eye's Back: thanks for the input. Is the content enough over the line to request a revdel? – ².O.^Boxing 16:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's "grossly insulting" so probably not. I mean, it's negative, but at least sourced to something, even though that something is low-tier sources. Then again, I'm not an admin so it's not my call. Woodroar (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

dean radin

Dean Radin's page (here [[8]]) is fraught with libel and slander. This page could/ might even be injurious to his career and should have been edited months/ years ago.

In the first paragraph of Radin's bio, it says "Radin then became Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), in Petaluma, California, USA, which is on Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch list of questionable organizations." So... what if it is? Radin's name is not on Barrett's page and Radin should not be held accountable because he's affiliated with a "questionable organization (according to Barrett). Radin's bio page continues with the slander, "The review of Radin's first book, The Conscious Universe, that appeared in Nature charged that Radin ignored the known hoaxes in the field, made statistical errors and ignored plausible non-paranormal explanations for parapsychological data." Here's "the review", from 25 years ago https://www.nature.com/articles/39784 -- this is one person's analysis of Radin's work; the article is posted on a .org website (not a peer-reviewed or a .edu page). I don't understand what happened with Radin's bio; quite literally, it goes from bad to worse.

The section on Parapsychology, the essence of Radin's career, reads more like a biography written by an angry ex-spouse, then it does to talk about Radin's research studies (like Wikipedia is supposed to do). Some controversy could be cited to refute his research, but as it is now, 90% of it is controversy without even mentioning what Radin and his colleagues have studied.

Again, the section on Books opens with "While Radin's books have been reviewed favorably by groups that give general reviews such as Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews,[23][24] independent reviews by scientists and skeptics, as cited below, have often been negative."--- I can show you 20 reviews by scientific researchers that mention the benefits/ insights achieved through Radin's work, but Wiki folks copy and paste two negative reviews and lead readers to believe that all or most reviews are negative. The Books section closes with second-hand analysis from one, Debakcsy. Again, this reads like slander/ libel. I thought Wikipedia was known for its objectivity.

This article must be changed ASAP; if nobody has relevant information to add/ delete, then I will do so. Thanks for your time; I hope that we will be able to reach a consensus here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenmitchell213 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 2021 July 26 (UTC)

@Stevenmitchell213: I'm struggling to understand your complaint. You linked to a Nature book review which is on nature.com. What .org website are you referring to? Also it's a book review published in Nature one of the most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals in the world. Yes the book review itself is not peer reviewed, but that's because book reviews are not normally peer reviewed in most journal AFAIK. Yes it's one person's views, but one person's views who Nature chose to publish. I think you're really going to struggle to convince people that a book review published in Nature is insignificant. Maybe the rest of your complaint deals with more serious issues, but when part of it is so bad it's hard to see the wheat from the chaff, sorry. Nil Einne (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Quackwatch.org. The first sentence he quotes looks like prohibited synthesis. Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Radin's article is surprisingly lenient compared to that of other pseudoscientists, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the Quackwatch material due simply to WP:BLPSPS, as it is the list of the individual behind Quackwatch. (See the Quackwatch entry at WP:RSNP.) However, this is something that has been repeatedly reinserted, so eyes should be kept on it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

NatGertler - should the section at the bottom of Radin's page be removed also? Radin wrote that the subject's response "successfully" described the actual randomly selected location of the distant agent: the Radio telescope at Kitt Peak. Debakcsy noted that there are several radio telescopes at Kitt Peak, such as the Very Long Baseline Array, but that telescope does not match the description given. DeBakcsy contends that, while the ARO 12m Radio Telescope has some similar characteristics, it also differs in several aspects from the subject's description. DeBakcsy further commented that, considering this is the best example out of 653 possible other tests made at Princeton, it is quite poor. Noting the spread of meta-analyses of the same studies (where the individual studies are weighted differently), have wildly varying odds returned (from trillions to one, to indistinguishable from chance), DeBakcsy argues that this undermines the reliance on meta-analysis in the work since they lack standardization.[28] -- according to the engaging in gossip portion of the Wikipedia criteria that you cited above? I'm sorry that I didn't respond appropriately, as I am fairly new at navigating Wikipedia. —Stevenmitchell213 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The item I cited did not regard "engaging in gossip" but rather the use of sources where the author is also the publisher, and thus there are no levels of approval involved. That does not appear to be the case for DeBakcsy's writing, as he was not the publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I "repeatedly reinserted" it only because it was deleted with bad reasoning. There are two good reasons to remove it: you named one. Another, much more relevant one is that is does not even mention Radin and therefore has nothing to do with the article. But the IPs who deleted it justified the deletion not with any of the relevant reasonings but with the standard "IT IS BIAS!!1!" type edit summaries you usually revert without checking. You could have read all that on the Talk page. I did not notice that another IP put the Quackwatch source back in, otherwise I would have reverted that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I did indeed read all that on the talk page. I found your reaction imprecise. You relied on your claim that "Quackwatch is not questionable", when in Wikipedia terms, it is very much questionable, being a self-published source. But regardless of what had been written on the talk page, the material had been reinserted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Brian Josephson strongly criticized that Nature review, and we leave that out, it's WP:BLPSPS. But by the same criterion I think that another review of the book, the one by Robert Todd Carroll, shouldn't rate a paragraph in the Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The main reason why we would not use Josephson is because it is criticism of criticism. Should we include criticism of criticism of criticism too? Where does it end? The standard limit is one level of criticism, excluding Josephson. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Max Prince

Can someone please restore the article Max Price back to the version from 10 December 2020. There might be some valid edits in-between, but referring to the subject as "poes" (an Afrikaans slang word for vagina) and other things don't justify looking for good edits of that editor in-between. Thanks. 165.0.1.201 (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I just removed the vandalism and added this to my watchlist. See anything else in the article that needs to be addressed? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and action. Looks fine. Didn't know how to fix these subsequent edits myself. 165.0.1.201 (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

suho

please correct the information box of his wikipedia profie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinny24 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done @Jinny24: Please provide a reliable source which contradicts information given in the infobox at Suho. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Problem

I have been expanding the article Rayssa Leal with references on the aftermath of her silver medal (reactions like the possibility of a "trade mark"), but an anonymous user have been reverting my editions and he even went to my User talk (in Portuguese) to dispute it, accuses me of writing "legal threats" in the question of trademark (what is untrue) and even "warned me" that it could ban me from the Wikipedia. I needed to bring it here because I didn't made anything illegal and didn't wrote anything that haven't been backed up by sources. Erick Soares3 (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Explaining to the admins: This user is using Wikipedia to post irrelevant data in the best Twitter or Facebook style (like "Rayssa Leal took a picture with person X") and a mix of irrelevant text and legal threats ("her sponsors registered the mark "fadinha" etc etc.) I removed the text because I understand that it does not fit at all with what a biography should contain. I have already explained to him that articles such as sportsmen should contain data on the athletes' sporting careers and no, trivia or gossip sections. 177.142.131.180 (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Explaining again: I only inserted referenced information turned notable by notable media outlets (like the person with who she took a picture is notable enough to have an Wiki article and no: I didn't made any "legal threats": the question of her trademark was raised, was discussed in notable sources (1, 2) and so, was notable enough for Wikipedia as the direct aftermath of the event. And if in sportspeople biography should only exist their sports career, whats the use of "Personal life" section? Erick Soares3 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

"Personal Life" is also not to write about an important person taking pictures with people X or Y, or talking about legal aspects of your brand. 177.142.131.180 (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

One million BLPs

I think we passed 1,000,000 mainspace articles in Category:Living people at some point in the last five months. There were 987,651 in February 2021, and there are 1,006,668 now. There must be some other bot or something that tracks this, do we know when we passed the million mark? Levivich 04:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure each one has exquisite BLP sourcing... JoelleJay (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

And it's not 950,000 white men... Levivich 01:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Or 850,000 one-sentence bios based on sports-reference.com. FOARP (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW based on infoboxes, I think the actual #s are something like ~250,000 athlete BLPs (with an athlete infobox, in category:living people), of which maybe ~50,000 are one sentence stubs (<2,500 bytes). I don't know how many BLPs don't have an infobox at all, tho. Levivich 03:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

About 200,000 don't have an infobox. [9] (Thanks to Izno for showing me.) Levivich 04:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Levivich - I think that your question is really what causes the category to be associated with an article. If you look at the talk page of the article, it should list the WikiProjects that the article is associated with. One of those is {{WikiProject Biography}} if the article is a biography. There is a parameter in this template that specifies that the person is living, and this causes the article to be included in the category. Is that an answer? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Mark Schneider, CEO Nestle

Someone has trolled Mark Schneider, CEO of Nestle on his WIKI profile adding a photoshopped picture of him in a Nazi Uniform and adding insulting and foul language. Please remove from the profile.

This article (Ulf Mark Schneider) hasn't been edited at all for almost three weeks and the worst vandalism was in late May and early June. All the vandalism was quickly reverted, and protection was put in place for a time in response to it. There's nothing which requires action at the current time. Neiltonks (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Its Google's preview on the right again, its still showing in the search results (picture is still widely available). Nothing to do with wikipedia (anymore). Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Martin Eberhard

Users with only an IP address have repeatedly added slanderous information to the page for Martin Eberhard. For example, this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Eberhard&oldid=1033776988

Another user, David Gerard, minutes after I added one external link, suddenly decided that the entire list of external references, which has been present for months/years, suddenly is "excessive" and deleted the entire list except 1, with any reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamKayJohnson (talk • contribs) 07:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at this and the external links were a mess, many of them 404s, one was an archive link of a parked domain. I left the CSPAN links and removed the rest. I also removed the "ongoing" section as completely unsourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Lists of religious converts - possibly widespread BLPvios

I'm still on wiki break but a dispute at WP:ANI has alerted me to the fact that we possibly have a problem in many of the lists at Category:Lists of religious converts. It seems possibly many of these are inadequately sourced. The source may mention a conversion 'to X'. However it fails to mention 'from A' or equivalent. Instead editors are inferring this from where they lived and/or their name and apparent ethnic identity or maybe slightly better but IMO still insufficient what religion their parents were etc and often without any of these being given in the sources used for the list articles.

Or better sometimes a source may exist for the person's prior religion but it isn't given in the list article (a very common problem with lists unfortunately). I don't know if we quite require self identification for 'from' like we do with 'to', I feel we should but others may disagree. But it seems to me we require at least the source to clearly say the person was A before conversion, rather than any editor inference i.e. OR.

