Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive320

Miroslava Duma

Hello

A "controversy" section which sounds negative was added on this page. User:Russ Woodroofe keeps re-adding this as found on the history of the page.

I tried removing it in line with what is stated on WP:BLP that

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

The Controversy section reads:

In 2018, a racial slur was used in a conversation between Duma and fashion designer Ulyana Sergeenko at couture fashion week. Subsequently, she was accused of making homophobic and transphobic comments against blogger BryanBoy and model Andreja Pejic. The controversy led to Duma being dropped from the child's fashion company she founded, The Tot, and the website Buro 24/7.

The sources cited stated clearly that the lady already apologized for the actions. I believe, the section ought to be removed as it appears to be denting the image of the lady and possibly her career.

I opened a section on the page's talk page. We need a consensus on this regarding whether to keep it or not. For me, I support removing it completely in line with WP:BLP policy as stated above. 19:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Estarosmārṭ (talk)

Hi there - if the information can't be sourced properly, then it should be removed. But you should note that a section appearing detrimental to someone's career is not a reason for removing well-sourced and relevant sections on Wikipedia.

It's true that WP:BLP states that Wikpedia isn't a tabloid; we don't report on things that can't be sourced correctly, which covers "titillating claims" and "sensationalist" content. But if something can be sourced well, if it's relevant, then just because it doesn't reflect nicely on them - that isn't grounds for removal.

If she's apologised and it's stated in the given source, you should WP:BEBOLD and add this information in. But we're neutral. We don't exercise editorial judgement as to whether or not something will harm or help a person's career; this is clearly stated in WP:NOTADVOCACY. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I re-added the section to Miroslava Duma because it seems to be well-sourced: there are articles covering the controversy in Harper's Bazaar, and the Independent, among others. See the revision in question. I believe that what was there was neutrally worded, and didn't violate WP:DUE. I agree that it would be good if experts on wikipedia BLP policy had a look at the article and the sourcing, and I'm happy to back down if I've assessed incorrectly. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that The Independent and Harper's Bazaar citations and the impact this situation has independently had on her career makes it DUE even if negative per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I spent some time to review 3 of the sources cited on this “Controversy” section, I found some truths.

1. https://www.harpersbazaar.com/fashion/designers/a15854264/ulyana-sergeenko-miroslava-duma-racist-note/

This source stated:

Russian couture designer Ulyana Sergeenko came under fire for writing a note to blogger and street style star Miroslava Duma that read, "To my n*ggas in Paris." Duma, for some reason thinking the Kanye West line was acceptable for two white women to use, shared a photo of the note on Instagram Stories—which quickly elicited a wave of backlash from the fashion industry and beyond.

2. https://wwd.com/fashion-news/fashion-scoops/fashion-figures-slam-miroslava-duma-for-offensive-comments-naomi-campbell-bryan-boy-marc-goehring11125986-11125986/

This one stated:

Earlier this week Duma posted a picture of flowers and a card that she said was sent by her designer friend Ulyana Sergeenko. The card said “To my Ni**as in Paris,” a quote from a Jay Z and Kanye West song. Duma later apologized on Instagram: “I sincerely apologize for my regrettable Instagram story that went out

3. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/ulyana-sergeenko-racist-note-naomi-campbell-paris-fashion-week-response-a8177056.html

This one stated:

Ulyana Sergeenko, 36, came under fire for sending a bouquet of flowers to her friend, fashion entrepreneur Miroslava Duma, with a handwritten note that read, “To my n****s in Paris.”

Duma, 32, later shared the note on her Instagram Stories alongside a heart emoji and tagged Sergeenko in the post.

As a result of the backlash, both women issued a public apology on their Instagram accounts.

So from the above, it was Ulyana Sergeenko who first came under fire for writing a note to blogger and street style star Miroslava Duma.

Duma for some reason thinking the Kanye West line was acceptable for two white women to use, shared a photo of the note on Instagram Stories—which quickly elicited a wave of backlash from the fashion industry and beyond. This was a mistake on her part which she later acknowledged and tendered a public apology.

Moreover, as a result of the backlash, both women issued a public apology on their Instagram accounts.

I believe, the picture is clear. The controversy issue ought not to be there on Duma’s page. The whole scenario started with “Ulyana Sergeenko” her friend. Also, both of them have already apologized.

In line with the dictates of WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK, I strongly believe that section is negative and is tarnishing the image of Duma. It should be removed. It's not neutral by any sense and currently causing damages. Let's go by the rules of English Wikipedia.

I am removing the "Controversy section" again until we get a clearer consensus on this. I’ll rest my case if more editors and admins think otherwise.Estarosmārṭ (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

As the incident had an effect on her career- she was dropped from the board of a company she founded, and that's pretty big- it really should be in the article. However, BLP policy generally leans towards discouraging "controversy sections". Reframing it as "Duma left the board of The Tot after ... etc" and putting it under career might be a better way to go. Curdle (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

For me, the "Controversy section" is negative and damaging to subject. Take a look at the meaning of the key words used:

• Slur - an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation

• homophobic - having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people

• transphobic - having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people.

3 of the references did not actually state the issue as contained on the "Controversy section". Only one reference did and it's likely targeted against the two ladies by the journalist. Most public guys do encounter such.

I wonder why the same editor Russ Woodroofe has continued to re-add same 'controversy section" even when a consensus has not been reached here or on the Talk page. This is worrisone. Pls Russ Woodroofe, I recommend you stop. This is very sensitive. Let the general house come up with tenable solution.

Whoever added that controversy section did so in most damaging way. The editor ignored the fact that both ladies in question have tendered public apology which are contained in those references.

For goodness sake, this is BLP and we're encouraged to be fair when updating pages belonging to Living persons. I support total obliteration of the section.

Just as User:Curdle,BLP policy generally leans towards discouraging "controversy sections". We need to uphold this to keep EN:Wiki in good light. Maltuguom (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note - Further investigations reveals that a Blocked user by name User:Motivatedjack added that "Controversy Section" on 29 June 2018 at 06:22. Here's the revision link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miroslava_Duma&oldid=848007440

Same user was banned shortly after for abusing multiple accounts in this sock archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BrookeCook/Archive

Several attempt to clear the section or at least toned it down has always been reverted by several editors including the current editor User:Russ Woodroofe who is bent on keeping same. Very pathetic! This yet another reason to scrap this off completely. Estarosmārṭ (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If I hear clearly from the BLPN regulars that have spoken up so far, the material is reliably sourced and WP:DUE, and probably belongs in the article in some form. Morbidthoughts reverted removal, Estarosmārṭ re-removed; I've now reverted removal again per WP:BRD while discussion continues. Curdle suggests integrating it into the Career section, and that makes good sense to me. If I don't hear swift objection here, I'll try to make a pass at reorganizing it along these lines a little later tonight. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

That's ok. But it's necessary to set it aside until we have a clear consensus. I don't it's right to keep it on the page while discussion is on going. User:Russ Woodroofe, you've weaved it into the career section. I still believe this still sounds damaging although better than it was before. Is there any need keeping it entirely? The lady made a public apology with her friend. The matter is already over. Even if you're bent on keeping that line, could you add that she made a public apology? Remember we are dealing with a living person whose image and career is at stake. Estarosmārṭ (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Your changes look good to me Russ Woodroofe. Yes, as mentioned before, Estarosmārṭ, the incidents had real life effects on her career, as noted by Harpers Bazaar, The Independent and Womens Wear Daily,(all Reliable Sources and all of which do support the text). All of them link her removal from the board of The Tot, and from Buro 24/7, both of which she cofounded, to these incidents; it really is necessary to keep the information. Her apology is in there. Please don't make personal attacks on other editors, remember to concentrate on edits, not editors. Curdle (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Kelly Gough

Kelly Gough

Hi there,

I've flagged this page to be removed but to no avail- I created it a number of years ago and have been asked by the person in question to have it removed as it is damaging her career.

She's very distressed by it's continued presence online and I deeply regret have made it at all; can it please be taken down ASAP before it causes further harm.

Kindest regards,

Gilles.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilleswardle45 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The article was created by User:L0u1sMarkham. Are you claiming to be the same person as that user? Regardless, we would need verification of her identity through WP:OTRS to handle this as a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. See the OTRS link for how she (not you) could do this. Be aware that even with a verified identity, she may well be determined to be too notable to delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the article is "damaging her career", there's nothing particularly negative in it, unless there are personal details that should be omitted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC),

I removed one sentence sourced to IMDB and replaced IMDB with a RS elsewhere but that's the only BLP compliance issues I found. I also find suggestions that the article is damaging odd. Maybe its one of those Google Knowledge Panel things again. She certainly seems notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

BLPs listed in Template:Falsification of history

There is a RfC ongoing at Template talk:Falsification of history (t · c) buidhe 19:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Other eyes appreciated at Kangana Ranaut

BLPs aren't my specialty. This content, added to a Featured Article, seems to focus more on the doings of the article subject's sister, rather than the article subject, so I'm concerned about the suitability of this content for inclusion and would appreciate BLP-skilled eyes here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the section has really nothing to do with the subject. If the sister were notable enough to have her own article, then it may possibly be appropriate to add it to her own article, but then again it may not. Here's my first question: is what she is accuse of, is this a crime in India? If so, then BLPCRIME attaches, in which case it should be removed immediately.

Either way, though, this info is not about the subject of this article, so it really does not belong there. Notability is not inherited, and this person is still a private citizen. I don't even know why it's there except for maybe a possible guilt-by-association theme. I would remove it from the article on those grounds alone. Zaereth (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Bob Hewitt

Do we name minor children who were raped? Bob Hewitt names three girls (then aged 13, 14 and 12) who the subject raped or sexually assulted. That seems wrong. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't due to WP:BLPNAME and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I just removed the two names that were not notable. The other victim is notable and, according to her article, has publicly spoken about it, so I opted to leave it in. Zaereth (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Help cleaning up?

I was going through some articles to get rid of mention of the Reader's Favorite site. For those unaware, this site offers both paid reviews and vanity awards. They do offer one free review per author, however they outright state that they never give lower than 4 stars to any book. I can't find evidence that they ever actually rejected anyone and even if they did, the site obviously has a COI to any free review as they clearly want people to use their paid services. I think even something written like My Immortal could get a 4 or 5 star review. This also made me realize the amount of pages that list vanity awards and even use the links that link to the vanity award page without realizing exactly what they're doing, so there's still a lot of cleanup to be done.

In any case, I've cleaned up quite a few articles and luckily there weren't that many, however a common issue I'm discovering is that many of the pages are absolutely rife with WP:PUFFERY and need some substantial cleanup. Others look like they may be OK, but need cleanup for formatting and readability.

I have two where the authors seem to be notable, but the pages could use a good cleaning. They're Jan Karlin and Cerridwen Fallingstar. Anyone interested in helping clean these up? Cleaning the others has been frankly exhausting and I've had to take a couple to AfD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• If you're curious as to which still remain, here's a search with the term "Reader's Favorite". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you for the help! On a side note, I did have to take one to AfD and there's someone who is currently editing the article and asserting that the deletion discussion is censorship. I've edited the page to remove the censorship claim, but if someone could keep an eye on the article and make sure that claims like that aren't re-added, that would be great. Not asking anyone to contribute to the AfD, I just want another set of eyes on the article in question. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• The article in question is Maura Stone. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Jesy Nelson

• Jesy Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jesy Nelson is a member of the British girl band Little Mix. Recently, it was announced that Nelson would be taking an extended hiatus from the band to focus on her health. For some reason, various IPs now think that it’s ok to add unsourced/poorly sourced (Twitter) content as well as rumours to the page. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] are some examples.

I will admit that I don’t know the exact reason why I am making a report here. I just came from WP:ANEW WP:3RR as I realized I had violated the 3RR (four times in less than 24h), but read that there was an exemption if it was on a BLP, per WP:3RRNO (I was also advised by an admin to keep reverting content like this and ask for help). The article said "Don’t rely on the exemption, make a notice on the BLP noticeboard", so now I’m here.

I also recently nominated the page for temporary semi protection (WP:RFPP#Jesy Nelson).

Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 22:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: Drmies has semi-protected the page until December 2. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 22:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the thing to do, rather than risk a 3R violation, is to ask at RFPP. And make it clear in your edit summaries, which I think you've been doing, that you are reverting unverified BLP information. I wouldn't block for what you were doing in there. Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! Have a great day/night! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 22:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Tina Turner

Tina Turner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is a dispute over whether a legal section is necessary at Tina Turner's article.

Legal issues

In 1977, Turner and her estranged husband, Ike Turner were sued for cancelling an engagement at Temple University two days before they were scheduled to perform in August 1976.

In 1978, Turner was sued by Diners Club for $26,108 in overdue bills charged to two of her credit cards. One suit named Turner as the sole defendant; the other named Turner, her corporation Tina's Operation Oops Inc., her assistant and Ike and Tina Turner's former manager Rhonda Leah Graam, Peter Gray, and Richard Kallis.

In 1979, Turner and her ex-husband, Ike Turner, were sued by two former band members who claimed they were owed money. Her label United Artists Records was also named as a defendant.

References

I don't think a separate section is warranted in this case. The three incidents all come from Jet magazine and appear to be primary sources, but they only say she is being sued, they don't mention the outcome. The other two sources used in the second paragraph, The Mail and USA Today, don't support the text. I think the information is relatively trivial, and if it has to be mentioned, could be incorporated into the main body of text.

Basically I have three questions: Is this information undue? Should legal action be mentioned without providing the outcome? Is a separate section on legal issues really necessary when the subject isn't exactly famous for such incidents? Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

To start with, any citations to The Daily Mail should be removed on sight, and another source should be used. See WP:DAILYMAIL.

