Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive344

Hunter Biden laptop controversy

The article begins with the unsourced sentence: "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden". We need a source for this claim, so our readers can check our work, but a search hasn't yet produced a good one.

We of course have lots of sources that literally use the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" or similar verbiage, but none that feature an unabiguous, straightforward assertion the laptop is known to belong to Biden. In contrast, we do have sources saying the laptop lacks a clear chain of custody and it remains a possibility that the laptop was a copy, not a device owned by Biden.

CBS News recently released a major story in which it characterized the device as "what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop". I have one source that says "almost no one disputes" authenticity, which is pretty damn close to meeting WP:V, but not close enough.

Can someone find a good source that verifies the currently-unsourced sentence? Alternatively, what would be the most appropriate way to fix the first sentence so that it's Verifiable? Feoffer (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The easy fix would be to say "involves a laptop computer that purportedly belonged to Hunter Biden." which clearly follows all sources. Masem (t) 04:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"...purportedly..." kinda reads like "alleged", though. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I read through the RFC, and the whole problem is that editors appeared to be talking WP P&G as "word of God". Yes, in many situations we don't want to cast doubt on fact by our novel inclusion of "alleged", "purported" or whatever, but when the sources themselves are the ones to do that (and we should be looking at those that are more recent than around the time of the original NYPost story), we are not creating the issue. But that RFC seemed to be "won over" by the insistence that "alleged" is a Bad Word we should not be using, rather than actual consideration of the sources. Masem (t) 13:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The closer stated "editors opposing the adjective produced a plethora of recent RS that did not doubt the connection," sources like this Guardian piece which includes this The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020. There is no doubt those emails between Carlson and Biden exist. There are several other sources presented in the RFC that very simply call it "Biden's laptop." Nobody used BLP as a justification for any !vote in the RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

But that it was Hunter's laptop -- based on the sources I saw -- was not a universally held idea. Just like we would not promote a new scientific theory as fact in Wikivoice if that theory doesn't have clear universal agreement in core RSes, we should not be doing the same with matters involving a BLP (we need to be even more careful and take the middle-ground route). Masem (t) 13:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Ernie, you've made this argument a number of times on talk pages and now here. RS say that some of the emails have been verified, per experts they retained. Neither RS nor WP editors currently dispute this. Do you deny that these emails could have been copied onto the device that the appeared at the repair shop? Do you understand that other, counterfeit emails could have been added to such a device and are among the 100,000+ files that have not been verified? Do you disagree that no information contained within the files has verified the ownership of the device itself, or that all the files could have been copied onto a device that was never owned by Biden? Those are the open questions among sources and WP editors who disagree about attributing ownership of the device to Biden. I'm asking this because arguments that conflate ownership of the device with authentication of a small subset of the hard drive files are not consistent with any RS narratives of the matter. The discussions over the past several months have concerned what we say about the device, not whether some of the files were accurate. SPECIFICO talk 14:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

We go by what RS says. You're free to speculate all you want, just not in article space. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I was asking whether you disagree with the fact that verification of some of the files do not support a conclusion about the device. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

No I don't disagree with that. I think this paragraph in this Vox piece best describes my thinking on the issue - Some commentators did go too far in asserting that this was part of a Russian plot, when the evidence hasn’t emerged to back that up. The Biden campaign similarly sought to cast doubt on the story by alluding that it could be Russian misinformation — when the underlying emails appear to be authentic. But in general, major journalism outlets did try to assess whether there was genuine news there. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

An RFC on this matter was closed in September 2022, with the decision being that the laptop was owned by H. Biden. A challenge to the decision was made at WP:AN & was turned down. Are we going to respect the RFC decision or not? GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the RFC was a non-admin closure. I didn't realize because they didn't disclose with {{Non-admin closure}}. The list of "inappropriate closures" includes The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial, which this clearly is. Just on that, yes, we need to discuss this again. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps another challenge of the RFC decision (at WP:AN), would save time. Otherwise, the dispute between editors will be non-stop. GoodDay (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu The WP:NAC was noted and a much-discussed point in the subsequent request for close review at ANI. After extensive review from all sorts of admins and experienced editors, the close result of that discussion was that the close of this RFC was not bad enough to warrant overturning. Even if the RFC was not decisive, the subsequent discussions should still have weight.

If new editors bring in new opinions, or significant new sourcing shows up, I think a new RFC may be appropriate. But that doesn't really seem to be the case at current. I think the best course of action is to find some compromise phrasing that doesn't directly violate the spirit of the RFC PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it was brought up in the ANI. I clearly didn't read the whole thing. Nevermind that then. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, please, stop misrepresenting the RfC, which was singularly, explicitly, and exclusively about whether to use the word "alleged" in the first sentence of the lead. SPECIFICO talk 04:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Open up a new one, then. An RFC that will put an end to the continuing dispute over whether or not H. Biden ever owned the laptop-in-question. Then request that only an administrator can close it. PS - Year ago, I did recommend that only administrators should close RFCs. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion about the lead on the talk page, with some proposals. Hopefully some previously uninvolved editors can join us there and offer input. Namely I've proposed a new first sentence that would avoid any controversy regarding the current wording. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The new lede sentence resolves all of my concerns. Great job! Feoffer (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Having lost an RfC, this is forum-shopping.

When reliable sources reported the story in the New York Post, they reported all the information as an allegation. However, as the story went forward, reliable sources began referring to the laptop as Hunter Biden's.

We had an RfC where it was agreed that we should not use the term alleged because it expressed doubt Having lost the RfC, an editor who voted in favor of "alleged" decided to use a synonym for alleged.

While the RfC was a non-administrative close, there's no policy that says an administrative close is any more authoritative. The correct approach would have been to challenge the close rather than ignore the consensus of editors.

The claim that "Hunter Biden's laptop" did not necessarily belong to him is bewildering. In the English language, adding "'s" means that something belongs to the subject. If you prefer, we could change "a laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden" to "Hunter Biden's laptop."

In fact there is no question the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. The only doubt comes from Hunter Biden who said he was not sure the laptop belonged to him: there "could be a laptop out there that was stolen from" him.

Anyway, there is no BLP issue. The information is reliably sourced, not contested by the subject and is not an allegation of wrong-doing. It is not against the law in the State of Delaware to own a laptop.

TFD (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

And who might you be accusing of forum shopping? OP was not around at the time of the September discussion or RfC. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources presented in the RFC clearly showed the key RSes split on the ownership, though there was far less dismissal about the possibility that the laptop could be Hunter's. As there is no universal agreement among the major sources, presenting it as fact in Wikivoice is inappropriate, but the new wording still captures the fundamental point. And the entire story around that laptop is a BLP matter, in addition to an AP2 matter. Masem (t) 23:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Masem Andre🚐 01:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Masem Particularly in the AP2 sphere, I'm sure there are statements which do not receive "universal agreement" from all RS, but are still presented as fact on Wikipedia. That's why we rely on the whole body of RS, and summarize what a majority of RS say. I believe the relevant policy is WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"

I'm not aware of any policy, generic or BLP-specific, that requires that something receive universal coverage by RS before we cover it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There isn't but we really should be thinking about this more. For something as controversial as the laptop story, it would be far better to wait to see how the long-term views of the topic are before we get too far in depth. We are not required to be up to the minute on the news, and we can avoid a lot of disruption (particularly in the AP2 area) by waiting to know the actual shape of what we want to write about instead of building that bicycle on the fly. Masem (t) 02:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thing is, in this case, we HAVE waited. The story broke over 2 years ago. It wasn't until 2021 that more RS started reporting the ownership as being hard to dispute (like Politifact and The Guardian), and only this year more RS are completing forensic analyses that further solidify that conclusion (like Washington Post and CBS). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

If there is still analysis of the laptop to the point that it remains unclear what any of it means or implies (ignoring the ramblings of Fox News as this being a smoking gun), then there is still a good reason to wait. You can still report on uncontested facts about the situation but any commentary or analysis remains too soon. Masem (t) 14:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree wholesale with that. That is a standard which has not typically been applied in the AP2 area. Particularly when covering the last US presidential administration, as soon as a multitude of RS came on board with a topic, or a particular analysis or assertion, it was publishable here. The relevant policy, again, is WP:DUE. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• You know, one day folks will realize that private conversations gleaned from a hacked PC of a private citizen, who never held or ran for office, should never have been presented in a newspaper for obvious political reasons, to start with. But then, that’s why the NYPost is a tabloid considered by WP “generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics”. If this citizen did something wrong, then prosecute him. Now, we have Musk claiming an “awesome” discovery that Twitter was a lobbying arm for the Dems, when it appears that they simply were following a Twitter policy of not allowing posting of hacked material – which I really wish people would respect. Otherwise, leave the citizen alone. I’m just glad I’m not related to a politician in these days of gotcha politics. Meanwhile, until there is a trial – or even a charge – let us soften the language. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  The material was not hacked - Twitter admitted that it was a mistake to suppress the story on those grounds. Hunter is a notable person, just like his brother Beau, Roger Clinton, Don Jr, Ron Jr, Chelsea Clinton, etc. There are many private citizens who become notable and therefore encyclopedic. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hacked has a fuzzy definition. It was private material of a private citizen published for political reasons by a political rag. Has Hunter been charged with a crime? Is anyone with the wrong surname fair game? Perhaps notable for the NYPost -- but for an encyclopedia? I didn't say delete the article. I said soften the language. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Hunter Biden is only a public figure because of many years of false allegations, ridiculous conspiracy theories, and smears by partisan opponents, including smears by the conservative morality police who arouse condemnation of his personal behavior. Otherwise he's a dime-a-dozen elite lawschool grad. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  I read over the Hunter Biden page. I didn't get the sense that he was a saint. Adult children (in the 21st century) of US presidents, due tend to get news media attention & thus become public figures. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Furthermore, there is no bright line between "private citizen who deserves privacy in their affairs" and "public figure who deserves scrutiny of their affairs". Running for office or not, is neither here nor there. Editorial judgement is required. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  We shouldn't take the stance that a public figure is one that deserves scrutiny, only that by being in the public spotlight, their affairs may become subject to scrutiny by reliable sources. Hunter Biden is a person that was a private figure that was suddenly thrust into the public view because of the NYPost article and subsequent followup by the Republicans, but that doesn't make him a public figure, for the purposes of WP:PUBLICFIGURE. That's the BLP caution that needs to be taken as these articles are written on WP. Masem (t) 13:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree Andre🚐 18:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Well this is getting kinda confusing. What kinda person is Hunter Biden? Is he somebody that can do no wrong & has done nothing wrong? or has he done questionable things? That seems to be the core of this entire editorial dispute about the guy, on Wikipedia. I've never met the guy, so somebody enlighten me. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

