Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive342

COVID-19 lab leak theory#Fringe views on genetic engineering

The following text was recently added to the final paragraph, without references:

In September 2022 a panel assembled by The Lancet published a wide-ranging report on the pandemic, including commentary on the virus origin overseen by the group's chairman Jeffrey Sachs. This suggested that the virus may have originated from an American laboratory, a notion long-promoted by Sachs

As far as I can tell, neither the Lancet Commission nor Jeffrey Sachs have made this suggestion. The latter claim seems to constitute a WP:BLPSOURCE violation. Sachs has said that he thinks that the virus likely originated in a laboratory, with US funding and using techniques developed in the US. This is a plenty controversial claim on its own, and there are reliable sources that support him making that claim. However, Sachs does not appear to have claimed that "the virus may have originated in an American laboratory".

This has already been discussed at Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#New article of the Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic to no avail, with anti-Sachs editors citing dubious sources including the Tehran Times, the New York Post, and a couple of Twitter accounts. The most recent attempt at support is an article from The Daily Telegraph which is a reliable source but misquotes Sachs:

At a conference in Madrid earlier this year, he said he was “pretty convinced” that Sars-Cov-2 “came out of a US lab of biotechnology, not out of nature”[1]

If the grammatical error doesn't make it clear that something is wrong, you can hear the relevant quote from the Madrid talk on YouTube, starting at 12:34. It's clear that Sachs said "out of, uh, US lab biotechnology". Nothing about the virus coming from a US lab.

The article's claim that Sachs said such a thing is surely contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced. - Palpable (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

If there's a report, point to the report, but otherwise, that's 100% both a BLP and general RS violation. Masem (t) 20:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I did look at the report, but the report has ZERO mention of the nationality of the lab that the leak may have happened. We are still in full RS/BLP problem territory. Masem (t) 21:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that the Tehran Times was never cited by "anti-Sachs editors" it was brought up because it was endorsed by Sachs himself (it is featured prominently on his website [2]). Pointing out that Sachs is a fringe figure in the context of COVID, biotechnology, and public health doesn't make the editors who do so "anti-Sachs" so you might want to WP:AGF and retract that personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what the BLP aspect is here, and the OP's claim the the content is not sourced is false; it is sourced to an article in The Independent (listed just below). The underlying report implied that the lab leak was due to US lab involvement, as multiple sources relay (one needs to be familiar with the material to understand why):

• Gustaf Kilander (16 September 2022). "Lancet report claiming Covid could have come from US lab prompts anger". The Independent.
• Newey S (22 September 2022). "Major Covid report suggests virus could have leaked from a US lab". Daily Telegraph.

Even proponents of the lab leak have understood this (warning: not a reliable source for Wikipedia):

• See here[3] "Its weak-sauce conclusion — maybe it came from a lab, maybe it came from nature — has given an opening to a China-led disinformation campaign that claims against all evidence the virus was actually created in a US lab. [...] Indeed, the report itself has greatly aided this interpretation by somehow managing to blame America".

Those same sources say this is a theme Sachs has long promoted. Whether he thought is was physically leaked from a US lab, or shipped to China and leaked, or whether the recipe leaked, or whatever (none of his ideas actually make much sense in reality) is beside the point, since it is not discussed in the Wikipedia article. What we do have is good knowledge, well-sourced. Bon courage (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The report at no point implies a US lab was involved. From the Independent "But the report also states that “independent researchers have not yet investigated” US labs and that the National Institutes of Health has “resisted disclosing details” of its work on viruses related to SARS-CoV.". That doesn't at all imply a US lab was involved, simply that they cannot yet discount a US being a source if the lab leak theory has weight, which is far different from implicating a US lab was involved. To claim it this way is twisting the words of the report, and because you're identifying one person that's a public figure here, that's absolutely a BLP problem. That those newspapers want to report it that way is not appropriate for them, particularly when they quote the relevant section that simply excludes that any US lab has yet to be investigated. Masem (t) 05:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"That doesn't at all imply a US lab was involved" ← if you publish your novel reading in a reliable source it might have some relevance to this discussion. As I said, "one needs to be familiar with the material to understand why" (Clue: you have to ask yourself what the – extreme fringe – invocation of US research and the NIH in the context of COVID origin at all even means to understand what is being suggested and why it is so shocking). The invocation of the NIH's "resistance" to disclosure obviously does imply quite a lot, as every relevant source shows. Let's follow sources. Bon courage (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bon courage: We don't have to parrot sources word for word, indeed that raises WP:COPYVIO concerns. So it's generally okay to say something which a source doesn't actually say when you it's obvious to anyone without specific knowledge that it means the same thing or the source is saying this even if they don't use the specific words so there's little dispute among editors that the source supports the claim even if those specific words do not appear in the source. But not in a situation which you state applies here where it's something only understood by people with detailed knowledge of the situation. If one needs such highly specific knowledge to understand what the sources are allegedly saying but don't actually say, then it clearly doesn't belong unless someone with such highly specific knowledge explains this in a reliable secondary source. Anything else is WP:OR Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. We are using reliable secondary sources to do just what you ask. I don't think it needs "highly specific" knowledge, just basic reading comprehension skills and the understanding that when considering the origin of COVID, any scenario which invokes American labs/research is implying something particular - as the cited sources pick up. Bon courage (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I had a look and the Independent seems to support the claim the report suggests the virus may have originated from a US lab so I'm not sure why there is need to confuse matters by claiming editors need some highly specific knowledge to understand something. The Independent article is fairly black and white. Nil Einne (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that knowledge (more basic background than "highly specific") is only necessary if editors are trying to interpret the underlying report itself without reference to secondary commentary that explains why its suggestions are so extraordinary. I have expanded the article a little with further comment from David Robertson (virologist) which I hope makes this even more clear. Bon courage (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

(EC) And it looks like there is more than the Independent. I suggest we focus on the sources rather than claiming editors need highly specific knowledge or trying to argue about what the report does and does not say based on our own alleged highly specific knowledgge. As always, if multiple high quality secondary sources say something but editors looking at a primary source (or whatever) dispute the conclusion of these secondary sources, then it's really incumbent on these editor to find secondary sources to challenge these secondary sources rather than challenging these conclusions from their own WP:OR. An exception may be made if no editor disputes that the secondary sources are just wrong, especially if it's simply a case of removing the material (rather than claiming something that isn't said by secondary sources). It doesn't matter whether editors allegedly need highly specific knowledge to come to the same conclusion as these secondary sources, or they're just confused or whatever else, there's a reason we do not allow WP:OR. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree. Bon courage (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This is an exceptional case. We can see the primary source, and we're dealing with both BLP (Sachs) and fringe material (the lab leak theory) which are both hugely sensitive areas. We can tell that that report makes no explicit claim to a US lab, only that US labs haven't been investigated, but the secondary sources are twisting that wording to claim the report says there is a US lab connection. That's terrible reporting and this is a case to make sure we present the primary source - even as quoted through secondary sources - properly to avoid the BLP and NOR/NPOV problems. Masem (t) 13:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the multiple secondary sources and expert commentators understand what's being suggested by the report; I think you don't. Bon courage (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

If its clearly not in the primary report and they are suggesting that's what the report meant, then we have to use attribution and have to remove the BLP-related aspect. Masem (t) 13:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

You're completely wrong in everything you write there. Follow the good sources and all will be well. Bon courage (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

We have a higher responsibility to make sure bad errors or assumptions we know to be wrong in secondary sources don't carry forward. Masem (t) 14:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no error in what the secondary sources or scientists say, that's just your mistaken understanding. Bon courage (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

We do, but we do not know that the secondary sources are wrong here. You have asserted that in your personal opinion they are, but without a secondary source which supports your assertion we literally can't do anything. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

We can read the primary source to see exactly what they say, we don't need a secondary source for that. If the secondary sources are interpreting the work by making a claim not explicitly shown in the primary (which it appears to be the case), we can ignore what the secondary sources say with their interpretation. Add to this that this is 100% a MEDRS matter, which the Lancet is, and none of the secondary sources given are of. Note that even if we use the Lancet directly, it should still be set up as an attributed claim to the report. Masem (t) 15:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes we can read the primary source and see that all the secondary sources and scientists understand what it suggests. And what is suggested is a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory which Wikipedia duly and gently puts in a mainstream, sane, context using reliable sources and expert commentary (virologists). This is NPOV. If, as seems evident, you personally don't understand what the source is suggesting, that's not a problem we can fix. Bon courage (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The secondary sources are wrong. The Independent and The Telegraph are using the same incorrect transcription of Sachs's Madrid comment. I already linked to the video where you can see this for yourself: there is a brief "uh" that has been transcribed as "a". The cadence in the video makes it clear what he was really saying. - Palpable (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Since Sach's "Madrid video" has never even been mentioned in the article, how is this relevant? Bon courage (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

You are citing The Telegraph and The Independent. Their only support for your contention is sourced to the Madrid talk. But their quote from the Madrid talk is a transcription mistake as anyone can verify. - Palpable (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry what? What has the "Madrid Talk" got to do with anything in the article? There we mention Sachs in relation to two things:

1. The section of the Lancet COVID report which he oversaw
2. His podcast appearance with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

That's it. Bon courage (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can scroll up and see that you have cited The Independent, which cites The Telegraph, which uses the misquote from the Madrid conference. - Palpable (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Which we don't mention, so ...  ? Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be arguing that it's ok to cite conclusions from bad evidence as long as you don't cite the bad evidence directly. - Palpable (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

What "conclusions"? Nothing about the "Madrid video", which you seem obsessed with, is relevant here. Even if your personal take on the transcript is correct (it's not), it makes no difference to anything. Bon courage (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"The secondary sources are wrong" unless you have a secondary source which says that its a moot point. Personal opinions can't override multiple WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

We are not blind and dumb when it comes to what secondary sources read from a primary source that we have access to. If they are claiming a conclusion that is not explicitly in the primary source, we are absolutely right to not use the secondary sources for that. Masem (t) 15:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The conclusion drawn by the secondary source does not need to explicitly be in the primary source... Thats why we use secondary sources and not primary ones in this sort of context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

If the secondary source is coming to a conclusion that affects neutrality or BLP, or in this case when they aren't medical experts, we don't us it. Masem (t) 15:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

So is Professor David Robertson not an expert? You might want to redact that BLP violation. What supreme arrogance to think you know better! Bon courage (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I actually agree with Masem that if secondary sources are obviously wrong then we could be in a WP:IAR situation where they were sidelined. But here, we're not. I (for one) totally understand why the secondary sources say what they say: it's exactly the kind of knowledge this Project exists to summarize and relay to our readers. Masem is basically arguing that the knowledge in secondary sources can be discarded unless he can personally endorse its validity of reasoning. It's yet another example of Masem's curious parallel world of rules which bear no relation to the WP:PAGs. It's becoming a problem I think. Bon courage (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Point to the place in the Lancet report that says "US labs may be involved" or the like. I looked a couple times, and may have missed it but I really don't see that. I see what I quoted earlier, that US labs weren't considered, and thus the secondary sources are making the claim that the report is implying US labs are involved, which is a terrible misstatement from the report. Perhaps the whole picture (knowing where Sachs sits on the whole debate, etc.) is necessary to reach that interpretation, but that's still an interpretation and must not be presented as the report's conclusion. Masem (t) 16:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't say it in the dumbed-down way you personally want. And if you "only looked a couple of times" I wonder at how you are wasting so much community time. I suggest you try to read and understand properly before attempting to lay down the law in such an arrogant and dogmatic way. You show contempt for your fellow editors. Bon courage (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It needs to be said there explicitly. Can't be between the lines or "not the whole picture". Trust me, I see how the secondary sources are arriving at that conclusion, but we cannot follow their logic in Wikivoice without violating BLP and NPOV. We can say with attribution that these sources believe that the report was insinuating US lab involvement due to Sachs' prior stance on the matter, but because the report actually does not explicitly state this, we cannot state that in wikivoice. Masem (t) 16:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

No it doesn't... It only needs to be said explicitly in the secondary source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

There is zero requirement that it has to be said explicitly in the secondary source. Secondary sources are used to judge weight and notability for inclusion (of which the criticism around this report qualifies for), but we are not bound to only them. WP:PSTS. Masem (t) 16:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

For BLP we generally do require the secondary source to be explicit. What you appear to be missing is that there is zero requirement that it has to be said explicitly in the primary source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. We value and relay the knowledge found in secondary sources. They are "insinuating" nothing; they relay the knowledge that the report is saying the virus may have originated from an American laboratory. So it does, as any competent reader will understand. Yet again, you're making your own rules up as if they're relevant to this Project. Bon courage (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

A way to state the disputed material without any NPOV or BLP violations while staying true to the secondary sources:

In September 2022 a panel led by Jeffery Sachs assembled a report published in The Lancet on the origins of the pandemic. The report stated it was "feasible" that the virus was leaked by a lab, but also added, "Independent researchers have not yet investigated the US laboratories engaged in the laboratory manipulation of SARS-CoV-like viruses, nor have they investigated the details of the laboratory research that had been underway in Wuhan. Moreover, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has resisted disclosing details of the research on SARS-CoV-related viruses that it had been supporting, providing extensively redacted information only as required by Freedom of Information Act lawsuits." (parts referred in secondary but this is the direct quote of that section from the primary) These statements were criticized by medical experts to imply that U.S. labs has been involved a lab leak of COVID, seen an an extension of Sachs' favorable views on China.(ref Independent, Daily Beast, others). Virologist Angela Rasmussen commented that this may have been "one of The Lancet's most shameful moments regarding its role as a steward and leader in communicating crucial findings about science and medicine".[6] Virologist David Robertson said the suggestion of US laboratory involvement was "wild speculation" and that "it's really disappointing to see such a potentially influential report contributing to further misinformation on such an important topic".[6]. Sachs stated that the Lancet's commissioners had signed off on the report (Daily Telegraph/Daily Beast), but Peter Hotez, one of Lancet commissioners, said that the report had "diverse views" within the commission, and he had pushed on the panel to remove mention of U.S. labs.(Daily Beast)

This makes it clear what the leap of logic that the secondary sources used without diminishing it (because we have further commentary from experts), as well as added comments from the Lancet member to show the report was not just rubber-stamped through. And this keeps why Sachs' connection to China is important, and doesn't get into the mess re Kennedy. --Masem (t) 16:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Except it's factually wrong from the start (the panel was not assembled by Sachs; he sacked the origins panel). As well as error, your suggestion adds nothing but verbosity. I think we're done here. Bon courage (talk) Bon courage (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

He appeared to push out part of the panel (which isn't mentioned at all in the existing text(!) and is actually a key detail that is buried in the Telegraph article, but [4] this supports that. Also, its probably important to mention the view of the Lancet panel as well. But to not quote the report directly of the relevant section where the US connection may come into play is critically bad. That needs to be there. Masem (t) 17:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to mention he dismissed the relevant experts, I agree. We don't need to to show how the sausage was made; providing the clueful secondary explanation is enough. Bon courage (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a better start than what we had for sure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is a big improvement. The weighting seems off - this is a report with 40 authors that was commissioned by a top medical journal, yet half the text is devoted to criticisms of one sentence by three individuals. But it resolves the BLP and RS issues which is the most important thing. - Palpable (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Science is not a bar fight where 40 people win against 3. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Jonathan Potter

Article Jonathan Potter has large quantities of unsourced information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.91.131 (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks to be written by someone with an intimate knowledge of Potter, and may in fact be largely an autobiography, as the uploader of File:Jonathan Potter 2009.jpg has contributed a large amount of unsourced biographical content. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, all signs are pointing to autobiography or COI violations. Melancholyhelper (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Jane Nelson

Jane Nelson was recently rewritten to be praiseful of the subject, I reverted citing NPOV. They rewrote again, not as egregiously praiseful but still so, and added Template:In use. Unsure how to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpscatter (talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it as a copyright violation. The text was copied from https://senate.texas.gov/press.php?id=12-20210705a&print=1 Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Carlsen–Niemann controversy and Hans Niemann

Four Chan, reddit, and other crowd bullying sites are CYBERBULLYING an actual 19 year old child with outrageous slanderous/libelous claims that he is using a sex toy while playing chess.

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carlsen–Niemann_controversy#Anal_beads for my more explicitly complaints. This is morally wrong!

Key points:

• This is morally wrong!
• This is cyber bullying from the textbook
• It is WHOLLY unsubstantiated baseless rumors that explicitly violate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops
• Please this is a child! If he were an adult this would be different, but some deference must be given to a child! All his friends when they go on Wikipedia see his name in reference to anal beads and they bully him for it! To this young people, if it's on Wikipedia it is a hard fact. Even if only to bully him for it! Please remove this! Please have sympathy for his mental health and well being! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.84.19.247 (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The incident in question is reported in Niemann's article in the context of who initially made the claims and how broadly they have been repeated (as in, two major US late-night programs). The source for one of the late-night show claims is a clip from the show itself, via its official YouTube channel. —C.Fred (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

A 19-year old is an adult in the United States. However, the speculation is straight BLPGOSSIP without any evidence. No RS has given this theory any credence. The speculation is just a more sensationalist version of the Houston Astros buzzer accusations, and the buzzer accusation wasn't put in the individual players' article was briefly mentioned in the Jose Altuve article when it had much more coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup. When sources tell you that the story they are telling you is made-up-nonsense they are repeating because everyone else is, it is a sure-fire indication that it doesn't belong in any Wikipedia article mentioning the subjects' name. This isn't even 'gossip' - it is gossip about gossip... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

To the original IP: talking about "morally wrong" and "child" is not helpful at Wikipedia. What counts are the policies outlined at WP:5P. Bear in mind that editors here are people who find the internet fun and part of their daily routine and many of them are programmed to promote liberty. Basing an argument on morals guarantees that some of them will oppose whatever you are arguing for purely on that basis. However, this case is nonsense. Would someone please ping me if the anal bead joke appears for more than a couple of hours in the article. I will warn the editor and if necessary block them. This is like the joke about an actor and a small animal: hilarious for those with an anus fixation but not encyclopedic material. Of course I can't dictate content but I can require that such an obvious BLP problem be removed until after an WP:RFC specifies that it be included. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I am new here. I basically just mentioning why I am fighting to have it removed, which is that I find it morally reprehensible. But I can understand how that might just invite opposition for the sake of opposition. I did, however, also try and mention the BLP thing with it as well on most of my posts. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

A big thank you to everyone here! 23.84.19.247 (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Paraphrasing from my comment from the article's talk page, but I think it merits inclusion for two reasons:

• The comment was a large part of why the controversy drew the attention of people outside the chess world
• The comment was never a serious accusation and is very obviously untrue. The article should clarify that, and I argue that it would not be a violation of WP:NPOV to do so. Anyone seriously espousing the theory falls into WP:FRINGE. Wpscatter (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this!

Perhaps the reason the controversy attracted the attention of people like wpscatter because of sex toy rumors, but it certainly was not the reason for the rest of the chess world. The real controversy was that the number one ranked player was accusing another grandmaster of cheating against him and then resigning multiple games because of it without any explanation. The speculation was focused on why Carlsen quit those matches and not because of all this other nonsense. These editors framing it this way is both disingenuous and puerile. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That isn't the first time you've resorted to personal attacks over this matter. Please do not do that.

In any case, you haven't addressed my second point. Why are you so opposed to including a clarification that the rumor is not true? Many people will be hearing about the controversy through the rumor and landing on the Wikipedia page for more info. If we don't mention it, they will continue to believe it might be true. Wpscatter (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay fine, can someone remove the caps on wpscatter? It won't let me edit it. The rest is clean though as it is directly addressing what was said prior. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Wait never mind. I figured it out. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"That isn't the first time you've resorted to personal attacks over this matter"

Tell me what else was considered toxic/etc and Ill get it removed. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You need to take a chill pill, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:PA will just get you blocked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! I just put part of his name in caps and am currently asking to have that removed. There were no other personal attacks on the other posts either. If anyone is under attack here it is me by getting reported for all sorts of random things. I got reported for edit warring just like yesterday when my edits were strictly related to BLP stuff, which was supposed to exempt. Tell me what else was battleground or pa and Ill try to ask to get it removed. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• A 19 year old is not a child and gets no special protections from us. I'm not really seeing how we can conform to WP:NPOV and not cover this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  BLP allows us to drop material that, in any other context, would be appropriate to include per NPOV. BLP is a stronger policy than NPOV. I think there's a level of applicability here though, its hard to "hide" this angle given how much it has been covered, but wording is everything here. Masem (t) 17:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  We had an overwhelming consensus to keep the article about the controversy[5], that means we have consensus not to drop it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah but a consensus on something against BLP guidelines doesn't mean its a valid consensus. It is still wrong. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Just because the entire world is bullying this kid, doesn't mean Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should jump on the same bandwagon with such outrageous slander/libel/lies. Especially because the main reason this is controversy is because of the cheating allegations, NOT the sex toy stuff which was mostly circulated by comedians and Reddit like sites. Most professional news outlets didn't mention it at all like WSJ. If WSJ (and others like WSJ) didn't deem it newsworthy, clearly it is not the main attraction to this controversy. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  For the third time (the other two mentions of which you have willfully ignored), the article will not be "jumping on the same bandwagon". As it is an entirely unsubstantiated rumor (that few people are even claiming to be true in the first place), WP:NPOV allows us to dispel it in the article, rather than present it as an "argument from both sides" or what have you. I fail to see what your issue with that would be considering your objection is mainly due to the fact that the accusations themselves are undue, and the fact that you haven't responded to this point tells me that you don't really know what your issue with it is either.

