Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive334

Kristen Stewart

On the Kristen Stewart article there's been repeated controversy about whether or not to include statements of her mother's heritage. At least two users contest adding this (one believes the cited ancestry is negligible and another believes information about the subject's mother should not be placed on the page.) The source of this is a YouTube copyright violation as seen in the diff here.

Personally I am of the view that controversial information about Jules Stewart should not crowd up Kristen's page. I'm hesitant to remove the information myself due to inexperience and possibly inciting more arguments. Should this page be further protected after the violating video is removed? Cinematic Maniac (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The source is unacceptable and the reinstatement was improper if they are arguing that talking about family is WP:ABOUTSELF. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why there's controversy. Kristen Stewart went on The Howard Stern Show on November 5, 2019, which is one of the biggest radio shows in the United States, and discussed elements of her recent family background. The text in the article reflected what she stated (her mother was adopted by a Jewish couple in California, Norma and Ben Urman, in 1953; a DNA test showed that one of Kristen's biological maternal grandparents was Ashkenazi Jewish).

That's it. What she said hasn't been questioned or disputed in the media, and it's not an exceptional claim (primary sources also back it up as being accurate). What she said can also be literally heard and seen by anyone who'd like in the video linked. If that website is a copyright violation, then the link itself doesn't have to be included. This discussion isn't about the specific link, for me, at least (which has now been removed by Cinematic Maniac, anyway, along with the text). It's about the text and the fact that Stewart plainly stated it on a platform with an audience of millions. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The Howard Stern Show is in no way a reliable source nor its interviews to be putting WP:UNDUE emphasis on. People can lie, and there's no fact checking in the interview. Further, WP:ABOUTSELF restricts claims about third parties. It's not a hard concept. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a comment Stern made, or something. Of course the subject of an article giving an interview on as public a forum as Stern's show would be a reliable source for the subject or their background. I'm not sure where "people can lie" comes from - you're saying a person stating a fact about their background in an interview can't be used as a reliable source about that person? That certainly is very extreme, and it isn't the standard on Wikipedia. Unless otherwise disputed in the media (i.e. Elizabeth Warren, Ward Churchill) such statements, unless exceptional, are presumed to be true. (and in this particular case, everything Stewart said is backed by primary sources anyway) All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This may not be completely acceptable to either side of this debate, but I would humbly suggest that the statement in question (or some version of it) be preceded by "According to Stewart, her mother ...". A video of Stewart saying something is a perfectly acceptable source that she said it. I don't think a brief statement by Stewart is a WP:UNDUE problem; the article is about her, what she does, what she thinks, and what she says. Many Wikipedia bios base the ethnic or national heritage of the person on what that person reports. What the person reports may not always be 100% verifiable, but if it's reliably sourced that they said, the words that they say cannot be disputed. Sundayclose (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

If this were a newspaper, I would agree with you. As an encyclopedia, I think we need to let the newspapers and other secondary sources do that sort of investigative journalism. Otherwise it becomes sort of a Pandora's box where people can just cherrypick the quotes they like, look for those gotcha moments (or overtly self-serving moments), and other things that we shouldn't be doing ourselves. The problem with weight comes with the source itself, and we cannot really give much weight to an unreliable source regardless if it's "proof" that someone said something. Talk shows can be edited and narratives created out of soundbites from interviews that have no relation to what was really said. (Not saying that's the case here, but it's a staple of so-called reality TV., and many other things. It's a big reason we don't use youtube as an RS.)

In my opinion, it's far better to let the RSs do the journalism and decide which quotes are relevant or gives the gist of it. Zaereth (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying interviews can't be used as sources about a person? Interviews are the sources used for the background/personal life of most contemporary actors. Hard-hitting investigative journalism isn't often involved, nor required (and there's absolutely no "out of context" issue here, nor has anyone suggested one). And the Howard Stern show has an audience of millions of people, which makes it much more prominent than almost any interview or article published anywhere. What confuses me about this situation is why. What is the motivation? Stewart herself said it as clearly and publicly as possible, primary sources back it up (her mother's birth record, her adoptive grandparents' marriage record, etc., all cited on the article talk page), no one in the media is disputing it; it seems like the most cut-and-dry situation. So what's the point of all of this, exactly? Why was "people can lie" ever used in this discussion?

@Sundayclose I wouldn't be opposed to "According to Stewart..." All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, but I come down on Zaereth's side here. It's WP:ABOUTSELF but draws in other people, and I am not that concerned about outright lying, but garbled recollections, repetition of spurious family legend, etc., are all theoretical possibilities. Do people approach an interview with Mr. Stern the same way they might with a major newspaper? I have my doubts (with no offense intended to Mr. Stern). All in all, it just doesn't seem worth it to me. As ever, if consensus is against me, I will not kvetch! Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The question is not one of whether or not it is true. It's more of a question of who cares? That's what weight is all about. We have to summarize the sources, which means cutting out many of the boring details. Someone always cares about this detail or that, for whatever reason, it's important to them. But is it important enough to everybody else that we should include it? Our measure of that is a fairly mathematical one, where we simply weigh the sources against each other, and apportion everything accordingly. If no one in a RS thought it was worth covering, then it doesn't carry nearly as much weight as stuff RSs thought were more important. It's a big part of how we keep info like trivia out of articles on celebrities, and other things like OR.

So, why is this so important to you? If the adoptive parents are possibly still alive, we shouldn't be naming them unless they themselves are notable enough for their own article. Otherwise, why should this information be important to the general reader? In Wikipedia, the answer to that question is mostly a matter of weight. Zaereth (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

In thinking about it, I think DNA is a good example of something an RS should really discuss. Ancestry tests are a great example of the commercialization of science run amok. For example, you breed two dogs, one black and the other tan. The pups rarely will come out a perfect mix of the two, like a dark brown or something. Rather, some may be black and some tan, and others bi-color, saddleback, or any mixture of the two. Some may come out white for some unknown reason. I took a DNA test, and mine came back mostly Scandinavian. My brother took the same test and found out he's mostly Irish. According to our lineage, we're both Welsh. The thing about DNA is that we know know so very little about it still to this day, and you go back just 20 generations and you have over a million great, great, great grandparents. Zaereth (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Being adopted is a "family legend"? Adopted parents are noted all the time. Family members like parents and siblings are noted by name all the time. This isn't WP:otherstuffexists, it's WP:otherstuffcorrectlyexists. (ps, we don't actually have to name her grandparents, who are deceased, by the way; I don't think the specific names were the point of contention, anyway) I think much of this is an extreme interpretation of various policies. As for DNA, people who test out 24% Ashkenazi Jewish tend to have an Ashkenazi grandparent. In the early 1950s, when her mother was adopted, most Jewish couples adopted through Jewish adoption agencies that matched them with babies that were born to Jewish mothers (and sometimes fathers, as well). So, her mother was born and raised Jewish (almost certainly born to a Jewish mother, given the DNA test). Of course, I didn't put those particular details in the article, only what Stewart herself stated (which went unchallenged for nearly a year, by the way). Reporting what someone says - especially in a public outlet to millions of listeners - is certainly following WP:BLP. This is the BLP messageboard, after all, and I don't see how reporting what the subject of the article themselves stated is a violation of at least that policy, unless there's some kind of dispute between living persons over a set of facts, and we're choosing one side over the other, and there's nothing like this here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I maintain my objection, subject to consensus, of course. WP:ABOUTSELF specifically says no claims about third parties, which we have here. And "family legends" can be about many things; while I doubt the inherent nature of an adoption would be subject to such a "legend" (for lack of a better term), the circumstances thereof very frequently are, in my limited experience. The offhand nature of the remarks continues to give me pause, and I think the article is better off without this particular bit. Cheers, all, and Happy Holidays. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider such close relatives as "third parties" on which they should not be trusted. I.e., when someone says, "my husband's name is so-and-so," "I have three children," "I have a brother named Steven," such statements tend to be used as sources (and should be) unless disputed or implausible. No commentary is made about the 'circumstances' of the adoption. In any case, Stewart's mother's family background is also Stewart's, by definition. I wouldn't consider the remarks offhand, either; they were plainly stated and in lucid detail. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That's fair, but I am afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Shark Boy

It seems that an independent wrestler has been editing Shark Boy's Wikipedia page to impersonate him. You can see in real time as the person updates things as he realized he missed something that would make it inaccurate, such as Shark Boy working in a company while the vandal was a child/age/championships/DOB. There also had been a brief reversion to the original name of the performer, before the same person changed it to different information about himself

The Dean Roll article from September seems to be the largely accurate one(barring a few procedural link updates and the bit about him appearing in 2019). I just didn't know where to exactly put this or how to properly revert the article, let alone point out that someone seems to be using Wikipedia to impersonate a minor celebrity, and possibly make money off their likeness as they are masked and their face isn't widely known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.139.53.227 (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a really strange case! I've reverted to this revision as essentially an emergency action -- this is a particularly severe sort of BLP vio (I don't think I've seen anything like it before -- anyone else?) and it needed to be dealt with pronto. That revision isn't in fantastic shape and is throwing up a few ref errors from the 2020 CS1 updates, but it credits the right guy, so it's an improvement. Vaticidalprophet 03:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

John McDougall

I see that Wikipedia is proud of providing neutral information. Therefore the biography of John McDougall (nutritionist, physician, author, speaker, etc) should be seen as the shameful, prejudiced character assassination that it is. It's difficult to read such concentrated misinformation, but I remember some statements like: creator of fad diets, that cause malabsorption of minerals from too much fiber, cause flatulence, and there is no scientific evidence for his diet -- which is a simple low fat vegan diet. There is, of course, a wealth of scientific evidence from innumerable scientific studies to support a low fat vegan diet, and John McDougall has been an important pioneer in real nutrition research -- a glance at any one of his several books will settle the point. But the authors of this Wikipedia article seem only interested in attacking McDougall for their own personal reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.201.97 (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: John A. McDougall  melecie  t - 13:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems a bit odd to post here if your beef is with the description of the diet (not the description of the guy). If there truly is "a wealth of scientific evidence" relevant to this diet product, then bring the sources forth. The high-quality sources cited at the moment say it's just another fad diet, with some downsides (too much farting e.g.). Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

George Kurtz

The article about George Kurtz mentions two children by name. Since the children are minors, are not notable, add no value to the article, and are not covered themselves in any reliable high-quality secondary sources, could an editor:

• Change the first sentence of the Personal life section to simply read as "Kurtz is married to his wife, Annamaria."
• Remove the children number from the infobox

WP:BLPNAME notes that "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons" and the subject of this article would prefer that these non-notable minors are not mentioned in this article. I would make these two edits myself but I have a financial conflict of interest related to the subject of this article, which is why I am raising this for other editors to evaluate and implement as you see fit. Thanks, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The source was wildly inappropriate for naming minor children, so I removed it. I also removed his wife's name, as it's now unsourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. -JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert Evans

I am the subject of this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Evans_(writer)

It was created independently almost a decade ago and has since been added to by various editors. I wanted to tidy it up as it was a mess structurally, so I paid an editor to re-format it. The editor did not rewrite the page and there was never any issue with what it contained prior to this. But since reformatting it has been totally shredded by others editors who have applied warnings about its neutrality and that it contains a paid contribution.

How am I supposed to get rid of these warnings and ensure it adheres to Wiki's guidelines if I cannot pay someone to change it? I totally respect that it should be neutral and am very happy for it simply to contain facts. But if I can't remove these arbitrary warnings is there a way to just delete the page entirely? I feel this is most unfair as it has a direct impact on my career when potential employers search for details on me and find a messy page like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTypistTypes (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You could use the Talk page perhaps? request an edit sorta thing. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Evans. First, I want to thank you for disclosing the paid editing. We typically frown on that sort of thing. As a writer, I'm sure you're familiar with criticism, so I'm just gonna lay it out straight. The article, in it's current state, sucks. It reads like a combination of a resume and a place to plug your works. And I know this may not necessarily be your fault if it was created and edited by other people, but you should definitely fire the editor you hired and demand your money back, because their additions make it far worse. For example, we usually don't report on things that will happen, or write in the second person, or speak as if were talking within the moment (like saying "now" or "two week ago"). Things like that just confuse the reader. Similarly, if your structural changes consist of removing the italics from every title, that is also something that should not be done. That's common style, not just by WP:Manual of style, but by most every other such as Reuters or Chicago Manual of Style. It lets the reader instinctively know we're talking about a film or TV show, rather than an actual person named Stella or Sadie. Writing nonfiction is a hell of a lot different than writing fiction.

As Roxy mentioned above, the proper way to make changes to your own article is to request on the talk page that others do it for you. (See: WP:Conflict of interest policy)

I think your idea of deleting the article is a good one. I checked the sources, and while a few mention your name (a couple even multiple times), all of them are really about this show or that, and all they say about you is that you wrote it. That makes for a great resume, but not for a biography. We have zero in the way of biographical info on you. Even worse, the sources are low-grade and questionable, and the good majority of sources --don't even mention your name at all-- and I have no clue what they're doing there. This to me looks like a perfect candidate for deletion. The alternative would be for you to pay a real PR rep to do some real PR work outside of Wikipedia. Get your name out there. Do interviews with reliable sources, and give us something we can work with, but do it from out there. I hope that helps Zaereth (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Members of the Council on Foreign Relations

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sustained WP:COATRACK behaviour, regarding edits made at this article concerning living people. Thank you. starship.paint (exalt) 09:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maridhas Malaichamy

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maridhas Malaichamy. Venkat TL (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert Tombs and History Reclaimed

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d and I have had a respectful exchange at Talk:Robert Tombs about the second paragraph of the History Reclaimed section.

Tombs is the editor of History Reclaimed, a website created by a "group of anti-woke scholars" including Nigel Biggar, Zareer Masani, and Andrew Roberts, among others. The website describes itself as "an independent and non-partisan academic organisation ... composed of historians ... dedicated to historical research to expand knowledge and understanding about the fundamental changes surrounding our country."

Reception has been mixed, with right-wing tabloids such as the Daily Express supporting this retaliation by those academics against the perceived wokeism of Black Lives Matter and anti-racist movements. University professor of history Alan Lester commented that while activists may get details wrong, they get the bigger picture right, and Reclaiming History "believe themselves to be marginalised and gagged", despite including at least one CBE. Carlos Conde Solares, a senior lecturer in Spanish history at Northumbria University, wrote that it "purports to defend the positive legacies of colonialism whilst ignoring the contributions to civilisation made by European nations other than Britain."

References

Everything is properly attributed and written by two university professors of history. It is not coatracky because Tombs is the main figure behind the website as editor, and if we are going to have a section about it and include the POV of the website, we should also include its reception and the views of Lester and Solares, who gives secondary coverage for Lester and the Daily Express. They should be removed,1 however, if they are self-published because they cannot be used in BLPs, even if written by experts, per WP:SPS.

Notes

1. They have already been removed, and I did not edit war about it and simply took it to the talk page. Davide King (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Davide King. I'm fine acknowledging that Tombs is a member of History Reclaimed but adding an entire paragraph on the reception of a topic thats tangentially related to the subject seems like a pretty standard case of COATRACK to me. This is especially true considering the fact that the 3 sources include 1) the WP:DAILYEXPRESS 2) A blog on a university site (While Lester may be a subject-matter expert, WP:BLPSPS still applies), and 3) A single, passing mention of Tombs on something called North East Bylines.Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to your for you response and respectful tone. Just to make one thing clear, I am not not actually using the Daily Express as source but Solares did mention it and summarized the website's reception as mixed. I added a direct reference to Lester for context and verification for the quote but all of that is supported by Solares, so I think the self-published claim no longer stands. It may mention Tombs directly only once, like the other scholars, but I think it is still clearly relevant if we are going to discuss briefly Tombs' project. I think it would be better if we could get thoughts from other users, or admins, which is why I took it here. Davide King (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

No one is going to posit or comment on this? I do not doubt that Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d may well be right, and their arguments are good and can certainly respect them, but it would be good to hear more analysis, thoughts, and achieve some consensus. Davide King (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about it, perhaps this is better for, or should be discussed also at, RSN. This noticeboard says: "Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." Davide King (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

2000 Fijian coup d'état

There is a whole nest of articles surrounding the 2000 Fijian coup d'état that are entirely unsourced, and contain allegations that living people have committed various crimes. I have removed some of the BLP violations, leaving behind nearly empty articles like 2000 Fijian coup d'état, and prodded others, like Aftermath of the 2000 Fijian coup d'état. The biggest offender I've seen so far is Trials since the 2000 Fijian coup d'état, and I have done nothing with that. But this is a way bigger problem than I know what to do with myself. Any help or suggestions appreciated. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

There's an active edit filter that stops large edits by new users (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/30), but doesn't seem to care whether or not they're sourced, maybe an additional filter that does this could help? Aaronlearns (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

My mistake, the filter only prevents large deletions. Either way, I think there's a filter that can remedy a problem like this, maybe something having to do with adding an unsourced claim to an article that has no sources. I'll start working on a filter request.Aaronlearns (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's a list, from the navbox. I have not checked all of these.

• Timeline of the 2000 Fijian coup d'état
• Mutinies of the 2000 Fijian coup d'état
• Aftermath of the 2000 Fijian coup d'état
• Investigations since the 2000 Fijian coup d'état
• Removal of Ratu Mara, 2000
• Alleged plot against Ratu Iloilo, 2000
• Trials since the 2000 Fijian coup d'état
• Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit Court Martial, Fiji
• 1977 Fijian constitutional crisis
• 1987 Fijian coups d'état
• 2005–2006 Fijian political crisis
• 2006 Fijian coup d'état
• 2009 Fijian constitutional crisis

GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, @Davidcannon: appears to have created many of the subarticles from the 2000 coup (but back in 2005) and still is a somewhat active editor. Pinging to see if they want to supply input here. --Masem (t) 02:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like this was all in good faith (and likely true), just that there was no official sourcing. According to his page, most of the work he's done on Fiji was 2004-2006, I wonder if sourcing on Wikipedia was different back then. Aaronlearns (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Some of these articles do have sourcing, 2006 Fijian coup d'état is especially thorough. I'm not terribly familiar with BLP guidelines, but I suggest you take a look through the user's bio, and the reason for his work on Fiji. I think deleting this article (as you proposed) is a little extreme, and I won't request a filter, but I think he'd be happy to clear things up. Aaronlearns (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I do note that some of these have the same three sources at the bottom. Yes, they should be inline cites and with more specific referencing (page numbers, etc.) but I won't call them outright uncited. But the number of sub-articles is definitely not needed. --Masem (t) 03:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Those three "sources" were all added just a few days ago. @Mhatopzz: Were those intended to be sources? Sources normally go in the References section. Did you actually check that all of the content of all those articles is verified by those three sources? GA-RT-22 (talk)

Yes, I did read all of those book, some of its content of the three books refer to the coup. Mhatopzz (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC+7)

So you did not verify that the books support everything said in all the articles you added them to, correct? GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Even if general references support, BLP requires in-line citation for controversial facts. The references may mean the article is notable but the content would still need to be stripped and technically should already be stripped of BLP violations until supported. Slywriter (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Kate Bottley

If someone was born in February !975 as stated by wikipedia for Kate Bottley, their age as at December 2021 is NOT 48 - please check your calculations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:36B8:3F00:E400:C74D:183D:85EF (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed the DOB entirely as it was unsourced. Per WP:DOB it needs to be widely covered in secondary sources to be included. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note to the IP, I wonder if you may have seen something wrong or alternatively saw the age somewhere outside Wikipedia. Prior to SFR's change [1] the article used a template which automatically calculates the date based on the person's age and it's been like that for at least 6 days. The age displayed by this template should have been 46 as shown here [2]. It's impossible for any of us to know what the specific cached version you saw had, however whywhile MediaWiki and especially the WMF's specific hosting can be quarkyquirky at times, I'd say it's unlikely an error of this sort occured. It's possible there was some vandalism or a bug in the age template, I didn't check the history but it may be more likely you didn't see 48 on our page. Nil Einne (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC) 03:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Dave Scotti

He is now known as Davy Garlo. According to Screen Actors Guild, YouTube, IMDb, his Webpage and related articles, he lives and works as DAVY GARLO. I emailed him as Davy Garlo, and he responded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinoJinx (talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this a BLP violation?