We say what RS say. But we have to take care not to accuse him of crimes or unethical behavior that there is no evidence to support. Andre🚐 18:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

To clarify. Stories about his having used drugs or having left his wife for his late brother's widow, were false. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I think he does have a history of drug addiction, but that doesn't come to us from the laptop that I know of.[1] Hunter Biden purchased a gun during a time in which he has now acknowledged he was struggling with drug addiction – an issue now under federal criminal investigation because federal law requires purchasers to attest that they aren’t users of or addicted to illegal drugs, CNN has reported. Federal prosecutors are weighing possible charges related tax violations and for making a false statement related to the gun purchase, CNN reported. See WP:BLPCRIME. Andre🚐 18:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to be sure, we weren't presenting him as a saint. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The Hunter Biden article clearly discusses the pending tax issue and the drug issues. So I don't even know why you think he's being presented as clean. Still, the Hunter Biden laptop hasn't led to any new or credible evidence of illegal or unethical activity. Andre🚐 19:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The H.Biden laptop's talkpage, is becoming a huge mess. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson The last section of this article "Democratic Party Criticism" is full of inaccuracies violating the policy on biographies of living persons. It says Hanson "supported the views of the QAnnon movement," which he never did, nor does he even know much about QAnon movement. We have no idea if QAnon agrees with him. But that is irrelevant. It would be like writing under the Democratic Party entry that it supports anti-Semitism of Al Sharpton, Talib, Omar because they are leading members of the Democratic Party. It says he "compares the Democratic Party to Joseph Stalin." Besides the problematic issue of comparing a country to a person, which Dr. Hanson never did, the article cited doesn't have any mention of Stalin in it. He said America is becoming Sovietized and pointed out the many similarities to the Soviet system. He never sought to "clear the attackers from the attack" on the Jan 6. Your editor also "Three days after Donald...stormed [sic] Capitol...." Dr. Hanson supported the Jan. 6 rioters. The article sited to document this was written an entire year later and the date is on the article. The last quote in that section -- ""revolutionaries seeking to overturn the history of the United States without going to the ballot box."-- is no quote at all from the article cited.

We had an assistant edit this entry out and Wikipedia locked him out for attempting to edit out the lies here.

We would like this section deleted from the article on Victor Davis Hanson so full as it is with inaccuracies, false accusations, mistakes and just simply lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:59C8:310B:FB10:2172:6E1C:15CD:727F (talk)

You are absolutely correct that some of this information is not reflected in the sources, and it appears another editor is already working to clean it up. However, you should know that Wikipedia has strict rules about conflict of interest, and editing pages of people you are associated with is not allowed. If you have any further issues, I suggest making a post on the article's talk page declaring your interest in the subject and suggesting specific changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Thebiguglyalien has it all correct. I initially removed the QAnon bit, but then the entire section, as it was entirely primary sources and no indication that it was due for inclusion. That said, yes, please declare if you have a conflict of interest regarding the article subject. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Christine Lagarde

I came across a posting at WP:NPOVN about the article for Christine Lagarde, and the use of convicted criminal in the first sentence of her article. The first sentence was Christine Madeleine Odette Lagarde ... is a convicted criminal, French politician, and .... I've revered the addition of convicted criminal in the first sentence, details are still in later part of the lead. I thought this more a BLP issue than NPOV one, so I've cross posted here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: The addition of the word "criminal" was recent vandalism. I have removed it from the heading later in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Leah McLaren

• Leah McLaren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any opinions on handling the sexual assault allegation that has been added to the article here? I had already removed these additions before semi-protecting the article on BLP grounds. My impression was that this would need reliable sourcing, and the cited blog post on Medium does not qualify per WP:MEDIUM. Thanks. 01:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Semiprotection was a good call. I agree with your reverts. Anybody can self-publish any accusation. That doesn't merit inclusion in Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm mixing two subjects together, but the similarities are 1:1

Does this imply that the "Sexual misconduct allegations" section on Elon Musk's page should be removed that is entirely based on one outlet Business Insider citing an anonymous source?

I have already made a thread on problems in the Elon Musk article here in Biographies_of_living_persons and the talk page is gigantic. Question is whether

" This page is being discussed at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, since it includes information related to a biography of a living person. Please discuss policy compliance issues there. "

should be added. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Business Insider is a (somewhat) reliable source reporting on the first-party allegation. That's not self-published. Medium is a self-published worked, which can never be used on BLP (per WP:BLPSPS) for controversial material. Masem (t) 03:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, self-published too, missed that one, thank you 130.225.188.128 (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Kristian G. Andersen

"The authors were criticized for failing to disclose potential conflicts of interest." This is defamatory. There were no undisclosed conflicts of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.182.145 (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing wrong with having a COI in and of itself, and nothing illegal about failing to disclose one, although it would probably get one criticism. However, that was not found anywhere in the cited source, and that is a problem, so I removed it. It also seemed really out of place, like it was just tossed in there after the fact. Possibly vandalism? I don't know because I didn't scan the history for when it was first added, but it has no context and I see no reason to have it in that particular spot even if there was a good source. Zaereth (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

What a terrible article. The bulk of it (i.e. COVID!) probably should be relegated to some of the bajillion other articles about COVID. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Mikkel Svane

Mikkel Svane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mr. Svane's former employer (who is my employer as well) Zendesk created this page in 2021 by disclosing a conflict of interest and submitting the page to Articles for Creation, where it was approved by @Nathan2055:. However, now the page prominently accuses Mr. Svane of covertly manipulating the page in violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use. I don't see any evidence of this and making unfounded accusations of misconduct so prominently on the page seems like a BLP violation itself?

However, separately, the notability of the page has been questioned for over a year. WP:BLPDELETE also applies, as the subject of the article has repeatedly tried to delete the page.[2][3] I think it needs to go to "Articles for Deletion" to get a consensus on whether he qualifies for a page anyway, but not sure if I am allowed to nominate it myself, due to my conflict of interest or does someone else need to start the nomination? Alisonmassie (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Alisonmassie: The page does not "prominently accuse Mr. Svane of covertly manipulating the page in violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use". The page bears a standard template indicating that "[the] article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments"; it does not accuse Mr. Svane himself of being the undisclosed paid editor. This template is clearly in error: the original author had disclosed his status at Zendesk long before this article was published. Therefore, it is a simple matter to just remove the {{undisclosed paid}} template, which I have done. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Alisonmassie: PS: regarding the page deletion: Mr Svane's own opinions on the existence of the page are not entirely relevant, unless the page exists solely to detract from his reputation. This page does not. It may well contain some incorrect information, and Mr Svane or any of his friends or associates are free to make edit requests at the article's talk page to correct the errors. But Mr Svane, as a former CEO of a major corporation who received a fair amount of press coverage for his leadership at Zendesk, clearly merits inclusion, in my opinion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Onjali Q Rauf

The section on 'Views'in the page Onjali Q Rauf with subsection 'Transgender People' is libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mule75 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The page is now locked. However, I think the part about the content of her speech at Woman's Place (which is still there) is also libellous. Mule75 (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Also 'sparked a backlash in the children's community' is nonsense - what even is the 'children's community'? Unsurprisingly there is no citation. This is just a person out to libel Ms Raúf. Mule75 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I removed the remaining content in that section, not because it was defamatory, but because the sources did not support it. General Ization ^Talk 19:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. I agree. Thank you. Mule75 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning non-notable non-public lover of family annihilator?

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.

---

I'm having a (short, civil, nothing daunting) discussion with @Jack Sebastian at Talk:Watts family murders#Watts' mistress' mention about including the full name of the lover. His argument is that she has been covered multiple times in RS over the years since the murders, which is true. In May People covered the release of a police interview she'd done several years ago and mentioned her name. (I'll let him comment if he thinks I've misstated his points.)

My concern is that she's not a public figure and most of the coverage (maybe all recent coverage?) has been involuntary. She's not doing interviews, she may have changed her name to avoid attention. The inclusion of her name IMO doesn't add anything for the reader, and I feel like it has the potential for doing harm to this living person. She's literally known only for a single event she wasn't actually even involved in. She was just the apparent motive, and knowing her name doesn't change that for the reader, so I don't see any benefit to including the name, vs. the huge potential for damage if we do include.

At any rate, we could use another set of eyes. Thanks! Valereee (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

If the person isn't notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, then naming them is absolutely pointless for the average reader. A name without a face is meaningless filler. It'd be just as meaningless if we called her Jane Doe, so unless there is an aricle to go look up there is no real value in including the name. This really goes for anybody, be it friends, family members, spouses, children, parents, coworkers, etc. Nobody knows these people, and the average reader just doesn't give a rat's ass. In these cases, a generic descriptor will work just fine.