I earlier came across this in disputes over converts from Hinduism which seems to be partly being cleared up but an WP:other stuff exists argument lead me to Muhammad Ali and Yusuf Islam at List of converts to Islam from Christianity. Muhammad Ali looks like it is fine, in any case no longer a BLP issue but Yusuf Islam the source does not seem to mention Christianity or a specific denomination anywhere. The fact that such a high profile example is insufficiently sourced makes me wonder how bad other ones are. To be clear I only checked the 'list of' article since the source needs to be there.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like the type of thing that because so many conditions to be included need to be met shown through sources (what was their original religion and what did they convert to) that a category for that fails BLPCAT issues (which itself cautions about cats related to religious beliefs). List articles would be appropriate as long as each entry is sourced directly with the mention of the conversion. --Masem (t) 12:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The other problem is that we have religious nationalists edit warring to remove entries from converts from their preferred religion, and vice-versa. So you get edits like [10] "per BLP" which removed three entries, all of whom are dead, two of them for centuries. I found sources for the latter two relatively easily (indeed the article for one is literally full of them) and have re-added them. I'm having more trouble on the first but it certainly isn't a BLP issue. There's a similar war going on at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism - I haven't looked deeply at this one but of the list that is being continually removed, I looked at one entry - Dipika Kakar, a living person, and the source provided was an actual interview with the subject about her conversion - so no problem at all. Some may be an issue, but this mass reverting is a problem and we may need to look at some partial blocks for certain editors whilst someone neutral goes through them. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

BLP violations are still going on in List of converts to Hinduism from Islam. Thankfully another admin has protected it for the time being but I am sure that POV users will come again. Bringtar (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Black Kite, did you have time to check on the other entries please? Bringtar (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

François Hollande

RfC: Jan Żaryn

Continuing on the discussion mentioned here, we now have an RfC going at Talk:Jan Żaryn#RfC: Jan Żaryn; editors are invited to vote and/or comment. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Robert J. Brennan Page

Robert J. Brennan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vandals keep adding information that is against Biographies of living persons. Continually adding "His tenure has been largely unexceptional although he has received criticism from lay groups for his persecution of orthodox clergy and his handling of Covid-19 in 2020. This prompted a campaign to discourage people from contributing to his Annual Appeal.[6] Nevertheless, he is generally viewed favorably by Columbus' large LGBTQ+ population. and links to contentious materials in violation of the Biographies of living persons guidelines.

Page is Robert J. Brennan Found in section Diocese of Columbus.

Violates with languauge that is opinionated and also uses sources found in violation of the section below Challenged or likely to be challenged Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamicomega (talk • contribs) 23:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The material is highly questionable as it stands, being sourced from a couple of advocacy sites including one specifically set up to oppose him. Mangoe (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Mangoe just looked into this - Page keeps having content that violates biographies guidelines readded by dynamicalpha. Have tried talk and their user page but they keep re-adding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamicomega (talk • contribs) 02:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Admin assistance here would be helpful. An IP has been edit warring poorly-sourced claims into the article, and they've now registered as Dynamicalpha (talk · contribs), a clear attempt to impersonate or troll Dynamicomega (talk · contribs). Woodroar (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Dynamicalpha indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Janet Daley

[Janet Daley] In thie biography of Janet Daley found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Daley Paragraph 7 references a Telegraph article on 5 June 2021 and states that Janet Daley made claims about autism. In fact, the linked article does not mention autism at all. As it stands this reference is therefore inaccurate, misleading, and potentially libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.98 (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

"I think it is very likely that the incidence of autistic spectrum disorders - and even just chronic failures of social compatibility - will be very high among this disinherited generation, whatever their economic class." (when referring to absence) It would take quite a convoluted series of mental gymnastics to think that statement from her article did not mean 'autism'. It is by no means inaccurate, misleading or potentially libellous. It is however undue. As I can find little-to-no controversy as such, apart from some reader mithering on forums/comments. So I support its removal on that basis. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Peter A. McCullough, again

Not happening. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Please delete the Wikipedia Page Listing for Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH. It contains false and misleading information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmccull975 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Your request for deletion would be likely denied. Please review WP:AUTOPROB and list the items that you feel are false or misleading so that we can review them and check against the sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Few days later

Please delete this WIKI page. It falsely labels INFORMATION as MISINFORMATION and is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmccull975 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia pages are generally not deleted by request, it has to go through a process at WP:AFD. Presumably, and predictably, this is going to be about the Covid-related material in the article, but at first glance it all appears to be sourced and accurate. Zaathras (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, you got this same answer just now as when you asked here several days ago. DMacks (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

First, Pmccull975, you have an unaddressed COI inquiry at your user talk page. Second, I highly recommend discussing a potential deletion at the article talk page to build at least a smattering of support before beginning the AfD process. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Category: British conspiracy theorists / Andrew Wakefield

I have removed (and been reverted) the link from the Andrew Wakefield article to the Category 'British Conspiracy Theorists'. This is clearly a highly contentious relationship, and I do not believe the article sufficiently backs up this assertion as per the requirement in WP:BLPCAT. The term 'Conspiracy theorist' is not even used anywhere in the article. Must the article state explicitly 'He is a conspiracy theorist' before being linked to the category of 'Conspiracy theorists'?

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants has provided a number of references on Talk:Andrew_Wakefield which talk about 'Conspiracy Theories' and Andrew Wakefield at the same time, some are behind a paywall and the only one I can verify that directly calls him a conspiracy theorist is wired.com, not sure that this is verifiable enough. The assertion that 'He's related to anti-vax, which is in turn sometimes called a conspiracy theory, therefore he is a conspiracy theorist, sounds like Original Research to me. Can I have a second opinion please? JeffUK (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT states that we should not even have categories for classifications that require inline sources (eg naming people as conspiracy theorists). A list article would be appropriate since sources can be added, but not categories. --Masem (t) 13:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that statement at BLPCAT. Instead, I see "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources," which says pretty much the opposite. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, the correct link is WP:OPINIONCAT. (This is why categories like Category:Climate change deniers no longer exist, see [11] and [12]. --Masem (t) 13:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see "conspiracy theorist" as an opinion, though. It's his actions, like making Vaxxed that place him in that group, and those actions (spreading conspiracy theories) are extraordinarily well-sourced. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Same logic was argued for CC deniers. Its still a contentious term even if numerous RSes apply the label. It it makes it appropriate to use in the body w/ attribution of some type (even if "many sources state he is a c.t.") and for a list-style article, but not for a cat. --Masem (t) 13:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, reading through that first discussion, there's a clear consensus to keep the category, and the closing rationale doesn't address the arguments for keeping it, only outlines the arguments of the minority view. I'm a little surprised that close didn't result in an DRV thread over a POV closure. I mean, there's at least three !votes that amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the form of editors claiming "I'm personally not a denier, but a skeptic," which is about the worst form of that argument possible, as it's an admission of POV pushing.

And while the follow-up BLPN thread shows a clear majority in favor of keeping the cat deleted, the arguments for doing so seem to hinge mainly upon the patently false assertion that climate change is controversial in science. I note more "I'm a skeptic, not a denier" arguments there.

In both discussions, your argument seems to be the only reasonable one that supports the outcome, and though it's a reasonable concern, I don't think it's enough to really settle the matter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly a highly contentious relationship Not if you go by the sources, it isn't.

The assertion that 'He's related to anti-vax, which is in turn sometimes called a conspiracy theory, therefore he is a conspiracy theorist, sounds like Original Research to me. "related to", really? He started that conspiracy theory by committing fraud, and has been pushing it ever since. His "relationship" to it is both maternal and paternal. The term "related to" which you falsely attributed to me here is as much a joke as your use of the word "sometimes". I said quite clearly that in every single instance in which I found the anti-vaxx movement being discussed, Wakefield was mentioned by name. That's not "sometime". At best, that's "consistently".

P.S. Imagine claiming that something is OR in the same edit in which you acknowledge that you've read a source explicitly stating it. lol ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

If I intended to deliberately misrepresent your position I would not have posted on both the talk page of the article, and your user talk page, making you aware of this post. I do not believe that his original 'work' fuelling a global conspiracy theory is proof that that he is a conspiracy theorist, he reported a relationship between MMR and Autism, for personal gain, not because he believed there was some major cover-up. JeffUK (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying you deliberately misrepresented my position. I'm saying that you misrepresented my position. I'm sure you're engaged in good faith here, I'm pointing out the failings of your argument, here, not making accusations of POV pushing.

BLP concerns are something that are always worth discussing, but that's not to say that BLP concerns are always correct. In this case, I think you're wrong, and relying on extraordinarily weak (and even self-contradictory) arguments to make your case.

And I agree about his motivations for publishing his original fraud. It's everything he's done since then which I believe justifies the category. Had he admitted his wrongdoing, instead of doubling down and denying the facts, the anti-vaxx movement would likely not even exist in a recognizable form, today. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It's long past time to treat Wakefield as "contentious". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Clearly Wakefield is a controversial (bad) figure due to the harm his ideas/"teaching" has caused/continue to cause. However, that doesn't mean we should ignore the process. I think a case can be made that Wakefield is, in effect, responsible for child abuse. Convincing parents to do something that harms their kids is, in my book, a type of child abuse. That doesn't mean I think we could label him as such. Springee (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Which sources say Wakefield is a conspiracy theorist? Anti-vax is obvious but conspiracy theorist is less so. This is a case where we really need to respect the process and not pile on because we (rightly in my view) don't like Wakefield. We might also consider Wakefield guilty of child abuse for convincing parents to forgo vaccines that would have saved their child from some harm (read the intro to The Panic Virus) but that doesn't mean we should add the category [people who abuse children]. This really is a fundamental issue with Wikipedia. Too many articles try to label as problematic rather than just describe the facts of the events/person. Springee (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I provided 8 of them at article talk. The OPs complaints about the sources not saying so are rooted in their inability to see past a paywall, and are admittedly false (they confirmed it in the Wired source), in any case.

In any case, the vaccines and autism claim is very widely labelled a conspiracy theory, and Wakefield is only notable for committing fraud in support of that, breathing new life into what was previously an extraordinarily fringe view. If it weren't for Wakefield, that CS would likely not even warrant mention on WP. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Come on Springee -- given that sources are provided on the talk page, why are you asking this question? It wastes time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not on that page and the question is being asked here. If the only conspriacy Wakefield is involved with is the MMR-autism link then I certainly object. Remember we need to be impartial and not apply scarlet letters just because we don't like the person. Wakefield linked MMR and autism initially via a novel hypothesis. The problem was he doubled down (and tried to profit) when it was clear his theory was wrong. This isn't someone who is spreading a wide range of conspiracy theories. Instead he is associated (causally) with one conspriacy theory. That makes the cat a poor fit. That and Masem's concerns. Really the question is do we think Wikipedia is right that we need to be extra cautious when dealing with BLP articles or do we decide that it's OK to label people so long as some RSs use the label. Springee (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's try another answer: you couldn't be bothered to click through, even though it's clear from the discussion in this section where the sources are given. Timewasting... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion civil. Some sources is not the same thing as the sort of overwhelming sourcing that would be needed to put this in Wiki voice. Springee (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Here are two reliable sources reporting that Andrew Wakefield is a conspiracy theorist: here (conspiracy theorists, including Andrew Wakefield) and here (he [Wakefield] was in Texas with those who shared his views on vaccines and conspiracy and He [Wakefield] and those around him now believe there is a massive conspiracy, among other passages). To the extent that reporting, in Wikipedia's voice and without violating WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, that the anti-vax movement is fundamentally based upon conspiracy theory(ies), we also have sources that include this (Andrew Wakefield...give[s] conspiracy theories their scientific credentials), this (prevalent conspiracy theor[y]...enflamed by a now thoroughly debunked paper by Andrew Wakefield), and I suspect many more. As presented by User:MPants at work above, the veil of WP:OR cannot hide the fact that Wakefield is a seminal proponent of the modern, conspiratorial anti-vax movement. Do we really need to ask if the sky is blue? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Neither of the 'Two reliable sources' are linked on the article, coming back to my original statement that the article does not support his inclusion in this category. Being able to provide a link when asked in a talk page is not the same as the statement being verifiable based on the article. And surely you do need to prove 'the sky is blue' when making potentially damaging accusations about a living person? JeffUK (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you interested in improving the encyclopedia? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I removed an unsourced potentially damaging claim about a living person, as per the policy. JeffUK (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

And yet you know the claim associated with the category has sources available -- but instead of actually developing the article you're complaining here. Why? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, as you described, the fact that the page doesn't use those sources.