[3] It’s mentioned in Tracy Stone-Manning but I’m not sure it belongs in Eco_terrorism. Doug Weller talk 19:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Besides being a poor source for politics per WP:FOXNEWS, the cited article stops short of labeling Stone-Manning an eco-terrorist herself, so I'd say it's definitely inappropriate for a section titled "Individuals accused or convicted" of eco-terrorism. clpo13_(talk) 20:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The sources in Stone-Manning's article do not discuss the incident as a eco-terrorist accusation or conviction against her. The source used in the Eco terrorism article is Fox News, and it's not reliable for the claim. I haven't reviewed the list of "Individuals accused or convicted", but its title seems like a magnet for BLP violations. Firefangledfeathers 20:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The editor User:Viktory02 who added the label keeps edit-warring the term eco-terrorist into the BLP even though the sourcing doesn't substantiate the term.[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi I've added additional sources as requested. Describing this as an "edit war" is disingenuous. Is Tracey Stone-Manning an Ecoterrorist? Well, she was never convicted so she would not be considered one. Has Tracey Stone-Manning been accused of being an Ecoterrorist? Yes. Viktory02 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

An edit I have promptly undone as the sources are quotes from those upset with the subject's confirmation. Slywriter (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

That is the entire basis of an accusation. Also many of the same quotes are from individuals who opposed the nomination to begin with. Viktory02 (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The low bar of opponent's mudslingling should NEVER be the standard for a BLP article. Especially mudslinging covered in overtly partisan publications.Slywriter (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Tom Harrison (cricket)

I'm not sure what to make of Tom Harrison Is he notable? 100% But the page has one source, one which reads like a press release and thus the page reads like an ad. Any suggestions as how to fix it? Which tags to add to it? MaskedSinger (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The CEO of the England and Wales Cricket Board is notable. A duckduckgo search for "Tom Harrison cricket" brings up lots of sources. They just need to be added to the page. Burrobert (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Notability isn't the issue. I wrote he's notable. My issue with the page is that there are no sources and it reads like a resume. I've read up on this and will add tags to the page. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ryan's World

Some editors try to edit and add BLPVIO info about the mother's subject into the main article and usually these revisions get removed from the revision history. This time another editor added this info in the talk page, I've reverted it so I guess if an admin can help to remove it from the revision history -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 19:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Antonia Murphy

The Wikipedia entry for Antonia Murphy refers to the Australian actress, however it is linked to photos of Antonia Murphy the author, in addition to the author's website. If you Google "Antonia Murphy" you will see that the Wikipedia link contains incorrect informatiom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoniadreamsup (talk • contribs) 01:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Antoniadreamsup! Unfortunately, this is a problem with Google's "Knowledge Panel", not Wikipedia. See WP:FIXGOOGLE for more information and steps on reporting the image problem to Google. Woodroar (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Mortimer J. Buckley

John D Clark 5678 has entered content 3 times indicating Mortimer J. Buckley was born into a Jewish family, without any supporting reference for verification. The existing reference for the statement he has edited indicates Buckley's father was descended from Irish parents, and I have reverted 3 time, indicating a reference needs to be supplied. The user's contribution history shows a pattern of adding similar unreferenced content to more than a dozen other articles. I warned him on his talk page twice. Please advise. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You might do better to report this at WP:ANI. From looking at other edits by John D Clark 5678, this is almost certainly vandalism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Vanessa O'Brien

Vanessa_O'Brien Section "Early Life": Two biographies seem to have been mixed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CE:F70F:FA00:884E:496F:5D8C:E5CE (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It's been reverted. Just regular old vandalism. Woodroar (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Blackie (Musician)

This article for the rapper B L A C K I E has a link to a website blackieallcapswithspaces.com that redirects to some porn site. I'm 90% sure that the correct link would be blackieallcapswithspaces.bandcamp.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.172.210 (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Links on Blackie (musician) have been replaced with b-l-a-c-k-i-e.com. This is the site that blackieallcapswithspaces.bandcamp.com redirects to. – NJD-DE (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Franklin Aigbirhio

I recently draftified a userpage that looked like a salvageable article in progress about an academic. In corresponding with the creator, he revealed that he is the article's subject. While advising him about the pitfalls of writing autobiographies, I still believe that he is likely to pass WP:NPROF. A given source shows that he at the very least meets WP:NACADEMIC criterion #3.

I lack experience with the "professor test", so I was wondering if someone else could have a look at Draft:Franklin Aigbirhio to verify that this individual is notable enough for inclusion, style and POV issues notwithstanding. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Undoubtedly notable through at least NPROF C1 and C3. It looks ready for mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Rob Gell

Rob also attended Camberwell Grammar School to complete his secondary education. He is a member of the Gallery of Achievement at Camberwell Grammar School, Canterbury, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abahaguy (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You should discuss this, citing your sources, at Talk:Rob Gell, not here. Girth Summit _(blether) 01:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Lil Mama

This article is a mess. It's filled with tons of dubious references to accomplishments with no backing sources; particularly songs allegedly earning millions of dollars that weren't even on major label albums and did not chart or receive any radio play. It needs MAJOR revisions/deletions of content. CouplandForever (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ryan Kavanaugh

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

This Page has been skewed by editors.

Some of the negative articles are of note and I am not requesting everything is removed, some are articles which have been either found untrue such as the Ponzi scheme (the person who made the claim even admits he it wasn't a Ponzi scheme in the same article) but the editors insist it still needs to be included.

Ryan Kavanaugh has an ongoing lawsuit with Ethan Klein (h3 podcast) and you can see from the editing history of the accounts editing Ryan kavanaughs page also have a history of editing H3 Podcasts page positively which I believe to be a Conflict of interest.

I am not asking for all negative articles that have relevance to be removed - but some which have been proved to be wrong only seem to be there to defame the Person in the article.

(Redacted)

and regularly discuss him in there h3 sub reddit.

Garen67541 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any specific issues? The article is currently semi-protected. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Tony Sewell

This article refers to Clive Lewis as a 'hard-left Labour MP'. I'm not sure who wrote this but it doesn't seem a neutral characterisation. 148.252.132.236 (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It has now been removed by user Bobfrombrockley. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, about to post here saying so! BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Suresh Canagarajah

We see the statements identified as needing citations. We will find them and update the entry soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSU-ASC (talk • contribs) 18:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Dilar Dirik

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

The subject is an academic of small Wikipedia-notability if any, who considers the article text puts them in danger. They tweeted about it:[5]

Someone made a Wikipedia page about me without my knowledge or consent and it's full of mistakes and fake claims (e.g.that I am a member of the YPJ). This is irresponsible, immoral &dangerous. I tried to delete the mistakes but edits were reversed. Does anyone know what I can do?

Edit history shows an IP removing details from the article, which were immediately re-added.

The article has been AFDed, but needs an urgent BLP check (I don't have time right this moment myself) and possible temporary blanking for safety while it's being considered - David Gerard (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: article now G7'd. JavaHurricane 06:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

charles gasparino

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

citing a dna report should not be in the bio describing ethnicity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.169.49 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Tavo Hellmund

Seems like a biased article (does not adhere to neutral point of view), all contributions written by the same person. Certain phrases which show non-neutral POV: "This is why he has been named North Americas F1 Hero." "Hellmund showed signs of talent but was always hamstrung by lack of sponsorship during his racing career." "hree-time world champion and former Mercedes chairman Niki Lauda told reporters after the Mexican Grand Prix, "It was the best I've ever seen in my whole life."[9] David Tremayne of the Straits Times wrote, "Now, that's a serious audience. As an object lesson in how to organize a grand prix, Hellmund's team set a new benchmark, and for this, the sport should be grateful".[10] For the second consecutive year the 2016 Mexican Grand Prix was awarded event of the year. Bernie Ecclestone , CEO of Formula One Management (FOM), said "This is a recognition of the extraordinary promotion and organization of the Grand Prix and the incredible passion of the Mexican public. Mexico did it again![11] In Dec 2019 - The Mexican Grand Prix was awarded the best promoted race for an unprecedented and record 5th year in a row. [12]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyycow (talk • contribs) 19:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, bad case of WP:PROMO mainly authored by an SPA. I’ve left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One suggesting they take a look at it. DeCausa (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Jawed Habib

Comments from more editors are needed due to WP:DE by DMySon who is clearly limiting Jawed Habib "India’s most famous" hairstylist's description to a recent incident after mispresenting sources by presenting the subject’s statement out of context.Their edits see "Well referenced content removed" specifically involve removing of the apology made by the subject hinting editorial bias against the subject. AnM2002 (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

AnM2002 is trying to remove controversial content which is well referenced. And the event is true that is justified by many reliable news references. AnM2002 is also removing Warning messages regularly from his talk page to misguide other Editors. Please check here. DMySon (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2022

I removed nothing,but I see that your disruptive POV pushing and template spamming is rampant.[6][7] El C: Can you deal with this intended disruption since you semi-protected article recently? AnM2002 (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the BLP violation being reported. "Apology" — what? But DMySon, you are the one who is misguided and doubly so. First, AnM2002 is entitled to remove anything they see fit from their own talk page — on Wikipedia, a removal of a warning is taken to indicate that it was read. Edit warring on someone's own talk page with them is a big no-no. Secondly, you are misusing that warning. AnM2002 has joined the project in 2015, so that is some bad WP:DTTR juju (i.e. the absurdity of if you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. etc.). AnM2002, using two items for {{multiple issues}} isn't spamming, unless I missed something (likely, writing in haste). El_C 17:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi El_C, Thank you for your well explanation and full protection on the page but I am sorry and curious to know that where i misguided to other editors? DMySon (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Re-read, it is spelled out. El_C 18:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@El C: By "template spamming" I meant the warnings on my talk page by this editor. As for the rest, you are encouraged to review the edit request I just made at  Talk:Jawed Habib#Protected edit request on 10 January 2022. AnM2002 (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, right, AnM2002, that makes sense. Duh! I'm handling that request now, see my note there. Please update/remind me about it because I'll likely forget otherwise. El_C 13:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Scott Scarborough

I worked for Scott Scarborough and his two immediate predecessors as president of The University of Akron. I am acting on his behalf to request that this article be updated to show the full picture of his professional life or be deleted. In its current state it is incomplete, poorly sourced and reliant on numerous qualifiers to insert opinion as fact. A draft revision is given below, with the caveat that I am not an unbiased third party seeking to edit this entry; I am requesting an editorial review. Thank you.

Scott L. Scarborough (born Dec. 12, 1962) is an accountant, university professor and retired higher education administrator. His administrative career included stints at the University of Texas System (Audit Manager 1992-96); The University of Texas at Tyler (VP for Business Affairs 1996-2001); Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company (CEO 2001-03); DePaul University (Executive VP for Administration and Student Affairs 2003-07); University of Toledo (Senior VP for Finance and Administration for the University and Medical Center 2007-11, Executive Director of the University of Toledo Medical Center 2010-12, and Provost and Executive VP for Academic Affairs, 2012-14); and The University of Akron, where he was president from 2014 to 2016.

At the beginning of his appointment at The University of Akron, the university was heavily in debt and had reported several years of declining revenue and enrollment toward the end of his predecessor's 15-year-tenure, which had seen major, expensive expansions. Scarborough sought to overcome those financial problems through budget cuts, rebranding and new partnerships, but his decisions were met with substantial opposition, and he returned to teaching after only two years as president.

Scarborough currently teaches as a Professor of Practice at UA and owns the S|CPA Network with accounting offices in Stow (Akron) and Toledo, Ohio; and Austin and Houston, Texas. He has a BBA in accounting (The University of Texas-Austin, 1985), an MBA (UT-Tyler 1999), a MA in practical theology (Ohio Christian University, 2018), a master's in taxation (The University of Akron, 2020), and a Ph.D. in strategic management (UT-Arlington, 2003). He is a Certified Public Account in Ohio and Texas. PaulAHerold (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulAHerold (talk • contribs)

Hi and thanks for bringing this here and declaring your conflict of interest in the matter. I mean no offense by this, so please take it as constructive criticism. What you've presented us here is a very nice resume, but does not read anything like an encyclopedic article should. Of course, our article doesn't read much like a biography either. What we have is basically all taken from a single source, and while I wasn't able to access the second source, I find no info in our article that isn't found in the first. The source looks very niche, but well-written and reads like a reliable source on the matter.

Here's the rub: by WP:General notability guidelines, that's typically not enough to confer notability, and I'm sure one could also argue WP:BLP1E, meaning we don't usually write articles about people who got news coverage for only a single event. Of course, we do have special notability provisions for certain classes of people (which I don't favor one bit) such as WP:NPROF specifically for professors, but i don't see in the sources anywhere that he is one.

My suggestion to you is this. While we don't just bow to the whims of our subjects, we sometimes give them special consideration when they come here requesting that their article be deleted, and this is especially true where we have a case of insufficient sourcing or BLP1E issues. I would suggest either you as his representative, or the subject himself post a request to delete this page at WP:Articles for deletion. It may carry more weight if the subject does it himself, especially after confirming their identity at WP:ORTS. Feel free to reference this discussion if you like. If, on the other hand, you'd prefer to try and help make the article better, the best thing you can do is find us some WP:Reliable sources. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article yet but the president of a research university definitely passes WP:PROF (specifically, criterion 6: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.") and likely passes WP:GNG as well. So outright deletion is unlikely.

A note at WT:UNI or WT:EDUCATION might yield some volunteers to look at the article and see if it requires any cleanup. ElKevbo (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Help with BLP complaint about es Wikipedia (Spanish)

Hi. We have received a BLP complaint at Wikidata about two living people being recorded against the wrong mother at es Wikipedia. The complaint is at d:Wikidata:Project chat#I have the wrong mother and a false brother according to Wikipedia in item Maria Julia Bertotto. I am helping the complainant add correct details at Wikidata and have pointed her in the direction of es:Wikipedia:Biografías de personas vivas but she seems unsure on how to fix the error on the es wiki page, es:María Julia Bertotto. I don't know Spanish, so I am a little lost on where to direct her next. Are there any Spanish speakers watching this page that can help her or could you point me to the right page for her to report this issue on es:wiki? Thanks. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

 – An IP user has corrected the error at es wiki. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Mikey Walsh

there are some news links on the authors page that cite sources from unreliable and unaffiliated "news" sites. One example is in the 'Film' section of the page. it states 'On 7 February 2021, Politicalite reported that BBC Films had cancelled the film adaptation.[28]' and the cited link is for a website that doesn't meet requirements or has the links to the quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.190.231 (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

What is preventing you from editing the page accordingly? El_C 18:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Politicalite is a far-right blog that doesn't have a history of fact-checking and accuracy. The source cited in Walsh's biography exclusively uses Walsh's Twitter posts as a source. If the posts existed, they have been deleted. Using a Twitter search (it seems I can't provide a URI because "twitter.com/search" is blacklisted), I can't find anything relevant, one way or another. I can't find any reliable source from 2021 mentioning anything about the film project. Hence I'm removing the content about cancellation.

You mention that this is "[o]ne example", but this is the only major issue I can find. The biography has some minor issues with unsourced statements and usage of primary sources, but nothing super awful. If you have specific complaints, please expand. Politrukki (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Politrukki, for doing the thing. El_C 10:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Jason Drummond

This article is a mess of primary sourcing, outright dodgy sourcing (private investigation websites?) and unsupported claims, and to be honest it looks like a particular editor with some sort of agenda has been building up a hit piece. I tried to go through it just now, but I'm a bit pressed for time, plus I don't have access to The Telegraph which is one of the few reliable secondary sources used on the page - I can't see whether it supports the assertions about a prosecution that it's being used to support. Does anyone have time/inclination to give it a going over? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Lesley Ann Patten

Lesley Ann Patten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Lesley Ann Patten has asked that this page be taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocSloshter (talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

As you were advised on your talk page, please see WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE for instructions on how to get the article removed. It's not a blatant attack page, so it's unlikely to be speedily deleted out of hand. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I find that a bit dubious. First, there's nothing remotely controversial or salacious in the article. The "Film making" section should be converted to a table with simple entries, as we're not here to advertise all of her minor productions. Second, the image of the subject that is used in the article was, according to the wiki commons entry, approved by her several years ago. ValarianB (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Symone D. Sanders

We have what I think is clear SYNTH disparagement in this BLP with repeated insertion of a narrative that's not in the cited sources. Could we have some Admin eyes on it and consider a Discretionary Sanctions page restriction? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that is pretty synthy, and changes the meaning of the source. The source cited says Symone Sanders, senior advisor and chief spokesperson for Harris, pushed back against the complaints and defended Flournoy, so it would be weird to link any of that with her leaving. We would need RS explicitly linking the two. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Considering the edits relate to me I would have appreciated a ping. The narrative that the office of the vice president is dysfunctional is not mine. It is confirmed by many reliable sources including Politico CNN and others. I will concede that synthesis is occurring but it is not a violation of WP:SYNTH because the synthesis is made by reliable sources and reports. We include things in articles that the subjects deny, and if the community would prefer that framing we can do that. Also, a do not appreciate the contribution stalking of SPECIFICO it is the wrong way to settle differences. Viktory02 (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Please provide sources linking the two. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Kara Cooney

On article Kara Cooney, multiple editors including most recently User:Magnolia677 have been edit-warring to unbalance the article with large swathes of content describing a minor error she made in a new book. The content has all been sourced to partisan right-wing hit pieces from sources like Campus Reform and Fox News, and reports uncritically the Fox News perspective on the Kenosha unrest shooting (the point of the error) as if that perspective were objective fact. The direction of the partisanship is not the issue (when I first reverted the edits, I didn't read carefully enough and thought they were left-wing partisan hit pieces rather than right-wing ones), but my opinion is that this material is absolutely unsuitable for a BLP, that the fact that a book has an erratum is absolutely unremarkable (it would be more remarkable if any book needed zero corrections), and that the only purpose of these sources and this content here is to discredit political opponents. I semiprotected the article for a short term when the edits started coming from anonymous editors, but now they are coming from experienced editors who should know better. Additional opinions from editors familiar with BLP and additional help keeping this article neutral would be welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed this. The sourcing is pretty thin, and certainly not significant enough to stuff this into a BLP. There's a single local news story, Townhall, which has no consensus at RSP and is noted As of 2010, a few editors commented that opinion pieces in Townhall are reliable as a source for the opinion of the author of the individual piece, although they may not be reliable for unattributed statements of fact, and context will dictate whether the opinion of the author as such, meets the standard of WP:DUEWEIGHT. I also saw this Washington Examiner piece, which is also no consensus at RSP, noted There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled with the appropriate guideline. There should really be more more coverage of something, in more reliable sources, if we want to include it in a BLP, especially if it's an entire section on its own. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, edit conflict...I was about to write:

Please note my edit summary when I added the text: "Criticism of Cooney's book was widely reported; no consensus against reliability of either source cited, per WP:RSP". David Eppstein then reverted the edit with the edit summary: "Undo. Still no. Fox is hyperpartisan these days, the text here uncritically repeats the partisan line on Rittenhouse, and townhall does not appear to be reliable enough for a BLP." Where is there a consensus at WP:RSP against Townhall or Fox News? This edit is not a WP:BLPBALANCE violation, and does not meet criteria of WP:SOAPBOX (which you previously used to delete this same edit by others). This has been widely reported in reliable sources, to the point that Cooney felt obliged to respond. If you don't personally like what a reliable sources says, then seek a consensus to have the source deprecated (or cope with the fact that other editors may not share your personal views).

But wait...wait...your reason for protecting the article? "Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: Temporary internet kerfuffle with bad sources, seems likely to have continued attempts by well-meaning editors at telling the world all about how she once made a mistake in describing something, based on unreliable social-media sources. See WP:SOAPBOX." What??? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have some RS discussing this that I can review? When I searched it was slim pickings. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thanks for looking at this again. In a short time I found:

• An ABC affiliate [8]
• MSN picked this up from Mediaite
• KPRC in Houston
• looks reliable
• KFOX14 El Paso
• Fox News
• Townhall

Most important, she felt obliged to respond to the criticism. This invites some note about what she was responding to. Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

MEAWW seems to be unreliable, per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_355#Pinkvilla,_Meaww_&_Bollywood_Life, and Fox News There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. KPRC is The show is a mix of comedy, politics, pop culture and history that pokes fun at the absurdity of everyday life. Walton and Johnson can currently be heard on over a dozen stations around the Gulf Coast and beyond. I wouldn't use that for a BLP. The KFOX and the ABC affiliate are the same article by an employee of the Sinclair_Broadcast_Group who is currently in school [9], so I'd be hesitant to use that in a BLP as well. Her responding to the criticism on Twitter is hardly noteworthy, in my view. From where I'm sitting this looks to be pretty undue for inclusion in a BLP. I'd like to see significantly more sources, and generally of higher quality, to include this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• The best way to address this is to do the hard work to find high quality sources and proportionally add content describing the totality of Cooney's career, rather than lend disproportionate emphasis to a blip in the news (see WP:RECENTISM). A prose section summarizing her books would be expected to include the error as a single sentence at most (neither her Tweet response, nor churnalism that focuses mainly on Tweets need be included or cited). But until the article is more balanced with a historic view (per WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPSTYLE), mention of the 'controversy' is undue and sticks out like a sore thumb. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Animalparty: said it perfectly. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Vũ Hà Anh

The article for Vũ Hà Anh (a BLP) has received persistent unsourced contentious edits over the past four days, from two different IPs, and these edits have been reverted eight separate times now. These IPs have only ever been used to edit this article.

I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what the protocol is here - an IP block? A warning? Something else? Or is the issue small enough that continued reverting is sufficient? Thanks for your help. AlexiG42 (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The best thing for disruptive editing by various IPs is semiprotection. Thank you very much for sounding the alarm about these serious WP:BLP violations, AlexiG42. I've semi'd the article for three months. Another time in a similar situation, you can go straight to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Bishonen | tålk 14:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

(adding): It's a very bad article, though. I've taken it to ANI to ask for help from Vietnamese speakers with removing the promotion and the general gushing detail. Bishonen | tålk 01:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC).