In the case where naming the person has the potential to cause harm, we should definitely not name them. There is no reason to, but a good reason not to. Those friends and family members have a right to their privacy, and there is no overriding public need to know this name, then we should not name them. This is especially true for children, who cannot even consent. We shouldn't name victims of crimes, which would just victimize them more, and by the same token we shouldn't name someone's mistress or love affair unless the name is somehow vital for the reader to understand the story, and more than 99% of the time it's not. The argument that we should simply because it's found in reliable sources doesn't hold water. Just because we can doesn't explain why we should. We don't give all info provided by any source. We summarize the sources, which means cutting out all the unnecessary filler and whittling it down to the nitty gritty, and if there is no compelling reason to name someone then we should leave it out and use generic descriptors instead. Zaereth (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I would only consider including the name like that if it helps in the flow of prose, rather than excessive pronouns or generic titles. If you only need to mention the person once or twice, avoid the name at all costs. Basically in agreement with Zaereth's view. Masem (t) 23:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I was largely on the fence here, and am very glad that User:Valereee had sought to widen the circle on the discussion here. My concern is that, apart from an interview given to the Denver Post back in 2018, she has remained private. While that interview has been viewed as a PR spin, to try and cancel out the media's portrayal of her as some trampy mistress who set her boyfriend on a course towards murder, not a peep has been heard from her since. During the trial, Watts offered her up as the real murderer, which made her notable as more than just the girlfriend of a killer, but posited her as the killer herself. Of course, that was all legal, plan-b bs, but it is an other point of apparent notability.

She appears to be actively avoiding media scrutiny, and is - as Valereee stated, seeking to change her name to put her connection to this monstrous crime and, by several accounts, went into witness protection after the trial. And it needs to be stated that she doesn't appear to be trying to make bank off her 5-minutes of fame/notoriety (which imo would cancel out any concerns about naming her), which supports the argument of her relative non-notability.

I personally don't want to perpetuate any sort of media hounding of Ms. Kessenger, but we have to consider how we handle any BLP-related matters of this sort. We have to apply the same litmus for inclusion to her that we apply to everyone else peripherally related to a violent crime, right? I am glad for some guidance on this matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Typically we would want to actively avoid naming non-notable people who are peripherally related to a violent crime unless there is some good reason (that is, improves the reader's understanding of the subject) to do so. As Masem Zaereth points out above, calling her "Jane Doe" would provide exactly the same additional reader understanding of the event, so not a good reason to name her. Valereee (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I would vehemently oppose the use of 'Jane Doe' as a pseudonym for Ms. Kessenger, as the immediate connotation is usually that of either an unsub or an unidentified victim. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No one is suggesting we actually use Jane Doe. (For one thing, we'd only do that if RS used it, and they'd only do it because that's how she was identified in court documents.) We're just pointing out that using her name provides no additional understanding for the reader than using Jane Doe would. It's just a way to illustrate why we don't think including her name is useful to the reader. Valereee (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Would it be reasonable to mention her existence without naming her? That the person in question had a romantic interest on whom they tried to pin the crime may be a reasonable part of the narrative, but it doesn't mean we're forced to publish her personal information, including her name, if she is otherwise not someone notable enough to mention further. --Jayron32 14:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Her existence is mentioned. Valereee (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was - and reinforced by an interview that she herself gave.

For me, the entire matter pivots on that interview she gave to the Denver Post. She gave it to offer her thoughts on the murders and to try and distance herself from any involvement or wrongdoing. She involved herself in the process. I'd mentioned elsewhere that - for example - media allows for the exclusion of the children of American presidents...so long as they avoid the media. This is the difference between the differing levels of media coverage of Obama's children and trump's children, or Jimmy Carter's brother. Had Ms. Kessenger not been proposed as a potential suspect/co-suspect by the Watts defense lawyers, had she not given a self-serving interview, inserting herself into the circus, this would be a very simple matter. I get that we have something of a moral responsibility to protect people's privacy, but does our obligation to do so if the person sheds her own privacy, only to regret it later? The fact that she did so is reliably-sourced. She appears to have been the motive for the (unwitting and unknowing) murder itself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Jack, I agree with basically everything you say, and still think this is not a BLP violation for all those reasons. But at the same time, I still come back to valereee's threshold question of what is gained by including the name? As far as I can see, nothing at all. Combine that with the possibility of harm, and it becomes an easy decision for me. Were there some real utility in the article, I think you would have a compelling case, but I am not seeing that--though, as ever, reasonable minds may differ on the matter. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

She appears to have been the motive for the (unwitting and unknowing) murder itself. But how does her name add anything to that fact? Valereee (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

We're not here to play "gotcha" with people, as though by giving the one interview, she suddenly forfeits all rights to being respected. We should not go out of our way to identify otherwise private people (even if their name is known through public sources); quite the opposite, we should go out-of-our way to let private people have their privacy if they are not otherwise notable and where their name serves no additional informational purpose other than mere identification. Playing the "she gave one interview one time, and so now she's fair game" is unseemly, and also besides the point. --Jayron32 16:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, Jayron - the intent of my posted arguments aren't an attempt at 'gotcha'; the issue is that she opened the door to that media attention, just like Eric Trump, Chelsea Clinton, Richard Jewell and Linda Tripp. This isn't punitive; its encyclopedic. My issue isn't this issue; it's the dozen or so other situations that will emerge.

I'd also point out that the edit-warring at the article by User:Valeree needs to stop immediately; it is corrosive to collaborative editing and presumptive of the discussion outcome. Calling the inclusion a BLPvio when virtually everyone here has stated otherwise is disingenuous. We need to use the system in place to resolve the problem; Valeree's actions are only serving to muddy the discussion waters and quite possibly earn them a block for tendentious editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Jack, can you point to another editor who thinks the name should be included? The ONUS, as has been mentioned, is on you to establish consensus for inclusion. Dumuzid (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The level of public-ness of someone like Eric Trump is not under question here, and is irrelevant to this discussion. You can't name an obviously public figures who have lived their lives in the spotlight and then say "see, that's the same as this woman who got frustrated with not being left alone, and gave an interview one time to try to set the record straight." That's a total false equivalence. Also, and I cannot stress this enough, literally no comparison to any other person makes any difference here. Every case is unique, and should be weighed against the facts of that one case and against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bringing up any other topic is irrelevant here. --Jayron32 15:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Dmuzid, I wasn't the one who added the name. And the arguments I've seen here seem to suggest that both positions make valid points; I will again point out that there is a - a significant RS that mentions her by name, and she contributed to that pile of RS, and b - it was stated from the beginning that whatever choice is made will send ripples through BLP articles; I want to ensure that we are all on the same page, as we will all undoubtedly end up running into these sorts of issues again. - 17:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Jack Sebastian (talk)

Jack, I am certainly one of those editors who thinks there are valid points on both sides here; that does not, however, equate to ambivalence on inclusion. It looks to me like a clear emerging consensus that the name not be included. Moreover, even though I agree with you that this is not a BLP violation, multiple good faith editors disagree with us on that. I think given that and WP:ONUS, removal for at least the short term is warranted. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Once they give an interview under their own name (not anonymously) with informed consent the presumption of privacy goes out the window. I'd lean towards not including on due weight grounds (most sources don't seem to name them) but the privacy issue is open and shut. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree with the undue weight argument, but she's not mentioned but once. If we choose to remove a person's name who was peripherally involved in a violent crime, but later gave an interview about her involvement, and later decided to shed her own name-changed identity to write to her former boyfriend (aka, the convicted murderer), how do we evaluate her privacy then? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Meh. People give interviews because if they don't, social media speculates about their possible involvement. I'd argue a single interveiw can be purely defensive and not a toggle switch that makes them a public figure. The second interview...yeah, that's probably inviting attention. Valereee (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, you should feel free to offer a reliable source as to her motives for giving a paid exclusive interview with the Denver Post. If you jump into the waters of public opinion, you are going to get wet. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Jack, you keep inserting things above previous responses. They should be inserted after previous responses. Valereee (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• The notion that speaking to a reporter once about a horrific crime means that the presumption of privacy goes out the window is ludicrous here on Wikipedia. There is no reason to mention that name, many reasons not to, and I agree with Valereee that doing so is a BLP violation. Speculating about a block for tendentious editing is way out of line. The name is not going to remain in that article. I advise Jack Sebastian to drop the stick and move on. Cullen328 (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is an extreme example (perhaps the most extreme I've ever seen) but whatever rule we have has to apply universally. Interviews given with informed consent to the press or academia under your own name make you fair game. If someone didn't want to seek publicity they could give them anonymously, give them semi-anonymously, give them off the record, or not give them at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  HEB, that's a pretty extreme interpretation of what an interview means when not giving one on the record means the media is still camped on your front door and twitter is still speculating that you may have been an accomplice. We're expecting someone to balance "if I give an interview, at least my story will be out there, but my name will forever and ever be included in the WP rticle about this hideous crime." Valereee (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  The media is going to camp out and twitter is going to speculate regardless, defensive PR is still PR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Again, meh. I don't think we should be naming people caught up in something like this for the simple reason they gave a single interview. That feels punitive. Valereee (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  99% of cases in this class are not "something like this." If we want to discuss making violent crime an exception we can but this particular example is not representative of the larger issue. Also again we are in agreement on whether or not to include the person's name in the article, we just disagree on why. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Well, yeah. If this were about Polly Parker's album release and someone was mentioning her non-notable friend Josie Jones as someone she had collaborated with, and Josie had done an interview about it to clarify that she didn't actually have a role, I wouldn't be concerned. This is a hideous crime, and this woman was for the perpetrator the apparent motive. I almost can't imagine something more nightmarish than to be in this situation. Valereee (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, there's an element of "willfulness" that is missing from this, for me. Now, I don't believe anyone forced the person in question to participate in the interview, but there is no doubt she was being sought out and was thrust into the spotlight not of her own accord. As with most things, I don't think we can apply a hard and fast rule here, and I trust the wisdom of consensus to judge on a case-by-case basis. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is where our role as compassionate people crafting a dispassionate encyclopedia becomes so difficult. Some say that is the hardest part of editing and a balance that is struck in the heart rather than in policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  I concur with Cullen. We shouldn't publish the name of a private individual who was tangentially connected to a notable incident, both as a matter of policy (WP:BLPNAME) and as a matter of human decency; by naming her, the Wikipedia article is likely to be one of the first results for anyone searching her name, and remain so for a long time after the incident fades into memory. The whole point of BLP is to prevent that kind of harm. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  +1, I won't repeat them but I agree with all of Cullen and HJ's comments above. Levivich (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Would opinions vary greatly if the subject of this discussion chose to shed that anonymity by writing to the former boyfriend - aka the convicted multiple murderer? Our policy to protect people's anonymity only should apply to those who don't selectively utilize it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  It might change my opinion if I thought the name added anything to the article. But as far as I can tell, it does not. Therefore no change here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Not mine. Why add useless information to an article? I mean, I can find a source that says capacitors were used on the space shuttles. Does that warrant mention in the capacitor article? Of course not, because they're used on everything and we don't have room to list everything, nor is that the purpose of an encyclopedia. We are here to provide a summary of all knowledge, not all knowledge, and the very nature of summarizing means cutting out all the trivia and non-helpful stuff out, and giving the main points as quickly and efficiently as possible. What good reason is there that this should be in the article, and why is it so important to you? Zaereth (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, I have practically zero interest in the article or the former Ms. Kessenger. What I am concerned about is that when we have multiple RS mentions of a person, do we opt to give them anonymity when they are not directly involved in the event? Is it a matter of triviality or notability? I am asking because - as I have repeatedly stated - this is going to come up. A lot. And knowing where we fall on this issue is kinda important. And I'd point out that we are considering mentioning her name when she remains in the news, apparently choosing to discard that anonymity. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

