Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive282

Olivia Jade

Psantora (talk · contribs) claims that being a current student counts as being an "alumnus" and that therefore we should put her in Category:University of Southern California alumni. There are no reliable sources that explicitly support that labeling, so Psantora claims that the fact that reliable sources that state that she's a current student counts under his logic. This is not only a blatant misuse of the common meaning of "alumnus", but at the best is definitely not BLP-compliant.

I think it is very fair to keep any such categorization out of the article, regardless of Psantora's beliefs or their correctness, until Olivia's status becomes resolved by the university and/or reliable sources definitively categorize her as such.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see the ongoing discussion, with the proper context, at Talk:Olivia Jade#Why is she listed as a "USC Alumni"?. I have also reached out to the relevant WikiProject for their input here.

@Jasper Deng: I do not agree that your characterization of my logic is accurate so I encourage others to read the discussion at the talk page of the article in question. It boils down to deciding if a current student should be listed in the alumni or people category. - Paul^T+/_C 02:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

As you know, I consider the answer to that to be a resounding "no". But I think you will at least agree that your logic is not going to pass muster for BLP.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

We'll just have to see what others think I guess. - Paul^T+/_C 02:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Replace with "USC People" / also, a comment I support removing the USC Alumni category and replacing with USC People simply because, between the two, this option seems to be the one that would scandalize the fewest people (and I, personally, don't think she counts as a USC alumnus until she's separated from school). That said, the fact that RS don't explicitly call her an alumnus I don't find a compelling argument as we can find many quality BLPs with categories that are logically sound but not explicitly supported by RS using the exact terminology of the category name. For instance, there are very few RS' that explicitly describe someone as a "living person" but that is one of our most included categories. We also, for instance, include "American memoirists" as a category for Barrack Obama and I'm having trouble finding RS that refer to him as an "American memoirist" but, logically, he is on the basis of being an American and having written a memoir, both facts that are separately supported by RS. I think we're going overboard if we are now demanding that no category be applied to any article unless the specific phrasing used in the category name can be found in RS. Insofar as categorization goes, I think there's a precedential OR safe harbor for common sense. (Of course, this is all academic as I support removal of the USC Alumni category in any case in this instance.) Chetsford (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'd contend that in those cases, these categorizations are straightforward: it's not OR'y to conclude they belong in those categories, and the subject would not typically find them controversial. In this case, the categorization is not at all logically straightforward and the subject could easily take issue with the implied meaning of "alumnus" here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  That's not an unreasonable position, though, I still have to disagree with it as (a) I believe alumni status is logically straightforward, and, (b) I don't believe the subject's preference should generally be a factor in whether or not we include or don't include something. But, that said, this is merely an academic disagreement. From a technical perspective I agree with you that we should remove the category in this instance. Chetsford (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  To be clear, I'd definitely have no issue with a categorization of this sort for a non-BLP. And indeed it's not our job to cater to her preferences (she has not asserted them here anyway), but BLP does require sourcing for a controversial claim like this (hence distinguishing from mundane categories like "living people"). To me, it's logically straightforward to not have the categorization of alumnus on her article, but it is very much not logical to add that categorization.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  "controversial claim like this" - I've seen argument of a category being inherently controversial invoked in cases like "Neo-Nazi" and "conspiracy theorist" but not "USC Alumni." That said, being myself an alumnus of a PAC 12 rival of USC I can understand that being called a USC alumnus would not be tolerated by any sane or reasonable person. So, okay. Chetsford (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  And we've invoked Godwin's law. How many replies did it take this time? - Paul^T+/_C 03:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  Straw man argument. If you take Olivia's perspective, what would you think? (keep in mind her current life situation). This is why we have BLP.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  What does Olivia's perspective have to do with it? The question is about factual accuracy regardless of how she personally feels about it. That is why we have BLP. If it were as you argue we wouldn't have anything negative to say about anyone in their own article because it would(/could) make them feel bad. - Paul^T+/_C 03:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  It has everything to do with it. From BLP, Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.. If Olivia (or rather, a general living person) would take issue with it (definitively yes), then it is "contentious". Also, as you have clearly seen, this categorization is being challenged and you have provided zero sources for the claim (again, your inference from the dictionary definitions does not count).--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  The fact in question is if she is a current student. On this we agree, definitively yes, based on the current sources. The nature of our disagreement is explicitly about the style guideline for university categories, i.e.: (from below) It isn't clear if university "alumni" categories are exclusively for former students (including graduates, but not current students) and/or if university "people" categories should not contain current or former students/graduates if there is an appropriate "alumni" category present (and there usually is).. There is no dispute about factual information. This is a style question. - Paul^T+/_C 04:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  No, the fact in question is if she’s an alumnus. You are unable to assume the material implication of “is a current student”=> “is an alumnus” and are therefore unable to reduce this dispute to that fact alone. You cannot equate those facts.—Jasper Deng (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  This creates maintenance issues and it has a wider implications beyond just this article. Let's say Olivia does withdraw. You agree that alumni would be the correct category in that case, right? What happens if she becomes a current student again after that point? Do you then remove the alumni category even though it is still technically accurate even after she re-joins? You can't un-become an alumni. - Paul^T+/_C 04:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  She should be categorized according to what reliable sources say. You cannot escape the fact that adding her to a category is a statement that she is the type of entity of that category. That’s why I’m taking issue with it on BLP grounds.—Jasper Deng (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  We are not in dispute about what the sources say. The question is about what the university alumni categories mean. If they mean only "former students" and "graduates", then she does not belong in the alumni category and I will not have any reason to debate it. But, if they mean "current students", "former students", and "graduates" then she does belong in the alumni category because the current sources then support that assertion. Neither of these assertions about the meaning of the university alumni categories have been demonstrated one way or the other and can not be demonstrated here. The article as it currently stands does not have either category and I'm 100% fine with leaving it that way until there is a larger discussion to determine the current consensus on the topic in the proper venue. - Paul^T+/_C 04:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  And once again you are unable to assume the expanded meaning you advocate because even if your argument holds water, it clearly is not mainstream. Therefore it is controversial enough of a claim to fall under BLP. In other words, your reasoning for the expanded categorical definition is too shaky in this BLP situation to be BLP compliant.—Jasper Deng (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  That is tautological reasoning and invalid. The "expanded" definition is only controversial because you state it as such. Even if it is "not mainstream" as you assert (there is currently no consensus with regard to the categories on this point either way, trust me I've looked for it), that does not mean it would therefore be controversial. - Paul^T+/_C 05:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  No, it very much does mean it’s controversial. The very fact that several editors are challenging you on this makes it so. For a BLP, something that is demonstrably disputable like this requires sourcing.—Jasper Deng (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  There is no sourcing dispute. No facts are being disputed. This is purely a question of stylization. - Paul^T+/_C 05:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Question: do a significant number of reliable sources say that Olivia Jade is an alumnus of USC? Woodroar (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

No. I've been actively following "Olivia Jade" on Google News and literally none of the results I've read have explicitly called her an "alumnus".--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant that for User:Psantora or any other editor who wants to add the category. I should have specified that, my bad. Woodroar (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources state that she is a student at the university. There was some controversy over whether she had withdrawn, which is I think the reason for the confusion and consternation on this topic. My argument is that even if the scandal didn't happen and there was clearly no question on whether she is a current student or not, the article still belongs in the alumni category, not the people category. There is extensive discussion on the rationale behind this at the talk page in question. - Paul^T+/_C 03:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Extensive discussion isn't an end run around BLP. The category was challenged and removed, it's now your burden to supply an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Woodroar (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no dispute on whether she is a current student (at least not with Jasper Deng and me). The question is about Wikipedia category policy. It isn't clear if university "alumni" categories are exclusively for former students (including graduates, but not current students) and/or if university "people" categories should not contain current or former students/graduates if there is an appropriate "alumni" category present (and there usually is). - Paul^T+/_C 03:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding her to the alumni category is stating that she is an alumnus of the school, for which you don’t have BLP-compliant sourcing. The general question of categorization isn’t relevant here.—Jasper Deng (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It absolutely is relevant; it is the heart of the dispute since we do not disagree on the actual fact that she is a currently enrolled student, as per the latest reliable sourcing. One example that I recently (re)discovered are the Category:Wikipedians by alma mater categories. They all state "current and past students", in support of my point. Now, "alma mater" is different than "alumni" but the point is still valid. USC is Olivia's alma mater, correct? - Paul^T+/_C 05:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

That whole comment by you is a red herring. “Alma mater” has a slightly more relaxed definition than “alumnus” and even in that case we would not make that statement about Olivia without reliable sourcing.

I should point to WP:BLUDGEON here. I think the consensus of this BLPN discussion is that BLP precludes this kind of categorization here without explicit sourcing. This would be irrespective of the semantics of “alumnus” since there is clearly far from a consensus that such can stand without sourcing (i.e. not falling afoul of WP:SYNTH). I think you should concede that your viewpoint (specifically the broader categorization) is untenable both on the BLP and on the semantic grounds here.—Jasper Deng (talk)

If anyone is guilty of bludgeoning here it is you towards me. I have not once responded to you unless directly addressed. You've inserted yourself into 2 separate conversations about this to argue your point with me without allowing the person I was directly replying to comment first. I should have ignored your responses and waited for the original editor to respond. Indeed, since you hijacked those threads neither Woodroar or Chetsford have contributed since. I'm curious if Trillfendi or ElKevbo have anything to add to the conversation. - Paul^T+/_C 06:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Jesus, I was bludgeoned out of the conversation by sleep, not Jasper Deng. Although I'd hoped that in the interim someone would have found sources stating that Olivia Jade is an alumnus of USC. Not synthesis to user-generated sites or obscure dictionary definitions. Not discussions about words other than "alumnus". And not excuses about confusion among sources because the story is developing, which I'll note is the absolutely worst time to make claims about living persons. No, I'm looking for actual reliable sources that actually unambiguously state that Olivia Jade is an actual almunus at USC which is actually required by our BLP and Verifiability policies. Now if you'll excuse me while work—not Jasper Deng—bludgeons me temporarily out of this discussion. Woodroar (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Should probably remove her. No source calls her an alumnus, and the reasoning for including her relies on one editor's idiosyncratic interpretation of the meaning of "alumnus". That term is used almost exclusively to refer to former members of organizations. Latin roots should not be used as evidence for the meanings of English words. There doesn't seem to be an explicit category definition included on the category pages, but alumnus uses "former student" in its definition, so unless there's some project-wide consensus to the contrary, I don't think those categories should be used to include current students. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  Alumni meaning current student is not idiosyncratic and I'm not the only person arguing the point. There is extensive discussion on this point at the talk page in question. Re-hashing these points here and splintering the discussion seems counterproductive. Regarding the project-wide consensus on the point, I tried to find it at the project page and started the linked discussion when there was nothing definitive either way. - Paul^T+/_C 03:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  I've read the discussion on the talk page, and I find your arguments unpersuasive. The major English language dictionaries all agree that "alumnus" means a former student of a university, or a former member of a organization. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  OK, that is your opinion and I'm happy to debate it on the talk page or WikiProject in question. The discussion here is about whether the distinction (or lack thereof) it is a BLP violation. - Paul^T+/_C 03:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  Any issue regarding claims about a living person are, by definition, BLP issues. This is a noticeboard for bringing in more viewpoints on discussions regarding claims about living persons. Claiming that this person is an alumnus of USC when she is in fact a current student is a false claim about a living person. By adding her to that category you are making a false claim about a living person, and you are doing so not based on sources but based on your own (incorrect) interpretation of the meaning of certain terms. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  The claim is not about a dispute of facts. It is a style dispute. If we are going to determine that the current consensus is to only list former students in alumni categories, fine, but we need to have a wider discussion about it to get to that global consensus.

  A good point from the talk page that has not been addressed here: Unless there is a very strong need to create and maintain categories or lists of current students, I strongly recommend sticking with alumni lists and categories. Not only is the alumni label applicable for current students but alumni lists and categories are a lot easier to maintain than student lists and categories. Once someone matriculates at an institution, they're an alumnus so we can add them to the list or category and be done with it. If we have lists or categories of students, we have to maintain them to not only add people but also remove people once they graduate, drop out, transfer, are expelled, etc.

  I don't think a half a dozen editors commenting on this in the context of this particular article is appropriate. I'm clearly in the minority here but I'm trying to have a wider debate about it in the proper venue. I don't think this noticeboard is the appropriate place to have that larger discussion about the general guideline regarding university categories. - Paul^T+/_C 04:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note, the alumnus definition at Wiktionary is inclusive of "student" regardless of their current status at the university in question. The page hasn't been edited since 2018 and has included the term "student" since the page was created in 2004. In fact it was the only definition present at that time. - Paul^T+/_C 05:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If it says that, it's wrong. Consult a real-world dictionary. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Unless a category is supported by reliable sourcing, it cannot be added to a BLP unless it is clearly and plainly obviously correct. Someone who has published multiple novels is a novellist, regardless of if sourcing specifically refer to them as 'Novellist X'. The common and almost universal meaning of 'alumnus' is *former*, either ex/graduated etc. So unless they quit, or reliable sources refer to them as such, per the BLP its an invalid category. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - It looks like consensus has formed here, at least with respect to this article. Though, there is also similar discussion happening for the more general case at the WikiProject (linked above) that is also pointing in the same direction. Alumni categories are not to include current students. I concede the point given the outcome of this discussion, despite still personally disagreeing with it. Now, shall we add back the "USC people" category instead? - Paul^T+/_C 15:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

David Arthur Jones

David Arthur Jones (Political Scientist) is an American expatriate working in Europe and Asia. He was a 20th century American legal sociologist, and he is a 21st century Polish political scientist, holding an appointment as professor of international business, international law, international management at University of Warsaw, Poland where he has worked since 2005. He is the author of several publications including Four Eagles and a Dragon: Successes and Failures of Quixotic Encirclement Strategies in International Relations, An Analysis(London and New Delhi: Bloomsbury, Plc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicalscientist88 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

And? We don't appear to have an article on him.--Auric talk 18:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thierry Baudet

An IP editor seems to be willing to edit war to include a literal translation of the Thierry Baudet's surname (as 'donkey/ass') in the lead of his article. This seems to me to be an utterly irrelevant, and is just being inserted in order to insult the subject; however, since it's technically a correct translation, I wanted to raise it here - I intend to continue reverting as vandalism, but thoughts from others would be appreciated. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 11:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped; for the record, I'd appreciate it if others would agree that the insertion is inappropriate, in case they start up again. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I agree with you, the translation of his name adds nothing of encyclopaedic value, it's just being done as a means to insult him. Neiltonks (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, completely inappropriate. StAnselm (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Limousine liberal

More eyes are needed on Limousine liberal#Later use. Several of the sources are questionable for BLP content (YouTube, NewsMax, MichelleMalkin.com, and an opinion column from the Washington Post). My understanding from WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPSPS is that some of these sources are not acceptable. There's also issues with WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:SYNTH.- MrX 🖋 23:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've removed the whole lot. See my four edit summaries as for why. Material added by an editor who (as anyone who's been here for a long time will know) is not exactly neutral on American politics. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look Black Kite.- MrX 🖋 23:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thomasina Winslow

Reads like a bombastic resume, with such claims to fame as singing at a coffeehouse and receiving an education grant. Neil Armstrong has a shorter biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.36.20 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I have made a start by cutting out a part that provides excessive promotional information on YATMA and tagging the article for its over-reliance on primary sources. I'll admit I prefer to tackle smaller articles; Bearian appears to be the primary author, who might be of assistance here. – Teratix ₵ 07:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm really busy IRL this week for teaching and graduate school, so I can't edit much. I see now it's far too long and detailed. I will be able to edit on this coming Sunday, I think. What are you thinking of trimming? Bearian (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Wang Zheng (pilot)

Wang Zheng (pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am an attorney for Julie Wang (Wang Zheng) the subject of the above-referenced Wikipedia page, and write to request that the repeated attempts by patently conflicted individuals and/or their proxies to vandalize the page with libelous, poorly sourced and unsourced contentious material about the subject, a living person, be removed immediately from the article and its Talk page.