The problem is not that Wakefield is categorized as a conspiracy theorist, because that's an easily verifiable fact. So, if you are interested in improving the project, the only logical path forward is for you to edit the article to include those sources and their statements about Wakefield, not to contest a factual category. Contesting the factual category when you very well know that it's factual is, quite literally, damaging the project, not improving it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Not complaining, asking in good faith whether or not the inclusion in this category violates the policy. My position hasn't changed, that the article AND reliable sources do not support him being 'a conspiracy theorist' as per WP:BLPCAT. I think the claim should be added to the article with an in-line reference, and I'm not willing to do that as wired.com is not good enough for me to say 'he is a conspiracy theorist' on a public forum, and risk personal liability. Also, I removed the claim prior to taking it to the talk page, and prior to the new sources being presented, I don't see how you can possibly accuse me of 'damaging the encyclopedia' on the basis I ignored evidence that was presented to me after I did something. JeffUK (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

My position hasn't changed, that the article AND reliable sources do not support him being 'a conspiracy theorist' as per WP:BLPCAT. Well, that's just factually inaccurate, as has been demonstrated quite clearly by JoJo quoting the sources.

I'm not willing to do that as wired.com is not good enough for me to say 'he is a conspiracy theorist' on a public forum, and risk personal liability. Reporting what RSes say could not possibly open you to liability, and you should probably be more circumspect about such speculation per WP:NOLEGALTHREATS.

I don't see how you can possibly accuse me of 'damaging the encyclopedia' on the basis I ignored evidence that was presented to me after I did something. You're still arguing about this. You falsely claimed in this very comment that the RSes do not say what they very clearly say. I didn't suggest you were intentionally damaging the project with your original edit, but the more you argue here (especially by making demonstrably false claims as you just did) the less willing I am to entertain the possibility that your concerns are legitimate.

You claimed it wasn't stated in the article: I explained that it's stated in the infobox, as well as in the text of the article.
You claimed that the sources don't state it: JoJo quoted the sources stating it.

Literally all of your objections have been addressed and shown to be based on false premises. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I have now added the reliably-sourced material to the Andrew Wakefield lede. And no, I am not afraid of personal liability. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

but the more you argue here (especially by making demonstrably false claims as you just did) the less willing I am to entertain the possibility that your concerns are legitimate. I find accusing someone of acting in bad faith simply because I tried to follow and understand the policy is unnecessary and unprofessional. I removed unsourced material from a BLP, now that material has been correctly (in your opinioned) referenced. How is that damaging? This is my only comment after the problem was resolved. (thanks JoJo, by the way) JeffUK (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You repeated false claims multiple times after they had been corrected. I haven't yet accused you of acting in bad faith, and in fact, have stated quite the opposite very explicitly. But the more you say, the less sure of that belief about your motivations I become. That's not an accusation: that's a statement of fact. If you're trying to convince me that you're engaging in bad faith, then continuing to make false claims about what the sources say is a very effective way to do it. If you expect me to believe that you're engaging in good faith, I'd advise you not to make false statements to further your position in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Those sources aren't really a lot to hang the label on. The Wired piece [13] talks about him hanging out with conspiracy theorists, but never quite describes him as such - it is an interpretation, but not really clear. The closest are two parts "Last month's cruise featured a caravan of stars from a surprisingly vast galaxy of skeptics and conspiracy theorists, including Andrew Wakefield, known for his questionable research and advocacy against vaccines", which could be read as saying that he is a conspiracy theorist, that he is a skeptic, or both, but either way isn't a direct statement, and "What were some of the conspiracies discussed on board? ... some technical or scientific experts, but only one scientific speaker, Wakefield, had a legitimate education", which also stop short of specifically saying he is a consipracy theorist. The Guardian is clearer, but depends on one line: "He and those around him now believe there is a massive conspiracy to force vaccines upon our children, driven and funded by the wealthy pharmaceutical companies and those who take their shilling." The other two sources mentioned, [14][15] both (correctly) argue that Wakefield provides fuel to conspiracy theorists, but that isn't the same thing as saying that he is one. Is this really enough to hang a specific label in a BLP? It isn't as if you can read the article and come away with a positive impression of Wakefield as it is. - Bilby (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This feels like the common problem of "cherry picking" of sources to try to apply a label (in article or as a cat or in a list) where its really not appropriate. I've talked in past cases of a need to do a source analysis to see, of the RSes that talk about the person, how frequently a contentious term like "conspirary theorist" is used. And unless its used with a high proportion of sources (it depends on multiple factors), we should absolutely avoid this type of cherry picking to get a result that some editors seem to want to push for, per UNDUE. And that definitely means to keep the BLP name far away from the contentious category. --Masem (t) 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This is just muddying the waters. The claim that it's unclear whether the Wired piece is calling him a skeptic or CT hinges upon the remarkable assumption that calling him a skeptic would be even remotely reasonable. It also ignores the entire context of the article.

As for the rest, what exactly would one consider a conspiracy theorist, if not one who promotes conspiracy theories? This is like arguing that "a cylindrical non-crystaline amorphous solid container of H2O" doesn't refer to a glass a water. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

There's objective restatements, and there's subjective restatements. Objective restatements can be made as long as we don't violate NOR/SYNTH (eg we could not restart "a cylindrical non-crystaline amorphous solid container of a transparent liquid" to "a glass of water" as it makes a presumption not present). But subjective restatements will always involve synthesis, and outside very close synonyms, we should be extremely careful of trying to adopt language not present in the source. If it is a DUE point to raise in the article but it doesn't directly link to the term, then quote it with attribution. --Masem (t) 19:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Wired never actually states that Wakefiled "is a conspiracy theorist" - it is something we can read into the statements, but it isn't an unquestionable statement. As to the other, they don't say that he promotes conspiracy theories, either. Try [16] - a paper that would be a good source. That says:

"Andrew Wakefield, a former gastroenterologist, has been campaigning against vaccines for 20 years. In 2016, he stirred up fears against the MMR vaccine again with his anti‐vaccination propaganda movie Vaxxed. “Those voices are very influential and can sway people”, said Karen Douglas, a social psychologist at the University of Kent (UK). “They give conspiracy theories their scientific credentials”.

This is providing fuel to conspiracy theorists, but doesn't specifically say that he promotes them nor that he creates them. I certainly think you can make an argument that he does promote conspiracy theories, but that isn't what the sources provided say, with the possible exception of the Guardian, and I don't think that is enough to hang the label on. - Bilby (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

So let's see here: You have to change the words I used in my analogy to something completely different in order to respond to it, you've got to ignore the rest of the Wired article and everything we know about Wakefield to argue that Wired doesn't call him a conspiracy theorist, and you haven't got anything resembling a definition of "conspiracy theorist" that excludes (or even permits the exclusion of) people who promote and/or invent conspiracy theories.

Why are you even bothering? This is actually less convincing than plugging your ears and screaming "wake up, sheeple!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

That's also only one article, when given there are 150 sources already on that page, would normally fall into FRINGE/UNDUE to be including that. --Masem (t) 20:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not even close to what WP:FRINGE is about. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I have seen FRINGE applied many times to argue away minority viewpoints on topics not related to fringe science or the like. But regardless, one source among 150 still fails a DUE inclusion aspect. --Masem (t) 22:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

So you're claiming that something appearing in an RS, stated as a fact is fringe because it's not repeated in multiple RSes? That's going to come as quite a shock to, well, every editor who works in fringe topics.

You also might want to see the comment I'm going to make right after this one. It'll blow your mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

If it is a contentious statement such as being a conspiracy theorist, 100% yes, per BLP + NPOV. Even if it was a singular mention from the NYTimes, and that was the only source in 150+, it would be a problem to treat it as fact. --Masem (t) 22:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Contentious among whom? Among editors? That doesn't matter one bit. Among reliable sources? I've yet to see the slightest evidence of that, and as you may have guessed from my comment below, I've actually looked for them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" is already a loaded term aproiri. Wakefield seems to also object to it. Just because no RS necessary disagrees with that does not take away from the contentious nature of that term, and that actually points to the fact that we should have a strong body of RSes to start actually using that term. If Wakefield is to be considered a conspiracy theorist on WP, it should be something that clearly falls out of a universal review of the sources, not hand picked from selected sources. WP is not here to be going around labelling BLP with loaded terms just because a selected handful of sources happen to do so, a major problem across the project right now. --Masem (t) 01:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I've provided at least 8 reliable sources which explicitly describe Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist. I've seen zero reliable sources that contest that.

Also, WP is an Encyclopedia. Labeling and describing the subjects of our articles is literally our ultimate goal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

We do not require sourcing to determine if something is contentious; we are not blindly held to hold our logic to what is printed in the reliable sources. It is common sense that using the term "conspiracy theorist" to a person has negative connotations, so unless there's a huge wealth of sources that make it clear that that is how the person is categorically called (eg Alex Jones), we should consider its application by default as contentious. Eight sources is moving towards a "wealth of sources" but still in the realm that I can also call this "cherry picking".