If you think an RfC is needed about whether giving an interview turns a non-notable person into a public figure for purposes of being mentioned by name in articles about subjects where they were peripherally involved, you could start one. Valereee (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Linking the Daily Mail to support a statement about a living person does not help your case, that's just not respectful of this noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Mail says one of Chris Watts' fellow inmates said so? No. But even if the NYT were reporting it, how does her name add to the reader's understanding of the subject? And how does her writing to him somehow shed her anonymity? That just feels punitive to me. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

How, precisely, are punishing her for her choice to discard her anonymity?

And it bears mentioning again that I am cool with whatever you guys choose to decide, but you have to spell out how it fits a certain policy/guideline for inclusion or exclusion. I have no dog in this fight, except for a better understanding how to apply the decisions we collectively make here to other BLP articles? Where is the line for providing privacy to someone who alternately uses it as a shield before discarding it at their convenience? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Being mentioned as the lover in an article about a man who killed his entire family because he wanted to be with his lover is a negative outcome. Doing it because she gave a single interview to me feels like she is being punished for giving that interview.

If you think more clarity is needed, start an RfC, per my comment above. Valereee (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Jack, I think this is where we're talking past one another a bit. For some people here, this is a straight BLP issue, and fair enough. That's a clear enough policy. But for me, and it seems like some others, we're talking more about editorial discretion. There are certainly things that would fit guidelines and policies and yet not improve an article. The question for me here is a balancing test between possible harm to the person in question and benefit to the article. Since I see nothing on the latter side, the judgment call is an easy one for me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Their name is unnecessary in understanding the situation and the person is pretty much a low profile individual. So keep it out per WP: NPF. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

So, as I sift through the opinions offered, this sort of situation would seem to be governed by NPF and editorial discretion as to the application of guidelines regarding this. Fair enough. This is why I suggested in article discussion that Valereee initiate discussion here, to widen the circle of opinion. Apart from some assumptions that I had some ulterior motives, some really good opinions were offered. Thanks for those. I can utilize them should this sort of situation recur.

TL;dr - It seems that the consensus is leaning hard into not mentioning the girlfriend by name due to NPF, and not BLPvio (which it isn't if she doesn't use that name anymore). Further, as a summary of knowledge, and not the knowledge itself, we don't need to mention it, as interested readers can explore and discover for themselves her name and the particulars of the subject. Is that a fair assessment? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree that the clear consensus is not to mention her. I think there's clear consensus that one of the reasons is that her name isn't important to the reader's understanding. I don't think there's consensus that this isn't a BLP issue, there are varying opinions on that. Ditto whether she's a non-public figure or not, there is some variance in opinion on that. But consensus not to mention, yes. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe learn how to quit while you're ahead, V. She's changed her name, so using her former name isn't a BLPvio, and apart from using The Force, there isn't anything to support that belief, and even less support for edit-warring that viewpoint into a false emergency. I agree that the article doesn't require her name for understanding, and those readers who want more can explore the links. That's' the policy/guideline on point, as it has purpose for other BLP's beyond this conversation/sitch - again, the sole point of my involvement in the matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there a policy or some such that says using a former name wouldn't be a BLP violation? I'm not aware, but that could 100% be my own ignorance. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it's not a case of either or. That's a false dilemma fallacy related to affirming the disjunct. I'd say it's a violation of BLP policy, in particular BLPNAME and BLPPRIVACY, unless there is some good, compelling reason that the name should be included because the reader needs it to understand the story. As the SPJ would say (and I wish more news agencies would follow these ethics):

"1.) Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness. 2.) Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information. 3.) Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do. 4.) Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges. 5.) Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate. 6.) Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment."

Beyond any policies or code of ethics, it really just goes to basic human decency towards our fellow human beings. We shouldn't publish things just because we can. There should be some reason why we should. Zaereth (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid, not that I'm aware of (apart from deadname, of course). There are many editors here that probably know that policy better, and I hope they'll chime in, but I'm struggling to come up with a reason why it would make any difference. Valereee (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, there isn't. But I think that the fact that she changed her name, moved away and - apart from apparently writing her ex-boyfriend in prison, has avoided revealing anything else about herself. All we were discussing including was that information which was already publicly given through RS. That doesn't scream BLP violation to me at all; at best, it was a judgment call, and certainly not edit-warring against good practices to call it a BLPvio. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't actually know that she's changed her name, and even if she did, I'm not aware that would in any way affect whether or not naming her is a BLPvio. Again, I think you're misunderstanding how seriously WP takes BLP. Not sure what apart from using The Force, there isn't anything to support that belief means, but a potential BLP violation is actually one of the few things considered urgent on WP. That's why there's a 3RR exemption. Valereee (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

We actually do, though. There is a source at the time that says she was changing her name back in '20, and a recent source that states that she revealed her new name to the murderer in a letter. So that is a dead-end path. And please, do us both the kindness of not schooling me on matters of BLP; I'm particularly aware of them. It is not a BLPvio to report their RS-noted name, and even less so since these same sources report that the name was indeed changed. Stop beating a dead horse. The matter was settled on something else entirely. I have no problem helping you understand a policy, but I've already explained it thrice. I think we are done here. Go find something to edit and fidn another windmill to tilt at. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Diffs? Sources? And yes, even if something is reported in RS, we may decide not to include per BLP. Again I think you are misunderstanding the importance of BLP. We try to be very careful because these are real, live, breathing people who can be harmed in real life. Valereee (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Shlomo Rechnitz

This Wikipedia entry is about a living person. At some point in the past, a lot of contentious (and possibly libelous) material about companies associated with the person was added. I became involved with the entry because the person was mentioned in a story I was working on and I found his Wiki page. I discovered that the material was not about the man, but about his company.

Much of the material appeared to be hearsay. One of the references was from a Union that was attacking the man. "Video: How Brius nursing home tycoon Shlomo Rechnitz bilks seniors, taxpayers". National Union of Healthcare Workers. Retrieved February 23, 2021. I considered that this was bad for Wikipedia, which is being used as an attack on the man.

I first removed that material (in June 2021) and it was immediately reinstated by another user, Smntstatus. Smntstatus was trying very hard to retain this damaging information.

I had a lot of things going on, so I didn't have time to do more until recently, when I tried again. This time, I removed only a small part. Smntstatus has reverted my removal, and has ignored the logic set out above and in the Talk page.

Also, to try to stop me cleaning up with Wiki entry, Smntstatus is accusing me of being paid by the subject of the page. - this is a ridiculous lie. I don't know Rechnitz, have never contacted him and I am not being paid to do anything.

All I know is that this BLP entry is a hatchet job to blacken the name of Shlomo Rechnitz and it should not be in Wikipedia. I don't really want to be doing this, but this entry is a stain on Wikipedia and by Wikipedia's own rules, these unfounded allegations should not be included in a BLP.

After some investigation, I think I know why Smntstatus is trying to hurt this man. (but unlike the way he is trying to hurt me, I won't say unless pressed) What I'm trying to do is to maintain the quality and value of Wikipedia.

I believe the whole "Controversies" section about Brius should be removed. The rest of it should be labeled "Religious Views" and that section should be lowered on the page. Someone else can decide if this section should be included in Wikipedia.

I decided I would try removing one Brius paragraph at a time, starting with the most obvious allegation that was a lie. I wanted to see what Smntstatus would do, and I wasn't disappointed, he ignored all of my research because he is trying to inflict pain on the person.

Here is the gist of a small paragraph that I just tried to delete: The whole paragraph is about a company apparently "overpaying" related companies. This was documented by mainstream media - but they never followed up to say they got it wrong when the Auditor proved them wrong in 2020.

Eventually, the State of California had the state auditor review the case. The state auditor said the allegations were all a lie, that the payments were normal, and the Medicare program was not caused to overpay. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/31/brius-nursing-home/

So I removed that paragraph and all my findings are listed in the Talk page. Smntstatus wants the lies and allegations to remain and he reversed the removal. He is being unreasonable and will not discuss it.

I am requesting help with improving this Wikipedia entry, because I expect Smntstatus will attack anything I do here, even though it is documented.