Are these undue? I am leaning towards saying yes. Record companies and top musicians get sued all of the time. It would take more than a mention in Jet (magazine) to make such lawsuits notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the Mail citation (though another editor has objected on the talk page). My view is that it is unnecessary to mention the legal claims. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Your view is not correct. Turner is the author thus it is moot. As for the lawsuits you, GM are also wrong. You can't just revise history. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

No one is talking about revising history. We're not going to say the she has never been sued or she was sued by Mastercard. As with all articles, we're only going to cover stuff which is significant enough according to our policies and guidelines and, as reflected by level of coverage generally in reliable secondary sources, to mention. From what I've seen in previous discussions quite a few editors disagree that content written by the subject is an automatic exemption to us excluding Daily Mail, due to concerns that their editorial policy is bad enough to allow content which has been edited in a misleading way (or didn't even come from the subject). Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It is from the subject, Nil. You guys wouldn't see trees in a forest. Even if we discount completely the DM ref which is silly because it is TT's book and she is the article writer you wouldn't get the point. This argument or debate is nonsense. I could show you over and over and over once more that and you would be sidetracked. Let's look at ONE thing. If you editors (and that's how many, three?) care - go edit this into the article so it is not in one separate section but leave the info. I think so far you are foolish. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Howdoesitgo1: I don't really want to get into this discussion, I find it fairly boring. But wikipedia operates by WP:consensus and current consensus is that the Daily Mail is forbidden as a source in most circumstances. As I tried to explain, from what I've seen in previous discussions, there doesn't even seem to be clear consensus that Daily Mail allegedly written by the subject is an exemption. There are concerns that the Daily Mail edits content they publish in a misleading way, or doesn't even properly check that the person they are naming really approves the material they are publishing under the person's name.

In other words "it is from the subject" is problematic when we cannot trust the Daily Mail's word. If Turner had chosen to publish or even self publish the material somewhere else where we would have confidence that it is really her word, that would be better.

But in any case, even if were to accept it, given that we do not trust Daily Mail, we'd basically have to treat it as self published, so WP:BLPSELFPUB would apply. But that's a problem since material seems to concern multiple people who are not Turner "her assistant and Ike and Tina Turner's former manager Rhonda Leah Graam". Frankly, as weird as it may be in this case, I think we also have to question if Turner's view of the lawsuits aren't 'unduly self-serving'.

As for the other sources, as I said I don't want to get into thisso I won't make much comment except to point out again that there is no suggestion of "revising history". We aren't going to say things which aren't true. We may not mention certain things which are not significant, which is perfectly fine and not revising history. Frankly, I'm sure you could write an article 20 times the size of a featured article on Tina Turner even restricting yourself to content covered in reliable secondary sources. There is always going to be way more on Tuner then we will cover.

If you wish to establish consensus for inclusion, it would likely help if you weren't relying on 3 contemporary sources with only a single recent reliable source, along Daily Mail, no matter if it's published under Turner's name. Tina Turner has continued to have a notable career long after 1979. So if you need to rely on such old sources, you're going to get big questions over whether it's actually significant enough for us to cover. Why aren't recent sources talking about it if it's such a significant part of Turner's life to warrant coverage in our article?

Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't support the addition of such negative legal info on such a page because those can be very damaging to the person in question. BLP policy leans towards avoiding such as much as possible to keep the wiki platform as a neutral gateway. My take. Maltuguom (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a very easy debate. Mentioning anything not legal or related to legal topics has nothing to do with liking the subject or the celebrity. Your take is not right. It's whitewashing history, look up the term, to say we're not going to cover lawsuits for example. You may as well go find 200 to 300 celebs and take all citations of lawsuits out. It is revisionism and does disservice to the subject. You can be a Tina Turner fan and still acknowledge her life has been unusual and even difficult. I think many Wikipedians need to be educated about these matters. Your opinions aren't relevant. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that you have decided to insult those who disagree with you. How is that working out for you?

Following Wikipedia's WP:WEIGHT policy is not "whitewashing". --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, when people try to insult others they are almost always drawing on their own, personal flaws and unconsciously projecting them. It's simply a form of deflection; an appeal to emotion, just like most claims of "whitewashing" or "censorship". It's just childish, and as Peewee Herman proved, the end-all of all childish insults is "I know you are, but what am I". There is nothing that can beat that comeback, so I tend to ignore all insults and take them with a grain of salt. When people do that they're just letting everybody know...

I don't know much about this subject, other than she's a singer and starred in one of the Mad Max movies. I am not a fan, and view celebirities as just people with a job. In the scope of this person's entire life and career, this info is extremely trivial, and we don't publish every little bit of trivial info. It's not encyclopedic. I think many people come here confused about the goal of Wikipedia. We are here to provide the sum of all knowledge, not all knowledge. A summary. And, by the very nature of a summary, we tend to leave out all the boring and unimportant details and focus on the meat and potatoes of it. I would leave this stuff all out unless it has been very, very widely reported and has some deep impact on her notable life and career. Zaereth (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The first two suits seem extremely trivial, particularly if we can't source reliably what happened afterward. The suit related to the band members is a bit more of interest (as directly related to her career), but if there's no sources at all that follow up on that suit, it probably should be removed too. We aren't here to list every "bad" thing that happened to a BLP that may be sourceable - we are looking at big picture things, career-affecting impacts when it comes to these legal aspects. --Masem (t) 20:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow, way to ignore the obvious. You people could never work at a media outlet and by the way you are talking to journalists here sometimes - even I may be one. The "value" of a lawsuit has nothing to do with character of the parties or people, also the individual being discussed. Big picture talk is code for I am moronic and choose to evaluate on my own scale. No one replied to the topic here. If you were to scour this site for talk of lawsuits and attempt to squelch them would you being doing disservice to the site. I'll answer for you, yes. You all need to find some expertise which is lacking. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I vote that we ignore him. Either he will get tired of shouting into an empty hall and find somebody else to insult (Reddit is still open for business) or he will escalate the insults until his behavior justifies a block.

"The most hostile group was the one with high but unstable self esteem. These people think well of themselves in general, but their self-esteem fluctuates. They are especially prone to react defensively to ego threats, and they are also more prone to hostility, anger and aggression than other people.

"These findings shed considerable light on the psychology of the bully. Hostile people do not have low self esteem; on the contrary, they think highly of themselves, But their favorable view of themselves is not held with total conviction, and it goes up and down in response to daily events. The bully has a chip on his shoulder because he thinks you might want to deflate his favorable self image."

-Roy F. Baumeister, Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty, p 149

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us all know. Zaereth (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

We'll report major lawsuits and legal trouble that WP:PUBLICFIGURES may have gotten into that are broadly reported and had some career impact. I shouldn't have to point to the number of people named out of #MeToo as a start, we're covering Johnny Depp's defamation case, and we cover when sexual allegations have hit some celebrities like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. But we know these public figures often get into minor conflicts like speeding tickets or such, and while these could be documented, we're not using celebrity rags nor are one ourselves. Its not about whitewashing but focusing on what would be relevant in an encyclopedia's biography of a person, and most of these are very very trivial at best. --Masem (t) 22:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Talking about revisionism, erosion of standards on the site or in journalism, "whitewashing" - look up the term, etc. IS not akin to bullying. You are the proverbial boy who cries wolf and no one will listen to you. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Mase, no. Most people may agree Depp is at fault. You're misunderstanding things like the differences between civil and criminal cases and courts, the more money and influence celebs have they can sometimes manage to keep information from getting out - hence why cases aren't "neatly resolved" for this site apparently... Your definition of "minor" is lacking. I don't know why you care so much about this stuff. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It simply does not matter what "most people agree" regards Wikipedia articles ... what matter is are the legal claims in question recorded in what is regarded by Wikipedia as the reliable news media WP:RSP, does it comply with WP:BLP guidance, and does it meet Wikipedia's guidance regards neutrality and notability etc. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Howdoesitgo1: I'm not a journalist. I'm not ashamed of that fact. I'm at wikipedia not wikinews, so I'm not claiming to do anything like journalism. I'm here to write an encyclopaedia not a newspaper. If you are a journalist, then I repeat my earlier point but as a question. If these details are significant, why then has no reputable journalist covered them since they happened in 1977? I imagine there's been tens or even hundreds of thousands of newspaper and magazine articles written about her since 1977. Why has not one of them bothered to cover these significant details from 1977? Or if they have, why haven't you presented these new articles? What are you and your colleagues doing that not one of you has bothered to covert these details which you claim are significant in all those so many, many, many article they have written about her since these events happened in 1977? Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I highly doubt they are a journalist either, just because of the writing style and all of the mistakes. People who are good at something generally don't have to go around bragging about it, or trying to act superior to everyone else. That's just a defense mechanism. Likewise, here at Wikipedia, it doesn't really matter what people's backgrounds are or what they say about themselves. Here, we can be judged simply by what we do here. I'm not a journalist by profession either, but if credentials matter, I have spent my life training in all fields of writing, including journalism, and have had experience in encyclopedic writing since long before the internet ever existed, let alone Wikipedia. The reason nobody has ever written about it since is because nobody cares ... except maybe a handful of people who have an interest in minor legal disputes. That's the very definition of trivia; little details that nobody cares about except a handful of people. Our measure of this is its coverage in reliable sources, and that's how we determine what is important, by a preponderance of sources. That's what weight is all about. Zaereth (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Simply? Try to agree with these statements and you may be further to understanding. Do you "agree" with the Me Too movement or ideals? Do you understand the wiki's guidance and how the principles were formed? They are suggestions, by the way or things to consider. Wikipedia has no official statement. You may also not understand major vs minor and in-between, civil vs criminal, notable vs non-notable and again the in-between, actually you may not be sure of things that don't fall in the areas of black and white, gray areas. Do you have an interest in legal matters? Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Something I see, two editors or more have an inclination to assume they are not only right, that they speak for each other or the site. When I say you are incorrect this is what is meant. Understand that what you see as minor may not be. How many times do you think Turner has been sued? Why would she want anyone to know that? Why do you think she wrote a book? If she writes about certain cases and suits then who are you to say they are trivial. As I said already you need education. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Your statements are mostly based upon logical fallacies. Appeals to authority and appeals to emotion are fallacious arguments. We all understand major vs minor when it comes to wikipolicy. Criminal vs civil is non-sequitur. Notable vs non-notable is non-sequitur. Those are red herrings, and have nothing to do with this discussion. Policy takes into account the grey areas, but this is not one of them. Not by a long shot. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. This is trivial info and not encyclopedic, and the Chewbacca defense isn't going to change that. Zaereth (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Howdoesitgo1 seems to be ignoring comments here and has just restored the questionable text with a vague threat: "Stop or you will be answering for this" Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Clouds, not using joy because you're not seeming very joyful... You won't have discussions on talk pages (which is what they are there for). You misuse "consensus or what you feel is consensus". You manufacture it as well - if you look at the requisite talk page you did not have consensus. Kind of like "fake news". How do you progress from editing a simple thing about a cat getting into the news to trying to create drama and waves? Answering for your conduct means you may be banned, that is all. Were you wanting more than that? Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• And they've restored the text yet again after being reverted by User:Dumuzid. Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Patricia Billings

Patricia Billings (b 1926) is an inventor who got a lot of media attention in 1996-1997, including profiles in WSJ and People. Consensus at a recent AfD filed by Qwirkle was that Billings is notable.

My question concerns edit-warring (diff diff diff diff) by Qwirkle to maintain a very POV statement as the conclusion of the career section:

However, in 2001, Forbes described the product claims as hype, with no advantages over existing materials, pointed out that the company was moribund, with a skeleton staff, and probably unable to fill orders "if any", but pointing out that it might have minor uses like "telephone poles in wildfire districts."

You can see relevant discussion at the article talk page, but to summarize, the article in Forbes was by a financial columnist whose only cited source represented a company making a rival product. Others including me have tried to describe the Forbes column with NPOV wording, but Quirkle keeps reverting to his own POV wording.

Other Qwirkle edits such as this one also violate NPOV and BLP. I request help and advice on this BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

As a Forbes contributor article, I would just remove it per WP:FORBESCON Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Convenient as some might find that, it is from the print edition, by a long-term member of Forbes’ staff. Qwirkle (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not see anything from that link that confirms the print issue that this was published in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that Stephane Fitch's other article in February 2001 is ALSO promoting the company USG, as does his criticism of Ms Billings's rival product. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Put in Wikipedia’s euphemism for libel, that is a rather massive BLP violation there, isn’t it? Qwirkle (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

My guess is that he was creating an article about USG (and that article is much more detailed and professional than the one about Billings) but then saw an opportunity (based on one of his USG sources) for a "human interest" piece to delight folks who really like schadenfreude and especially jeering at a woman who got public notice but later did not become a millionaire. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, the double-down. Qwirkle (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Returning to the topic at hand, which is the placement and wording of Qwirkle's material, which others have tried to improve but which he insists on keeping exactly as is:

• Its mocking tone is not suited to to an encyclopedia article or a BLP.
• The source of the claims is not Forbes as an entity, it is a financial columnist whose only cited source is employed by a firm that markets a rival product.
• Its placement and wording (e.g. "pointed out", "pointing out") imply that this particular piece is correct and the final word.
• To say that GeoBond has "no advantages over existing materials" is WP:SYNTH and quite a stretch beyond what the Forbes columnist says. It also directly contradicts the WSJ article of 1996, which cites "independent labs" that "have tested GeoBond, a harmless mixture of cement, gypsum and a secret compound of off-the-shelf ingredients, and found it to have remarkable properties."