Trevor Jacob

Trevor Jacob is being criticised on various media platforms for crashing a classic aircraft. A lot of editorial content is creeping into his Wikipedia article. WP:PROMOTION? If the Federal Aviation Administration determines that his engine failed, some people will have to eat crow. We need to watch this page and ensure it meets Wikipedia standards. JHowardGibson (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Marland Yarde

Marland Yarde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It may be that this player may be the "England Rugby International aged 29" in current investigations by Greater Manchester Police. His page should therefore be protected — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyCPrivate (talk • contribs) 19:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks related to this. I've added the page to my watchlist, but it may need more eyes. There's been a bit of vandalism about this, but nothing too severe. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The article says "cannot be named", yet they include the alleged name in the URL...how daft. Daniel (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Article is semi'd now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Owen Bennett

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.

---

Hello, I am the subject of [this article]. I would like [my wife]'s name and the reference to my daughter removed from this article. They are not public figures and I do not feel their names should be on this article. I would appreciate your understanding on this, given the content of the rest of the entry. It would be a kind thing to do for them. As I said, they are not public figures and have never sought to be.Owen Bennett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.44.67 (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. ––FormalDude talk 11:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed it from the infobox as well. Thanks FormalDude. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it is greatly appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.44.67 (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2022 (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.

Ariel Fernandez

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.

---

Ariel Fernandez here. In the last 48hs several colleagues alerted me to the vicious predatory editing of the BLP "Ariel Fernandez". The vandalism has apparently been going on for years and takes the form of gross misrepresentations of my credentials, where a blog gets profusely quoted while a Nobel laureate gets censored, and other predatory practices, including eliminating dissention, slander, etc. Three or four papers that were challenged but never retracted get profuse attention, while the remaining 400 or so get no mention at all (a predatory editor branded any such mention "promotional"). I was encouraged by Wikipedia to provide input to help improve the BLP. However, we need a way to keep slanderers and vilifiers at bay first. A permanent reversal of their predatory editing would be a good starting point. Ariel Fernandez Account (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Not really seeing an issue. Facts are cited, and the Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. We do not exist to promote you, only to reflect what is notable in reliable sources. What is the "blog" in question that you feel should not be used? ValarianB (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

If this account is who they say they are, then they are sock, and should be indeffed. If they are not who they say they are, then they should be indeffed for impersonation of a BLP subject. Either way admins? -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This account has been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arifer and the article talk page protected. They've been really active recently and I wouldn't be surprised if they show up here again. Feel free to block people making similar requests about the Ariel Fernandez article. --Trialpears (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe the blog in question is Retraction Watch, which is cited 5 times in the article. For any BLP, Wikipedians should first ask themselves not "is this fact verifiable" but "is it relevant and given appropriate weight?", with consideration of WP:PROPORTION, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:VNOTSUFF, WP:RECENTISM, etc. Wikipedians are not robots who must insert a fact merely because it appears in a reliable source. The article currently devotes roughly half of the Career section to four delayed or 'concerning' papers and a retraction . Does this mean that roughly half of all significant coverage of Fernandez' career (after a diligent unbiased literature review) concerns such controversial papers? If not, then the article likely gives undue weight to the issue, and the controversial papers might best be consolidated to a sentence for now, until the point when the article is longer and more structured to allow more detail to relatively minor aspects, with every aspect given weight proportional to its coverage in secondary reliable sources, which is the heart of WP:NPOV. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Does this mean that roughly half of all significant coverage of Fernandez' career (after a diligent unbiased literature review) concerns such controversial papers? Yes. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't and shouldn't. According to Google Scholar, Fernandez's work has been cited 10,477 times; the supermajority being reliable sources. Retraction watch is a blog that focuses on retractions and the underlying expression of concerns by 4 journals should not be given more weight than those other sources. Morbidthoughts (talk)

I have, of course, reverted your removal of the material in question. This article has had attention from established editors for many years, with support for the content you have deleted. If you want to make changes to it, we can use conventional processes for determining whether there is consensus to do that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Where is the consensus in this archive [10] ? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I am in no mood to edit/wheel war over this, but consensus should be obtained before presenting this material over good faith BLP objections per WP:BLPUNDEL. What do established editors have against this professor? WP:DOLT? The history of BLP non-compliant POV pushing is concerning[11] Should a RfC be called? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I am reminded of WP:GHITS, and the comment therein: the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. The existence of 10,477 citations (ignoring, among other things, the likely high number of self-citations) might be a factor to support the subject's notability, but does not provide any support for removing the reliably-sourced passage in question. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A review of the reliable sources that have written about him and his work is definitely relevant to a discussion of WP:BLPBALANCE. Let's take a look at some of his popularly cited publications.[12][13][14] How much self-citations do you see? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the self-citation stuff is incidental to JoJo Anthrax's view. When trying to pull together sources for a biographical article, what value is there in reading papers that cite Fernandez's work? There might be a subset of those papers that cite him and include some biographical detail, but I presume it's a rarity (though I'd be happy to be proven wrong). Firefangledfeathers 21:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

From reviewing the Talk page archives, BLPN archives (at least 12 previous discussions), and RSN archives, I get several impressions. First, that that RW is one of the few secondary reliable sources mentioning anything to do with challenged papers, and the Chronicle of Higher Education used one of their pieces on Fernandez in an article about RW. Second, the use of RW as a reliable source if passionately championed by some "it has parent company and a board of directors!" (none of whom edit RW, and the parent company appears virtually synonymous with RW, but legally different for tax reasons). Third: some users have frustration with Fernandez and apparent sockpuppets repeatedly raising the issues discussed here. I think, knowing a little bit about human psychology and online behavior, it's fair to ask whether some amount of frustration and spite is driving editors to keep status quo the level of detail, and circle the wagons around RW. (But it's true!) Consensus has not been been clearly reached regarding Retraction Watch as a reliable or self-published source. A statement can be true, verifiable, and still not worthy of inclusion in a biography. I hope this doesn't turn out to be a case of "We investigated ourselves, found ourselves to be without fault, and in fact totally awesome, and have sanctioned all who disagree with us. Great work boys!" --Animalparty! (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I've now removed it as well. At this point, if there is a demonstrable consensus to keep it, then leaving it out for a few days while there is discussion hurts no one. If there ends up being a consensus not to restore it, then we've preemptively improved a BLP. There's really no reason to rush to restore, and WP:BLPRESTORE is clear that, when challenged, the material needs consensus to reinsert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

And I have now restored the stable, long-lasting, reliably sourced version of the article. I suggest that the passage be discussed rationally here, and that pseudo-psychological, disparaging comments about editors' motives (e.g., some users have frustration and some amount of frustration and spite is driving editors) be immediately stopped. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It's time for ANI then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that the only reason there is a stable, long-lasting version of the article is because we have repeatedly hit the article subject with a stick for not following our process whenever they try to raise their concerns. WP:BLPKIND says Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. I think SFR and Animalparty both speak a lot of sense here that we should remove the disputed content and seek consensus for a duly weighted restoration. Darren-M talk 21:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Especially as the main source used is a blog, and WP:BLPSPS exists. Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Retraction Watch opens with Retraction Watch is a blog that reports on... Columbia Journalism Review calls them Retraction Watch, a new blog that should be required reading for anyone interested in scientific journalism or the issue of accuracy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Consensus here, and also here and here, supports Retraction Watch as being a reliable, independent secondary source suitable for BLPs. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

As AnimalParty! mentioned, I don't see consensus outside of the same group of editors beating Fernandez with the stick and rubber stamping their edits; hence the predatory accusations from Fernandez Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

To start with, and without commenting on the reliability of the source itself, I think there are some misunderstandings here about what constitutes a reliable source. Reliability is not a black and white thing. For one thing, a source that may be perfectly reliable for one type of info may be totally unreliable for another. A book on knitting may be a fine source for an article on needlepoint, but a poor one for an article on atomic physics. The point is, reliability must be considered not only by the source and it's nature, but by the specific info it is providing, and this can only be done on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, citing past consensuses as if it cites a "legal precedent" or something is more likely to be just irrelevant distractions than helpful in this particular case.

But more to the point, what is the purpose of adding this info? I read it and my eyes glaze over. It doesn't tell me a single damn thing. I mean, could it be anymore vague? What do we have? Unsettled anomalies? (I mean, WTF?) Expressions of concern? Duplicate publications? Really? What is the point of telling me this? What bearing does it have, and what am I, the reader, supposed to be gleaning from it?

It really just borders on patent nonsense, or at most some double talk the likes of which a politician would give. On those grounds alone I would recommend deleting it. Zaereth (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Let us put things in perspective: Fernandez authored and published 445 papers, plenty in top tier journals (ORCID), or 331 papers since 1993 (Scopus). All we learn from Wikipedia is that there are 3-4 expressions of concern (not retractions, but Expressions of Concern, Really!?). Kind of a drop in the bucket, and like many of us feel, who cares? Is that all that Wikipedia can say about Fernandez career? The 3-4 papers were not retracted in ten-twelve years or more, so there is no indication of misconduct. And, do we need to quote the blog Retraction Watch five (5) times to support this nonsense? Really?! Fernandez's latest book is forewarded by a Nobel laureate, but that is apparently of no notability to Wikipedia? What really matters is what the bloggers at Retraction Watch have to say. Someone has an ax to grind with Fernandez, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. LeonidJoJoSchneider (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE, see Special:PermaLink/1064140019 -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think it's even necessary to go there. I can agree with some of what you say without even looking into this deeper, but let's not start by casting aspersions or turning this ugly. It's never of any help, and is generally a sign that a person is feeling cornered. On Wkikpedia, it's also helpful to make a distinction as to what is notable (subjects) and what is significant (information). The biggest issue I see, without even getting as far as WP:RS or WP:NPOV, the biggest issue is that the info doesn't demonstrate any reason as to what it's talking about or why it is of any significance. If information cannot demonstrate its own significance, then it is not information at all. Zaereth (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Leonid Schneider has a point. If this was a researcher who had numerous retractions and was crying BLP, I'd have a different opinion, but a handful of expressions of concern over a decade ago that never resulted in any retraction seem undue to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that point, but some of the others not so much. They take away from, rather than add to, the good points. At any rate, I still don't think it's even necessary to go that far in the process. It's too full of euphemisms to be in any way coherent, that is, unless you're well versed in the symbolism and rhetoric that is being bandied about. Perhaps this means something to people who write scientific and medical papers, but the general reader doesn't have the background data and contextual information that people like the subject and Leonid do, and that can be hard for writers to sometimes understand. (That's the main reason I joined Wikipedia; to help make scientific and technical articles more accessible to the general reader.) It's easy to write for oneself, but very hard to write for everyone else.

As an example, it would be like reading the clock article and finding, "There is no physical evidence that time is linear, but may possibly be just a pre-cognitive construct based on the second law." Great. but what does it mean? More importantly, what does it have to do with clocks? We need context in order to make some sense of the euphemisms and jargon, and in the disputed paragraph, it neither has context nor serves as context for anything. It's just there ... for some reason. Perhaps if JoJo could explain the reasoning, it would help us formulate a more understandable addition, but if the point is to discredit the subject by stringing together a bunch of mistakes or whatever these may be, then I'm seeing NOR and Synth issues. And we already have a comparatively large amount of space devoted to this, in what is a rather small article, so adding more context seems like a poor strategy because, even if well-written, WEIGHT will be the next big hurdle to overcome. But to me, even going that far is putting the cart before the horse. Zaereth (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's undue compared to the current length of the article. The problem is that unless they're Stephen Hawking or similar, it's extremely difficult to write anything substantial about most contemporary prominent academics beyond basic CV stuff because they get almost no coverage in reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Tell me about it! I've been watching the F. J. Duarte article for years, and while he's extremely notable in the field of lasers (not as much for his papers but for the books he's written) there is almost nothing out there of any biographical nature. I had the same problem when I tried to create an article on Walter Geffken, a pioneer in thin-film optics. What can you do? I don't think compiling a list of retracted papers is of any use. It doesn't tell us anything of the subject, unless we can somehow show that it gives us some deeper insight into the subject of the article. We don't say anything about the papers being retracted, specifically why they were retracted (if they were indeed), and what --if any-- effect this had on the subject's life and career. Zaereth (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's see what we got here. Fernandez' active career spans 4 decades. In four decades he has authored and published over 440 papers, per ORCID record (over 330 since 1993 according to Scopus). There are dozens of papers in top tier journals like PNAS, Nature journals, Cell journals, Genome Research, Genome Biology, Physical Review Letters, you name it. There are also five books, the latest with a prologue by a Nobel laureate (he worked with two, it seems). The breadth of the work is also pretty awesome, from abstract algebra to dynamical systems to physical chemistry to molecular evolution to drug design, all tied up ... If nothing else, he must be a grand synthesizer of knowledge. Articles have been written about this guy in Scientific American, Nature journals, etc. Ah, but none of that matters to Wikipedia. All JoJo Anthrax and others care about is stringing together 3 or 4 articles that have been challenged, not even retracted!, and merited "expressions of concern" for "anomalies in the data". Forget about the Nobel laureates! Let us focus on bloggers at Retraction Watch, the self published blog quoted 5 times in the BLP. Really! LeonidJoJoSchneider (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE, see Special:PermaLink/1064140019 -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I must admit, I am not surprised. Simply changing a user name is about the equivalent of putting on glasses with a fake nose and mustache. However, sometimes even blocked users have a valid point to make (hidden in there somewhere), and in the bigger spirit of BLP policy, I think it's far more important to take a valid complaint seriously regardless of where they come from. We often tend to treat subjects like they're the enemy when they come here with a problem, and they often come here quite upset (and understandably so!), so I think it's helpful to keep that in mind when dealing with them. On the other hand, like the rest of the population, subjects can sometimes be over the top, lack self awareness, or become stuck in their own particular viewpoint that it becomes impossible to see anything else, and that's just disruptive, so I also get why we don't feed the trolls. A telltale sign of the latter is when they argue with you even as you are agreeing with them, or trying to show them a simpler path from A to B. (I see this on the People's Court all the time, where the judge is about to rule in their favor and the person just can't shut up and end up talking themselves out of a verdict.) Still in the scope of BLP, I think tackling the BLP issues are of the highest importance. Zaereth (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted JoJo Anthrax's return of possible BLP violation and definite due-weight problem -- all the blather in the world about status quo, long-standing, etc is utterly irrelevant to standard WP procedure regarding potential BLP problems: they stay out until consensus is to put them in. If JoJo Anthrax wants to edit-war over that, I'll remind them that removals of BLP violations are explicitly exempt from the 3RR rule whilst disruptions to prove some kind of point aren't. --Calton | Talk 14:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I am certainly not going to edit war over this, as it is clearly a point of contention for some editors in good standing. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(Redacted) SmutClyde (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

What goes into Wikipedia articles is determined by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We don't take orders from bloggers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I've redacted the above as a possible joe job, and, if so, a BLP violation. (You can't BLPvio in here! This is the BLP Room!) @SmutClyde: If you are who you say you are, please contact the Volunteer Response Team using the info-en queue and verify your identity. I apologize in advance for the inconvenience. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The above removal rationale superseded by Special:PermaLink/1064140019, now a WP:SOCKSTRIKE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I see Fernandez has achieved his aim of gaining control of "his" biography. A beautiful hagiography! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

'Gaining control'? Nope. What he has done (if the socks are him) is drawn attention to an article which seems to place rather more emphasis on a few incidents than the actual impact of said incidents would seem to suggest is appropriate. The papers raised by the bloggers weren't even retracted - there were 'Expressions of Concern', which isn't the same thing. If the only people who think this important are bloggers, it almost certainly isn't important. And whether such content gets included or not is something which should be determined by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and written for the benefit of readers who should expect neutral coverage, rather than letting internal issues over sockpuppetry determine what goes in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A simple question

Are there any significant sources, beyond the ones linked in the disputed article content, and the ones linked by JoJo Anthrax in the ANI thread (see [15]), which discuss the Fernandez 'expressions of concern' issue in any broader context than his dispute with the Retraction Watch blog? Without such sources (e.g. ones not about the dispute with the blog, which the ones linked at ANI seem to be: [16][17][18]), one might very well get the impression that Wikipedia is being asked to take sides over this specific matter, rather than to give appropriate and balanced coverage of Fernandez's career. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The only one of those that looks to meet RS is the Columbia journalism review. The first is a Forbes contributor, which I believe are no good, and the other looks to be a blog? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I see JoJo recycling the archives[19] The Forbes article is a contributor article, WP:FORBESCON and citing Popehat is just laughable. The Chronicle of Higher Education only mentions the BMC Genomics EOC and actually supports Zaereth's previous question about what that shit even means: "The implications of the note were hard to parse. What exactly had gone wrong? Could the paper be trusted, or not? What did “due caution” mean?" Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote at ANI here, multiple expressions of concern and a retraction should not be simply brushed aside, regardless of their age. Neither should the notices published by BMC Genomics, Nature, PLoS Genetics and Annual Review of Genetics. The sources of those notices all seem reliable, and their inclusion in the disputed content does not mean Wikipedia is taking sides in a dispute. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

All those Expression of Concerns are saying "There might be something amiss with this paper but we have no strong evidence to redact it, so we're flagging these just in case." It doesn't state factually there are problems with the work, so us calling that out is taking a side here as it is a subjective claim his work was a problem. If we had a third-party reliable source that gave statement, we'd of course attribute that concern to them. --Masem (t) 03:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I doubt the editors and publishers of journals like Nature, BMC Genomics, and PLoS Genetics would publish EoC notices if there weren't objective reasons to do so. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Publishing EoC notices but without any redaction is, to me, what a good editorial oversight of the published work should be. They are not saying the results are wrong, but they are simply expressing that some have put doubt to it, but there's not enough for Nature etc. to go on to say its wrong. For us, we shouldn't care about that unless other reliable note this pattern, otherwise its original research for us and absolutely not appropriate on a BLP. --Masem (t) 04:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what you wrote below, and also that we shouldn't care about that unless other reliable note this pattern. It seems to me there was a "pattern" (i.e., multiple EoC and a retraction) that was reported by what I consider to be a reliable, independent secondary source for matters of EoC and retractions (neither of which, as I argued here are simple "oopsies"), and so this isn't a matter of WP:OR. Clearly other editors strongly disagree. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

But once again, what does any of that mean? What is the significant thing we are brushing aside? I'm not being sarcastic. I really want to know. Perhaps this is just a problem of incoherent writing that can easily be fixed, but first we need to know what we're supposed to be fixing. Does that make sense?

As another analogy, someone just recently added the following sentence to the antireflection coating article: "It also had an aesthetic effect in the history of photography." Can anyone tell me what this means? Being virtually meaningless, someone of course promptly removed it, and posted the same question I'm asking on the talk page. Before even getting into matters of sources and weight, we have to have something of substance to weigh.