Additionally, WP's function is absolutely not to label and describe subjects. We're to summarize sources about subjects in a neutral, impartial, and dispassionate way, and going out of our way to label them (in article, in categories, wherever) is not part of that. If labeling falls out of the summarization of sources naturally, then we'll include that with attribution, appropriately, as with something like Alex Jones. But if its something that you have to hunt and peck for when trying to summarize, that's beyond the function of WP. --Masem (t) 13:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

We do not require sourcing to determine if something is contentious ^{[citation needed]} ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, WP:V. Springee (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If we're talking inclusion of describing something as contentious, we absolutely need RSes to say that it is contentious. But behind the scenes, in terms of how WP editors write articles and determine what to include, we are not fixed to only what RSes say and commonly use our best judgement and consensus to determine if things - even if sourced to RSes - are inappropriate to include or have to be stated in certain ways. BLP is wholly based on this (factors of privacy that we consider that many RSes do not), NPOV also considers this, and in terms of contentious material, that's what the function of YESPOV is, and how WP:LABEL functions. So yes, as editors, we should recognized, a priori, that "conspiracy theorist" is a contentious term where inclusion in mainspace on a BLP requires strong sourcing to back it up, and should not be something of UNDUE weight compared to other material. So yes, you've found 8 sources that you say claim he is a conspiracy theorist (though I will point out the Forbes source is unusable per SPSBLP as a contributor piece, and a few others do not explicitly "Wakefield is a conspiracy theoriest" or fall in RSOPINOIN that shouldn't be used on BLP articles, but I suspect you can find more since you said that was a simple google search). Assuming eight sources was the extent you could find on Wakefield where at least 150 other sources exists, you're just skimming the bare minimum for something like DUE inclusion, but no way to treat "conspiracy theorist" as a broad label since you're still overcoming the basic contentious nature of that term; it would have to be limited and in-line attributed to those sources, and certainly shouldn't be used to put him into a category. If it was something closer to, say, 25, and that depends on the quality of sources and their nature, then maybe there's more weight to apply "conspiracy theorist" at a broader level. As I've said, if you want to be including "conspiracy theorist" as such a broad label on a person, it should be something that readily falls out from a broad survey of all sources for that person, and not just cherry picked from a limited set, as that's just not objective, forcing a contentious aspect just because you happened to find a handful of sources. --Masem (t) 15:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of WP's function is to include factual, reliably sourced information about article subjects/topics, and to do so in a neutral manner that follows the model of consensus. If "labels" or "descriptions" are factual information supported by multiple, independent, reliable sources, that information can be added to articles without violating DUE. To do otherwise seems to me a (inverse?) version of "cherry picking" that is contrary to WP's function. All subject to consensus, of course. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

That people have found 8 sources that use the term Wakefield and conspiracy theorist together would mean we could use a general attribution in the article "he has been called a conspiracy theorist [collapsed citations] as opposed to using a direct attribution "Dr Patel of the Patel Institute called Wakefield a conspiracy theorist". One of the problems here is Wakefield is almost exclusively known for a single thing (his anti-vax work). Using "Andrew Wakefield" as a keyword search I got 350,000 Google hits. Google-news search resulted in 15,800 hits. Looking at the first 10 news hits, 1 was behind a paywall so I will look at the other 9 sources. Seven of the 9 say nothing about conspiracies. Of the other two both were from The Guardian and neither said Wakefield was a conspiracy theorist. One mentioned conspiracies in context of a Facebook group but not Wakefield. This one [[17]] says Wakefield is claiming conspiracies with respect to vaccinations but doesn't specifically call him a conspiracy theorist. So of the 9 articles in question none would support even an attributed label. If we are going to make such a claim in Wikivoice I would hope that at least 1 of 9 articles at the top of a news search would use the label. Springee (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

One of the problems here is Wakefield is almost exclusively known for a single thing (his anti-vax work) Which is widely considered a conspiracy theory, lol. So you're asserting that he's not really a conspiracy theorist because he's actually better known for spreading conspiracy theories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Yet we don't see sources widely describing Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist. How many sources do we need to go through before we get one that says he is a conspiracy theorist as opposed to he is a key person behind a particular conspiracy. Perhaps part of the problem is that he really is only associated with a single type of conspiracy/conspiracies, anti-vax. Contrast that with people who promote a wide range of conspiracies (secret government this, cartel of business that etc). Why would Wakefield need to be categorized with people promoting moon landing conspiracies or CIA black op conspiracies when "anti-vax activist" is the obvious category? Springee (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

For anyone complaining about a lack of sources "directly" calling him a conspiracy theorist:

Steven Salzberg directly calls Wakefied a "conspiracy theorist"

The Washington Post didn't just call him that once

but makes a habit of it

Paul Offit thinks he's one, but that's not really a surprise

Hey, look, even deprecated sources can be relied on to call him a "conspiracy theorist"

Think Progress is getting in on that action, too

The newsletter of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health wasn't about to be left out, either

The LA Times might have just been doing it to be cool, but they did it all the same

I know my google-fu is strong, but jesus... This took me less than 5 minutes. It's not even remotely difficult; I just did a google search for "Andrew Wakefield" "Conspiracy Theorist" and then started looking for RSes in there (I clicked on the Sun link just for shits and giggles). With only a handful of exceptions, each RS I checked was explicitly calling Wakefield a CT, as opposed to simply containing both terms. This is what happens almost every time I see the argument "Well, the RSes don't directly call them an X!" I go searching to see if there are RSes calling them an X, and I find them. Sometimes it takes enough effort that the argument is understandable (even though it remains wrongheaded), but I always find them. So maybe it's time to stop trotting out the same, tired old excuses for why we can't do our job when a public figure decides to make themselves into a whatever-term-you-object-to, get off your asses and do a little research before you start making claims about what the sources say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Some of these are actually decent. Couldn't this have been done earlier, instead of using sources that didn't say what you claimed? - Bilby (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you could have done this at any time prior to me doing it. Research should generally come before making arguments based on what the sources say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

So what percentage of sources about Wakefield are actually calling him this? Yes, key word searches are great and let you find examples but we need to show this is what most sources call him vs just some. Just some means we can use this with attribution or in line citations. Springee (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

So is "most sources" (i.e., greater than 50%) linked to an explicit BLP policy, or is that just a personal preference? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

There's no exact number since there's a large number of temporal factors that can arise (but that also brings up the issue of rushing to include a contentious term/label in the short against RECENTISM). But it should be clear that there's some level of sourcing to merit inclusion per UNDUE/BLP/RECENTISM issues, and a further higher level of sourcing that would make it possible to start considering a term as nearly factual. The latter needs far more than a smattering of a few opinion pieces and works with systematic media biases. Whether that exists for Wakefield here I don't think is yet proven with the handful of sources above. I stress that we should not be trying to force such terms through cherry picking - it should an unavoidable facet to include --Masem (t) 01:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

What percentage of sources declare the sky to be blue?

What percentage of sources declare water to be wet? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Along with the additional reliable sources presented immediately above, there are also examples of Wakefield expressing what sure seem like conspiracy theories here (Do I feel that I was framed by the pharmaceutical industry? Yes, I think I was") and here (We have just witnessed yet another example of the power of corporate interests censoring free speech, art, and truth.). I wrote 'sure seem like' because I can find no reliable, independent sources that confirm Wakefield's claims of victimization. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Using those to translate to "conspiracy theorist" is 100% SYNTH and a violation of BLP. --Masem (t) 01:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Relying on sources that directly label him a conspiracy theorist, however, is certainly not. BD2412 T 02:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH states Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

The conclusion is explicitly stated in at least 8 reliable sources in this thread. You know as well as I do that there's nothing synthetic about it.

Also, bringing up WP:RECENTISM is strange, because these latest 7 sources range in pub. dates from March of 2019 to May of 2020. That's over a 4-year period which ended over a year ago and began almost 6 years after the event which set him on his current path. It's not too close to the event, and it's not some recent change in the sourcing due to some other factor, like the pandemic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Which still falls into RECENTISM, given how many sources exist already prior to those periods. We have no idea if this is going to end up being part of his legacy 10 or 20 years from now, based on sources that spanned a one year period. Particularly for BLP, while we do need to clearly document career-affecting factors (and events that led to why he may be called a conspiracy theorist would seem to fall within that), we should be very careful about using short-term characterization to make very broad claims in Wikivoice until its clear that is part of a lasting legacy of the person. That's RECENTISM. --Masem (t) 15:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. RECENTISM concerns sources that come out during and immediately after an event, and sources that reflect a current fad. It doesn't cover sources written over a 4 year period that started 6 years after the event (note this this is the interpretation of that page I've always seen you take prior to this discussion). There categorically were not a bunch of sources covering Wakefield prior to his fraudulent study, and coverage in the past years is mostly negligible, except for passing mentions in articles about anti-covid-vaccine activism. Your arguments here about "short-term characterization" fly in the face of both the way I've seen you approach RECENTISM in different circumstances, and the fact that Wakefield is undeniably a conspiracy theorist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh wow, this old discussion again. The problem with labels like "conspiracy theorist" is that it's a pejorative term meant to invoke an appeal to emotion rather than giving actual facts. As such, it is a logically flawed construction that fails to convince ... unless the person somehow makes a profession of being a conspiracy theorist, such as the producers of Unsolved Mysteries. It's usually a term for nuts of the tin-foil hat brigade who focus on alien cover-ups and moon landings and other nonsense. In reality, however, conspiracies exist all around us, and to find the real ones all you really have to do is follow the money. I totally get the mistrust of the medical industry here in the US. (Bunch of highway robbers, in my opinion.) I've had my own bad experiences with them, going back to when I was very young, and since then I could count on one hand the number of times I've been to a doctor. Its not until those times I'm on death's door have I ever gone back to a hospital. I can't tell you how many times I've reset my own broken bones and dislocated joints, given myself stitches, pulled shards of glass and metals out of my own eyes... It amazes me that people in the medical industry try to act so shocked when us regular folk think they care only about their profits, not their patients. They can't really be that self-unaware, can they?

But that's the problem with groupthink, wherein the individual members of the in-groups are usually good people at heart, but the group as a whole begins to display all the hallmarks of a sociopath. That's not necessarily a conspiracy, but a problem of social construct.

The problem with labels like this --and I say this specifically to help those who want the label-- is that it is an extremely poor way to make the point, and a very childish way to tell a story. It only works on the very small-minded; to anyone else it just comes off as condescending to the reader. And do you really want to insult the intelligence of the very people you're trying to convince? In writing, it's always more convincing to show, not tell. Zaereth (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about whether to refer to Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist in text, though. It is about whether to include him in a category, in which persons identified as conspiracy theorists are grouped for various functional purposes. The category would be one of many at the bottom of the page (far below the usual line of reader sight), where it would sit alongside other categories containing Wakefield, such as Category:Autism pseudoscience, Category:English fraudsters, Category:Health fraud, and Category:Medical doctors struck off by the General Medical Council. As for mistrust of "the medical industry", that's kneejerk anti-capitalist rhetoric, and is never consistently applied. The same people who fret about vaccines being made by pharmaceutical companies because "capitalism = bad" don't think twice about taking pain-killers and antibiotics, and raise no fuss about hydroxychloriquine and ivermectin being for-profit products of the same companies. BD2412 T 03:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

We need to include the label in the text in order to include the category, so it is technically both. The thing is, Wakefield isn't significant as a consipracy theorist - a few people may have attached that label to him, but I'd never think to identify him as a conspiracy theorist. I'd file him under anti-vaccination activists, or under health fraud, or scientific misconduct. Alex Jones, on the other hand, I'd expect to find under conspiracy theorists. Lately we've seemed very quick to apply the category, and we seem to do what we're doing here - decide we want to label someone as a consipracy theorist, then try to find the sources to justify what we want to do. This doesn't seem like the best approach. - Bilby (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

An activist whose activism is premised on the argument that basically the entire apparatus of goverment, medical professionals, and pharmaceutical manufacturers are cooperating to conceal information about a particular line of pharmaceutical products, and who claims that the consequences they have faced for their own discredited research in this area is part of this concealment effort, fits quite squarely within the definition. Of course, this is the basis for sources labeling him such. BD2412 T 06:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a bit of a leap. His activism is based on his belief, as a result of a seriously flawed study, that vaccines can cause autism. He is known for his study, the retraction, and the impact his study had in providing much of the basis for the anti-vaxx movement. To a lesser extent, he's known for continuing to push his findings in spite of the evidence to the contrary. And perhaps, to some degree, he's also for arguing that there's a cover up to hide the results of his research. But if that was what he was primarily known for, we wouldn't have had to go digging for sources that make some mention of him in relation to conspiracy theories, as opposed to the multitude of sources that reference him in regard to the primary issues. But of you have a reliable source that states exactly what you described, by all means let's use it. - Bilby (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

His activism is based on his belief, as a result of a seriously flawed study, that vaccines can cause autism. The fact that you're willing to assume Wakefield actually believes the results of his fraudulent study might say good things about your moral character, but it doesn't really reflect well upon your critical thinking, here. In fact, it's a shockingly naive position to take.