Well-meaning new editors at Patricia Billings and Alice H. Parker are trying to add material of value to Wikipedia. When new editors make mistakes, it is our opportunity to educate them in a welcoming spirit, which I am sorry to see wasted and turned instead into an opportunity to mock and to bully. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

This attempt to manufacture a significant inventor aside, what is the Wiki BLP position on chapter 13s? Qwirkle (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The statement as it is currently is WP:UNDUE as overly-long and detailed criticism that gives the reader the impression it is part of the article only to undermine the rest of it. Additionally, although Finch had at one time been a Forbes staff writer, at the time they wrote that article they were indeed a "Forbes.com contributor" who owned a content creation firm and the usual caveats and cautions apply to this source. I have other doubts about reliability of the article's "debunking". Although the Finch article says Geobond was "moribund" in 2001, the Missouri Secretary of State has filings from at least 2003. The amount of investigation into the actual status of the product and company appears cursory at best and speculative at worst. In 2006, Engineering.com stated, "Currently Geobond is being sold in more than 20 markets worldwide..." There are currently marketed materials named "GeoBond" but they appear to have nothing to do with Billings's invention. The absolute latest reference I can find is a Palm Beach Post article from May 2004 where Geobond offered a new mother a house built out of their material to replace one that burned down while she was in the hospital giving birth and a 2009 article in The Hindu (of all places) referring to Geobond as a "forgotten wonder". So there certainly is a valid editorial reason to have some sort of followup statement; why did a supposedly "revolutionary" material that was well-covered disappear with little trace? Edit-warring to retain a particular source and a particular formulation of that information, however, is not helpful. Somewhere between 2004 and 2009 the company and the product essentially evaporated. We don't actually get an answer to "what happened?" from the Forbes.com article or any of the references I have been able to find. The most definitive thing I can find is a resignation of the company's registered agent (the first document available from the Missouri Secretary of State search results linked above) which comes with a notice that Geobond International would be "administratively dissolved" in 60 days unless it provided another registered agent, which it did not apparently do. I suggest the correct thing do is:

A 2017 book on women designers, craftswomen, architects and engineers states that the Geobond architectural material is an "indestructible, fire-proof and non-toxic building material.” However, inBy 2001, Forbes described the product claims as hype, with no advantages over existing materials, pointed out that the company was moribund, with a skeleton staff, and probably unable to fill orders “if any”, but pointing out that it might have minor uses like "telephone poles in wildfire districts." was not being actively marketed[19] and further attempts to bring the product to market have not been notably successful.

I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, although Finch had at one time been a Forbes staff writer, at the time they wrote that article they were indeed a "Forbes.com contributor" What do you base this on? Remember, this is 2001, in hard copy. Qwirkle (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Stephane Fitch's piece in Forbes is not included in EBSCO MasterFile Premier database's indexing of Forbes, which has full text 01/08/1990 to present. Other Fitch works are included, but not this one. This supports this particular article never having appeared in print. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The interested reader might wish to consult this, which might give a different explanation. (BTW, this division between Ebsco proper and Flipster creates real indexing problems for many libraries.)

Those who can get past this, or whose libraries can, should consult Forbes vol. 167 no 3, 2/5/2001, p70. Hard copy, Forbes proper, and about a decade before Fitch left Forbes. In the process, as you use Ebsco, note the paltry number of cites, and note how many of them hail back to press releases...and how they stop dead, almost two decades ago. Qwirkle (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I have access through my library to Forbes, and the article is present there in the print copy. In addition, the final page of the journal lists Fitch not under "Journalist" or "Staff Writer" (which are their own sections), but under the strange category of "Midwest": Midwest: Mark Tatge, Manager; Stephane Fitch, Brandon Copple, Kemp Powers (Chicago); Robyn Meredith, Manager (Detroit). I'm not sure what to take away from this, since he's not given credit as a Forbes staff writer

However, Qwirkle's preferred version of the page doesn't meet NPOV. It gives full credit to this single short Forbes article and essentially ignores a number of other reliable secondary sources. Their reasoning for excluding other information has involved a lot of what seems to be WP:OR.

The correct thing to do is to give the Forbes article DUE weighting to it, and to do the same with the other statements. Gbear605 (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Also note that the article "Smoked Out" is essentially written as a foot note to his other article from that month, "The gypsum king". It definitely seems like Fitch's only source was someone who worked at a competitor to Billing, which doesn't seem like a particularly reliable source. In fact, the only paragraph explaining the problem with Geobond is sourced to this competitor. Gbear605 (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the contested assertion since this is not RS and the underlay of the Fitch byline shows "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's my two cents. The entire career section reads like an infomercial; like a marketing brochure. We shouldn't be putting down the product, nor should we be praising it. We really don't need to know much of anything about it beyond a few basic facts. This is not the Geobond article. It is a biography about a person, and all we need to know of this product and company is how it makes her notable.

Now we could rename it "Geobond", but it would still read like an ad. This is often what happens with a lot of scientists or inventors. What we have are a lot of sources touting the theory, discovery or product, but only enough biographical info about the person to create an advertisement in the guise of a pseudo-biography. That entire section, and the reference section too, should be reworked to remove the promotional tone and all the glorious benefits of the product, and simply focus on the product as it relates to the subject. Zaereth (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I am the editor guilty of adding too much information about GeoBond, in response to claims repeatedly made by Qwirkle that GeoBond was a short-lived publicity stunt with no special properties--so therefore Billings becomes not notable. (As others have pointed out, Billings is notable due to RS coverage, not to the virtues of GeoBond--many bios are based on RS coverage of quite dubious achievements.) The GeoBond product and the company that made it vanished ca 2006, so there is no ulterior motive here to try to sell it. Both the WSJ profile and the People article have good biographical info. HouseOfChange (talk) Update I tried to improve the article based on excellent suggestions by Zaereth HouseOfChange (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I will leave as an exercise for the reader whether this is what our equine friends would call the Thing Which Is Not or is simple confusion on User:HouseOfChange’s part, but I have said no such thing. (A particular “test” or two might be seen that way, though.) My point, throughout, is that the claims made for this person are largely complete crap. There was no successful product, many of the claims made for it are either quite ordinary -concrete and gypsum don't burn. Shocking, huh? - or are entirely imaginary. This was a flash-in-the-pan. It is not found in multiple countries wordwide. It did not change engineering design. It is trivial to find that the sort of of cites that are trivial to find for real products -engineering standards, project reports, even commercial advertising - simply don't exist for it beyond a tiny window of time. All the glurge written about what a significant inventor she was is just that....glurge. Feel-good inspirational crap, and something with pretension of being an encyclopedia should not be vectoring nonsense, no matter how well meant it might be, or how good the sourcing looks otherwise. Qwirkle (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

A secondary point: most of the “BLP violations” which is, of course, Wiki’s euphemism for slander and libel, were made against a reporter, in attempts to impeach a perfectly good cite. Shameful, that. Qwirkle (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Based on Qwirkle's statement to Netherzone "Nonsense. If the product has no merit, the inventor is not significant, except as an example of, to give one of the respectable possibilities, folklore" I got the impression that he thought "GeoBond was a short-lived publicity stunt with no special properties--so therefore Billings becomes not notable."

Eggishorn It would be good for the article to include the company's end. But not in a WP:TONE of spiteful mockery, as repeatedly re-inserted by Qwirkle. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I am posting in response to a ping. HouseOfChange and others, thank you for your analyses, and especially your research into the citations. I don't have much to say at this point, as I am weary and feel intimidated and POV-railroaded by Qwirkle. I have been editing for almost nine years, and although I know I still have a lot to learn, I have never had my efforts berated and belittled so many times in edit summaries. I was even drama-boarded at ANI (for the first time ever) for aleged lack of "competence" and "canvassing" in relation to the Patricia Billings article (the claim was inactionable). I am fearful of retaliation from them if I continue to work on the Billings article, and find it concerning that the same "form" is being deployed at Alice H. Parker. Netherzone (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

(An unrelated point: the edit conflict fix appears to be creating duplicates. ?) Qwirkle (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: by making repeated references to source analysis of Finch as slander and libel, you are treading very close to WP:LEGAL and WP:NPA. You are certainly engaged in WP:TE. It is clear that you don't want this person or her invention covered in any way in the encyclopedia. That's fine. It's also clear that you opinion is greatly in the minority and that the consensus of uninvolved editors is that coverage is deserved. Throwing around intimidating words and insisting on your interpretation is not cooperative editing and this can lead to sanctions. I suggest for everyone's benefit, including your own, that you should disengage with this article for the time being. Even if this were to be a worst-case purely promotional article that had no notability, it's about a product that is not for sale -- it doesn't harm the project or its readers by being here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange:, as I stated up-thread, we can't say anything definitive about the company's end because there isn't anything available in the sources we have. I did a fairly thorough search of corporate records and non-Google news databases and she just disappears. <shrug> Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Editing semi-protected biography

Hi

the biography page of Justin PackshawJustin Packshaw has several errors and was flagged for deletion in 2012. The complaints on the page are having a detrimental effect on the use and I want to help fix them for the good of wikipedia as well as the individual.

Given the numerous issues on the page I have created a full revision which I would like an experienced editor to approve and replace on the page. Given the page has semi-protected status I feel its really important this is done properly and with due care and is a neutral article, avoiding the issues its had in the past.

I would like some help editing the sandbox version of the page I have created and then if possible editing the page to fix the errors. Here is the sandbox (which are still missing one or two things but the majority I believe is worthy of publication and much improved on the current live page).

Im new to this and just trying to make an improvement to the page with the correct information any help would be very much appreciated. Wondering if @Yunshi could help given the thorough editing and flagging of issues was conducted last year?

Full disclosure, I am not being paid for this work but I do know the subject.

Many thanks,

GeoLen85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoLen85 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It shows. You have a WP:Conflict of interest with this subject. Please follow the link I provided too see what that means for you. What I'll say right off the bat is that, while there are a lot of good sources, there are a lot of bad ones too. Youtube is not a reliable source. Neither is Tumblr, and we most certainly can't use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia. Links to the names of companies should be internal "wikilinks" rather than link spam to their corporate websites. (If they don't have an article, they do not need links.) People like his wife, who are not notable enough to have their own article, should not be named, and it is most certainly inappropriate to link their names to photos of them. There is a rather heavy reliance on WP:Primary sources, whereas in Wikipedia WP:Secondary sources are preferred. There are a slew of other problems as well, but that should do for starters. Remember, we what we want is a neutral encyclopedic article about this person, not an autobiography or an over-zealous promotional tone. Oh, and keep in mind that, even in your sandbox, all WP:BLP rules must be followed. Zaereth (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I am declining the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Colin Evans (diplomat)

Colin Evans (diplomat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- Article is personal advertisement for commercial purposes (consultant). - Poorly sourced. - Subject is not a diplomat or professor, use of such titles is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryfuszzzz (talk • contribs) 20:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Virtually all of the sources were unreliable puff pieces, primary sources, and a couple photos of short blurbs in unknown newspapers. I've removed all of it except for a faculty listing—in a PDF, no less—at a sketchy-looking university. Whether he meets WP:PROF, I don't know. I'm inclined to think it should be sent to AfD. Woodroar (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I took a glance yesterday, and was leaning in the same direction as your more thorough review. I also think AFD is probably the best route. At any rate, he is not a true diplomat, although he seems to like to call himself one. The title seems misleading to say the very least. Zaereth (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. When the poorly or unsourced material is removed from the article, barely anything remains. Definitely AFD material. Go4thProsper (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Nicholas Alahverdian

Nicholas Alahverdian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Could anyone who knows more about biographies than I please take a look at this article? I reverted what appeared to be a whitewashing by a brand new editor who has what appears to my inexperienced eye to be an unusually high level of knowledge about Wikipedia. After looking further, the article is a cluster. It appears to be RGW in places regarding child abuse, whereas in other areas it appears to be an attack piece about the subject. (Redacted) In any case, the article could be the poster example of a very badly constructed bio. 174.254.192.238 (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The negative claims were added yesterday and supported by court documents, a Tumblr blog, and a random Youtube channel that's since made the video private. They absolutely should have been removed. Claims like these need to be supported by reliable, third-party published sources. Woodroar (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

To Bezeq, please do not remove other people's posts. BLP rules still apply to the recently deceased, and anyone is welcome to come here if they feel there is a problem. That said, you are most certainly correct in removing that material on sight, and it should not go into the article unless there is a report of a conviction in reliable, secondary sources. All of that material was sourced to court records and youtube, so you were correct in removing it immediately. To the original poster, you may wish to redact your second-to-the-last sentence above, because that is also a BLP violation. More eyes may be needed to ensure this does not go back in without some very good sources. Zaereth (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

To an admin: Request that IP user comment and perhaps entire thread be remove due to defamatory and libelous comment and BLP violation from IP user above. Vandalism & bad edits reverted and page protect requested. ... IP user also makes claim that article is “badly constructed.” Untrue I am afraid as subject of article has over 50 sources from mainstream media over 20 years of sustained reliable coverage & meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:INDEPTH. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Bezeq1 (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted) I have neither the time or the inclination to dig further; that is what the remit of this board is. Bezeq1, I also didn't say the subject wasn't notable. Sorry if you missed the idiomatic, but I was saying the article was poorly written. And it is. This thread will eventually be archived. There's nothing at all libelous here. I could have just forgot about it and walked away after the revert. I didn't. I brought it here. You're welcome. 174.212.238.99 (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Passing administrator here. I have revision-deleted the content in question (the alleged criminal history of the subject), since the article engaged in WP:SYNTH to make that claim and I am erring on the side of caution in case that synthesis is incorrect. The court documents cited had someone with a different surname as defendant, then the article cited a different court document to prove that Alahverdian changed his name. That is classic WP:OR and is NEVER acceptable in a biography of a living (or, in this case, recently deceased) person. If anyone has a reliable secondary source verifying the claim, then you can add that to the article, but do not re-add this information based on primary sources and synthesis. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Grace Randolph

Regarding editor Bonnar212's modifications of article Grace Randolph. On 13 November, I removed the subject's birthdate from the article with two edits (1, 2), because of what to me seemed like an unreliable source. On 18 November, Bonnar212 put back the birthdate with two new sources, namely Legit.ng (edit) and Allfamous.org (edit). It is unclear to me how reliable the Legit.ng publication by author Iyawa Okafor is, because that website allows user-submitted stories. And I don't think Allfamous.org qualifies as a reliable source. This once again makes the birthdate poorly sourced, and it should thus be removed. However. Bonnar212 has identified themselves as the subject here (removed/removed), here (removed), and here (live). The identification was without proof, and they once (edit) briefly mentioned the subject in third person. The Talk page mentions Bonnar212 as {{Connected contributor}}. Going by this edit, it appears the subject is trying to get accurate information in the article. After what appear to be three failed attempts by the editor/subject, namely 1 January 1901 (edit), 26 February 1962 (edit) and 26 February 1972 (edit), they have tried to include 5 February 1987 many times (here, here with Google as ref, here, here, here, and here). I see three potential issues here. 1. However unlikely, editor Bonnar212 may be impersonating the subject. 2. The editor may not understand what reliable sources are. 3. The BLP contains poorly sourced content that should be removed (but that Bonnar212 keeps re-adding). --143.176.30.65 (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