Wang Zheng's primary employment is as an airline pilot and libelous, unfounded, false and scurrilous accusations against her will impact her current and future employment and are directly contrary to Wikipedia policies. There is no benefit to the project to give credence scurrilous, frivolous accusations by a COI individual simply to prop up an undocumented controversy. For these reasons, the objectionable material must be taken down immediately to prevent further injury to Wang Zheng. After a proper investigation, it can always be republished later if there is a consensus that portions of it properly may be restored in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.

The undisputed facts are as follows:

On September 19, 2016, Wang Zheng made aviation history by completing a solo circumnavigation of the globe in an airplane. With that flight, Wang also became the first Asian woman and the first Chinese woman to pilot an aircraft around the world. At the time she had already accumulated over 1,600 hours of flight time, 600 of which were as an FAA-certified flight instructor, and had obtained her airline transport pilot certificate, qualifying her to fly for scheduled airlines (the highest level FAA pilot certificate).

That Wang Zheng accomplished her circumnavigation flight on September 19, 2016, is unassailable historical fact. Not a single person has come forward with any facts to controvert any part of her accomplishment, nor will anyone ever do so since the flight was successfully conducted exactly as reported. Not only were the bona fides of her flight vetted by Earthrounders, the preeminent aviation organization recording and documenting around the world flights, but also by AOPA China who administered and co-promoted the around-the-world flight event "contest" under whose auspices the flight was conducted and who, on November 1, 2016, declared Wang the "first Chinese woman to pilot an airplane around the world," after vetting and approving the bona fides of the flight.

Not only was the flight tracked by the Iridium satellite network via a "Spidertracks" aviation transponder located in the cockpit of the aircraft but also by public, independent flight tracking websites such as Flight Radar 24 an Flight Aware, who also use satellite data to track her flight around the world. The flight, moreover, was fully documented with customary paperwork from beginning to end, at each stopping point, as well as by photos and video, as well as flyover permits for various countries and documentation from the FAA enabling the aircraft to be flown with extra fuel tanks replacing all seating except for one pilot's seat.

The objectionable material in the "Controversy over Claims" section of the page as well as the section of the Talk page entitled "Self publishing, business promotion and fraud," casts aspersions on the bona fides of Wang Zheng's flight but offers no evidence. Any assertion that Wang's flight was anything but bona fide is not only unsupported by evidence but is patently defamatory and must be immediately removed. Innuendo and "suspicion" cannot support outright claims of fraud on Wikipedia's pages. Yet that is exactly what's going on here and it's simply outrageous.

Based on the evidence and facts, there is no actual controversy about the main subject matter of the article, Wang's solo circumnavigation flight. The libelous edits to the page and its Talk page are being made directly or indirectly by "Saki" Jingxian Chen who has been unsuccessfully lobbying for over two years for AOPA China to accept her assertion that she, and not Julie Wang, is the first Chinese woman to fly around the world. Chen's assertion, however, was rejected when AOPA China determined that Wang Zheng was the first Chinese female pilot to successfully fly a global circumnavigation and is in any event frivolous. There is no dispute that Chen's flight concluded on September 27, 2016, and Wang's eight days earlier, on September 19th. Unless Chen has a time-machine she will never have a valid claim to being the first Chinese woman to fly-around the world.

A more obvious actual COI is difficult to find. Although I am no Wikipedia expert, the manner of EdiK2016's edits makes it obvious that he or she is Chen's proxy, probably paid. Chen's obvious COI is all the more reprehensible since she either has no reliable sources, relying on her personal blog her personal blog and other Chinese blogs that exist only because they can be outright paid-for, for her unfounded assertions.

Also false and defamatory is the inclusion in the "Controversy" section of the unsupported allegation that "Wang never completed her circumnavigation or provided sufficient evidence." This is libel per se by Chen and Wikipedia, right on Wikipedia's own page, and is contentious material about a living person. There is no footnote. Footnote No. 24 preceding refers to an article from 2016 is irrelevant to the proposition it is supposed to support.

With this communication I am in good faith following Wikipedia's rules for mediating disputes concerning biographies of living persons and hope that more seasoned, neutral editors can cut through the nonsense. I am happy to work with you to resolve this. but be advised that if the matter is not resolved expeditiously, and any libelous, contentious, or conflict of interest material is not removed, Ms. Wang will proceed to exercise all available remedies and hold accountable all responsible individuals for all damages permitted by law, including attorneys' fees. Wikipedia's rules do not allow for frivolous, unfounded allegations to be lobbed into the public square by persons seeking deliberately to destroy another's reputation or allowing a subject to be victimized or cast in a false light. Unless and until there is factual evidence upon which to base the assertion that Wang Zheng's RTW flight is not bona fide, Wikipedia may not provide itself as the forum for the current fake "controversy" based on "suspicion" and innuendo.CTF99 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

James FrechterCTF99 (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the book cover image is "up for deletion" unless and until it gets a valid notification of permission to be on Commons. Collect (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment It does appear that EdiK2016 may have a conflict of interest regarding this article, and I have asked them on their talk page to explain this. I have also attempted to provide a neutral version of the article, rather than the blanking of sourced comment by one editor and the inclusion of excessively detailed and unhelpful content by another. The current version is certainly not perfect, but I have attempted to include sources for the competing claims that have been made, and have tried to be careful to say that they are merely claims by the other person, rather than stating them as fact in wikipedia's voice, as well as moving this to a section rather than having it in the lead or throughout the article (which is overall very favourable to the subject, unsurprisingly given who it has been edited by). I will also note that CTF99 appears to have been editing the article from multiple accounts and IP addresses without disclosing their own conflict of interest until now, which certainly hasn't helped. Melcous (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @CTF99: You should be aware that the last paragraph of your post is likely going to be seen as violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats. While the BLP concerns you and Wang have about the article will be looked into and editors helping out here will do want they can, that last paragraph will only lead to your account getting blocked by an administrator if you don't strike-it-through or modify it accordingly as explained in WP:REDACT. In addition, the fact that you've been editing the article over the years and are claiming above that you represent Wang is a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and most likely a financial conflict of interest as well since you're claiming your her attorney. This means you are subject to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, and you need to properly disclose your connection per WP:DISCLOSECOI or else your account may also be blocked by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ignoring all above The first cite for the other pilot only stated she intended to fly around the world, thus is not RS for her completing that flight in the first place. Such weak initial claims basically mean none of the "stuff" is sufficiently well-sourced for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Collect it's quite a bit more than that - there are other sources saying that she did complete the journey, the dispute seem to be around the exact dates and whether it was done solo, and there are sources for the New York court case. I have restored the content about the lawsuits and tried to keep the wording to what is found in the sources. Please have a look and discuss on the talk page if you think it is not accurate to the sources or not neutrally worded. Melcous (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Even though the CTF99 has redacted the part of their post which might be subject to WP:NLT, there are still some serious WP:COI and WP:PAID concerns which haven't been addressed. As I pointed out at WP:AN#Possible NLT at BLPN, CTF99 is not only claiming to be an attorney for Wang, he is claiming to be James Fretcher. In a couple of articles about Wang, I found this photo attribution to a "Jim Fretcher" in a 2016 Sun-Sentinel article as well as a mention of a "James Frectcher" a 2018 article by the San Gabriel Valley Tribune as being a "manager of CGA" which in turn is "China General Aviation LLC" the "promoter that helped prepare her financially for the flight" and which "also is named as a plaintiff" in a lawsuit that Wang has filed. This is a pretty serious financial conflict of interest connection to Wang that CTF99 didn't disclose up until his post above. These things need to be sorted out by CTF99; either he's the same James/Jim Fretcher and thus needs to properly WP:DISCLOSECOI and stop editing the article, or he's not and needs to stop the WP:IMPERSONATION. It also needs to be understood that Wikipedia articles are not the place to try and fight real world legal battles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrong venue for that argument - this board is for BLP issues only. I note the final sentence is based on a "primary source" which should be replaced as soon as practicable per WP:RS. The claims which were violative of WP:BLP were rewritten at least. As I said earlier the stuff above my post is irrelevant to the purpose of this board, and I therefore ignored it all. Collect (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Not suggesting those issues need to be or should be resolved here, just mentioning that they need to be resolved somewhere, most likely at the AN discussion about them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Melcous, you seek to justify your editing by claiming "there are other sources saying that [Wang Zheng] did complete the journey, the dispute seem[sic] to be around the exact dates and whether it was done solo, and there are sources for the New York court case" but produce no sources and more importantly, cite to not a single source with even a single piece of evidence contradicting the bona fides of Wang Zheng's flight. Shame on you. You won't enforce the BLP rules rigorously as WP demands. Shame on you again for your preposterous assertion that I'm bringing a real world legal battle here. It's obvious I've done no such thing. I've never mentioned any lawsuit or Saki Chen's wild claims here. Only she or her paid hack proxies, such as EdiK2016, have done that in violation of WP policy. To be perfectly clear, this is Wang Zheng's WP page focused on her wonderful flight accomplishment and background; it is Saki Chen or or proxies who deliberately came here to lob grenades. Your mischaracterization is again, shameful. My point obviously is just the opposite; namely, that this page is no place for this kind of personal dispute and that the section "Lawsuits" must be irrevocably deleted. Remember, each BLP rule is to be applied so as to protect the subject. Honestly, perhaps you should review them one by one and refresh yourself with what they require and then look at this again.CTF99 (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not really the place for this discussion, but to clarify, CTF99 you have misunderstood the above where my comment about whether the journey was completed or done solo was about Chen, not Zheng, as per the sources in the article. It is also worth noting that wikipedia biographies do not exist to focus on someone's "wonderful accomplishments", you might want to read WP:LUC - the fact that there have been lawsuits about this and they have been reported in the media means that they can, will, and I would argue should, be included in the article. Melcous (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to give everyone a heads up, CTF99 was banned a couple of days ago as a sockpuppet. [1] Sperril (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Eric Swanson

It is a resume and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.83.40.34 (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't really read like a resume. Much more detail than the usual resume.--Auric talk 18:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

william wrigley jr ii

May i respectfully ask that personal information regarding marriage status and number of children be removed from this wiki page. I understand that it is cited content but it is also outdated and incorrect. Rather than correct it i would like the information removed to respect the individuals privacy. My apologies for editing this in advance of requesting via this talk page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wrigley_Jr._II — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.79.51 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I cut the non-notable names from the article. These people have no article so there is no point in naming them or infringing on their privacy. Since you have declared a WP:Conflict of interest you should not edit the article yourself. Please ask other to make the changes for you, either here or on the talk page. It is unlikely sourced content will be deleted. We're an encyclopedia, not Facebook, so we don't keep updates on relationship statuses. We only report what is found in reliable sources. Zaereth (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way, my advice to your associate and everyone else who comes here asking for this, follow Keanu Reeves' example. If you don't want the world knowing your personal life stop telling it to the world. Zaereth (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Tobias Harris

Someone has edited this article (Tobias Harris) to reflect an incorrect current team. Requesting someone correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5D:5680:6E:9964:AFF0:80FB:903C (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I have undonify the change. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Francis Vicente

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

Francis John Patrick M. Vicente (talk · contribs)

I'm at impasse with my discussion with FJPMV. I could use some advice, since he is now claiming that I own "his" article and that I created it, which he has been (sloppily) removing info from. I'm not sure if the sources are RS, but they look to be. --Auric talk 17:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a difficult task, since they are obviously very emotionally distraught, but also speak very broken English. I wouldn't be surprised if this is being translated by google or something. If anyone here speaks Filipino, perhaps they could come help break down the apparent communication barrier. (Note: all discussion are at the user talk pages.)Zaereth (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

For example, I'm not sure they understand that the link to WP:OWNERSHIP is meant for them to click and read (if they even can), but seem to interpret that as Auric saying they own the article personally. Something's not getting across. Zaereth (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You know, if no one comes along, another trick is to try phrasing your words and syntax to translate better over google. It's like when talk like Bosnian, my friend, you go make sentence more talk like Bosnian do. Zaereth (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Umar Farooq Zahoor

Seriously violates WP:BLP and not even a notable guy. A deletion discussion is going on AFD. - ToT89 (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, though if the article has BLP issues (I am of the view it does not have any blatant ones) that should be addressed. Note however that, while bringing the attention of the noticeboard to an AfD is allowed, stating your opinion in regards to the AfD during such a notification is akin to WP:CANVASING. SamHolt6 (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Phyllis Chesler

Kossoh (talk · contribs) / 108.50.156.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has, apparently since 2017, been adding a section to this biography accusing Chesler of racism and bigotry. Initially unsourced, the editor is now sourcing the paragraph to a Breitbart News story, Wikipedia's article on Breitbart, and some original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding, Kosoh appears to be doing it in response to an accusation of Chesler's that appears in the biography of Davidson Nicol, which he has repeatedly tried to remove: [2][3][4][5][6] Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Rick Wiles POV Entire article

Rick Wiles I believe violates article neutrality. Even with citations, none of them are factual and neutral IMHO. Dprophitjr (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

E. J. Levy

• E. J. Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I've been notified that an article purportedly about me contains both misinformation and bias E.J. Levy, despite efforts to balance it by Wikipedia editors (Partice Starr, Sarah Sloane, Hedgielaar, and others). I would like to request that this article be either removed or balanced, and that factual inaccuracies (especially malicious and inaccurate mischaracterizations of my forthcoming novel, The Cape Doctor) be removed. The site appears to be being used by a few editors (eg, Wallyfromdilbert) to attack me and my book, and to carry on an argument from Twitter.