Then, we have to be able to tie it in to the rest of the story, so it doesn't just stick out like a sore thumb. So the question also must be answered, "So what?" Why should I care. Perhaps it's not at all important to understanding this subject, but would be better placed in an article about whatever theory or paper we are talking about. But none of that can be answered without first answering these two questions. Zaereth (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:ITSIMPORTANT does not override WP:UNDUE or WP:BLPBALANCE. Fernandez tried to insert in that he had written over 400 peer-reviewed publications according to ORCID to provide context,[20] but you were too busy playing whack-a-sock and WP:STATUSQUO to consider this properly, ignoring WP:BLPKIND.[21][22][ How do you reconcile flushing out his publication history based on ORCID and the publications themselves as being too promotional, and then argue that we should give critical weight to the 3 EOCs and 1 retraction based on what those publishers wrote? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised to see Retraction Watch written off entirely as a reliable source on scientific misconduct. The site and its authors are frequently cited on the matter within scientific journals (some of the many examples: [23] [24] [25] [26]). This isn't simply anonymous bloggers lobbing accusations -- these are named scientists and journalists working within their fields. With respect to this particular BLP, having a single statement of concern issued about one's work is pretty rare and probably not worth mentioning, but having multiple instances plus a retraction (also quite rare) seems worth mentioning in the article.Citing (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Now wait a sec. This is the first anyone said of misconduct. If there is some kind of misconduct, then that would have some significant bearing on this subject, and his life and career. Does the source mention this alleged misconduct, or are we simply supposed to infer that? I'm a bit versed in science, and it's not at all uncommon to have one's work picked over with a fine tooth comb. For every new theory there are a thousand people waiting to find its flaws. I don't know know that, in the scope of this guy's work, and all the pepers he's published, I don't know that this is some outlandish number of "expressions of concerns", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. Unless the sources expressly say misconduct, this would be synthesis. Zaereth (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Here are some useful quotes from that last Science article: "Many scientists and members of the public tend to assume a retraction means a researcher has committed research misconduct. But the Retraction Watch data suggest that impression can be misleading." and "Determining exactly why a paper was withdrawn can be challenging. About 2% of retraction notices, for example, give a vague reason that suggests misconduct, such as an 'ethical violation by the author'". Meanwhile a Nature WP:RSOPINION wrote "I analysed more than 2,000 retraction notices culled from more than 20,000 listed on Retraction Watch and by major publishers. A little more than half did not say who initiated the retraction. Around 10% gave no reason. Some simply read: 'This paper has been retracted.'" which supports Zaereth's previous comments asking why this topic should be given any weight, given the potential harm. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That's interesting, and thanks Morbidthoughts. I know of retractions from the field of writing, but I've never written a scientific paper (although I've been toying with the idea recently), so I'm not familiar with how it's viewed in that community. I expect the general reader wouldn't be either. In things like journalism retractions are very commonplace. It's simply saying, in all good transparency, "Hey, one of our writers made a mistake, and we made another in not catching it." and they print it way on the back page where no one will see it. This is why we need to be specific and avoid any vagueness ourselves. Zaereth (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

A reminder: WP:BLP policy applies to non-article pages too - including this one. If people are going to start suggesting 'scientific misconduct', they absolutely must have better grounds to do so than vague suppositions based on things the sources don't actually say, but they think may possibly be implied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We do know the reason for retraction in this case though (duplicate publication) so it's not a mystery. As for the other issues, I'm not suggesting saying it's misconduct in the article, but RW has been reliable at uncovering misconduct when it is there and also (as with this case) highlighting problematic publications; I consider it a reliable source on the process of scientific publishing, hence I am surprised to see it discarded so easily in this context. This is not people picking over his work with a fine tooth comb (which, as stated, is very common), but multiple journals saying "we've been notified of problems and are investigating" with a secondary source—Retraction Watch—commenting on it (which is extraordinarily rare). Having multiple journals flag issues with data is a notable part of a scientific career. Citing (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

So, more vague suppositions based on something the blog doesn't actually say... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The journals that have issued EoCs are not continuing to investigate - the EoC was published after they investigated and could not determine conclusively if there were problems with the published articles, so they simply want to caution their readers they know some issues were raised but they can't say with any confidence if they were well-founded or not. The EoCs should not be taken as affirmation that there were problems with the papers. --Masem (t) 04:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked into Retraction Watch nor commented on its reliability. To be honest, I've never heard of them until now. Like I said above, reliability is not always so black and white. If it comes to that, I have a pretty good ability to assess reliability myself, but I still think that's putting the cart before the horse. I understand what duplicate publication means. What I don't understand is how this is significant. Is it a big deal, and if so, how? "Notified of problems and are investigating" is vague and crystal-ballish. Why is it a notable part of his career? I see a lot of dots being laid out and apparently I'm supposed to connect them. .

I'm not even close to discussing sources or anything further up the chain. At this point, I still stuck on the writing itself, and, to be perfectly blunt, the writing is bad. It's incoherent. It does not flow. It does not follow. The questions I'm asking are the same questions the general reader, who we can assume has no background knowledge of all this stuff, these are the question they will be asking in their heads, and the questions we should answer. Zaereth (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Where does it say they are investigating? The notes are years old now and no further action was taken. One note is the partner wished to withdraw their name, the other says one lab couldn't reproduce data while the other could. Given neither is a retraction, any inclusion of this information would need the full reasoning lest a reader be lead by the nose to draw an unsupported conclusion.Slywriter (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

To the simple question at hand, I would say "no". The Chronicle of Higher Education article adds a tiny bit of context, but it still feels like all smoke, no fire: lots of speculation, little encyclopedic content: Per CHE: In 2013 "someone" suggested Fernández, had "contributed bad data". "Two investigations affiliated with Fernández had investigated; one had found his data credible, the other had not". What did it mean?, "Retraction Watch was set up to answer questions like those" (though I'll note it appears RW never did in this case, speculating basically "What to make of it? We don't know but we'll blog again when we know more"). Fernandez threatened to sue, then doesn't, and tells CHE he doesn't like RW. That's about it. While I'm not intimately familiar with RW, it seems that none of its 6 posts about Fernandez have any substance: they mainly publicize the primary sources (the expressions of concerns/retractions/corrections), occasionally include responses from Fernandez that says basically "I don't like you" or quotes from colleagues that are bereft of encyclopedic importance in my eyes ("I don't know what investigation you are conducting and I don't remember any one ever challenged my part of the paper.", or "At this point, I'll just say this is not a matter of “confidence in the data” or in the statistical analysis or interpretation of the data.", with a scattering of scare quotes and a dash of hemming, hawing, and beard stroking. RW may have more insightful commentary in other areas, but for everything related to Fernandez, RW's output seems about as encyclopedic as reading aloud legal notices in the classified section, or a newsblog reporting that a celebrity filed papers to buy a second home. "In today's news a thing happened. We don't know what it means but it definitely happened. Next story..." (the final scene of Burn After Reading also comes to mind). An academic threatening to sue a blog would never be seen in the likes of Britannica with the current amount of sourcing, and while some people might infer or assume that the number of corrected papers is anomalous or scandalous or noteworthy in itself, no secondary sources explicitly seem to make that connection. Some blog chatter and a previous BLPN discussion. mentioned a "Streisand effect": if that's the case here it's the worst example ever. The EoCs, corrections, threatened lawsuit, even retraction all seem to have thus far been no more than a blip in a relatively successful yet realtively low-profile career. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

From an Academic perspective it has been quite fascinating to watch the evolution of this particular entry over the past near-decade. While understanding, and appreciating, the issues raised by both sides it is hard not to agree that the current entry was always the ultimate goal of the subjects shameless sock puppetry. This last behavior has a non-wiki parallel in the blog of the subjects alter-ego “Weishi Meng”, a pseudo patent-attorney with a bizarre interest in - and surprisingly detailed knowledge of - retraction watch, post peer reviews and all things Ariel Fernandez. While it is true that the publications in question reflect only a very small part of the subjects overall output the fact that for one very high profile publication his co-author repudiated the subjects own data, and that soon after that the subject left his tenured position after a formal review of the data does have some bearing on the issue, at least as it relates to adjudicating the quality of his research. A subsequent series of bizarre errata related to mis attributed acknowledgement of NIH funding might seem - at least to the jaundiced eye - as an attempt to preempt action by the Office of Research Integrity. All this being said I understand the counter perspective that fairness dictates a neutral and more non-judgmental approach when dealing with a living persons reputation. However I can’t but be left a bit discomfited that such was always the goal of the disruptive, but admittedly hilarious, sock puppetry that we have all witnessed in relation to this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcademicPerspective (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. We can't even begin to make a neutral or non-judgmental approach until we have something of substance to weigh. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of factoids. It is not enough to simply give a few facts. They need to fit into the whole, and be able to demonstrate --in the writing itself-- the reason why a reader needs to know this or should even care. There is obviously something intended to be implied here, and I can only guess that the inference I'm supposed to make is "retraction = intentional wrongdoing", but this is exactly the kind of ambiguity and "sound-byte politics" we need to avoid. Before we can even talk about neutrality or judgments, we have to know what it is we're supposed to be judging.

To put it in scientific terms, we've been given a bunch or random facts, yet no theory to tie them all together, so we've really been given nothing but raw data. To those who want it in, the first step is simple. Say what you mean. Don't make implications or just start citing random facts. Write something we can actually work with. EZPZ. Only then can we get into matters of sourcing and neutrality.

As for the sockpuppets, "A good idea cannot be held responsible for the people who believe in it." Keeping bios in compliance with BLP is of the highest priority, and perhaps if we didn't go out of our way to treat our subjects like the enemy, or maybe just be a little nicer, they wouldn't have felt the need to sock in the first place. It's always best to examine our own faults before pointing out others'. Zaereth (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2022 (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.

M. Elizabeth Magill

M. Elizabeth Magill It is a mistake to put possible future judicial as Barack Obama is no longer president, hence she has no possibilities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escalonrodrigo (talk • contribs) 18:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, clearly 2009 isn't 'the future' (though some may wish it was...) I've corrected the article. Thanks. 19:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Not really sure what remains should be there. Its speculation by a newspaper that went no where. Slywriter (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ovidio Guzmán López

• Ovidio Guzmán López (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I wonder if we could some page protection or additional watchers on this BLP. There has recently been a slew of unexplained unsourced additions by anonymous editors. Is this the right place to ask? GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

GA-RT-22, WP:RFPP would be best place to request. Certainly a nuisance. If you have twinkle, its in the list of quick actions and will generate all the required information. Otherwise, just follow the steps at RFPP, mostly cut and paste.Slywriter (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Serena Auñón-Chancellor

There have been a number of reverts to include Russian allegations that Serena Auñón-Chancellor damaged the ISS into her biography [27]. These reports have been mentioned uncritically in the content, referring to the alleged act as "the crime." While there have been reports of the allegations in the Washington Post and the New York Times, the Times at least has called it "wild speculation." I am open to suggestions on how/whether it should be mentioned, but I don't see it as compliant in the form that people keep putting back in, both in terms of its weight and its framing. This was the subject of a complaint that I declined at AN3, where editors were reverting under the BLP exemption, and other editors were ignoring it and asking for sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess the question turns on whether she should be considered a WP:PUBLICFIGURE as a NASA astronaut. If she is, then the controversy, which is well covered[28][29], should be mentioned but it should not be described as a crime but "alleged crime" or act since there is no conviction. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Mention, since it's getting international (not just Russian accusations and US denials, but big name reliable sources in UK and Australia, even for a BLP that's sufficiently notable for us to mention) but rephrase. Specify that it's an accusation, don't say it's a crime. And honestly, shorten - the five sentences in that diff seem to be worth two sentences of content, at most three. --GRuban (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. The concern I had was in the phrasing and the undue emphasis. Acroterion (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment @Morbidthoughts.

@Acroterion: I see you are open to re-adding the content as long as it "Specifies that it's an accusation, don't say it's a crime." per M.Thoughts... Should I add it back or would you prefer to phrase it your way? Thanks. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 19:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'm not that interested in editing the article, it's more a matter of respecting BLP (and the subject). Let's keep it short, per above. Acroterion (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Roger Marshall (politician) and comments about Fauci

This is a two part NPOV content question. Recently Marshall questioned Fauci and asked questions about Fauci's potential financial conflicts of interest. Fauci said that his COI had been disclosed as a matter of record. Marshall claims his office was unable to find the material. Factcheck.org was used as a source to include the following in the article, "appearing unaware that federal law already requires that Fauci submit annual financial disclosure reports"[30]. A different reference in the same section included a statement from Marshall that said, "Marshall said his office had been unable to find the information." [31]. An edit was made that removed Marshall's statement that his office was unable to find the information and added Factcheck.org's speculative claim that Marshall was unaware that Fouci would have to provide this information.[32] My concern is two fold. First, since several sources said Fauci's disclosure information is available is it reasonable to say Marshall said his office was unable to find the information (per the second source this comment was made during a hearing). I think yes because it is important to note that there is a claim that this material was searched for. Second, is it reasonable to include a speculative claim from Factcheck.org that Marshall was "unaware" that this was a requirement of Fauci in wiki-voice? I think the second question should be no. First, this the opinion of the source rather than a fact. Second, the fact that Marshall asked about the information and said his office was unable to find it suggests he knew it should be available. Third, as a civil servant he likely had to go through a similar process himself and thus would have been generally aware. Looking for additional feedback here. Springee (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not majorly concerned with this being a BLP violation. Seems more of a content dispute. There's got to be more sources on this though, I know their spat made quite a splash in the media. I think the bottom line is, was it available before the Senator asked Fauci about it. If so, it's not reasonable to include the Senator's claim that they were unable to find it. Otherwise, it's probably safe to include both. And they should probably be attributed rather than in Wiki-voice. ––FormalDude talk 16:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This might be a crazy question, but in ten years will anyone give a shit about this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: People give a shit about the minute happenings of congressmen from over 200 years ago, I'm sure they're still care in ten years too. ––FormalDude talk 17:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Like SFR, I question the encyclopedic relevance of this incident, but it doesn't seem to be a BLP concern. Fauci's disclosures have been publicly available for his entire career, as is typical of NIH employees. Marshall appeared unaware of that. (We can't say whether or not he was aware, but he certainly appeared unaware). If you want to include the fact that Marshall blamed his staff for failing to turn up publicly available material, I guess that's fine? There's really no wiggle room in the sources, so I'm not sure why we're trying to invent some here. MastCell ^Talk 17:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that this level of detail about this type of event is encyclopedic content that will stand the test of time. Taking a quick look, it doesn't appear that anyone has added it to Fauci's article. Probably because it is WP:UNDUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Well it is possible for it to be undue for Fauci's article and due for Marshall's. And I think that's the case here. Marshall was the one who chose to use his time for questioning Fauci to ask a question like this. ––FormalDude talk 17:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with removing the whole paragraph talking about the interaction. That was my first thought but when it was restored I decided to make it about more than just Fauci getting caught on an open mike. Springee (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude, the statement from Marshall was attributed to Marshall himself. The source didn't quote Marshall, only summarized his statements. I don't think we would need to say, "according to the X paper, Marshall said..." However, speculation that Marshall was unaware that Fauci was required to file such disclosures is a clear opinion that only one source had and conflicts with Marshall's claim that the his office tried to find the disclosure. Why would they look for the records if they were unaware that the records do/are supposed to exist? That said, this is new content and I wouldn't be oppose to simply removing the whole mess rather than trying to fix it. Springee (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Springee: The sourcing is pretty bad for the entire paragraph, I'm fine removing it for now. I suspect there will be more attempts to add something about this to his article though, given the amount of coverage it's received. ––FormalDude talk 18:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you mean when you repeatedly refer to factcheck's description of Marshall appeared unaware that federal law already requires Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to submit an annual financial disclosure report — similar to members of Congress — and those reports are publicly available as speculative. Nothing about it seems speculative to me; it is stating as fact that this created the appearance that he was unaware of this. As long as we use similar phrasing it is not, at least, a BLP violation. --Aquillion (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Mark Swed

Please change to born 1947. I'm the source.

Thank you, Mark Swed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.16.52 (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mark. Unfortunately we get occasional impersonators looking to mess with us by claiming they're someone they're not and saying something needs to be changed. As a result we can't just take people's word for it when they ask for corrections like this. Sorry. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@47.156.16.52: However, if you find a reliable source to cite that says Mark Swed was born in 1947, the article can be changed accordingly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Jeremy Mayfield

See this ANI regarding suspicious behavior regarding removal of negative information (drug testing controversy that led him being suspended by NASCAR, etc) regarding the driver by a pair of IPv4 and IPv6 address - WP:NASCAR also notified. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 22:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

IPs has since been blocked (and I restored the revision before the IPs began editing), but I still harbor some suspicion considering these IPs are from Hickory, NC and Mayfield used to race at Hickory Motor Speedway in his post-NASCAR years. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 22:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Jim Popp

The page for Jim Popp it is being policed by either Popp or a close associate to be something with no neutrality. Instead what remains after a flurry of uncited edits is full of unsourced personal information, editorialized to the detriment of other and the glorification of Popp. The history of the page has users Csibd10 and 24.224.114.89 taking these actions. An example is in the first sentence of the article where it states that Popp is: "a Canadian Football League icon, who has been recognized as one of the brightest minds in professional sports, known for his ability to both build expansion teams and rebuild established franchises into championship organizations." This whole article needs a lot of work, and also protection from whomever keeps turning into pro-Popp propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CestusHaberdasher (talk • contribs)

I understand your concerns, CestusHaberdasher. I've removed the worst of the puffery, as well as the unsourced personal information section, and tagged most of the sports career additions as needing sources. I also left messages on both editors' talk pages. I expect that most of the career information can be sourced, but I'm not interested in sports articles and don't want to spend the hours tracking down the refs for it. I'll keep it on my watchlist for awhile. Schazjmd (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'm going to go back and redo a few of the edits that I first did on January 8th and were reverted by 24.224.114.89 as some of those at least cleared up some of the citation issues. Thank you for your support. -CestusHaberdasher

Artur Pawlowski

• Artur Pawlowski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Armduino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like a neutral reviewer to have a look at this user's recent edits to this article, the biography of a popular anti-vaccine advocate in western Canada. The user is new and has not edited much else, and my concern is that their edits to this article are adding information which can only be found in unreliable antivax blogs, using these sources to give undue weight to minor aspects of a recent court ruling, as well as insisting on restoring information about a non-notable person's criminal conviction (which is reliably sourced, just irrelevant). A few days ago I copyedited their contributions (PEIsquirrel is my alt) and they have mostly undone my revisions, restoring the content noted above.

Separately from the recent edits, I'm struggling with how to describe an odd aspect of a court order against Pawlowski requiring him to disclaim his own anti-science views when speaking publicly, without too closely paraphrasing sources, and would appreciate someone else taking a look at that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The stuff about some random coffee shop owner clearly doesn't belong. Nor does most or probably all the stuff about the subject's brother. I've removed it again and asked the editor to cut it out. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I would add that for some reason Pawlowski seems to keep getting arrested with his brother. If they do nearly everything together and this is mentioned in reliable sources, it's possible this will be significant enough to mention. If so, it may be more reasonable to mention when he gets arrested with his brother, but it's still unlikely there will be any merit to mention the sentence his brother receives etc. The trouble is at the moment there's little context. His brother was mentioned randomly whenever they got arrested together etc. As his brother is apparently non notable, it's fairly problematic to keep mentioning his arrest without any context. It's no real different from if Pawlowski kept getting arrested with some other random person like a coffee shop owner or something. The article is on Artur Pawlowski and not other random people. Also I'm not entirely happy about some of the other stuff but I've tried to remove the worst of it. I didn't come across any blogs except 2 which may be news blogs but in any case don't seem to be related to COVID-19 (which they predate) or vaccines. Nil Einne (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Paul Thacker

Thacker is spreading misinformation about the COVID vaccines. He is preventing people from getting vaccinated by spreading misinformation. Yet, any attempts to update his page are immediately reverted without explanation by Alexbrn. Thacker, who is well-known among science journalists as anti-GMO and anti-vaccine, is inexplicably having his Wikipedia page whitewashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.254.14.29 (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Paul D. Thacker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 73.254.14.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Believe there were genuine BLP issues with 73.254.14.29's contributions of Special:Diff/1062588536 and Special:Diff/1062589804 which is what 73.254.14.29 seems to be upset about being reverted. Up to this point while 73.254.14.29 has threatened Alexbrn with being taken to a noticeboard at Special:Diff/1064991165 I see no evidence of them being notified nor of a {{BLP noticeboard}} being placed at this point. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

(EC) IP, from what I see, you've been entirely in the wrong here and other editors have been trying to uphold our strict BLP policy. Frankly, if you keep at it, you should expect to be blocked.

First, if it's well known, it should not be hard for you to find WP:reliable secondary sources covering this. But when I look at your additions [33], what I see is mostly self published sources and other possibly unreliable sources. De Telegraaf is the only source there which looks to be reliable. I don't understand Dutch so I cannot evaluate the specific article but while we allow non English sources we do prefer English ones. And I wonder why the only reliable source you've presented for an American journalist who from what I can tell writes completely in English, is in Dutch. Especially when you claim it's "well-known".

Also even if our coverage of controversial aspects of Paul Thacker is to be expanded, it is very unlikely it should be in a "controversy" section heading which tend to be a very bad idea, especially in BLPs.

Finally, you've made an allegation of autobiographical editing [34], yet both of the editors reverting you are established editors who are clearly not Thacker. In other words, you surely have no evidence of this allegation. Please do not make such allegations without evidence in the future as it could be seen as a personal attack.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: There's several reliable secondary sources that provide evidence. I've added them to the article. Please remember WP:BITE. ––FormalDude talk 09:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Please remember WP:BLP. If an editor does not provide reliable secondary sources then they are not allowed to add contentious material to our articles on living persons, no matter if these sources allegedly exist. policy is very clear on this. Any editor who does not accept this, is not welcome to edit BLPs. This means the fact these sources may exist does not excuse the IP completely failing to add them while adding the contentious material, and then falsely accusing editors of autobiographical editing even when they have been warned about NPA. BLP is far more important than the hurt feelings of an editor. Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

What's the opposite of white washing? Brown smearing? I don't doubt there are spats and tirades against Paul Thacker in the blogotwittersphere, but self-published sources about other living people, be they negative or positive, are explicitly disallowed per WP:BLPSPS. --Animalparty! (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the one source that violates WP:BLPSPS. ––FormalDude talk 09:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, the IP did not add only one self published source. They twice (although seemingly to the same page) added https://theness.com/neurologicablog/ which appears to be a blog by Steven Novella i.e. a self published source.

They also added https://www.keithkloor.com which as may be obvious from the name, appears to be the personal website and blog of Keith Kloor, again a self published source.

Another addition was https://www.science20.com/about . This seems to have multiple authors however it seems to be a collection of blogs than an actual reliable secondary source. It specifically boasts they have no editorial control

Create a place where world-class scientists write articles and discuss issues without being filtered by size or editorial limitations, where there are no political or cultural agendas, and the audience can read great science directly from the sources and maybe learn some new things.