Also, less than 5 minutes of googling (most of which was spent reading sources) hardly counts as "digging". More like "looking at the ground". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, whether or not Wakefield was right - and clearly he was not - there's no reason to claim that he doesn't believe what he says he does. - Bilby (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Uh, yes there is. He's been benefiting financially this whole time, and his very obvious motivation for the very first incident was financial benefit. He's literally a confirmed fraud. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess I see why you're so strong on this issue, then. - Bilby (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I've never had any experience with anti-vax nonsense beyond pointing out how stupid it is on the internet and to those few brave, foolish souls who thought it was a good idea to spout some of that nonsense to me in person.

Wakefield's status as a fraud who deliberately brings harm to people for his own financial gain is something I find distasteful, but not something that bothers me more than the thousands of other callous frauds out there. Attempting to suggest that I'm personalizing the issue is wrongheaded and an indicator of just how weak your argument here is.

Truth is, I honestly enjoy these kinds of arguments. I get a big laugh out of arguments like Zaereth's, and I rather enjoy taking apart more (though obviously not entirely) reasonable arguments like yours. Actually, as a rule of thumb, you can assume I'm having a grand old time any time you see me arguing with Masem. Masem is a very talented debater.

And of course, every once in a while, someone will convince me to change my view, and those instances are incredibly enjoyable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Oooh, this is my favorite part. When someone shows up to make an emotional appeal in an attempt to convince us that stating a simple and verifiable fact is actually an emotional appeal.

Bonus points for claiming that plainly stating a simple and verifiable fact is an "extremely poor" and "very childish" way to... [checks notes] ...plainly state a simple and verifiable fact. Or is it that including an article in a category in which it's membership is a simple and verifiable fact is an extremely poor and very childish way to include an article in a category in which it's membership is a simple and verifiable fact? Either way, it's damn funny. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Review and suggestion

The major elements of the discussion to this point: some editors (including me), backed with numerous RS, believe it appropriate to prominently describe Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist; other editors, primarily citing arguments related to WP:DUE, do not believe it is appropriate to describe Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist. Please correct me if that broad interpretation is an over-simplification or is otherwise incorrect.

I here suggest that the article include the reliably-sourced descriptions of Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist, but not prominently. Specifically, the brief passage in the lede that I added here is to be removed. Similar language/passage(s), supported by the available RS, is to be added into the body of the article. Perhaps such material would fit best within or near the Political activism and Vaxxed film sections? I believe that new structure would enable category listings that some editors desire, provide inclusion of reliably-sourced factual information about the subject, and not violate DUE, SYNTH, or OR. As Wakefield's activities continue, appropriate modifications to that structure can of course be made. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Content removed from lede, added (with multiple RS) to Political activism section. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I endorse the edits you made. I don't much care whether it's in the lede, and I'm not fully convinced we need to say more than to name the sources who's referred to him as the term. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm ok with this, but I wouldn't mind a more general discussion about what is needed for this category to be applied to a livng person. Not sure if this is the right location, but I'd like to follow this issue up. - Bilby (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the general problem with any type of subjective categories related to persons and why we should not have them per OPINIONCAT, because we can't manage nor source inclusion. Lists are different in this fashion though still should maintain high inclusion standards. If we're talking conspiracy theorists, we know Alex Jones is going to be that can easily be sorted into such a list or cat because its near impossible to look up information about him in RSes and not trip over the association as a conspiracy theorist. With Wakefield here, we have to hunt and peck to a degree. We should only be including in such cases of subjective characterization when it is clear and obvious (tripping over sources) that that characterization is consistently associated with the person, otherwise we start entering the realm of editor's subjective picking-and-choosing. This is far from an objective measure, but at least it is a sourced based thing that should be easily tested for evidence in consensus based discussions. --Masem (t) 19:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not subjective. There's nothing subjective about this category. Either his claims are conspiracy theories, or they're not. They're not conspiracy theories in certain circumstance, or to certain people. That's the very meaning of "objective". And I find the notion that we should only accurate describe subjects with well-sourced descriptives when we're "tripping over" the claim in the sources to be actively detrimental to this project. You're literally advocating that we not include relevant, accurate information, because some editors don't like that information being included. I see absolutely no benefit to this project from your claims about how we should treat these questions, and significant damage, because the standards you outline would preclude us from accurately describing 99% of conspiracy theorists. Alex Jones and a tiny handful of others whose sole indicator of notability is the spreading of conspiracy theories on a wide variety of topics would be the only conspiracy theorists we could label as such, all because you and a few other editors can't fathom that sometimes, RSes don't feel the need to use every factual descriptive term to describe someone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

As I said above "accurately describing 99% of conspiracy theorists." is absolutely not WP's function. We're not here to label all the nutcases or the like that we think are nutcases; that's simply not an objective treatment of the material. We're not here to label anyone like this, and in fact in this case feels like WP:RGW (that we need to warn readers that these people are kooks in Wikivoice). If we're going to use contentious terms and labels, they need terms that naturally fall out of the bulk of reliable sources about the person. As soon as we start stretching or digging harder for those terms, that's a problem, specifically against BLP as well as NPOV. We can (and need to under MEDRS) 100% warn readers about bad science and actual conspiracy theories (and in Wakefield's case, making sure that the anti-vax theory he supports as being labelled as a conspiracy theory). But we cannot make the leap of logic that just becuase a BLP expresses support for just one known conspiracy theory suddenly makes them a full-blown conspiracy theorist. Whereas Alex Jones can be labelled as such as he's recognized to have a huge body of conspiracy theories he subscribes to. "Conspiracy theorist" is simply not a factual term, its a subjective term and typically based on how far that person may have gone down the rabbit hole in their off-kilter beliefs.

I would add that I am not saying that from the sources you've found so far (and the suggestion more can be had) that we can't include in the body, sourced, in-line attributed statements of who has specifically called him a conspiracy theorist. This seems fully reasonable to mention on this current assessment, but it would have to be kept as a subjective descriptor and should not be as a lede term or use in categorization. --Masem (t) 20:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking more generally is that we seem to have multiple criteria for classifying someone as a conspiracy theorist. The first problem is what we regard as a "conspiracy theory". Does it need to be generally agreed to be false? For example, if someone originates a theory incorprating a conspiracy that is accurate, do they belong in this category? If they claim one that might be accurate, but has neither been proven to be accurate or inaccurate, is the category applicable? If they didn't create the theory, but belived it and activly progated it, (eg, podcasts about the theory, books), are they a conspiracy theorist? If they didn't specifically claim to belive the theory, but published an account of the theory by a third party, where do we sit? What if their engagement was to retweet claims or videos about conspiracy theories? And if they then said that they didn't necessarily believe what they were tweeting? How about the extent - did they retweet a lot of claims, or only a few? What about descriptions - if some people describe them as conspiracy theoriests, is that enough? Is one source good enough, or must there be multiple? And what if other people say that they aren't? Or if no-one actually says "this person is a conspiracy theorist" but they are covered in regard to conspiracy theories? I've seen all of these applied, and I'd like to try and clean some of this up, but I know that every time I try to remove the category I'll recieve pushback. So what I'd like to know is what criteria the community thinks we should apply. This isn't about Wakefield, but how to handle what I suspect will be a very large number of BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

As I said above "accurately describing 99% of conspiracy theorists." is absolutely not WP's function. It categorically is, and only a failure to understand what an encyclopedia is would permit this to seem true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

No it isn't. We're not here to be cataloging anything based on subjective measure in wikivoice. We can include such subjective measures with attribution when it fully DUE to include from weight of sources, but that still needs to be presented as subjective and not objective fact. In regards to biographies, we absolutely have to be more careful of this subjective characterization. Even on bios of long dead individuals that were highly-reported with subjective terms, we're careful to avoid stating these in Wikivoice without attribution.

Now, I would agree that with a term like "conspiracy theorist" that there's a certain point where the weight of sources can make that no longer subjective but objective and stated as fact - that's Alex Jones' case for example. But that's for that case where we're tripping over these non-op-ed RS pieces that we simply can't ignore under the weight of DUE. Wakefield is clearly a case where DUE of treating "conspiracy theory" as an objective claim is not well-met based on given sources and editor consensus, and given that BLP is designed to minimize harm, we clearly cannot make the jump to that conclusion yet.

That points to the problem where editors who really feel that we need to call out such individuals are going to cherry pick and claim DUE is met. But really, BLP and UNDUE are thresholds that should be surpassed before we include, and not seen as simple checkboxes ("public figure? check. a couple RSes? check." is not how we should be deciding this under these policies). We want to meet those thresholds so that when we have those IPs/new editors come by to complain about "but this article's not neutral", we can point to the wealth of sources that make it unavoidable. --Masem (t) 18:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Please provide me with a definition of "Encyclopedia" that precludes the labelling/describing of the subjects of its entries. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

To MPants' request I would append "when such labels/descriptors are supported by multiple, independent, reliable sources." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The key phrasing missing there is "labeling/describing in characterzing/subjective language..", which is exactly what most of NPOV is cautioning about. I've never seen EB pick up and directly state characterizating/subjective language in its voice, for example. We do want to make sure when it comes to objective or neutral terms that absolutely we are classifying topics within those appropriately in a factual voice. Just that as has been pointed out "conspiracy theorist" is not always an objective term. --Masem (t) 13:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

We just keep going round in circles. It's objective in the sense that reliable sources characterise people using the term. It's really that simple. We're not going to get anywhere with people who insist on arguing with the sources, or failing to recognise that they exist in this instance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I've acknowledged that some sources use the term, to a point that we can include the term with in-line attribution and in context within the body. That's fair. But we're talking about tipping this to categorically calling Wakefield in Wikivoice a "conspiracy theorist" based on, so far, a small handful of sources that say that explicitly compared to the body of sources about Wakefield in general. There needs to be far greater body of sources that say this, and that should be far removed both from the topic and in time, before we can cross that tipping point. Its why we can reasonably go there for Alex Jones as the key example, but for Wakefield, what's been demonstrated by sources, as well as we're only a few years out from the events that led to him being called that would put this far too close for Wikivoice to be adopting that language directly for a BLP. --Masem (t) 13:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to that view. But the fact that in your view there aren't enough sources doesn't make the categorisation "subjective". That idea is confused. The problem with "not enough sources" is, of course, that for some editors there are never enough. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Your argument here only makes sense if we are only capable of categorizing Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist. Except we also have plenty of other categories. Is it wrong for us to place him in Category:1956 births, simply because we only have one source confirming it?