  This was clear moralizing from the beginning and it's time we treat it like what it is - disruptive editing. There may be a discussion to be had about real reasons not to include it in the article, but I don't think you're interested in those reasons. Wpscatter (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Okay can someone here enlighten me? How is what wpscatter posted here not a personal attack on me? It looks like he is trying to report me for simply expressing my views because he finds those views "disruptive". Also, what edits? This is a discussion page. I am allowed to express my view. You are the one who is obsessed with mentioning the sex toy stuff even though it doesn't add a single element of value to the article. It is defamatory by its very nature and is thus an absolute violation of BLP guidelines on gossip and innuendo.23.84.19.247 (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  If you would read the WP:DISRUPT page, you'll find that talk pages are not exempt from disruptive editing. This is a discussion page, but that doesn't mean you can say whatever you like and be free from consequences. Your actions over the last few days on these talk pages (and, indeed, edit warring the main article) violate several of the policies on that page. Wpscatter (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• When The New York Times publishes an article titled "Magnus Carlsen Accuses Hans Niemann of Cheating", and most other news organizations have also published a version of the same story ([6][7][8]), then we are well within BLP to have the information included, as long as it is worded appropriately to note that Carlsen is making accusations that are as of the present unproven. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  In the NYT piece I didn't see any reference to sex toys. What are you talking about? 23.84.19.247 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  The allegations of cheating. I don't think any of the new articles are referencing the "how" of the alleged cheating. I don't think any of the old ones have recanted.[9] Unless I'm missing something, neither article mentions "anal beads" or "sex toys", so, what are you talking about? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Um ... I think we are saying the same thing then, right? Which is that the sex toy stuff should NOT be mentioned. Yeah? 23.84.19.247 (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I am not saying that it shouldn't be included. I am saying that it presently isn't so I don't know what you're complaining about? Maybe it should be re-added, with due deference to BLP, but I am not certain of that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  This piece from a top tier RS does in fact talk about your bugaboo [10] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Okay great. But a lot of others don't so my point is that it clearly isn't the main story. the main story is cheating allegations not sex toy stuff. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  The main story is the allegation of cheating. Whether or not the sex toy part should remain in the article is unclear to me at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't get your point, from a BLP perspective the cheating allegations are way more problematic than the allegations that an adult used a sex toy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• First, we have two open sections about this now. See above: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Articles_about_evidence-free_insinuations_about_a_living_person. It's a really tough call, but I'd err on the side of BLP, which advises us to consider whether the material is being presented as true. None of it is being presented as true, but the sex toy part in particular is being presented as wild speculation based on no evidence. What makes it hard is that several good sources are presenting it [as wild speculation based on no evidence]. I'm torn on whether the stand-alone article should exist. It was sent to AfD based on inapplicable rationales, but WP:NEVENT, WP:BLP, and WP:NOPAGE are worth considering (i.e. it is a notable aspect of the tournament/Niemann's/Carlsen's career, but notability doesn't guarantee a stand-alone article if there are (a) other places it can be covered, and (b) if there are BLP-related reasons not to give it a stand-alone article). YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  In addition that we generally do not want standalone pages about controversies, since they tend to draw POV problems. The whole incident around cheating is impossible to not include somewhere, but the news is making it a mountain out of a molehill and we should avoid following that until we have full resolution on the story. Masem (t) 20:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I can see the validity of all the concerns being brought forth above, however, I still think this has merit as an individual article. If the investigations clear and exonerate Niemann thus rendering the controversy a moot PR scandal rather than a cheating scandal, at this point, the fact that the entire sport of chess has been upended by what appears to be the largest controversy in the sport in decades is certainly worthy of an article, and currently as the responses and ramifications continue to brew, it certainly needs to remain as a place for that information to be collated. I don't believe this level of information belongs in the individual articles of Niemann and Carlsen, those do not seem an apt forum to include all this information especially with the higher standards of BLP for an article about a person. It should be in its own article as it already is.

Regarding the sex toys aspect, I made an edit adding the context around the speculation and its implications on the controversy without making any characterizations or aspersions, I do believe it is a responsible, balanced edit that helps build the article. My edit makes no reference to anal beads, and there is likely no need to go into the sex toys aspect of it and the rumors swirling therein, as that's where issues of POV and BLP start to come to play, but I'll see how the consensus develops to sort out further nuances. Criticalus (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

BLP applies everywhere. Putting the controversy to a separate page does not change how BLP is interpreted. Masem (t) 21:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Your point is taken, as is the earlier one about making a mountain out of a gerbil hill. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

List of serial killers by number of victims

List of serial killers by number of victims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Refusal to remove clear and obvious WP:BLPCRIME violation. You would think that after someone has been to trial, and not been convicted of a single one of the 146 murders they were suspected of that suspicious might cease surely? 81.96.130.162 (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The whole section about “disputed cases” needs to be removed, or else a prefatory sentence should give inclusion criteria that don’t violate WP:BLPCRIME. I have just added this to that section: “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, and thus are not sufficient reasons for listing living people here.” I also removed the person in question from the list. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Even outside of the BLP angle, the "disputed cases" section is a complete mess. The inclusion criteria as listed in the text of the article for "proven victims" of disputed serial killers include: "victims the serial killer was tried for, explained by the killer in a detailed confession, or victims most scholars of the subject agree upon". According to these criteria anyone a suspected killer is acquitted of killing counts as a proven victim! (And even if we grant this extremely generous definition of "proven", various of the list entries still overstate the number of "proven" victims – the first entry on the list, David Moor, is listed as having 300 proven victims; the source cited says "apparently admitted to helping up to 300 patients die" [emphasis mine].) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• A ping would have been helpful. I responded to the edit request. I didn't remove the entry because the 146 suspected victims was backed up by a reliable source. I did, however, move the number of victims from "proven" to "disputed" since they are unproven. Note the suspected killings are detailed in the Hu Wanlin main page, so you might want to look at that! Polyamorph (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Unproven suspected killings do not belong in a list of killings at Wikipedia. See WP:BLPCRIME. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't disagree but as I noted Hu Wanlin appears to be focused almost entirely on these suspected killings and are the basis for their notability. So if BLPCRIME allows the existence of the article then there is no reason to remove from the list. Polyamorph (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Do you disagree with the inclusion criteria for this section of the list? When you edit the section, the inclusion criteria can be seen: “Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction, and thus are not sufficient reasons for listing living people here.” The whole list is a list of serial killers, and that label is totally inappropriate for someone like this who’s never been convicted. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  As I said, I don't disagree Polyamorph (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Such blatant violations of WP:BLP policy are endemic on such lists. Wikipedia should not be hosting murder-fancruft. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Andy, Andy Andy ... murder fancruft is one of the whole points of Wikipedia.[11] Bon courage (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You've missed an entire category. [12] There may be more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

And of course there is grenade-murder-fancruft, for people not interested in mainstream mayhem. Note the arbitrary pulled-out-of-a-contributors-arse inclusion criteria: List of rampage killers (mass murders committed using grenades) AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I love the way they get variant takes by coining articles titles that are like database searches with different selection/sort provisions. But hey, WP:NOTCENSORED right. Bon courage (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Turns out there are loads of incredibly specific subsets of list of rampage killers, and if the lot of them were deleted probably nobody would miss them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

And I'm not even gonna try editing tables on my phone, but List of serial killers active in the 2020s is an absolute horrorshow of BLP issues if anyone feels up to the challenge. Might as well be called List of non-notable people who haven't been convicted but we're going to describe as serial killers in Wikipedia's voice for the hell of it Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Possibly not directly a BLP issue, but while we're discussing the murder-fancruft lists, it should probably be pointed out that the use made of flag icons (presumably for the nationality of the alleged killers, thought they don't seem to say) is completely contrary to MOS:FLAG, and one of the many things that might give readers the distinct impression that they are looking at a league table for some sort of competitive sport. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

At List of serial rapists there’s the same issue. Incidentally, I spent a huge amount of time reorganizing that rape list so it’s chronological rather than by number of victims, by default. Maybe this would improve the murder lists too, so it would look a bit less like a competitive sport. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I remember now, that that page's prior discussion was similar to the problems here. Masem (t) 14:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps I wasn't clear, what I don't understand is why the suspicious deaths are allowed at Hu Wanlin but not on the list. WP:BLPCRIME makes no distinction between types of article, so it seems inconsistent to remove from a list article while retaining the same accusations in the actual BLP. Is Hu Wanlin a BLP violation and should it be nominated for deletion? Polyamorph (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That's right, WP:BLP makes no distinction between articles. You can't include him on a list of serial killers anywhere. Because he has never been convicted of serial killing. 'suspicion' isn't conviction. Per WP:BLP A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Which means, amongst other things, that we don't include such individuals in lists which presume guilt. And no, before anyone asks, you can't weasel-word your way around it by sticking 'accused of' in the inclusion criteria. If the inclusion criteria don't match the title, one is wrong. In this case, the criteria, since lumping the accused together with the convicted is a violation of WP:BLP policy (amongst other things...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks but that doesn't answer my question. If it is a policy violation on the list then surely the main article Hu Wanlin is a blatant violation too? Polyamorph (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Does the Hu Wanlin article describe him as a serial killer? No. It states that he was suspected of some things, and convicted of others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense now. Thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME covers "suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed" equally. Describing him as "suspected of killing 146 people" and including him in Category:Suspected serial killers seems to me exactly the sort of thing that BLPCRIME is cautioning against. And it's not at all obvious to me that he meets WP:CRIMINAL, which discusses when a criminal should be the subject of an article, either Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Caeciliusinhorto-public. Please see WP:Articles for deletion/Hu Wanlin Polyamorph (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• One of the articles is now at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rampage killers (mass murders committed using grenades). Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Why do we need separate articles for List of serial killers by country and List of serial killers by number of victims? Just List of serial killers would handle it, reduced duplicate BLP effort, and also eliminate a bit of the BLP problem that the title of "by number of victims" gives? --Masem (t) 16:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of inclusion criteria

User:Anastrophe has now deleted the inclusion criteria that were intended to ensure compliance with WP:BLPCRIME.[13] I rephrased it and tried again.[14] Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I was not aware of this discussion; I am sometimes guilty of just moving forward on my initial impressions of rationale. I'll read up on this thread, WP:BLPCRIME, etc. You are welcome to move forward without regard to my contribution (removal) in the meantime. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

And apropos of nothing, 'List of rampage killers using grenades'...holyshitefest-fetish-specific-this-is-why-we-lovehate-hatelove-wikipedia..question mark? Learn something new and unpleasant every day...  cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Oscar Gibbons and Great Yarmouth Charter Academy

I would value some additional opinions at the talk page for Great Yarmouth Charter Academy regarding an attempt to introdce extensive discussion sof Oscar Gibbons which I reverted here [15]. It seems to me that including this in the school's article is a clear WP:COATRACK and creating a separate article would breach WP:BLP1E. I'm not aware of singnificant sourcing beyind the primary source and the (effecively single) secondary source in the material I removed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, that's completely UNDUE and should stay out. There are hundreds of teachers on the DBS's Section 142 list and how they got there is not encyclopedic, especially in the articles of the schools they happened to work at when the offence took place. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Maajid Nawaz

Content has been repeatedly added to the lead of this article with either no citation or with citations that do not back up the statements made. The editor who made the edits has repeatedly threatened to report me for "vandalism" because I reverted these edits. I have attempted to discuss the issues on various talk pages and I have largely been ignored or met with personal attacks and accusations of vandalism. TWM03 (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is an incorrect summation of the situation, which a look at the talk pages for Maajid Nawaz's page will quickly correct.

The user has reverted edits for which there is broad concensus on the talk pages and removed citations that the talk pages agreed on. User is attempting to portray the opposite as the truth.

I invite users to read the page and make judgement themselves. User was flagged for vandalism for vandalism. Sscloud21 (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't "vandalism", it's a legitimate complaint regarding the WP:BURDEN section of the verifiability policy. I have removed the WP:AIV report and removed the disputed sentence part for now, as the citations actually don't seem to have directly supported either revision.

The initial "highly controversial" and "COVID-19 related" in Special:Diff/1113399889 were later removed and not present anymore in Special:Diff/1113810378. Still, the negative connotation of "self-proclaimed" and "purported to oppose" (implying in Wikipedia's voice that this is factually untrue) lacked a source. Especially for a statement about (opposition to) Islamism, the Middle East Eye may additionally be an unreliable source; concerns about its reliability are described by the Wikipedia article about the website.

Keeping the lead section of a living person's biography neutral is both important (WP:LEADBIO / WP:DUE) and difficult. When there is a dispute about whether verifiable material really belongs into the article, the onus to obtain a consensus is on those favoring inclusion. The last talk page discussion is from 26 July 2022, so there's hardly already a consensus about disputed content added in October. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Peter Obi

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

I am increasingly concerned that this article is being used as a campaign patformn for the 2023 presidential elections in Nigeria. A section has appeared with candidate endorsements, for example.

While I'm perfecty capable of arguing the point on the talk page (and of removing the section(s) that I bekeive inapproriate), I feel that this is likely to be banging my head against a brick wall. Better to have the team here consider what actions, if any, need to be taken, and probably to take those actions wearing an admin sash, cap, and carrying the janitorial mop, and bucket. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The article seems very well sourced at first glance. Touting a WP article as part of a campaign (political or otherwise) is not necessarily against policy as long as it's neutral and reliably sourced. If you think this article runs afoul of WP policies, I think you're going to have to point to specific diffs and refs that make your case. Ditch ∝ 19:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ditch Fisher A section has appeared with candidate endorsements, for example is the main element I am referring to. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I see, and I share your concerns (somewhat) about the endorsements section, especially in regard to the references cited. I notice, however, that outside of some bot generated template messages, there seems to be no discussion on the article's talk page. I have opened a section on the talk page about the sub-section. Ditch ∝ 20:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

PS- It might be informative if you explain in more detail why you think the WP:BRD process would be "banging my ahead against a brick wall." Do you have prior experience with editing on this, or related, subjects that leads you to believe that? Ditch ∝ 20:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Endorsement sections are commonplace in articles covering major political campaigns. I simply fail to see how such a section is a BLP problem, as long as the endorsement is unambiguous and well referenced. I believe that it is wise to limit the list to people who are the subject of a Wikipedia biography because otherwise many of these sections would spiral of control. I see a current red link. Maybe that should be removed. Cullen328 (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Seconding Cullen328 above - I cannot recall a candidate in a major election not having an endorsement section. We do typically limit those sections to people with their own Wikipedia articles unless there are reasons why their endorsement would be notable (such as being an elected official themselves). While I'm unfamiliar with Nigerian examples, the article on Andrew Yang's, Kamala Harris', and Elizabeth Warren's endorsements from the 2020 United States Presidential Election are good examples. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 16:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

William Bishop

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armaghan Muawiyah/Archive
• Felix Nolan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:William Bishop (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Bishop (performing artist)

I am aware that there have been a number of disputes and discussions and deletions of articles about William Bishop. The fact remains that he is a public figure, and as such wikipedia is having a direct affect on his income, by affecting his credability in a negative way. I would ask that you bear this in mind when editing articles about him in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.1.251 (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP, I don't think you've crossed the line, but please be both aware and careful of Wikipedia's policy against legal threats. Again, to me, you haven't gone into that territory, but it sounds like you're getting close. If you have specific concerns about an article, please raise it on the associated talk page, or here if you think wider input is necessary. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is related to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Bishop_(performing_artist), which has been deleted half a dozen times at different titles due to the individual being non-notable. Nobody is entitled to a Wikipedia article. My advice is to get lost and stop trying to spam Wikipedia with promotional crap. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Worth noting that there is an active SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Armaghan_Muawiyah that has been open for over a month and hasn't been closed. One of the users pushing the Bishop spam, JohnEricHiggs, is currently harassing Wikipedians who voted to delete the article. [16]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Stephen Simpson (professor)

• Stephen Simpson (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There was a controversies section in this article accusing Dr. Simpson of research misconduct. The sole citation was the personal blog of Rory Robertson, who seems to have had a vendetta against Dr. Simpson and his colleagues related to their work on sugar consumption in Australia. This vendetta includes periodic letters to Dr. Simpson's academic institutions and funding sources with the stated intent of forcing the cessation of Dr. Simpson's research.

Mr. Robertson has not performed any scientific experiments on the topic, nor have his critiques been either peer-reviewed or published in any formal scientific journal. Rather, Mr. Robertson seems to rely on his own lay interpretations of Dr. Simpson's scientific protocols and analyses, as well as anecdotes of his own personal experience with diabetes, obesity, and sugar. The support for these claims alone is insufficient evidence to refute Dr. Simpson's work or prove misconduct, and I was unable to find any other sources that support Mr. Robertson's position.

I have removed the entire controversies section, but my issue is this: the edit that originally created the Controversies section was anonymous. Mr. Robertson has explicitly stated that he wants to disseminate his message by any means necessary, which would likely include making spurious (if not libelous) comments on Dr. Simpson's wiki page.

Whedonist (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Your removal was entirely appropriate, per multiple Wikipedia policies: e.g. WP:BLP, WP:RS for a start. The source is appalling, and simply cannot be cited for anything. I'll keep an eye on the article in case anyone tries to restore it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• I would agree that this is a clear BLP vio per WP:BLPSPS, we would need reliable sources covering this to include it, which don't seem to exist. That said, the IP added this months ago so this isn't exactly an active issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Good removal. I have the page watchlisted, and it would help if a few more people could have eyes on it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Caroline Flack and citations to the Daily Mirror