In any case, the author of the particular article is the founder of the site [35]. So another one clearly an SPS.

One more link was to https://childrenshealthdefense.org/authors/paul-d-thacker/ which is a primary source. We always have to be careful about using primary sources to say much about what someone does, especially when it's more of a side thing. (I'm never happy if the only source for someone working at a university is the universities site, however at least this is often their main job.) In this particular case, it was worse than simply say Thacker was an author for them though, since it included unsources commentary on the organisation.

Finally there was one probably reliable source De Telegraaf, which I already mentioned in my first reply.

There may be other reliable sources. Anyone is welcome to bring them to the table and we can discuss what to include in the article. However no editor should be adding material with such shitty sources. And no editor should be defending someone who added material with such shitty sources, no matter how new the editor adding the material is.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• FormalDude (talk · contribs) has joined the party. I guess I have too. Animalparty (talk · contribs).

• There's no doubt Thacker is an interesting bio subject, but Wikipedia-suitable sceptical sources on his work are thin on the ground, for now anyway. That's the reality folks. The IP needs to understand there are good reasons for the BLP policy, and we must abide by it rather than try to WP:RGW. Alexbrn (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm fairly certain the Wikipedia-suitable sources are mainly skeptical of his work. Did you review some of the sources I added? ––FormalDude talk 09:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  @FormalDude: from what I saw, for some reason you said you were removing SPS while adding something sourced solely to Steven Novella's blog. Please remember there is no exception for experts when it comes to BLPs. Self published sources are not allowed except when they come under WP:ABOUTSELF which cannot apply when Steven Novella is talking about Paul Thacker. Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Note that Steven Novella's blog is hosted by New England Skeptical Society [36]. However I see no indication the NESS has any meaningful editorial control over the blog noting that Novella is the president of the NESS. So Neurologica which is called a blog both in the site itself and by the NESS seems to be an SPS rather than a WP:NEWSBLOG, no matter where it is hosted. Looking at previous WP:RSN discussions I see no mention of any independent editorial control unlike for example, with Science-Based Medicine, simply mention of Novella's credentials which as I said are irrelevant when it comes to BLPs. (Remember that even Quackwatch should generally be treated as an SPS for anything written by Barrett.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  There is no "independent editorial control" at Science Based Medicine Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_351#Science-Based_Medicine. There is no difference between Gorski here vs. here as far as editorial standards are concerned. Blog fights and twitter trolling. fiveby(zero) 14:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe. I was aware of that RSN discussion but intentionally never participated as I wasn't and am still not sure how to treat it. But clearly some people felt it did have editorially oversight so it's complicated. Regardless of whether they're right, my main point is I don't see how the same arguments could be made for Novella's blog where there's no indication of any sort of editorial oversight beyond legal requirements (which applies to many SPS) no matter that it's hosted by NESS, so it seems to clearly be out. SBM since it's disputed and I'm on the fence, I won't remove it or say it was obviously inappropriate for someone to add it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  There's also the consideration that the SBM piece is commenting on some publisher Word of Thacker's, not Thacker himself. The full protection of BLP does not extend to the work biographical subjects produce. Alexbrn (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Since i don't see many editors linking to WP:POINT these days, i will go add anti-GMO muckraking crank Paul Thacker to the article. fiveby(zero) 19:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Considering it's an article on Thacker, I would have to strongly disagree. WP:BLPSPS doesn't say it's okay for self-published sources to be used if they're commenting on works. It says "as sources of material about a living person". If this isn't a source of material about a living person, then it doesn't belong in a biography of Thacker. If SBM is a SPS, it's either a violation of BLPSPS or of WP:Syn or both. Perhaps if this were an article on the article then the argument could be made but it isn't, indeed we don't have such a thing. Likewise if Thacker's article was being used in e.g. an article on the Pfizer vaccine or some other article which isn't about Thacker, then sure, a reasonable argument could be made it's sufficiently disconnected from Thacker that BLPSPS doesn't apply and so SBM's comments on Thacker's article could be used. Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I've cleaned up bit, including the BLPvio in the lead. Currently, however, the lead is an attack, rather than a summary of the article. That should probably be addressed sooner than later. The only time either GMOs or 5G are mentioned is in the lead, so it's clearly not summarizing anything. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick note that I mentioned this thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

sylvia beach whitman

Hello. I am the subject of this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Beach_Whitman. My name is actually just "Sylvia Whitman." The "Beach" was inserted by others as an affectation; I do not use it myself, nor do I prefer it. Could you please remove the "Beach" from the name of this page? Again, it should just be "Sylvia Whitman." Thank you, thank you! - Sylvia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.241.202.98 (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Please write [email protected] to confirm that it is you that is making the request. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The reliable sources cited in the article refer to her as Sylvia Beach Whitman, because her father named her after Sylvia Beach. The actual name is reflected in the lead sentence but are there any objections to moving the page to Sylvia Whitman? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

No objections here, but I don't know if the subject is notable, on account of notability of the book store being WP:NOTINHERITED. I haven't nominated it for AfD yet, however, as I'm a bit tied up with other things and don't have the bandwidth for a legitimate WP:BEFORE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Doing a Google News search reveals that plenty of RS refer to her as just Sylvia Whitman but all in the context of the bookstore. She probably does not have notability outside her father and the store. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Grace Randolph

I am submitting a request for review of Grace Randolph's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Randolph

Specifically the "Lady and the Tramp Racebending" section. It seems very unfair to me to include this accusation on her Wikipedia page when it's based on unproven hearsay and is poorly sourced, unable to cite an article from a single website of note or even semi-note.

This section is only able to cite a single article from an obscure website. The sole basis for the article is a third party tweet that no longer exists because the twitter account was suspended, which reasonably calls the supposed accusations of that tweet into question. Furthermore, there is no proof - no video of Randolph, no tweets from Randolph, and again no article from a well known publication - that Randolph ever criticized Tessa Thompson's casting. The video from Randolph that the article does include has her specifically clarifying that she has no problem with Tessa Thompson's casting. Furthermore, the article also states that in the same video Randolph is also advocating for diverse representation re DC's Black Canary. As for Gail Simone's tweet, while she's a notable figure, I don't see how her tweet of a single question mark offers any proof or validation.

(There was one other article sourced previously , but it has the exact same problems re being an obscure website and using the same questionable deleted tweet as evidence. That article also stated that when visiting Randolph's YouTube channel himself, the reporter only saw her advocating for representation as well, in that case hoping for positive portrayal of an LGBT character in the upcoming Jungle Cruise.)

Randolph has also been very supportive of Halle Bailey as Ariel aka The Little Mermaid and Leslie Grace as Batgirl .

I've tried to remove this myself but because I am an admitted fan of Randolph's, my edits have not been accepted. The editor who created Randolph's page, and who I've seen be invited to weigh in on discussions on her page before, thankfully agreed and also tried to remove the section, however it has been put back again by the editor who added the section in the first place.

So insight from other editors not previously involved would be greatly appreciated, thank you! ChromaticaCali (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing a google search[37] shows only the two sites mentioned. This section is UNDUE in that it doesn't satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE and I will remove it until consensus to readd is gained. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I wasn't able to find any significant coverage either. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Idris bin Abdullah al-Senussi

The article isn't factual at all. Having researched the matter fully, for starter, Idris is not a Prince of Libya. I tried editing the page to reflect reality and am doing my Master's in Libyan History and am very familiar with this topic. The page discusses someone alive and is incredibly dishonest, not least because it brushes over so much important information such as the 1995 court case, the Debrett's ruling, or the completely made-up things.

Some examples of uncited and inaccurate information returned to the page after my edits include:

"Prince Idris al-Senussi began working on leading the royal family and uniting Libya, as this role was passed onto him by his late father." (This is literally untrue)

"He has also been playing a diplomatic role to help balance the differences between Libya and Africa, the Arab World, Europe, the United States, Latin America and Asia." (What diplomatic role?)

"He returned to Libya on 23 December 2011 with his cousin, Prince Ahmed Zubair Al-Senussi." (He does not live in Libya)

Idris is supported by an Advisory Council (the Senussi royal family allows polygamy, which is "a factor that complicates all claims of royal legitimacy through descent")[2] that heads the Sanussiyyah movement which embraces the majority of Libyan tribes.

(Again, this is entirely untrue and has no citation to prove it)

Other parts of the page include clearly propagandistic information,

Other parts which I added, from reputable sources like such as the Globe and Mail were removed.

It would be helpful if an additional editor could:

1. Review and remove the unsourced material and remove it. As per Wikipedia Community standards, it contains "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". A few of the examples are above.

2. Restore my own corrections that were indeed properly sourced

Thanks Moonlight Sunshine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonlightsunshine1994 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You'll need to find better sources than discussion boards like[38] and [39], or Wikipedia mirrors, like [40]. I suggest you familiarize yourself with our sourcing guidelines, especially for BLPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Valentin Katasonov

• Valentin Katasonov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I looked into this article because it referenced Michel Chossudovsky's "globalresearch.ca", calling it a "Canadian information resource", which is a bit of a stretch, as you'll see from the article on Chossudovsky.

The main issue seems to be, though, that the article relies heavily on affiliated sources, and the only mainstream sources (e.g. the US State Department report) barely rise above the level of namechecks.

It is clear that Katasonov is a conspiracy theorist and Russian state propaganda conduit, but it is not clear whether he is a notable one (in the Wikipedia sense - State clearly think he is), and I don't think it would be possible to tell without a good working knowledge of Russian since there are very few reliable English language sources that mention him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This is actually a good question. Should he have an article on Wikipedia if there are no independent RS naming him? The State Department document could be considered WP:BLPPRIMARY Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Paul Frampton

The purpose of writing/editing is to raise concerns about the Wikipedia page/profile of Paul Frampton (PF) (the Profile).

There are elements of the Profile which should not form part of it, being a Biography of a Living Person (BLP), in accordance with the policies which are more particularly set out below to assist.

The objectionable content is that contained under the heading ‘Drug Smuggling Conviction’ (the Section). The concern is that it is not relevant to the Profile nor is it in in accordance with Wikipedia’s rules/policy surrounding BLPs.

There seems to have been previous comments on this subject with conflicting views. Those who believe that it should remain do so on the grounds that it is fact and reportage of the truth. Although that may (arguably) be correct in part, that appears to be the incorrect test to apply when determining if the Section should or can remain in the Profile as a BLP.

Wikipedia’s policy on BLPs (the Policy) states:

“Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.”

Those who may be interested in PF’s work are only solely and exclusively interested in his professional accomplishments as a physicist. The only reason to involve the Section is to be sensationalist.

This is further evidenced, for example, where the heading ‘Publications’ only refers to PF’s professional works and not to those relating to this minor incident in his life detailed in the Section. The correct reasoning for this is that the Section or the detail(s) of that event and therefore any publication(s) that followed bear(s) no relevance to a BLP.

The same entry would not be included in an encyclopaedia and there seems no reason why it should therefore exist on Wikipedia.

The Policy also states:

“Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion”

The Profile/Section states that PF had been diagnosed with a serious mental condition at the time of those events which one would expect to only limit his ability to deal with the proceedings against him at that time.

It is unclear what, if any, arrangements were made by the authorities or the court to accommodate PF’s condition or to assist in anyway. There is the very real concern that PF faced clear and obvious prejudices in that respect from the outset.

On that basis there is cause to question if the conviction can only be considered unsafe given the above and therefore the Section’s inclusion.

In furtherance, it would seem that the Profile falls under the definition of ‘People who are relatively unknown’. Although PF is renowned and respected within his own field, it is highly unlikely that those outside of that extremely limited sector would know of him.

That is of course an important point since the Policy states:

“Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability…Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care”

In accordance with the Policy and the definitions set out above, the Section should be removed leaving only the parts detailing PF’s professional achievements which go to the very heart of the reason the Profile exists.

It seems that the notability of PF has nothing to do with the events detailed within the Section but his professional accolades alone.

The Policy also places emphasis on material that may adversely affect a person’s reputation and that any such material needs to be treated with special care. Given the above points as to the unsafe nature of the conviction extreme caution must be exercised when considering if the Section has the ability to be included.

In the circumstances and for the reasons set out above, the Section should be removed in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EightfoldWay (talk • contribs) 12:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. It is well sourced and neutrally written. The coverage in multiple independent outlets shows that it is notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. It is well sourced and neutrally written. The coverage in multiple independent outlets shows that it is notable. -Roxy the dog. wooF 12:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The events related to the drug conviction absolutely affected his life and career (like, being fired and the subsequently lawsuit). And the sourcing, while mostly local, seems to be reliable, so there's no issue with this under BLPCRIME. --Masem (t) 13:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup, the cocaine stuff seems fine. Would likely be undue in the lede, as the self-sourced sentence about where he is "currently" (WP:RELTIME yuck) affiliated, is. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI, going by the talk page, the article has a long history of editors with an apparent COI making requests like this. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The subject is a very distinguished theoretical physicist. The material about his drug conviction is well sourced and neutrally written. Such a bizarre series of events needs at least the space given. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC).

Apologies, I am unsure how to respond to the comments. Thank you for the responses - I do still disagree with the reasoning as to why you believe it should remain. There appears to be no dispute that Frampton can only be considered a relatively unknown person. On that basis the content must be limited to that material relevant to the person's notability - that is the test to be applied, not if it is bizarre, interesting, well sourced or neutral.

Although it may be considered a notable event (arguable) it is not relevant to Frampton's notability. For example, if he did not have the professional accolades would the profile exist with the drug smuggling conviction alone? The answer surely has to be no since that is a job of a tabloid, which Wikipedia is not. I do not believe that Wikipedia is a record of individuals with convictions either.

By way of further example and in order to support the point above, there is no profile for Lucy Wright https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/03/pregnant-british-drug-mule-escape - a British lady who admitted to smuggling 6kgs of cocaine out of Argentina, interesting the High Court (England) refused to extradite her on the basis of her Human Rights despite the fact she had admitted to the serious offence. The point is there is no profile for her for the same (if not more serious) and admitted criminal activity, which is right - Wikipedia is not a news outlet. As a side, this does also cast doubt on the Argentina legal system and its compliance with Human Rights.

The point therefore is not down to the notability of the event (as such), how it is written or as to its sourcing but as a relatively unknown person is this relevant to his notability as a particle theorist - surely that has to be no. Its inclusion is not compatible or in compliance with the BLP Policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 11:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If the only thing that could be discussed from quality sourcing related to Framptom was the drug-related crimes and litigation, we'd not have an article on him, most likely. Instead, Framptom, prior to anything with the drug stuff, was notable as an academic. That the drug litigation occurred and cost him his job at the end of the day builds on that. Now, if his crime was getting a speeding ticket and did not affect his career, of course we'd not even include that in his bio; that's trivial. --Masem (t) 19:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Masem is right - this subject looks like a clear WP:NPROF pass, and as such is notable according to our guidelines; arguments that the article ought to be deleted on grounds of notability seem exceedingly unlikely to gain traction. We then pass onto the question of whether mention should be made of the conviction: given that it has been covered by multiple reliable sources, I can't think of any policy-based rationale for removing it; this information is squarely in the public domain, I don't see any BLP violation here. Girth Summit _(blether) 01:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)≤

This is a notable person who, unfortunately, was convicted of a drug offense and served time in prison. There is no way under the sun that neutrally written, well-referenced content about this episode should be removed from his biography. It is an essential part of his life story. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that the conviction lead to him being dismissed from UNC, however, as the profile notes that decision was incorrect as determined by a Court of Law. If you are saying that it is the firing which is relevant to his notability as a particle theorist then surely it should be limited to that episode/court case alone - perhaps entitled wrongful termination of employment or simply employment. However, given that the firing was wrong should it be included? I'm not sure how that adds to him as a particle theorist though especially as a relatively unknown person. Should we be including the reasons for why he left each employee or each event in his life which may have had an impact upon him personally and therefore his career? obviously not. I'm also not convinced that you can say that the firing had any relation upon his theories, which are ultimately the reason for the profile - that is something only Frampton can answer.

We have established that the drug conviction element would not exist by itself, therefore as a profile of a relatively unknown person "only material relevant to the person's notability" can be included. Frampton is not notable as a drug smuggler, for being fired from UNC or any other reason save for as a particle theorist - therefore his career and theories/publications are the only material relevant to that notability.

You say you can't see any policy based rationale for removing it, I have given you exactly that - the wording of the BLP Policy is undeniably clear especially as to a relatively unknown person. Perhaps you can explain exactly why that policy doesn't apply. This is a genuine question, I have stated that I am not questioning the neutrality or sourcing of the section, but simply as to its compliance with the policy in relation to a relatively unknown person - no-one has yet dealt with that explicit point. EightfoldWay

This court of law that you mention without references Paul, was it the same court of law that convicted you, or a different court of law, in a different country, and a different case? -Roxy the dog. wooF 10:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your first line is not clear, do you mean the court of law that references Paul or are you trying to infer that I am Paul? I assume you are attempting to say that I am Paul since you go on to say 'you', for the record and not that I believe I have to justify myself, I am not Paul if that is what you mean. I assume you mean the Court that ruled that UNC violated its own policies - it was a North Carolina Court (USA) as stated in the profile (and referenced). This seems to be the issue with this profile, any discussion concerning the inclusion of the drugs element runs off at a tangent. Ultimately my point is only to do with the BLP on a relatively unknown person - in its current form I can't see how it complies. To be blunt it doesn't really have anything to do with Frampton either but compliance with policies - isn't that the point of editors/editing to ensure compliance. If you look at the talk section of the profile other editors have suggested that it deserves no more than a passing mention if at all - I agree with part of that in that it cannot warrant a mention at all (I also note that editor wasn't accused of being Paul!).EightfoldWay — Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your whole reply is a masterpiece of obfuscation, so I'll try to rephrase. Paul was convicted by a court of law, and jailed as a drug smuggler, however inept. This is a fact that is not in dispute. He has not been pardoned by that court, or any other court in that jurisdiction. He is notable for a few reasons, sure, but most notable for the skirt chasing, carrying an empty suitcase on a plane into the country where he was convicted reason. Another court in a totally different country, which has no jurisdiction regarding the drug conviction has made some ruling that you are trying to claim somehow voids the conviction. You and Paul hold the same odd views on this, which have only been expressed here before by Paul himself, or his sockpuppets which is why I thought you are Paul, but I accept otherwise for wiki purposes, so you must understand why you are stretching my credibility just a little. You should accept that what is most notable about Paul is the drug smuggling, Bileptons and Festschrifts notwithstanding, and so that part of his biography will remain. -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Not that this is wrong, but I would bring up that if Frampton wasn't a respected professor and had no other notable background at the time of these events, there likely wouldn't have been any coverage of it beyond a police blotter, and we wouldn't have had any article. But as Roxy has said, a lot of his notability for having a standalone article comes from the attention he got during this conviction, so it would be completely wrong not to have that in the article. The article otherwise does try to provide a neutral overview of Frampton's career and place the conviction and aftermath with due weight within it, rather than harp only on the conviction alone. --Masem (t) 14:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah the Frampton rodeo again. Its about once a year we get this isnt it Roxy? So the key points are: He is a notable scientist. He is a notable scientist convicted of a significant crime. Said conviction cost him his job. Thats the end of it in terms of 'should the conviction be in the article' question. Everything subsequent to that has no bearing on if the material should be in the article or not. That there were irregularities in how he lost his job (and lest anyone think he would have stayed employed, no his employer would still have got rid of him. Just in a manner more fair to him) doesnt affect that this life event (drug smuggling conviction) significantly impacted on him. The current wording in the article (and this has been looked at multiple times by many editors) is as neutral as it can get. The issue which Framptom is well aware of (because it has been explained to him), is that even if we started putting in more post-conviction material related to the conviction, it just makes the conviction loom larger in the biography We cant actually add more material because a lot of it is either uncomplimentary, not-reliable, not-independant etc and would turn it effectively into an attack bio. And the problem with many scientists who potter along doing their (worthwhile) jobs, is that they dont get press unless something significant appears. So the obvious solution (which has been tried) is to minimise the conviction material to as neutral a wording as possible (done) and expand other areas where reliable sources exist (not done because there just isnt that much published and easily available). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It is a perfectly straight forward (and far from odd) view if you grasp the point I am trying to make. It is only about the policy's wording.

You are clearly misunderstanding what I have written - at no point have I said that the North Carolina decision voided the conviction, someone made the point that it was notable he was fired and that was the reason (or one of) for its inclusion, I was underlining the fact that was overturned and therefore not relevant. Again this is a complete red herring and not relevant to the point.

As I have repeated on multiple occasions it doesn't matter if it is true, neutral or well sourced, for the purpose of the policy that is the incorrect test to apply. It now appears that we are saying that the reason for the existence for Frampton's profile is the drug smuggling - since that is his notability, the particle theorist part is just a side/minor detail.