And what difference does it make? He's already categorized as a fraud, which is arguably far worse than being a conspiracy theorist, so it's not like this category has any potential to harm his reputation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

On the last point, BLP exists to minimize harm to living individuals. Even if he is already labeled a fraud, we should not be looking to extend that without good reason. Hence the need to reach a threshold of sourcing as well as making sure that's enduring in time. Related to your first point, I cannot tell you what that threshold is, and it is very much more a "I know it when I see it" type thing and thus highly subjective itself to editors' views, but that's what consensus should be trying to develop. Once that consensus develops, backed by sourcing review on a talk page, then you have ammo against those that come along and complain about it. When you have someone like Jones that has been at this for 20 years and has gained a large body of articles that are highly critical of him and his body of conspiracy theories, that threshold is well and truly met, easily demonstrated by a source survey, and pretty much impervious to any outside complaints that the label doesn't apply to him. With Wakefield here, the weak body of only eight-ten sources, several which are op-eds, isn't enough to be that defense.

But your last point, you're now conflating objective, factually-demonstrable information with subjective info. A birth date is factually demonstrable by a birth certificate, and presumably we only need a single RS that affirms this. That's not a piece of information that can be contested depending on who is writing about it. Same for being a former physician and academic (his career history is documented). Same with publishing the fraudulent Lancet article, since that was determined through scientific and academic review (the effective "court of law" in this area). Those aren't subjective things. But whether he is a conspiracy theorist or not simply because he promotes one known piece of pseudoscience (anti-vax) is very much a subjective interpretation based on both the history of the term as well as the sourcing around Wakefield and the term. You cannot simply use one source for that and claim that its sufficient in that case, that's exactly what NPOV demands against. Particularly for categorizaton which is putting that subjective term in Wikivoice; it's why WP:OPINIONCAT tells us these cats normally shouldn't exist. --Masem (t) 14:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

On the last point, BLP exists to minimize harm to living individuals. Even if he is already labeled a fraud, we should not be looking to extend that without good reason. I seem to recall providing 8 good reasons in this discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

And I specifically mentioned that those eight sources, relative to the 150 already used in article, suggested that UNDUE isn't met. As a simple metric, "andrew wakefield" gets 14,600 google news hits, while "'andrew wakefield' 'conspiracy theorist' -'conspiracy theory'" (as to capture those that are calling him directly a conspiracy theorist) are only 156 Obviously, haven't gone through to judge context and reliability of those (eg the latter brings up this Guardian article but it doesn't expressly state Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist , only an anti-vaxxer), but if a point is only being brought up in 1% of the news covering a person at best, that seems very much a failure to make it fact as UNDUE. To compare, "alex jones" has 167,000 hits while the narrower search gives 12,900 hits - far closer to 10% and more reasonable for that inclusion there. --Masem (t) 16:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

And I specifically mentioned that those eight sources, relative to the 150 already used in article, suggested that UNDUE isn't met. You've yet to provide a single source that contradicts it. The fact that some sources don't feel the need to use one particular label among the many that apply to him isn't compelling. As I previously asked: How many sources explicitly state that the sky is blue, or that water is wet?

Oh, and for the record: It's an uncontroversial statement among the RSes that Wakefield committed fraud with his MMR-Autism study. Yet after going through the first 70-80 sources on that page, I found only 6 that directly stated that Wakefield committed fraud or that Wakefield's study was fraudulent, and two of those attributed the claim. I found even fewer that called him an anti-vaccine advocate, or any variation of the term.

I could apply the standard of "sources that say this versus sources that don't" to any claim in any article and then argue that it's undue. Only a single source for his birth year? Undue. Only a handful of sources noting that he was struck from the medical register? Undue. Only a small handful of sources calling his study fraudulent? Undue.

How many sources do you think label him British? Not many. Undue. Only one source supports that he went to King Edward's School. Undue.

I could do this all day. I could use your logic to trim this article down to a blank page, because by your logic here, absolutely nothing we say about him is WP:DUE. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

UNDUE and NPOV applies to subjective information. A person's date of birth is typically objective (I'm sure there are a handful of exceptional cases where one's birthdate has been the subject of debate but that's the exception not the rule), nor where they went to school, what career positions they held, etc, and thus we do not expect for that type of factual information to meet UNDUE; there's other factors of standard biographical information that are typically included in a biographical article as well for completeness purposes. It is when that material is subjective and contentious -- which does not require any specific sourcing to say it is contentious per YESPOV; we use common sense and knowledge beyond what RS are limited to know when certain words and descriptions can be a problem through consensus. Its why coming into a discussion "we are required to label these people as such" is a bad starting point because it does not meet the principles of YESPOV.

And keep in mind - I am not saying that with only those eight sources, you can't mention anything about "conspiracy theorist". That's enough sourcing to include in the body in appropriate context. But with the relative to the weight of all other sourcing, its not enough to say that subjective assessment in wikivoice or give it predominace over objective factors we should be focused on - it must stay attributed and treated as opinion and thus can be used for categorization. To constract, the google news test gets me about 1400 and 1500 hits for "lancet" "fraud" and for "anti-vax" respectively , relative to his 14,600 hits overall. Again, that 10% number that would suggest that we can treat these more factually (though again, that's skimming numbers and not a full source review). ---Masem (t) 17:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm loath to defend Wakefield but how exactly is the article stating he committed fraud. Was he convicted by a court? Science Magazine [[18]] said, " [he] was convicted in 2010 by the British General Medical Council of four counts of dishonesty." It also said the BMJ accused him of fraud. I think it's clear he is widely accused of fraud but unless he has ben convicted (the GMC conviction may count) I think BLP rules say we should attribute the fraud statement. Personally I think there is no doubt that his efforts were fraudulent in the end even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his early research was done with honest intent. Still, like Masem, I think BLP rules should be interpreted in a strict sense when we are saying a BLP subject did something wrong/illegal/contentious etc. This use would fail several parts of wp:Overcategorization. It is at least questionable based on WP:OPINIONCAT(who is a conspiracy theorist is a subjective determination) and possibly WP:OVERLAPCAT (if we think vaccines are a conspiracy then there is a large overlap between anti-vax and conspiracy theorist based on anti-vax views). Finally, we have NONDEF, "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. " While 8 sources is enough to establish weight for a generally attributed inclusion, it's not clear this "commonly and consistently" used to define Wakefield. For these reasons, even if we (and I do) think Wakefield is a pile of immoral excrement, the cat should not be used here. Springee (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Once again, because apparently nobody's willing to consider their words before typing them: Whether Wakefield spreads/creates conspiracy theories is categorically not a subjective claim. It is an objective fact that he has done so, and it is also an objective fact that multiple RSes have noted this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

There are two issues with this view. I agree it's an objective fact that Wakefield promoted a specific claim. However, we are still two subjective jumps away from "objectively a conspiracy theorist". First, is if the information is objectively or subjectively a conspiracy theory. It's not always clear even if some sources say X is a conspiracy theory. Second, even if the person spreads something that is widely considered a conspiracy theory, does that make them a theorist? We have a somewhat similar question regarding "anti-vaccine activist". Even if someone is staunchly anti-vax, are they an activist? Does one conspiracy a theorist make? These become subjective questions and as such we should avoid putting them in Wiki voice. Springee (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

1. You really need to familiarize yourself with the definition of a conspiracy theorist.

2. I don't much care what you think about it in any case, as you've already shot way past the point of WP:PACT as far as I'm concerned. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

So lacking a logical reply you are attacking other editors? Springee (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

So you don't know how to count to two? That's just... Wow. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The size of the pin-head on which the angels* are dancing is getting vanishingly small. People are just throwing words around... (*not actual angels...) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like this cat should not even include BLP subjects given WP:OPINIONCAT and the previous discussions about similar cats mentioned by Masem.[19][20] PackMecEng (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed several from British Conspiracy Theorist category; one great example is Richard Lacey (microbiologist) he was labelled a 'conspiracy theorist' for `suggesting a link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and its human Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease.` Objectively 'Conspiracy Theorist' is not supported by the article, but subjectively, he should not be in a list with Alex Jones, because he was bloody well right! It's a minefield. JeffUK (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

So according to you, a guy WROTE A BOOK called Clinton Bush and CIA Conspiracies: From The Boys on the Tracks to Jeffrey Epstein is NOT a conspiracy theorist? --Calton | Talk 12:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article talk page. But as it pertains to this discussion According to me is entirely irrelevant, according to reliable sources is the measure. JeffUK (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I provided some very clear evidence of what reliable sources say on the subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Abdullah.masood.766

User appears to be engaging in impersonation of BLP article subject Derek Muller. Melmann 10:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy Nelson

{{request edit}} Lili hildering (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)I am reporting libelous text on Jimmy Nelson's Wikipedia page. This text has a very spiteful and personal tone and in some cases is not even supported by any sources. The sources that are referred to either don't include material that supports the claim, or the sources are unreliable and are a personal opinion. In other cases, the sources are even non-existing links. Statements are made and pretend to be factual but are in fact very subjective. These opinions of a few people have a very dominant place on Jimmy Nelson's Wikipedia page and continue to have a negative impact on his reputation and his mission to spread a positive message of which the essence is that every human is a unique beautiful individual and that we should respect one another.

I have copied in the text I'm referring to below.

Authenticity Nelson's work has been the subject of much criticism from a variety of sources, including the very people he photographs and represents in his book.[16]--> this is not reflected in the source.

Generalizations Nelson's work has also been criticized for harmful inaccuracies and generalizations, which Nelson uses to make himself and his photography look good, but which harm the cause of the tribal people he is using. --> this is not substantiated by a source and is very subjective.

Nelson also received criticism from fellow photographers, such as Timothy Allen, a veteran photographer for the BBC's Human Planet. He states that, "the patronizing and self-aggrandizing narrative behind 'Before They Pass Away' is literally painful to watch."[4] --> This is an opinion of Timothy Allen, of which his opinion is not substantiated by a source but is personal by nature, while at the same time his opinion gets a very prominent place on the Wikipedia page.

Exploitation Nelson denies exploiting any of the indigenous communities and claims that only after gaining trust and understanding of their culture they grant him access.[13] --> wording such as "he denies" and "he claims" frame Jimmy Nelson's opinion and counterargument sound as a lie instead of an honest answer.

Papuan tribal leader Benny Wenda has also criticized Nelson for describing his tribe as "headhunters", when in fact the Dani have never practised cannibalism. Mr Wenda said: “The real headhunters are the Indonesian military who have been killing my people. My people are still strong and we fight for our freedom. We are not ‘passing away,’ we are being killed by the brutal Indonesian soldiers. That is the truth.”[20] --> There is no reference in the source used to back up the statement that Jimmy Nelson describes the Dani as headhunters and also that Jimmy "passing" away means "something else than being killed"

The headers "Authenticity", "Generalizations", and "Exploitation" also attract negative attention and I don't see why these would be necessary, since they also refer to the opinions of literally three people.

I would very much appreciate it if you could remove the blaspheming text. I am also very curious about your opinion on this matter.