It is my understanding that Wikipedia articles must conform to the following principles:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)

Wallyfromdilbert, among other editors, have repeatedly violated two of these three Wikipedia tenets in regard to the E.J. Levy page, despite attempts to correct these problems by means of edits and despite several appeals to Wikipedia editors and administrators. I would be grateful if the more balanced and accurate edits of Patrice Starr, hedgielamar, and Sarah Sloane, and other editors were protected against what seem evidently malicious rollbacks.

Wallyfromdilbert's edits do *not* reflect a Neutral Point Of View; rather they have repeatedly and selectively quoted from articles to attack my novel, The Cape Doctor, editing *out* quoted material from those same articles that would offer a more balanced perspective on the book and scholarly debate (see recent additions/edits by Patrice Starr and Hedgielamar for evidence of this; Starr and hedgie have added quotes that provide balance, but those edits have been repeatedly "rolled back" by Wallyfromdilbert and others so as to *bias* the page and its representation of my work);

Additionally, certain claims in the Wikipedia article about me and my book are *not* Verifiable, because they are factually incorrect. Specifically the claim that my forthcoming novel, The Cape Doctor, refers to James Miranda Barry as a "heroine" is simply wrong, as anyone who has read the novel can attest. The Wikipedia editors making this claim have *not* read my novel and are either speculating or quoting speculation, despite my public statements to the contrary to the press. In fact, as I have said publicly in Bustle, my novel refers to Barry as "he," "she," and a "hero"; I do not at any point refer to James Barry as a heroine. So this is both inaccurate and unverifiable. Nor is my novel "transphobic," as these editors want to claim. These claims are hostile speculation and mischaracterization, and should be removed. As my public statement in Bustle's article makes clear, neither I nor my novel is transphobic (quoting me from that article would support this assertion); claims to the contrary are based on malicious speculation and projection (such claims cannot be based on the novel, as the novel has not been released).

Despite repeated efforts to correct these inaccurate claims, these editors (Wallyfromdilbert among others) have maliciously mischaracterized me and my book. I hope that Wikipedia will put a stop to that misuse of Wikipedia. If it is not possible to stop this biased and inaccurate editing, I would request that the page be removed. Thank you. EJLevywriter (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of the sources are opinion pieces, speculating about the book using words like "led critics to believe", "if that is the case", "appears to misgender". These are not reliable sources about the book itself but mere speculation about something that has not been released yet. The only reliable report comes from the Guardian, which in addition to detailing the twitter debate notes that no one really knows how Barry identified, saying, "But whether he had always ‘felt male’ during his earlier female years (he changed identity at age 20), who knows?... Much of what we 'know' about him is really the Barry myth – that is, culturally constructed legend, based on hearsay, fiction and fiction-inflected biography." I think it needs to be toned down to reflect the twitter debate, but not to speculate on the novel itself. (It should also be changed to perfect perspective rather than future perspective so that it won't sound weird after the book is released, plus that looks more like we're not running an ad.) Zaereth (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Zaereth, and add that the encyclopedic value of a twitter debate is dubious. A sentence or two may be due, but nothing more until far better sources are found. --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I didn't add any of the contentious information to the page. My additions mostly expanded the references. I removed information added by Hedgielamar and his sockpuppet JMB2019 that contradicted the cited sources (and who largely refused to participate in any discussion about the changes that were reverted by numerous editors. BTW, I've removed several additions by other editors that were also unsourced.) "EJLevywriter" uses the same attacks fixating on me and writes with the same style as Hedgielamar (including claiming the Bustle article says that the novel refers to Barry as a "hero" when it clearly does not). This seems very suspicious, and likely to be the same user, although may or may not be the actual author, E.J. Levy. Just want to have a record of the similar patterns in case the edit warring by these users starts again. As for the actual article content, thank you, Ronz, for your trim. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. A request to confirm identity might be a good step to take, and a SPI report if any further editwarring occurs. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Hopefully your edit will end the dispute on both sides. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Just so you know, when someone starts off with accusing everyone else of bias, I take that with a grain of salt, because it's almost always an unconscious confession of their own biases. I find it humorous how our own minds betray us. In cases such as this, looking at all the plugs both here and in the article, I have to wonder how much of this is publicity based. Zaereth (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

As one of those "other editors" that EJLevywriter and Hedgie mention, I'd like to chime in with my thanks as well, Ronz and Zaereth. I also agree with Wallyfromdilbert that this writing pattern is EXACTLY the same as Hedgie's, right down to the fixation on Wally and request that if the article can't be "balanced" (read: portrays the outcry as limited in scope and misguided in its criticisms) it should be removed; further, this person is the second one I've seen on here to mention Sloane's given name (it's not in their username). The first one was Hedgie. Take that as you will. Regarding the article, right now, that controversy is all that Levy is actually known for - I feel like it's notable enough to keep in, especially with the Guardian piece, but we definitely need better sources. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The The Cape Doctor paragraph in the article seems reasonable, but it shouldn't take up more than half the WP:LEAD, I'd remove it from there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I am grateful to Ronz, Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Zaereth for their very helpful corrections to this page purportedly about me, but several editors continue to mischaracterize my forthcoming book and me, in what appears to be continuation of a Twitter battle. I hope their biased and unfactual (thus unverifiable) characterizations of me and my book will be removed, and the editors involved (NekoKatsun and Wallyfromdilbert ) prevented from continuing attacks on me via Wiki.

Specifically: 1) these warring Wiki editors claim my novel refers to Dr. JM Barry as "heroine"; it does not and it never has. As I stated to The Times and Bustle, both of which quote me, the novel mostly uses first-person and male pronouns; I refer to Barry as a "hero" once at the book's end. (On Twitter, which appears to be the real basis for their edits, I referred to Barry as a "she" and a "heroine" only to counter those claiming only male pronouns could apply to that gender-ambiguous figure. No binary term seems to me correct, so I was balancing the ledger. My book should either be correctly represented or not characterized at all. I've not quoted sources here for Bustle and the Times, as I understand they have been repeatedly posted on the EJ Levy page and removed.) 2) I am lesbian, so any characterization of me should use that term. (To call me "queer" when I identify as "lesbian"--and have written about same--is equivalent of calling a straight man "bi-" despite his published statements to the contrary. The broader category may contain but does not accurately represent the individual.) 3) Any characterization of Barry on a page that refers to me should be factual and unbiased. Barry's biographers all agree that Margaret Bulkley dressed as a man to enter medical school and the army, institutions from which she was barred by sex, and continued to live as James Barry throughout adulthood. To elide the necessity of male dress to obtain and education and enter professions is to mischaracterize the subject of my book. These facts are not disputed, and are--I believe--correctly represented on the Barry Wiki page, which is sourced from multiple biographies, including Dr. James Barry: A Woman Ahead of Her Time (2016) by Dronfield/Dupreez. 4) If the Wiki page is to be used to continue a war on me (and the facts) by editors, I would request that it be removed. Thank you. Wikipedia should be factual, verifiable, and representing a neutral POV. These editors--(NekoKatsun and Wallyfromdilbert ) -- are not abiding by those standards. Thank you for your help. my clear statements about it contents to the Times and Bustle. I ; — Preceding unsigned comment added by EJLevywriter (talk • contribs) 18:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

You know, I see no evidence of anyone campaigning a war against you. When I see statements like that it becomes hard to take the rest of it seriously. In my personal opinion, some people are far too sensitive, like an open wound, and this twitter debate is a wonderful example of this. (Psychologically speaking, over-sensitivity tends to show a lack of self-esteem, self confidence, and a poor image of oneself (or, rather, an overly negative perception of how others view them; see: metaperception), and possibly at the extreme end some personality disorder such as BPD.) You can call me he, she, it, they, straight, gay, bi, a sissy, or a total a-hole for all I care. Water off a duck.

The Bustle article is an opinion piece and thus is not a reliable source. I haven't seen the "Times" article. Is it the NY Times or Anchorage Times? Or some other paper with that in its name? Is it an op/ed piece or a news article, because any paper has both? It's best to bring your sources here so we won't have to hunt for them, but keep in mind that the more reliable sources you can find; the more likely this will remain in the article.

That said, the statement in the article that the book actually uses these terms is not supported by either of the sources. The Guardian, which is a well-written piece, and the Daily Dot, which is far less favorable, both show this is only speculation. We should not say it as fact in Wikipedia's voice when the sources clearly do not. In all, however, I agree with Ronz that the entire "debate" is rather small and not too widely covered. As such, its significance doesn't seem to rise to the level warranting its inclusion, given the size and scope of the article, but others may disagree. Zaereth (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zaereth: FYI EJLevywriter is likely a sock of Hedgielamar. Not clear whether the accounts are the actual author (especially since the actual author clearly refers to herself as "queer" and not just "lesbian" [7]). The accounts also refuse to engage in any discussion about the article content. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand. For the purposes of this discussion only, I will assume she is who she says, although I would expect a writer to understand the value of paragraphs to comprehensibility. That doesn't invalidate some of her points. At the least, I would echo Gråbergs Gråa Sång and suggest moving it out of the lede, because we're giving it too much weight compared to the entire scope of the subject's life and career. Either that, or drastically expand the article so it's not taking up so much of the space. The weight we give info should be in balance with the significance of that info to the subject as a whole. And I've read the sources, which do not support the assertion that the book actually says this. This is all based upon stuff that was said on social media, including the word "heroine", but the book has not been released yet and no one (not even Bustle) says it's in there. (Bustle only hints at it.) And something deep in my gut still says publicity stunt, as there's no publicity like bad publicity. Zaereth (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the content of the article, but The Guardian source does claim the novel refers to Barry as a "heroine" ("The Cape Doctor by EJ Levy, which describes the individual born Margaret Ann Bulkley as ‘a heroine’"), although their source for that information is not clear especially as part of the header. Also, material about the forthcoming novel was already removed from the lead (based on a discussion on the talk page). The lack of additional information about Levy and whether she is notable have also been brought up there. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

My thanks to Zaereth for your notes above. I am who I say I am; EJLevywriter is not a sock; I am a lesbian author who has registered a formal complaint with wiki about ongoing efforts to mischaracterize me and my book on the EJ Levy page. The Guardian worked from Tweets, where I refer to Barry as "she" and a "heroine"; my novel does not, as I have stated in the verifiable press (Times of London, Bustle). To continue to mischaracterize my book on Wikipedia appears to be an attempt to engender controversy where there is none and to continue a Twitter debate. My book is feminist, gender-queer; I am lesbian. Please do stop quoting unfactual speculation about me and my book and quote instead what is factual, from those few in a position to characterize both--namely myself (as the author). I expected better of Wikipedia. I understand now its reputation for mob rule and misogyny, which makes me especially grateful for the few calm and thoughtful voices weighing in here. I'd be grateful if someone could revert to factual edits on the page ostensibly about me, as I understand it's bad form for me to do so myself. Thanks, guys. EJLevywriter (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Levy, something to keep in mind is that as this book has not yet been released, and we cannot use it as a source here on Wikipedia. We can only use reliable third-party sources. That section of your article is primarily about the controversy that your book has generated - the articles cited there, as well as the Bustle article, are about said controversy. We can't downplay or remove an extant controversy about your reported using of pronouns just because you don't like it. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@EJLevywriter: Even though you're identifying yourself as E. J. Levy, there's no way for anyone trying to help you to pass through their computer screen to wherever you are and actually see whether that's really the case; moreover, even if one person could possibly do such a thing, there's no way for Wikipedia to expect every person who edits the encyclopedia to do the same. Users are allowed to use their real names as their account user names as explained in WP:REALNAME, but in some cases some kind of more formal verification may be required as a precaution against damaging impersonation, and accounts identifying as a specific identifiable person may even be soft-blocked to prevent a user from claiming to be someone they aren't. You can send an email to Wikimedia OTRS clarifying who you are. OTRS volunteers are special editors who have been vetted to have access to certain types of emails sent to the Wikimedia Foundation about things related to Wikipedia, etc. and only they can see these emails. So, if you email OTRS from your official email address and provide proof or a statement that you are E. J. Levy, OTRS will verify the email and will add a template to your page (if everything is in order) so that others can see that your identity has been verified. This won't give you any special privileges when it comes to editing and you will still be subject to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (see WP:DISCLOSECOI for more on this), but it should quickly resolve any suspicions that your account might be a sock puppet. Whether you do this is up to you, but as I mentioned above, accounts claiming to be a particular identifiable person (particularly someone with a Wikipedia article written about them) often end up blocked as a precaution. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

EJ, I agree with you that someone is trying to engender controversy where there is none. These are the people on twitter. The story seemed important enough to some reporter that they felt it necessary to publish it in a reliable source using a reliable, journalistic style. That makes it worthy of inclusion ... under the restrictions given by all the other policies. One of those is WP:UNDUE. This says that, although the info is verifiably worthy of inclusion, it must be in proportion to the significance of that info. I see that people have worked to accommodate this rule by giving it very little space and moving it out of the lede. No one here appears in the slightest to be trying to continue this debate. They're just reporting that it happened.

Not everything printed by a reliable press agency is a reliable source. Legitimate news articles which are reviewed by an editorial staff and adhere to journalistic standards and ethics are reliable. Opinion articles and editorials in which the author gives their personal take or spin on the story are not reliable for anything except maybe the author's opinions. Your Bustle source is a great example of an opinion column.

My personal view is that the debate just not relevant to this article and really belongs in the article about the book itself. However, you've complicated that by engaging in the debate, thus adding relevance to yourself, so it's right on the fence. And the more you engage; the more the relevance shifts to you personally.