If you are saying he is notable for being a drug smuggler and that is the reason for the profile's existence then it should be deleted in its entirety as it would fall under news or a matter for a tabloid to deal with which goes against the BLP Policy. There certainly wouldn't be an entry as to his drug smuggling in an encyclopaedia (he is no Escobar). In addition, as a relatively unknown individual the material in the profile must be limited to that concerning the drugs (since you say his profession accolades are not enough for a profile) - that again would only leave news/tabloid material and therefore the profile should be deleted. Imagine how many profiles of drug smugglers would exist if we include drug smugglers with barely notable occupations.

I'll try and simplify the point - PF is a relatively unknown individual, I think we can agree on that point. If his profile exists because he is a particle theorist then the drugs stuff needs to come out under the BLP Policy as it should be limited to the relevant material as a particle theorist. If Frampton's profile exists because he is a drug smuggler then the material should be limited to the conviction/drug smuggling, which then falls foul of the BLP Policy and the profile should be deleted in its entirety. If you are saying he is notable for both then the professional part remains but the drugs element comes out as wikipedia is not a tabloid or news outlet.

The BLP Policy is clear: "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, 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" and "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability".

To be fair Roxy's and a few others summary of the drug part only shows it to be tabloid material which is simply sensationalist. EightfoldWay

To OIDDDE, yes, an annual event. To Eightfoldway, the other give that made me think you are Paul is your username. -Roxy the dog. wooF 17:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there a talk page template to link to noticeboard discussions, so when an unfamiliar user sees one of these threads they can easily catch up on the history? That would be handy for perennial complaints. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that the impasse here is that some of the terms used in WP:BLP are necessarily subjective. Is Frampton 'relatively unknown'? Is his conviction relevant to his notability? These are judgment calls, which reasonable people might disagree on: we are in the realm of editorial judgment. From a quick head count, I see at least seven experienced editors, including three site administrators, who conclude that there is no breach of policy; I see only one editor, the OP, who thinks that the inclusion of this material is a violation. There really is no point making the same arguments over and over: absent some new (and, frankly, ground-breaking) argument, this material is going to stay in the article. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This is really quite a lot. Collapsed huge wall of WP:IDHT by User:EightfoldWay

I agree that there is some subjectivity to the Policy, but that doesn’t seem to be the issue here to me. It is what test is being applied, which is not in line with the Policy. Of course there can be subjectivity, but if a subjective view is based on incorrect assumptions/facts then it cannot be considered a valid view. The other problem is that no reason has been given as to why it is a valid inclusion under the Policy, just that it is and now that the interpretation of the policy is subjective. Taking the head count and as a very crude example: (i) Scottish FR and Roxy commented “I disagree. It is well sourced and neutrally written. The coverage in multiple independent outlets shows that it is notable”. Sourcing and neutrally are irrelevant – the fact that it also is included in multiple outlets is also irrelevant. The test is, is it notable to Frampton as a Particle Theorist. (ii) Masem commented: “The events related to the drug conviction absolutely affected his life and career (like, being fired and the subsequently lawsuit)” I dealt with the firing and the Court decision on that, but is it really relevant to his work as a Particle Theorist – it was completely unrelated to his works, in no way linked to his professional life (certainly a personal matter) was clearly a one off and he has no other criminal convictions (from what is publicly available). Masem also commented that “If the only thing that could be discussed from quality sourcing related to Framptom was the drug-related crimes and litigation, we'd not have an article on him, most likely. Instead, Framptom, prior to anything with the drug stuff, was notable as an academic. That the drug litigation occurred and cost him his job at the end of the day builds on that. Now, if his crime was getting a speeding ticket and did not affect his career, of course we'd not even include that in his bio; that's trivial.” That surely shows that Frampton’s notability is as a particle theorist. It is only that notability/the so called severity of the crime which leads to the drugs being admissible and therefore on that reasoning and under the Policy it should not be included (the severity of a crime and the link it therefore being sensationalist being one reason). (iii) Xxanthippe wrote “The subject is a very distinguished theoretical physicist. The material about his drug conviction is well sourced and neutrally written. Such a bizarre series of events needs at least the space given.” This seems to accept that the profile exists due to Frampton being a particle theorist and therefore that is his notability – the drugs are only notable due to his profile as a PT and therefore are not relevant for points previous raised as a relatively unknown person. The fact the drugs episode is described as a bizarre series of events would only indicate it is include to be sensationalist. On the basis of that view and applying the policy correctly the section should not be included. (iv) Girth Summit commented “Masem is right - this subject looks like a clear WP:NPROF pass, and as such is notable according to our guidelines; arguments that the article ought to be deleted on grounds of notability seem exceedingly unlikely to gain traction.” I agree with you Frampton’s is notable as an academic and that is his notability and the reason for the Profile. “We then pass onto the question of whether mention should be made of the conviction: given that it has been covered by multiple reliable sources, I can't think of any policy-based rationale for removing it; this information is squarely in the public domain, I don't see any BLP violation here.” I do not see how it being in the public domain is relevant to any policy test – the neutrality, truth or sourcing are not contested. The question is, is the drugs element relevant to Frampton as a PT/academic, the answer surely has to be no. (v) Cullen stated “This is a notable person who, unfortunately, was convicted of a drug offense and served time in prison. There is no way under the sun that neutrally written, well-referenced content about this episode should be removed from his biography. It is an essential part of his life story.” This agrees that Frampton is notable as a particle theorist who was then convicted of a drug offense – notability = particle theorist. Again neutrality/sourcing not part of the test in these circumstances. The fact that it is essential to his life story shows that it is not material relevant to his notability but more a point of interest, something a tabloid would include and not an encyclopaedia, it adds sensation to the profile. (vi) I note the Roxy believes Frampton is actually must notable for his conviction “He is notable for a few reasons, sure, but most notable for the skirt chasing, carrying an empty suitcase on a plane into the country where he was convicted reason...you should accept that what is most notable about Paul is the drug smuggling, Bileptons and Festschrifts notwithstanding, and so that part of his biography will remain” that comment also displays the tabloid like nature of the section. If Roxy is correct then the section shouldn’t apply at all as it just reporting the conviction of a drug smuggler. Masem added to that in “Not that this is wrong, but I would bring up that if Frampton wasn't a respected professor and had no other notable background at the time of these events, there likely wouldn't have been any coverage of it beyond a police blotter, and we wouldn't have had any article” That reasserts the point that the drugs is only included due to Frampton’s notability as a PT and we are back to the point that material only in relation to that notability can (and should) be included. (vii) Only in death agrees that Frampton’s notability is the fact he is a PT and the drugs are included because it cost him his job. However, the drugs material isn’t relevant to his work as a particle theorist, it has no bearing on his works/theories - Frampton can still publish theories whether or not he was/is employed. His employment is supplementary information. Again, the significance of the crime is highlighted as being a reason for its inclusion. “So the key points are: He is a notable scientist. He is a notable scientist convicted of a significant crime. Said conviction cost him his job.” By my count there is only one person who views Frampton’s notability is not as a particle theorist. I am not sure that any particle theorist is going to be labelled as a well-known person, let alone Frampton. Therefore Frampton can only be considered a relatively unknown person. That established and in accordance with the policy only information that is relevant to the notability can be included. I fail to see how the drug conviction is related to his professional work as a particle theorist. I understand and can see that there is not much time for Frampton given his previous actions/approach – but that is not the point or a reason to maintain the profile in its current form. I am not the only other person to hold this view and can see that JBW previously commented “In my opinion this whole incident, in proportion to Frampton's whole career, is too small to justify more than a passing mention, if any.” So I don’t have to be Paul (or one of his sockpuppets) to hold the view. If it helps, I am aware that Sheldon Glashow, a Nobel Prize winning particle theorist Sheldon Lee Glashow, has apparently been interested in some of Frampton’s work. So much so that he has referred it to CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research)CERN who are working on that recommendation actively and a paper is expected to be published anytime. This was mentioned at the Miami University’s recent Physics Conference: https://cgc.physics.miami.edu/Miami2021/Frampton.pdf . I appreciate you may not have been aware of this if you are uninterested in this Physics. If CERN confirm Frampton’s theory he will likely be in line for a Nobel Prize - to some that might be groundbreaking. The next nomination deadline for the Nobel prize is 31 January 2022. Therefore not only should the drugs element not exist due to policy violation, but it must also be seriously questioned where it might jeopardise one person’s entire life works. Again, the policy says that the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EightfoldWay (talk • contribs) 18:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

To EightfoldWay, your logic is quite circular here, and it just keeps going 'round and 'round. This is not tabloid nonsense or trivia, and you can't just nitpick at little bits and pieces of policy like a lawyer would and expect to get anywhere. Wikipedia policy is better viewed as one giant equation, where info must satisfy every part of that equation in order to be included. It's written in a way as to be firm but flexible, to account for different situations, and each policy modifies and augments every other policy. This satisfies it all with flying colors. This is not a minor traffic stop we're talking about here, which is what the policy you keep quoting is meant to dissuade. This is a major event in this person's life and career, and is exactly the kind of thing a biography should report on. He even wrote a book about it, for Christ's sake! So trying to sweep it under the rug as if it never happened has an extremely low probability of occurring. If it affects his chances at the Nobel Prize, then (whether criminal or just gullible) he only has himself to blame. Zaereth (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty far on the "protect BLP" side of of the spectrum, and even I see no issue with this. There's broad consensus in this thread that there are no WP:BLP concerns with the section as it stands. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Me too. One thing I keep thinking about the OP's last statement is, if the Nobel Prize for Physics Committee was just going to google his name and read only the Wikipedia article, then I would have just lost serious respect for them. Zaereth (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• One thing that needs to be on the record is that the article Paul Frampton was created in 2006 -- six years before his arrest. The article had apparently been edited over 1,000 times before he was arrested. So I don't think the claim that "I am not sure that any particle theorist is going to be labelled as a well-known person, let alone Frampton. Therefore Frampton can only be considered a relatively unknown person" can be substantiated. It's not the case that some Wikipedian saw an article about his arrest in 2012 and decided to create an article about him only then. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It might be circular but that is because no one has been able to actually explain why it is wrong, other than subjectivity or that is not how it is meant to be interpreted. If read literally it is clear and that is why there is no argument against it. If it is one giant equation where every point must be satisfied then by that definition it should be removed - it cannot satisfy the criteria of a relatively unknown individual, as the content must be linked to the notability i.e. as a particle theorist. Which policy alters the requirements as to a relatively unknown person?

The point that the profile was created prior to the arrest shows the reason for notability (particle theorist) and proves the point further. The fact that it has been edited 1,000 does not mean 1,000 people edited it (I note no time frame is given for those edits)- that could easily have been 2 or 3 people (over multiple years) and as such has no bearing on the point he is relatively unknown. As you state the article was created due to Frampton as a particle theorist and as his profile exists because he is a particle theorist then the drugs stuff needs to come out under the BLP Policy as it should be limited to the relevant material as a particle theorist. Your point, which I assume is designed to undermine what I have put, does quite the opposite. This is the problem I am finding, people want to oppose the position I am putting forward and of course have every right to do so, what I object to is the erroneous basis upon which they do - so yes multiple people disagree but that doesn't mean they do so correctly or on the basis of proper reasoning or understanding - inadvertently Metropolitan90 supports the point.[User:EightfoldWay|EightfoldWay] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EightfoldWay (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That is not what WP:BLP says. The summary of WP:BLP says, "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." In this case, the discussion of Frampton's drugs arrest is appropriately sourced to such sources as The New York Times and Physics World. Frampton himself published a memoir about it titled Tricked! The Story of an Internet Scam. [41] I mean, we have better sourcing that Frampton was convicted of drug smuggling than that he is currently affiliated with the University of Salento, something which I assume you would want to be kept in the article -- the only source we have about his working at Salento is his own website. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

“Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability” — Preceding unsigned comment added by EightfoldWay (talk • contribs) 09:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

First, you should really learn how to properly indent your posts, because it makes a big difference in who you appear to be responding to. When I say circular logic, I mean that you keep ending with what you begin. I don't know this subject. Never heard of him before, and don't really care too much about it. But I've been working at BLPN for well over a decade, so I like to think I have a good understanding of policy and how it relates. In an attempt to help clear up any confusion, on Wikipedia, the term "notability", as in "what a person has been noted for", is defined solely by what reliable sources publish about them. It's not based on anything subjective; not our personal feelings nor those of the subject. It's very mathematical and goes strictly by a preponderance of reliable sources. We weigh those sources against each other to determine what a subject is most notable for, and what they are least notable for, and try to apportion everything accordingly. If a source publishes info about a subject, then they are notable for that.

The part of policy you keep citing works in conjunction with BLPCRIME. We're not here to collect a bunch of trivia on a subject or report on things like accusations and allegations, unless that info is so widespread as to pass WP:WELLKNOWN. For people who are not public figures, we use a much greater degree of restraint on such information. This doesn't qualify. According to the sources, he was convicted of the crime, so BLPCRIME is satisfied. A person can be notable for more than one thing. He is notable for this, and judging by the sources, at this point --today-- he is likely even more notable for this than he is for physics. (That may change if he wins the Nobel Prize, but even so, this isn't ever going away. Notability is a fluid and ever-evolving thing, all depending on what the sources write. "So let it be written. So let it be done.") Whether you or the subject like it or not, it is a big part of his notability now.

As an example, Bobby Beausoleil was originally a musician. As notable as he might have been for that, it was eclipsed when he was convicted for murder as part of the Manson Family. As much as he's worked to advance his music career since then, and has even sent his friends and family here to try and clean all the murder-stuff out of his bio, the fact that he was convicted of murder is never going away, and he'd have to reach the success of Elvis in his music career to even have a snowball's chance to make that his primary source of notability again. At the time, he probably never could have imagined how his case would blow up in the media, but that's the risk he took when he committed the crime. On Wikipedia, a person is notable for what reliable sources have noted about them. It's not rocket science. Zaereth (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

PS: If the subject really was tricked (and I'm not heartless and I feel for him if true, but for the sake of argument let's assume he was), if he was tricked, this would be my advice to him: turn it around to your benefit. Writing a book was a start. Next, hire a good PR rep; some Olivia Pope who can put a good spin on it. Appear on shows like Locked Up Abroad, where you can tell your one-side of the story. (It may not be a reliable source for Wikipedia, but may attracted some RSs to dig deeper into things.) Or just get out there and spread your name in the world of physics. Talk to reporters, and explain (in plain English!) all the cool stuff you work on. Tell them about yourself and who you are as a person. Go get that Nobel Prize. People often forget, nobody has more power than the subject to affect their own notability. But they can only do that from out there --not in here. What that will achieve is 1.) they get more of their side of the story in the article at the expense of weight (eg: a larger percentage of the article becomes devoted to the crime), or 2.) they just try to put it behind them and shift the weight to more physics-related stuff at the expense of making their denials and blame-shifts. (People will often go instinctively for the former, as a gut reaction, whereas the latter is generally the more effective strategy.) Whatever he does, he needs to find and admit his own faults to gain any sympathy from the world. That's crucial. I hope that helps, and good luck to him. Zaereth (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Genie (feral child)

We have an article about Genie (feral child). She is referred to only by the pseudonym "Genie" throughout the article, but nevertheless there are three photographs of her in the article. If we are protecting her privacy (as we should) by not using her name, is it proper for us to include photographs of her anyway? I would think that we shouldn't do so. (The best counterargument I can think of is that these photos are probably at least 50 years old and so they would not make her recognizable today.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Even setting aside any BLP concerns, three non-free images seems excessive. Spicy (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I think using the photos is fine, as they are widely published and, as you point out, over fifty years old. As for the non-free issues, I can see using the first two. I don't believe the third adds at all to the understanding of the article subject. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's not set aside BLP concerns. This is a two-pronged issue. From a perspective of BLP policy, the use of publicly released and widely circulated images is not of concern, from my understanding of policy. I'm also not entirely convinced that the subject's real name is not used for the specific reason of privacy protection on Wikipedia. That may be an inadvertent effect of the fact that Genie is the WP:COMMONNAME for this article and the fact that this is the name that reliable sources use (exclusively, as far as I can tell) to refer to her. Insertion and use of her real name in the article would be contrary to guidelines. As an analogy, consider that we refer to Drake as Drake throughout his article, rather than as Graham, which is his real last name. ⏎

Now let's talk about the second perspective: use of non-free images. I entirely think that this is an issue for WP:COPYPROB. In this specific case, I would actually encourage following the normal avenue for discussion and resolution for this, rather than shoehorning a discussion on copyright into a WP:BLPN thread. This is because the images have each made a robust claim of fair use rationale, and copyvio is not immediately clear. I would want buy-in from editors well versed in this subject and would not support a determination of copyvio here without that input. ⏎

It would also be perfectly acceptable to form a local WP:CONSENSUS on the article talk page regarding the propriety of these photos in the article if copyvio is not the primary concern. AlexEng^(TALK) 13:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

From a non-free policy, we would normally not allow non-free images of living persons on the basis that a free image could be obtained, but from her current status (a ward of the state and purposely kept anonymous to her location), we can assert that no free image is likely to come, and so a non-free image would be allowed. So as long as we know these images are legit, they immediately don't fail NFC.

On the privacy aspect, the fact these images appear to be from the 1970s studies and that we technically have no idea where she is now, I don't see an issue with using those images as long as they are also widely associated with discussions about her in the peer-reviewed work. I don't think you need the 3rd image under "second foster home"; the face image and her walk stance are reasonably appropriate and we're not going to be able to judge how she would look at 50-ish from them. But this is a bit more of a debate that doesn't have a clear answer. --Masem (t) 14:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Alicia malone

this Tcm host previously had a biography page. this page has been deleted. why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.53.237 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Alicia Malone is a redirect to Screen Junkies. This was done by Somethingwickedly on August 20, 2016 and there does not appear to have been any previous history of such an article. If you want to create an article about this person, you should look at WP:YFA and WP:N. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Dick Carlson

I have read the article but cannot confirm how you determined Dick Carlson's name at birth was Richard Boynton. I checked your sited source material and it's very weak and does not accurately site your source. How did you come to this conclusion? Why did he change his last name? When did he change his last name? Please provide additional source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miked0013 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Philip Proudfoot

There's a repeated effort to add defamatory, legally actionable material to the article in order to construct a narrative that the subject is antisemitic. It's worth noting that Mr. Proudfoot is currently undertaking legal action in response to being defamed in this area, and as such this kind of murmuring material is likely to get caught up in the cases and could expose Wikipedia to damages. It's also worth noticing that the same attempt has been made against his political party, the Northern Independence Party, where it has already been resolved by an editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.207.22 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:NLT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The citations to the disputed assertions[42] are not adequate to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and there seems to be an attempt at WP:SYNTH between the Jewish Chronicle (JC) and BBC citation as the BBC link does not mention Proudfoot. Further, WP:RSP states that the JC is a biased source on topics related to the British Left. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Robert Sirico

Are we sure this biography doesn't conflate two different people--one who is a Catholic priest who runs a conservative thinktank in Michigan, and one who is a pentecostal minister and gay rights advocate in Los Angeles? Because I personally know the one in Michigan, and he is in no way a supporter ot LBGT causes.

Don Brophy [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.128.106 (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

He explains the discrepancy here.[43] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

David P. Bloom

David P. Bloom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should we include "Wall Street Whiz Kid" under the WP:CRIMEBIO info box for David P. Bloom?

Most reliable sources use the name "Wall Street Whiz Kid" in reference to the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasBi (talk • contribs) 02:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This is silly. 'Wall Street Wizz Kid' is newspaper-speak. A shorthand description for headlines. It is not an alias.

It should probably be noted here that ThomasBi, the creator of this biography, is personally acquainted with the subject,[44] and seems inordinately interested in filling it with every bit of trivia that could possibly be shoehorned in. This, after I had to repeatedly explain Wikipedia policy to ThomasBi, and remove unsourced allegations etc that with hindsight should probably have been revdel'ed. At this point, I'd have to suggest that a partial block might be the most appropriate course of action. While we should make some allowances for newcomers, learning the Wikipedia ropes on such an article is inadvisable at the best of times, and when it gives every appearance of being motivated by some sort of personal connection, even more so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Is someone really "personally acquainted with the subject" by simply stating: "I claim this image as my own because I took a photo in 2021 when I met him briefly through an acquaintance." I found 3 reliable sources: [45], [46], [47] that use the term: "Wall Street Whiz Kid". I do not know of the interest the OP has; nor do I care. But is this Noticeboard the correct place to suggest a partial block? (Especially for an editor who just joined in January 2022) Whatever happened to: WP:NEWBIES or WP:AGF? I've read the Talk Page and also the editor's Talk Page; and saying "My response is that if you can't understand why adding 'Whiz Kid' as an alias to the infobox is stupid, you lack the competence to edit biographies" isn't WP etiquette. I see nothing in ThomasBi's responses to any contest or complaint that would rise to the level that you exert regarding this article. If anything, it would seem that you may be more "inordinately interested" in the editor in question, than the editor is in "filling it with every bit of trivia that could possibly be shoehorned in". The responses from the OP on Talk Pages were inquisitive, thankful, gracious and non-combative. I cannot say the same for those commenting in return. Maineartists (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Notification of VP proposal regarding NSPORT that would affect BLPs

A Village Pump proposal — regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must also demonstrate SIGCOV in secondary independent RS when challenged at AfD — may be of interest here for its effect on BLPs. JoelleJay (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Harry Collett

Someone who has been repeated citing birth dates from Twitter as "unreliable source", as they quoted Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons. It depend on Wikipedia's policy on WP:BLPSPS, WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:RSPTWITTER. --49.150.100.127 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Twitter can be used as a self-published source about the article subject if the tweets are by the article subject, as that is not a "third-party claim". However, in the Harry Collett article, the Twitter sources do not appear to clearly identify the article subject's birthday. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It almost violates the BLP. For example, citing IMDb for any inappropriate content should not be used as reliable sources for any potentially contentious material about personal information (including birth dates). --49.150.100.127 (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Wallyfromdilbert here. If someone tweets "today is my birthday" from a verified account, okay fine maybe we can take this as complying with WP:BLPDOB and WP:BLPSPS. I'm unconvinced we should take someone else tweeting Happy Birthday and the person acknowledging it complying with either.