I have recently had a disagreement with Olyus over whether the Daily Mirror's "3AM" column should be used to cite a former partner's claim that Flack was abusive in a relationship. In my view, this is clearly not acceptable per WP:BLPSOURCES (Flack is dead, but the partner making the claim isn't, so the BLP criteria still applies, in my view). The counter-argument is that the Mirror (somewhat surprisingly, in my view) is not listed as a prohibited or deprecated source at WP:RSP. However, BLPSOURCES clearly states that material cited to a tabloid newspaper (which the Mirror is) should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• Agreed; whilst the Mirror does not have anything near as poor a record as some other UK tabloids (which is why it is only yellow-listed at RSP), we should absolutely not be using it - especially the 3AM column, which is a celebrity gossip section - for any contentious claims on a BLP. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• Yeah, rubbish source and completey unsuitable for such claims (as if relaying such gossip about people is even an encyclopedic endeavour anyway). Bon courage (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• If the Daily Mirror's 3AM column isn't 'tabloid journalism' per WP:BLPSOURCES, nothing is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• The Daily Mirror has a reputable history of photojournalism (search for Shackleton Daily Mirror for an example), & investigative reporting (Foot, Pilger et al). It's quality has diminished over time. The 3AM Girls come nowhere near that standard. Cabayi (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• If the issue is the Daily Mirror then the same article can be found in plenty of other sources, not least because because the articles are based on the former partner's own statements and photo of the NDA. Would this article in the Metro (https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/15/caroline-flacks-ex-andrew-brady-exposes-nda-banning-discussing-relationship-assault-arrest-11909367/) be more suitable? As for the rules regarding content about living people, Flack is dead and nothing in the article is potentially defamatory to anyone living. Olyus
  • Metro has the same problem as being a brit tabloid, see WP:RS/P. --Masem (t) 18:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • What Masem said but also for clarity BLP applies to any claims about living persons, 'potentially defamatory' or not. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• Caroline Flack has been dead since 2020. She committed suicide after being arrested for assault on her boyfriend, while covered in blood at their flat, and admitted she did it to police. She was almost certainly heading for a conviction at the time of her death. BLP certainly doesn't apply - at best we sometimes extend it to up to 2 years in exceptional circumstances. This is only a question of reliability, is the Mirror reliable for the content used in the article? Given the subjects personal life, there is certainly nothing extraordinary in the content, and absent any reason to doubt the reliability of the claims, there is no reason to exclude it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • If we want a more reliable source than a gossip column for the NDA, there's one from the Daily Telegraph here. Partial paywall avoidance link here. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  AFAIK she only killed herself. She did not kill her former partner. Therefore he is likely still alive and BLP does still apply. There seems to be an unfortunate myth that BLP only applies to the specific subject of the article, which is most definitely not the case. While this specific example is sort of whatever (which doesn't mean we should ignore BLP), we can in fact have serious BLP violations if we go down this unfortunate line of thinking. See for example this [17] which I just removed for several reasons including a BLP violation for a subject who wasn't even specifically named yet for which the BLP violation seems serious since their name is all over the place including in our articles as I mentioned in my explanation here [18] Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  BLP applies protection to everyone living where information about them may be included in an article. The argument above is that an interview a living person gave willingly would not be used because it causes them to fall into one of the usual reasons we dont include material eg poorly sourced, defamatory, misleading (due weight) needs more evidence in this situation. There is no indication the interview didnt happen, it cant be defamatory to the living person since it was an interview *with* them, its not misleading or out of context given the circumstances (the claims are not remotely exceptional given the subject). Essentially the only argument here is tabloid=bad. Which isnt a BLP issue. If there is a genuine concern the interview itself is suspect, that needs a source. I am not discounting it, its one of, if not the major reason, the Daily Mail was depreciated, it was caught regularly making stuff up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I never said it was defamatory. I simply said it was violates BLP. BLP requires good sourcing for any claims about living persons. It's another unfortunate myth that it's okay to include crappily sourced claims about living persons if it isn't defamatory but BLP makes clear defamatory is at best a minor part of the concern about poor sourcing. In other words, it does not matter whether the person allegedly voluntarily gave the information, whether the information is allegedly defamatory or whatever. No good sourcing then we exclude the information. Again if the information is so important, why is it hard to find decent sourcing? Even for BLPSPS, we only only allow the information to be included in very limited circumstances and definitely not about claims of abuse even if the other subjects are dead. We aren't even including the information on an article on the subject, so even SPS is out anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would add I find calling an Instagram story or photo or comment or whatever this was (I'm not sure whether this came from one or more posts but at least part of it seems to have been deleted [19] [20]) an "interview" is just weird. Nil Einne (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Realistically, across the board, we need editors to think about inclusion of every random bit of news they can find about a person; we are here to summarize sources, and from the 10-year point of view, and that typically means ignoring short blips of coverage that have little effect on a person's career. An accusation that has yet to be corroborated by other reliable sources is exactly what we should not be including in a WP article even if BLP doesn't apply. Masem (t) 04:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Can someone reference the specific part of BLP that is apparently being violated here? I think it would clarify a lot. It seems somewhat bizarre that something a person has knowingly said about themselves publically would not be admissable; it's not like this is a 3rd party writing about the alledged abuse. Olyus
  • Per BLP, we require good reliable sources to report details on living person. With few exceptions, these have to be secondary sources. While we can sometimes report what people have self published about themselves, this only really applies to simple biographical details, not to anything complex like allegations of abuse. It's a moot point here anyway since we aren't relying on self published sources. People say stuff about themselves all the time, sometimes they remain happy for the rest of their lives for these details to be one of the significant things people read about them, sometimes not. Ultimately it's not for us to decide and if people say stuff they later regret we may not be able to help them, but one thing we can do is avoid repeating stuff someone said about themselves if no one else cared about it. And if the only sources are crappy ones like Metro or 3AM of the Daily Mirror, then we can say no one cared about it. (I have not looked at the Telegraph article.) I don't even see how we can use a Metro to source what is being claimed. It supports the existence of an NDA and that the former partner made some vague comments, but it seems to skirt around saying that he was implying he was abused other than the mention of a hashtag. Indeed this illustrates another key point, if the former partner was fairly vague in what he said, perhaps because of the NDA, and the secondary source was interpreting what he said (including the context of it coming from her arrested) we are not simply reporting what he said. In fact we're reporting the secondary sources interpretations of what was said. So it's even more important that we only use sources we can trust to make such interpretations. I would add that even if it was a simple reporting of something said, we have to have a degree of confidence that the sources are accurately reporting this which unfortunately is not the case for some tabloids. While the Daily Mirror is perhaps not quite as bad as the Daily Mail, the information available suggest especially for the 3AM this confidence is likely misplaced. While I personally believe the Daily Mirror seems to be accurately in their assessment of what was being said in this particular case, I'm still not willing to say it's okay to use it to source material about any living person. (And again, if only the Daily Mirror and Metro cared about this, then WTF do we?) Nil Einne (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    • P.S. I should clarify I don't personally know much about 3AM. However editors I trust suggest it isn't particularly reliable and our article The 3AM Girls suggests at one stage they were readily completely rewriting stuff said to them. To be fair this appears to have been quite a while ago and perhaps things have improved since then, I don't know but ultimately it seems very far from a source we can trust to accurately report what people have said, let alone interpret statements when the situation requires it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
• Thanks for rhe clarification but then to be clear, is it ever allowed to quote what someone has said in a newspaper? On the basis that they might regret it later in life. Surely that can't be the case?

It seems so far we needed a source (we have one,The Telegraph) and we needed at most two years from the death of the individual, which we have. Does anyone object to reverting the edit and including the information in question? Olyus

Giorgia Meloni

In the second paragraph under Personal Life, a number of highly subjective and contentions claims are made about the subject using no source. The first three sentences of the paragraph are uncited. The fourth sentence is cited to a single source, and the fifth sentence is cited to a second source that is simply derived from the single source as well.

Per the BLP policy, "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—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This would apply to the first three sentences of the second paragraph.

Also per the BLP policy "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". In order for this to be observed, I would suggest that the phrasing needed for the fourth and fifth sentences should be along the lines of "The NYT claims xyz", and "France24 claims xyz". Otherwise, either of those sentences is just repeating sensationalist subjective interpretations as fact. Moreover, either of those sentences bears scant relevance in the larger context of the article and would be better off just being removed.

The paragraph in question was removed by a moderator approximately two days ago, but was quickly reinserted by a contributor with slightly modified wording. Subsequent attempts to have it removed were denied by a moderator who declines to recognize the content as hearsay and libel. Per the BLP policy that states "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing", it would be worth considering preventing the contributor from adding this content again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyno99 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The first three sentences are supported by the New York Times and France24 articles even though they are not cited after every sentence. Both are reliable sources and do not need attribution. I don't see anything that is sensationalist about Meloni being a Tolkien fan or even that her views may be shaped from Tolkien. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You don't see anything sensationalist about an overt hit piece subjectively claiming an elected official is somehow emulating young adult fantasy fiction in how they are running a government for millions of people, and that an entire political sphere's history was also somehow architected around the same. Got it. So much for neutrality. Dyno99 (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

No opinion on Meloni, but it's really odd to describe Tolkien's stuff as "young adult". Please see Literary reception of The Lord of the Rings. Bon courage (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that Meloni's government is "emulating" the Lord of the Rings and doesn't claim that the entire Italian right was "architected around" Lord of the Rings, and nobody seems to be arguing that the article should claim those things. Is there anything that the article actually says which you object to? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does all of those things by implication, clear as day, and that is the precise purpose of either article. The France 24 article (which is just parroting the NYT article) is entitled "Inspired by Tolkien, Meloni is on a quest for Italy’s ‘ring of power’". The NYT: "Hobbits and the Hard Right: How Fantasy Inspires Italy's Potential New Leader". They're not serious journalism, it's like Wikipedia citing the Babylon Bee. They are laughably sensationalist hit pieces that fabricate motive from a few alleged quotes. The entire rest of the BLP I take no issue with, but the paragraph in question is naked drivel in violation of BLP policies and unencyclopedic. Dyno99 (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

There's this piece in Le Monde.[21] It does seem like she's a massive Tolkien fan, and that she sees Tolkien's fictional world as relevant to politics. Bon courage (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. I note that was just published today, putting it in strong suspicion of being another parrot of the prior two articles which are a few days old. Nothing unusual about being a Tolkien fan. But the extrapolation to using fantasy in government is hyperbolic and would need to be addressed directly with the subject to become encyclopedic, not left to the imagination of one or a couple paid writers. Just trying to observe the policy, this is a biography of a living person we're talking about. Dyno99 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Well Ronald Reagan governed with the aid of astrology, so compared to that using a LoTR template for government seems relatively sane. More to the point, if this is what a lot of reliable sources are saying it's due content and its suppression would be the WP:BLP problem. Bon courage (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

No, our article saying that Meloni is a "fan of fantasy" does not imply that her policies are "emulating young adult fantasy fiction" any more than our article on Tony Blair saying that he is a "fan of Newcastle United football club" implies that his policies were "emulating football". If you seriously believe that the New York Times is no more reliable than a satire website with the strapline "fake news you can trust" then you will excuse me for doubting your judgement on what is and is not "naked drivel". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"How Fantasy Inspires Italy's ... Leader"? Meloni's "quest"? You can't retract published words. These are not articles simply saying Meloni is fan of fantasy. The article certainly reads like the Babylon Bee, if you choose to associate that with the entire NYT then that's up to you. Dyno99 (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This looks like you just don't like what they say. That you think AFP and The New York Times are "not serious journalism", I think it says it all. Davide King (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Perfectly exemplifies the problem, thanks for your contribution King. You've misused quoting somebody and inserted your own imagination. Just like the articles did with the subject. Reading comprehension can be improved, there's always that. Discuss the BLP, spare the prattling around with personal attacks, that's in the guidelines. Dyno99 (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to AFP and The New York Times as a whole as "not serious journalism" but you meant only those two specific articles? If so, my bad but my point still stands; it looks like you just don't like what they say, and I still don't see how they're slanders or BLP violations. They're relevant because RS linked it to her politics but, as Caeciliusinhorto-public nicely put it "our article saying that Meloni is a 'fan of fantasy' does not imply that her policies are 'emulating young adult fantasy fiction' any more than our article on Tony Blair saying that he is a 'fan of Newcastle United football club' implies that his policies were 'emulating football'." Davide King (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, just the two articles, appreciate your reconsideration on that. The denial of implication is baldly false, there is no interpretation to be had regarding an article entitled "Inspired by Tolkien, Meloni is on a quest for Italy’s ‘ring of power’". What the hell is Italy's ring of power, how ridiculous. This is an elected PM, that is the epitome of slander, and not just to her but to the Italian electorate. The second paragraph in Personal Life is tabloid, sensationalist, and at the very least questionable; any of the three of which requires it to be removed per BLP policy, as explicitly stated in the policy. The longer it stays on there, the more the editors have knowingly abused WP's mission.

If someone wanted to say only that she's a fan of fantasy, then say only that. Rather unremarkable, but fine. It doesn't require the current second paragraph in Personal Life, wandering all over aspersions and referencing the history of a political group.

As a side point, I would wager the farm that were Meloni to be asked if she were on a quest for Italy's ring of power, as inspired by Tolkien... if she deigned to respond, she would say no. Anyone rational would join that wager. This is a BLP. Not a gossip column. Until such time as she's been asked such questions in full and given her full reply, the paragraph does not remotely belong on WP. 98.0.40.31 (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Meloni said some nice things about Benito Mussolini when she was 19 years old, which is pretty extraordinary, and I don’t mind including it in the lead’s last paragraph despite her young age at the time. But we also need some NPOV. She’s also said that she “unambiguously condemns the suppression of democracy and the ignominious anti-Jewish laws” that existed prior to 1945. I’ve added that to the Mussolini bit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Does her praise of Mussolini when she was 19 years old really belong in the lede? I think we have enough in the lede that describes her political leanings without mentioning it. Thriley (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

If it does go in the lead, giving the year (1996) is better than nothing, but we ought to explicitly say she was a teenager (or 19), instead of forcing readers to do the math, which most probably won’t bother to do. Not only is the relevance of her age at that time blindingly obvious, but it’s also headline material, see Ritchie, Alice and Branchereau, Gael. “Italy’s Giorgia Meloni: From teen activist who praised Mussolini to brink of power”, Times of Israel (26 Sep 2022). Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Body, yes, lead, no. One controversial statement as a teenager is simply not relevant for the lead in any biography. It's mentioned in RS, but mainly as a tool for effect, such as in the headline you gave. The article itself spends two sentences on the matter, and notes she took back the statement in 2006. Also of note, Mussolini is not quite as disliked in Italy as in the rest of the world, so excessive weight on this statement constitutes American and European bias. I've removed the statement from the lead, but won't contest its reinstatement. Ovinus (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I find it more concerning what the lead says she’s done in 2020 than decades ago when she was a teenager. The lead says that in *2020* she praised a former “Nazi collaborator”. Here’s my comment about it at this BLP’s talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Body yes, lead yes. When she founded her party 'Brothers of Italy'(FdL) in 2012, Meloni decided to add the tricolour flame to the party flag, a symbol associated with MSI, which derived its name and ideals from the RSI as a "violent, socialising, and revolutionary republican" variant of Italian fascism established as a Nazi German puppet state by Mussolini in 1943. Also the tricolour flame represents Mussolini's remains (for FdL supporters), where a flame is always burning on Mussolini's tomb in Predappio. Recently, a senator and Holocaust survivor, Liliana Segre asked Meloni for this reason to remove the tricolour flame from her party symbol/flag. Below sources about the news of senator Liliana Segre requesting Meloni to remove the tricolour flame from her party flag:

https://www.open.online/2022/08/12/elezioni-politiche-2022-segre-fiamma-tricolore-meloni/

https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2022/08/12/liliana-segre-e-pd-chiedono-a-meloni-di-togliere-la-fiamma-tricolore-dal-simbolo-di-fdi-partiamo-dai-fatti-non-dalle-parole/6760622/

https://milano.repubblica.it/cronaca/2022/08/12/news/liliana_segre_giorgia_meloni_fascimo_fiamma_logo-361417631/ 79.66.217.217 (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

your edit summaries are disingenuous. For example, “Meloni was 19 years old, not a minor. Over 18, for Italian law people are recognised as adult!”. But the material you deleted did not say or suggest she was a minor. Same for this edit summary of yours: “she was 19, not a teenager” is nonsensical because 19 *is* a teenager, in the English language, between 13 and 19 inclusive is a teenager. You apparently want to obscure how young she was when she praised Mussolini. Her praise for Mussolini can be in the lead, but *only* with caution. WP:BLP applies here: “Biographies of living persons (‘BLPs’) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.” It is cautious to not assume readers will do the math as to her age. Our sources are careful to say her age (even in the headline). Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

No, my edits are not disingenuous and I have always sourced my edits with articles from the most important newspapers in Italy and recognised historiographic sources. Previously, I changed her age from 17, which was not true. In another edit, I removed the term "when she was a teenager", because in Italy 'being teenager' is used mainly as someone below the Age of majority (referring to the threshold of adulthood recognised by the law). we are not talking about something related to the transitional stage of physical and psychological development. So, I struggled to understand what you are referring to. You posted the same article over and over from an Israeli newspaper, which clearly is not a primary source. Regarding Meloni's praise on Mussolini, I reported above sources on the controversy with senator and Holocaust survivor Liliana Segre about the tricolour flame and its connection to Mussolini. So, nothing to do with tabloid, sensationalism or titillating claims about people's lives!79.66.217.217 (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this edit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The early political life of politicians is relevant if it is the starting point of their political career. Meloni became national youth leader of the MSI at 19 and has continued in far right politics ever since. Another prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, joined the NZ Labour Party at 17 and her early involvement with them is mentioned, including her leadership of the International Union of Socialist Youth, although she was 27 at the time. That's in her article. The only difference I see is that people in Fascist successor parties publicly try to distance themselves from Fascism.

The Tolkien stuff seems due because it has now gained coverage in several sources. The only reason not to mention it is that some readers might consider it an odd interest for a mature adult. But it does seem to be a major passion of hers.

TFD (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I concur on the starting points of political careers. On the literature preferences, I would point out that there is no longitudinal aspect of the coverage. The sources that discuss it were all published in the last couple weeks. Seems pretty clear there's been a game of parrot among aligned publications, as often happens (not particular to any side of reporting, it just happens in general), and the likelihood of that kind of coverage expanding over the course of years and into diverse species of publication/discourse is probably low. I would argue that needs to be taken into consideration in assessing what weight it has in the article, and in this case would imply very small weight. If she suddenly starts carrying a sword around, however, the case would be clearer. Dyno99 (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Faron Medhi, pageants GS

• Faron Medhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Needs protection, anon editor or editors changing birth date repeatedly without citation. Target may be covered by WP:GS/PAGEANTS. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Ghanshyam Sarda

{{Notability}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love696969 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Tom Fitton

The article is poorly-sourced, unduly negative, includes false information, contains information that is irrelevant or otherwise not worth including, and is not neutral. The article repeatedly and falsely accuses me of disseminating false information, and presents a distorted, biased view of my activities. This page has been hijacked by political actors who are using this site to smear me and present a defamatory depiction, This both damages my reputation and the reputation of Judicial Watch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.163.93.127 (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• It doesn't look poorly sourced to me, to be honest - the sources are reliable ones, and it doesn't appear to have any false information in it. Whether it is slanted in any way is something you would need to discuss on the talk page. As an aside, I suspect the "reputation" of Judicial Watch is one that doesn't really need the help of Wikipedia to damage. Black Kite (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Svante Pääbo

More eyes needed here. There has been a lot labelling and speculations about his nationality and ethnicity recently. The sources used supports the fact that he has an Estonian mother and a Swedish father but no more details are given and anything beyond that should not be taken for granted. He is referred to as Swedish in all the references. Currently there is a claim that he holds a dual citizenship, Swedish and Estonian. This is not supported by any source rather its bulit on the logic that other individuals of Estonian decent possess this nationality so it must be ture in this case too. As per the BLP policies this kind of unsourced material must be removed. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Watchlisted for now. An IP editor removed Estonian origin from the lead, citing MOS:ETHNICITY. A new reverted that as "vandalism". Huh? Politrukki (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity should stay out of the lead sentence unless it is the reason for the subject's notability or they have dual citizenship ect per MOSBIO. I started the discussion on the talk page which is where this should be. --Malerooster (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Children are not playing nicely and worse, they are not even using the talk page? Unfortunately, more adults/eyes are needed. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Adam Levine

Arbitration needed: I and several other editors have suggested adding to the article's Personal Life section a summary of Adam Levine's recent infidelity scandal, since at this point it's been widely reported on by multiple non-tabloid news outlets for over a week and is, I feel, a significant and notable development in the subject's public life. A user on the talk page, AndyTheGrump, vehemently disagrees, arguing that this violates BLP rules on gossip, that the story is not significant, and that it should either not be included or limited to a single sentence. I feel this is unreasonable, that the story is notable and that one sentence is not nearly enough to accurately, fairly, and coherently present the relevant information and convey the scope of the media attention this has gotten. Can we get a third opinion on this? Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that the text Invisiboy42293 proposed to add to the article was 236 words long (counted by LibreOffice). The entire 'personal life' section of the Levine biography is currently 330 words. By any reasonable standard this would be grossly unbalanced in any article, never mind one where, per WP:BLP policy, we are required to write "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy", and avoid "titillating claims". AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the issue, but consider WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I did, and in fact I brought it up on the talk page. In my opinion, the situation is complex enough and has received enough substantial media attention (not only being covered by everyone from Rolling Stone to the Los Angeles Times and every news outlet in between, but becoming a meme on social media and being used in marketing by several prominent brands) that I feel a paragraph at minimum is proportionate. As far as Andy's claims above, I don't feel that what I submitted is unduly long for describing a celebrity scandal of this nature in a BLP article (Arnold Schwarzenegger comes to mind, among several others), I don't feel it's violating the subject's privacy to document something that's been so widely publicized and which the subject himself has publicly acknowledged, and I don't feel I made any "titillating claims" (I was very careful to specify which things were allegations and to avoid sensationalism as much as possible). If there's a good reason not to include this information in the article, I can't think of it. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the proposed diff? Wikipedia shouldn't be putting too much weight on WP:BLPGOSSIP if the allegations are unverified. The best example of whether these types of allegations are significant and notable is Tiger Woods when they notably disrupted his career and personal life. Even then, the scandal is about 1/3 of of his personal life section and focused on its fallout. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The allegations are pretty much verified (Levine has admitted to sending inappropriate DMs while married, it's only the in-person affair he's denied), but also is that strictly necessary if the article clearly distinguishes what's been alleged from verifiable fact (i.e. "Person alleged/ claimed that X happened" rather than "X happened" or "Person revealed X", which I made sure to do in the diff I proposed on the talk page)? In any case, like I've said, the story has gotten enough major WP:RS news coverage and confirmation from the subject to distinguish it from unverified tabloid gossip, I feel it's a significant development in the subject's life and very likely to cause that notable disruption you mentioned if it hasn't already, and I think there's more than enough precedent on other celebrity BLP articles to justify proportionate coverage here.