If you truly are who you say, then you have more power than any of us to affect this story, both positively and negatively. You can give interviews to reliable sources instead of engaging on twitter. You can write editorials and get those published. There are a myriad of things you can do as the subject to affect this story. When the book comes out, if the word is not there, you'll be vindicated and all the naysayers will look like idiots. (Not to mention, do you know how many people are going to run out and buy this book just to see? I guarantee you all those twitter debaters will, so I say just take your 15 minutes and run with it.) Zaereth (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that the work is not yet released, giving what seems to be a very minor controvsery this much weight at this time is wrong, particularly on a BLP; its far too accusational for something not publicly available yet. When the book is out, the pre-release controversy stuff can be reviewed and included if still deemed important (maybe the changes didn't go far enough so the criticism continues; maybe it is fully resolved and no one criticizing before release has anything bad to say about it now). It does not need to be included at this point. --Masem (t) 23:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see a link to the Times of London article mentioned above. I think that would be a good addition to the article, since it is RS. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/novelist-defends-her-version-of-pioneering-trans-doctors-life-story-f6hsbdgf3

I believe you need to sign up with a credit card to access the full article. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I lean towards Masem's line of thinking. We're in no hurry. Let's wait until the book debuts and see how it all plays out, when we have real reviews and information to go along with it. Zaereth (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I was able to access the Times article, which seems to be the source of some quotes used in the Bustle article, a less reliable source. I will discuss this on the article talk page. The controversy, in the sense of people attacking Levy, is already discussed and referenced in the article. Until I added a sentence yesterday, there was nothing about Levy or others defending her point of view. This hardly seems to fit our NPOV policy, whether the book has been published yet or not. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It's more about RECENTISM. We want to be writing articles that are future-proof, covering the long-term details. A controversial aspect of a book that hasn't been released, the controversy over details that are not firm, may go away when the book is released, and makes the current inclusion of them inappropriate or UNDUE; just because it can be documented and documented within BLP sourcing considerations doesn't mean it is necessary to include. We prefer editors to wait for the dust to settle and then write about controversies, if they are still worth writing about anyway. --Masem (t) 18:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: As Marchjuly said below, it is probably best to put these comments on the article talk page instead of here. Discussions have already been fragmented, which negatively affects the ability to reach a productive resolution. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• I think it might be best that any further comments about this be added to the article talk page instead of here. There are two BLPN threads (the other is WP:BLPN#E.J. Levy (2)) and article talk page discussion currently ongoing which runs the risk of fragmenting things and making it harder to reach a consensus. There now appear to be quite a number of editors discussing things on the article's talk page; so, it seems best to keep everything related to the article there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I want to thank HouseOfChange for weighing in on this; the summary up on the page this morning seems quite fair, representing the controversy on Twitter and distinguishing that from the actual text of my book. I appreciate, too, the correction regarding my sexual orientation. This now seems unbiased and well supported by reliable sources. My only correction would be that my professorship at CSU dates from 2012, not "as of March 27, 2019"; I received tenure there in 2014. Thank you for your help. EJLevywriter (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia we require reliable sources for our information; can you point us towards a source that confirms your hire date and date of tenure? At the moment our source is the CSU site, which states only that you are an associate professor in the English department with a concentration in creative writing (fiction and nonfiction). NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

OTRS

EJLevywriter I see Marchjuly advised you to contact the OTRS via email. If you have not done so I urge you to do so.

Most wikipedia contributors do their best to conduct themselves with good faith. However, there a people who contribute here prepared to use any means they can to push their personal point of view, or a point of view they are paid to promote. Sadly a technique these people have employed is to pretend they are the subject of articles they want to change, or delete.

What black hat hackers know is that even otherwise intelligent people can be fooled, manipulated, by an appeal to their emotions. They call this kind of manipulation "social engineering". The fourth Die Hard movie, the one where the hero's sidekick is a computer hacker, shows an instance of the hacker kid using social engineering to fool a remote support technician to remotely start a stolen car, by claiming he is the son of the car's driver, who just suffered a heart attack.

The lesson for us, from those past instances, is that we should insist that third party individuals, like you, who claim special standing, confidentially confirm their real world identities through our confidential OTRS system.

I suggest we put this discussion on hold, and wait for you to do so. I am sure if you are who you say you are, you understand. When you phone your bank they won't reveal your banking details, or make changes to your account, until you answer a bunch of questions that establish you are who you say you are. Confidentially confirming your identity through our OTRS system is the same kind of thing.

Yes, the wikipedia has a bad record of under-representing women. But we won't improve this reputation by forgetting to have you confirm your identity. Geo Swan (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• I bought her collection of short stories. It reminds me of Karen Joy Fowler's work. FWIW, she is an excellent writer. Geo Swan (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Ramesh Balwani

Hi after long discussion on the talk page I doubt that the lawsuit sections neutrality suits the requirements of a blp. As greenC and I seem to disagree on that point, I would like someone else point of wiew. Please accept my apologies if this is not the right place for this message, I'm neither a regular contributor nor fluent in English. Cheers --Doubleclavier (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the entire section on the lawsuit as this was sourced only to a legal document, which under BLPPRIMARY is not allowed as a source. I left a message on the talk page explaining it. If you have any questions about the subtleties of English, please feel free to ask me as I like to think I have a fair understanding of them. Zaereth (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The new version is much better. IMHO, only one possibly litigious sentence remain:

Balwani also was present when Holmes told Safeway's then-CEO that Theranos’ analyzers were being deployed in the battlefield.[17]

=> Balwani was also alledgedly present when Holmes told Safeway's then-CEO that Theranos’ analyzers were being deployed in the battlefield.[17]

I have the filling that the current version is assertive and sourced only by the indictment act. I wanted to implement the version above, but was blocked (apparently my edits on WP fr doesn't give me experience here :-/)

--Doubleclavier (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed that sentence as well, and all other citations to court documents. (Sorry, I didn't take the time yesterday to go through the entire article.) Please feel free to report anymore problems you see. Zaereth (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(Zaereth) I'm transferring this from my talk page to here:

You are right court documents can not be used as a sole source, but incorrect they can't be included at all on Wikipedia.

WP:PRIMARY states:

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.

WP:BLPPRIMARY states:

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.

So the question is why you are actively deleting primary sources that are discussed by a secondary source? Maybe you have a reason to do so, but have not articulated it, why in this particular case they should not be in the article. -- GreenC 17:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

BLPPRIMARY states unequivocally "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." (Emphasis in original.) This is nonnegotiable. You may use primary sources to augment a seconday source, such as the subject's personal website for example, but not court documents, birth certificates, marriage licenses, phone books, or other such public records. Further discussion should take place at BLP/N, so I'm transeferring this there. Zaereth (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I just removed the court documents again, but we may need some more eyes on this to keep them from being re-added. Zaereth (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the reason for this policy? That he faces charges by the SEC is a plain fact that is not opinionated or subjective in any way, and supported by dozens of secondary sources, most of which discuss and link to the court document. -- GreenC 18:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

See WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:NOR. Zaereth (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Zaereth has the right of this. The article already states he is facing charges (backed by reliable, third party sources), there is no reason to re-add court documents which are EXPLICITLY foribdden by the second sentence WP:BLPPRIMARY. The last sentence of this policy explains that you can use some primary sources if certain conditions are met, but one of these conditions is that the addition of a primary source is "subject to the restrictions of this policy." One of these restrictions is "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." This means that it is never acceptable to use court documents to support allegations against a living person. In this case, these primary sources are not needed as the lawsuit and criminal charges are well-covered by reliable third party sources. SWL36 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. In my long experience on Wikipedia the word "assertion" is typically used to differentiate from statements of fact. Assertion is a matter of opinion, a subjective call, a belief - something besides a basic fact. This definition is supported by some sources, but not others, but either way the emphasis is on the mode of delivery ie. a forceful or strong conviction. When used in mainspace, it usually precedes a statement to make it clear this is someone's heart-felt opinion eg. "the man asserted he was innocent". This is why I think the word in this case is inappropriate (or at least confusing) for what it is trying to convey in the policy, and that it may actually be for the meaning related to an opinion vs. a statement of fact. Do we know when this section was added and by what process? -- GreenC 19:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it does somewhat confuse the issue. It should say "Do not use court documents, etc. Period." To assert something, whether fact, opinion, fiction, direction, instruction, or command, means to do so assertively. For example, the sentence in quotes I just used is assertive. "Don't play in the road, those cars are more than 10 times your weight." is assertive, yet a factual statement (regardless of whether the facts are true or not). But I learned long ago, the hard way, not to go around trying to change policy. The best way to affect change is by setting a good example for others. Zaereth (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Well it's still unclear what the rational is for excluding court documents. It would make sense to exclude them for opinionated statements, but arbitrary to exclude them always no matter what. I understand, this is what the policy says. But behind every policy is a reason for why the policy exists in the first place. OR and BLPPRIVACY doesn't really explain it either. Can you explain it in plain language? -- GreenC 19:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to primary sources in general, they are usually highly technical, and unless an author has some expertise in the subject matter, they are very easily misinterpreted by the layperson. This is especially true with things like legal documents, but even to things like Facebook or Twitter posts, where there may be some inside joke or background information that people leave out when talking to their friends, but are easily misinterpreted by others. I use primary sources all the time, like military flight manuals and scientific studies, but only because I have some expertise in those areas, and only in conjunction with secondary sources. Moreover, legal document often contain personal and private information, and thus also violate BLPPRIVACY. Zaereth (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok great. The only private info in the SEC doc are his name, age, city of residence and salary - all public info in secondary sources. As for it being complicated, it is a supplement to secondary sources for readers who want to learn more details on their own. The wiki text itself doesn't attempt to interpret the primary source. These seem like reasonable positions, so I wonder if the policy here is being interpreted as a literal rule rather than with common sense which is how policies should be handled according to WP:POLICY: "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." -- GreenC 20:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This policy is meant to cover all cases, not just this one. (Think about cases of rape, incest, or murder, where there is not only the subject but victims, witnesses, experts, family, children... Not to mention lawyers and court officials.) In all my time here, I have never seen an exception. We're a tertiary source, which means we try as best as possible to remain three times removed from the subject. In other words, we let the primary sources do the notable thing, secondary sources do their original research to investigate and report about the thing, and we summarize what the secondary sources say, trusting them to do their due diligence so we don't have to. (And "due diligence" has a very specific legal definition, called covering our butts.) I'll also note that while BLP works in accordance with all other policies, it ultimately trumps all other policies. Zaereth (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to drop this as it would require an RfC and it's not worth it, the secondary sources themselves link to the court filings so there is nothing really lost just less convenient and I think most users would settle on that as a middle ground solution. BTW I still believe the wording of "assert" should be researched, who wrote that and what did they mean by it, because it is definitely setting off warning bells. The word assert is often used in Wikipedia parlance to differentiate an opinion vs. factual and it would make sense in this context to be used that way (IMO). -- GreenC 16:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's really the point. There is nothing lost by removing the court documents, so why have them? Writing is not always convenient. Spend a few years watching this page and it may start to become apparent the reasoning behind all the rules. Every single sentence has multiple cases that made them necessary. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive281#Bobby_Beausoleil, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive281#Mary_Kay_Letourneau for two just recently. If we start making exceptions simply because it's already covered in reliable sources somewhere, we open the door to a ton of needless and pointless bickering, OR, synth, and people trying to right great wrongs and soap-box their own views on what should be. Go through the history of BLP and you can probably find out exactly when and why this was added.

Funny thing about words is people often try to impose their own particular feelings about them into the meaning, or take the word too literally in context. People often think alloy wheel should be renamed, because steel is also an alloy, or that the plural of Kelvin should be Kelvins. Nobody sat down one day and decided the meaning of any word. Language evolves over time in whatever way it does. Dictionaries just go around and find every possible definition of the word based on how it's used in context. No dictionary or encyclopedia has ever been able to control, manipulate, or enforce the changing language, or else we'd still be speaking Old English right now. It would be pointless to write policy in some wiki-jargon known only to insiders when the words in policy should all match the dictionary definition so everyone can understand them, or else we'll all have to hire wikilaywers to argue anything for us.

Assert is derived from the Latin word serere meaning "to join". When combined with the Latin prefix ad- (toward), as in adserere it meant "a claim of fact or opinion". Serere was introduced into English during Old English when the Romans invaded. The English shortened the word and added the suffix -t to make it into a noun, and the Latin meaning (to join) became the English meaning (to sow, to knit, to thrust into, as a needle). Then, when converted into a verb, sert was combined with other English prefixes such as in- (insert, or thrust into) de- (desert, or thrust apart from), ex- (exert, to thrust out from), or as- (Old English alswa or "as well, also"). Thus, the word "assert" (to thrust into also) meant to jump into a conversation. By Middle English, the meaning hadn't changed much, but meant more to jump in forcefully or with authority. It's also around this time that the word began to be used to describe the behavior of acting with authority as well, and by the late Middle Ages, the meaning of "assert" became to "to claim, speak, or behave with authority". This meaning hasn't changed much since, except today the behavior of being assertive is assoiciated as being the primary (cause) rather than the subordinate (effect) rather than the other way around as it originally was. I hope that is sufficient research for you. Zaereth (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Right. Let the reporters do the reporting and investigating. We just summarize the reports, not dig up the details. Zaereth (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Texe Marrs

Somebody is always changing the page about Texe Marrs. A long-time co-worker with Texe Marrs tries to set the record straight, but a few hours later the lies are back. Why is this allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.42.87.207 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Try to discuss it at the article's talkpage, but be more specific. If you are talking about edits like this [8], it does not seem that all of those points in the lead are adequatly sourced in the article text, so improvements should be made. Nothing about "end times conspiracy theory" for example, and "anti-Illuminati" is a little weird. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Shazia Mirza

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

Ms Mirza has asked me to alert editors that several key pieces of information on her page are being repeatedly altered incorrectly. I'm not a Wikipedia expert, and if I need to do something specific, please let me know. I am not paid by Ms Mirza, we have simply met a few times and I offered to help. Please be advised that 3rd October 1982 is Ms Mirza's DOB. I have a copy of her redacted passport if required. You will note that there are repeated edits to this information after it is corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cllp1975 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