What would this editor consider an ACCURATE birthday source? There are plenty of biographies of living persons that list birthdays that aren't even sourced at all. Bonnar212 has provided TWO accurate sources as to the birthdate here, and there are plenty more on the internet that list the same birthdate. The subject of this biography is often the target of online trolls, and it seems the person questioning the birthdate is one such troll with a personal agenda against the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonnar212 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are, and when they do, it should be removed per WP:BLPDATE. "Internet" is not good enough, WP:BLP is pickier than that. As a rule of thumb, nothing with "famous" or "celeb" in the name is good enough. Aim for something greenmarked at WP:RSP, or, for this particular data, something WP:ABOUTSELF will do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This [6] could be good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hm, not confirmed apparently. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: hey could you please consider the subject’s actual Facebook page as a source? I mean it’s clearly her page, the original complaint said the whole thing started because her Facebook page didn’t list a year but it clearly does. I mean if someone says what their actual birthday is I don’t see how we can discredit it. Just sayin, I’m new but this seems like a lot of fuss over a birthday that’s actually proven. BrianBanksEditor (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@BrianBanksEditor: Since it is her page, it is probably true information, though it cannot be put onto Wikipedia because of the self-published source policy. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, this didn't have to go into a full on editwar. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: But is it her page? It's not a verified Facebook page, so we don't know whose it is. There are plenty of fan pages that allege to be official. —C.Fred (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BrianBanksEditor and Destroyeraa. Here it is. WP:BLP is really strict and rightly so. WP being what it is, it's not always followed, often because people adding stuff don't know about it. Which is no reason not to enforce it when reason is noted. Her FB would be ok for this (assuming there's no stories in WaPo that she's lying about her age) per WP:ABOUTSELF, but her FB is lacking the checkmark, so no. And it's not important that a WP-article includes a birthdate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, Facebook should never be used as a source on Wikipedia unless it is backed up by a reliable source (WaPo article, NYT, etc.). As C.Fred said, some Facebook pages are not verified and could be a fan impersonating her. Thus, Facebook and Twitter shouldn't be used unless backed up. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, some WP:ABOUTSELF stuff can be ok, like born when/where/has x kids, but of course not a lot of it. If it was verified, I'd be ok with it. I know I was in another BLP-discussion where that was the consensus, but I can't remember it atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Here it is: Talk:Mark_Dice/Archive_6#birth_date_is_December_21,_1977. WP:OTHER, but still. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. Twitter too - famous people that are verified have the blue checkmark next to the user. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Juan Branco

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

---

Juan Branco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello,

I'd like to mention a systematic deffamation practicies brought on by two users on the page Juan Branco, which is about to trigger libel proceedings, which i'd like to avoid as contributor to WP from 15 years.

Seen the difficulties to actually avoid their systematic intervention on the page, I'd like to ask either for a freezing and protection of the page in the last version that had found consensus before their intervention https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=990472699&oldid=990471125, either, seen the nature of the page and its lack of centrality in the anglosaxon sphere, for a community work that would be limited to translating the French version and refusing any other change that would not have anglosaxon sources ; either for a deletion.

This user in particular, which has changed its pseudonym, is an SPA systematically intervening on myself and on closely linked subjects (Julian Assange, Nils Melzer, Gabriel Attal, and mostly me) in a denigrating way. He has been assisted in his task, systematically, by this other French account which only intervenes over this topic in political subjects. Both "appeared" after a publicly infamous case, the Pavlenski, triggered important polemics on my behalf. The English version of the page was until then calqued on the French version, which is very controlled by the community. It has since been deformed to give a devastating and subjective perception of the person. The page had reached consensus before their intervention. The discussion page describes all the stages of their interventions. I ask for their banning of this page. The professionnal consequences of this little "game" that is being played are potentially devastating and should not be tolerated in this encyclopedia, which is not meant to purport falsehoods or attain at living persons.

I have tried, recurrently, to include objective elements and participate, through my account User:brancojuan to balance this situation, whilst respecting the rules of the encyclopedia, but I have found myself cornered in a situation in which it is impossible to reestablish good faith. I've had as a consequence to make public contractual elements and so froth to demonstrate the falsehoods established. This has brought new accusations to be published and relayed against me in the public sphere on my "handling" of WP.

I'm more than willing to proceed with libel proceedings in french criminal system if this goes on, after more than a year trying to respect WP rules. Wikipedia can't be a kindergarden where reputation and careers of people are put into jeopardy because anonymous individuals whom do not agree with their works decide to play games with them.

Juan Branco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:B16:B300:35FB:2FAC:387D:ED62 (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Before you do anything else on this website, you must read, understand, and follow the policy on legal threats. Stating that you are intending to start legal proceedings is grounds for immediate and indefinite blocking. We have no way of knowing if you are the person you claim you are. All content in the article is sourced to material in other media so if you think those statements are defamatory, you need to contact those sources, not this website. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Eric Leslie Barker Actor 1912-1990

Eric Barker 1912-1990 was not a child actor.  This is another Eric Barker (source 'Steady Barker' autobiography Hodder and Stoughton published 1958).

Eric Leslie Barker was the father of Petronella Barker born 12/10/ 1942, and the grandfather of Abigail Rhiannedd Hopkins born 20/08/1968 1968, and the former father-in-law of Sir Philip Anthony Hopkins, actor (various sources online, newspapers and books). The entry of his granddaughter Abigail Rhiannedd Hopkins,actress, and singer song writer, born 20 August 1968 has been deleted by an unknown editor. (verification of these facts are multiple online and in various books and newspapers). All this should be rectified immediately. Thank you. Petronella Barker (Hopkins) born 12/10/1942 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:8682:2E01:88BB:28BC:F028:D17A (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Image of a person in the lead with respect to WP:NPF, MOS:PERTINENCE and MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Transsexual#Lead image. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

False allegations of genocide denial left standing on talk page

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

---

Please, can some admin take a look at this [7] (t · c) buidhe 23:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Worth informing the editor, @Volunteer Marek:. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, User:Buidhe, this is the THIRD time you've started talking about me somewhere on Wikipedia WITHOUT pinging me. It's starting to get annoying and rude. Please stop. Next time you mention me or a discussion I'm involved in anywhere on Wikipedia, you need to ping me, or it will really start looking like you're doing this on purpose.

Anyway. There's no BLP violations here. The person involved, William Schabas, is indeed of the opinion that the events at Srebrenica did not constitute a genocide. In fact, this is one of the things he's known for.

Buidhe initially tried to claim this was false (and a BLP violation) by providing this source [8]. Problem is that the sources says THE OPPOSITE. In that source Schabas summarizes the legal reasoning behind The International Court of Justice's decision that Srebrenica was a genocide, and then CRITICIZES IT. I don't know if Buidhe didn't read the source before linking it or... something else. I can't think of a situation, however, where an editor, providing a source then claiming it says the opposite of what it says can be regarded positively.

After I pointed this out, AND provided additional sources, Buidhe tried to move the goalposts. They acknowledged, half heartedly, that Schabas indeed "formerly disagreed that the atrocities at Srebrenica met the legal definition for genocide" (that's Buidhe's words). I guess the word "formerly" in that sense is suppose to mean "but not really", as in "he didn't really disagree" or something. I guess her point now is that Schabas didn't "disagree with the facts" of the killing itself. Ok. But no one ever said he did. This is moving the goalposts.

After Buidhe appeared to acknowledge that Schabas indeed does not consider Srebrenica a genocide, hence there's no BLP violation here, I thought the matter settled. I mean, except for the fact that they tried to pass off a source which said something opposite than they claimed, and the fact they took to editing my comments in violation of Wikipedia talk page etiquette. Yet, for some reason Buidhe decided to come to this noticeboard and start a discussion. Without even bothering to ping me.

I should also note that there's multiple editors on the talk page that Buidhe is involved in arguments with. Since I don't wish to do what she does let me ping them: User:Paul Siebert, User:Nug, User:Maleschreiber are among the most recent. Buidhe has been edit warring on the article against multiple editors, making reverts which involve removal of 80 thousand k's of text without bothering to obtain consensus for any of it. They've come close to breaching 3RR here several times, though never crossed it, and this particular sub-issue here is a good illustration of the way they approach discussion. Volunteer Marek 06:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

VM has not quoted any section of Schabas' paper where he disagrees that the ICJ ruled that Srebrenica was a genocide or contests the historical facts, which is what genocide denial is, not having a different legal interpretation.

I have no obligation to ping any editor if I mention an issue at a noticeboard.

Most of this massive rant that VM has posted is inaccurate or misleading. (t · c) buidhe 06:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

1. It's a source you provided. You did not quote "any section of Schabas' paper where he AGREES with ICJ's ruling". How about we start there? After all, you're the one who says this is a BLP vio so please provide evidence. Linking to a source and acting as if it supported you when it does not, is not sufficient. In fact, it's the opposite of what you're suppose to do.

2. I don't know if you have an "obligation" to ping me when you start discussions about me or concerning me, but at the very least it's a common courtesy. Fact that you repeatedly fail to do this, as well as your comment here, suggests that you are doing this on purpose. Why exactly?

3. My statement above is not a "rant" and I do not appreciate you characterizing it that way. That kind of a comment borders on a personal attack. I simply laid out what the dispute was about and provided the relevant context, something which you failed to do. And again, if you make an accusation, such as "inaccurate or misleading", just like if you accuse someone of violating BLP (nm, you editing their comments), then you actually need to articulate HOW it's inaccurate or misleading. Not just sling the mud and leave. As it is right now, your comments, both here now and previously, are a pretty flagrant violation of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND and you have not acted in a way which would lead any reasonable person to take them at face value. Volunteer Marek 06:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

By "rant", I meant an extended criticism that digresses into irrelevant issues such as claims of edit warring (which are not accurate BTW—otherwise, report me at the appropriate noticeboard).

In his paper, Schabas analyzes the verdict as a fact and aspect of changing international law, from which I deduce that he accepts it, however, I am no longer sure that it makes sense to try to strike this BLP violation on talk pages. (t · c) buidhe 07:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Sucharit Bhakdi

The opening statement about Sucharit Bhakdi [[9]] states he is known for spreading misinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic. Although two references are given, I cannot see where they actually support the argument that this is what the subject is 'known' for. One is in German language and the other refers to the subject's views, but makes no specific reference to the subject being 'known for misinformation'. The source is an opinion piece and I don't think should be considered authoritative on its own. As a successful author and scientist, the subject must be known for several things including his scientific work and published research. It must also be true that if he is known for spreading misinformation, he is also known for spreading information. I think it is contentious to declare the information he 'spreads' is necessarily 'misinformation'. I also think stating in Wikipedia's voice that the subject is known for misinformation is contentious because many people will disagree. I also think it may be libelous as the subject himeself would surely disagree. I think the article would be improved by stating the fact that the subject is a scientist and dealing with what he is known for in a more balanced way which is not in Wikipedia's voice.Gcmackay (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You say "the source", but there are two sources: a news piece in Der Spiegel and an "argument" piece in Foreign Policy, both of which make it clear this person (the publisher of Corona, False Alarm let us remember) is a high-profile example of somebody who spreads views about COVID-19 which the scientific community have rejected, both in his writing and in his popular Youtube channel. To be clear, the ideas that coronavirus is relatively harmless, and that producing a vaccine is "pointless", are - yes - misinformation. You also mention libel: please be aware that pressing this is likely to lead to sanctions per WP:NLT. If you contend this person is known for other things than what are current sources say, then what sources do you have to back that up? Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

If both sources make it clear this person is a high-profile example, of somebody who spreads views about COVID-19 which the scientific community have rejected, I don't see where they state this is the reason he's considered (in your words) 'high-profile'. The fact that you've referred to him as 'high-profile' suggests he was well-known before his views on COVID-19. Why else would you state that he's high-profile? Evidence that Bhakdi is known for other things would be on researchgate [[10]] where he's listed as having 380 published papers which have been cited 19,263 times. "the ideas that coronavirus is relatively harmless, and that producing a vaccine is "pointless", are - yes - misinformation". While I might agree with that, I believe it's an opinion which is not shared by everyone in the scientific community so would be wrong for an encyclopaedia to state so. It's clearly an area of some disagreement between many expert opinions so any article about Bhakdi's views should make that clear.