I actually think we've dealt with this before since I seem to recall me or someone saying a lot of what I'm saying here but I couldn't find it in a quick search. Given possibly different timezones etc, the day could be a day before or after even if it was targeting the exact birthday and unless they say they did, we generally can't assume they did. (I live in NZ depending on when I do it, it may easily be the next day for me if I'm wishing someone in the US happy birthday. OTOH, although it's not my style, I don't think it's that weird if I were to wish someone happy birthday when it's their birthday for me even if not for them yet.)

As said, I don't think we should assume that a person is always going to make it clear that they aren't tweeting on the exact birthday either. E.g. I don't think a person is always going to say "sorry I'm late" or "Happy belated birthday" if they're only a day late. In this case we can assume from the phrasing it isn't late. But since they didn't say something like today, I don't think we can assume it was definitely today and they would have said "tomorrow" or something if the birthday was tomorrow not the day they tweeted. Especially without knowing the level of friendship etc, context of the tweet etc which is too OR. (I mean the tweet wasn't seen until nearly 2 weeks later so one possibility is it was intentionally tweeted early so the person is more likely to see it before their birthday.)

An additional point while this isn't directly addressed in BLP but am I the only one uncomfortable with using something someone tweeted when they were 11 as an SPS? Heck even the tweet at 15 concerns me.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, I actually think the timezone issue can be a problem even for the person's tweets. I don't think Twitter actually tells you the local time of the person tweeting. Instead they simply report the time probably in UTC and your browser adjusts it for your local time (or maybe their server does. So we generally have to know what timezone the person was in at the time, at least roughly, to know what date it was. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This comes up a lot, and there are always way too many variables and possible interpretations. For example, I never celebrate my birthday on the actual day, except maybe once every seven years. I often celebrate it on the nearest weekend, holiday, or vacation time. While I don't twit or facebook, if I did you wouldn't be able to glean my real birthday from them. Then there's the problem that we can't glean from it that the subject is ok with us publishing the date. Tweeting to your friends is one thing, but that is not in any way giving consent to publish it in an encyclopedia. Further, Nil brings up a great point, because if the subject was a minor at the time of the tweet, they are not even at the age of consent yet, and frankly their brains and social/decision-making skills are still developing, and at that age they really don't know what they will want when they get older. In my opinion, using tweets is doing the work of reporters and other primary source researchers, and exactly because they are primary and so very open to all these interpretation issues, we should never use tweets as sources --at all. Let the secondary sources pick them, interpret them and give their analyses, and then we have something we can use. Zaereth (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this Twitter account does not verify this tweet, but it could be risk of WP:BLPPRIVACY. --49.150.100.127 (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_48#Tweets_announcing_"Happy_birthday_to_me!_I'm_21_today!". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

BLP violation at Kakistocracy?

See [48]. It's an opinion piece by a Republican, and a search for Joe Biden and kakistocracy turns up[49][50] which don't seem to back the claim "The term was also later used to describe the Biden Administration.". Added first by an IP and then by a new account, presumably the IP. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The opinion is WP:UNDUE since it doesn't seem like it's from from a notable person. Just more hyperbole. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the article feel like a WP:DICDEF with a couple of examples tacked on? --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't just you. That is exactly what it is. With badly sourced/unsourced 'examples' tacked on for no better reason than partisan name-calling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The Erdogan bit is supported by two tweets, an opinion piece in Deutsche Welle that doesn't mention Kakistocracy, and a Guardian article that also doesn't mention Kakistocracy. But that was written by one person who only made the one edit, and I've removed it. Doug Weller talk 07:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeesh... that article already feels like a coat rack even without the dubious claim mentioned in this thread. As for the specific violation, it seems more like a job for WP:NPOVN, but we're already here, and we have several editors now expressing disapproval of the edit; it should be removed. To clarify my previous wording, BLP vio seems like a stretch based on the fact that this is criticism of the administration rather than the individual. There's more fertile ground for general neutrality and verifiability concerns than for strict BLPVIO. AlexEng^(TALK) 12:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

First, please don't use section headings for asking questions. As section headings are not "owned" by anyone, someone could change the heading to something better and your question could be lost. Second, the answer to your question is "no". Biden administration is not a living person. It consists of hundreds of people, so I don't see how it could fall under BLPGROUP either. Politrukki (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The question is even more absurd if you treat Biden administration as a living person and Trump administration as non-LP. Politrukki (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I get it, I pissed you off. Sorry about that. But it was a question not a statement. If I'd stated it as "BLP violation at Kakistocracy" I would have been making an assertion, and I didn't want to do that. I can see that "There's more fertile ground for general neutrality and verifiability concerns than for strict BLPVIO" but I'm still convinced it was at least in part a comment on Biden himself. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Heh. I'm not pissed off, I'm amused. The same line you edited included John Brennan's tweet that was a direct reply to Donald Trump. Politrukki (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting

Link: Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting It has been brought to my attention that "BLP applies outside of articles. BLP trumps talk page guidelines". I am therefore reporting my own post for calling Rosenbaum (Redacted). In my defense, when I posted that statement I was under the impression that it was allowed, especially on a talk page with an inline citation from a reliable source. I had seen much worse in other talk page discussions and assumed that my good faith edits were acceptable.

I apologize in advance for my limited part in violating talk page guidelines in a way that makes it hard to track the change history of that section. In my defense, I did not start it and I tried to limit those edits to the minimum necessary in order to maintain the original context of the discussion.

Finally, I would like to clarify that this report refers ONLY to my own edits on the article talk page. I am specifically NOT using this report to refer to any BLP violations in the article itself. A draft essay in my user space titled "A female paper on NPOV" was deleted without discussion shortly after someone created a section titled "Discretionary sanctions notices" on my Talk page. I prefer to WP:Assume good faith and think that the timing was just a coincidence, but just in case it wasn't, I want to avoid antagonizing people who know how to trigger the deletion of more of my contributions to Wikipedia.

If my statements on the talk page are indeed a BLP violation (which I am still unsure about) I am hereby asking for the whole section to be deleted, not only from the talk page but from the edit history as well. On the other hand, if my original good faith assumption was correct and the WP:RS I quoted justify the language I used, I ask for administrative intervention to revert the section heading to my original title (no need to touch the history in that case). Annette Maon (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• I would say that the first thing that needs to happen is the OP needs to avoid this subject completely from now on, since their sole purpose appears to be repeating negative comments about a BDP subject in as many fora as possible. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note I have redacted all of the WP:POINT talkpage posts. Looking at other contributions, I'm unsure whether the OP is actually here for the right reasons. Black Kite (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Annette Maon: I've redacted your BLP violation on this page. Yes the subject may be dead for over a year, but it still technically covered by BDP and it simply serves no purpose so please stop repeating it all over the place. If you need to refer to a mistake you've made or may have made that has not been rev-deleted then please use a WP:diff. If it has been rev-deleted then clearly it should not be repeated. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Also as WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN explains, section titles on talk pages are not considered part of the signed comment and so do not belong to any particular editor, instead they belong to the community. If you've given essential information that is only in the section title then stop doing that and you will not have to worry when someone edits your section title. If you haven't then as I said, there's no reason to get upset, just let it be when someone changes your section title to be more neutral, whether it involved BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Here's your daily dose of irony. I am now editing the section heading for this noticeboard thread to conform to accessibility standards for screen readers set forth in WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN, due to the inadvertent creation of a URL in an anchor link. AlexEng^(TALK) 12:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Since OP seems to be concerned about the coincidences on her talk page, the timeline is: OP posted on a noticeboard, I skimmed contributions and saw BLP and civility issues with their posts to talk pages, clicked an old essay they wrote, saw BLP violations and tagged. While this was happening, an admin independently noticed their activity in BLP and dropped standard discretionary notices. The CSD tag on the essay caused two other admins to visit them with some words of wisdom. Just another day on wikipedia where 4 editors independently react to an issue seen. With all that said, OP should step away from BLP completely as their activity across three articles has been concerning and WP:DONTBITE doesn't equal "ignore repeated BLP and civility violations from a newcomer".Slywriter (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter: I may be losing my memory, but as far as I can remember this was my first post to any noticeboard. Can you please remind me where you saw me posting on a noticeboard before this? I was not aware that Firefangledfeathers is an admin, can someone help me figure out a way to check if they are? As for the accusation of "repeated BLP and civility violations from a newcomer" across three articles, can you please point out which activities of mine constitute BLP violations on any articles other than the one that I raised myself here? Annette Maon (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not an admin. The best way I know of to check is to enable 'Navigation popups' in you Preferences. Among many other helpful uses, hovering over a user's signature shows what user groups they are a part of, including 'administrator'. Firefangledfeathers 15:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers I already had 'Navigation popups' enabled, but didn't realize that they could be used for that. Thank you. Annette Maon (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Annette Maon, you visited the Teahouse Special:Diff/1066719606 which lead to seeing Special:Diff/1066674606, Special:Diff/1066681498,Special:Diff/1066687551,Special:Diff/1066707842 concering Elon Musk's Page. And your interactions at Talk:Orson Scott Card were not much better. You see enemies and organized plots against the subject everywhere. This is a collaborative project and WP:CIVIL is not optional.Slywriter (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter I have yet to receive an answer to the good faith technical request which I posted at the TeaHouse. I was not aware that the TeaHouse was considered a noticeboard and that posting there could trigger the process that what you describe above instead of producing an answer to my question. I had been careful to avoid noticeboards in an attempt to avoid WP:Wikihounding. Apparently, I should have avoided the TeaHouse as well if I wanted to avoid being accused of paranoia. Can you please help me avoid incivility by pointing out phrases in the links you posted where I can apply "strike it and apologise" per WP:CIVIL? Annette Maon (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Annette Maon, better idea, just stop discussing editors even in vague terms going forward. Stick to content and sources, not your perceived motivations of the editors. Consensus does not require satisfying every last objection nor does it always require an RfC. We are volunteers and the worst thing you can do is become a time-sink for editors when there are millions of other tasks we would rather be doing.Slywriter (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Annette Maon, I would certainly appreciate it if you would strike and apologize for comments here and elsewhere that suggest misconduct, including intimidation, on my part. Firefangledfeathers 20:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) striking 02:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers I could not find any place "here" where I referred to you in any way that suggests misconduct. It is hard to strike out a comment that does not exist. As a newcomer, I may not yet be aware of what you think constitutes a suggestion of "misconduct". In light of the help you provided to me here, which I already thanked you for, I did find a comment elsewhere that I could strike out and apologize for. Annette Maon (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right! I reread your first comment here, and you only mentioned the possibility of something bad faith occurring. Sorry about that. Firefangledfeathers 02:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite Thank you for redacting the section to avoid what you consider to be BLP violations. If the statements you redacted had been made in article space, I would have been the first to agree that they would be BLP violations. This is why I made them only in the Talk page under my signature where it was clear that they were not made in Wikipedia voice. Am I to understand correctly from your redaction that there is no way to even quote any of these words in mainspace even if the source was appropriately attributed to the voice of the Washington post?

Based on the results so far, I will be staying away from Kenosha unrest shooting and its talk page unless I am specifically invited by an administrator to help provide balance on that page. With regard to the concern about WP:POINT, I was never tempted "to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof". As a newcomer I am simply trying to be bold and figure out the social dynamics that prevent rules which seem more than reasonable to me from being applied consistently. Seeing how Black Kite's redactions interfere with my ability to see or link to a diff of Cedar777's 09:26, 17 January 2022‎ version has helped me understand why people are reluctant to post potential BLP violations to this noticeboard. I would certainly think ten times before not posting here about BLP violations if I wanted to be able to go back to a talk page and reread, in context, the opinions of people I respect with POVs different from mine. Having learned that lesson, I see no point in trying something like that again. Annette Maon (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, regardless of namespace. Talk pages, articles, templates, user pages, everything. It does say so in the opening paragraph of the policy. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages Footnote b further elaborates: "The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page." AlexEng^(TALK) 17:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Annette Maon, there was nothing wrong with the general question you asked at the Kenosha page. It is reasonable to ask if the article should cover lawsuits that might be brought against those who enabled Rosenbaum's behavior/to bin in this situation. The issue is how the question is asked. Take an hypothetical case where a person was accused of murder but the case failed due to lack of evidence. We can't talk about "that murder Mr Luchini who was accused of bank robbery" because the murder part is effectively a libelous claim. We can say, "Mr Luchini is accused of bank robbery". If it's relevant and supported by sources we can even say he was a murder suspect but not convicted. Since what we say here can harm BLP subjects we need to be careful. Springee (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@AlexEng and Springee: Thank you for stating the obvious. As I mentioned above, I will be staying away from Kenosha unrest shooting so if anyone thinks my question had merit, they will have to take it up themselves. I do not care enough about maintaining WP:BLPBALANCE to try and fix it. Black Kite has already addressed my BLP question and unless I hear otherwise, I will assume that there is no way to even quote the redacted words in mainspace even if the source was appropriately attributed to the voice of a WP:RS. As for my curiosity about the social dynamics of WP:Wikihounding and WP:How to Ban a POV You Dislike, in 9 Easy Steps that has been satisfied as well. Apparently paranoids like me should stay away from the TeaHouse as well, even when "there was nothing wrong with the general question" being asked. Annette Maon (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow. Calm down. I don't see anyone here trying to be mean to you. If it was obvious, then why ask the question? There are almost an infinite number of ways to say exactly the same thing. What's the point of using one that is a blatant violation of policy? (This is a very odd line of questioning, and something about this gives me vibes of WP:NOTLAB.) The answer to your question is very simple. You assume correctly. Regardless of whether it's found in a reliable source, if it violates policy then it violates policy. EZPZ. I don't know what the redacted words were, but I've seen Black Kite around long enough to trust their judgment on such matters. Zaereth (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Zaereth Thank you for mentioning that you "don't know what the redacted words were" are you willing to WP:assume good faith and believe me that at least some of them were quoted (or summarized) directly from:

Joseph (Redacted) — depressed, homeless and alone — didn’t belong to either side. He had spent most of his adult life in prison for sexual conduct with children when he was 18 and struggled with bipolar disorder. That day, Aug. 25, (Redacted) was discharged from a Milwaukee hospital following his second suicide attempt in as many months and dumped on the streets of Kenosha.
...
Hours after he was released from the hospital, (Redacted) stopped by a pharmacy in Kenosha to pick up medication for his bipolar disorder, only to discover that it had closed early because of the unrest. He visited his fiancee, who was living in a cheap motel room, but she told him he couldn’t stay the night. She had pressed charges against him a month earlier after a fight in which he knocked her down and bloodied her mouth. If (Redacted) violated his no-contact order, she warned, he could be sent back to jail.
...
By 18, he was in prison for sexual conduct with five preteen boys, the children of people who had taken him in after his mother told him to leave her house, according to a presentencing report. He spent most of the next 14 years behind bars. Not long after he was released in 2016, he met a woman in Arizona and fathered a child, but the relationship didn’t last. When the woman fled to Kenosha, (Redacted) chased her.
...
Aside from one supervised visit, he never saw the child for whom he had moved to Kenosha.
...
He spent a few days in the hospital followed by a few more days in jail for violating the no-contact order with his former girlfriend. Then he was sent for more treatment to the mental hospital in Milwaukee.
...
In videos from that night, (Redacted) often appeared agitated. When a member of the Kenosha Guard, a self-proclaimed militia, pointed his gun at him, (Redacted) became enraged and dared the man, who was White, to kill him. “Shoot me, n-----!” he shouted.
...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/03/kenosha-shooting-victims/

Annette Maon (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that helps me see, and at first glance I see BLPCRIME and BLPPRIVACY issues a mile away, from a source that reads like an op/ed written in a narrative writing-style, which wouldn't be considered a reliable source even if it came from a reliable news outlet. Every news outlet has their op/ed columns and special-interest pieces that are not reliable even if the real news stories they print are. But even if it were reliable, we don't need to or even want to include everything ever printed in a reliable source on Wikipedia. Imagine the mess that would create. (Ever see the TV Show Hoarders?) Wikipedia is here to provide a summary of all knowledge, not all knowledge.

For example, let's say Subject A has his full birthdate published in a reliable source. According to policy, that's not good enough, because we need to be absolutely sure Subject A doesn't mind having his birthday published, so we need to see it published widely, in multiple sources, such we can be certain that he is ok with us publishing it too. Likewise, we don't go around telling a person's private medical information without a MEDRS compliant source and some serious confirmation that the subject is ok with having their very personal and private info forever etched in stone on the pages of Wikipedia. Same with alleged criminal acts when the person is not a public figure but just a private citizen, and no conviction has yet been secured. It's a simple matter of ethics. Doing what's right, not just doing it because we can. I really wish more journalists today would read and comply with their own code of ethics. https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp But this is exactly the kind of thing BLP policy was created to deal with. Zaereth (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Zaereth Thank you for posting your relevant and level headed analysis while I answered Alex below. I wish I had met more people like you and AlexEng earlier. You could have cured me of some of the bad habits I acquired from my first acquaintances on Wikipedia. Better late than never. I might want to ask you some questions about some of those early experiences, but ...

My earlier (possibly subjective) feeling of intimidation have been completely overshadowed by something else that I saw here which terrifies me. Before anyone gets offended, even a borderline paranoid like me is almost certain that no one individual or group bears the blame for what terrifies me. Still, I do not dare to even mention what it is in public for fear of giving someone an idea. I need to take your advice, and cool down. Maybe I should talk to someone later, after I get some sleep. But it can not be the teaHouse. I need to figure out who I can talk to safely. Annette Maon (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

One thing that I think is helpful to keep in mind is that ... how do I put this? People expect an encyclopedia to be better than the sources it uses. That's why they're found in the "reference section" of the library. I know it sounds like a self-contradiction, but people have been doing it since the dawn of time. Lathes and milling machines were first built using crude hammers and files. We're supposed to look past the day-to-day news; correct their mistakes and reconcile all their inconsistencies... That's what we do. (And to be perfectly blunt, even the best news outlet is near the bottom of the barrel in the hierarchy of reliable sources.) We won't really have a good historical perspective until many years have passed and books have been written. Zaereth (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Annette Maon: if it was obvious, then why did you ask about it? This is a WP:VOLUNTEER project, and nobody is forcing you to put in work that you don't want to do with respect to WP:BLPBALANCE or otherwise. You are only required to act within the limits of WP:PAGs as appropriate. One of those PAGs is WP:CIVILITY, and you just left a decidedly uncivil comment as a response to a good faith attempt to help you on the part of two editors. I'm not thin-skinned enough to go complain about it, but somebody grouchy may very well take you on a trip to WP:ANI if you continue to lash out at people. Best of luck. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

AlexEng First I would like to thank you for your civil response to what you considered to be "a decidedly uncivil comment as a response to a good faith attempt" to answer what you honestly thought my question was. It was the combination of your responses that allowed me to figure out the source of the misunderstanding. I have struck out my earlier unfortunate comment about 'stating the obvious'. Now that I understand why it was offensive to you, I sincerely apologize for making it. I assure you that I meant no disrespect when I made it.

I had not realized before that without the inadvertently redacted context, none of you could figure out that my question actually referred to Talk page discussion about the multiple WP:BLPCRIME exceptions for convicted criminals that are implied in the Washington post quotes above.

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured [emphasis added].

If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[d] include sufficient explanatory information.

WP:BLPCRIME

At the time I did not even realize that you were trying to answer my question. All I could see was statements which I mistakenly interpreted as a unanimous vote against allowing any quotes from a secondary WP:RS like the Washington Post even when it explicitly mentions a "conviction for child sexual conduct". I understand that it is EZPZ that a dead convicted criminal is protected by BLP even on a talk page. Meanewhile, a whole section in mainspace is devoted to "different judicial proceedings [that] result in seemingly contradictory outcomes" which reflect directly on Rittenhouse who is an acquitted living WP:SUSPECT. I could see that my talk page suggestions have been redacted while no action is taken on the Article itself.