As editors will see there's been an awful lot of unedifying back and forth at the article, but I note that the current date of birth has only a primary source, which seems to run contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It's now been removed -- I think it should stay that way, but there has been substantial discussion about it on the article talk page. I have left a template there, so many some of those involved may offer alternative views here. MPS1992 (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The source was used purely because a COI editor, Mirza’s publicist Martin Twomey, (who now has I believe 7 sock accounts removed here and here) over several years has repeatedly changed her date of birth without sources and complained on talk pages, each year removing one or two years from her age despite several warnings to stop and several accounts and IP addresses blocked. It was offered to remove her date of birth in compliance with BLP policy which I did temporarily while waiting for a response, but he refused, stating he wanted 1982 as d.o.b. which was clearly impossible from her biographical information and in direct contradiction with other statements he made in past years to @Ron Stowmarket:. For a start this would make her two years younger than the pupils she taught while she was teacher at a secondary school! This seems to be a case of massaging the facts to make her appear younger and has apparently been happening over a number of years, as admitted by her own publicist. A number of her previous citations put her year of birth at 1976 and there was a sort of consensus for using that in lieu of concrete factual evidence but the publicist in question was having none of it. At this point another admin suggested the source, and it took a couple of minutes to find her actual date of birth which appeared to resolve the question. I’m not in the slightest bit surprised to find this brought here (presumably by someone connected with Twomey, if not himself) as 7 sock accounts doesn’t seem to have deterred him. Wikipedia is supposed to be a factual resource and not a PR service for celebrities. Mramoeba (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the long discussion at the talk page. But while it's absolutely clear that she wasn't born in 1982 there doesn't seem to be a reliable secondary source for any other date. So I agree with MPS1992 that it should simply stay off the page for now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually the most reliable uk broadsheet sources, i.e. the Times, the Guardian the Telegraph and Independent all give 1976 (allowing for one interview that could have fallen either side of her birthday), which was what the page largely says when Twomey isn't involved. As does the New York Times. Mramoeba (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy with using 1976 based on those four sources. Much better than using a primary source. If people think these dates are themselves based on massaging of the facts then just leave the date out entirely. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The "years active" has also been massaged by Twomey from 2000 to 2003 which is inconsistent with the claim "About a year into her stand-up comedy career, after the September 11, 2001 attacks" and the Awards and recognition section. Perhaps a section on her various (and varying) dates of birth would be more appropriate? Cabayi (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Atik, Nilufer (2018-09-02). "Comedian Shazia Mirza shares the biggest lessons she's learned in life". Daily Mirror. Retrieved 2019-04-05. : "When I was growing up in Birmingham in the 1970 and 80s". So 1982 is obviously false. Cabayi (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• BBC Radio4 Woman's Hour "Comedian Shazia Mirza tells us what it was like being raised in an Asian Muslim household in Birmingham in the 1970s." Cabayi (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Freebmd is not a case of WP:BLPPRIMARY. It's a transcription of a primary source. It's also double transcribed & the two transcriptions are checked against each other for verification. Cabayi (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Shakti Mishra Indian Youtuber

Shakti mishra is a Indian youtuber & a business man. Was born in bihar region of India. https://youtube.com/smartideas is worlds largest business channel on youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:218A:14E1:0:0:27AD:30A1 (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want to try to create a WP-article on this person, first read WP:Your first article carefully. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Sterling Van Wagenen

• Sterling Van Wagenen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Child molesting claims and potential libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.209.86 (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The claim is sourced to a reliable source.--Auric talk 15:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Geithner's payday loans

CBS News thought it was noteworthy to contrast Timothy Geithner's nominal stance against payday lending usury during his time at Treasury with Warburg Pincus's Mariner division's heavy involvement in it. I'd like to know whether other editors think it's noteworthy or not. EllenCT (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Doug Ericksen

This article has become a WP:COATRACK for controversies with editors (including some established users) placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on controversies (more specifically, recent events and controversies). There are some fundamental WP:NPOV issues with this article that need to be addressed. I tried making some changes yesterday, but was reverted within a few hours. For now, I am not singling out the conduct of any user in particular, but I would appreciate an extra set of eyeballs on this article going forward. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

My comments are at Talk:Doug_Ericksen#WP:BLPN_thread. State legislators, especially part-time ones, typically receive neither significant attention from WP editors nor continuous coverage in the media but you are welcome to add content from a wider period of time. Nothing that you removed was not in the sources that covered it, and your claims of "original synthesis" and "opinionated/author's description" is false. Reywas92^Talk 22:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your BLP argument is specious; you have removed reliably-sourced and neutrally-worded material with just a handwave at BLP, so I've restored it. You have not explained why you claim the material violates any policy; it is well-supported by high-quality sources and does not appear to be worded in a biased manner. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Asssuming this diff encompasses the material in question, I would ask "... and?" Just because we have an RS stating something about how much a state legislator gets from lobbyists doesn't make it valid for inclusion; its begging a question that isn't there yet in the article. If there was more RSes talking about how Ericksen was seen as an easily-influenced legislator to a point where there was some controversy related to that, sure, then that's fine, but it's a data point without any other context (and we're talking of all of four months here too). (Contrast that to the thread of thought put to the connection to Cambodia, where there's clearly reasons to discuss some of those elements). It's not a 3RR-exemptable BLP issue, but it really doesn't need to be there as it has no context. --Masem (t) 14:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

One is welcome to make an argument that it lacks context, and should there be a consensus on the talk page that it doesn't belong, that consensus should, of course, win out. But there doesn't appear to be a "BLP" issue with the material, and thus unilaterally removing it on those purported grounds is not fair play. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree there: one gets a single BOLD edit but if that's reverted, its not that much a BLP issue to be exempt from edit warring; consensus needs to be built up on the talk page. --Masem (t) 15:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

BLP violations happen not only when unsourced or unreferenced material is added to a biography of a living person, but also when undue emphasis is placed on certain aspects of the individual's life, such as controversies and criticism, or when even reliable sources have been misrepresented. The onus of ensuring neutrality of an article is on those who continue to add material that is critical, rather than those who point out the issues to them. The Arbitration Committee has reiterated the "do no harm" principle in the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case (originally stated in the badlydrawnjeff case):

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

I am attempting to discuss these changes on the talk page of the article. Editors watching this page are requested to keep an eye on the discussion and intervene when necessary. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Gemma O'Doherty

Gemma O'Doherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The politics section - paragraph 3 states that views expressed by gemma o'doherty led to quote.. "the cancellation of bookings for her party's meetings" , there is absolutely no evidence in any of the referenced material that Gemma's views had anything to do with her party's meetings being cancelled , in fact the linked reference says that the hotels didn't give any reasons for the cancellations .

The author wrote this and then immediately protected the page from edits by new people , the author was clearly biased in making this unfound assumption and it damages the good name of Gemma O'Doherty

The Irish Examiner is a broadsheet source and generally considered accurate and neutral for political events. (Full disclosure, I'm friends with the jazz singer Sharon Crosbie who is part of the Thomas Crosbie Holdings family, former owners of the Irish Examiner, though that's got pretty much nothing to do with anything). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333 , where exactly in the Irish Examiner article referenced does it say that the hotels cancelled bookings for Gemma o'doherty's party because of her views ? It doesn't say this anywhere . also is there going to be a seperate heading for each of her views .Irelandwatch (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This I can confirm, the apparent cancellation of books has no mention at all of the tweets related to the Christchurch shooting. (The withdrawls of support statement, on the other hand, does have this and should be kept). It's very likely that the bookings were cancelled because of those statements but we need a source that says that specifically, which is not there. --Masem (t) 14:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

According to the source given, I can see "The Imperial Hotel in Cork insists it will not be hosting a public meeting next week organised by failed presidential candidate Gemma O’Doherty. The hotel broke its silence on the issue after days of pressure and a flood of complaints from people opposed to the ideology of Ms O’Doherty’s Anti-Corruption Ireland party." and "It was due to hold rallies in the Imperial Hotel in Cork on Monday and in the Maritime Hotel in Bantry the following day. The Maritime Hotel is said to have cancelled the Tuesday event." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

While cancellation of the bookings are verified, it has zero connection in that source to the tweets about Christchurch, which is what the disputed sentence is clearly implying. You cannot do that per NOR or BLP. --Masem (t) 14:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, well as this issue is under discussion, and since I prefer contentious claims like this to have two separate sources (standard journalism practice), I have removed the information per WP:BLP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I've put the part back about the councillors withdrawing support - that part was reliably sourced. The rest is gone, and I've tidied up the big laundry list of quotes from the YouTube video. Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

hi again , the disputed remark was replaced with this ... " although it is not known if these were directly related to her comments " ... If its not "known" , then WHY add this line in , Wikipedia is supposed to be about FACTS , if something is not known , dont make reference to it , this should be left out , please remove this sentence .. "although it is not known if these were directly related to her comments" , it suggests bias on behalf of the author . thanks Irelandwatch (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've removed it - it does appear a little pointless if we haven't got a reliable reason for the meeting being cancelled. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank You , and please remove this part of a section heading that reads "Controversial views on ..." , there is no source given that suggests her views are "controversial" .. I mean Who found them controversial ? when where they found controversial ? why are they controversial ? NO source , No heading , thanks Irelandwatch (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• You can remove "controversial" if you wish. But I'm pretty sure it's a reasonable descriptor for someone who claims that Cultural Marxism caused the abortion vote, communism caused the Catholic Church paedophilia scandal, the LGBT agenda is child abuse, and that Katherine Zappone is involved in witchcraft. Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• In fact, I've removed it. It's fairly obvious they're controversial, so we don't need it. Black Kite (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

the problem with using the word controversial is that nearly every topic can be potentially controversial to some person or another .

In fact , according to wikipedia rules , these sections should be left out altogether in order to avoid bias .

Quote "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias, whether positive or negative " - Wikipedia:Criticism

so can we remove this section completely

regards Irelandwatch (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you also like us to mention that she's on record as a practicing Catholic, is kind to animals, and can cure autism by sneezing in one's general direction? No, we can't remove the section completely, because WP:NOTCENSORED. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism is an essay by a contributor, not a guideline or policy. However, yes, in most cases you'd be correct in that we'd blend negative issues in with the prose. However, this is such a short article (and O'Donnell made the comments and founded her party so recently) that it doesn't really fit in anywhere else in her timeline. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

hi Black Kite , Bastun has altered the paragraph again and added at the end .. "Venues in Cork and Sligo cancelled public meetings that had been booked by ACI" , putting this line here suggests to readers that they did this because of her views on the mosque shooting which we all agree there is no source to support . It is clear that Bastun has a clear agenda (look at his comment above to me) , can you please put this line in context or remove it completely and stop bastun from putting his own spin on the article . Thank You , Irelandwatch (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ben Swann

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

At Talk:Ben Swann#Synthesis, I've broken down several instances of WP:SYNTH which have been constructed on this article. Ben Swann was a reporter who did a series of news segments for his station. Some of these covered controversial subjects. Most instances of SYNTH here involve use of a single source which might say something like "Ben Swann hosted a segment about X" followed by extra sources about "X", but that do not mention Swann or his station. This seems to be done as a way for Wikipedia editors to construct a refutation of or vilify the news segment. I've created 8 sub-sections, each of which describes a particular topic and the SYNTH problems within. It seems obvious to me that adding additional sources which are irrelevant to the main article subject (Swann) in this way is "synthesis of sources" which must be removed per WP:BLPREMOVE - at least, out of caution, until the handling of them can be discussed and assessed. -- Netoholic @ 09:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Cameron Merchant

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

The subject is a minor cricket player who now has a degree of fame in Australia due to his appearance front-and-centre in a recent popular 'reality' TV series. I looked at his article on the weekend and there was some inexpertly-added and unreferenced information about a relationship that Merchant allegedly ended a week before the show began; I removed said unreferenced info. Since then a series of IPs (which I am willing to bet is the jilted ex or someone closely associated to her) and one account with no other edits have re-added the information back to the article a total of seven times (another good-faith edit was made, undoing an IP's removal of the information). It may well be the case that the information is true, but as there are no references presented to that effect, I believe the article should not include this information. I believe the article warrants semi-protection at the least. YSSYguy (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There was an eighth re-addition of the information while I was typing the post above. YSSYguy (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I've protected the article for a week, and I'll keep an eye on it as well. - Bilby (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Massie

Can someone keep an eye on this page? The subject made bizarre fringe comments about climate change, and the page is now experiencing lots of changes, including vandalism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Guy Verhofstadt

Page has been edited on his most recent birthday (11 April 2019) with potentially libellous content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickpea57 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Chickpea57: Thank you for bring this to someone's attention. I've reverted the edit since it certainly doesn't comply with not only WP:BLP, but also with WP:NOTFORUM. For future reference, you can revert any similar edits yourself by being WP:BOLD per WP:BLPREMOVE. Just make sure you leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

MC Pitman

Completely uncited biography, in contravention to BLP policy. As far as I can tell from a quick search on google the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetnerd (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Poetnerd: Not meeting notability guidelines is more of an issue for WP:AFD than here and is not really a BLP violation per se. I too was unable to come up with any reliable sources which provide him with the significant coverage needed for a stand-alone article; so, I've asked at some relevant WikiProjects just to see what others think per WP:BEFORE before taking it to AfD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: Another editor has nominated the file for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MC Pitman. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Sami Yusuf

Dear team,

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Yusuf

It is patently false to call Sami Yusuf "British-Iranian" as he does not hold Iranian citizenship/dual nationality and, for the purpose of clarification he is ethnically Azeri (not Iranian). He only holds British Citizenship. Here is the link confirming this in a 2018 Q&A session with Sami Yusuf: https://twitter.com/samiyusuf/status/960207745126453248 Also in all following important references:

References

I would like to make it absolutely clear that Sami Yusuf only has one name, that is ’Sami Yusuf’. I am astonished that Wikipedia would take a very dubious source so seriously. We can send you Sami Yusuf's passport copy in case the following link is not sufficient: https://twitter.com/samiyusuf/status/960210578043293696

I hope this precedes some random rumors - it would be quite tragic for Wikipedia’s credibility if it was otherwise. Logically, one would assume such claims would need to be backed with hard evidence (such as actual credible documents) and not just a tabloid-style article?

Best regards,

Mjahangir 16:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Mjahangir 05:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Ben Lee (Violinist)

Ben Lee (violinist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would you be able to help with reverting an edit on the above page that has been poorly sourced, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleanda20 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This has kindly been taken care of by Bbb23. I have left a polite notice on the user talk page of the user that added the poorly sourced controversial content. Judging by the history of the article, some people seem to be very excited about this Ben Lee person, so there will probably be more trouble either before or after the relatively limited page protection expires in a few months. It would be helpful if others could watchlist the article. MPS1992 (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Vinita Chatterjee

• Vinita Chatterjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A spamicle from the outset. More eyes, please, with page protection as a last resort. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Fraser Anning again

More eyes on the article and input on the article talkpage regarding the sourcing and wording of this edit (which I have reverted for now per WP:BLPREMOVE), would be useful. See current discussion. Abecedare (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please help! We are starting to go in circles, I think. Part of the issue is whether we can source a statement solely to a primary source. StAnselm (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Need a second opinion from seasoned BLP editors about an issue that has arisen at this article. Here is a summary:

Background: Fraser Anning is a far-right Australian senator with strong anti-immigrant views. He expressed these views in his maiden speech to parliament, which included use of terms 'final solution' and 'cultural Marxism'. The speech and especially the mention of 'final solution' gained worldwide coverage and condemnation. The use of cultural Marxism was not similarly covered (a couple of sources quoted sentences from his speech that contained that term, but commented on other parts of the quote; example).