Do you not agree whatsoever with the comment 'they have a point about describing a noted and award-winning scientist's entire career as "known for spreading COVID-19 misinformation" in Wikipedia's voice.'? Gcmackay (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand. By "high-profile example" I just mean conspicuous - that is the sense of the sources. Before his COVID stuff he was just another long retired scientist nobody was paying attention to. You are wrong in thinking this is just a disagreement among scientists, in fact you are committing WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia reflects the mainstream view, and does not indulge the WP:FRINGE. That neutrality is one of its strengths, by design. You may have a point, but if we're to add other things he is known for, we need sources. What do you propose? (Add: I have found something on his former career and added it: see what you think). Alexbrn (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't think it reads too much differently from my previous edit [[11]], and I still think it crosses the NPV line but I'm done arguing. And I'm banned from editing anyway :) Gcmackay (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Since this thread was opened, there is an RfC at Talk:Sucharit Bhakdi addressing the issue. I blocked Gcmackay from editing the article (for edit warring) but not from the talk page; their input there would be welcome. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Ricky Schroder

Richard Bartlett Schroder (born April 13, 1970) is an American actor and film director. As a child actor, billed as Ricky Schroder, he debuted in the film The Champ (1979), going on to become a child star on the sitcom Silver Spoons. He has continued acting as an adult, usually billed as Rick Schroder, notably as "Newt" on the Western miniseries Lonesome Dove (1989) and in the crime-drama series NYPD Blue. In November 2020, Schroder was a major contributor to the bail fund for teen-aged Kenosha shooting suspect Kyle Rittenhouse.[1]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/20/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-bail-release/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNN Says (talk • contribs) 05:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the request here @Special:Contributions/CNN Says? Can you provide brief words about your ask? Bezeq2 (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Emily W. Murphy BLP NPOV concerns

I'm a little concerned about this BLP. This is the GSA administrator who is delaying ascertaining Biden's need for transition access/funds. The article section at Emily_W._Murphy#Refusal_to_begin_presidential_transition has turned into an explanation of what that delay might mean. I think a very brief mention with a link to Presidential transition of Joe Biden is appropriate, but the section has turned into inclusion of every mention of the problems of a transition delay, some cited to sources that don't even mention Murphy by name. Also stuff that seems pretty trivial being moved into the lead that doesn't seem noteworthy enough for the lead and is partially being sourced to OR. There's discussion at Talk:Emily_W._Murphy#changes and Talk:Emily_W._Murphy#removal_of_content. Could we get some more eyes on this? —valereee (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd dispute that this is anywhere near OR. Murphy is one of the most famous people in the world right now, under discussion in virtually every media outlet in existence. We always want to get BLP balancing right, but there's no shortage of reliable sources discussing her, her actions, or their implications. OR isn't a concern. Feoffer (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, right now we've got in the article On November 15, Anthony Fauci, the government's leading infectious disease expert, warned the delay was "obviously not good" from a public health perspective, while Biden argued "more people may die" as a result of the delay. That is supported by three refs. The first two don't even mention Murphy. The third doesn't include either quote. This is synthesis, and it's just one example of what's happening in that section and the article lead of a BLP. —valereee (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed the disputed text. Feoffer (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Having just skimmed the article, it's edit history and the talk page this seems almost like a BLP1E sort of thing. Yes, she appears to have minor mention prior to November but with the majority of the edits related to recent events I have to wonder if it wouldn't be more appropriate to have just a very brief mention then redirect to the primary article on the post election transition train wreck. Springee (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

To my mind, this section should just be a brief mention that she was a player in the post-election drama, and then a link to the main article which is where most of the section belongs. Oh, and at the moment, the article lede contains this: By refusing to allow the Biden administration transition to proceed, she prevented the incoming administration from obtaining office space, performing background checks on prospective Cabinet nominees, accessing COVID-19 vaccine information, and accessing classified information that might be needed to respond to emergencies the Biden administration confronts. which is hardly neutrally-worded, is it? Neiltonks (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed the wording. Feoffer (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

References

If you'll excuse this application of Godwin's law, I'm concerned that biographies of Hitler dare mention how his actions and choices affected Jews instead of merely focusing on his love of dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.82.135 (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

IP seems to be comparing this woman to Hitler. I'd suggest someone uninvolved revdel this. —valereee (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, analogies are still allowed on Wikipedia, even those involving terrible people. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? Comparing this woman to someone who ordered the genocide of six million people is okay with. you? —valereee (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This is ongoing: We had: The Trump administration's attempt to undermine the election result, including the refusal to cooperate in the transition, has been described as an attempted coup.

I don't think any of these sources even mention the article subject? —valereee (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

References

• That article is ridiculous. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I've trimmed a bunch of the crap, but I'm seriously concerned how all that got into the article in the first place. Blatant failures of our core content policies. Editors who cannot edit BLPs responsibly should not be editing them at all, and admins should step up and use the DS. This article has had hundreds of thousands of views in recent days; there is serious harm to living persons from this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Some of the content you removed from the article was RS content that explained to readers what the GSA does and what the indisputable effects are of the GSA refusing to certify the election. In other words, content that clearly, concisely and reliably explained why this person (who has done nothing of notability prior to joining the Trump adm) is notable and why her actions are contentious and consequential. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  One of the edits, sure. WP:V is not the only core content policy we have. I personally found it excessive, but you have undone that part and I don't particularly object to it being in the body however it does need rewording and trimming for the relevant parts, as it currently reads like preaching. There's dozens of things that blocking ascertainment results in, and we do not need an exhaustive list on all of them in the BLP of a GSA administrator, rather simply the main parts as covered by the consensus of reliable sources as a main point rather than as an aside. i.e. national security briefs: relevant. Office space and government emails? Eh. Not exactly at the top of the priority list, relatively speaking, don't you think? More importantly, how important are these facts in the context of Emily W. Murphy as a person? Personally, I'd say not very. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Obviously, sources that make no reference to Murphy shouldn't be used in her article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• More eyes on this article from uninvolved editors would be greatly appreciated. See recent edits and talk page for concerns. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• :Idea would be take "2020 presidential transition" subsection on Murphy page and merge subsection on to Presidential transition of Joe Biden page. Include internal link on Murphy page & mention dispute briefly while keeping bulk of Transition event discussion on Transisition page. Just my thought. Bezeq2 (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Birch

Libelous material keeps getting inserted into Elizabeth Birch's Wikipedia page. The Human Rights Campaign added gender identity and expression to its mission under her leadership, and made significant strides on several axes in incorporating transgender rights work into its work thanks to her. Those references keep getting removed and replaced by very poorly sourced material that is inaccurate, alleging that she opposed transgender inclusion in the LGBT movement (which was the exact opposite of the truth). It seems like whoever keeps coming back and vandalizing her page has a score to settle with her, but they are inserting libel and inaccuracy into Wikipedia as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LGBTQhistorybuff (talk • contribs) 02:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

LGBTQhistorybuff, the quote that you have an issue with is sourced to, well, numerous media sources - including NPR stations - saying that Birch said "Trans inclusion will be a legislative priority over my dead body." Other sources not listed in the article (but found online) include The Daily Beast.

If Birch said it, then the wide reporting on it suggests that it is due in the article. If Birch didn't say it, then you should probably contact those sources, since Wikipedia's policy is to follow what reliable sources say.

Gbear605 (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed. I have restored that information, together with part of the information that LGBTQhistorybuff added which was relevant. I have however removed their claim that the HRC changed their view on ENDA to include transgender rights under Birch, as this did not happen until August 2004, after Birch left. Black Kite (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Zoie Palmer

• Zoie Palmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Concerns have been made, purportedly by the article subject {{edited: correct link)} at en-help, that the personal information regarding Palmer's sexuality is incorrect. As the sources used in the article to support the inclusion of such information were subpar (i.e. Gay Star News and "The Geekiary"), Snowycats (and subsequently myself) removed the material. Pyxis Solitary, who is the primary editor of the article, has reverted the attempted removal of the disputed content and has also restored unsupported personal information and related categories to the article. I've brought the concerns regarding the inclusion of the sexual identification here to allow for a more thorough review of the sourcing and to discuss to what extent, if any, it should be included in the article.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

According to User:Ponyo, "Inclusion of sexual orientation in a BLP requires explicit self-identification by the subject, especially if disputed as it is in this case. " There is no requirement in WP:BLP that sexual orientation must be self-identified by the subject, and the only persons who are disputing the information about the individual and have embarked on deleting content supported with sources are editors Snowycats and Ponyo. Editor Ponyo failed to include Hello! magazine as the third source used regarding the subject's public coming out.
These editors have teamed-up to remove Personal life content 01:45, 02:01, 21:54, 22:02, 22:03, 22:17.
Previous to their edits, two requests were made on the article's Talk page to change the subject's status to single: 23 August 2020 and 28 October 2020. Both requests were denied due to failure to provide reliable sources to support the change.
As the individual is an actress (but not an A-list actress) whose work history has been predominantly in Canadian television, the sources that provide information about her are limited, and the preponderance of media coverage is Canadian and niche. Those who are familiar with Zoie Palmer's career know that she came out in 2014 on television when she accepted the CSA Fan Choice Award for Favourite Canadian Screen Star and thanked her partner, Alex (Alexandra) Lalonde: "my incredible partner, Alex" - AfteEllen, "Zoie Palmer Thanks Female Partner at Canadian Film Awards" - Pride, YouTube @ 2:45. In my opinion, the deletion of Personal life content and the sources supporting it is disruptive editing. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 23:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Ponyo may have been referencing Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Sexuality. Mo Billings (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I was indeed referencing WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS, which both require self-identification, and which I also noted here. In addition, BLP policy itself is that such articles must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. I believe we were failing the subject in that regard with both the content and the categories included in the article as written.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And that, of course, is why you also deleted her birth place, which was sourced by the 2011 interview with Palmer by Canadian film publicist and writer Jim Lavoie. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 20:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed the information regarding her birthplace as it was sourced to a self-published wordpress blog which, per consensus, doesn't meet reliably sourcing criteria for BLPs (see its entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for verification). Even if it was an acceptable source, I don't see anywhere in the interview that verifies she was born in Camborne specifically, or even Cornwall. I would appreciated it if you would dial back your insinuations that either myself or Snowycats are acting in anything other than good faith here. You can make your arguments without having to cast aspersions.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

"You were born in England, daughter to parents of Irish and British descendants. Your younger years were spent in schools in England...You then moved to Canada where you attended high school...." (2011 interview). So she is English-Canadian. The detail about Cornwall comes from the 2013 Lost Girl pre-show special Lost Girl: An Evening at the Clubhouse where about 5 minutes into it, Palmer says: "I grew up in Camborne, Cornwall, England, until I was about 10, then we moved here." (YouTube video) -- the sourcing was probably guillotined long ago. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 23:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Palmer came on help chat, identified herself conclusively via posts to her official social media profile, and stated that a) she is not partners with Lalonde, and b) 'thanking her partner' is not the same as 'coming out.' Coming out of the closet refers to the **self-disclosure** of a sexual or gender identity - not the mere thanking of a partner. It is unfair to draw the same assumptions that the media did.

DragonflySixtyseven was a witness to this. Snowycats (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

To be more specific, she stated that she is not at this time partners with Lalonde, and declined to provide further details. DS (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

"declined to provide further details".
I don't know if the person who "identified herself conclusively via posts to her official social media profile" was actually Palmer, but what I do know now is that User:Snowycats added her spin to what transpired. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 20:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't edit so much in raw biographies, but even if sourced, I think I tend to prefer omission of sexuality labels unless the person is largely known for their sexual orientation, and/or has committed to discussing their orientation in detail. Because if sexuality is fluid, a person might feel like A in one decade, then experiment with B another decade, and then find in their third decade of life that they're something in the range of C. That's not something to be ashamed of, but we also shouldn't stigmatise someone with a Wikipedia-imposed B-label just because they made a statement in their B years, and there might have been a lack of press coverage along their journey from B to C. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

As a homosexual, I've found that modern theories about "sexual fluidity" encourage the erasure of the very concept of sexual orientation. At its core, to say that sexuality is fluid is saying that sexual orientation is a choice -- which goes against everything that the lesbian and gay community struggled against until we were recognized for the non-hetero members of society that we are. To say that someone is "fluid" means that they can choose to be heterosexual today, bisexual tomorrow, homosexual later, and go back to heterosexuality.
As far as Palmer is concerned, it's evident from the statement by User:DragonflySixtyseven (DS) that she has not denied having been partners with Alex Lalonde. Palmer and Lalonde were not business partners, and those who are educated and sophisticated recognize the coded language used by many lesbians and gays. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 20:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, at the very least Palmer could be bisexual. She would thus not be a lesbian (unless she identified as a lesbian, which we don't have an RS for). Gbear605 (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

True. But to suppress that she was in a relationship with Alex Lalonde, her "partner", is the worst omission. She can be described as having been in a relationship with Lalonde, or when she accepted the CSA award as thanking her then-partner Lalonde, and as "gay" (which is the generic umbrella term used to describe someone who isn't heterosexual). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 20:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, and as "gay" (which is the generic umbrella term used to describe someone who isn't heterosexual) is patently untrue - gay is no more an umbrella term for LGBT+ than orange is an umbrella term for fruit. Darren-M talk 11:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Is a woman a lesbian? More often than not she's described as "gay". Is lesbophobia making someone choke on the word lesbian? Then the easy-on-the-palate word used is "gay". Is a woman bisexual? She, too, is more often than not described as being gay. Ever hear a homosexual woman say she's "gay", instead of lesbian? I have. Too many times. Maybe things are different on planet Darren-M, but after being out for over 40 years I've acquired a different experience than yours about how "gay" has become the preferred go-to adjective for referring to a homosexual person (including females) and all the bits and pieces of non-heterosexual culture. Gay bars. Gay rights. Oh, look! It's 1997 -- 29 years after Stonewall -- and Ellen has come out as gay! Look! It's 2020 and Nikki Blonsky comes out as gay! Look at poor Emily Estefan -- so much angst about telling her mother she was ... gay! P.S. Have you heard the news about Megan Rapinoe and Sue Bird? No? Well, besides one important development, "The two were the first openly-gay couple to appear on the cover of ESPN...." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for not deleting your comment, Cyphoidbomb. I think it's well put, and I very much agree. I don't think a person's sexuality is necessarily "fluid", at least not for everybody, but I do recognize that it's not always that clear-cut and black and white. Life is a journey, not a destination, and the biggest part of that journey is discovering who we are, ourselves. And discovering our own sexuality is a huge part of that. I understand that there are a lot of people out there who have discovered themselves --who have essentially reached their destination in life-- and it makes them feel good to say, 'look, this person is just like me' (with some well-deserved pride I might add), but that's really being selfish. For many, it's still a big part of the journey of discovery, and for most I think it's still a very personal and private thing that they need to discover for themselves. I don't think it needs to be included just because we can, but really only in cases where we really should; cases in which the person's sexuality is a big part of their notability. Zaereth (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Pyxis Solitary:, when we try to assign a sexuality to another we commit a crime of erasure at least as bad as hiding their sexuality. We are still denying their own identity and substituting our perception for their personal expression. Two things are clear from the above: There is no well-sourced self-identification by Palmer of her identity and that she doesn't wish her relationship with Lalonde to be included. Our policies on the matter are clear that the disputed material must be left out. No matter how much we wish for representation of ourselves to be reflected in society in general, we cannot put our personal feelings above that simple directive or (more to the point) another person's well-expressed desire to not be portrayed in such a way. The representation of gays and lesbians in society, especially in the performing arts, is not nearly as hidden as it once was so there is no reason to make an exception to the rules on this article. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Be that as it may, she still chose to thank "my incredible partner, Alex" on stage, in front of cameras, during the Canadian Screen Awards. She did not contest what appeared in her Wikipedia biography until, apparently, the end of her relationship with Alex Lalonde, and the alleged request by her is that the inclusion of Lalonde as her partner be removed from the article. (She could 'milk' her coming-out for all it was worth when Lost Girl was airing and appearances at comic-cons were in demand by fans, and she could go back in the closet if she wants -- but the fact about what she did at the CSAs is documented and undeniable.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 22:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

So here's my question. Why is it so important to you? I mean, to me this seems like trivial information at best, because it doesn't matter to me what someone's orientation is. It doesn't really tell me anything about the person herself, who this person is, and why they are notable. So what is the point? Even if it is well sourced, how does it help me understand the person?