I will admit that my original proposed diff was a bit too wordy and contained some unnecessary details; another user on the talk page suggested some cuts and they're ones I don't mind making. My issue was more with Andy's insistence on cutting it down to a single sentence, as I feel that's neither adequate to summarize the situation nor accurately reflects the weight and notability of the story. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

'Weight and notability'? For 'inappropriate DMs' and an evidence-free claim of an affair that none of the sources cited are willing to suggest actually took place? You may well 'feel' that this is 'a significant development in the subject's life', but that is of precisely zero significance, We don't base article content on contributors speculations about future events. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion, and I think I've pretty clearly established that I'm not asserting notability solely based on predictions; it already more than meets notability criteria. Regardless of whether you or I or anyone else think him sexting women while married and allegedly having an affair is worth talking about, nearly every major news source for the past week seems to think that it is, and by Wikipedia standards that makes it notable and worthy of inclusion. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Well yes, the media reporting this no doubt thinks it is 'worth talking about' now. They wouldn't publish it otherwise. That however isn't in any way evidence of long-term significance for Levine. And you have failed to cite any sources suggesting it might be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the notable disruption or impact for Levine? Tiger's scandal led to a divorce, loss of endorsements, and interrupted his playing career. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean I'd say having his extramarital sexting and an alleged affair being publicized by every major news outlet to the point he had to issue an official statement is a pretty notable disruption, but also why is that the criteria? When it's reached this level o f major media coverage and public exposure, is it not notable regardless of whether it derails his life and career? Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

WP is a summary work and we consider what is enduring coverage about a person, particularly for BLP. This right now is gossipmonger as a burst of news but no sign it is enduring (affecting Levine's career, for example). Masem (t) 23:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Because BLPs are to be written conservatively rather than sensationalist. BLPGOSSIP cautions whether the material or allegation is presented as being true. It's not; because the RSes don't know. The allegations do exist, but are they relevant to a disinterested article about Levine? That's where the impact of the allegations is important. Otherwise, not every facet of his life needs to be included even if verified per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Yet more junk celebrity gossip that has no place in an encyclopedia. The other 99.99% of the internet can worry about this crap. Come back in 5 years and see whether it's discussed by reliable sources as having any impact on his life or livlihood. Slywriter (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

There's definitely interest from the general public in including content like this, as per this 2019 Washington Post story, but I agree that Wikipedia's BLP "personal life" sections should not be a collection of tabloid gossip. If Levine's marriage breaks up after this maybe this is worth inclusion as background context, but at the moment I agree that it's not due. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Y'all are repeating this rule about it needing to be "enduring coverage"; I'm looking at WP:BLP right now and I'm not seeing that criteria anywhere, nor have I ever seen it on any other guideline page. Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia being editable that articles can be updated with new information as it happens rather than being incomplete and outdated? Why on Earth should a development being covered by the Los Angeles Times, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, NBC News, Esquire, Gizmodo, and HuffPost (just to name a few); that was significant enough for the subject to release a statement in response to; that is very clearly relevant to the subject's personal life; and that doesn't violate a single Wikipedia guideline I'm aware of, be kept on a shelf because of the possibility that it'll be forgotten and not drastically change his life - something that hasn't stopped countless celebrity scandals from being included in articles mere hours after they happened? Since when is a website that has an entire article on the Personal life of Lindsay Lohan above documenting relevant and credibly sourced celebrity news? Pardon me for assuming bad faith but this is sounding less like wanting to maintain Wikipedia's quality of standard and more like just knee-jerk elitism. This doesn't violate anything in WP:NOTGOSSIP nor WP:BLPGOSSIP and I have seen no valid reason not to include it. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record, this is literally all I was planning to include (trimmed from the original at another user's suggestion and my own discretion):

"On September 19, 2022, Instagram model Summer Stroh alleged in a now-deleted TikTok video that she had had a year-long affair with "a man who’s married to a Victoria’s Secret model", presenting screenshots of sexual and flirtatious messages she claimed were sent by Levine. Levine released a statement the following day, admitting he had "crossed the line during a regrettable period in my life" but denying Stroh's claims of an affair, which Stroh contested. Subsequently, three more women - model Alyson Rosef, comedian Maryka, and Levine's former yoga instructor Alanna Zabel - also alleged that Levine had sent them sexual Instagram messages while he was in relationships. As a result of the media attention, the alleged screenshots of Levine's messages quickly became a widespread Internet meme, to the point of being used in social media marketing by brands including Velveeta, KFC, and Denny's."

With the following sources:

• https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2022-09-21/adam-levine-yoga-instructor-flirting-cheating-emily-ratajkowski
• https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/adam-levine-sumner-stroh-affair-allegation-denial-1234596388/
• https://ew.com/celebrity/adam-levine-responds-affair-allegations/
• https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/adam-levine-denies-affair-instagram-model-get-dictionary-1235142323/
• https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/adam-levine-cheating-instagram-dms-meme-rcna48906
• https://gizmodo.com/adam-levine-sext-instagram-advertising-brands-food-ads-1849572235

Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

And what is missing there is anything that even remotely suggests that this is going to have any long-term consequences for Levine's career, or for anything else. In 'the good old days, before the internet' this sort of story was referred to as budgie-cage lining. Read it once. Then put it in the cage, for the bird to poop on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, you nor anyone else here has show me why "long-term consequences" should be a prerequisite for adding notable information, nor any evidence that Wikipedia policy requires such a thing. This sounds a lot more like you personally not caring about the story, which is not the same as it not being notable. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with WP:NOTGOSSIP does not mean it does not have broad consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with WP:NOTGOSSIP as a policy, I'm saying it doesn't apply here because the notability of this story (both in the general Wikipedia sense and just basic logic of "alleged infidelity is a significant development in anyone's life, especially a celebrity") is pretty easily established. If it were only being covered by gossip sites and tabloids that'd be one thing, but it's very clearly not. And I have no idea why this needs to be a radical change in the man's life and career to be worth including. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTGOSSIP: "Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." To my mind this eminently meets both of those criteria when even the social media response to it is being covered by major news outlets (see the Gizmodo and NBC articles above). Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus in this thread that the material should not appear in the BLP. After failing to get it included here the user seems intent on getting it into the talk. I think that this thread should be closed and oversighted. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC).

The suggestion to oversight here is baffling. This allegation has received major media coverage, nothing here remotely rises to the level of oversighting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Oversighting this discussion is not justified. That being said, this is nothing more than sleazy clickbait garbage and Wikipedia should not emulate the gutter standards of the gossip pages of contemporary media outlets and social media platforms where people make big money by enticing gullible people into immersing themselves in lurid details of the personal failings of celebrities. Levine is 43 years old and has been famous for 20 years. The relevant guideline here is WP:10YEARTEST. We all know that obsessives yearn to read this content right now, but will a reader in 2032 think that this incident deserves hundreds of words of coverage? I do not think so. Cullen328 (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP states Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced. There is no indication that the statement does not apply to this talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC).

it’s not unsourced or poorly sourced though 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 16:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay but I'm not suggesting hundreds of words of coverage; I'm suggesting one four-sentence paragraph that, by my count, comes to 143 words. How is that undue weight when, again, this is being covered by multiple non-tabloid RS sources? We may think it's trashy celebrity drama (and I wouldn't disagree, although I refer again to the entire article on Lindsay Lohan's personal life), but why should personal distaste dictate whether something is notable or suitable for inclusion?

As far as the 10 Year Test, how on Earth is anyone supposed to predict that? Obviously some things are blatantly trivial, but if Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch is still well-remembered almost two decades later, why should we assume that this highly publicized development in a famous man's personal life will be forgotten over time? There's no reason to assume that except baseless cynicism (which I'm usually a fan of but it's not exactly objective). Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you're underestimating just how many reliable, non-tabloid sources have covered the incident 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 09:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Some more reliable sources that have covered it which haven't been mentioned: CNN, ABC, WIRED, The Independent, People. 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 16:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record I never tried to add this to the article, that was someone else. All I did was weigh in on a talk page conversation that Andy here was having with some other users, it spiraled and that's how I ended up here. It's honestly wild to me that I've had to go to this much trouble over Adam Levine of all people. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

And yet you have made 28 edits trying to insert this trash into this biography of a living person, even while several highly experienced editors and administrators are telling you that you are on the wrong track. Please ponder that. Invisiboy42293. Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As per WP:ADMIN, "[administrators are] not more important than the other editors" 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 09:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

...but apparently this week's media tittle-tattle is more important than last week's. Or next week's... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for your hypothetical situation? 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 16:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any policy-based arguments as to why this discussion should not stop here, since there is a clear consensus against including the disputed content? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know if there’s a policy for/against it, but i don’t think the discussion should close after only a day; other editors could reply later. BTW, i wanna apologize if any of my replies came off as rude 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 17:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

My edits are all on talk pages, not the article itself; "trash" is highly subjective and opinionated; my interests are purely in Wikipedia articles being as up-to-date and comprehensive as reasonably possible (I promise I do not give that much of a shit about the Maroon 5 guy's sex life); and my bafflement is simply that what (to me) seems like it should be a clean-cut uncontroversial addition of new notable material has devolved into countless edits and litigation and hostility for reasons that (to me) seem like barely concealed elitist snobbery and nose-upturning over "trashy celebrity gossip" unconvincingly masquerading as giving a shit about Wikipedia's quality, adherence to guidelines and precedent, and what a general audience would find notable.

I am well out of energy to continue arguing this and am more than happy to give up and forget about all of this, but let the record show that I think this is a ridiculous farce, I think the consensus is absurd and based on nothing but rampant elitist editorializing, and this whole experience has reminded me why I barely ever involve myself in Wikipedia anymore. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Invisiboy42293, when you write my interests are purely in Wikipedia articles being as up-to-date and comprehensive as reasonably possible, then that inevitably leads to content like "Celebrity A was spotted dining with celebrity B at romantic restaurant C" and "Baseball player D dropped two easy pop fly balls and got booed by the fans" and "Politician E got a hefty ticket for driving 35 MPH in a 25 MPH school zone, which endangered children" and "Pop star F sent flirtatious text messages to several women who are not his wife and was widely mocked on social media". Editors who are experienced at enforcing BLP policy will not readily accept this kind of content. If we lower our standards, we will be swamped by pernicious gossip. Overwhelmed. What we need more of is good editorial judgment. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I wanna add that SNL has now done a skit about it 1 2 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 09:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328@AndyTheGrump Would you guys be okay with 1-2 sentences of the controversy getting added into his personal life section? Although i personally believe the proposal by Invisiboy would be better, i think at least something should be added. 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 17:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

One or two sentences is just right. Trillfendi (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• comment I would leave it out for NOW. Somebody asked how will we know this is a big deal in 10 years? Well, wait a spell. What is the rush? If in 6 months this has some ramifications, then revisit it. In 6 months people are like what are you talking about and have no memory of this then there you go. I actually wouldn't mind if we waited a full year to see if these stories really deserve mention in bios, but thats me. --Malerooster (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  Just coming back to reiterate what an absolute farce I think this all is. Mountains of WP:RS coverage, multiple accusers and the subject acknowledging it publicly, viral memes cover by mainstream media, acknowledged by several major corporations in advertising, an SNL skit parodying it a week after the fact, clearly demonstrated public interest, obviously relevant to the subject's marriage and public image, meets all of Wikipedia's notability guidelines....but we're supposed to hold off for six months to a year because of an impossible-to-refute ten year speculation on what people will remember? When did Wikipedia become a crystal ball?

  I maintain: On a site that extensively covers the controversies of Kanye West and Azealia Banks and has a whole separate article on the Personal life of Lindsay Lohan, there is zero plausible reason not to devote at least 2-4 sentences to this. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that from September 19 to September 24 (when the controversy was being reported on), the page views for Adam Levine's page increased by 640K. For context, the 25th most viewed page that week had received 711K page views. 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 18:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that the aforementioned WP:10YEARTEST that so much of this discussion has been rooted is explicitly described as a "suggestion" and a "thought experiment" for dealing with recentism - it is not presented as a hard and fast policy rule nor as a invitation for editors to speculate what will and will not be relevant in ten years. There is no reason it should trump Wikipedia's actual notability guidelines. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Our notability guidelines are based on enduring coverage, not a burst of coverage. That's 100% in line with writing for the 10-year view. If you want to write like a newspaper, Wikinews is thataway. --Masem (t) 22:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Marnie Hughes-Warrington

Controversy section contains unverified information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.110.243.226 (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

If you mean this content that you removed,[22] the allegations themselves are verified by RS. The question is whether they are relevant to the person's notability per WP:NPF. Why was this incident covered extensively by the Sydney Morning Herald[23],Canberra Times[24], and The Australian[25] ? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Given the vice-chancellor's seeming low notability, I have nominated the article for deletion.[26] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Giorgia Meloni (again)

There is a sort of edit war going on, I summarized the problem in Talk:Giorgia Meloni#Immigration. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This BLP is a mess. The main authors are not Meloni fans (which is fine) but their POV is very obvious in their editorial choices. More eyes would be helpful if they are neutral eyes. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Time to semi-protect Hans Niemann again

There have been multiple WP:BLP violating edits to Hans Niemann over the last day or so. For example:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_Niemann&type=revision&diff=1114383643&oldid=1114330326
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_Niemann&type=revision&diff=1114410519&oldid=1114409510
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_Niemann&type=revision&diff=1114253186&oldid=1114251894

While established editors have been reverting the IP edits pretty quickly, I think the issue has gotten significant enough that we need to semi-protect the article again. Samboy (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Good idea, Samboy. It's also worth discussing how definitively the newer allegations from Chess.com should be stated. It's clear that the report itself should not even be linked to; WP:BLPSPS applies. And until we have corroborations from multiple, independent analysts not from Chess.com, I think the information cited to WSJ should be stubbed to one or two sentences, perhaps removed entirely. This is serious stuff. Also see Carlsen–Niemann controversy, which will probably need more eyes as well. Ovinus (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I see being quoted in WSJ ect. basically irrelevant in relation to whether it should be mentioned in the wikipedia article.

I get your point of taking it out...basically the report isn't reliable, right? the problem is it seems like that is important enough to be mentioned. Just my two cents Bedfordres (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS is extremely clear: 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. That it's quoted in the WSJ is important, though, as it's arguable that they have "republished" some of the information in the Chess.com report. But the degree to which WSJ independently reviewed the material's accuracy is unclear. In any case, I strongly oppose any graphics/data taken from the report being included (I removed some) as there is clearly no oversight there. Ovinus (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

In the interests of erring on the side of caution, I’ve reduced the chess.com report to a one sentence mention in the middle of Hans Niemann that he cheated online as a juvenile. There are more WP:GENREL sources on the report than WSJ: NPR, CNN, and The Guardian have posted articles which discuss the report, so it’s likely we can include more material from the chess.com report as long as it reflects what multiple WP:GENREL WP:SECONDARY sources say. I’ve also opened up a talk page discussion at Talk:Hans Niemann Samboy (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no comment on the specific issue but I don't think BLPSPS requires that secondary sources quoting the self published source need to have independently verified their claims before we can include them. We trust them to decide if claims need independent verification just as we do when they use any other sources they use. However we need to take great care and carefully consider whether it's worth including if the sources are simply quoting the self published source rather than publishing it in their own voice. Nil Einne (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Ye. The WSJ and CNN pieces (haven't read the rest yet) are rather cautious and never take anything from the report and state it in their "own voice". I'm okay with a sentence or two given the coverage exhibited by Samboy on the article talk, but we need to abstain from giving credence to the single source which they are all referencing. That's why my suggestion is to wait until we have other sources which directly assess the report, its methods, and those methods' merits or lack thereof. Ovinus (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The current state of Hans Niemann is that we have a mention of the chess.com allegations in the lead of the article, along with a note he was 17 the last time he allegedly cheated, along with a sentence saying it doesn’t look like he cheated over the board. I welcome editors making their input known if the current level of coverage (one primary source, four WP:GENREL sources with articles on the chess.com report) merits adding it to the lead (talk page consensus learns towards that, but I’m OK with it either being in the lead, or not being in the lead). Samboy (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

We’re getting in to an edit war over whether to mention all cheating was done when he was 17 or younger in the lead, so I’ve removed all mention of the alleged cheating in the lead again until we can get a better consensus what to put there. Samboy (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of edit warring. I haven't done that. But I think your insistence on mentioning age at the time of the alleged cheating is introducing a personal bias. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the WP:EW accusation, but it’s really important, when editing an article, to look at the talk page and read WP:CONSENSUS first; please “read the room” (the room here on the Wikipedia, not the room over at Reddit) to use a more modern phrasing. Including his age at the time of the alledged cheating is more than a personal insistence. It’s general consensus over at Talk:Hans Niemann. While I don’t like overriding the wishes of another editor, we either a) Not mention the accusations at all in the lead (current state of page) b) Mention the accusations but make it clear he was 17 or younger when they happened (current rough consensus on talk page) or c) Mention the accusations without mentioning the age (I haven’t seen an editor besides MaxBrowne2 support that position over at Talk:Hans Niemann but if someone can show me relevant diffs, I’ll concede this position has more support than the opinion of one editor). Samboy (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Assuming I get my information from reddit and don't know how to "read a room", and then linking me to WP:CONSENSUS as if I'm unfamiliar with that policy is all rather insulting too. A single editor agreeing with your desire to draw attention to his age during his quite recent (2020) online cheating does not equate to a consensus, and to me smacks of making excuses for him. There is no magic age at which someone suddenly becomes mature/responsible. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Gina DiVittorio

I added tags to this article as part of new page review, and the creator removes them. Currently engaging in a discussion, but we are in disagreement about whether this subject is notable (probably, but for one video, really), and if information about other ventures can be included if its not actually documented anywhere. They are using the subject's own TikTok video as a source for this info that should really be better sourced. Please take a look. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This misrepresents that nature of our disagreement and I encourage other editors here to read my recent post on the article's talk page. --CanadianJudoka (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Date of birth in Judy Landers

I reverted addition of an unsourced date of birth to Judy Landers and posted a note on the talk page of the editor who added the date, pointing to Wikipedia:Citing sources and WP:BLPPRIVACY as reasons for needing a citation. The editor re-added an unsourced date of birth and I reverted again, adding a second note on his or her talk page about the need for a valid citation. The editor has added the date again, and I don't know what else to do. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your concern for the subjects privacy and the need to have really good sources for BLPs.

OK. Well, at this point the editor is edit warring (violating the WP:3RR rule), and you could go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and report the situation, particularly since you've tried to talk to them on their talk page. (Since talking by way of edit summaries isn't best, I usually open a thread on the talk page, ping the editor, and ask them (or anybody else who wants) to provide arguments for adding the material, such arguments most always invoking sources. If there's no reply, that's a good data point if you have to report the editor for edit warring.

On the merits, if the birthdate is accurate there's not really much of a WP:BLPPRIVACY argument for not including it, I don't think. Birth dates are generally included if there's no known objection by the person and no reason to believe the person would object (by a public statement for instance, or any other reason). Landers is, or was, a "glamour" actress ("known for her ditzy persona and her busty figure") and those sometimes like to play cute with their ages... but I think it's a bridge too far to conclude anything on that basis alone.

Per WP:BLPPRIVACY you could list just the year (1958), but I I don't think you have to -- Landers may be marginal, but she's not a private person, she's a celebrity, and not really the sort of case that the prescription to just provide the year to prevent identity theft is meant for, I don't think.

So as to sources.. this is really a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard matter, altho the point that BLP material needs really firms sourcing is well taken.

I'm finding like two score websites that give Landers' birth date as October 7, 1958, and no sources (that I saw) giving another date or describing her birthdate as disputed or unknown. None of these sites are at all reliable, and web sites do copy vital statistics from each other a lot... none of the sites have sent somebody down to the Philadelphia records archives to verify the date (I don't think most reliable sources usually do this either tho). Still, 40 websites, and no hint anywhere of any dispute... we're pretty sure that October 7, 1958 is her birthdate. (This also seems to be the case for her place of birth and that her name was originally Judy Hamburg, so those facts also are not verified and should perhaps be removed.)

But anyway, we need a reliable source for the reader to determine of we're telling the truth. The best seems to be Rotten Tomatoes, which is famous and much-used website, and is described at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise" and having some sort of fact checking/correction arm. Whether that's good enough for a birthdate in a BLP... You could ask the experts at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, or maybe somebody else here has some thoughts on that. Herostratus (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent discussion on RT for DOB: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_386#Rotten_Tomatoes_celebrities_section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

For clarity we do not evaluate how famous someone is when considering whether BLPPRIVACY applies. We only evaluate whether the sourcing is sufficient to establish the claim is already well known. At best we only consider fame indirectly namely I would perhaps be willing to accept BLPPRIVACY does not apply if we have one very good source with the birthdate and there are a lot of sources which are probably not RS suggesting we aren't going to be significantly responsible for spreading the detail. However even then, we still need very good source for the birthdate to establish it's already a well known fact about the person rather than just something some sources which are barely enough for BLP mention. While I appreciate it can be weird for some editors when a birthdate of some famous person is in lots of crappy sources but in no good ones and so we exclude it or when it's on one okay source but no where else but the person is "famous", ultimately it's not for us to judge why sources didn't care about a biographical detail some editors consider essential. The only case really really evaluate how "famous" someone is to a degree besides WP:NOTABILITY itself is WP:BLPCRIME. Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Teblick: @Nil Einne: Well, right, I don't think Rotten Tomatoes is reliable enough for any BLP material. Close maybe, but not good enough. So yes, I suppose birthdate should not be include din this article nor should birthname or place of birth. I'd bet that a good percentage of birthdates don't have any better sourcing, but this one happened to come across someone's desk, so it should go, along with alleged birth name and place of birth.