Dispute: should (a) "cultural Marxism" be mentioned in the article, and (b) should it be characterized as an "antisemitic conspiracy theory"?

Concerns: My concerns, as a patrolling admin, are due weight with respect to the first question, and synthesis with respect to the second. The question of due weight may be regarded as an editorial decision best left to the discussants but the issue of characterizing Fanning's use of the term as an "antisemitic conspiracy theory" seems to me to be a BLP violation. Counterarguments would be along the lines of WP:BLUE, "we wouldn't hesitate to call astrology pseudoscience", Fanning's ideology is not exactly secret etc.

Inviting some independent views on the matter. Pinging @El C: who has previously been involved at the page and @Masem and Drmies: as BLP veterans. Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Abecedare. I think our article (redirect) on "Cultural Marxism" is a bit too narrow; I think a whole bunch of, ahem, relatively dogmatic and undereducated alt-righters use the term without even thinking of the Frankfurt School and all it entails. At any rate, the sourcing already points at leaving that out, so in this I actually agree with St Anselm. Thank you Abecedare. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Melissa Stott

• Melissa Stott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nothing in the article has a reliable source attached to it. There are links to some websites within the article, but they aren't citations - they're links. The first and second are links to a website, not a webpage. The third link is an archive of a primary source and the fourth link is to a YouTube channel. Everything else in the article is left completely unsourced. Clovermoss (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, Clovermoss The article has been deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible subtle lack of NPOV

Omarosa Manigault Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does this line in the article not seem a bit libelous and containing adjectives relating to personality which are inappropriate for an encyclopedia: "Stemming from her controversial, blindsiding, alienating, dog-eat-dog, in-your-face and acrimonious tactics teamed with her eloquence and craftiness of game play on The Apprentice".

Came for an opinion before bold removal as I have never come across a subtle lack of WP:NPOV like this before. Thanks in advance, {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 20:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

At first glance, the terms aren't really describing her but her tactics, and are not always viewed as negative qualities, but more relating to aggressiveness and assertiveness. However, upon closer examination the source says nothing of the kind. It says she was described as being "aggressive" and "having a chip on her shoulder", but also that she said it is consistent with how black people were portrayed on TV in the past. What I'm realizing is that we're describing her TV persona rather than the real person, yet not making the distinction clear. I know people who've been on these so-called "reality TV" shows, from Deadliest Catch to Bering Sea Gold, and the producers try to hype up the drama with fake altercations and confrontations, while these guys are like "Man, we ain't got time for this crap. We got real work to do." Then they cut and edit to make it into a story that never actually happened.

I think the descriptions, while likely accurate, are a bit much like puffery and editorializing. It would probably be best to stick to the less colorful but just as accurate descriptions used by the source, even putting them in quotes like the source does, but make clear (as the source does) this is describing the character rather than the real person. (The source is available here.) Zaereth (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Having watched the source, yes, they are "Accurate" (she was not well liked by fans of the series) but that many are 100% puffery. One or two descriptors would be sufficient. "Controversial" is fairly non-controversial in this case, but the rest likely need sourcing. --Masem (t) 15:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Emma Blackery

On Talk:Emma Blackery#Personal life contributors discussed the merits of a self-published video for a statement that she disclosed that she was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome. Yes, she did, in fact she is famous for disclosing more than she should, and she also published videos indicating that she knows that.
Meanwhile I found out that this video is unlisted, roughly the same idea as magic word __NOINDEX__ here. I found three "unlisted" in the BLP/N archives, but that wasn't about videos. Plain question, is an unlisted self-published video permitted as a reference on a BLP for a corresponding statement with no other references, or should both be removed immediately per policy? N.B., this is about an undisputed and (for Blackery fans) well-known fact. –84.46.53.140 (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Has this person herself pointed to the unlisted video in anything like a blog or other social media source? If she had - thus clearly making the existence of the video public by her own means - then it likely doesn't matter that it is unlisted. On the other hand, if people found this video by other means but by her own hand, then we shouldn't use it. --Masem (t) 23:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Presumably she published it like all other videos, and later decided to unlist it. It's an almost hopeless case, folks collect unlisted videos, e.g.,^[9], and I have it in an (at the moment) public playlist.^[10] In theory she could tag it as private or delete it, but torrent archives with all her videos exist, and deleted videos are re-uploaded in "unofficial" channels like "Blackery music" or "Blackery TV" by enthusiasts. –84.46.53.140 (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

ICC - charges of war crimes/crimes against humanity dropped

Template:ICC indictees (NavBox) labels (mostly) living people as alleged war criminals. Until a few minutes ago, there was no distinction (on the template) between people with cases open against them and people for whom charges have been dismissed. Seven years ago someone objected to this on the talk page Template talk:ICC indictees (NavBox).

As an example of WP:BIAS, since the people-for-whom-charges-have-been-dropped are not from rich English-speaking countries, nobody (including me, since I didn't see the comment), bothered to worry about BLP principles for these Kenyans (only one was listed in the talk page comment).

What should BLP policy be in this case? My guess is that people for whom charges have been dropped should not remain on the template at all. They're assumed innocent until proven guilty, and if there are no longer any charges, they're assumed innocent. If the fact of charges being laid against them and being dropped is notable (war crimes allegations generally get a lot of media coverage), then that can go on their individual pages, but I don't see much justification for keeping their names on Template:ICC indictees (NavBox).

Anyone feel free to edit the template after appropriate consensus here: I don't own that template (or any other Wikipedia templates). Boud (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

PS: This also includes people for whom a conviction has been overturned - see the update of the template for Bemba. Boud (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

These are notable allegations, regardless of conviction. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. I made the original comment and have done much to create the core articles on the International Criminal Court, eg International Criminal Court investigations. Firstly, I don't see any evidence of WP:BIAS. Yes, black Africans are possibly less likely to sue the Foundation than white Americans but I don't see any evidence that the article has been any less sensitive to their rights than any other articles on WP. So let's put that to bed. Secondly, whilst WP:BLPCRIME states that "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured" this only applies to "relatively unknown people". That wouldn't include people like Bemba or Gbagbo. Thirdly this discussion should probably be focussed on the article List of people indicted in the International Criminal Court rather than the template. Finally, thanks for addressing my original point via your edit here.

Onto the substance, I don't think the template adds anything to Wikipedia that isn't covered by International Criminal Court investigations. Why should the article on, say, Charles Blé Goudé have a template link to Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi? Is it material that they were both indicted by the same court? The cases have no connection. Having reconsidered this, I suggest the template is deleted.

Regarding naming of indictees, WP:BLPCRIME gives us the answer. If they are notable separate from the crime, leave them in. If they are not independently notable (arguably Saleh Jerbo), merge their personal articles into [[International Criminal Court investigations and anonymise them within that article.AndrewRT(Talk) 16:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, just to clarify my point on WP:BIAS: I'm not accusing (or even suspecting) any of the editors of this set of articles of being careless or insensitive to issues of bias. Even leaving aside the risk of lawsuits, the point is that there's a strong demographic bias in the selection function of Wikipedians, and that selection affects the set of people who make these sorts of edits, and to some degree, that will lead to biases in the results of editing. This is not any individual's fault: we can only go so far in trying to see/imagine the point of view of others (or argue or edit on their behalf), especially when we lack their experiences in life. So my apologies if it sounded like I was accusing any individual.

Regarding the substance of the question, I would agree that anyone indicted or named publicly by the ICC is WP:WELLKNOWN. The ICC is not going to name someone for suspected war crimes lightly. It's not a tabloid. So my concern and initial suggestions above are weakened (I'm not familiar with all the BLP guidelines). List of people indicted in the International Criminal Court is certainly better sourced than several of the individual articles (such as International Criminal Court investigation in Kenya at the moment).

I guess the argument for deleting the template would be for BLP reasons? In the sense that, even though indictment by the ICC should rather obviously satisfy WP:WELLKNOWN, there's still a BLP preference for not giving undue weight to negative information on living persons, and there are variations among the indictees regarding the strength of the arguments for making their indictment a prominent piece of information. I assume that this would have to go through WP:TFD.

Regarding the question "Why should the article on, say, Charles Blé Goudé have a template link to Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi?", I assume that the idea is to curate the information that the world is starting to deal with war crimes in a more or less systematic way rather than by only having ad hoc trials against war criminals "from the losing side". But I don't have a strong opinion on whether this needs a template, or whether a Category is/would be sufficient.

However, I would tend to agree that deleting Template:ICC_indictees_(NavBox) (through WP:TFD) in favour of List of people indicted in the International Criminal Court would be reasonable: on the List... page, BLP principles are much easier to follow both in principle and (right now) in practice - I have the impression that people rarely use Template talk pages, and are more willing/likely to discuss things on ordinary article talk pages. People active in editing the Template: page (such as Zntrip) would have to be alerted... Boud (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I personally see no issue. These are public figures. If they are not, they shouldn't have articles. – Zntrip 00:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Vishwa Mohan Bhatt and sexual harassment allegations

• Vishwa Mohan Bhatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There was some slow-mo edit warring that had been going on for several days before I semi-protected the page – [11], [12]. There was another IP removing those remarks as "derogatory" and as amounting to "character assassination" — [13], [14], [15]. The edit-warring pertained to allegations of sexual harassment against the individual. After the semi-protection expired yesterday, User:Guptgandharva re-added the problematic content back into the article — [16]. You may see my post on the talk page as well as Guptagandharva's response to it. Can I invite someone else look into this and see if there are WP:BLPCRIME or WP:UNDUE issues? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have reverted an edit – [17] – by IP address who removed a denial issued by his son who was quoted by the media in the same sources and was probably acting as the subject's authorised representative – [18]. I have also activated pending changes for this page for a period of two weeks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

"Probably" 199.247.45.10 (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

So? The media has reported his son, whom Bhatt works closely with, denying the allegations, and that has been faithfully reproduced in the biography as well. Moreover, WP:PUBLICFIGURE says: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. As of date, I have only found two sources confirming that these allegations have been made, so there is a broader question as to whether this article would fall in the exception provided under WP:BLPCRIME? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

One iffy source (Financial Express = Indian Express) has reported it. That said I'd lean toward just leaving it all out until some higher quality and greater quantity of coverage comes out. 199.247.45.10 (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

You are right, Financial Times and Indian Express are the same source as they are owned by the same publishing organization – Indian Express Limited – although articles in both publications have reported the denials — [19], [20]. I agree with taking out the entire controversy as well given the lack of wide coverage as is implied under "multitude of reliable published sources" (WP:PUBLICFIGURE). I will wait for 24 hours to hear from other contributors here prior to implementing the change on Vishwa Mohan Bhatt, Me Too movement#India, Me Too movement (India)#Vishwa Mohan Bhatt. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Right. Digging around myself it seems the only other sources that mention this (and there aren't a lot) cite The Express. Given that and the fact that these claims are 5 months old now, I have a feeling this isn't going anywhere coverage-wise. Anyway, no hard feelings I hope. 199.247.45.10 (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Indian Express seems to be the source of original reporting for this allegation (not sure the newspaper was labeled "iffy") but there has been enough pick-up of the reporting, especially in vernacular media (eg Aaj Tak, MSN, Lokmat etc), to justify the current extent of coverage in the wikipedia article. Abecedare (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid the sources you have presented above appear to rely on the original Indian Express story. In case of MSN, I was not able to find a reference to Vishwa Mohan Bhatt (विश्व मोहन भट्ट) either — [21]. My understanding is that since these sources are relying on a previous story published by the Indian Express, there has been no independent fact-checking on their part, therefore they cannot be considered to be "independent", or falling within the definition of "multitude of reliable published sources" as required under WP:WELLKNOWN. Further, WELLKNOWN notes — If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. To reiterate, Aaj Tak and Lokmat cannot be regarded as "independent" or "third-party" sources in this case (see also: WP:INDEPENDENT). — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The MSN has Bhatt as the third element of the slideshow but, looking at it again, I realized that MSN is just republishing content provided by Aaj Tak and so shouldn't count as an additional independent source.

I agree that all other sources are likely relying on IE's original reporting. However, I think IE's reporting itself is sufficient to satisfy verifiabilty (of the allegation having been made and denied; not the "truth" of the allegation), and the additional sources help establish that the reporting is considered credible and noteworthy. In my interpretation, this meets the requirement of "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation", especially since single original source followed by secondary pick-up is the standard in investigative and "metoo" cases. And given that we have a named accuser and on-the-record denial, I am not sure what independent fact-checking (regarding the allegations having been made/denied) the additional sources could be expected to undertake. Abecedare (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that an independent source is not one that solely relies upon, or regurgitates other sources, i.e. quoting from other sources without taking any responsibility for the content, in terms of independent fact-checking. That is tantamount to circular reporting. I also dispute the implication in your assertion that a "single original source followed by secondary pick-up" as "standard in investigative and 'metoo' cases" makes it usable in case of a BLP per this reason, in the absence of additional independent/third-party coverage. Therefore, the requirement of "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation" has not been met in this case. Furthermore, the coverage in IE is also non-substantive, and the case is discussed in a rather brief, transitory manner, also reflecting in the character of the other sources that merely parrot the claim. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 23:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Here the facts of the allegation being made and denied are not even under dispute. So I am not sure independent fact-checking is a relevant issue. What is at issue is whether the allegation is worth covering in the wikipedia article, and that's where the additional sources add weight to the noteworthiness. Btw, I am not far from the opinion you expressed in your last sentence ("Furthermore, the coverage in IE... claim"); whether even with the additional sources the topic crosses the threshold for inclusion is an editorial judgment and if the allegation is kept out of the article on that basis I won't object.