--Photoloop (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I have removed some items in the controversies section that doesn't satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE assuming that he is one. However, I have not had a chance to look at the Brius accusations and whether they represent what RS say about it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Is four years enough time elapsed to remove a possible undisclosed payments template? Is there much justification for keeping it there? Tristario (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I kind of feel like it should stay until someone goes through the page and fixes whatever the UPE may have done? Valereee (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going through and removing items based on weak sources. However, a lot of the positive items are sourced to different Jewish press sources, and I am unfamiliar with their reputation and standing to evaluate them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Two items: One is that the article should reflect what RS say about Rechnitz and you should not be removing things just because you conclude they got it wrong or have not updated the situation appropriately. Second, is your edit conflicts with Smntstatus on this article extend back at least a year. This person is also reverting without discussion on another issue so I have given them a warning for disruptive editing in ignoring WP:BLPUNDEL and notified them about this discussion. [4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I have made several revisions to condense the section and maintain WP:BLPBALANCE. Photoloop, I don't agree with removing the Brius controversy based on your interpretation of what the auditor said. Instead, it is appropriate to add what she said at the end of the relevant paragraph on related party transactions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Cathy Areu

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

The subject currently has a very brief biography. The lead section is one sentence, name nationality, occupation per MOSBIO. The subject was recently arrested. The arrest information was added to the lead section and the body. I would leave it out of the lead section for now until the case is resolved and we can determine how much weight should be given compared to the rest of her bio. I have started a talk page discussion. Another editor believes it belongs in the lead. Other input would help, thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Patrick Shyu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Shyu Patrick Shyu

The article doxxes a YouTuber "TechLead," who is a fictional satirical YouTuber persona, not to be confused with the individual. The article is primarily a negative hit piece. The YouTuber "TechLead" is a fictional character who makes exaagerated claims based not on fact to gain attention. It is libel to take unbased claims from a fictional character and to then attribute them to a doxxed individual. Wikipedia should leave YouTuber drama to YouTube, rather than assuming everything they see on social media is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techleadhd (talk • contribs)

• There is no "doxxing" since reliable sources already identify this character by his real name. I see this article is now at AfD, so may be deleted. As a general observation, it's amazing how many times people complain when called out on their unpleasant behaviour, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
• Patrick Shyu identifies himself as TechLead on his personal websites offering training courses: [5] [6] [7]. Note that the bio on each page links to the YouTube channel in question without mentioning anything about satire, and the YouTube page links to Shyu's business pages without any mention of satire either. I don't think the "fictional character" explanation holds weight, personally. White 720 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  Clickbait videos on YouTube should not be presumed to be fact, especially when published under a pseudonym. I think Wikipedia should draw a line here, instead of publishing articles based on clickbait. "TechLead" is a fictional character who intentionally presents controversial viewpoints for attention & discussion - not to be confused with any individual person. Also, the article seems to only cherrypick negative points - I don't see the purpose of this, as it is clearly not biographical or unbiased in nature, but rather serves as a hitpiece to defame/harm a YouTuber's real name & reputation. YouTubers have a lot of haters by the nature of the industry, but Wikipedia should leave YouTuber drama to YouTube. When there are real factual news publications (such as Reuters, AP, Bloomberg, etc.,) and not gossip publications (like Business Insider) that publish fact-checked articles about a YouTuber, then a non-biased biographical entry may be merited that properly summarizes both the pros & cons of an individual. It's stunning that even though the YouTuber "TechLead" amassed popularity to over 1 million subscribers by delivering value, the Wikipedia entry is almost entirely negative remarks on a 2-3 controversial videos out of the 300+ videos he made - obviously written by haters in an attempt to cause personal harm & harassment. Techleadhd (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  Then he should discuss that with youtube, we can't ignore the information cause he doesn't like it. Are you the individual? You were also asked at the AfD discussion if you have some relation to the subject of the article, given the similar user name.That is a conflict of interest if you are. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Techleadhd stated on his user talk page that he is associated with the content creator. Exactly how wasn't divulged. But a clear COI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

To be transparent, I am the person in question and am raising the concern that this article destroys my chances of job employment & future prospects. The YouTube channel is published under a pseudonym as a fictitious persona. This is done in order to disassociate the satire, attention-grabbing clickbait, and controversial topics that I sometimes challenge myself to approach on YouTube from my real identity. I think it would be more accurate to publish this post under the pseudonym "TechLead," rather than attributing a fictional persona with my real name. At the minimum, it should be clarified that this is just an on-stage character and his words do not necessarily reflect my own personal beliefs. I don't believe it is a conflict of interest to correct the misconception that a YouTuber character = real person. This is obvious for anyone who has ever met a YouTuber, as they're quite different people in real life and often "normal" and pretty nice people. I'm astonished to see someone who didn't get the satire (which is understandable as it can be subtle) but to then publish a Wikipedia article about that under my real name. Techleadhd (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If this is so concerning for you, why do you make it clear that Techlead and Shyu are the same person on various webpages, e.g. here? I am thinking we are dealing with a troll here. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The page you're referring to is a training program, where I break out of character and refer to myself by my real name. The content is also entirely different and educational, compared to the satire & clickbait on YouTube. It is like saying "Heath Ledger is 'The Joker' and in this program will teach you how to become an actor." Let me summarize my points:

• There is a difference between author and fictional character. Most YouTube videos are authored & acted by the same person due to budget constraints. I play the fictional character "TechLead," acting as a highly exaggerated version of myself, hence the pseudonym. On rare occasion, I will break out of character but it is simply inaccurate to think that these 2 are the same people, and to claim for example that "Heath Ledger said he wanted to bomb a hospital." TechLead is a show about a stereotypical arrogant "tech bro" character, where every line is scripted. It is subtle like a reality show but generally fictional in nature.
• Wikipedia should leave YouTuber drama to YouTube. The defamatory claims against 'TechLead' are often made by other clout-chasing YouTubers who will say anything to gain views. It is a world of clickbait. Under the clause of "non-notable person," the article should be removed because most YouTubers are really not notable and only relevant for their 15 minutes of fame.
• The article breaks NPOV (non-biased point of view) clause. It is obviously written by a few "haters" in negative light. This is clear because the article constantly refers to 'Patrick Shyu,' rather than 'TechLead' in an effort to defame. If the article were trying to be useful & informative, it would be titled under the more commonly recognized YouTube channel "TechLead." Further, the article is nearly purely negative yet the channel clearly has demonstrated popularity with over 1 million subscribers. It cherrypicks a few unbased allegations made by other YouTubers & gossip, but with no real factual sources. The article is clearly non-neutral and serves no other purpose than to harass & defame.

YouTubers are pretty nice & kind people in real life, not over-the-top characters as portrayed on-camera. They typically don't respond to 'hate' because haters are part of the industry. I believe a line is crossed when that hate shows up on Wikipedia and breaks the fictional character reaching into real identities, as that can cause reputational harm. Techleadhd (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "reputational harm" does tend to occur if you post multiple misogynistic comments on Twitter for the whole world to read. Who knew? Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

To provide context, the tweets were deleted and apologized for. The Wikipedia article never mentions this. The original intent of the tweet was that "women should not be programmers," but this was misinterpreted to think that women were the problem, rather than the programming industry being the problem. In reality, it was a "clickbaity" way to support women by drawing attention to how hostile the programming industry is towards mothers (and fathers too). A reworded tweet "the programming industry doesn't do enough for mothers" wouldn't have gained as much attention. The fictional character name is used for such controversial remarks (and oftentimes with exaagerated prose) to start a discussion, though I would never even approach such a topic under my real name. Historically, authors would often pose controversial ideas expressed through fictional characters, and through that achieve positive change in society. Therefore in reality I actually heavily support women in tech, although this viewpoint is narratively reversed in the "TechLead" character to make a point about how tech does not support mothers enough. Politics aside, I believe Wikipedia to not be the platform to memorialize clickbait. Techleadhd (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It's clear that your tweets about women in tech were deleted, but not as clear that you apologized for them. (To the contrary, this news article says that you pushed back against your critics, telling them to "get into Google first" before calling you sexist.) Do you have a self-published or reliable third-party source that contains your apology? Also, is your Twitter account written by you, or is it by the supposed fictional character "TechLead"? White 720 (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

On a general level, I don't believe Wikipedia should be the platform on which to debate YouTubers on the validity of clickbait, and to demand for clickbait to be explained to them or suffer the repercussions of having it associated with their doxxed real names. Obviously, even Wikipedia editors use pseudonyms and understandably many people separate identities online. The Twitter account for TechLead is also made as such, and it should be clear that in many cases it isn't even always a single person behind an account or the script of a video. Many YouTubers use ghost-writers who help with scripts. TechLead is a fictional character operated under an LLC - an exaagerated character made to gain views. While many do not realize, YouTube is more of a business entity and not an individual.

Now regarding your question specifically, that article is from Business Insider, which is not the most reputable reporting. They are also in it for views. If you're seeking another apology, I am happy to issue an official one right here on behalf of the character "TechLead is sorry and retracts all statements." The "get into Google first" phrase was subtle satire, perhaps a poorly made joke whose tone could not be understood through text alone, but it was sarcasm. Twitter is not the most expressive platform. In either case, whether you accept the apology or not on an individual level, I believe Wikipedia should (a) not associate YouTuber characters with real identities and (b) should not be the place to debate whether clickbait is real or not, instead relying on harder facts. Techleadhd (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

"To provide context, the tweets were deleted and apologized for," you said. I asked where your apology was, and you offered a retraction without any indication about what you were sorry for, other than for "all statements". Considering that the TechLead character (which I associate with you, whether you like it or not) posted a video last month called "why Kanye West is right", which has been condemned for its antisemitic material and suggestion that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion might be real, I'm not really ready to accept a generic apology offered in a Wikipedia thread. White 720 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the "Kanye West is right" video, it was actually an attempt to dispel anti-Semitism by exploring extremist beliefs more deeply rather than simply casting them aside. Why do they believe what they do, and how can we address those at the source? The original working title was a less juicy "Is Kanye West right?" but that wouldn't have gotten views. The video was later removed in any case. I occasionally challenge myself to tackle controversial topics - not all of them come out well but occasionally some do. The material is published under a fictional character, often in an outlandish tone of voice. While you may believe that the content is anti-Semitical (from the clickbaity title), it is actually the opposite in intent. Some of the material simply presents a counterpoint for perspective, and may not reflect my own personal beliefs. I'm not sure if it makes sense for me to sit here and explain each video and the satire underneath... happy to do so if you want though.