As to the other, for my part, I consider a number of factors for BLP sourcing. I think you need different levels of confidence in the sources for "He was involved in several DUI incidents" and "He was born in Altoona". I think there's a difference between really famous and/or public persons than marginal private persons. I believe that BLP does support both those differences. I also think there's a continuum rather than a sharp GO/NOGO divide as to how public a person is, and "how famous" is a factor in that, and that the legal definition of a person as private or public (used for libel laws) isn't the same as the common public definition we should use. I know a lot of people are "we got a good source, we publish" but it can be more complicated than that sometimes IMO. Herostratus (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Lanfranco Cirillo

Lanfranco Cirillo, the architect of Putin’s Palace and homes for various oligarchs now has an article. The article was put into article space by an editor that isn’t observing neutrality as none of Cirillo’s various scandals and legal issues are mentioned. I’d appreciate some eyes on the article. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Just realized this should really be on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Just posted this there. Thriley (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sidney Cooke

Two newish users adding unreferenced cats about his sexuality. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, socks banned. Article is in its pre-sock condition. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Jess Margera

I would appreciate if project members here could conduct a thorough assessment of the Jess Margera page, which is poorly sourced, poorly written, and of questionable notability. Efforts to constructively edit the page in even minor ways, including my own effort today, are met by resistance from User talk:FMSky and User talk:Rift, who both routinely project ownership over this and other pages, issue harshly-worded "warnings" to editors who are making reasonable and constructive edits, and both delete and are unresponsive to substantive talk page notifications from other editors about their editing patters. My short-lived effort to resolve the concerns was met with a stone wall of resistance, and others may prove more effective at this point. Keystone18 (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Keystone18, your first step should be to open a discussion about the changes you want to make at Talk:Jess Margera. You can find some good advice at WP:BRD. Cullen328 (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

My read of this is that it is Keystone that is the disruptive element here. The infobox template has an origin= parameter which is for where the musical group originated, but that is not the same as a birthplace, which Keystone is fighting to change despite the two named editors pointing out these instructions. Masem (t) 00:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I am disengaging from the page at this point, which is why I have referred it here. Like many other editors who have attempted to make even modest improvements to pages over which User talk:FMSky projects heavy-handed ownership, I was met with total resistance, including abrasive messages, abrupt and thoughtless reversions, and deletion of observations or questions I raised on his/her talk page as I sought to make even modest improvements on it. Maybe others can prove more successful. Keystone18 (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

First, you attempted to insert a birthplace for the article's subject: first unsourced (WP:CITE), secondly with a source not containing the information in question (WP:VERIFY), and lastly with an unreliable source (WP:RS). Additionally, you continued to equate infobox "origin" with "birthplace," even after being provided with the explanation at Template:Infobox_musical_artist. These changes were all reverted, all with explanations given in the edit summaries.

Second, you deleted the sole sources for the subject's birthdate, simply stating "remove Instagram and YouTube as references." Self-published sources are valid per WP:ABOUTSELF if the person in question is speaking about himself, and that is the case with both sources given. That explanation was also provided in the edit summary.

That is the sum of my involvement with the editor above. Rift (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

And no one has used the article talkpage since 2017. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Murder of Don Banfield

Can I get some eyes on this article? I've been working on it and would appreciate one or more sets of eyes looking into improving it based on the BLP principles: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V) and No original research (NOR). The murder convictions of the two women charged with the crime were reversed on appeal, though they were convicted of conspiracy to defraud, forgery and perverting the course of justice as they had pleaded guilty to those charges. I'd appreciate other eyes evaluating the sources cited in the article, particularly the news and newspaper reports, as well as the language used in the article for NPOV. For example, is it necessary to note the residence street and city of the women, at least one of whom is still living? No question that the case and the article are notable, and I think it is appropriate for the encyclopedia, but can use improvement. Thanks for any help. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed the street and city. Cullen328 (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Not a BLP issue, but I'm concerned about the close paraphrasing and outright unattributed copying from sources that seem to be throughout this article. Examples:

• Until 2009 the case was treated by police as a missing person's case, but in that year police re-opened the investigation after his employers became suspicious, and suspicion immediately fell on his wife Shirley Banfield and daughter Lynette Banfield. – BBC says In 2009 police re-opened their investigation and suspicion immediately fell on his wife Shirley, 64, and daughter Lynette, 40. (And less egregiously, the Guardian says Until 2009, police treated him as a missing person [...] The investigation was reopened after his former employer, William Hill, became suspicious.
• After 11 May Shirley and Lynette had then forged documents with his signature on, had fraudulently collected his pension, and had suddenly moved 200 miles away to Yorkshire and then to Kent. (BBC: They found the pair had forged documents with his signature, fraudulently collected his pension and immediately moved house following his disappearance, first to Yorkshire and then to Canterbury in Kent.)
• his post was then intercepted and he found a stash of letters addressed to him hidden behind the sofa, including cheques from William Hill. Nothing like this ever happened before he retired. (Judge's ruling says: His post was intercepted and he found a stash of letters addressed to him behind the sofa including cheques from William Hill. Nothing like this happened prior to his retirement.)

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Article creator Classic Middlesex has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. The user has left a trail of BLP violating articles and edits that also need attention. Dougal18 (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Oof, yeah, there are a bunch of questionable-looking articles here. Their article creations and list of articles by number of edits might be useful to anyone looking to help clean this up... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Kyrie Irving

Los Angeles Lakers (2022-present) 2022-23 season On October 11, 2022, Irving was traded to the Los Angeles Lakers.

This subtext in the "National Team Career" section is incorrect, and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.110.248 (talk)

Fixed! Thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Jonathan Greenblatt (ADL)

I have a COI because I work for ADL, but this edit is a blatant NPOV & BLP violation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Greenblatt&diff=1115520761&oldid=1108395446&diffmode=source

can someone please take a look at this?

OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, OceanicFeeling123. Another editor reverted the edit and I have blocked the IP that made the edit. Cullen328 (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That was bad, good work with reverting and blocking. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 18:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Who belongs in Category:American election deniers?

Category:American election deniers currently contains eleven biographical articles and one about a protest movement. My concern is that many of the biographies have the category included without it being verified in the body or a defining characteristic of the person. For example, Barbara Boxer was recently added to the category by Toa Nidhiki05, though the body of the article does not call her a denier. Do articles, and the sources they cite, need to be explicit in using the term "election denier"? If not, how do we determine who belongs in the category? Local consensus could be the way, but I'd prefer to see some consistency when it comes to this contentious label applied to biographies.

The biographical articles in question:

• Darren Bailey
• Barbara Boxer
• Patrick M. Byrne
• Dan Cox
• Kari Lake
• Mike Lindell
• Doug Mastriano
• Tina Peters (politician)
• Jamie Raskin
• Bennie Thompson
• L. Lin Wood

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Barbara Boxer was the lone Senate vote to overturn the 2004 presidential election. Strictly speaking, I'd assume every American politician who has voted to overturn an election or attempted to do so (efforts were made in 2000, 2004, 2016, and 2020) could be added to the category. Toa Nidhiki05 15:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

To me, the crux of the issue is the "denier" connotes more than just "objector", implying that the objection is warrantless, contra-factual, or bad-faith. For example, I would not categorize someone who denies the legitimacy of the 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine an "election denier". Rather than get into the weeds in local discussions about which objections are legitimate or not, I'd much prefer to see inclusion of the category based on explicit use of the term in reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I strongly object to this concept. Denying the result of an election should be self-evidently qualifying, whether the exact term is used or not. Otherwise, there's no point in having this template. But more specifically - this category is only for American election deniers, not for international ones. Nobody recognizes those fake referendums as legitimate. Toa Nidhiki05 15:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I raised it as an analogy. Sticking with the analogy, I would not add Category:Ukrainian election deniers to biographies of Ukrainians who deny those elections. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Those aren't regarded as real elections, and to equivocate that is silly. Either the category should include all Americans who deny the legitimacy of democratic elections, or it shouldn't exist. Toa Nidhiki05 15:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not equivocating/equating the two cases. I'm saying there's a spectrum of legitimacy when it comes to objecting to elections, or pointing out irregularities, or calling for further inquiry. At the extreme ends of that spectrum are actions that are common-sense and widely-accepted, and actions that are abhorrent and undemocractic. My concern is that your proposed criteria would include the whole spectrum in the category, whereas I would only include one extreme. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I also should not the Stacey Abrams is not currently included in the category, but there's been some back-and-forth editing on including it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll note that Firefangledfeathers is the one who removed it. Toa Nidhiki05 15:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Also Politrukki. In addition to TN05, Doncram added it recently. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This an odd category. Election denier isn’t specified. I’m an election denier when it comes to the legitimacy of North Korea’s elections and I’m an American, so should I be added? Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Nobody belongs in the category. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a database of people we don't like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• As a non-American, it seems very bizarre to me that the list appears to contain practically none of the really famous election deniers who denied the result of the 2020 election. Where is Trump? Trump Jr? Stone? Giuliani? Ginni Thomas? Honestly though, it doesn't seem like a great idea for a category, especially one that contains BLPs. Black Kite (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Seems like deletion might be warranted. Toa Nidhiki05 17:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• It's a crummy category that arguably fails WP:COPDEF, WP:OPINIONCAT and WP:DEFINING. There is no limit to the number of categories that bored, OCD, or agenda-driven Wikipedians could create and place people in. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Well if no one else is gonna do it... Nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_12#Category:American_election_deniers. Endwise (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Soldier F"

"Soldier F" is the pseudonym of a soldier believed to be responsible for the killing of several people in the events of Bloody Sunday (1972). He is the subject of an injunction in the UK preventing publishing of his name. He is also the subject of an ongoing trial, set for mention in November and with a committal hearing set to take place in Northern Ireland, beginning in January 2023. Soldier F has been named in the UK House of Commons and his name was published in Hansard. It is also well known on the streets of Derry. There is currently an RfC taking place on whether he should be named in the article, taking place here.

However, since the RfC started, Soldier F's name has been removed from the article Village (magazine), where it had previously been published; Village magazine, an Irish publication, had published the identities of Soldier F and (the late) Soldier G, and this was covered in the article. Discussion on inclusion/removal taking place on that article is taking place here.

The nub of the issue is whether or not WP:BLPNAME applies. It has been suggested that it would be more appropriate to have the discussion centrally, here, as it would cover both articles. I'll post a notice on both of the mentioned sections, directing people here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the BLP considerations in the Village article should be treated differently than in Bloody Sunday where the RfC is? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Given the potential legal issues and the upcoming trial, can we omit this until the trial is over? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, I understand it would be a case of local consensus, i.e., a discussion here will cover both articles, while a local consensus on one article wouldn't cover the other. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, one of the relevant issues is that WP is not censored. The injunction applies only to the UK. As has been pointed out on the Bloody Sunday talk page, where other such UK injunctions have been in existence, WP has still published names/details of what the injunction sought to keep out of the public domain. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

If the inclusion of the name isn't an issue, then why have oversighters oversighted uses of the name? Given that this person has not been convicted of a crime, and is subject to an upcoming trial, there's good reasons to not include per WP:BLPNAME. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

BLP is a far far stronger policy than NOTCENSORED. The person that has been named has not yet been convicted of said crimes, so we shouldn't be implying that connection ourselves. Masem (t) 23:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm stating upfront that I'm Northern Irish, and this will naturally colour my opinion on this more than most editors.

Bastun is correct, Soldier F's name was an open secret in Northern Ireland as a whole (not just Derry) for decades. I'm fairly certain his name has appeared on at least one Belfast and Derry mural over the last fifty years. He has also been named in both Westminster by Colum Eastwood, and the Dáil by Peadar Tóibín (Irish Times, Belfast Telegraph). Despite this, his name is either still under an injunction, or is treated as being under one by all UK media and most Irish media, though it is unclear which.

When it comes to whether or not BLPNAME applies, I think this sentence: When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. has the most weight. Despite the name being known, and currently citable to both of the parliamentarians, there are as far as I can tell no secondary scholarly sources who have published Soldier F's name. Hansard, while generally accurate, is a primary source. It is a transcription of what was said in the UK Parliament, as such it does not count towards this sentence. Accordingly by a strict reading, and in lack of non-media secondary sources, I believe BLPNAME applies. That Wikipedia is not subject to UK injunctions is immaterial to this discussion.

I also have great sympathy towards NOTCENSORED in this case. And depending on how broadly you read Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus, Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic. it might seem obvious that NOTCENSORED applies. And I think in the case of Soldier G, who was reportedly killed in February 1986 (Irish News), NOTCENSORED would apply.

However, in the case of Soldier F, I don't think NOTCENSORED has precedence over BLPNAME. And despite my own knowledge of the name, my personal desire to see it published, and the obvious encyclopaedic value that publishing the name will have towards the historical record, on balance I think we should not include the name for now. As such I think that the oversight action by TheresNoTime taken in October 2021 at the Bloody Sunday article was the right call with regards to policy and presumption of privacy, and I would recommend it again should an editor add it anywhere on enwiki.

This will change over time though. If Soldier F is convicted after his trial in January and February 2023 (UTV News) he will likely be named, and though it may be morbid to mention this, there will come a point after Soldier F's death where BLPNAME ceases to apply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This approach is also consistent with WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Although a UK injunction (apparently) exists, there is ample precedent for identifying people or issues in WP articles, despite the existence of such orders: the article on Gylfi Sigurðsson mentions his arrest for child sex offences, despite that information being suppressed in the UK. During the superinjunctions affair, we were pretty firm that as soon as one reliable source not subject to a court injunction mentioned suppressed information — like the Sunday Herald was in the case of Ryan Giggs — then inclusion on Wikipedia was permissible. The Pell and Sigurðsson cases indicates that this precedent still applies. It is my contention that WP:BLPNAME does not apply. First, it is not a blanket ban on identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. That policy merely states it is often preferable to omit it (my emphasis). Soldier F was central to events of Bloody Sunday, is subject to an ongoing trial (and not for a crime that merits suppression of the accused's name, lest it identify a victim), and was not a "private individual" during the events of Bloody Sunday - as has been determined by public inquiry, he was acting under orders as a member of the armed forces at the time. Fundamentally, though, we would not be having this discussion in the absence of a court injunction; his name would have been more widely reported, and it would have been included in the article as a matter of course. We have reliable sources naming him - both Hansard and the Dáil record, as well as Village Magazine. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

We definitely shouldn't be naming him of the only sources are the Hansard or the Dáil records. We should never use primary sources in that was per WP:BLPPRIMARY. As to whether Village Magazine is enough, I would lean no especially if the name has apparently been intentionally removed from the source. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The name hasn't been removed from Village magazine. It has been removed from our article on Village magazine. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The official report of a parliamentary body (e.g. Hansard, Congressional Record) is, fundamentally, a reliable source for what is said during the course of parliamentary business. It’s a primary source, true, but a primary source may still reliable. Additionally, we are not directly identifying Soldier F by a certain name, we are saying that Colum Eastwood identified Soldier F by a certain name. It’s a small distinction, but an important one; in the case of Ryan Giggs, the anonymity injunction lasted for nearly a year after he was named in Parliament. However, historically we have not waited for extraterritorial injunctions to expire when reliable sources (secondary or not) identify their subjects (although we do say it’s the RSes making the identification; c.f. Gylfí Sigurðson, who hasn’t actually been charged).

Of course, when there aren’t reliable sources identifying certain people, then that’s different; it’s an open secret who the two long-serving Tory MPs who were arrested for rape are – the small sample size and other particulars makes their identification trivially easily – but at the same time, I would resist fiercely naming them on Wikipedia absent RSes. Indeed, one of the issues with {{sub judice}} is that it can, if used improperly, accidentally lead to serious BLP violations!

We should not beat around the bush; there has been considerable pressure in political circles on these isles since the Good Friday Agreement that, in the pursuit of reconciliation from the Troubles, that a lighter touch should be generally applied to those responsible for atrocities (on both sides).

But that’s fundamentally irrelevant to the question we, as editors, must try to answer. We can’t free of all our biases, but we should try to recognise them. It’s not an attack on any editor’s bona fides to suggest unconscious bias, of course. That’s what WP:CSB is all about. It’s an ongoing process.

The subject where I think there is a decent nugget of debate is over whether Soldier F is a "private individual" for the purposes of BLPNAME. My contention is that he is not, based on the well-demonstrated public notoriety he has had personally in Derry (and diffusely outside of Derry through his regiment) for more than fifty years. Sceptre (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Whoever Soldier F is is definitely not a private individual due to the notoriety, but the person currently being named as the possible Soldier F, before any final ruling of law on the matter, absolutely is a private individual no one has heard of, and thus we must be careful with that name. Obviously we can say a given individual has been ID'ed by the UK government as a possible Soldier F, and will be under evaluation, but we don't name to spell out that name yet. Masem (t) 19:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

As Sideswipe9th and Bastun have mentioned previously in this thread, Soldier F's identity has been an open secret in Derry for the past few decades. Not being from Derry, I cannot personally verify if the name Eastwood said in Hansard is the one known locally, but the Village story indicates that it is.

The most concerning thing here isn't what people are saying in any of these discussions, but the manner and the thoroughness that Soldier F's representatives have in trying to scrub any mention of his name from the internet and sending scare letters to news outlets so they don't print the name. Only publications like Hansard – which have legal immunity to do their job of accurately transcribing the proceedings of Parliament – did otherwise until Village broke ranks. That said, we only need a single RS.

In such a case, then it's vitally important that we do not bow to the same pressure. Wikipedia being uncensored is a fundamental pillar of the encyclopaedia. I'd much rather have people be upset they can't control what happens on an American website than betray such a fundamental principle. Sceptre (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Even taking the case that everyone and their brother "knew" Soldier F's identity, that is not the same as that person being proved under law to be that person. We must be more careful with such allegations. Masem (t) 20:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure this; that person being proved under law to be that person, is accurate when it comes to Northern Irish law. In order for an injunction to be granted, the link between Soldier F and the name recorded in Hansard was already proven under law. What the injunction prevents is the publication of that link. As far as I'm aware, Soldier F's name has been known in a legal sense since the Widgery Inquiry in 1972.

Note, I say Northern Irish law here, because the most recent confirmation of the injunction occurred in the Derry Magistrate's Court (RTE News), but due to the secrecy of the order it's unclear as to which of the three legal systems it was granted under. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

As a Northern Ireland native I can personally verify that the name Eastwood said, as recorded in Hansard, is the same one known throughout Northern Ireland.

the manner and the thoroughness that Soldier F's representatives have in trying to scrub any mention of his name from the internet and sending scare letters to news outlets so they don't print the name That is standard practice in UK law, both when an injunction has been sought to prevent publication of a piece of information, an whend a case is subject to reporting restrictions. The only stronger level of restrictions when it comes to reporting in the UK would be if there was a super-injunction, however because of how those work, we would never know about it.

That being said, I will reiterate and elaborate briefly what I said earlier. In the case of Soldier F, I don't think NOTCENSORED has precedence over BLPNAME. And despite my own knowledge of the name, my personal desire to see it published, and the obvious encyclopaedic value that publishing the name will have towards the historical record, on balance I think we should not include the name for now. I would also point out that not publishing Soldier F's name for now does not result in a significant loss of context. To take an example from the Bloody Sunday article, the sentence The Saville Inquiry concluded that 'Soldier F' shot Kelly has no significant loss of context whether we say Solider F, or the name recorded in Hansard.

There will come a time when we can and should publish the name, but it is not now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Masem, point of clarification: Sideswipe9th is correct on the issue of who Soldier F is - the trial is not setting out to prove that the accused is Soldier F. The man facing trial in January is Soldier F; there is no question of that, and nobody is saying there is. Soldier F is charged with multiple murders, that's the trial that will be taking place, if the committal hearing decides there's enough evidence. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. The case itself is kinda messy. The Savile Inquiry already found Soldier F responsible for five killings, but was unable to determine two others (William McKinney and James Wray). The first strand of the hearings next year is the prosecution for the two killings that the Savile Inquiry was unable to determine. The second strand of the hearings is into the attempted murder of five other individuals (BBC News). Whether or not Soldier F is or is not the name recorded in Hansard was settled decades ago, and is not part of this case. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There's also the fact that being found by an inquiry to have caused unlawful death doesn't strictly translate to criminal responsibility, which any Liverpool fan is acutely aware of. It's probably harder to thread that needle when the gun was in your hands and the rules of engagement are drilled into your head through basic training, but the possibility for one of those verdicts is still non-zero. Sceptre (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Has the named individual been legally convicted of being Soldier F, or is this just "everyone knows it"? If it is the latter, we should not be using presumed common knowledge as the basis for naming, give BLPCRIME. Masem (t) 23:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The man whose case will be heard in January 2023 is not on trial for being Soldier F. In terms of the legal process, this is not a case of "we think this person is Soldier F". He is being tried for two murders, and five attempted murders, while on-duty as a soldier in the Bogside in Derry, on 30 January 1972. The use of the Soldier F moniker is purely as a form of long standing identity protection for the person whose name is recorded in Hansard. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

So the person has yet to be convicted of the crimes. BLPCRIME is absolutely clear here. Masem (t) 02:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It's unfortunately significantly complex than that.