I could see it if her orientation (and I don't like that word because it assumes an either/or) if her orientation were somehow part of her notability, but I don't see that here.

What's more, you're basing this on a very ambiguous statement. The word "partner" has many meanings, and from context I can't tell if it is being used in the sense of a romantic partner, business partner, bicycling partner, etc... Now I have only the little blurbs you given me here, so that's not much for context, but I wouldn't even try to make that leap myself, because that would be synthesis. unless she stands to the world and says "I am a lesbian" (or whatever the case may be) --in straight-forward terms like that, and widely reported in RSs-- I wouldn't even consider putting it in someone's article, and even then I would be highly hesitant unless there was a very compelling reason it absolutely needs to be there for the reader to be able to understand the subject.

In my own personal observation, and PBS had a rather interesting documentary about this a few weeks ago, but these labels and categories we create for ourselves, to make us feel better and bring people who are like us into our "in-group" (this is really on an instinctual level), in doing so, and without even seeing it, we stereotype and segregate ourselves rather than simply coming together as human beings and enjoying and marveling in the wonders and beauty that our diversity brings. In creating an in-group, we invariably create an "out-group", and while that may be fine for some, others may not see it as being that simple. Human sexuality is far from black and white, but rather there is an entire spectrum, and we shouldn't label people anything along those lines unless they explicitly use that label for themselves. Zaereth (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

When Palmer came out at the CSAs, she not only did so by publicly acknowledging her partner Lalonde, but she also said "and my beautiful son, Luca." The birth mother of "Luca" is Alex Lalonde. It doesn't take brain surgery to put two-and-two together. ("Zoie Palmer parlait bien sûr de la productrice Alex Lalonde et de son fils Luca, qu'elle a eu d'une précédente union. Alex s'est d'ailleurs empressée de féliciter son amoureuse via Twitter....", "The Alex in question is Alex Lalonde, a Canadian television and film producer, and the Luca seems to be Lalonde’s son from a previous relationship." ) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary:It seems obvious we can't make any statements about this person's sexuality. Being in a relationship and having an identity are separate things. If a man thanks his wife, we can't declare them hetrosexual based on just that. We use reliable sources not just to show something is true, but to also show it's noteworthy. So, a person mentioning a trivial fact in an interview doesn't actually show anybody found it noteworthy. If somebody declares something, and no reliable source discusses it, that's a sign it's not worth discussing. I would hate to think how bad BLPs would become if we repeated every tidbit mentioned in any interview. --Rob (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Added: It is pretty much never ok to add an obituary like this as a source. --Rob (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Egads! No! That's just ... wrong. The only thing an obituary should be used for is confirming a subject's death. I haven't looked through all the sources, but just from reading that diff it reads like a gossip column, and that raises another red flag. Zaereth (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for bringing the Pierre Lalonde death notice in the Montreal Gazette to our attention, so that the following can be quoted: "He is survived by his wife, Clare (née Lewis), and children, Alexandra (Zoie Palmer)....." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• At the moment, do not include per WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH. It does not appear to have any relevance to what she is notable for any more than her being left-handed or right-handed would be. If you can find a reliable source describing her as lesbian then include it with the source. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

"any relevance to what she is notable for". She isn't notable for anything she has done onscreen (unless you pay attention to what her fans say, which I don't), but she is notable for having come-out onscreen. It was news in Canada, where the majority of her acting has been in main roles and guest appearances in Canadian television and film productions, and where she is recognized the most. Granted, Wikipedia is American-centric, but a Canadian actor coming-out on stage at the Canadian Screen Awards is not a detail that should be ignored in her/his biography.
Myself and @blondielalonde on the set of #TheLesserBlessed :)) (No. Palmer does not have an acting role in The Lesser Blessed, nor was she in the crew, or a producer.)  No, she hasn't received media attention from The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, The New York Times, Deadline Hollywood, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, Rolling Stone, etc., yada yada.  As I said in an above comment, coverage about Palmer has been in Canadian and niche publications/websites: Canadian actress Zoie Palmer comes out while accepting award,  Lost Girl: Zoie Palmer mit Coming Out bei Preisverleihung,  La actriz Zoie Palmer (Lost Girl) sale públicamente del armario,  Canadian Actress Zoie Palmer Comes Out at Awards Show,  our fave five: queer characters played by queer ladies.  And if most of the sources are LGBT-related, it's because events regarding L/G/B/T individuals matters to the L/G/B/T community. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to agree that we shouldn't label anything the subject anything that they object to and can be supported only by weaker sources through synthing per daveosaurus. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Wowie zowie, where to begin? First off we do include a person’s sexuality—specifically if they are non-heterosexual—even if it has zero to do with their notability.
  And “gay” is still routinely used to refer, both positively and negatively, to all LGBTQ people. Lesbians are routinely referred to simply as gay.
  And what sources are likeliest to report on all this? LGBTQ publications. As heterosexuals and their news media just don’t find hearing about minorities’ views as interesting. This is a systematic bias Wikipedia has to do more work to overcome.
  And LGBTQ content can more easily be added then categories. Another loophole enforcing LGBTQ erasure that needs a new look.
  Others can likely express it better than I, but sexuality and gender expression are at the core of our identity even if a person doesn’t outwardly proclaim it every day in every way. If this wasn’t a big deal streams of news stories about celebs of all stripes coming out wouldn’t still be a thing, but it is.
  I’m also alarmed at how quickly we’re willing to scrub what seems like true and verifiable information just because a subject wants it removed.
  I suggest the categories be removed until self-declaration statements are found, and the overall issue be kicked back to the article to see if there is local consensus to remove her partner’s name since that may be the tipping point in all this. Glee^anon 09:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that a person's sexuality is a defining characteristic of them as a person ... that is, unless they are heterosexual? Interesting. That tells me a lot. So the solution then is to out them against their will? Based on what? Ambiguous statements? How do you know she's not asexual? Does that still count as gay? Sexuality is far from simply gay or straight. It's all the colors of the rainbow and 50 shades of grey. Who are we to tell this person who she is? Only she can tell us, and only if she wants to.

I really recommend this documentary I mentioned above. It's really an interesting look for the beginner in the psychology behind this "us vs them" mentality that labeling (even ... or rather, especially self-labeling) and categorization leads to. Categories and labels of any kind are extremely powerful and potentially dangerous things, and they should not be used lightly.

We're not a newspaper nor a magazine, which means we need higher standards than the sources we use. One of those meaning having a higher ethical regard for the subjects we write about, and another is making damn sure we get our information correct. Now I ask again, why is it so important to you? Don't answer, because the question is not for me. When you can honestly answer that to yourself, then you will finally be at peace with yourself, on on that day you'll realize that it really does not change who a person is. Everything we do, and everything we learn about the world, the universe, and all the wonders it contains, all of this is ultimately to figure out the biggest mystery of all: ourselves. "After all, all knowledge simply means self-knowledge." Zaereth (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this directed at me? Glee^anon 11:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Moving forward

So in trying to untangle this all it seems that the subject’s—and was this handled by OTRS?—had two main concerns: 1. That she is now single, so calling her partnered is inaccurate; and 2. Calling her lesbian was, at least technically, inaccurate as well.

Underlying all of this is to ensure the sourcing is reliable, and our reporting those sources is accurate.

I hope I expressed all that clearly.

An initial and easy fix among all this is that the LGBTQ categories are removed as those required a higher bar than the content. Except that even the subject’s own statements put her in the LGBTQ general categories.

Another easy fix is the sourcing as there are plenty of reliable sources for this content, although it will take a bit of time to vet and organize them all. @Pyxis Solitary:, are you willing to hunt down the French sources? I think they may prove useful.

So based on all this it seems a tad obvious that all of the content we had was true with two basic tweaks, both requiring footnotes for readers, and future editors: 1. Numerous media outlets report that Palmer came out as gay, but that might be too inaccurate of a label, so we can put she came out as part of the LGBTQ community, and footnote the discrepancy. And 2. Add “then-partner” to describe Lalonde even though we have no sourcing for their no longer being partners. Add a footnote explaining we were contacted regarding the change. Glee^anon 08:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm based in the U.S., and any non-English language source I've found has been with use of my VPN. That's how I found: "Zoie Palmer fait son coming-out aux Prix Écrans canadiens" [Zoie Palmer Comes Out at the Canadian Screen Awards], Karine Paradis, 13 mars 2014, HollywoodPQ. An editor based in Canada might be able to find more Francophone sources.
The biggest roadblock that has been thrown at what sources are usable is that someone does not consider them to be high quality -- as if every actor's biographical article must use only top-tier publications, even if those that are not top-tier are reliable (and considered acceptable sources by Wikipedia standards). An actor like Zoie Palmer who's known predominantly for Canadian television and film productions, is not going to receive the same kind of media coverage as an actor like Kate Winslet.
The fact remains: she publicly said in front of cameras (1) "my incredible partner, Alex" (i.e. Alex Lalonde), and (2) "my beautiful son, Luca" (the biological son of Alex Lalonde). The inference made that she was in a same-sex relationship with Alex Lalonde is not far-fetched. And Palmer has not publicly denied being gay or lesbian or bisexual because of what she said at the Canadian Screen Awards. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

My bigger concern was that you could read Francois sourcing. I’d say we do the research and see where the sources lead, then get help to ensure the sourcing is acceptable. Glee^anon 05:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that the inference is far fetched. What they are saying is that we should not be using inferences or educated guesses to determine how someone defines their sexuality and what they want other people to know about it. Mo Billings (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

We go where the reliable sources do, and there are more than enough. If they say she’s gay then we report that; in this case we have to temper the statement with her offline, and undocumented statement that it’s not “the” accurate label, whereas LGBTQ remains a catch all term for all non-heterosexual identities. Glee^anon 06:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop saying that LGBTQ is "a catch all term for all non-heterosexual identities". That is simply incorrect. Trans people may or may not be heterosexual. Asexual people are generally not considered to be included in LGBTQ categorizations. Mo Billings (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I think most people would lean towards inclusion of asexually within both non-heterosexual/LGBTQ labels; a sexuality minority at best. And speculation that this is Zoie’s identity without evidence is a red herring/sidebar. We still need to reconcile what reliable sources state, even if the subject prefers that they could unring the bell. Glee^anon 00:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"we should not be using inferences or educated guesses to determine how someone defines their sexuality and what they want other people to know about it." Biographies don't hinge on what the subjects say about themselves. And in the case of Zoie Palmer, actions speak louder than words. #1) She thanked her female partner on stage, in front of cameras, during a nationally televised awards. #2) She included her "son" in her statement. Palmer is the stepmother, not the biological mother of the "son". Palmer gained popularity for her role as Lauren in Lost Girl, and numerous articles and interviews have been published about Palmer because of it -- yet there is no mention in any of them about motherhood ... until the 2014 CSAs, where she was photographed sitting in the audience next to Lalonde who then tweeted Palmer's fans afterwards about her CSA. (Lalonde has been included in Toronto-based articles that also mentioned her son at the time.  Example: "Alex Lalonde, 36. Awards director, Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television. Luca, 3 1/2". Katrina Onstad (May 2008). "Baby Wars". Toronto Life, pg. 49.  There are also several photographs published in Canadian sources of Palmer and Lalonde together at events, etc.)
Many sources reported on what Palmer did on stage at the CSAs -- Hello! Canada, AfterEllen, Gay Star News, etc. -- enough acceptable sources verifying the fact that by publicly acknowledging her female partner, Alex Lalonde, she had come out of the closet. Her biography can't say with definiteness that she is lesbian or bisexual, but it can't hide that she a member of the LGBT community, either.
About the alleged contacting of wikipedia-en-help by Palmer: (a) what proof is there that Zoie Palmer was, indeed, the individual that contacted en-help? (b) why should Wikipedia take the word of any editor about this if there is no evidence that they were actually communicating with Zoie Palmer? Did Palmer provide a contact number with which to speak to her in person? Did she provide her agent's contact number? (c) What if whoever communicated on en-help was posing as Palmer? I find it incredulous that gullibility has been the basis for deleting crucial information about an individual's Wikipedia biography. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. When it comes to things like sexuality, religion, and other aspects like, we must depend on what the BLP says themselves, and not what others infer. We can talk about being involved with the LGBT community and all that - things we can observe and speak to without any inference, but we cannot make any assumption about sexuality about that. --Masem (t) 03:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

That’s exactly what we’re doing. She came out on national television as noted by multiple reliable sources. And now, only ... six years later, she’s trying to swallow her words, kinda, and say that lesbian is not an accurate term while failing to explain her statement, or provide any acceptable term or phrase that would be acceptable. So now we have to reconcile what she’s on record as saying vs. what she’s allegedly now said. Glee^anon 04:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Acknowledging she has a partner is NOT the same as being a lesbian, period. Far too much assumption being read into that. --Masem (t) 04:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

1. Thanking “my partner” is well-known coded language for doing a Jodie Foster;

2. We are not making any assumptions, multiple reliable sources are, I think in at least four languages;

3. Why no statement, from this public celebrity, or her team, or anyone, at that time, or ever, to clear up what is now an alleged mistaken assumption? Glee^anon 05:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes a "do no harm" stance on BLP, and that means we don't make any assumptions on sexuality - we don't play games with "coded language" nor do we use assumptions that other sources may take. And just because she or her press handlers didn't say anything then doesn't matter. It would be different if she said, in very explicit language "I am a lesbian" and now it trying to back off that; that would make this more difficult. But if we're just going off this statement that she thanked her partner at a public event, that's nowhere close to sufficient for us to have included it in the first place, nor including it now. --Masem (t) 06:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"Acknowledging she has a partner is NOT the same as being a lesbian, period." Did you not read what I wrote before you set your hair on fire? Word-for-word:
"Her biography can't say with definiteness that she is lesbian or bisexual, but it can't hide that she a member of the LGBT community, either.
How many sources are needed to make an intransigent Wikipedia editor see what has been published about an individual? A reportage that in six years has not been disputed by the individual. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like people are speaking past each other here. Is it time yet for an RfC with actual proposed options?