Your statement above seems to indicate a non-neutral point of view, as you harbor negative opinions for TechLead and are using Wikipedia as a way to punish by misattributing the fictional character's statements to a real person. Your refusal to accept an apology indicates you rather believe what you want (ie., that TechLead is a horrible person), even though he has clarified these statements. On that note, the other points in the article are mistaken too. For instance, the AlgoPro episode was amicably settled privately and much more complex (only one side was ever told). The Tren Black criticism on the online course was mostly made up, as he never even enrolled in the course. Many points in the article are simply untrue or lack full context. Most YouTubers generally don't respond to haters, who are usually chasing clout.

My suggestion would be if you have an issue with the character, to make a few videos on YouTube criticizing the character 'TechLead.' Doing this on Wikipedia and attacking the doxxed name seems an inappropriate use of the platform. Techleadhd (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Casting aspersions on an editor's behavior, such as by stating without evidence that I "harbor negative opinions for TechLead", is discouraged by Wikipedia policy. If you would like to include additional information in the article about you, and a conflict of interest would interfere with that, please suggest revisions and sources on the article's talk page. White 720 (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Why are are you discussing a clickbait headline "Kanye West is right"? Right in which regard? This is insane.

I'm not sure if I get this right. But I don't hope that you are defaming him on the basis of headlines. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. The page is outrageous.

@Tristario has also expressed grounds for removal, given the contentious nature and weak claims, and I would appreciate if we can have this page removed. Techleadhd (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand that it would be frustrating dealing with a page describing you on wikipedia which you think is problematic, but it is probably better to avoid using words like "outrageous" in order to keep the discussion civil.

As it is the discussion for deletion was closed as a consensus to keep. In my view, I think the article should have been deleted, but since that discussion has been closed the article will have to stay for now. Perhaps after about six months, (the recommended time to wait) I can try renominating the article for deletion, and it can be seen if the community comes to a different consensus.

I'll have a look at the article more thoroughly (sometime soon) and see if I think the sourcing is good enough for the more contentious parts. Besides that, if you can provide a self-published source (a blog post, video, tweet etc.) perhaps apologising or giving clarity to these things (per WP:BLP if a subject has denied something that should be included in the article, and it can be a self published source) that could also be included in the article Tristario (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your attention. I'm not sure why the discussion for deletion was closed, but in my view the author is one of my YouTube critics who wouldn't let the issue rest. You can find a video with context on this Wikipedia article here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQQT6r0qQIg. I have noted my view that this is defamation and that the doxxing/attribution of my name with a fictitious online persona damges my reputation & chances of employment. Techleadhd (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a look at that video soon. I would strongly discourage you from making aspersions about wikpedia editors like that though per WP:ASPERSIONS (ultimately their motivations for making the article are irrelevant, anyway, the question is whether it complies with wikipedia policy). Tristario (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, deletion discussions are usually closed after about seven days, which is why it was closed Tristario (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem!

The worst part of your thread and some other threads here is that some of the users

completely fail to take a conservative approach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy."

They actively defend what is written in any regard. I understand that ... if it isn't about

the entire reputation of a person. But when a person's entire reputation is at stake, including carriere, etc. - you gotta be very, very careful. You just can't find the slightest amount of humbleness or conservativeness in their approach in some of these cases. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing for those tweets isn't very strong, Business Insider isn't always a great source, and on the reliable sources noticeboard here there are some mixed views on The Quint, with some suggestion that it shouldn't be used for notability. Some of the other sources in that article also seem of questionable reliability, such as Candor and Reclaim the Net.

So I think given the contentiousness of the claims and the weak sourcing, there do seem to be grounds for removing some or all of this content from the article Tristario (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I've had a very hard time following what this discussion is all about. It starts out talking about doxxing the subject and his pseudonym, yet that makes no sense since nearly every source makes it clear that the two are the same person. The subject doesn't seem to have gone to any great lengths to hide it, and in fact seems to have made it as obvious as possible. Then there is a lot (and I mean a lot) of talk about how the pseudonym is simply a fictional character, yet that sounds a little after the fact given that none of the sources make that distinction, and normally they would. (And if I read the word "clickbait" one more time my eyes are going to glaze back over and I may just turn to stone. We get it already.)

I've read the sources about the tweets, and those look like well-written news articles. Not op/ed pieces or tabloidish in any way. It appears they've done their research. Given the number of sources, I have a hard time foreseeing this getting through AFD. (Personally, I think we need much higher standards, but there are many who think every article should be saved as if it were a drowning puppy, and they like to hang out at AFD) All in all, though, I find this whole thread to be confusing and I'm not sure just what the complaints are. If you are the subject and think you're being treated unfairly or misrepresented in the media, why not simply contact them and try to set the record straight. I'm sure they'd be happy to give you an interview. Since we go by what the sources say, that's the best way to effect change in your Wikipedia article. That's what any good PR rep would tell you. Zaereth (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. To clarify, while it's not exactly a secret who the actor for "TechLead" is, the actor & character are really different people. "TechLead" (the YouTube character) is portrayed as an exaagerated persona with extreme/controversial beliefs made for YouTube. This is not the same as the real-life actor "Patrick Shyu," who may not even share the exact same beliefs. I believe the Wikipedia article, should at minimum, be titled as "TechLead (YouTuber)" rather than under my personal name. My personal name is also never referred to in the YouTube videos, because I am "in character" on there.

As for engaging with the Wikipedia writer, I'm happy to have a conversation (my contact information is online easily) and await any correspondence. Our deletion discussion seems to have led to a standstill, and so some moderation may be appropriate. Techleadhd (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I don't think you're quite picking up what I'm putting down. Nearly every source, from the first NBC article to the last, use your real name and Tech Lead as the name of your youtube channel. We have to summarize what the sources say, so we can't just turn around and make this novel interpretation that Tech Lead is now some fictional character. We need to find that information in reliable sources. If you're the subject of the article, then you and you alone have the power to influence how you are portrayed in those sources, or to set the record straight with them. If I were you, I'd contact Business Insider, Candor, NBC, or whoever, and see if they would like to get your side of the story. I'm betting they would. You can also use your youtube channel to help, such as putting in a disclaimer or talking about it in one of your videos, because it's apparently not clear to people watching them. That in turn may be picked up by reliable sources. Having a conversation with a Wikipedian would not help, because that would be original research at best, and as a tertiary source we just don't do that. We're bound by what the secondary sources say. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

So to respond, for about 90% of the videos, I'm in-character. It's a running joke and my longtime viewers know it's all subtle satire comedy, and I'm not really like that in real life. As others in this thread have noted, the sources here are not really reputable... Business Insider or Candor publish a lot of gossip, and they confused "TechLead" for a real person. A lot of these journalists can't tell the difference. I think the Wikipedia page is also fairly negative (non-neutral) and in that sense an inaccurate portrayal. To me, it's obvious that this is trying to harm reputation because the article is published under my real name rather than the more commonly recognized "TechLead (YouTuber)" title.

I should clarify here that I'm just a normal individual programmer who started a YouTube channel. I'm just one person, don't have a PR rep. I was surprised to find someone writing my biography on here, apparently misthinking that this "character" I created is now myself! When most people meet me in real life, they always say "wow you're much less crazy than I thought you'd be." Well yeah, because I'm usually "in character" on YouTube. It's all been for fun, sad to see this article now impact my employment chances and tarnish my name. Techleadhd (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The YouTube video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQQT6r0qQIg&t=473s clarifies this distinction between character & actor, from the source. Techleadhd (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I cited your video to note that you identify your posts as satirical. I don't hate you and I have no intention of harming your reputation; to the contrary, your success as a media personality makes you notable enough to merit an article, in my opinion (and in the consensus of other editors, at Articles for Deletion). If you'd like to continue this conversation, we can do so using this site's community features. If you believe that there is libelous content in the article about you, see the instructions in WP:LIBEL. White 720 (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me address the article.

• The page should be titled "TechLead (YouTuber)". For most YouTubers like Pewdiepie, their stagename is used in their Wikipedia. It is more precise to say "TechLead is acted by Patrick Shyu," rather than to say "Patrick Shyu, also known as TechLead." The reason is because TechLead is just a very, very small part of my identity - it captures about 1% of my life actually, since YouTube is something I do for fun. For this reason, I think it's simply erroneous to title this page under my name since this persona does not capture me as a person, nor is it representative. TechLead's views are satirical & controversial by design, this should be clarified to avoid libelous claims.
• My salary at Facebook should be confidential information. While the numbers may have been referenced in a video on occasion, those are not exact figures and I think it just looks distasteful to keep re-mentioning it.
• I'm not actually negative about Facebook's working culture, in fact I praise it a lot in many other videos. Some videos are negative on Facebook, some videos praise them. At a time when being negative about Facebook was gaining a lot of media attention, it made more sense to play that angle. Overall, Facebook is a great place to work.
• Obviously I disagree that Million Token would be a "pump-and-dump," as explained in other videos, it is technically impossible to "dump" into one's own liquidity, which is the case at the launch of a token. Actually, much of the token was later generously given for free back into the community. And while liquidity was removed, plenty was added as well and in fact in UniswapV3, liquidity must be repositioned (it is only static in V2 typically), there's no other way to do it in V3.
• AlgoPro/AlgoExpert should preferably not be mentioned, as both parties settled privately and agreed on a non-disparagement clause. It's a done case. While the way this article is phrased makes me look bad, the case has been settled to all party's satisfaction. Leaving out that resolution just makes it sound negative.
• The "women in tech" tweet was satirical rage-baiting done "in-character" and the tweets deleted - this should be clarified ideally, I tweeted under the character name. Further, the article lacks significant context because my point was to actually gain attention to support mothers in tech, having witnessed a mother at Facebook quit her job because Facebook did not allow her maternity benefits. I saw her dreams shattered and so heavily support women in tech. The tweets were retracted in any case since people didn't understand.
• The "Diversity is garbage" videos did not oppose diversity, but rather supports diversity on axis beyond just race & gender.
• The "Black Lives Matter" videos were removed and retracted, but it's relevant to note that later the BLM movement was discredited for buying mansions.
• I did not threaten to doxx Tren Black, I simply knew his identity. The rest of the drama occurred between the other parties.
• Lastly, this article should at least mention the hundreds of positive life-changing videos in my opinion. This is why I find the entire page non-representative, since it seems to ignore all the highlights. My opinion is that TechLead is a positive influence on society, if you can understand the character and dig beyond just face-value. If you take him at face-value, you'll have a negative view. He's also not me.