I am looking forward to your response.Lili hildering (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I assume you mean Jimmy Nelson (photographer)? There are a lot of Jimmy Nelson articles. Unless you are asserting that Nelson is a god nothing in the article is "blaspheming". Notfrompedro (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I have consolidated the criticism since much was WP:UNDUE.[21] There definitely was too many quotes from WP:RSOPINION when the points had already been summarised over and over. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Tim Pool

Tim Pool has recently come under some heat after a recent edit by an unknown user IP to add a potentially inflammatory to the header of the article[22]. The article body does not maintain such a depiction and the tag itself is poorly sourced. Seeing as this is WP:BLP I'd kindly request some assistance. Some users have made reverts that appear to be in good faith but are not addressing the concerns raised. Kind Regards Alexandre8 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Tim Pool is not far-right… yet. He’s many things but far-right is at this time a stretch. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:8E6:3B6:8508:359D (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

That source is useable, but I wouldn't put it in the lede, but rather in the "Views" section, and attribute it, such as According to The Daily Beast, "Tim Pool has racked up more than a billion views and millions in earnings while dangerously whitewashing the far right."

The IP implying that Pools politics are complicated seems to be correct, as well as with the (more explicit) statement that Pool is moving further to the right over time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Chandler Thornton

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

Recently, an IP added a section to the article that is WP:UNDUE, inflammatory, and poorly sourced. I trimmed it a bit, but it's not anywhere nearly enough. I posted to the article Talk page, but the article has very few page watchers, and thus far no one has responded. If more experienced editors could take a look? The section at issue is now called "2021 election controversy section", not ideal, but better than its original name.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Footnotes 8–15 (cited sources) are either questionable or unreliable sources, and should be removed along with the material that they support since this is a BLP and the information is as Bbb23 described above. Atsme 💬 📧 00:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Removed the section entirely, multiple clear and unambiguous violations of WP:BLPSPS. There might be something salvageable in the National Review articles, but I decided to take the safe option and remove everything pending discussion. FDW777 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
It turns out I didn't, since I wrongly assumed the editing after Bbb23's version introduced the problematic material. Deleted all the Twitter stuff. FDW777 (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Steve Baker falsely claims to be FRSA

The Steve Baker page claims that he is a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRSA). The List of Fellows of the Royal Society does not mention him. Either their list should be updated or his claim should be removed. I have emailed the Royal Society and await a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterFV (talk • contribs)

It doesn't appear that it's really that hard to join. Based on this you just fill out an application and pay a bit and blammo, FRSA. Share your personal contact information Answer a few short questions about your interests and alignment with our values Provide payment details for a one-off registration fee of £75 and a charitable subscription of £15.17 per month. Maybe FRSA doesn't mean as much as it used to? Also I assume this is about Steve Baker (politician) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: wrong RSA, the OP is referring to Fellow of the Royal Society whose list can be found https://royalsociety.org/fellows/fellows-directory and Steve Baker doesn't appear on the list. Given its references to Twitter, self-serving and there is reasonable doubt as to whether he is (since he doesn't appear on the list) I'm removing it. FDW777 (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually @ScottishFinnishRadish: you had the right RSA, going by his personal website which does link to the one you said. Our article linked him to the wrong RSA. FDW777 (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On his personal biography page it linked to thersa.org, and in the article I believe it linked there as well. But with a different Royal Society that seems more legit I agree with removing the information on him having been scammed into paying a group of people to have his name on a list that is vaguely like another, fancier list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a great deal of confusion here:

Royal Society - "the oldest national scientific institution in the world", founded in 1660.

Royal Society of Arts - founded in 1754 as "the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce".

Both organisations have a Royal Charter. Neither organisation can remotely be described as a 'scam'. Both have 'Fellows' (FRS and FRSA respectively), and both have included a lot of very significant individuals amongst them. If the only source that states that Baker is a FRSA though, it doesn't belong in his biography, until other sources consider it worthy of comment. And if becoming a FRSA now involves little more than regular donation, Wikipedia probably shouldn't be trying to compile a list of current members. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue but if becoming a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts just requires a payment, then our article needs to be updated since currently it says:

Acceptance into the fellowship is strict. New fellows are selected by the nomination of an existing fellow or by a request for fellowship.[11] If applicants apply without a nomination, they have to be supported by two referees. All nominations and applications are reviewed by a fellowship admissions panel.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know anything about them, but looking at their website I got a Mensa vibe, where you try and convince smart people to be not quite smart enough to avoid paying you to say they're smart. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Rachel Brookes

verifiable, public domain link to the subject's date of birth is being repeatedly deleted by contributor 'Owen Parr 77' — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPv4-21August1974 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

That source doesn't look good enough to me to meet WP:DOB. I suggest you stop edit warring and discuss on the talk page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

That source isn't reliable, it should be nowhere near any assertion about a WP:BLP. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Long-term disruption at Rachel Brookes. FDW777 (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

OP blocked (along with many other accounts). Girth Summit _(blether) 13:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Should probably be at AFD. I cant find any content about her that would pass as a reliable source. Two of the references in the article are content written by her for her employer, so are not even considerable for notability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Only in death, the other one is a Wordpress blog, so... Girth Summit _(blether) 14:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Request to block Object404 from editing BLP of RJ Nieto and others

The old version of RJ Nieto is blatantly contentious for a long time, with poorly-cited references, circular self-referential opinion articles as references, and is intent on putting the subject on bad light, calling him "propagandist, fake news peddler, state-sponsored troll, paid blogger" and other labels. All previous attempts to revise the article and fix the multiple issues tags were futile because Object404 who is intent on gatekeeping the article is always reverting it, engaging in edit war with previous editors who tried to revise it, and reverting to his edit version, adding superficial citatio to justify the contentious materials, and attempt to absorb the added content to the article only to remove it later on to restore its negative tone. But perhaps the most blatant thing in that article is its downright discrimination against RJ Nieto, as an openly gay person, and against LGBT people in general. The subsection "Cultureal Criticism" that I keep removing but Object404 insist on restoring labels LGBT people as evil people who deceive other people through blogging, and citing a "scholar" whose works are not apparently verifiable or if the "scholar" even exists at all. Suffice to say that Object404 is a homophobe and so I am requesting to prevent him from editing BLP of LGBT people. Another BLP that Object404 is gatekeeeping and vandalising with contentious materials is Mocha Uson and Mocha Uson Blog. The request to block him from overall BLP is because as exhibitd on RJ Nieto article he is also capable of sneaking libelous magerials about other living people deep in subsections of article about related persons such as what he did to Rigoberto Tiglao which he label as "propagandist powered by politicians" and citing the same poor sources like opinion pages and articles that present opinions as facts. Object404 (Redacted) seems intent on using Wikipedia to malign the perceived supporters of the Duterte government by creating, gatekeeping and maintaining articles that are negative in tone and violates BLP policy on neutrality. How he is left allowed to do that for so long is also need to put into attention. How come the downright homophobic/transphobic content on Neito's article remain unchallenged, unremoved for so long is simply appalling given the apparently strict measures imposed on BLPs. And as per BLP policy, even if a statement has citation sources, if its content is contentious such as "scholarly" opinions attributing negative aspects to their race, gender, nationality, (dis)ability, it must be removed. So why is Object404 aparently exempted from this and has been allowed for so long to write and maintain contentious articles about BLP? @User:HighInBC Azuresky Voight (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This report will likely not give you the result you were looking for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC, pinging, as I don't think the original ping went through. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

globelamp wiki controversies section.

ok so the Elizabeth Le Fey Dapena globelamp wiki keeps being edited likely by one of her stalkers 'Bo' , a Charli XCX stan (we don;t even have a problem with Charli and saw her live) who is toxic and has been stalking us for several years. I have tried to remove the slander but Wikipedia keeps putting it back even though the 'sources' for the Globelamp controversies section are the tweets of this guy la the idler wheel and not real sources. Very sexist troll who has also helped spread lies that my gf hurt me. If you ever see that it is NEVER true. And trying to use hearsay as fact in the wiki section, completely one sided out of context lies. Every single thing in that section is a false recounting of events and completely debatable or literal legal falsehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:dc40:99:49d9:bb3d:ad60:e3f3 (talk • contribs) 2021-08-06T19:05:06 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. This issue seems to have since been addressed at Talk:Elizabeth le Fey § Sourcing in Controversies section, and the article (presently) doesn't contain any information sourced solely to independent Twitter accounts. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 02:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Utada Hikaru

This biography seems to feature a reliably sourced announcement of nonbinary identity, which some editors don't like. More eyes, particularly ones familiar with MOS:GENDERID, are needed There have been issues with misgendering in categories, and different approaches proposed to whether or not to include personal pronouns in the article and if so, which ones. Newimpartial (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If the subject has reliably said that they're nonbinary, and hasn't qualified that with "but still consider myself a woman" or something, then we should not say that they're a woman. And if the situation is ambiguous, then we should err on the side of caution and avoid calling them a woman or nonbinary until we have a clear answer. But under no circumstances should we, with the facts we have right now, be calling them a woman. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Reginald Boulos

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

A very poorly sourced biography of a Haitian businessman (and opposition politician?), which is currently semi-protected due to BLP violations, i.e. allegations of involvement in the assassination of Haiti President Jovenel Moise being added to the article. More eyes on the page would be welcomed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

CallMeCarson

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

Hello, I'm not entirely sure how this page works but, unsourced or poorly sourced statements about this person, CallMeCarson, which potentially violate BLP are being repeatedly re-added to this article. I wasn't sure if i should put this here or simply continue to remove the content but hopefully this will help resolve the problem. Corinal (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The allegations about Carlson and underage grooming have been covered in Business Insider, so it's not like it's being sourced to blogs or tabloids. That said, their inclusion should be handled with care. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Mark Brnovich

Article Mark Brnovich, subsection "Voting rights and redistricting". Article claims "Arizona Republicans hired a firm headed by a pro-Trump conspiracy theorist to audit the Arizona election." This potentially libelous claim is not sourced. The reference given at the end of the paragraph does not contain that claim. I placed "citation needed" in that sentence; it was removed without response. This appears to be an inappropriate and problematic original editorial opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surakmath (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 Aug 2021 (UTC)</span

@Surakmath:I've removed the conspiracy theorist bit, as unsupported by the source. Let's see if it's reverted again. Neiltonks (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Quinn (soccer)

See talk page on Quinn (soccer) (and page history) re MOS:NB / WP:BLPPRIVACY / WP:BLPNAME related issues.

I've already contacted WP:RFO about it, and emailed Quinn directly to let them know (including links to the relevant policies and email address for the Oversight team in case they wish to express a preference).

I believe it's all good faith so far (aside from some quickly revdel'd vandalism), but may merit attention as needing a BLP policy decision or just calming things down while that's in process. So, FYI. Sai ¿?✍ 18:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:ANI#Newimpartial claming BLP protection for edit warring Sai ¿?✍ 18:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I am curious why you feel that ANI might be relevant here...Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Because you are involved in both, for almost exactly the same issue. Per your talk page, this seems to have been a recurring concern. That's relevant to contextual awareness and consistency of response for admins. I'm not expressing any negative view of you nor your viewpoints, just gnoming. Sai ¿?✍

Unless you think that including non-notable deadnames is somehow the same issue as misgendering BLP subjects in categories (or with pronouns), what you just said makes no sense at all. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll be honest, Sai, I've read through the talk thread after you pinged me, and I've read through this, and I still have no idea what the issue is here.