On the more general principal: I'll keep it brief but the difference we are having is perhaps between 'independent sources' and 'independent reporting/investigation/confirmation'. My take is that WP:WELLKNOWN requires the former (ie, reliable sources that make independent editorial decision to document/publish something and hence, necessarily, put their credibility and/or news-judgment on the line) and not necessarily the latter (since that would often rule out Pulitzer prize winning investigative reporting, which almost always involves a single organization devoting tremendous resources to investigate something, while other later sources largely rely-on/build-upon that reporting). If needed, we can discuss and seek clarification on this issue separately from the VMB matter. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much for your comments. I would appreciate getting clarification and more opinions on this through other users weighing in. In the meantime, an SPA has removed the content in question from the article. I have accepted the pending revision for the time-being, while the BLP issue remains unresolved. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. In such borderline cases better to err on the side of leaving the accusation out; can always revisit if the issue becomes subject to renewed coverage. Abecedare (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thanks, again. I have recently removed references to these allegations from Me Too movement and Me Too movement (India) — [22], [23]. These were reverted by an IP who later left a comment on the talk page of an article – [24] – saying that there is no basis for removing these allegations from these two pages (even though there might be consensus to remove them from his biography). I have reverted them for now – [25], [26] – but would appreciate your thoughts on this as well. My understanding is that there is consensus to remove all references from the encyclopedia because of the reasons I have stated above and due to the sensitive nature of the subject pertaining to "harassment" of a minor in the past, but there could be difference of opinion on this. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe the case for excluding VMB from Me Too movement, on undue grounds, is pretty clear-cut given that the article is not (and shouldn't be!) an exhaustive list of everyone who has faced any such accusations in the past couple of years. My first inclination would be to leave VMB out of Me Too movement (India) too, given in the thinness of coverage, available context, lack of follow-up etc but, again, this would be a borderline case. Will add a comment of the article talpage. Abecedare (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI I labeled The Financial Express "iffy" because 1. I can't find any third party commentary on its reliability, unless more happens to exist in Hindi, and 2. There were 3 spelling/grammar mistakes in the first sentence of the article in question. Not the best look. 199.247.44.10 (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Lois Lowry

• Lois Lowry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an article about a notable author. Some of the book awards have citations to independant sources (some don't). Most of the biographical information comes from Lois Lowry's website, but there's also a lot of biographical information that is left completely unsourced. The third paragaph in the lead mentions "challenging topics" but not the books these topics were associated with or what/how/why these books were controversial. In the Works sections, there's a list of books and only one has an inline citation. Clovermoss (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello,Clovermoss. There is plenty of critical commentary readily available about the controversial aspects of some of Lois Lowry's works. I see no violations of BLP policy in the article but the refererences can be structured better. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

What I do see in the article is over-personal PR material and wording throughout. For example "Writing about both humorous and serious issues has sustained Lois Lowry through her own hard times" or " She likes the comment of the Dalai Lama: "My religion is kindness." or "Initially, Lowry's parents named her "Cena" for her Norwegian grandmother but upon hearing this, her grandmother telegraphed and instructed Lowry's parents that the child should have an American name. " or "Lowry has a younger brother named Jon. They continue to enjoy a close relationship", or the detail about which ships her father served on, or the meet-cute for her second husband. or "Today, Lois Lowry remains active by not only continuing to write and speaking at appearances, but also enjoying time at her homes in Massachusetts and Maine. She takes pleasure in reading, knitting, gardening, and entertaining her four grandchildren"

I also see evasion of stating just what her views are "She has also explored very controversial issues of questioning authority such as in The Giver quartet." or "Her writing on such matters has brought her both praise and criticism" --the reader shouldn't have to go that article to see at least some indication-having never heard of her until today, I can not tell from the article what she is saying that might be controversial. And going to the article on The Given, I see no exact explanation for controversial, except criticisms for the quality of her writing. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: I did the "younger brother named Jon" part. There was originally much more detail about him being six years older that seemed irrevelant. I was trying to trim it down a bit but I wasn't exactly sure what I should do. I figured that since stuff like that is a signifigant portion of the article, it should be discussed here first. Some of her writing is controversial, Number The Stars was about a child living in (Denmark? iirc) during the Holocaust. The Giver is a frequently banned book, it's also my favourite book of hers. It's usually the subject matter of certain books of hers that is criticized/controversial. It does exist, but I think that with how that information is written within the article could be better - like specifying exactly what the criticism associated with her book(s) are. Instead of just saying something like she wrote about the Holocaust mention Number The Stars. @Cullen328: is right about plenty of critical commentary existing and I think that looking at it and using it to improve the article would be a great idea. Lois Lowry does need an article, but I think that's its focus should be on her accomplishments - her books and awards. It shouldn't be confusing to someone who hasn't read any books or never heard of her. Currently most of the article focuses on her personal life and I agree with the issues you brought up about it. Clovermoss (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I may have been wrong to include that point. When I was deciding what examples to include, that was the one I was uncertain about. Saying she had a younger brother is fine in an article on a childrens' author; the problematic part was "they continue to enjoy a close relationship" It can indeed sometimes be difficult deciding how much personal material to include. . I wasn't aware of your trim, but it did seem to me that what was left was worded a little awkwardly, and that would account for it. I think the general roule is to include personal material beyond father/mother/spouse depends upon both how famous the person is, and the relevance to the career. For the first part, see WP:EINSTEIN. For an author of fiction, and especially of children's fiction, some degree of family material is relevant. Even the close relationship part would be OK if it has a truly independent source--as with Jane Austen's family, because that has excellent academic sources based on the evidence of extensive published letters and the like--there is even a full book written about her relationship with her sailor brothers, and it directly affects the content of two of her novels. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Breda Dennehy-Willis

Breda Dennehy-Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Her name is spelled "Breeda". See (among other sources): https://www.iaaf.org/athletes/ireland/breeda-dennehy-willis-70755

The misspelling seems to have been inherited from the primary (i.e., only) source for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4C1:4180:10A0:643B:8405:C98F:4DBF (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• A Google search shows that the official olympics website spells it Breda as do many other sources. Neiltonks (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Imran Ahmed Chowdhury

• Imran Ahmed Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Poorly sourced puff piece. And is there any reason the 'promoter of noted people' account hasn't been blocked indefinitely? Drmies, you blocked them once, so I don't want to omit you from the discussion. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Drmies (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Drmies. I see that the bio is at AfD, and faring none too well. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to just delete that article under one of two or three CSD criteria. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Candace Owens

Extremely defamatory content is being inserted at Candace Owens. Linking someone to a terrorist attack because she was mentioned in a despicable and unreliable manifesto of the shooter, goes completely against WP:BLPBALANCE. wumbolo ^^^ 22:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Dan Murphy, I'm with Wumbolo here. Please stop edit warring over that material in the lead: it's a BLP and we should err on the side of caution. I dropped a warning on your talk page to let you know I'm serious. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Wumbolo, let me reword this: I'm with you if you were to argue that this material in the lead is undue--I thought that's what you removed. I see now you removed everything, and that, I think goes way too far. That the manifesto was "unreliable" or "despicable" means nothing at all: he mentioned her, apparently, and if the sources find it significant enough to discuss we should at least consider its inclusion. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Alright. There is a discussion on the talk page about how to properly describe it in the body. There are several issues with the multiple wordings, ranging from SYNTH to context issues. I am most concerned with quoting the shooter verbatim; I do not have a problem with just saying that he mentioned her. I may have overreacted in my revert. wumbolo ^^^ 23:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Cool. Again, it seems UNDUE to me to put this in the lead (esp. since the lead right now is basically nothing), and I think Dan Murphy has agreed to not war over this; I hope that y'all can talk this out and find a way to have well-verified material in the article without skewing the lead. Maybe one of you will sit down with a cup of coffee and actually write a real lead--that would be best. Thank you, to both, Drmies (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Candace Owens did in fact make international headlines after the attack. She appears to have first become famous after Kanye West praised her, and now again she has made the news. Volunteer Marek, you may want to comment on this discussion. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This, along with her remarks about Hitler, is basically what she's notable for. You court controversy by saying controversial stuff, then why are you surprised that you're known for being controversial? The lede reflects the article and the article reflects the content in reliable sources.

Additionally, any suggestions that the inclusion of Owens in the manifesto was a "joke" or "trolling" should be backed by reliable sources, not original research and speculation by Wikipedia editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm unclear on why Dan Murphy is being referenced in this section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek The Atlantic is a reliable source. And victim blaming goes against BLP. wumbolo ^^^ 08:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It is, but does it make the connection explicit and is it representative of general sources out there? Also... "victim blaming"? What in the world are you going on about??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The Atlantic quote in my opinion should be included in full. "Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control, this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her." Currently the second clause is cut out. See the talk page discussion:[27] --Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately (?) if somebody is famous for their bad opinions, we generally mention their bad opinions in lede. Similarly for serial killers, con artists, new york times opinion article writers, etc. What somebody is most notable for should be what we discuss in the lede, and in this case they're very notable in that the Christchurch shooter was a big fan. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I created a thread about this on the talk page, which I think could do with some more eyes. Overall I agree with Wumbolo; we just need to nail down the wording right, to ensure it's both balanced, accurate, and doesn't include so many lengthy quotes. :-) 84percent (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• This should only be mentioned briefly and only in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Section related to Christchurch shooter's manifesto definitely needs to be trimmed down. While BLP is true that it does not prevent inclusion of negative info or criticism published by RSes against a BLP, that does not mean that is the minimal bar for include. UNDUE must be respected in relationship to a BLP - BLPs should not be seen as a collection of every potential negative comment that can be sourced to the person. We need to consider how much of an impact it has, how "actionable" the criticism is, and other factors related to UNDUE before including these. In the case of her name being mentioned in the manifesto from Christchurch, it clearly has not amounted to anything yet, so a full paragraph (including the silly criticism that she used emojis in a reply tweet ...) is far too much at this point in time. I don't think it needs to be mentioned at all (her name is not mentioned on the Christchurch shooting page at all) so it seeming is just here because 1) RS has published negative criticism of her and 2) editors without much love of the alt or far-right seem to have little problem with rushing to include this information without being responsible to BLP's higher level of inclusion. --Masem (t) 17:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that putting this in the lead paragraph is excessive, the current wording is particularly problematic because it doesn't really reflect the fact that reliable sources generally questioned the seriousness of the Christchurch shooter's manifesto. The New York Times says this appeared to be a joke, and that needs to be mentioned. I don't think the body section in the current version is all that excessive, but I agree that the point about the emojis is a bit much. Nblund ^talk 18:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The current lead is less problematic than this version, which omitted the insincerity question, however I don't think the event belongs in the lead at all (even as it's worded now). On the point of the emoji criticism, I agree that it's probably unnecessary, and have been trying to come to a compromise on wording in the article's talk page. 84percent (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Her name being mentioned in the manifesto has amounted to something; it has amounted to her making international headlines. Other than her Hitler comments it sounds like this is what she is most known for around the world. The emojis point may be excessive, but it seems worth pointing out the falsehoods she stated in her response, which have been reported on. The Atlantic: "Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control, this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her." She tweeted that she never created any content espousing her views on the 2nd Amendment or Islam, but In fact, she has tweeted about the 2nd Amendment and Islam.[28] Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The Atlantic quote

I just mentioned this, but I would like to settle whether to include the full quote from The Atlantic story, a truncated version, or a quote from the BBC. The Atlantic piece is probably paraphrasing Robert Evans in its article. We could just use the primary source quote, which many other secondary sources also quote. Which version do folks support including in the article:

A:

Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control, this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her.

B:

"Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, [...] this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her."

C:

From the BBC: In his manifesto the shooter "describes the conservative activist Candace Owens as a key influence. While Owens has repeated claims about declining birth rates and dubious statistics about population growth in European countries, her influence over the suspect is doubtful considering his committed opposition to minorities in Western countries and the fact that Owens is an African-American."[29]

D:

Likely primary source: It is possible, even likely that the author was a fan of Owens’s videos: she certainly espouses anti-immigrant rhetoric. But in context seems likely that his references to Owens were calculated to spark division, and perhaps even violence, between the left and the right.[30]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

B. I prefer the latter, because, from my reading, "who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control" is an introduction of Owens to the reader, and not necessary in the article. 84percent (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A. D. Use primary, oft quoted source. I respectfully say that it is absurd to suggest that the line "who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control" is merely an introduction of Owens to the reader. This line clearly relates Owens to the context of the shooting of Muslim immigrants. A Google search or a quick reading of Owens' Wikipedia article shows she is not particularly known for these topics. She even denies ever having created content on these topics. Although she has "tweeted about Islam, the 2nd Amendment, and gun rights multiple times."[31] I believe removing this line has the effect of pushing a POV. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong venue. This should be moved to the article's talk page. wumbolo ^^^ 08:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Seeking input from uninvolved editors. This was already discussed at the talk page and went nowhere. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Please, somebody, vote. We just need somebody else to chime in and write A or B. It's been sitting on the talk page long enough. 84percent (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment Full disclosure: Kolya asked for my advice about this on my talk page and I'm the one who suggested raising the issue here. Because of canvassing concerns I'm not !voting. However, I notice that 84percent and Kolya are two of the top five contributors to this article. So, I'm pinging the other three (Snooganssnoogans, AHC300, and Patapsco913), in case they wish to chime in and "break the tie". Thanks all. Leviv ich 16:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

B. I would go with B as well. Her views on gun control and immigration (both legal and illegal) should go elsewhere.Patapsco913 (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that section describing her is necessary, but it's in the quote and there's no reason to cut it out. Alternatively, this could be paraphrased instead of directly quoted. For example, "According to the Atlantic, it's unclear whether this statement about Owens was genuine, or just more of the shooter's trolling." I think that's a reasonable reading, since the entire article is about how the shooter's "manifesto" was so full of deliberately provocative nonsense that's it hard to tell when he was being serious. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment The previous two comments do not address the argument for why I believe "who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control" should be included. This clause relates her views to the interests of the shooter. I see that User:Red Rock Canyon has previously suggested changing the lead of WP:White genocide conspiracy theory to remove the neo-Nazi / white supremacist connection from the first sentence. [32] This is precisely the topic which may relate Candace Owens to the Christchurch shooter. Candace Owens tweeted:

Please remind @SadiqKhan that according to the birth rate, Europe will fall and become a Muslim majority continent by 2050. There has never been a muslim majority country where sharia law was not implemented. When we’re forced to save you guys (again) we’ll forgive the balloon.[33]

The Christchurch shooter's manifesto specifically references the White genocide conspiracy theory. [34] It is not for us to provide synthesis, but The Atlantic has provided basic synthesis in the clause which I argue should remain. To delete it is not neutral. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could use this quote from the BBC: In the manifesto, "the author describes the conservative activist Candace Owens as a key influence. While Owens has repeated claims about declining birth rates and dubious statistics about population growth in European countries, her influence over the suspect is doubtful considering his committed opposition to minorities in Western countries and the fact that Owens is an African-American." Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