Perhaps

1. On March 9, 2014, Zoie Palmer came out publicly as lesbian during broadcast of the 2nd Canadian Screen Awards when she thanked her life partner, Canadian film producer Alex Lalonde, after expressing gratitude for winning the "Fan Choice Award for Favourite Canadian Screen Star" for her performance as Lauren on Lost Girl. Palmer and Lalonde have a son, Luca, from Lalonde's previous marriage.
2. On March 9, 2014, Zoie Palmer came out publicly as part of the LGBTQ community during broadcast of the 2nd Canadian Screen Awards when she thanked her life partner, Canadian film producer Alex Lalonde, after expressing gratitude for winning the "Fan Choice Award for Favourite Canadian Screen Star" for her performance as Lauren on Lost Girl. Palmer and Lalonde have a son, Luca, from Lalonde's previous marriage.
3. On March 9, 2014 during broadcast of the 2nd Canadian Screen Awards, Zoie Palmer thanked her life partner, Canadian film producer Alex Lalonde, after expressing gratitude for winning the "Fan Choice Award for Favourite Canadian Screen Star" for her performance as Lauren on Lost Girl. Palmer and Lalonde have a son, Luca, from Lalonde's previous marriage.
4. Not present

(Later note: the term "life partner" does not match the sources - Zoie said incredible partner and one of the secondary sources says long-term partner - so the options in the RfC should not include the word "life".)

(Later note the second: the term "life partner" is present in other sources that had not been used on the page per Gleeanon409, so it may be used, but if so a source that uses the term should be cited)

The first option is the original text of the page, explicitly placing the "lesbian" label. The second option meets your concept that the article can't say with definiteness that she is lesbian or bisexual, but it can't hide that she a member of the LGBT community, either. The third option avoids identifying her with the LGBT community and doesn't hide any primary source facts, but also doesn't show the inference made by secondary sources. The fourth is likely what is preferred by the purported subject, but is also somewhat WP:CENSORSHIP.

Are any of these options wanted by no one? Is there a fifth option I'm missing?

Gbear605 (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The term "life partner" is sourced in relationship to her coming out. There are other sources besides the ones presented. I’m still looking as well at researching and vetting non-English sourcing. Glee^anon 18:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for helping here, I think we need to survey, and research the sourcing first. Then maybe go to the WP:RSNB to see if they are all acceptable.

I’m only proficient in English so we’re going to need help for vetting the sources that reported on this worldwide. Are they reliable, and how did they word it?

It also occurs to me that the most NPOV way to report this is report what she said, followed by how reliable sources reported her non-heterosexuality, I’m thinking “media outlets worldwide reported she came out as LGBTQ, or gay/lesbian”. Then pop on, if needed, a carefully worded footnote for the reader. In this way Palmer speaks for herself, and attributing a label is not done in Wikipedia’s voice. And it doesn’t matter if the person who contacted us was Palmer or not. Glee^anon 08:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is when it comes to things like sexuality, religion and the like, we cannot use inferences even from reliable sources. While I'm aware "life partner" is pretty much implication of a non-platonic couple and thus implies LGBT, there are platonic life couples - albeit rare - and thus we cannot make the assumption she's LGBT or a lesbian from that one comment. We can say, factually, choice #3 above, but that's it. If she has known to participate in LGBT events or involved in other LGBT community activities, we can also say that, but one does not need to be LGBT to be involved with those either.

Now, if it was a situation where the question of her sexuality became a media situation in of itself, then we could cover that in more detail, but that doesn't seem to be case here. --Masem (t) 16:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact are, we are not inferring anything, the inference was made by multiple reliable sources, was never refuted/countered or disputed in any way until now, six years later. And the chief expressed concerns? That the couple has broken up (not sourced), and that lesbian is not technically correct (also not sourced).

Let’s not over-correct for what it rather obviously true. Let’s focus on getting it it NPOV and correct. Glee^anon 19:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

BLP disallows us from using inference made by RSes even for sexuality. Period. We're not supposed to go there. We can lay out exactly happened factually ("life partner" statement which is 100% documentable) and let the reader make any inference they want from that, but no more. --Masem (t) 20:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Laying out what exactly happened factually is what we’re going to do, ("life partner" statement and how the worldwide reliable sources reported on it which is 100% documentable). The readers can infer whatever they want. Glee^anon 20:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The way you've been writing the arguments, that to use how reliable sources reported on it, implies including that this suggests a LGBT sexuality. (eg option #2 above). The best we can do is option #3 which stops short of that. --Masem (t) 20:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

No comment on the options above as I feel we need to research what all the reliable sources state first. And I think there may be better options available.

Based on what I’ve seen so far, “media outlets reported she came out as LGBTQ, or gay/lesbian” with refs divided up on either label. Glee^anon 21:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. Most of the arguments I've seen here are typically either forms of affirming the consequent or circular reasoning, both of which are fallacious arguments. "If gay, then partners. Partners, therefore gay." (Note that this argument fit's both criteria, as it also begins with what it ends.) Unless she specifically came out and said it, then I believe we have no business making inferences from her actions and then turning those into either implications or (even worse) declarations in Wikivoice. (My personal view is that, unless it's somehow a part of what makes her notable, then it's just gossipy, trivial information.) Zaereth (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, no, reporting on a subject’s non-heterosexuality has nothing to do if they are notable for that.

And, no, we are not reporting what her sexuality is in Wikipedia’s voice, we are stating what reliable sources have stated as fact. (And still not refuted in any source). Glee^anon 21:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

If we actually had a section dealing with Zoie Palmer's personal life, I would favor option 3 (that is, state the facts and let people draw their own conclusions). Trouble is, we seem to know very little about her life outside of being an actor. So with that and the request from Palmer, I'm leaning toward leaving it out altogether simply because of WP:WEIGHT. According to Palmer, she is no longer with that person, so I'm confused as to why we would want to mention the partner except to lead readers to the conclusion that Palmer is/was gay. In any case, we should not say "life partner" since that is not what Palmer referred to her as. Mo Billings (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

(1) There was a personal life section as of 28 October 2020; before it was gutted -- and you deleted what was left of it.
(2) We have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that whoever contacted en-help was Zoie Palmer -- so there is no credible "According to Palmer...."
(3) The only trustworthy information that exists is what Palmer, herself, did in front of cameras at the 2014 Canadian Screen Awards.
(4) Palmer has not publicly denied that her relationship with Lalonde was a same-sex romantic and intimate relationship.
(5) Palmer has not publicly disputed what was reported about her at the 2014 Canadian Screen Awards, and she has not contested what has been written about her regarding it.
Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you're making a good case for imposing a topic ban on you regarding sexuality. Mo Billings (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Threats and intimidation are incredibly unhelpful, please stick to discussing content not the contributor. Glee^anon 17:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no threat intended since I am not an admin and I can't impose topic bans. When we get to a point where someone says , "but they haven't denied it", I think the discussion is probably over. Mo Billings (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: To clear up any confusion, Zoie Palmer thanked her "incredible partner" in an acceptance speech. Not her "life partner", not her "business partner", not her "square dance partner". Her "incredible" partner. Any qualification of "partner" is an interpretation of what was actually said by the subject of the BLP. Mo Billings (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

We have sourcing for life partner, and are looking for more. Zero need to rush this. Glee^anon 19:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Mo Billings, to clarify your meaning, you're saying that if a source says life partner but the known quote from Palmer says incredible partner, then the source falls under WP:BLPGOSSIP, right? That is, the source may say it, but the source isn't reliable for that attribution? Gbear605 (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, effectively. If the source changes the meaning of what she actually said, we can't use that. --Masem (t) 19:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Per NPOV we don’t censor but simply report what reliable sources state contrasting what they state. If they are provably wrong then we state that as well. Glee^anon 19:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gbear605: I wasn't specifically referencing that part of policy. I was simply trying to make readers of this discussion aware that what the subject of our article actually said was not what is being discussed (as options for inclusion). I'm not calling the sources unreliable, but they are far from the high quality sources we would like to use for biographies. Having one or two low quality sources use the phrase "life partner" does not mean that Wikipedia needs to use that wording and add a "note". We should tread lightly around sexuality especially if we have a complaint from the subject. Mo Billings (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

"especially if we have a complaint from the subject." You keep repeating this and similar allegations ... and so I will repeate what I've said, too: there is no proof -- no evidence -- no corroboration -- that Zoie Palmer was the person who contacted en-help. For all we know it could have been a fan of hers (and Palmer acquired an obsessive fan following due to the character she played on Lost Girl). So unless you personally know something no one else is privy to, the persistent allegation that Zoie Palmer was the person that contacted en-help should stop. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

According to Snowycats and DragonflySixtyseven, her identity was confirmed. Do you doubt what they are saying? Mo Billings (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I contacted en-help and there are no archives of contacts and discussions retained, so there is no transcript with which to review the event. So how was her identify confirmed? According to User:Snowycats: "via posts to her official social media profile" (04:04, 29 October 2020). If you just stop and think about it, and how anyone can access websites and social media accounts if they're available to the public, this "evidence" is laughable. Did "Zoie Palmer" provide her contact phone number, or her agent's, for Wikipedia to confirm that she was indeed the individual that contacted en-help and what two editors alleged as her having stated? No. Taking at face value what anonymous people say on the Internet is a logic fail — and Wikipedia is a website on the Internet that anyone can stick their finger into. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

We have exceptional policies in place for BLPs particularly around the issues of sexuality and gender identity, and require high expectations for sourcing. If they misinterpreted something she said and thus created the impression of something of her sexuality, we absolutely must not repeat that, period. Doesn't matter if that was the NYTimes that made the mistake or not. But judging by what sourcing we are using, we're talking Hollywood celebrity gossip rags that just barely elevate themselves above tabloids; these are nowhere close to the reliability of Variety or the Hollywood Reporter-level of quality. Thus, we do not consider their confusion with her words as something to report, and given this appears to now be causing problems, that's even more a reason to get rid of the poorly-reported content. --Masem (t) 23:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly. None of this is good journalism. It's all based upon rank speculation, like most gossip is, especially the gossip surrounding celebrities, and we don't report rank speculation, especially about personal information that may be of a very sensitive nature. While I understand that this type of info is very important to some, but that's the nature of trivia (it's always an interest to some), it is still trivial in the scope of the subject's notable life and career. Regardless of sourcing, without a direct statement from the subject I would opt to leave it out, out of basic human decency toward the subject. Celebrities are human too, and a person's sexuality is not something to speculate about. This is not censorship, and I really do wish people would look up the definition of the word before using it. I've never seen an argument about censorship that wasn't a red herring. It's the nature of encyclopedic writing to leave out all the boring details and trivia, and whittle an article down to the nitty gritty, and I have yet to see a good reason why it should go in the article even if reliably sourced, but definitely not as speculation. Zaereth (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: If this weren't Wikipedia, after listening to this interview I would describe Palmer as bisexual and in a "woke" closet. But for Wikipedia purposes, the yada yada about her, Alex Lalonde, sexuality, CSA award, reaction, etc., begins with answer to Q @ 50:40 – https://www.firecrackerdepartment.com/firecrackerdepartment/2017/5/16/zoie-palmer (Zoie Palmer, May 16, 2017, Firecracker Department with Naomi Snieckus podcast). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's the relevant transcript. It's not perfect but it should get the idea across.

relevant transcript, from about 51:00 to 57:30

Interviewer: Do you and Alex ever want to work together?

Palmer: You know, yeah, sure or not.

Interviewer: I mean, like on a project. I mean, you're working together as parents.

Palmer: Right, but like I don't... I don't know, yeah maybe. Maybe not. Maybe or maybe not.

Interviewer: How are you with your relationship in public these days?

Palmer: Well, for me it's always been "I'm totally fine with it", I guess. But if I was with a guy, which I have been, many times by the way.

Interviewer: You don't need to brag, it's cool.

Palmer: Okay, many many many many many men. You know what I've always struggled with? And I've literally never talked about this. But here, I'll do it with you. [comment about the podcast audio] The assumptions that people make about people because of anything I struggle with, whatever that is. Like you're with a guy, so the assumption is that you're straight. I've no idea what your sexuality is, nor does it matter to me because it's irrelevant. But you're with Matt. You're just with Matt and that's who you're with. So the rest of your sexuality is your business alone, outside of what you choose to show in public, which is that you're with Matt. People assume because I'm with a female that I'm totally gay. I may or may not be totally gay, but the assumption is that if you're with a woman, you're gay, and if you're with a man, you're straight. And sexuality is just so much more complicated than that. It just is. With everyone in the world. And so for me, I sort of have always struggled talking about it a little bit. Because I feel like anything I say gets so manipulated. And it's so scrutinized. Especially because I so happen to currently be with a female. It's so scrutinized that I almost want to say nothing for fear of like, the number of things I've read about myself where I'm like "I've never said that." Once I thanked Alex at an award show and "Zoie Palmer comes out as gay" was everywhere. And I was like, "I didn't stand up there and go I'd just like to say I'm gay." I didn't say that. But what was extrapolated from that was so many things that I didn't say. If you say, "I want to thank Matt," the next day all over the internet is "Naomi comes out as straight." What?!