It's a matter of public record that they're nonbinary/trans. We always note this in such cases.
The fact that they were AFAB is a matter of public record and is relevant to the reader. I support omitting nonbinary people's GAAB where it's not relevant, but when someone plays for the women's national team, readers will want to know if they're AMAB or AFAB (especially given all of the fuss about trans women in women's sports).
They were not notable under their full birth name, so we don't note this, per MOS:GENDERID.
They were notable under their birth first+last name, so we note this, per GENDERID.

Personally I think MOS gives too much weight to the former names of subjects, trans and cis alike, but that's a much broader policy question that would take a large RfC to resolve. What is it, exactly, that you think is being done here that differs from how we treat other trans people's biographies? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I saw it only due to the mononymy, which I maintain. I don't generally touch BLP pages aside from the occasional random gnoming. In particular, I didn't say I thought anything was being done same or differently from how other trans people's biographies are treated. I merely noted the existence of controversy on the (full) talk page, bordering on overheated, which BLP admins may want to address. Sai ¿?✍ 23:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

establish a consensus - Re: Aaron Coleman talkpage

help establish a consensus ?

sorry for any mistakes in advance. I will log off from Wiki until I hear back from someone with more experience with this website... dont like having my hard work deleted for no reason. I have better things to do than kill time on the internet

OsagePizza 08/10/2021 - OsagePizza72 (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

As I explained in detail on the talk page, I don't think you have much chance of establishing a consensus for your proposed addition of that minor story you brought up on the talk page. No comment on the other issues. Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Caitlyn Jenner and MOS:DEADNAME

Hi everyone! You may want to view or participate in this discussion regarding debate over what name to use for Caitlyn Jenner in the article Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics. I am bringing it up here per a MOS:DEADNAME notice at the relevant talk page indicating that "in the case of living people", this noticeboard should be notified if "material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Julia Michaels

Hello - all of the Guild of Music Supervisor awards listed on the page for Julia Michaels were actually won by Julia Michels, who is a different person: http://www.formatent.com/julia-michels

I am not skilled enough to make all the corrective edits, but wanted to draw attention because this is incorrect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyssamarie (talk • contribs)

I removed that section after checking the sourcing. Seems like Julia Michel shouldn't be a red link with all those awards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

David_Popovici

I am writing on behalf of David Popovici himself and his father, Mihai Popovici. Please help changing the current photo, as it is an old one so it became irrelevant.

Please note we have all copyright licenses and rights to use for the pic below. Thank you!

David Popovici by Inquam Photos

I have posted on User_talk:Baaobaab's talk page detailing the right way to get a new photograph onto this article. (In brief: Upload an appropriately licensed image, request for that image to be included on the article via the talk page) JeffUK (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Use of DOB in article for skateboarder Sky Brown

A previous discussion determined date of birth should not be included in the Sky Brown article because "the date of birth is not widely published in reliable sources" and "there's no need for a under-16 person's details to be in an encyclopedia." As Brown is an Olympic medalist, and a notably young one at that, her birthdate is very widely published and can easily be found, for example at the IOC athlete database. As for the statement that birthdate should not be included for anyone under-16, that would substantiate a major recalibration of Wikipedia standards and cannot be determined in a limited discussion for a single page. The DOB should no longer be considered contentious and ought to be included in the Sky Brown article. – Spitzmauskc (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't be pulling from records like the IOC's database for this. But its clear that the RSes have identified how old she is enough to peg a month and year but not to the exact date, as she was one of the youngest athletes to compete. But none that I see list the date exactly. Thus the best course of action is to give the month and year but not the date. --Masem (t) 00:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"Not to the exact date" only if you don't want to do basic math. Lots of major news sources in England published her 3rd place finish as "the youngest Olympic medalist in the history of GB" at 13 years and 28 days at the 4th of August^[1], at this point is really just a matter of again, a simple calculation to her DOB. But shouldn't we pull from IOC database, really? I'd say it's the most realizable source there is since they use the athlete's documentation, and since it's public access I wouldn't say it's much of a privacy matter to replicate said data on to Wikipedia. Also many other articles do use this information to state the person's DOB if said person was in the Olympics. Really, why isn't the olympics dot com website a RS? Gwennire (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't be pulling any birthdate information from primary sources like the IOC database. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Our articles for the silver medallist in Brown's event, Kokona Hiraki, has a full DOB, as does Hend Zaza, a Syrian table tennis player (and the youngest competitor at the 2020 Olympics) and they are both 12 years old. Perhaps we should widen this discussion to include them, as we ought be aiming for consistency. Edwardx (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

July 2008 seems fine, the issue before was that there was some contention on whether the exact date is 7 or 12 July- though IOC database states the date explicitly, other sources e.g. newspapers are just doing it as age at a point in time. Note if we're not going to show the whole date of birth, we should also probably remove at the age of 13 years and 28 days from the article- as that implicitly gives an exact date of birth. And we should probably have a wider consensus for all under-16 or under-18 Olympic competitors about this, as there will be quite a number of articles that could become inconsistent with each other. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Gwennire AFAICT, no one has said the database isn't an RS. BLPDOB explicitly requires we go beyond requiring the information is published in a reliable source. It requires the information is widely published or published by a source linked to the subject. As I mentioned in a previous discussion, I'm in agreement with ScottishFinnishRadish and Masem that simply being in the database does not qualify as widely published. And while competitors would be involved in the process of providing the information to the IOC (or whoever), I don't think we can say they agreed or wanted the information republished. Repeating again this has nothing to do whether it's an RS. If other sources are using the database and republishing the information that's fine. When other sources choose to republish some information because they think it's reliable and significant, and it becomes widely published we accept that privacy concerns are sufficiently allayed. That's precisely how BLPDOB is supposed to work so the fact this sometimes or even often happens doesn't mean we should change our view of the database. Indeed I had planned to write something similar when Masem was the only respondent. Note this means it's unlikely there will be consistency across all articles except in so much as consistency when the circumstances are very similar. In some cases sufficient sources may have re-published the information. In other cases, especially when the competitor wasn't a medal winner or otherwise do something which generated wide-spread coverage, it's may not be. Finally, I'd note I'm fairly sure we've established before that calculating a date of birth based on a date at a given date is a routine calculation per WP:CALC and therefore not OR. Indeed we even have a template for it I'm sure. So if lots of reliable secondary sources reported on someone's age at a certain date, IMO that qualifies for "widely published". I'd even support allowing the database as an additional source for the date of birth if it's already widely published via precise age at a certain date. Although again that doesn't mean it happened in other cases, that need to be established on a case by case basis. Note that personally I'd support even greater privacy protections for DOBs of minors, but I'm not sure that's support by current policy so I don't feel comfortable advocating it as a reason for excluding the information. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, once a minor has surpassed notability measures and falls within PUBLICFIGURE (as the case for Sky Brown), any non-legally-binding privacy measures due to be a minor that we normally employ are out the door; my simple reasoning not to include the date (but month and year) is that no source I've seen gives a direct or CALC-accepted way to get that date, and we shouldn't include DOBs pulled from primary databases. Would be true if Sky was 16, 46, or 96. --Masem (t) 13:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources using WP:CALC birthdate include BBC, The Guardian, and Business Insider Japan. These articles use the 7 July 2008 birthdate, as used in the IOC database. – Spitzmauskc (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I was going to raise concern that we don't know exactly when the copy of those articles was written versus when they were posted, but the Guardian one is very clear that it identifies the day of the week from which they are counting (not the publication date of the article), and so yes, CALC would be fine to apply to that. --Masem (t) 21:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/58082535

Ian Gillan

Can I get a few more eyes to review this edit? I am aware that Gillan has publicly criticised his Wikipedia article in the past, and I have attempted to fix it up and adhere to BLP. But removing stuff that was in an old revision of his autobiography because he's changed his mind about wanting to publicly mention it isn't really what BLP is about. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Mocha Uson

Hi. I saw an archive of your action taken against User:Object404's sockpuppet User:JMR raggster a few years ago, with the former engaging in edit wars and vandalism. Object404 apparently has not changed ways. He has been vandalizing several articles that blatantly violate the Biography of Living Persons policy on neutrality, as well as blatantly adding content that are downright discriminatory against LGBT members. His vandalism is most prominent on articles about RJ Nieto, Mocha Uson and Mocha Uson Blog, in addition to the pages of Ferdinand Marcos' descendants and people related to Rodrigo Duterte. If you check 404's edit history, he has been insistent in keeping the contentious materials on these articles even when they have been contested in the past for several times; with him engaging in edit wars, reverting to his version that labels the subjects "propagandists", "fake news peddlers", "LGBT experts in fake news", "state-sponsored trolls", and so on. In few cases he would pretend to incorporate neutral edits added by other editors but would then again delete such and revert to his version that is contentious. And even when the neutrality of the article tone has been raised in light of BLP policy, he would argue that such malicious content have references, but a closer look on his citations most if not all of which were merely opinion articles presented or masquerading as facts. Any content that contradict such citation he would remove and claim as untrustworthy source. I do not know to what extent does Object404 vandalise other BLP articles but those three aforementioned have been so severe. There have also been disputes on the transparency of his edits as he seem to be affiliated with groups that are directly adversarial against the subjects of articles he has been vandalising. I have since informed other admins but are yet to take action. I am bringing this to your attention because you were the one who have imposed an action towards the erring editor in the past, and one who has utmost potential to investigate the extent of his activities. @User:Bbb23 @User:HighInBC Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I have never engaged in vandalism on Wikipedia, nor did I engage in sockpuppetry. User:JMR raggster was a friend and I was unaware of WP policies on meatpuppetry at the time and I made the mistake of violating it. I was appropriately sanctioned and served my time. I continue to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. As for Mocha Uson, see the appropriate talk page: [[Talk:Mocha_Uson] with my conversation with Azuresky Voight. I would actually contend with this as Azuresky Voight performing whitewashing and deleting swathes of well-sourced and documented content by WP:RS on the RJ Nieto and Mocha Uson pages, and that he is the one performing disruptive editing. Regards, -Object404 (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

[1] "TELACU: Agency Told to Repay $1 Million". Los Angeles Times. April 17, 1983. Retrieved March 18, 2021 – via newspapers.com.(subscription required)

[2] Chávez, John R. (1998). Eastside Landmark A History of the East Los Angeles Community Union, 1968-1993. Stanford University Press. p. 207. ISBN 9780804733335.

[3] Bauman, Robert (2014). Race and the War on Poverty: From Watts to East L.A. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 104. ISBN 0806185201.

[4] "TELACU: New Book on Agency". Los Angeles Times. April 27, 1999. Retrieved March 18, 2021 – via newspapers.com.(subscription required)

[5] Kurtz, Howie (August 12, 1982). "Audit Says Anti-Poverty Agency And Subsidiaries Misused Funds". Washington Post. Retrieved March 18, 2021.

[6] ttps://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/58082535

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]