While BLPCRIME certainly applies to the crimes that will be tried in January, it may not apply to the five unlawful killings for which Soldier F was found at fault for in the Savile Inquiry. The issue of being found by an inquiry to have caused unlawful death translating into criminal liability is controversial within UK law to say the least. And trying to apply that to Wiki policy is likely an exercise in frustration. This is why I believe BLPNAME to be the stronger foundation for exclusion of Soldier F's name, as that applies in a broader sense than just a crime. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Neither soldier F nor anyone else is being tried for ANY murders in January. The January hearing will re-examine the PPS's (British prosecuting authority's) decision that there is insufficient admissable evidence to charge/try him. IF that court decides that there IS enough evidence for there to be a reasonable likelihood of a guilty verdict - a trial of F will happen. Very BIG 'ifs'. Pincrete (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I think this is the first time since the superinjunctions debacle where an anonymised individual has been leaning on outlets that report the proceedings of Parliament in such a manner, which is the key difference here. Compare with Sigurðsson, whose lawyers haven't been sending takedown notices to sites like Google. Sceptre (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

What's the evidence it is soldier's F's representatives who pushing outlets against mentioning the name? While it seems the most likely case, as given the details here I assume it would be difficult to find a jury who does not realise that the case is related to Bloody Sunday and even if it were, it seems unlikely that stopping reporting the name would really make a difference to that, that's still speculation. While I think it's irrelevant anyway who is pushing back against the name, if editors are going to claim it is relevant, they need to provide evidence for this. I looked at [27] and while it's clear that the Irish government is questioning the decision, it's unclear what the view of the UK and North Ireland governments were, whether they support the continued suppression of the name or not. If they did and did so because they felt it was needed for a fair trial, it seems easily possible that they are the ones pushing back against any reporting of the name, rather than soldier's F representatives, as is often the case when sub-judice is involved. Again I don't think it matters but if editors are going to argue it does or push one narrative, we need evidence of this from reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a BLP issue, and as always, if no one else cares about what was said in parliament, nor we do. Since the name is reported in the Village that's one thing, but if this was not the case, since no one in the many jurisdictions in the world not affected by the UK injunction, including it seems no one in (the Republic of) Ireland (since no one has argued that there is an injunction there as well) had chosen to report the name, we do not either. I suggest people re-read WP:BLPPRIMARY since the main reason we do not cover things in primary sources is not because they are not reliable. Court decisions for example are generally reliable, and while there can sometimes be doubt whether the case is referring to the same individual, often there is not. Indeed sometimes the court decision is referred to by reliable secondary sources maybe even linked to by it, but not the specific details someone wants to add but in those cases we do not allow such details. And sorry but anyone who thinks NOTCENSORED overrides BLP needs to stay the fuck away from BLPs. In other words, it's fine for editors to say that BLPPRIMARY or BLPNAME or whatever does not apply here, but not to argue it's irrelevant because NOTCENSORED is more important. It's most definitely not, and this is not an acceptable attitude for anyone editing BLPs to take. This is a serious enough issue that I will bring a case to ANI or ARE if any editor insists that is a valid view, to ask for them to be topic banned from all BLPs since that's really the only thing which is safe for Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that it's not that nobody cares what was said in Parliament by Colum Eastwood, as that act was actually widely reported on at the time even though the name itself was ommitted. Instead, despite the injunction for all intents and purposes being void because the name was published via parliamentary privilege, it is still being treated as live by all UK and most Irish media. Now it's possible that there may be another injunction in place in relation to this, or possibly even a super-injunction as they do exist under Northern Irish law and not just English law, but that is pure speculation on my part and not really relevant to the rest of the discussion.

As for everything else, I agree that BLPPRIMARY would prevent use of the Hansard and Dáil for use in citing the name. I've also argued above that BLPNAME applies and takes precedence over NOTCENSORED, so I agree with you there too. I'm not sure if I agree though that editors who simply disagree with this view should be taken to ANI or ARE. If they were to be disruptively disagreeing with this view, by publishing Soldier F's name either in the article or talk page, then yes that should be taken to a conduct noticeboard. But disagreeing with consensus is not generally a conduct issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

From my POV, if no one could actually find a reliable secondary source then yes no one cares. It's not for us to speculate why reliable secondary sources did not care to name the person after they were reported in the UK parliament or Dáil. I've seen many examples where an editor insists that the reliable secondary sources are wrong to ignore something easily available heck there's one above #Simon Sisters' Resolvable Discrepancies Still Unresolved This case especially exemplifies that since massive world wide interest. AFAIK a North Irish injuction would have zero effect on what goes on in the (Republic of) Ireland other than the possibility it could be used for an injuction in Ireland. The fact Village has reported the name seems to support the view that at least some media in Ireland feel they are not bound by legal decision in the UK or any part of Northern Ireland. (And also means it isn't correct that no one cares although the fact it's only one source makes me question whether it's enough, still it's enough that I'm not going to say we definitely cannot report it. It takes it away IMO from a case of 'clearly no under BLP' to 'probably no but if consensus is favour, so be it'.) But let's put Ireland aside completely. I can trivially find recent CNN and NYT reporting on Bloody Sunday and Soldier F. The fact that the name in Hansard actually makes this different from many other cases. Editors cannot claim these outlets aren't doing it because they might compromise their UK staff who might have been involved in the naming. These outlets could just get their US staff to do it with zero involvement of their UK staff. They could block the article from the UK and Ireland if they wanted to for added protection. They did not do so, so yes were it not for the Village then no one cared. Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, I am not speculating that the injunction is still being treated as live by media sources in the UK and Ireland. Multiple independent sources, when covering the comments made by Colum Eastwood, noted that they could not publish Soldier F's name for legal reasons. (BBC News, The Telegraph, Irish News, RTE News, Evening Standard, Belfast Telegraph, The Newsletter) It is not that these sources do not care, as in their own words there is clearly some legal reason for why they are not publishing the name, despite parliamentary privilege having a known nullifying effect on injunctions like this. (Hansard Society) Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

My suspicion is that even though they know they can avail themselves of immunity under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, they don't want to spend the money on the legal case. No branch of government is ever completely happy with the others checking on them, and the right to privacy – being protected by international treaty but otherwise generally non-statutory – is one that throws up conflicts all the time (see also: superinjunctions). Soldier F is also in the rather unique position in that he enjoys some political support that someone like Giggs or Green didn't have.

This isn't a one-off use of parliamentary privilege to name suppressed information regarding the Troubles; after all, Ian Paisley went to the grave never apologising for implicating a man who was ultimately cleared in the Kingsmill massacre. But even before the HET completely cleared the Reavey family of any paramilitary activity, both reliable sources and Wikipedia mentioned Paisley's accusations against Eugene.

Then again, the anonymity injunction shouldn't really bear upon the decision to include Soldier F's name or not. No court in America would enforce it (or, indeed, a libel judgment) from the United Kingdom. One reliable source is all that's been needed before to report the naming of public figures who were accused of wrongdoing where an injunction didn't reach (Sigurðsson being the most recent example). The discussion should be regarding whether he's a public figure, not over the injunction. Sceptre (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Well that's a lot of text to wake up to, below. There is a lot above, that is surprising (ANI or ARE and a topic ban on BLPs for proposing a view (that nobody here has proposed)? Really?!) and a lot below that just isn't relevant - naming victims of crimes, WP:DEADNAME, and more. WP:BLPCRIME is, as Sidesipe9th mentions, an odd one as Soldier F has already been implicated in unlawful killings by Savile. In almost any other context, then, their name would already be in the public domain (well - more than it already is). I would certainly argue that given the voluminous coverage of "Soldier F", then Soldier F is a public figure - even if his actual identity has been concealed by court order. BLPCRIME does not apply. What we do have is coverage in Hansard, the Dáil record, and Village Magazine. If one contends that Hansard and the record of the Dáil are primary sources, then look at what WP:PRIMARY actually says:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy,

• Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
• Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
• A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

So no - we are not precluded from using Hansard or the Dáil record. Meaning we have three reliable sources for Soldier F's name. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

BLP specifically says not to use primary sources for contentious info, such as court records. Masem (t) 13:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it does not. What WP:BLPPRIMARY actually says is: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth... (snip) Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. (My emphasis added). It is absolutely fine to use Hansard and Dáil record in this instance, especially as multiple reliable secondary sources reported on the issue on both occasions: see here and here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne's view on the situation

I've spent a lot of time on this (mostly from my last comment which means sorry I have not read followups) when I have other things I need to do and also I want to avoid bludgeoning this discussion so might leave it with one final long comment. Since it's long even for me, I'll put it in a separate subsection so it's easier for others to ignore it etc and it doesn't crowd out other discussions. The TL;DR version is that looking at various cases, I'm not convinced the is such clear consensus as other editors seem to be suggestion above that once a single source has given the name, we do as well. I also reject the suggestion it's automatically fine to annotate something widely reported with details barely reported, IMO no matter why editors think the details are barely report. Finally while we are WP:NOTCENSORED it's very problematic IMO to say that this means we should ignore what sources are doing because we've decided they're just practicing censorship and we need to counter that.

George Pell seems a poor example of this since from my memory there were a large number of reputable sources which mentioned his later overturned conviction when it happened, indeed our article has comments from the Washington Post and I'm fairly sure they were far from the only one, and looking into the history found [28] which also seems to support this view. A look at that also shows another interesting point, while there was some initial pretrial coverage it stopped in about May 2018 when suppression orders were put in place. While it's a minor thing, AFAICS, we did not report any details about the ongoing trial not even that it was ongoing. While it's not worth me looking in to, I suspect you could have found at least on reliable secondary source which did report this. Yet it's also seems true most international media decided to respect the suppression even if they likely did not have to. It was only after the conviction that the dam broke, [29]. Also Pell was a highly notable individual so we already had an article on them specifically.

Sigurðsson seems a better example, personally I'm not convinced we should be reporting it if we only have that single source although I have not looked whether they may be more and do not feel it is worth me fighting it even if it is only that one source. In any case, Sigurðsson is also a somewhat notable individual and to some extent I'm guessing it's a tricky situation since he has disappeared from his career.

With Murder of Grace Millane, AFAIK we did not report the murderer's name until after the suppression order was lifted despite some non NZ media including The Independent doing so [30]+ [31], see Talk:Murder of Grace Millane#Name Supression RFC. Note that while the murderer was and is not notable (some minor involvement in softball) and while the murder and trial received a lot of attention in NZ and to a lesser extent in the UK, I don't think you could claim he was a public figure so WP:BLPCRIME did apply before his conviction, this clearly changed after yet the suppression order continued for over a year afterwards. As I think most people experienced with NZ law guessed (I implied as much on the talk page), and somewhat similar to the Pell case, the main reason for the continued suppression appears to have been because of some other charges which had not been resolved. (The murderer also wanted suppression while his appeals were considered but the Supreme Court rejected this.) Since this person had not been talked about for a long time, the case has differences from soldier F, still I personally feel it is the most similar. Somewhat related to Pell, my memory is that the number of sources naming the murderer increased and were better sources after conviction.

Christian Porter is another interesting case albeit one with little we can learn from what actually happened. While there was a lot of speculation, see for example Talk:Christian Porter#Multiple edits, which must relate to the 1988 rape allegation about a member of the current Cabinet and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive325#Christian Porter, member of Australian Cabinet, AFAIK, he was never named anywhere prior to him outing himself fairly early on effectively meaning it never became an issue. However I'm not convinced one or two minor sources would have guaranteed inclusion.

Then there is the Huddersfield grooming gang trial. I suspect if you look around at sources especially after Tommy Robinson (activist)#2018 imprisonment as that received a lot of attention especially from some US sources and while most of these were not reliable, I suspect some may have been considered so especially at the time. (I'm not going to hunt for details or what was available.) Yet the article only came after the convictions [32] and Robinson's article was also sparse on details [33] compared to what I suspect was available. In included this last because while it did involve injunctions and suppression, it wasn't significantly about names. Which does mean in that case, most of the people were and I think remain fairly unknown and aren't named in our article even now. And some of the details Robison tried to make a deal of, BLP was only of minor concern. Also like with the Grace Millane murder, it was only a short term thing compared to soldier F. So a lot of differences although IMO enough that it's not irrelevant either.

Approaching from a different direction, I think we have to remember that us annotating something widely report with additional info not widely reported always need be done with significant care. There are alot of cases where someone has used parliamentary privilege in a way that has been widely reported, just to use a few examples [34], [35]/ [36], [37]/[38], [39]/[40], [41]/(partial)[42]/(again partial)[43], [44], [45], [46]. Again I'm not going to hunt all the details of each of these many cases, I'm sure there are many more than here. But I suspect if you do, you'd find some of them are too insiginificant so we do not report them at all. Some of them we do report but only in the context of person A made controversial remarks in parliament about whatever, without giving many details especially not the names of the other people involved. In some cases we do (or did since the situation may have changed anyway) I'm sure report such details. And while this doesn't mean we always made the right decision (same too with any of the examples earlier), I'm sure we sometimes did even in cases where we continued to not name other people or other details.

The details also vary, in some cases there was no existing adverse finding so defamation may have been the main concern and so for us BLPCRIME etc although an interesting point is that in number but far from all cases I highlighted, the people named were notable and likely public figures. in some cases it was suppression or an injuction, like here. In some cases the may have been an ongoing trial but no existing finding against anyone so again BLPCRIME etc. In some cases like here, there may have been some finding, arguably in some cases and even stronger finding than here against someone i.e a successful court case against someone.

It's true that in nearly all of the cases I highlighted, we probably did not mention anything particularly related to whatever was said in parliament before that happened; which is different from soldier F. But I think there's at least once case there where this does not apply and likely more examples where this was not the case if you look hard enough and I fairly doubt in all cases we report all 'significant' details said in parliament (especially names etc) if these details were not widely reported elsewhere. Point being, ultimately I'm far from convinced our response was or should be that once the person is named in parliament, we should too just because a single non primary reliable source has repeated the name. (As said before, I remain convinced we should never do so if it's only in primary sources but even if you still don't accept that, these examples seem to illustrate why that's a problem.)

This applies to other details others feel are super important too. I'm not saying we always need multiple sources, but we do need to consider carefully per WP:UNDUE etc that sources have chosen not to and we should avoid. Notably, whatever our personal feelings on WP:NOTCENSORED, I think we need to take great care with speculating that sources are just practicing censorship for legal reasons so we need to ignore their decisions. There is often going to be some mix of legal reasons, editorial judgement etc; e.g. when we consider how sources seem more willing to respect foreign suppression prior to conviction.

I'd note that there are definitely people who say 'censorship' over media not naming victims or alleged victims of sexual abuse who haven't chosen to be named. And in a number of countries this is something limited by law. But in others especially in the US it's not and nowadays media often make clear they won't name regardless. If it's high profile enough it's often not hard to find source which are probably enough to comply with BLP which don't agree. WP:BLPPRIVACY generally applies here although in rare cases the person may be notable anyway. I'm hoping that everyone in this discussion agrees that in most cases we should follow the sources and if most have suppressed this information, legal reasons or not, we should too.

Getting back to something I said earlier, people say the same crap about real names especially of those involved in adult entertainment or sex workers and then try to use trademark documents, court documents, musical scores etc as sources. And for good reason, we have it enshrined into policy we not mention WP:DEADNAMEs of transgender or non-binary persons if they weren't notable prior to transition whatever sources people may find and as much as they may yell 'censorship'. Or birth dates etc, especially birth year controversies. While primary sources tend to be complex here since a lot of the time, there's a fair amount of WP:OR to say it's the same person but not always and I think policy is clear when it comes to BLPs for most primary sources it does not matter whether you need to OR. (Actually to be blunt, if you spend enough time on BLPN, you'll find there's basically nothing that BLP requires or strongly suggests that doesn't result in someone saying CENSORSHIP!)

Nil Einne (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

P.S. While I remain deeply concerned about any suggestion NOTCENSORED should trump any aspect of BLP, I admit I'm not particularly concerned about what happens here the same with the Sigurðsson case other than attempts to use it for future precedent given that in both cases, as I said before I don't think it would matter. While I didn't get particularly involved in the Grace Millane case, I would be more concerned about something like that or the Huddersfield grooming gang since those cases seem much more like examples where it could happen. Of course I could be wrong, and this only applies to the amount of effort I'm willing to spend it does not change my view (AFAIK) on what should happen. Nil Einne (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

To add a datapoint to this, we purposely did not include the name of the Star Wars kid despite it having been published in several reliable sources, as we knew he wasn't trying to associate himself with that nickname and had drawn back due to negative coverage. Then several years ago, he actually came out and admitted his name and identity as the Star Wars kid (which he was using as a focal point about bullying), at which point it was fair game to include the name.

BLP overall is about doing no harm to such individuals, and emphasizes the need to protect private individuals from those that are regularly in the public. So there is almost no downside to not mentioning the real name of Soldier F here, outside the claim that "well, its well known", which Nil Einne has pointed out above that we routinely don't worry about that argument. Masem (t) 12:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Those situations are in no way analogous, and I'm dumbfounded that you'd try to make the comparison. One, Star Wars Kid, concerns a person notable for one thing, who was a minor at the time, with references largely limited to pop culture. The other, Lance Corporal Dave, aka Soldier F, concerns an agent of the state, found by public inquiry to have committed unlawful killings, and who now faces further public trial. He has been discussed in the media since 1972. This, coupled with your suggestions above that Soldier F is going on trial to find out if he is indeed Soldier F, would lead me to suggest that maybe you just shouldn't be commenting on this issue - at least without reading up a lot further on the events post Bloody Sunday. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Calvin Robinson

An IP (82.20.254.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has over the last few months continually inserted and reinserted potentially libellous accusation in Calvin Robinson. (Eg. [47]). The issue has been brought up at the IP's talk page and the article's talk page. As I explained there, the current sources support the current rather hedged wording of the article, and may in fact support a wider wording. Thus, I In any case the IP has been thoroughly warned and has refused to engage. The article has also been vandalised by Dwayne Dibley 3rd (talk · contribs). Thanks for your help, I really don't know what else to do now. Jtrrs0 (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I reported to WP:AIV and this IP has been article-blocked for one month (no action against SPA Dwayne Dibley).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully that will be enough; the IP does have a pattern of vandalising only intermittently (but consistently). Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Tessy María López Goerne

• Tessy María López Goerne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This profile violates biographies of living persons policy, most of the sources are tabloid journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apanatura (talk • contribs) 00:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree here that there are any serious BLP violations at least as far as I can see, (though there are definitely some questionable claims and dodgy sourcing) and as such Apanatura's attempts to get the article "speedy deleted" as an attack page have been reverted by other editors, and they have been blocked for a week. I've crossposted this to WP:FRINGEN due to the subjects promotion of non-mainstream treatments for COVID-19 and other illnesses. Apanatura is a SPA and along with the IP 200.68.187.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) likely has a COI. I'd be open to taking this to AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The more I look at the article, the more it seems like a complete mess. I've nominated it for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessy María López Goerne. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Roger Waters

On the talk page for Roger Waters, there are various editors, specifically Te og kaker, who are trying to minimize the allegations of antisemitism, by suggesting they be reduced to a sentence as part of the BDS political activity. They are attempting to decide what constitutes hate speech, invalidate the experiences and conclusions of actual Jewish groups, and reduce everything to Israel. Other users are removing examples by claiming the source (facebook) is not allowed, when the reference is a video recording of Roger Waters. Calling groups such as the ADL or Simon Weisenthal Center as radical groups.

Is this the example Wikipedia wants to adopt? Will white supremecists have their hate speech or racism relegated to political opinions? Are a racist's own words not a valid source? Is it acceptable for someone to dicate to a minority what should and shouldn't offend them?