It seems obvious to me that there is no point in discussing anything on an article talk page if there is no chance that it will lead to an eventual improvement to the article itself. I am the one who initiated this WP:BLPN, reporting my own posts (which had not been rev-deleted before it was redacted here) in order to figure out what the Discretionary sanctions notices on my talk page really meant. Facing a unanimous vote and having gotten more answers than I bargained for, I was trying to back out gracefully. Obviously, I am not so good at that because I somehow managed to offend even the people that I respect in the process. I apologize again, I hope you can now understand how my misunderstanding caused all this mess and forgive me. Annette Maon (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we can all forgive you. I've not looked at the talk page, because I have a lot going on a real life and just don't have time to dig at the moment. I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to get at here. If someone puts a discretionary sanctions notice on your talk page, it's just a friendly notice that you've wandered into a mine field and you should be extra careful where you step. These sanctions are extra rules placed on certain topics that attract a lot of fighting, and they're meant to keep everything from getting out of hand. For example, just about anything having to do with Israel and Palestine attract people who want to bring the fight to Wikipedia, and frankly, we get tired of it, so such articles were put under sanctions by WP:ARBCOM.

Even without "assuming Good Faith not just as a Wikipedia Policy", it would still be clear that all of Zaereth's and AlexEng's comment here as well as most of the others are not just WP:AGF but a partially successful attempt to be helpful as well. I never expected everyone here to waste their valuable time looking at my talk page to see that my concerns went beyond "a friendly notice that you've wandered into a mine field". I also did not expect any editors with a cunning and deceitful nature to

• try to silence my POV
• make false claims in accusations against me
• rely on the fact that most honest people have better things to do than look at my talk page and
• send those honest people without warning into a very different kind of mine field.

I do not want to further derail this discussion so I will try to "Stick to content and sources" with what I intend to be my last post here. I realize that "Withdrawing from communication with a tendentious or quarrelsome editor" could be "construed as giving that editor consent to do what they like" here. At this point, I no longer care. I have already spent too much time on this one topic and I prefer to move on. Annette Maon (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: Please assume good faith before jumping to the conclusion that I am accusing anyone here personally of anything. If you have concerns please raise them on my Talk page and "Stick to content and sources" here. I hope the last ephemeral flapping of my butterfly wings here will not be quashed by new accusations that they might cause a destructive Hurricane in Florida. Annette Maon (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

As for Rittenhouse, this is a person who has risen to the level of a public figure. The term "public figure" is one with a very specific legal definition, and under the law they don't have the same expectations of privacy that a relatively unknown person does, and this is very necessary, because with such people there is often an overriding need for the public to know. Likewise, for Wikipedia purposes, we have an exception to BLPCRIME, called (ironically enough) WP:PUBLICFIGURE. As an analogy, take Casey Anthony. This is a person who is not independently notable enough to have her own article, yet for a time hers was a household name. Even to this day you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't know of her. Although not by her own choice, she too has been lofted to the level of public figure, and we really have to report on the case even though she was found innocent.

As for your last statement, there is a point in discussion, because, even if consensus goes against you, you may in fact change someone's mind, and if you can affect even one person, you have done infinitely better than not saying anything at all. Don't expect changes to all come at once. Sometimes it's a very gradual process. A butterfly flapping its wings in China can lead to a hurricane in Florida. (See: the butterfly effect, aka. chaos theory). If I may offer a bit of constructive criticism, your questions have been vague and your posts leave a lot of room for interpretation, and this may be causing at least part of your difficulties. For example, referring to the boxed quote you placed above, BLPCRIME is only one of many parts of BLP policy it violates, and it's just as easy to say it violates the very preamble of BLP, as Alex did. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Content and sources

Zaereth Thank you for trying to restore my faith in WP:NPOV. Going back to my regular WP:WikiGnome mode:

• Following the two links for Robert Klemko and Greg Jaffe in the "article quoted above" seems to indicate that they are staff reporters with relevant expertise. The article is not a blog and the Washington post is a "generally reliable" source according to WP:RSP.
• Primary source for criminal record if you do not consider the Washington post reliable enough
• I had never heard of Casey Anthony before she was mentioned here. Coverage of her trial outside the USA may not have been as extensive as what some of you experienced.
• The Kenosha shootings were reported in international news headlines even outside the USA. (Redacted)'s background was brought to my attention by different friends and relatives who pointed me to Fox news, and Joe Rogan which are not sources that I usually consume myself (unless I am doing opposition research).
• Those sources do not bother to introduce (Redacted) to the audience which make it sound like he is already a public figure (at least among the US people who voted for Trump which make up much of their target audience).
• I found the Washington Post article when I tried to figure out for myself if the allegations about (Redacted)'s conviction had any basis.
• A google search also returned this from a source that according to WP:RSP should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements. WP:RSP recommends that when they cite another source for their own article, it is preferable to read and cite the original source instead.
• My attempts to find an originsal source for the image titled "Special conditions of Probation for sex offenders - contact with children" uncovered similar documents from several states but I do not have access to tools like LexisNexis that would allow me to see if an exact match exists and how it might be relevant to (Redacted) through a secondary source.
• I looked for (Redacted)'s name in Wikipedia, hoping to find NPOV coverage but was disappointed at many levels:
  • At the factual level: There is no mention of (Redacted)'s relevant criminal record even though the minor who shot him claimed self defense and the allegations were public and notable even if they were not true.
  • WP:NPOV: The article contains no mention of a significant POV about who triggered the shooting incident (not to mention my own minority POV which is probably irrelevant).
  • WP:UNDUE and WP:Fringe theories: The section on pending civil lawsuits (after the acquittal) contains the text: "alleged that the defendants had participated in a conspiracy" stating that it is quoted from a lawsuit that was "withdrawn by the plaintiffs" and "dismissed with prejudice". The civil litigations may be relevant in other articles about conspiracy theories but not here. Giving them undue weight in this context makes Wikipedia sound like it promotes conspiracy theories even to cursory readers who never heard of the WP:Fringe theories policy.
  • My attempts to have a civil discussion about these admittedly contentious issues were mangled and derailed by WP:AGF edits and redactions which repeatedly removed the context in which I tried improve the Wikipedia article by addressing these issues.
• The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel responded to "Questions from readers about our reporting" explaining "Why we aren't reporting on the records of the victims of the Kenosha protest shooting".. The existence of such questions from their readers indicates that (Redacted) was already a public figure even before the explanation was published.

• The questionable primary source: "https://www.gofundme.com/f/249yn2bzqo" for a goFundme public campaign to raise money posthumously for (Redacted)'s funeral and/or daughter was mentioned extensively in secondary international media coverage. These are "multiple reliable third-party sources" for establishing that he was a public figure even before some media outlets started covering his criminal records while others chose to hide them. Several of these sources may not be reliable enough to be quoted due to misleading coverage of the primary goFundme campaign and contradictions between them, but taken together they all establish that just like Rittenhouse and Casey Anthony (Redacted) is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE whether he wanted to be or not.
• A second WP:RSP for the criminal record: Snopes.com . Annette Maon (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• According to WP:PUBLICFIGURE "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative". Annette Maon (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you condense the point into 3-4 concise sentences? This is bordering on incoherent. ValarianB (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I think a key point you're missing is we not have any article on the redacted subject as they are not notable. Therefore public figure or not, we're only going to cover details of on the subject relevant to any articles we do have. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok Annette, you see, this is where we get into problems of, what's called in fighter-pilot lingo, "target fixation", which often leads to disaster. Wikipedia policy is not written like laws and nor can be argued like a lawyer would argue law. It just never gets anyone anywhere. The policy is all like a big machine, where all the parts are working together simultaneously. BLPCRIME and PUBLICFIGURE are all parts of the section titled "Presumptions in favor of privacy", and there's a reason it's all lumped into one section. I still don't know who the redacted person is, or what other words were redacted, but you'll notice the first subsection in that section is titled, "Avoid victimization". This means that we need to take great care to avoid harming the victims anymore than they already have been, and this includes not naming them unless it is absolutely vital information the reader needs to understand the story. Now, obviously the redacted person is a victim and is dead, but that doesn't mean it can't cause harm. This person likely has friends and family, and unless the name is absolutely essential to the story, naming them is just a terrible thing to do, and I don't know why anyone would want to. The same reason we don't name the victims of convicted rapists, we shouldn't be naming victims plane crashes, shootings, crimes, or other events. I am a big advocate of minimizing victimization.

As for many of these sources you cite, like I said above, I wish they would follow their own code of ethics (which I linked above). This is part of why news outlets are at the bottom of the totem pole of RSs. To be considered an encyclopedia, we need to do way, way better than that. When we get too target-fixated on little pieces of policy, it's easy to lose sight of the forest for all the trees. Another part of policy says we should keep in mind the spirit under which it was written and not get too hung up on the "letter of the law".

Now, let me ask you this: why is it so important? More importantly, ask yourself, "Why is it so important to me?" I haven't been following the story. US news sucks, and has sucked since the 1990s, and is only getting worse. (I mean, when the news outlets are owned by corporations like Microsoft and Disney, it's hard to take them too seriously.) So, perhaps there is some reason that makes it necessary to name this person. I don't know. But in most (like 99.999% of the time) names not necessary information to tell the story. Most of the time, it's just as easy to use a generic descriptor, like "victim". If you have a good reason, don't you think it would be possible to go to the talk page and discuss it without violating policy in the process? Zaereth (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't read most of this discussion since I'm not that interested but just a quick note that the person the OP is referring to is named in our article. The OP's concern seems to be in part the inclusion of past criminal convictions. These criminal convictions were not part of the trial. I don't know the details but I assume at least in part the judge considered them prejudical since it's not something the shooter knew about. BTW I just noticed the OP brought up a primary source. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY we never use court transcripts, prisoner records etc to establish a conviction and so they are pointless to bring up. The OP needs to concentrate on the secondary sources if they want to have any hope of getting any change. Nil Einne (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. I saw that too, but what caught my eye the most was talk of this person's medical info, which is also a big no-no. If we're not going to do it to Trump, we certainly shouldn't be doing it to this person. My advice to Annette is this: work on some articles you're not very passionate about until you get a good understanding of why all these policies exist and how they relate. This whole thing has violations on so many levels, it's far easier and more concise to just answer the way Alex did. Zaereth (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Martin Kulldorff

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

This article is about a scientist involved in COVID-19 controversies. Help is needed in the article to resolve some two-editor disputes (I am one) about recent additions. We have left some disputed content in the article to avoid edit warring. Some disputed additions involve arguments about COVID-19 that cite sources that don't name Kulldorff (talk page discussion and a proposed change is here). Another dispute is about a Wikivoice description of a 2021 conflict that cites only Kulldorff and one paragraph of an opinion essay, along with sources that don't name him (a proposed change is here). A third question is about recently added language to the first sentence that says he is an epidemiologist, although a secondary source cited in the article asserts he is not. Llll5032 (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

And there are more questions and tags in the article and its talk page. Llll5032 (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Uddhab Bharali

• Uddhab Bharali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Arunudoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Basically seems an attempt to bludgeon through Special:Diff/1067782822 by Arunudoy in what appears to be not in spirit of BLPCRIME as per "often widely of concern to the public" which does not seem to apply here; more eloquently put at Special:Diff/1067789674. Per their contribution history Arunudoy seems to wish to contribute in this content area taking as a minimum of an strongly assertive approach. It may be a little early to bring this to the board but may be the best way to bring experts to the discussion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Ilham Aliyev

In Ilham Aliyev, there are repeated insertions of claim where the cited source does not even mention Aliyev, yet the claim implies a casual link and his involvement: [51], [52], [53]. Looks like WP:BLPSOURCE violation. Brandmeister^talk 21:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be pretty clear-cut BLP violation. Sourcing is not robust; an opinion piece that is incorrectly used for stating claims in Wikipedia's voice and the source doesn't seem to mention Aliyev's religious policies or even Aliyev.

The biography is under "Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts" discretionary sanctions. I have given a related discretionary sanction alert to Kevo327 – who I think was the only participant who was not made aware of DS. If Kevo327 keeps reverting, I think they should be reported to WP:AE. Politrukki (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I personally think this report is unnecessary, as it has been submitted before I was made aware of what was wrong with the sourcing (if you check the article history), and I haven't edited on the article after actual policy has been cited and I've seen the issue with sourcing. If the issue merits better sources and better placement in the article (other than the religious policy section) we can discuss that in the talk page, which we still haven't commenced. I'd really appreciate it if we attempt to discuss stuff before I get dragged to noticeboards. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Not correct. You completely ignored talk page discussion, which I started on 21 January, and continued to revert 2 days after your edits were reverted and questioned at the talk page. Not acceptable. Grandmaster 10:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

that talk page that had 1 user commenting besides you (the original reporter here) and BLPSOURCE was cited after I reverted you, then I saw that your concerns had merit and I stopped reverting. The next day before I edit again or join the discussion, I find myself dragged to a noticeboard, without being notified of the fact. Does that encourage discussion to you? Or do you find assuming bad faith acceptable? We edit here on a voluntary basis and differ with the amount of time we are free to edit. I will not revert or add that content back without further discussing the topic and I will do it at my own leisure. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

3rvs, no attempt to discuss anything with 2 other editors at talk is not the way one supposed to edit topic area covered by discretionary sanctions. Grandmaster 15:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Phil Anselmo

in the beginning of the article it says "Anselmo is regarded as one of the greatest frontmen in metal history,[3][4][5][6] known for being particularly animated and donning a machismo attitude that became emblematic of the general theme of Pantera." it is an opinion that he is animated, and it is frankly not true or additive to the article, it would be better if it was something like "Anselmo is regarded as one of the greatest frontmen in metal history,[3][4][5][6] known for donning a machismo attitude that became emblematic of the general theme of Pantera." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.222.215.118 (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

None of the sources in that sentence mention Anselmo being "particularly animated"—but they also don't mention the "machismo attitude". I'm no expert but I've seen a handful of videos and both statements seem obvious to me. I will note that there's been no discussion about this at Talk:Phil Anselmo. I suggest starting a thread there, where editors would presumably be more familiar with sourcing. Woodroar (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Javonte Green

I'm not seeing the Montenegro connection. What's up with that? Thanks, Dean Ennes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.21.76.45 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oliver Braddick

Not so much a violation, except to report that Braddick died on 17 Jan 2022. I made the changes to the article, with a reference for the news of his death, but cannot remove the biography-of-a-living-person tag. (I guess this is because I am not an administrator.) Please help.--Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Robert P. O'Shea, I've made the necessary changes. They don't require adminship (I'm not an admin myself), but they can be a bit tricky from a technical point of view for editors who rarely do things involving templates. You may find the script Rater helpful, as it simplifies it to ticking or unticking a couple of checkboxes. Vaticidalprophet 09:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know much about templates myself, but I'd keep in mind that BLP policy still applies to the recently deceased, and can apply for up to two years, so I'm not sure if removing the template may be premature at this point. Zaereth (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

BLP application isn't all-or-nothing and aspects of it apply to the recently deceased under many circumstances, but in the case of a relatively uncontentious article whose subject passed away of natural causes I don't think there's a use case for the tag currently. If the article starts having issues, an appropriate tag can easily be added. Either way, the outright "this is a BLP" tag is inappropriate, and for an article like this where the usual issues that cause the distinction are absent it's not too important whether it has no tag or the "this isn't a BLP but aspects of BLP apply" tag. Vaticidalprophet 10:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Vaticidal, Thanks! So it's as simple as deleting (the unnoticed) "Category:Living people" from the list of categories? If so, it's easy once one knows how. I do take seriously the reservations at least one other editor, although it always struck me that there really are only two sorts of people on that criterion: living and dead. Perhaps in Wikipedia there needs to be three categories: Living, recently dead, and deddybones dead. Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

While I don't see any harm in removing the tag here, I was reminded recently by Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing that the tag isn't just a useful way of informing editors and/or keeping track of relevant articles. It also affects whether the talk page is marked as NOINDEX (reducing the chances search engines will index it so make it findable when using the search engine). That said, our treatment of BLP talk pages is still a little weird since while we noindex the talk pages themselves, once they're archived they generally aren't marked as NOINDEX since they lose the header. Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The latter strikes me as a bigger issue than the former. (Is there any reason not to noindex all of talkspace?) Vaticidalprophet 07:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

moshe reuven azman

after a look online i saw that ukraine had a chief Rabbi of ukraine until 2008 (rabbi azriel chaykin) (Hebrew Wikipedia ) and al the rabbis in ukrain went against him saying that hi is the rabbi of ukrain

(Hebrew jewish news)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach own (talk • contribs) 22:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC) 

References

Dan DiMicco

In the interest of transparency I am writing this on behalf of Dan DiMicco to resolve an issue with accuracy on the article about him. I hope someone can help resolve this issue and thanks in advance for taking the time!

The article on Dan DiMicco currently lacks the sources to support some of the more provocative claims in the article. The current wording in the Charlotte Independence section of the page summarises issues which arose in response to DiMicco’s activity on twitter. I have a few concerns about the current wording of the article which I hope can be resolved without making radical changes.

Firstly, this section is worded to suggest that DiMicco holds racist views, a claim which demands better sourcing on a BLP. While there was a reaction to the twitter activity that DiMicco posted, the source tweets are not available online, and there is no reliable source which confirms they spread racist conspiracy theories. Currently, the only sources provided do not contain the original, unaltered material in question, and are of varying quality as citations. I looked into other available sources which have a confirmed editorial process and these sources only confirm that the tweets spread misinformation on the riots, Covid, and 2021 election, not that they contained explicitly racist content (see https://www.ft.com/content/c371fe7b-4b4f-4a8a-9190-dfdeac9d1cc5 and https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2021/09/09/plot-thickens-for-sale-of-charlotte-independence.html ). Even if we do take the claims of messages about Soros, Antifa, and the CCP at face value, these are not races but a person, organisation and a political party, and to conflate the disinformation spread as racist is to mischaracterise the beliefs DiMicco actually holds.

Secondly, there is technically no official supporters’ group (though various fan groups do exist) and the statements/actions they have taken are only supported by citations from twitter, which is not usually a strong enough source to be the only citation. The reactions to these tweets indicate that they didn’t draw much engagement, so some of the supporter groups’ actions should be removed on notability grounds.

I am not looking to dramatically change the article, but my suggested rewording for the section is below:

In 2018, DiMicco bought a majority stake in the soccer club Charlotte Independence, that plays in the USL Championship, the second tier of the American soccer pyramid.[7] Following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, DiMicco sent out a series of tweets about the protests blaming subsequent riots on "Antifa", George Soros and the Chinese Communist Party. DiMicco was also accused of spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and false claims of election fraud. Some supporters of the club responded strongly to these statements, with the Independent Supporters Council issuing a statement urging the league to "take action" against him.[8] [and add https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2021/09/09/plot-thickens-for-sale-of-charlotte-independence.html as a further source]

On March 29, 2021, the club announced that several owners, including DiMicco, were "in the process" of selling their ownership stakes[9] but appear "in no rush" to do so.[10]

Please do compare it to the original and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for your time and I hope the above satisfies Wikipedia’s need for unbiased, neutral content. Floresfire (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have access to the Financial Times source, but that, the Bizjournals source and this ESPN piece are probably the only sources fit for use in a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I tweaked the article based on the Financial Times source (which I could read), the ESPN source, and this one from The Athletic. Only minor changes were needed. I would disagree with several of the changes suggested above, such as adding weasel wording such as 'was also accused of' and referring to the protests as 'riots'. - MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I made a bit of an adjustment after your edits, using ESPN as the source for the backlash from some supporters and the Independent Supporters Council, rather than just the ISC tweet. I also dropped the appear "in no rush" from the last sentence, since it didn't seem to add much. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick note, the below citations look to be in reference to a different request above, so I'll just add in a break Floresfire (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

———

Joseph Mercola

Valjean has reverted my removal of an article by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch from Joseph Mercola [54]. Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Quackwatch and the 2019 RfC, articles written by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch are self-published. Valjean justified the restoration of content by saying When attributed to Barrett, the statement is perfectly fine as he's a subject matter expert, and his attributed opinions can be cited just like any other attributed opinion. I read WP:BLPSPS as prohibiting all content from self-published sources being used on BLP articles. Can I have a second opinion? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. is pretty clear. There is no caveat for the opinions of experts published in SPS. WP:RSOPINION says There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this, but I believe WP:Parity comes into play for fringe topics, and Mercola is definitely fringe. Isn't this a legit exception? -- Valjean (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. The article already has Chicago Magazine, WaPo, Chicago Tribune, UMASS Law Review, The Guardian, etc. We're not dealing with a WP:PARITY situation because we already have better quality sources dunking all over the guy like Shaq dunking on the entire New York Nets. We have four ((4)IV)) primary sourced FDA letters telling him to stop saying his supplements cure things. That is the parity of sourcing, as normally we wouldn't be including primary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right. I got tunnel vision. -- Valjean (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see these Barrett-related disputes getting resolved quickly. The COVID pandemic has created much more interest in quakery and health-related conspiracies, resulting in better coverage that we've had in the past. Hopefully we can use the new references now available where before we used Barrett. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand, but Barrett still gives the best coverage and plenty of RS. -- Valjean (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)