Techleadhd (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll request that the page be moved to TechLead (currently a redirect) since there are no other pages with this name. I can make other edits in response to your changes. It would help if you could publish information independently, or work with press outlets to do this, as over-reliance on self-published sources is not generally accepted on Wikipedia, particularly for self-serving claims (my attempt to cite your own YouTube video was reverted for this reason). White 720 (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your conceding to move the page.

As for the accuracy of information, this is why I have suggested to simply leave "youtuber drama" to youtube, simply because it's all just drama & gossip ("pewdiepie said X, but he really meant Y, and then he said Z, then made a follow-up video saying W." There aren't hard facts because imo, it's just not really newsworthy hence why I think there's a case for the entire page to just be removed. The speculative criticism is a catalog of unbased allegations from viewers, for which the YouTuber never got a chance to respond. Techleadhd (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to add that I believe the article, as is, is of non-neutral POV and non-conservative - both of which are necessary for biographies of living people. In my view, a neutral article would capture the top 10 (or top 20) most popular videos and summarize them. You can easily find the list on TechLead's YouTube page, but his most popular video includes lessons on how to code, passive income, or stories on dealing with a fictional ex-wife (loosely based on real life). For any criticism, it would make sense to also sort any reaction videos by popularity. From my perspective, the Wikipedia author has cherrypicked a few minor points of criticism and made an entire Wikipedia biography based on that. It's non-representative of who the character is. I understand that while some Tweets or videos may have gotten a few thousand views, that is not exactly newsworthy nor necessarily should every piece of criticism be engraved on a Wikipedia biography. People have varying views of YouTubers (and the truth is even I myself quite dislike the arrogance of this character "TechLead"), but he is quite popular as well and imo the reasons for this popularity should be the bulk of the article, rather than an entire page of what is seemingly criticism. Techleadhd (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There is an RFC on the proposed page move. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek staff

• Naveed Jamali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nancy Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• AdagioMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am concerned by the recent additions to the above articles by the user AdagioMan, which seems to written in a way designed to attack the subjects [8] [9], rather than to be encyclopedic. The underlying sources may have some merit to be included in the articles, but would need to be completely rewritten. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Naveed Jamali had several statements criticizing Newsweek in general, sourced to articles that don't mention Jamali at all, thus becoming an off-topic WP:COATRACK. @AdagioMan: you have been editing for a long time. You should be aware of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP by now. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPBALANCE should also be kept in mind. BLPs need to be balanced at all times, it isn't appropriate to have them temporarily unbalanced until other material is added Tristario (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Lil Peep

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

There was a recent RFC, not sure if it was done correctly, but the question was about ethnicity in the lead sentence per WP:MOSETHNICITY, and should the subject be called Swedish-American since his dad is Swedish and the subject had Tweeted that he was Swedish? Can somebody who is not involved, ideally an admin, take a look at the talk page and close that? Another editor and I have been going back and forth over it. I will abide whatever is decided. I asked the other editor if that was ok but didn't hear back. Thank you. Malerooster (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Lil Peep has been dead for over 5 years at this point, how exactly is this a biography of LIVING persons issue? The correct place is WP:RFCLOSE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Using the occupation parameter in an infobox to state that someone is a "cult leader"

Sigh. I'm probably going to regret this and noticeboards really aren't my forte, but I think that greater awareness might bring me some peace of mind here. I'm also stressed out and dealing with some complicated real life matters and I don't want to have this on the back of my mind when I'm trying to deal with everything else. If I'm in the wrong, I'm in the wrong. If this is really nothing and it really is just me, I'll stand down.

So, the article I'm talking about here is Billy Meier. The issue is the thread title. Currently, the infobox states that his occupation is "cult leader and author". That's contentious and I'm not sure the sources given are suitable for that purpose. It seems unnessecarily sensationalist. I tried to remove this because I'm wary that this could violate WP:BLP.[10] My change was reverted. I tried to start a talk page discussion and so far it looks like no one agress with me. I'm pinging SchmuckyTheCat and LuckyLouie so they are aware of this discussion.

The only reason I am even aware that this article even exists is because a new editor was upset about all of this and made that very clear in their mentorship question. See User talk:Clovermoss#Question from Uleih on Billy Meier (13:49, 11 December 2022) for that. I probably could have dealt with this better but at the same time I'm not sure what else I could've really done. There's a part of me that's anticipating an even worse reply than the last one calling me a clown. I doubt that what our conception of a neutral article on this figure would look like are not aligned but I do think that calling someone a cult leader as their occupation is not ideal. Apparently there have also been issues with SPAs removing this content repeatedly...

The impression I got was that the precedent/sources for saying he's a cult leader is in this previous talk page thread: Talk:Billy Meier/Archive 2#Sources to consider, re: FIGU a cult, Meier a cult leader. In my opinion, calling someone a cult leader is a pretty big deal and passing mentions of this isn't really enough. I think that it's possible some of these sources could be used elsewhere in the article. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, x described this as "a cult of personality" or something like that. But there's really no context elsewhere in the article apart the lead that mentions he founded a UFO religion.

My main concern is that if my gut instinct is right and I'm not getting this out of nowhere, the content should be removed. Given how important the BLP policy is. But I'm also not going to edit war. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:CULT, "cult" is always used pejoritavely, and is something that scholars of new religious movements avoid using. It's also inconsistent with how we describe the leaders of other UFO religions, like Marshall Applewhite and Raël (at least in the lead section). Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

When we call out professions, this should be actual vocations, and not loose titles of what they do that isnt a career path. The body can describe someone as a cult leader, where there is room to included the sources and reasoning why it applies, but that is simple not a recognized vocation. Masem (t) 23:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think we should avoid using "cult leader" to describe a person in Wikivoice, and I think the Manual of Style is correct to discourage it. However, the message left on your talk page was inappropriate, and it's entirely reasonable for you to challenge it or simply disregard it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah "cult leader" probably doesn't belong in anybody's infox. Two articles about people who definitely were cult leaders start with "Melvin James Lyman (March 24, 1938 – March 1978) was an American musician and writer, and the founder of the Fort Hill Community, which has been variously described as a family, commune, or cult" and "George Feigley (June 23, 1940 – April 13, 2009) was an American church leader. He has been described as a sex cult leader". And these people were cult leaders, in that they were surrounded by people who basically worshiped them, considered them the wisest of men, and would serve them and follow them down basically any road. Meier's article doesn't indicate he's got anything like that. So in his case it's not so much that "cult leader" is pejorative, it's that its not even true. But I can't think of anyone dead or alive that we would flat out say "cult leader" in the inbox. Write about in the article. Herostratus (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Since this is about the infobox, then the answer seems quite simple to me without the need to get into all the reason why it is also bad to use in the article text. It is simply not an occupation, which is "a job or profession". It's similar to a problem that recently occurred over at the Bobby Beausoleil article, where someone was trying to list his occupation as "unemployed". Sorry, but that is not a job or profession. Neither is a cult leader. Zaereth (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm also pinging JoJo Anthrax to also notify them of this discussion since they have since posted on the talk page after I started this discussion: [11]. I feel like removing cult leader from the infobox is a sensical change, which is why I was surpised I was reverted in the first place. Thoughts about using it elsewhere? That was the main point I was trying to get across in the original thread, that if it's somewhere it should be cited with context in the article itself. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Clovermoss for the ping. As I wrote here, I propose removing cult leader as Meier's occupation and instead use it as a "Known for" descriptor. Contrary to some comments above, there are ample sources reporting Meier as a cult leader (see this for some of them). To not identify him as such in the infobox and the article body would seem to me an example of WP:PROMO by omission. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem with those sources is that only two of them even use the term "cult leader", and one of those two is noted as not being a good source. If the only good source actually describing him as a "cult leader" is a single reivew with a single mention, I'm not feeling that there is a lot to justify including it in the infobox. A discussion in the body about the group would be more nuanced. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the sourcing for this in wikivoice does not seem great (per Bilby). I also don't think that's an appropriate use of that part of the infobox, a "Cult leader" isn't generally an occupation, apart from in some very particular scenarios maybe. I think the best thing to do here is to just not include that entry of the infobox. Some more detail about the "cult leader" aspect could be included in the lede as well as the body, as appropriate Tristario (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

why not Religious leader ? Almost exactly the same information, a lot less pejorative. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

There has been a two more talk page comments since I started this discussion at Talk:Billy Meier#Someone upset about this article on my talk page with a request that the discussion remains centralized at that page. The reason I started a discussion elsewhere is because I was worried about possible BLP implications and I thought broader input from people would be useful. Should this stay here? The BLP noticeboard template mentions that policy compliance issues should be discussed here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably best it stay there, unless some impasse is reached and the discussion stalls out. I have this page on my watchlist, so I generally leave my 2 cents here and people can do with it as they wish. (I try to limit the number of pages that I watch, mainly because I'll never remember to remove them later.) People may continue to comment here, so I'd suggest just considering what they have to say. This page is archived fairly quickly, so if no one comments in a few days it will just disappear into the abyss. Zaereth (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

My concern is that if it stays at that talk page, "cult leader" will stay in the infobox and we will have some sort of conflicting consensus. This is one of the new comments on the talk page thread as a reponse to getting rid of cult leader in the infobox by SchmuckyTheCat:

Because as a daily job he's a cult leader. He has a big farm where all the cultists live. He communicates with other cultists globally. He manages who gets paid from the cult's funds. He delivers messages to cultists about what's what. He's the leader, of a cult, and that takes up the majority of his time. While these guys are dead (hint, hint about the future) Wikipedia doesn't hold back from calling David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite cult leaders. The same as Billy here, there day to day job was leading a cult. [12]

There are various reasons this is not a good idea, as expressed by others on this noticeboard. There's MOS:CULT, the sourcing in general is really weak as described by Bilby, and it's inconstistent with other articles per Herostratus. The article still describes his occupation as a cult leader in the current version of the article. I haven't tried to remove it ever since my change was reverted. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC); edited to ping the person whose comment I'm referring to Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

ROFL! And I don't use that acronym lightly. I may have to check out the talk page now for some more entertainment. That seems easily dealt with, though, because the entire argument quoted above is one of the most basic logical fallacies, called affirming the consequent. "I play football with my friends. Football is a profession. Therefore, I am a professional football player." Sorry, but neither arguments hold water. Zaereth (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Rubbish. If you're paid to pay football with your friends then yes, you're a professional footballer. Meier is paid to administer, lead, and organize, his cult just as any other kind of corporate admin. His corporation is just based on selling his religions that comes from his stories about riding around the universe and time-traveling with aliens.