I am bringing this to Wiki's attention because I know what can happen.... the page can succomb to edit wars dealing with Israel and by the end, just like the Te og kaker wants for the page, "I can't see that this is important enough to warrant more than a sentence in the section about his BDS activism," In reality, there isn't any need for a PR firm to whitewash his page and improve his image, unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of editors with their own agendas who are ready to do the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:3F00:BE42:D4FB:9AC6:D874:1219 (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

We are not here to right great wrongs. We should be covering what Waters did say, and what impacts that has had, based on what RSes have discussed (which is some for certain) but we cannot overemphasize it if that's not how far RSes are going. For example, we absolutely do not need to link to a source that has video recording of his comments, since we have coverage of that from RSes. I think from what I've seen a reduction to a sentence is probably too small, but it doesn't need to be a huge section at this point either. Masem (t) 00:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear if the poster is complaining about reducing the mention in the lead to a sentence or the body section itself to a sentence. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

From the Waters' talk page, they appear upset that this stuff was removed from the lede, while the editors on that page are more worried about how extensive the allegation currently is discussed. But the same idea here is that this poster seems to want to make sure we identify Waters as a racist, which, no, is not how we develop BLPs much less any article. Masem (t) 00:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Your incendiary tone is not helping here. Ultimately this is a WP:BLP, we have to be sensitive about what is included in the article. Could you provide a list of sources discussing Waters antisemitism for editors to assess? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed an op-ed written by Waters from the laundry list of examples of his anti-semitism because I thought it was UNDUE and OR (analysis) without secondary RS commenting on it.[48] @Andrevan:, why did you reinstate it without addressing the need for secondary sourcing or gaining consensus? This isn't a WP:SKYISBLUE situation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, I will find a secondary source for it. Andre🚐 16:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

As this is related to Waters' pro-Palestinian activism, I'm guessing that there wouldn't be much disagreement that it falls within the area covered by WP:ARBPIA. In the WP:ARBPIA area there is a restriction on participation by non-extended confirmed accounts, of which the account raising this notice is one: "However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the 'Talk:' namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions." If this noticeboard comes under the classification "internal project discussion," IP accounts should not be raising notices about ARBPIA-related material here.
On ARBPIA-affected article talkpages, non-extended confirmed accounts may only leave "constructive" comments (about ARBPIA-related material at least), one way of measuring constructiveness being whether they are disruptive or not. Part of WP:BLP is that any content, including that on article talkpages, must be NPOV. On the Waters article talkpage, IP accounts have left some distinctly non-NPOV-looking remarks.
Waters is chiefly known as a musician. In the Waters article, there is a history of editors who are chiefly interested in Waters' career as a musician trying to stop editors opposed to Waters' stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict overwhelming it with material from pro-Israel organisations or individuals acussing Waters of antisemitism.
    ←   ZScarpia   09:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Alice Walker

Horse Eye's Back is repeatedly calling a living person antisemitic (Alice Walker) on the talk page, starting here ("Are you disputing whether or not Alice Walker is antisemitic? Thats not open for dispute, she is... Thats a basic fact we all have to work from.") doubling down here. Alice Walker certainly has been accused of promoting a book widely decried as antisemitic, but the sourcing for such a claim that Alice Walker is antisemitic simply does not meet the bar in stating that as a fact. Horse Eye's Back has both claimed that BLP prevents sources that say she is not antisemitic (eg this) are not usable, but also that the sourcing to call her an antisemite need not reach that same bar. This appears to be repeated BLP violations by a user who is game playing with the BLP policy. nableezy - 15:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, an opinion piece in The Daily Beast is unusable... Consensus is that TDB is not a high quality reliable source, thats not really arguable. If you feel that the characterization of Alice Walker as antisemitic is unsupported by reliable sources, well... "Walker’s anti-Semitism" "published a cartoonishly anti-Semitic poem" "her anti-Semitic history" "the anti-Semitism she’d voiced" "the author’s anti-Semitic backstory" etc[49]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Most sources attribute that view to critics. For example Some people also say there is antisemitic sentiment in her 2017 poem, “To Study the Talmud”. Or In recent years, she has taken positions, including in The Times, that many have found to be antisemitic and deeply troubling. Sources are generally not making that statement of fact, making it so that Wikipedia, and you on Wikipedia, should not be saying it as a fact either. nableezy - 15:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the alleged BLP violation? Are you agreeing that it was directly supported by some sources but only indirectly supported by the others? If thats the case then theres no BLP violation there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The BLP violation is repeatedly calling a living person a racist. And no, sources relaying that critics say something is not indirectly supporting what the critics say. It is reporting what they say, just as we do. I await uninvolved views, toodles. nableezy - 15:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

When the hell did I do that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The two diffs linked above. Are you disputing whether or not Alice Walker is antisemitic? Thats not open for dispute, she is and In the meantime I will say that Alice Walker is antisemitic is directly calling a living person a racist. nableezy - 15:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

antisemitism =/= racism, Racial antisemitism is only one subset of antisemitism. Surprised you don't know this from your years spent in ARBPIA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the first three sentences of the article that you thought proved your point? nableezy - 15:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Tell me, where do I specify racial antisemitism instead of religious antisemitism? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Since you have yet to retract your accusations heres some more support from WP:RS: "Walker’s largely ignored history of anti-Semitic writing" " apparent anti-Semitism in Walker’s work" "anti-Semitism wasn’t part of the story of Alice Walker. Until now." "Criticizing Israel of course does not mean that someone is anti-Semitic, but Walker’s critique of Israel has at times been much more extreme" "Alice Walker’s acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs"[50] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

See below for an admin's view on the policy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ nableezy - 18:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Admin's views on policy don't carry any more weight than anyone else's. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It does in a discretionary sanctions regime topic area where any single admin could block or ban you for repeated violations of WP:BLP as youve received the required notification. nableezy - 18:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

What does that have to do with making a comment here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back: "antisemitism =/= racism." The first three sentences from the Introduction section of the Antisemitism article: "Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against Jews. A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite. Antisemitism is considered to be a form of racism."     ←   ZScarpia   10:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Good example of why we can't use wikipedia as a source... Someone seems to be using the lead to push a personal POV on the unitary ethnic nature of the Jewish people. We seem to have picked a side in the Antisemitism#Eternalism–contextualism debate, not exactly a shining NPOV moment... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps your statement, "antisemitism =/= racism," is also pushing a point of view? I should think that for many, if not most, people, antisemitism, a concept which developed when scientific racism was getting into its stride in the nineteenth century, actually means what you might refer to as "racial antisemitism", and that what is being referred to, by retrofitting of the nineteenth century term, as "religious antisemitism", is best referred to as anti-Judaism.     ←   ZScarpia   15:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"what is being referred to, by retrofitting of the nineteenth century term, as "religious antisemitism", is best referred to as anti-Judaism" I thought we weren't pushing POV? If you want to propose a merge of religious antisemitism and anti-Judaism you can. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

From the Religious Antisemitism section of the Antisemitism article: "Religious antisemitism, also known as anti-Judaism, is antipathy towards Jews because of their perceived religious beliefs." Apparently, not everybody sees a difference. Note that the Introduction section of the Antisemitism article doesn't state "antisemitism is a form of racism", or "antisemitism is not a form of racism", it says "antisemitism is considered to be a form of racism." I think you'd have a pretty hard time backing up your claim that that's pushing a point of view rather than a simple statement of fact.

By the way, if you're going to quote parts of what people have written, do it in such a way that they don't appear to have argued or stated things which they didn't.

    ←   ZScarpia   16:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Be specific Masem, what part of WP:BLPTALK? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

From the sources there is clearly no broad support to make the claim in wikivkice (this isn't like Alex Jones being a conspiracy theorist). So in mainstream we must attribute that claim. Staring it as a fact on the talk other is unacceptable under BLPTALK (we can discuss whether there is sufficient sources for it and whether attribution is needed) but editors making said claims as fact in their voice is never appropriate. Masem (t) 18:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The first paragraph of it. BLPTALK gives us the means to discuss contentious claims that arise from sources for possible inclusion in the article, as a limited exemption to the struct BLP requirements. It does not allow editors to throw around contentious claims as their opinion or the like. Masem (t) 20:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

How does the first paragraph apply? This was well sourced and related to making content choices. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This diff given in OP has you stating your opinion of her, not arguing from a source based POV such as "all the sources state she is antisemitic so we should write that in wikivoice" (I don't know if this is true or not, just a representative approach). Blunt expressing your POV on a BLP, rather than expressing how you see sources describe a POV is where problems can arise Masem (t) 20:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The very first diff given has me arguing from a source based POV not once but twice... "We have direct support for antisemitism. "Walker’s anti-Semitism predated this ill-fated interview with the Times" etc." "The language we used was antisemitism which we have direct sources for. "Remarkably, in her questions, Strayed quoted verbatim from the very Times interview where Walker promoted David Icke, asking her about the “kinship” with Jane Eyre she’d expressed there, but not about the anti-Semitism she’d voiced." etc." The entire argument is in the context of those reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

No you don't, at least describing her as anti-semitic. You have sources that say she has appreciation of works that others consider anti-semitic, and that some of her writings have been called anti-semitic, but I'm not seeing any strong sourcing to say she herself is anti-semitic (The only one I see immediately is the Tablet one, and being that is a Jewish-oriented work, we have to be careful with that). So that's a claim you can't introduce on the talk page, nor should be repeated in the article. The section title being "Accusations of anti-semitism" is far more representative of what I'm seeing as sourced in the body, in that sources are inferring (but not directly calling her) she is anti-semitic via her support of anti-semitic works, clearly already present in this form in the body of that section. Masem (t) 03:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that "Jewish-oriented" sources aren't WP:RS for the topic of antisemitism? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

“How Anti-Semitic is Alice Walker?” The New Yorker might have asked. The straightforward answer is very, very anti-Semitic.[51] (The Atlantic) Andre🚐 03:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That's an Ideas piece, which falls in RSOPINION. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That's the wrong point to make about the Tablet source - the pertinent one being it's unreliable opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• No problem. Sufficient reliable sources use the antisemitism label and no reliable sources contest it. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 18:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

An RFC has been opened on the content side of this, interested users welcome to participate in the talk page. The WP:BLPTALK offending content remains on the talk page though, and Id welcome administrative action to remove it. nableezy - 20:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

If you want scrub+revdel of the comments on the talk page why would you ever quote them here? Your comment would have to be revdeled as well. There is no "quoting other editors" exception to BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the comments could have been more carefully worded, but I am not seeing a serious BLP vio here, given the coverage of reliable sources on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing the BLP violation either given BLPTALK. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Lilach5, Morbidthoughts and Hemiauchenia: there is no violation since it is well-referenced. Andre🚐 03:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

But it is not well-referenced. Most sources report this is an accusation, not a fact. And either way, how is a Wikipedia editor's personal view relevant to the article? nableezy - 03:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not a BLPvio, it's a question of content and appropriate weight. Generally reliable sources have called Walker anti-Semitic due to her praise of anti-Semitic ideas and her writings. Andre🚐 04:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• A lot of people misunderstand WP:BLPTALK, which is actually extremely narrow in its scope - out of necessity, because how could we ever discuss if something BLP-sensitive is well-sourced enough to include in the article, or collect and evaluate sources for a proposed BLP-sensitive change to the article, if the people who think the sourcing is insufficient insist that the entire discussion be revdel'ed the moment it is brought up on talk? The policy specifically says Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Emphasis mine, but that "and" is vital; to get something revdeled or an editor sanctioned for a talk (as opposed to article) violation, you have to successfully make the argument that it is both unsourced or poorly sourced and that it is not reasonably related to making content choices. Of course, sometimes one follows from the other (if it completely, glaringly obvious that the sourcing is insufficient and has no reasonable expectation of ever becoming sufficient, then it can't be reasonably be related to content choices), but it is acceptable for someone to say, on talk, eg. "a lot of coverage is saying that this person just made an antisemitic remark. Can we find enough high-quality sources to support that in the article?", without providing any sources themselves, provided the coverage actually exists to the point where it's reasonable to WP:AGF that they believe it can be properly-cited in the article with a bit of work. --Aquillion (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

When an editor makes a statement like Subject A is X, without attributing things to a source they are not in compliance with the two conditions listed in BLPTALK. First, If the material is being discussed then it is presumably contentious, and if the statement is unsourced then it is contentious material about a living person that is unsourced. There is the first condition. The second condition being not related to making content choices. A statement Subject A is X is an editor's statement. We document source's statements and opinions, not editor's statements and opinions so it cannot be related to making content choices. To emphasize the point, a statement like "Source C says subject A is X, and I think we should document this in the article" is not the same as "Subject A is X and it's a fact". One complies with BLPTALK, and the other does not. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Note that it was sourced before that conversation even began, the sources being cited were not new they had been discussed before on the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

An editors personal belief about a living person is never related to improving article content. That seems obvious to me. nableezy - 21:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I am extremely disturbed by this edit by @Iskandar323, which includes the line "In 2009 Michael Lerner, an anti-Zionist rabbi who invited her to speak to his congregation on Yom Kippur, found her "claims about human rights abuses by Israel" offensive and apologized for inviting her." This is an total misrepresentation of the source and should be immediately removed. Lerner in fact writes that "Ms. Walker's claims about human rights abuses by Israel are largely substantiated by independent investigations" but "I was particularly disturbed that Alice Walker's presentation was so unconvincing and missed the opportunity to speak to our hearts, in large part because it felt contaminated by anger and a lack of compassion for the Jewish people and for Israelis. I believe that such compassion must be part of our critique. For that reason, I now regret having had Alice Walker as a speaker. I personally experienced some of her remarks as offensive to me and her manner of talking to us dismissive and put-downish and her perception of the Jewish people seemed largely ignorant of the tradition of Jews that we represent and that has been growing worldwide. So I want to apologize to our community for subjecting you to this talk." and "[T]hose sins, while amazingly absent from the Jewish media and the public discourse inside the Jewish community, are increasingly obvious to most other people on the planet, and are generating anger toward Jews that will last for generations and place Jews in grave danger in the 21st century. We ignore them at our peril. So this is why I was so disappointed at Alice Walker's presentation--because the way she presented had the opposite effect of waht I had hoped for and expected. Instead of speaking to our hearts and opening us to consider the ways we need atonement, Ms. Walker's talk actually closed the ears and hearts of many of our congregants and made it less likely that we would be able to engage in the teshuva that is really necessary and urgent for our people. I base this on the reactions of congregants both during and after the talk that they conveyed to me. For that, I wish to apologize to Beyt Tikkun."

The same user has on the same page summarized the cited source (WaPo)'s "The poem repeats a slew of anti-Semitic tropes" as "The poem was criticized as using tropes and arguments frequently used by anti-semites". GordonGlottal (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I did add a pullquote to clarify the rather vague note about "remarks" (without any hint of what the remarks were about), and if you read the full text of the source, I am sure you can see which claims caused offense. But since the direct quote seems to have caused more confusion, I've removed it again. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Your new version says that Lerner "found some of her remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict offensive" which is almost as false. Lerner agrees entirely with Walker's views regarding the conflict, and says so at length. He invited her specifically to express those views. What he found offensive was her attitude toward Jews. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

This is just a discussion about the interpretation of what a source says and can be dealt with at the article talk page, where the entire para above beginning "I am extremely disturbed by..." has already been posted for comment. Selfstudier (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, he didn't respond there. It's a complete lie, totally unsourced, which relates directly to two living people. It's been 24h so I'm just going to remove it. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't respond there because I saw this first, but yeah, this was an odd venue, and why are your crossposting? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Its not a complete lie, its actually true and you are making things up and making personal attacks. Lerner said So I remain deeply skeptical about this charge about what Walker said about reported rapes by Israeli soldiers. nableezy - 17:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

John Ware (TV journalist)

Hi,

I've just edited the article of John Ware (journalist). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ware_(TV_journalist)

He's a veteran investigative journalist in the UK. He's worked on quite a few topics that are polarising, the most recent being about Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party, and anti-semitism in the Labour Party. As a result, he has attracted a lot of vitriolic, inaccurate and sometimes anti-semitic attention by those that disliked his reporting, often it seems because they disliked the consequences that occurred after his reporting (airing of uncomfortable information) and generally seek to unfairly blame him for things that happened to their causes. This isn't the only difficult subject he has reported on, including about islamism and the IRA.

The whole article's tone was very dismissive of Ware and focused on criticism, which was often reported inaccurately and one-sided, in what seemed to be about character assassination, and overlooked his extensive achievements or work on other topics.

I'm not currently reporting an issue, but I am sure that there will be users who will soon notice the edits I have made and seek to reverse them. There is currently a twitter campaign, and wider, to try and attack Ware, where disinformation is the warfare. Ware has successively taken libel action in the UK against various individuals and groups on the topic of the Labour Party and antisemitism, with another soon to be concluding, but which are the focus of most of this issue. One of those articles that had been the focus of one of the libels had in fact been sourced on the wiki article at one point, as stated truth. When the moderators previously removed some contentious links, worried about libel and bias on this same matter, they unfortunately had not realised that this particular link was another such issue and at the heart of a live case.

Please can the moderators keep an eye on this article and if this does arise in the future, seek to remedy it swiftly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W987654321 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Five of W987654321's six edits were to the John Ware article[52][53], the other was to this noticeboard. There is, of course, nothing wrong with that, though some of the edits, such as removing The Jewish Chronicle[54][55] from the list of publications written for and deleting a citation to a Spectator article, appear a bit odd. At least one statement was added without citing a source. A four part series about what was revealed by a large leak of documents from the Labour Party has just been broadcast by the Al Jazeera Investigations Unit. Material about Ware's Panorama programme about the Labour Party and antisemitism featured in, I think, the first episode. None of the Panorama-related revelations are new, though perhaps they have not been published by a source which is reliable in Wikipedia terms before. They're likely behind the campaigns which W987654321 warns about. Otherwise, the Investigations Unit is probably best known for the two The Lobby series, though the US one was never broadcast, reportedly because threats were made to withdraw Al Jazeera's broadcast licence in that country (the series was, though, leaked to Electronic Intifada).[56] Given the wording of this article, it's unlikely that Ware is Jewish. By "anti-semitic attention", the original poster perhaps meant "attention by antisemites" (unless the "new antisemitism" can be directed at non-Jews).     ←   ZScarpia   14:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

W987654321 has basically added bloat to the article as far as I can see. There is no way that we should be listing such a huge number of Ware's documentaries in this way. We could list some of the more notable ones in a table, but what is there is way too much, especially as Ware is not exactly a household name and most of the sources given don't relate to the actual films but rather are links to information about the subjects of the films, and many of them are unreferenced. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree. The article reads like a fusion of a resume and TV Guide. Zaereth (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hasan Minhaj

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

Is this really an appropriate reason to change a lead image? Not sure if it really matters myself. Aza24 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

It can be taken into consideration, assuming Wikipedians aren't cold-blooded monsters. I think the 2013 image is a better, more formal image (a more relaxed, normal pose). Some people feel a newer image should always be in the lead, regardless of quality or appropriateness, because people must see the person as they appear right now! That is foolish. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Less mike in face, that is +. 2 years older, that is not. Discussion could go either way, he looks about same. But a 2020 something image would be better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I assume there is some policy about this somewhere, but in the absence of it, there is something about BLP and respecting subjects' wishes. Tom Scott's birthday is not on his page per his own request, and WP:DOB states "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it". While that's due to privacy concerns, in the absence of more specific policy I don't see why we shouldn't extrapolate and make an effort to replace an image a subject dislikes, but of course it should still be a freely licensed and generally representative one. WPscatter ^t/_c 05:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not a persuasive argument, but not inappropriate. It's something worth considering if there are no compelling policy-based reasons (e.g. MOS:IMAGEQUALITY) to prefer one image over another. For example, I implemented a COI request – made by properly disclosed MSNBC publicist or something – to restore an old infobox photo when the photo was changed by some drive-by IP editor and there was zero debate about photo. Politrukki (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Dasha Nekrasova

By coincidence, I noticed a similar request recently by another BLP subject, Dasha Nekrasova: "Can any of you people put a hotter pic of me on wikipedia……". Some people tried to change it (see page history), and she posted some images of herself on Twitter she suggested she wanted it changed to. I don't think that really counts as releasing the image under a free license, and I'm not sure if there's much we can do to accommodate BLP subjects requests in these cases if there aren't any good freely licensed alternatives available. Endwise (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I DMed her with a link to an easy Commons upload wizard (VRT release generator). We'll see what happens. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully that works. Endwise (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Question about (re?)creation of redirect that was G10'd

I was looking to create a redirect to a target where the page that existed was previously G10'd. I am unclear if the content of the page was a redirect, or if so if it was a redirect to the same target. I want to proceed with caution as I have no desire to have a BLP violation but I do think the redirect could be helpful. The title in question is Idiot kicker. I will not mention where I want to target unless I am cleared to make the redirect (there is a citation for this; it's not my personal opinion that said person is this; however, they have been referred to as such notably). TartarTorte 12:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(Apologies if this is incorrect usage of the board or if I accidentally made BLP violation above) TartarTorte 12:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I can think of no circumstances under which Wikipedia would need to make 'idiot kicker' a redirect to a biographical article. 'Someone has been reliably reported to have insulted someone else' isn't grounds to turn the insult into a redirect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, TBF, the term is used in the BLP in question when referring to the incident in which the insult was uttered. Plenty of WP:RS have reported on it over the years. The question is, will someone type "idiot kicker" into the search box when looking for this person. Presumably, if they know about the incident, they also know the person's name and would simply type that name into the search box. So the redirect seems to me redundant. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia may on occasion report insults if properly attributed, and when due weight considerations are satisfied. Creating a redirect from the insult is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy - it suggests that Wikipedia considers the term appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm with AndytheGrump here. As with many things, there are multiple things to weigh against one another, and the potential utility of the redirect needs to be weighed against the BLP implications. I believe that those problems with creating an insult that redirects to a BLP to be bad enough that it outweighs any potential gain in utility from such a redirect. We should not create the redirect. --Jayron32 14:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

A redirect simply suggests that, if a person is well-enough known by that epithet, or the event in which the insult was used is well-enough known, people might well search for the article using it. However, in this case, if you type Idiot kicker into the search box a link to the article in question comes up anyway, so the redirect is pretty moot. And, as the subject is not primarily known by the term, a redirect would be inappropriate in any event. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC) (reply)

Fair enough. That's the reason I asked. I won't (re?)create the redirect. Best! TartarTorte 14:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

If the redirect term is explained in the target and explanation is robustly sourced, the minimum standard "material challenged or likely to be challenged" is satisfied. In most cases that's enough to prove there's no unambiguous violation. For examples see Category:Redirects from non-neutral names. Some offensive terms in the category have first been deleted through RFD per BLP because the target didn't include any justification for the redirect title, and later recreated when there was some actual content, with proper sources, to target. I do think that any and all non-neutral redirects with BLP implications should be used sparingly. Politrukki (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Paul Kidd

Are the sources provided at this edit enough to verify the subject's status as trans? If not, what else can be done to fix this article? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The wikifur citation should be removed but the other two seem to satisfy WP:ABOUTSELF. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Matt Meyer

Article seems to have a long history of COI editing (I mean straight-up fluffing and spamming), but I wonder about those allegations--"Controversies". What happened with the lawsuit? Is this still OK to keep in the article? One COI edit suggested it was settled, but of course it whitewashed the text, removed the sources, and provided no evidence. Your assistance, from all you political editors and Northeasterners, is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow. I just saw the latest revert you did, and it amazes me that people actually think that kind of puffery is helpful to their candidate. God forbid we should have an article on a politician during election season that is actually professional and encyclopedic.