What are you implying by bringing that up? How is that related here? The reason I don't believe we need that information about Candice Owens in that sentence is because it's explained in detail in other sections of the article. Anyone who reads the article will know about Owens' opposition to gun control and Muslim immigration, as well as her bizarre racial views. Also, I don't know what you mean when you bring up synthesis. That Atlantic article states that much of the shooter's manifesto was trolling. It uses the Candace Owens as an example to show that it's often unclear when the shooter is being genuine and when he's just fucking around. Repeating that in an article isn't synthesis. It's reporting the message of the source a whole. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon: I concur. The journalist is saying that the shooter's reference to Owen may have been intentionally invented to create blame. That is the important take-away from the quote, which is included in B. The introduction of Owens is wholly unimportant, in my opinion. I understand that there is contention that the "introduction" of Owens is actually not (only) an introduction, but important context to the gunman's naming, but I simply don't read it that way. Note that this is the first and only time the words "immigration", "gun control" are mentioned, and the only paragraph in the piece where Owens is mentioned. In my view, which I believe is the reasonable one, it is akin to "Assange, co-founder of WikiLeaks, has been arrested."
@Kolya Butternut: I don't think "White genocide conspiracy theory" or any editor's other edits are relevant, and they only serve to distract from the conversation. 84percent (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

As Red Rock Canyon said, "but it's in the quote and there's no reason to cut it out". A reasonable introduction of Candace Owens would be "Owens, an American conservative commentator and political activist", or "Owens, a pro-Trump activist and critic of Black Lives Matter and the Democratic Party", or "Owens, the Director of Communications at the conservative advocacy group Turning Point USA." It's absurd to say that introducing her based on these particular views on immigration and gun control which she is not known for, but which relate to the shooting, is irrelevant. Removing the text shows bias and serves to minimize how she relates to the shooting. What about just using the BBC quote if we can't agree on this one? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I think "who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control" is similar to those examples. Side note: Repeatedly calling someone else's opinion "absurd" is not a good way to form a civil debate. 84percent (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Based on what evidence? Please provide sources which introduce Candace Owens by referencing immigration or gun control in articles which are not related to immigration or gun control. It is not proper to remove text from a quote based on your beliefs which are not supported by evidence. Especially considering that removing this text serves to diminish her connection to the shooter. This is non neutral. If there is any doubt, we must trust the source and include the full quote. Leave the reader to interpret it themselves, not Wikipedia editors. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Journalists introduce Owens in all kinds of unique ways; you'll rarely find stories using the same words to describe her. The introductions give the reader context as to who Owens is, a brief understanding of what she stands for, etc. The introductions are very rarely important to readers who already know who she is (including, for example, readers of the Wikipedia page about her). Here's some examples of unique introductions from a quick Google search:

• Candace Owens, a glorified YouTuber cited in a recent mass murderer's manifesto
• Candace Owens, a darling of the far right,
• Candace Owens, a conservative activist cited in the bigoted manifesto uploaded to the internet prior to last month’s mass shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand,
• Candace Owens, who is known for her critiques of black communities protesting against the killing of black men by police,
• Candace Owens, who is known for her outspoken right-leaning political views
• Candace Owens, who is known for proudly bashing Black Lives Matter while singing praises of President Donald Trump
• Candace Owens, who is known for her strong support of President Trump and her criticism of Black Lives Matter as a black woman
• Candace Owens, a top figure in a conservative advocacy group with close ties to President Donald Trump,

84percent (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This supports my point. All of those stories introduce her by explaining how she relates to the context of the story, or they introduce her in general terms like "darling of the far right", "known for outspoken right-leaning political views", "a top figure in a conservative advocacy group with close ties to President Donald Trump". None of these stories introduce her based on views unrelated to the story. She has many different views, but you won't see her introduced based on her views on immigration or guns in an article that's not connecting her views to the context of the story. Please conduct more than a quick Google search. We're writing information related to an event where actual people died, the least we could do is basic research and respect the text of reliable resources instead of creating a non-neutral narrative based on biases about what the author is thinking with no supporting evidence. Note that the quote doesn't even say she is "known for" views on immigration. It says she is "known to" espouse views on immigration. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

A visitor to the Wikipedia article who reads the Christchurch section can't be expected to have read the entire article to know about her views on immigration and guns. Unless you want to include these views in the lead. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

There are already sections above it: one headline on "Muslim immigration" and one headline on "Guns" (which should probably be changed to "Gun rights") -- I don't think they belong in the lead, but that's another conversation. I should Google more because people died...? "Known to", "known for"... I see no important difference. From what I understand, you think the journalist is insinuating there is a valid connection between Owens' view on guns/immigration and the anti-Muslim maniac mass shooter naming her in his manifesto; whereas from my read, the journalist is not making any connection, and only stating that the manifesto is garbage designed to create divide. I think it would be strange to include the full quote based on what I wrote above. 84percent (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you've addressed all of my weakest arguments, and created a strawman of my main point. You seem unwilling or unable to accurately describe my point of view. You have either argued against it or misrepresented it. If we are to have a good faith conversation, a first step is to show that you understand the point of view you're arguing against. I have never suggested that the shooter was actually influenced by Owens, if that's what you're saying. The journalist is providing context. Here are some examples of what he did not write:

• "Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, who has been known to criticize Black Lives Matter, this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her."
• "Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on abortion and welfare, this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her."
• "Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, who has been known to support gay rights and deny climate change, this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her."
  The journalist introduces her by relating her to the context of the shooting. The shooter wrote a manifesto referencing muslims taking over and replacing the white race. Candace Owens tweeted the same thing. The journalist may be suggesting the shooter is merely a fan of hers for these views which he shares. Why do you think he chose to introduce her based on immigration and guns rather than any of the other ways? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

"I have never suggested that the shooter was actually influenced by Owens" <-- to be clear, I never said that. I said "From what I understand, you think the journalist is insinuating there is a valid connection between Owens' view on guns/immigration and the anti-Muslim maniac mass shooter naming her in his manifesto"; if that's incorrect, please go ahead and correct me. Are you writing these examples because you think they sound absurd? I can picture each of them in an article; they come across as reasonable to me. "The shooter wrote a manifesto referencing muslims taking over and replacing the white race" <-- Yes, he also wrote about Spyro the dragon, climate change, anti-imperialism, anti-conservatism, child sex abuse, pro-environmentalism, gay people, pro-socialism, memes, CEOs, linguistics, anti-capitalism, urbanization, slave labour, pro- trade unions, racial divide within the United states, racial segregation, etc. He covered all bases to create maximum divide, as reliable sources have repeated. Most of your quotes would fit just fine. 84percent (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. "Why do you think he chose to introduce her based on immigration and guns rather than any of the other ways? (my examples)" You have not shown that you understand my point of view. The journalist may be suggesting that the shooter could be a fan of hers for her views on immigration and guns. Some immigration views we know they share, based on her tweets and his anti-immigrant manifesto. You said most of my quotes would fit just fine. Did you mean most of my quotes would fit because they would connect Candace's views to the shooter? Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• "The journalist may be suggesting that the shooter could be a fan of hers for her views on immigration and guns." <-- OK, so my understanding of your complaint is correct then; that's entirely compatible with my summation above. To the contrary, I don't see the journalist suggesting that; I believe that is a misinterpretation of the article. This is where we disagree.
• "Why do you think he chose to introduce her based on immigration and guns rather than any of the other ways?" <-- I'm not sure what his methodology is, but if I had to make a guess: he probably picked a couple of Owens' most controversial views arbitrarily (of which there are dozens) to rightfully introduce Owens to the reader as a controversial, polarising figure, which the shooter could exploit.

So you think he may have felt her views on immigration were the most significant views that might make her exploitable to the shooter. That definitely seems like something we shouldn't cut out. Sounds like you're not sure, but be had better be on the safe side and include the full quote. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

"So you think he may have felt her views on immigration were the most significant views that might make her exploitable to the shooter." <-- No, I don't think that, and I didn't say that. 84percent (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

You said that he might have picked a couple of Owens' most controversial views arbitrarily to introduce Owens as a controversial figure who the shooter could exploit. So you think the author thinks immigration and guns are some of her "most controversial" views. And this controversial nature is what makes her someone the shooter could exploit. So the author is suggesting that these particular views are part of what makes her someone the shooter could exploit. If this is the author's stated opinion about what makes her someone the shooter could exploit we should include that information. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Some immigration views we know they share, based on her tweets and his anti-immigrant manifesto." <-- We don't know they share these views, because the manifesto is intentionally designed to make people draw false conclusions and blame each other (on both sides, as the shooter apparently is all over the spectrum if you take his ramblings at face value).

Some stated views on immigration we know they have in common. For this reason, the shooter may be a fan of Owens'. Maybe the shooter isn't actually against immigrant muslims, but he did murder a bunch, so he might have views against them. I think the Atlantic suggested he might have anti-immigrant views which may make him a fan of Owens' who makes similar anti-immigrant statements. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR. I think it's important to be especially careful on this topic, because we wouldn't want to falsely attribute somebody to a mass murder. We haven't done the same to environmentalists and socialists with which his garbage-manifesto appears to align with; we shouldn't do it with people on the far-right either. As I'm hearing more of these insane and dangerous theories, I'm beginning to agree with others that we should simply nuke the whole section (but will leave that conversation for later). 84percent (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

A quote from a source is not original research. The source says the shooter may have been a fan. You yourself said the Atlantic was a reliable source. Are you now saying you think I'm suggesting that the shooter was actually influenced by Owens? Is that what you mean by attribute? I've explained why there's plenty of reason to think the author points out her views on immigration to show why the shooter might be a fan. Yes, nuking the section is a separate discussion which doesn't belong here, and it seems strange to bring that up in the context of a discussion about including the clause "who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control". You must think that clause has a powerful effect on a reader's perceptions of how connected to the shooter Candice Owens is. I think you're imagining far more of a connection through that text than there is in actuality, but if you feel it communicates so much we must not remove it; that would be lying by omission. I saw from your talk page you wanted this quote included precisely to prevent lying by omission, so I agree, we had better be careful to present the text of the sources accurately. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Are you now saying you think I'm suggesting that the shooter was actually influenced by Owens? Is that what you mean by attribute? I've explained why there's plenty of reason to think the author points out her views on immigration to show why the shooter might be a fan." <-- Yeah, it appears to me that you believe that Owens influenced the shooter, or that the shooter was a genuine fan. Wrong? 84percent (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

You are wrong. I share the view of the author that he might be a fan. You have not addressed my argument that it is not original research to quote the reliably sourced clause which may show why the author thinks the shooter may be a fan. It is lying by omission to remove it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• "I saw from your talk page you wanted this quote included precisely to prevent lying by omission, so I agree, we had better be careful to present the text of the sources accurately." <-- I was discussing the lead. You know that, but appear to have chosen to omit or ignore it. :-) 84percent (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Did you mean most of my quotes would fit because they would connect Candace's views to the shooter?" <-- Because they rightfully introduce her as a controversial woman on the far-right.

84percent (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so you agree my example quotes would be appropriate because they connect Candace's views to the shooter. The Atlantic author chooses to connect Candace to the shooter based on her views on immigration and guns. This is what he must feel is the significant connection between them. We must not remove this material opinion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Meh. I didn't say that. We're going in circles. Other people involved here (Patapsco913 and Red Rock Canyon) seem to agree that part of the quote is unnecessary. I haven't seen anybody agreeing with your fringe interpretation yet. 84percent (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain what you meant using complete sentences? What does her being a controversial woman on the far-right have to do with the topics you listed? Also, the shooter didn't just write about immigration like he wrote about Spyro the dragon; it was the main topic of the manifesto; and that was the topic used to introduce Candace. The title even referenced the same concept she tweeted abou ... Unfortunately we haven't gotten any editors who are uninvolved in these subjects, as I had hoped, so it's difficult to get a sense of neutral opinions. Red Rock Canyon did state "there's no reason to cut it out." Patapsco913 gave no explanation for their opinion. And Snooganssnoogans hasn't yet commented, but was just editing recently, so maybe they'll chime in. It's ok, we'll get input on my interpretation eventually. If this doesn't resolve the disagreement I'll be happy to do a formal RfC and hopefully get some fresh new eyes from people who don't edit immigration related articles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

You received input, but didn't like it. I'm happy to wait for more people to participate or go down whatever path you want. :-) 84percent (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to go down the path of continuing this conversation. You have not answered my questions and addressed my comments. Please do so. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather not, actually. I've already explained my opinion and I've been conversing with you in good faith for days. I have no obligation to continue. Let's wait for more people to chime in; maybe one of them will agree with you. :-) 84percent (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

And another question: Why is this important to you? It is because you are so very strongly opposed to the possibility of redundancy? Repeating text that occurs earlier in a separate subsection of the article is horrible writing that cannot be tolerated? It has nothing to do with what the content of the clause is communicating? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The clause is not communicating anything new; it's redundant and ugly to include it. If you're implying I have some secret agenda, what is it? 84percent (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I have repeatedly, explicitly stated the POV that eliminating this text promotes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

What POV am I pushing? 84percent (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment. In my opinion, (a) The Atlantic is a much better and more reliable source than the BBC (massive lists of BBC's controversies here, here and here); and (b) The Atlantic's quote is more concise and legible. 84percent (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think I toned it down a little bit by this edit. Bus stop (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop: My main concern is that the clause in the quote from the Atlantic which states that the shooter may have been a fan of Owens for her views on immigration and guns is cut out. There is a dispute over that interpretation, but the source who the Atlantic references states this clearly in his piece, and several other secondary sources directly quote him. I feel like these are the basic things that have been reported: The shooter claimed Owens inspired him; Owens did share right-wing views on muslim immigration, but this is likely untrue. I don't see any reason to cut out the clause other than to push a POV. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kolya Butternut, I think the first half of the clause should be included: "The shooter claimed Owens inspired him…" But I think it would be going too far if we included the second half: "…Owens has shared right-wing views on Muslim immigration, but this is likely untrue." The manifesto has nothing to do with Owens. It doesn't reflect on her. Nothing needs to be said to defend her. We are merely reporting that the suspected shooter in the Christchurch mosque attacks made reference to her in his manifesto. It is more a curiosity than anything of any significance. Bus stop (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop I feel like it's important to briefly discuss how the media has responded, and how Owens herself has. Thanks. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)