Interviewer: That'd be great.

Palmer: That'd be great and weird.

Interviewer: That's like an Onion piece, for sure. I get it, I totally get it.

Palmer: So that's always been my reason.

Interviewer: And it's got nothing to do with your craft.

Palmer: Nothing to do with my craft. And it's just like, I wish we could get to a place where it's just totally irrelevant, and that you could say one thing and it just means the one thing you said. I just wish you could say the one thing and it meant that. And a whole pile of other stuff wasn't pulled from it. And I guess, yeah, and if I was with a guy, which I have been. And who knows what the future holds for any one of us. I wouldn't talk about that that much either. You know what I mean? I wouldn't you know, I wouldn't know what I would be talking about.

Interviewer: Yeah, I mean people are overly public about really personal things, I think. I think you gotta keep something for yourself.

Palmer: And people go, "Well, so-and-so's in the closet" and I'm like, "Well probably not with their friends." Like you understand, you're totally strangers. What is "In the closet"? That means that anything you don't stand on a mountain and scream out means that you're hiding. Or, you're just keeping it to your own personal self.

Interviewer: Yeah, could it be that like the gay and lesbian community want spokespeople?

Palmer: And I think, and this will be the least popular thing I say today, I think that the LGBTQ community are, for good reason, sometimes their own worst enemy. For good reason - it comes from a place of being marginalized. But, the only people that ever made a big deal about me thanking Alex was the LGBTQ community. And no one else really cares. And I just stand there, it's not lost on me why, but I think we all have a responsibility if we want things to just be okay, to respond to them as if they are in fact okay.

Interviewer: It's like having gay characters in a TV show and not going "gay gay gay"

Palmer: And not constantly screaming about how gay they are. And I think that's the only way to progress in any real way, for something just to be nothing, the nothing it should be. To not respond as if it's a big fat something. And I understand why that's hard. I'm not trying to dismiss why that's hard. I think we could all do ourselves a favor - in all kinds of areas - if we treated something the way we talk about wanting it to be treated.

Interviewer: Right. Did you feel yourself, your life, or your public world change after that?

Palmer: Oh, sure.

Interviewer: With your fans and everything?

Palmer: Yeah, yeah

Interviewer: Positively, negatively?

Palmer: Mostly positively. Lots of love and lots of-

Interviewer: Your fans love you?

Palmer: Yeah, the ones that do seem to quite a bit.

Interviewer: And the ones that don't, don't pay attention.

Palmer: Right. But yeah, [unintelligible] the fans are fantastic. I just felt very in a fishbowl there for a while. And my instinct on that is to retreat. My instinct generally when I feel like I'm in a fishbowl is to retreat.

Interviewer: How do you balance that then? Because there's a certain level of needing to be out there in our industry. To network, and to connect.

Palmer: Yeah, I just don't.

I'd say from it that using "gay" or "lesbian" to describe Palmer in the article is just incorrect, while using "bisexual" might be more correct but would be unsourced. In addition, Palmer (based on the interview) clearly would prefer to not have it in the article. and doesn't consider it to be a defining characteristic. I'd suggest that the correct way to describe it is something along the lines of In a 2014 awards show, Palmer thanked her then-partner Canadian film producer Alex Lalonde. Afterwards, a number of tabloid newspapers said that Palmer had come out of the closet as gay. However, Palmer doesn't publically identity as gay or as a lesbian.

Gbear605 (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, "a number of tabloids"? I don't recall seeing any tabloid sources, only websites. Mo Billings (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I was using tabloid for lack of a better word to refer to news sources that report only on celebrity news. I’m happy to reword it, since I admittedly wrote it fairly quickly, having gotten tired after the whole transcription. Gbear605 (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Tabloid journalism. AfterEllen is not. Hello! Canada is not. Gay Star News is not. And none of the sources that have been found "report only on celebrity news".
"Palmer (based on the interview) clearly would prefer to not have it in the article." The interview is from May 2017. We can't assume that an individual still holds the same opinions and ideas she expressed 3-½ years ago; and deletions from her bio can't be based on our assumptions of what she may or may not think today based on an interview from 3-½ years ago. And I emphasize what I have said in other comments: we don't really know if it was Zoie Palmer that contacted en-help. It could have been a fantard. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC); edited 12:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• With the newly found interview here’s what I have:
  • In March 2014, Palmer thanked “my incredible partner, Alex, and my beautiful son Luca” during an acceptance speech for the Fan Favorite category at the Canadian Screen Awards which media outlets reported as her coming out as LGBTQ. Her statement refers to television and film producer Alex Lalonde, and son Luca from a previous relationship. In a 2017 interview she explained that she has had relationships with men as well as co-parenting with Lalonde, but feels that her sexuality has no bearing on her work, and is more complicated than a straight-gay binary.

References

• "...son Luca from a previous relationship." Needs to be made clear: the child known as Luca is not from a previous Palmer relationship -- he is the son of Alex Lalonde from either a previous relationship with a male or by artificial insemination (it has not been revealed how Lalonde became pregnant). "While I was on maternity leave...." – Alex Lalonde (photographed with son Luca, pg. 49).Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• It might be time to do an RfC on the article itself and get more eyes. Glee^anon 12:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• OTRS - some participants in this discussion have argued our decision making should be influenced by an individual who claimed to be Ms Palmer, in an online discussion.

  Sorry, I don't care how convincing that person seemed, in my opinion, we should never allow our decision making to be influenced by IRL individuals who haven't gone throught the process of confirming their IRL identity through OTRS.

  As I pointed out to someone who claimed to be the IRL Bryan Atkinson, at File:Bryan Atkinson at the CFC 25th Anniversary Celebration in LA.jpg, real life people have angry frenemies, and stalkers, who would also be able to supply the kinds of IRL details that culd seem convincing.

  Presumably the OTRS process makes a record of how they confirmed their identity, so there is an audit trail. There is no audit trail of an informal confirmation in an online chat. Geo Swan (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Commons has Media related to Alexandra Lalonde at Wikimedia Commons. FWIW, I looked into her, a few years ago, to determine whether she merited a standalone article... (I decided she did not...) I found Alexandra Lalonde, the actor, and Ms Palmer's partner, were merely namesakes. Geo Swan (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: Why did you create a collection of pictures of someone who isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article? One or two i could understand, but there's twelve. Mo Billings (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• I started an answer, here, but left it on User talk:Mo Billings, because I decided it was off-topic for this discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: That Wikimedia Commons "Alexandra Lalonde" is not the same Alex (Alexandra) Lalonde, Canadian producer and daughter of Pierre Lalonde, that was/is the partner of Zoie Palmer. (The Lalonde surname is very common.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Pyxis Solitary - not the same person - ie namesakes, as I wrote above. Geo Swan (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan Sorry about that. I was tired and the noodle didn't connect the dots. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 20:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

One of the new secondary source not mention here that refer to Palmer lesbian status is included in Curve Magazine article from July 2020 about ClexaCon conference with title "Why There Should Always Be ClexaCon" by Lisa Tedesco. The Curve magazine motto is "one world and one lesbian community" as seen at top of curvemag.com Article talks about Clexacon annual conference, self describing as "a media and entertainment convention for LGBTQ+ women, trans and non-binary fans and creators" & Tedesco article itself describes Clexacon as "... place to be to find ... queer women television representation like ... Zoie Palmer and Rachel Skarsten from Lost Girl"(add emphasis). Add Star News story ("Palmer ... has come out as gay during an acceptance speech at the Canadian Screen Awards on Sunday") and she thanks her wife (Palmer was referring to her long-term partner ... Alex Lalonde" (La Londe has also mention above). On Wikipedia en Español Alex La Londe is listed as 'family' in infobox but does not have a source. Conclusion is that Palmer now is lesbian & has confirmed in verifiable source or she once was lesbian & has confirmed in verifiable sources. A leading lesbian publication describe Palmer as 'queer' and subject herself thanked wife &/or partner female La londe at major award speech. In case subject and Lalonde are not marry/partnered it does not cancel that subject was or is LGBTQ+. Recording that subject is or was one time lesbian or queer is the truth. My thoughts only & hope this contributes. Bezeq2 (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

So Rachel Skarsten is gay, too? Mo Billings (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Matt Leinart tweet

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

I was wondering if some others might take a look at Talk:Matt Leinart#Tweet about moving and provide some input. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this post here for attention. A number of editors have now weighed in on the talk page with consensus being the reference to the tweet was correctly removed from the article. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Minor MOS:BIO consolidation proposal

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Proposal to better address "The"/"the" in names of performers (etc.) and groups thereof

This is obviously not a BLPN administrative request. Just notifying here, since people who care about MOS:BIO matters are apt to congregate in these-here parts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sam Sloan § More children?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sam Sloan § More children?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Would some others mind taking a look at this discussion? Sam Sloan#Personal life, in particular, might need more eyes on it because some content recently added to it about his supposed children seems really questionable per WP:BLPSOURCES. I've removed it for now, but it would be nice if others could also take a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed some blatant BLP violations given WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. [12][13][14] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: I appreciate you taking the time to look at this; however, the article continues to be expanded at a fairly rapid pace since you made. I think this is being done for the most part in good faith, but there's lots of unsourced content being added abut things Sloan is supposed to have done or people he's supposed to have known. I've tried pointing this out a few times on the article's talk page, but it might be a good idea for some others to take a look at this. This information has to be coming from somewhere and I tried to pin down when it's coming from, but never got a response. This article seems to have had issues going back years, but has undergone a burst of editing within the past few weeks that might indicate some kind of connection to the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I saw this discussion and just did a major copyedit on the article [15], especially trimming down the promotional and other problematic material. Hopefully this will also make it a little easier to remove the excess content that has been getting added recently. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Tristram Shapeero

Tristram Shapeero was recently in the news because they were caught making disparaging comments on a Zoom acting audition about the actor's apartment.[16] More specifically, the actor released the video of the call, and the director came forward to accept responsibility and apologize. Obviously the BBC is a reasonable source, but it seems questionable that the only real prose in this article about the director is related to the "controversy."; per WP:BLPSTYLE: "Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events" I've reverted the material twice and temporarily semi'd it, but others have restored it; I'm seeking additional input from the community. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

One way forward would be to add other sections about the man so this current kerfuffle doesn't dominate the page. A quick search on Google books reveals that there's not much written about him in book form other than listings of films he's directed. Perhaps there are articles or interviews in screen magazines. It may just be that he's one of those people who's destined to be mainly known for one thing. Is it our place to deny him that? Ericoides (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

According to BLP1E, plus many of the other policies, yes. That is exactly our place. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not report on every person who achieved five minutes of fame for something. The onus is on the one who wants to include it to balance the weight by expanding the rest of the article, if they can do it naturally and without creating a false balance, but it's not on the rest of us to do that for them. (For example, I wanted to put a picture in the moose article, but there was no place for it, so I wrote a section for it. Why should I fob it off on others to do the work?) Zaereth (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Quite. Fobbing off would never do. But I see that others have been generous with their time. Ericoides (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks a little better now that someone has expanded the rest of the article a bit, but I still feel uncomfortable cluttering biographies with every minor viral "controversy" that makes headlines on a few slow news days. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I shortened the section because it seemed excessive with the details [17]. It doesn't seem like this was some huge scandal, but a relatively insignificant incident in the life of a person who is not particularly notable. Do we really need to know more than that he made disparaging comments about an actor he was auditioning? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and I don't know how much coverage this incident will receive again in the future. I also added some information from a few of the sources on him. [18] – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dario_Hunter

Resolved

Link to page showing diff between version without libelous statements and most recent version with libelous statements added back:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dario_Hunter&diff=991431357&oldid=991204181

The content violates the following WP policies: no libel, no personal attacks, no original research, neutral point of view, verifiability, and living persons policy stating “contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately.”

Multiple editors have removed the section due to WP policy violations but it keeps getting added back. The editors removing it cite WP policy; editors adding it back (mostly IP editors) vaguely claim vandalism or disruption without addressing policy problems. (I am not removing again to avoid an edit war.)

The content goes back to January 2020. An admin eventually removed the content and warned the first IP editor adding it (on their talk page User talk:62.192.168.106) “you may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy....” The violating content was later added back by a different IP address.

IMHO, this page needs removal of the content and then long term protection. Sticktoit (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sticktoit:, disruptive comments removed by JavaHurricane and talk page protected by Maile66. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Robert Shireman

This article about me is malicious, uses tainted sources, and was created by someone with a likely conflict of interest. Knowledgeable people expanded and corrected the article, but unfortunately their changes were reversed (apparently because an editor, likely unaware of the COI of the original article, was suspicious of the edits). The simplest solution would be either to delete the article in its entirety, or to reverse the reversal.

Further, the page should be semi-protected. Ever since my service in the Obama administration, the for-profit education industry has been attacking me through fake identities and paid surrogates (one of them is cited in the bio). The user that created the page about me appears to have some type of connection (employee, friend, investor) to one particular online education company. I can provide more detail about that likely COI if that would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastimido (talk • contribs) 22:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Given that this was an investigation that does not appear to have resulted in any action beyond a request for documents from the article subject's former employer, I am not sure how relevant this is at all to someone who is not particularly well-known. I can't seem to find more recent documents mentioning the investigation. In any rate, it certainly shouldn't be discussed in anymore than a sentence or two, especially given the length of the article overall. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)