As for the controversy section, I always hate controversy sections because they usually just throw the whole article out of balance. Such info is best worked into the timeline of the rest of the article. I think the allegations about the police officer is out of place; a red herring at best. First, we should not be naming him per BLPCRIME. Second, what does this have to do with the subject? Nothing as far as I can tell. It's just there to throw around some highly-charged words it would seem.

Then the thing about him making "belligerent phone calls". I could not stop laughing. If that's encyclopedic information then I'll hang my hat up and retire right now. I mean, talk about much ado about nothing. Zaereth (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Standard reminder: Remember, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. We're not slaves mandated to shovel every event or news item that mentions a person into their biography. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Zenimax Media

In the article ZeniMax Media, subsection Zenimax Media#Early history, SBS investment, Providence investment, there is an inflammatory statement about a living person, Christopher Weaver, based entirely on an original court document, directly contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY. It reads:

The suit was dismissed, with the court sanctioning Weaver, and finding that Weaver "acted willfully, wrongfully, and in bad faith."[Source redacted]

Obviously, it should be removed. I have a conflict of interest, though, because I have a personal connection to Weaver. So I am requesting that independent editors review this request.

There is a remaining question as to whether the lawsuit, the allegations and its eventual settlement, which was covered in one press account [57] should be in this article at all. (Weaver’s lawsuit for improper dismissal is mentioned in the previous sentence.)

This supporting source, from The Escapist (magazine), is older than the Polygon (website) source, so does not mention the settlement out of court [58], but Polygon does. (FYI, The Escapist may not be a reliable source since it is created by industry insiders rather than journalists. See About.

Relevant to this discussion is that The Escapist and Polygon make a general reference to Zenimax’s allegation in a countersuit that Weaver improperly accessed company emails to bolster his allegations of Zenimax’s wrongdoing. But the lower court decision finding Weaver behaved improperly was overturned in its entirety, with the higher court determining that the lower court’s findings were an open question of fact that should be determined in a trial, not by summary judgment. Weaver vehemently denied that it was improper for him to access company emails while he was the Chief Technology Officer of the company and its largest stakeholder, even if he was contemplating litigation. [Source redacted]

Given the personally damaging nature of the accusations about improper access to emails and the higher court throwing out the lower court’s findings to this effect, even if the case and the settlement are included in the Zenimax article, I think it is questionable as to whether there should be any mention of the unproven and disputed allegations against Weaver. While Weaver was certainly never charged with a crime (and the strong evidence indicates there was none) Zenimax’s allegations are nevertheless tantamount to an allegation of criminal conduct. Thus, I think Wikipedia:BLPCRIME is relevant.

I also think getting into this level of detail about the allegations of improper dismissal and counter-allegations about a person’s alleged behavior is WP:COATRACKING and excessive - if not for the whole case, then at least as to the heavily disputed email allegations. Otherwise, these allegations against a living person need to be disputed with the use of a primary source, a highly complex appellate legal decision. [Source redacted]. Use of primary legal documents in anything involving a person is heavily discouraged WP:BLPPRIMARY but to refute a near-criminal allegation, an exception would need to be made. For these reasons, omitting the personal attacks is a better course. 38.140.161.59 (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest and working to do this the right way. I have removed the court documents from the article as a pretty blatant violation of BLPPRIMARY. Such documents should be removed on sight, and that's a clear enough violation that you could do it yourself without worrying about your COI. I have also redacted the court documents posted here. Keep in mind that BLP policy applies to talk pages and even noticeboards like this one. As for the rest of your concerns, I'm not going to worry about trying to reinstate the material with different sources. You can bring that up on the talk page if you like and maybe someone can use these other sources for you. Thanks. Zaereth (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Zaereth: I also went through Christopher Weaver and removed the court sources there too, added a Washington Post article as a source to both articles to support the lawsuit summaries. RAN1 (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Suella Braverman

Cordyceps-Zombie has been calling editors sexist and racist on the Suella Braverman article for using the article subject's most recognisable and widely-accepted name (even by herself) (Diff, diff, diff). The user has also been unilaterally this high-profile pages without prior talk page consensus (diff, diff). Even as I write this, there are more incidents coming up.

Clearly a poor attempt at trolling by someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia on a high-profile BLP. Given the situation at the moment, there will likely be a spate of vandalism relating to British politicians BLPs. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I undid, as I quite agree--edits and summaries stretch AGF beyond credulity. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you also move the page back to its original title? Nobody calls her Sue-Ellen, but I don't want to be seen as edit warring on this article given its current prominence. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Done, but now I am at 3RR. Other eyes/opinions welcomed. Dumuzid (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Cordyceps-Zombie indeffed without TPA courtesy of RickinBaltimore. RAN1 (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Vladislav Doronin

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

I'd appreciate some input from this group about recent edits to Vladislav Doronin's article. There appears to be one editor with an almost obsessive interest in the subject, and a pattern of suspicious editing, who adds inappropriate and unencyclopedic content to the article. As someone who hasn't experienced this before, any guidance and insight would be appreciated. Thank you CharlotteAman (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

My previous post on this noticeboard about the harmful edits made to the Vladislav Doronin article was ignored. DrDavidLivesey ignored my Talk Page discussion and continues to add (or in some cases reinsert) content that is unencyclopedic and irrelevant to a BLP, substantiated by unacceptable sources known to be tabloid in nature (like Page Six, Bustle, Evening Standard, and others). My previous post here is the only one that has gone unanswered. I am re-engaging because I understand that these kinds of edits and the behavior of this editor need to be reported and resolved. CharlotteAman (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Dear @CharlotteAman, despite your conflict of interest, your comments are helpful because they make the Doronin article better. But directly editing the article is a violation of WP:COIEDIT.

First of all I assume your good faith, but I suggest from your tone that you were expecting an immediate reaction from me when you made comments and requests. But Wikipedia has an essay on the subject No one is obligated to satisfy you. This is not to say that our community is unfriendly, we just don't have a job here, we edit Wikipedia in our personal time. Sometimes some requests wait months, or even years, to be answered.

To avoid WP:WAR, I responded to all your unreasonable deletions on Talk:Vladislav_Doronin. DrDavidLivesey (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Hunter Fraser

Please take a look at this draft article about a professor created yesterday. The original version was mostly about his arrest. The current version has more about him professionally but still has a section devoted to details of the misdemeanor charge. Without a conviction this seems inappropriate for a professor who is not a public figure. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, god no. That has to go. We can't have things like this in an article unless/until a conviction is secured in a court, and that conviction is reported in reliable secondary-sources. Zaereth (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

In fact, I went ahead and removed it, because even in draft space it is still a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Zaereth (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if this whole thread is violation of the BLP policy, as a quick Google search based on your discussion above provided me with unseemly, unverified details about the article's subject. Ditch ∝ 19:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Gregg L. Semenza

User:Arifer sock Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I revised the BLP on Gregg L. Semenza today by adding the new section "Retractions". My effort was motivated by a recent Nature article stating that Semenza's coauthored work that has attracted public scrutiny due to concerns regarding the validity of the data. The article claims that 17 papers by the subject have been retracted or corrected or elicited expressions of concern, and another 15 papers are currently under close scrutiny. It is unclear whether this may be construed as a misconduct pattern or just sloppiness in the lab. I suppose the article may be regarded as a secondary source and therefore worth incorporated in WP given the importance of the matter. Since the subject is a famous living person, abundance of caution becomes mandatory and accordingly, I would like to invite fellow editors to intervene and review or revise the material I have inserted. IneqsBell (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC) This user has been blocked as a sock of Ariel Fernandez, which is deeply ironic given Fernandez's fervent opposition to mentions of expressions of concern in his own article. Large sections of IneqsBell's additions to the article are unsourced. I wouldn't be opposed to removing their additions entirely and rewriting from scratch. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC) I reverted their additions entirely. In addition to the WP:BANREVERT justification, the content included bits of blatant copyvio and even more WP:CLOP. No objections if someone wants to add content based on the Nature source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC) Should this section be hatted, given that it was made by a sock? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC) I wouldn't push for it, but it wouldn't bother me. If someone wants to delete this section or archive it right away, they have my permission. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Kiwi Farms

Talk:Kiwi Farms was set to perma semi-protection, then was changed to time-expiry extended-confirmed due to a single troll; when it expired, it reverted to no protection, but should be set back to perma semi-protection to avoid persistent vandalism. Lizthegrey (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lizthegrey: I've reapplied the previous indef semi-proteciton. Thanks for the heads up. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Middle East Eye

I'd appreciate an extra pair of eyes here. Someone has been adding information about one of the outlet's contributor, who had an award retracted after allegations were raised about anti-Semitism and pro-Nazism writings. While that part of the information seem verified, I fear the way it's being added violates our WP:BLP policies (specially as it's been written in WP:WIKIVOICE), and it might be WP:UNDUE, as it isn't directly related to the outlet itself. My attempts at explaining that to the editor didn't work. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Coverage from The Jerusalem Post and Arab News probably merits a sentence, but it seems the IP is new to BLP so I'll try to write up something more neutral. RAN1 (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Should be all set now. RAN1 (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Simon Sisters' Resolvable Discrepancies Still Unresolved

With a subscription to Ancestry.com, anybody can find out when they were really born. Joanna was born on October 20, 1936,[59] Lucy on May 5, 1940,[60] and Carly on June 25, 1943.[61] Those are the facts. Check the 1950 census and the facts line up.[62]

Two prior discussions (one at this noticeboard) proved fruitless, with hardly any users engaging. I ask that more users provide input. Lots of secondary sources report Carly's birth year truthfully. Fewer for Joanna and Lucy cause they're not as famous.

It's been said that birth and census records are not allowed in a BLP. But the article for Lee Grant includes an Ancestry link to the same publicly accessible birth index the Simons are listed in. And the Barbara Walters article cites a book which names the U.S. Census Bureau as its source for the claim that Walters was born in the 1920s.

If the birthdate is ascertainible then why do we have to also list the debunked birthdates that have previously been published? Some of you may remember that Madonna used to claim 1960, early in her career, and several almanacs and articles from the eighties shaved two years off her birthdate. But only 1958 is listed on Wikipedia....because there can only be one accurate year regardless of how many have been published in the past. Ysovain (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ysovain: I did not respond to your earlier question because I felt it had already been answered. You do not need 10 people to tell you that policy does not allow Ancestry to be used in that way per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY, that's simply not how Wikipedia works. indeedIndeed, your editing career here is likely to be short if you keep demanding 10 people tell you the same thing per WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. You need to accept our policies and guidelines especially BLP or stop editing here. From you description of the sourcing, from Wikipedia's POV, this discrepancy is not resolvable despite what you keep saying. If other sources did not care to resolve it, we don't either.

As for the other stuff, well, about Lee GrantBarbara Walters, it's perfectly fine for reliable secondary sources to use primary sources to ascertain the date. That's the whole point of reliable secondary sources, we trust them to adequately assess primary and other sources for accuracy, as well as decide if the information is important enough to publish. About Barbara WaltersLee Grant, there seem to be a lot of sources including some secondary and tertiary ones for the year. I'm not sure how the specific year was decided, but I'm not convinced it was from deciding Ancestry or the other primary sources are is the be all sources. If it was, then this was a mistake put per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it does not mean we should repeat that mistake elsewhere. Edit: Personally I would much rather we didn't include most of those primary sources in Grant at all but with so many other sources it's a fairly minor thing IMO.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC) 04:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I came across the edit Ysovain made immediately before starting this discussion [63] while looking for uses of the horribly unreliable thefamouspeople.com. I'm afraid whatever biases this editor has are incompatible with editing these articles. --Hipal (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The Associated Press states that Carly Simon turned 79 on June 25th.[64] This was repeated by outlets such as ABC News[65] plus many other sources that back it up:

• https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0800089/
• https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2ba312883c
• https://www.almanac.com/fact/carly-simon-musician-born
• https://teachrock.org/people/simon-carly/
• https://www.prestomusic.com/jazz/composers/11083--simon-c
• https://www.songfacts.com/facts/carly-simon
• https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/173740.Carly_Simon
• https://www.onthisday.com/music/birthdays/date/1943/june
• https://www.wilde-life.com/encyclopedia/s/simon-carly

So why is "or 1945" necessary when the Madonna article doesn't say "or 1960" ??

There are TEN citations next to that. The appropriate action would've been to remove the one, not all of them. Ysovain (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This analysis of the birth records and 1950 census record is a good sanity check on the conflicting dates. I added another citation to the Carly Simon article that supports the 1943 birthdate. It is a quote from James Taylor (born March 1948), who spoke about seeing Carly Simon on stage when he was 14 and recounted, "I thought she was quite attractive, but she was, and still is, four years older than I was, so back then when she was 18 and I was 14 she was a bit less approachable than she was when I was 24." Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I think a block or ban is necessary at this point. [66] Ysovain appears unable to differentiate reliable from unreliable sources or work with other editors following policy.

• Ysovain (talk · contribs)
• Carly Simon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Joanna Simon (mezzo-soprano) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lucy Simon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Simon Sisters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• June 25 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 1943 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm unclear why the ref (Jack Harkrider (April 27, 1963). "Smothers Brothers Visit 'Hootenanny'". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The Simon Sisters, Lucy and Carly, making their television debut, will sing "Winken, Blinken, and Nod.") has been removed. I've gone ahead and removed it further [67][68], until we can sort out the content policy issues around it.

I'm not seeing any article talk page discussions at all. @4meter4: could you explain the problems with using the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reference above? --Hipal (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@ Hipal I need some better context to understand why I am being pinged about this particular source; for one I can't see it's content (pay wall) and the quoted text doesn't seem pertinent to the topic. As far as I can remember I added back all of the verifiable age related sources added by Ysovain in the explanatory note at Joanna Simon (mezzo-soprano). The issue was the Ysovain wanted to use sources that gave an age (but not an actual day, month, or year of birth); to verify a specific date of birth as October 20, 1936. That can't be done because the sources in question don't actually say anywhere that she was born on October 20, 1936; that's original guesswork/research (and if she lied about the year she was born she could easily lie about the day too). We can really only report what the sources actually say per WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:SYNTH. See the explanatory note as to how I addressed the issue as neutrally as possible.4meter4 (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've restored it to The Simon Sisters, where it was used to verify their tv debut in '63. The quote suggests the reference is an announcement, rather than after-the-fact reporting. A better reference would help: https://www.worldcat.org/title/80547877 , or maybe More Room in a Broken Heart: The True Adventures of Carly Simon By Stephen Davis. --Hipal (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I was confusing two similar refs, and the one I identified above hadn't been removed, only the usage had been changed as 4meter4 explains. The second is ("Rutgers Plays Host to TV's 'Hootenanny' Show Tonight". The News & Observer. May 4, 1963. p. 15.), which I don't have access to, and partially restored to Lucy Simon. --Hipal (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive333#Carly_Simon_was_born_in_1943_..._NOT_1945 --Hipal (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• WP:SOCK?4meter4 (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Carly Simon's date of birth is 1945, according to Massachusetts voter records. I also seem to remember reading somewhere that Carly was 17 when she first heard the Beatles, so her date of birth has to be 1945 as The Beatles did not put out their first record until 1962. (2601:C6:8480:1F10:B8FA:5E82:ECBB:C731 (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC))

Carly Simon's wedding announcements to James Taylor in 1972 listed her age as 27, although prior records (her birth record and 1950 census record) reflect a birthdate of June 1943. Listing her age as 27 rather than her actual age of 29 in the wedding announcements in 1972 makes sense, because her husband, James Taylor, was only 24 years old. Simple explanation. The Beatles story is, unfortunately, not a reliable source. Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why we can't use ancestry as a source. There is a document published there with the birth being reported on 25 June 1943. That seems as the most reliable source to me. DrKilleMoff (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree, but perhaps worth saying that the Ancestry information supports other WP:RS cited in the article. Citations that cite the 1945 birthdate have relied on less-reliable, concocted information. Samp4ngeles (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The 1974 book entitled Carly Simon by Charles and Ann Morse noted, "Because Joanna was 6 years older than Carly, the two never had to compete. Carly enjoyed her brother Peter. But Lucy, only 3 years older, was someone Carly wanted to copy." This is congruent with births in October 1936 for Joanna, May 1940 for Lucy, and June 1943 for Carly.--Samp4ngeles (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The 2012 book Hearts of Darkness: James Taylor, Jackson Browne, Cat Stevens, and the Unlikely Rise of the Singer-Songwriter quotes James Taylor as saying, "I thought [Carly Simon] was quite attractive, but she was, and still is, four years older than I was, so back then when she was eighteen and I was fourteen, she was a bit less approachable than she was when I was twenty-four." This is congruent with births in June 1943 for Carly Simon and March 1948 for James Taylor.--Samp4ngeles (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Pierre Dadak

Pierre Dadak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sure, they're no angel, but this page seems to be functioning as little more than an exposè of the subject, and seems to be pretty close to an attack page. It details content without immediate relevance to the subject (male rape in the Sudanese Civil War), and seems to be based heavily on a single source. It also seems to add labels to them which aren't appropriate. The whole thing is a bigger mess than I feel like cleaning up at the moment. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 01:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I did what I could since I can't read Polish, but at least it's not a play-by-play. RAN1 (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hafsia Herzi

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

A single purpose-account on a mission has readded again excessively long imbalanced information in a biography of a living person. Some of the information he added is outright false and defamatory. Among other things, the editor claims that the actress in question was long known as an Arab-hater. This is an extremely harmful accusation which is NOT backed by the French-language source provided. I already pointed this out when I previously removed the material, even linking to the Wikipedia guidelines in question. The BLP template has also been in display on the talk page for quite some time, not that it made any difference. Note that this single-purpose account first added the highly contentious material 3 years ago. After I removed it some weeks ago he suddenly makes a reappearance after 3 years (!) starting an edit-war about the material and not caring for any other subject. This appears to be a person with a very personal interest in the matter of question. It's also likely the editor is identical with this IP sockpuppet.

I've made a notice of this incident very early in this case because Hafsia Herzi's Wikipedia article has been viciously assailed by trolls in the past who inserted other defamatory material falsely claiming that she was a pornographic actress or falsely asserting that she had performed unsimulated sex on screen. In the page history you can see that some of these harmful claims stood uncorrected for months. This is why I think that this BLP page is in dire need of semi-protection and the single-purpose account should not be allowed to carry on like that.Lizavers (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)