It's well-documented that FIGU is a cult, with all the negative assertions that go with it. He's the leader, in both the figurative sense of it being based on him, but also his control of finances and the relationships of the people. BLP is not SPOV. If he's a cult leader, so be it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

So, if I understand you right, a cult is a corporation? I suppose he's also paying dividends to all his shareholders, filing his followers tax forms, going to seminars on brainwashing techniques, and hobnobbing with all the other cult tycoons out there. That just sounds ridiculous. You can't be seriously trying to sell that, right? Please, tell me you're just joking?

Now, I'm not saying he's not a cult leader and that the term doesn't belong in the article. The term is a subjective one, because one person's cult is often another's sanctuary, so such a term should be attributed to someone. But that's not what this discussion is about. A cult leader is not an occupation no matter how you try to spin it, and if you can find a good, reliable source that says it is I'll eat my shorts. Zaereth (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, his cult is a registered non-profit under Swiss law for corporations. This is perfectly normal for religious organizations in most of the western world. I'm not sure what you think is odd about this but clearly you do. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with nearly everyone else here that cult leader is unlikely to ever belong in the info box as an occupation. Probably never in the info box point blank. If editors refuse to accept the consensus, well BLP is a DS area and BLP is one area where topic bans should be imposed readily. Nil Einne (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, but remember, he's not even a cult leader. Are there people around him willing to give him all their possessions? Are there people around him willing to die in storm of bullets to protect him from being arrested? Are there people around him willing to marry a stranger if he says so? If we're not more less at that level, he's not a cult leader.

By they way it's pedantry to insist that it has to be an occupation. The poet Wallace Stevens spent his days, and made his living, as an insurance executive. Should we put "Insurance Executive"? What to look at is what will provide the plurality of readers a quick grasp of who the person is. Everything else is mostly noise. Herostratus (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree, after having read the article. To some (and in some contexts) a "cult" is simply defined as any religion that people think is strange, which is what I think people are focusing on here. To my thinking, a cult falls under the more specific definition of something far more sinister, where things like brainwashing, protein deprivation diets, isolation from friends, family and the outside world, giving up all your worldly possesions to the great leader, etc., are going on. The article doesn't talk about any such things. He just has some beliefs that some people think are strange.

Funny thing is, that's pretty much how all religions started. 2000 years ago people thought Jesus was a weirdo with some whacked out beliefs. He had all of 12 followers, but to my knowledge no brainwashing was going on.

Carl Jung once said that the absolute worst thing to ever happen to religion was writing it down. Prior to writing, religions were passed down orally, which made them very fluid and easily adaptable to the changing times. Now we have religions that are stuck in the early medieval era while the times are just passing them by, because in their written form they are rigid and inflexible and no longer able to evolve with the rest of humanity. It's no wonder that people are growing disenfranchised and unable to relate to them, and go looking to all these new religions which are built around modern mythologies like aliens and time travel, such as this one or Scientology. We shouldn't be making fun of them or trying to make them look like some evil conspiracy by calling it a cult unless they are crossing that line into those nefarious things that cults are known for. Zaereth (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Herostratus

• "Are there people around him willing to give him all their possessions?" Yes! He takes large donations quite regularly from people for the right ot move onto his sanctuary, where he then makes them work. Basic membership for anyone "nearby" (most of Europe?) requires yearly pilgrimage to work the farm, in addition to thousands of $USD in donations.
• "Are there people around him willing to die in storm of bullets to protect him from being arrested?" Yes. He brags about this often.
• "Are there people around him willing to marry a stranger if he says so?" Yes. Relationships between established couples have been broken on command of the aliens. Especially when he's taken a liking to the female of the pair, how convenient. He's gotten the wife of a couple pregnant and demand the husband be exiled from the community. Other relationships have been made, and children given up or moved between households. That's the kind of mind control and psychological manipulation that defines cults, and it's exactly what he does.
• "If we're not more less at that level, he's not a cult leader." He's way beyond the classic definitions of a cult by any rational standard. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Cult is rarely a helpful word. Feoffer (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Except when it is. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The major problem with SchmuckyTheCat's analysis above, and that of other editors who want to call Meier a "cult leader" is that absolutely none of that is in the current version of the article. Reading the article, it is clear that Meier holds fringe beliefs and leads a group that spreads those fringe beliefs. So, before even thinking about calling him a cult leader, it is essential to expand the article with well-referenced content that describes his group as having the scholarly recognized aspects of a cult. It is entirely possible for someone to be what would colloquially be called a "kook" and a "crank" without being a "cult leader". Any such description should be attributed to a recognized expert on cults, unless it is widely used by multiple reliable sources. Throwing it into the infobox without well referenced content in the body of the article is a BLP violation. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, I appreciate your comment here and I agree completely, but at this point I doubt these two editors are going to change their mind. Look at this barnstar [13]. Honestly, I'm blown away too. This is frustrating. I also find it concerning that an editor whose been here for 19 years has this attitude towards BLP violations. I didn't want this to get to this point. I was thinking everyone could discuss like reasonable adults. It seems like eveything just keeps on escalating. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Apparently I'm an "unknowledged person" [14] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not an insult. Your only knowledge of Meier is reading Wikipedia. By "unknowledged" I'm only saying you aren't knowledgeable on this subject matter. And without any knowledge you decided to take on the crusade of a fringe-pushing SPA. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I did actually look at those soures cited in the previous talk page thread. None of them say what you've been saying here. That's why that other editor said to stop with the OR. Because that is OR. Specifically "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". BLP doesn't contradict all of our other PAGs. Only one of these sources could be considered reliable and calls him a cult leader. That doesn't make his occupation a cult leader and that doesn't make it okay to put that in the infobox as such. That's a clear BLP violation and I'm tired of dancing around what I should just be stating plainly. I'm not "taking on the crusade of a fringe-pushing SPA" and I'm incredibly frustrated that you're either patronizing me or insulting me.There's more than two options and I regret this comment with some contemplation.Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I have tried so hard to be fair with you. To give you every benefit of the doubt. It's incredibly frustrating for you to twist my actions like you did in that diff. I didn't revert your revert of my removal of the content, even though BLP says that such content must be removed immediately without discussion. I started a talk page discussion before I came here. I came here because this "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons" and it was clear that this was not going to change at that talk page discussion when people have been reinstating said content over a long period of time and somehow do not see the blatantly obvious issues with it.

This is why I said this is so frustrating and only escalating. I think it says something that you refer to this discussion with numerous experienced editors as a "pile on" and that this doesn't cause you to reflect on your own actions. If you haven't seen this now, I don't see the point in further engaging, because it's pointless. This whole ordeal has been so frustrating. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I don't mind putting that he's the founder of that particular UFO religion in the infobox, which was your last suggestion. I can agree with that. It's much better than saying cult leader is his occupation and more in line with NPOV. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Is their primary occupation leader of a cult? Do the majority of reliable sources describe them as such? Then thats about the only situation it would be appropriate to have it as their occupation in an infobox, backed up by sources and the article reflecting that in the prose. In practice that applies to not that many people, as many 'cult' leaders (as the media would define cults) over the years also have other 'occuptions' either a job of some sort, or something cult-adjacent like preacher etc. And most reliable sources will reflect that in their work. Two of the more famous cult leaders we have articles on (Charles Manson and David Koresh) have no occupation and occupation respectively. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

David Lifton

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

I'm not sure if this is the proper forum for this. A new editor has changed David Lifton to note that he died the other day, but I cannot find any reliable sources for this. The editor who made that change appears to be the same one who mentioned it in THIS conspiracy forum. Not sure what to do in cases like this. -Location (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I also cannot find any reliable source announcing his death, and have reverted the recent changes (which had problems beyond adding today as the death date). As it's a BLP, I think such unsourced information cannot remain in the article, even with a {{cn}} tag. Levivich (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Paid obituaries as sources for death of BLP

• David Lifton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Source: NYT via Legacy.com
• WP:OBITUARIES
• Edit: Special:Diff/1127593022

Is this a valid source to update the article and state the subject is dead? The source is self-published, but I cannot find another source, and I can't tell what the best course of action is: state that he's dead sourced to a self-published source (with the risk it's not true), or not state that he's dead with the risk that it is true. There must be some consensus on this already but I can't find it and OBIT doesn't seem to answer this specific issue. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#David Lifton. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Same topic, but the source is new, published today. (I've merged the two threads.) Levivich (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

My view is that a paid, family written obituary in a reliable newspaper is adequate to state that that a person has died on a given date, but is not reliable for other biographical details. Obituaries written by staff reporters that go through the normal editorial review process are fully reliable. Cullen328 (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Cullen beat me to the punch. This is my gut feeling as well--for some people who are lower on the notability spectrum or whose notability has long past, this may be all we ever get. While I understand the hesitation, I think inclusion of the fact of death is warranted. Premature obituaries are definitely a thing, but my sense is that errors in paid obituaries are not such an issue that they should be innately distrusted. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Legacy requires death care provider information to post a paid obituary. Presuming they actually follow up and contact the death care provider I would say obituaries on Legacy are reliable for dates of death. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. That's my view, too: paid obituaries are reliable for the fact of death but not for other biographical details. Does everyone agree date and place of death are OK to source to paid obits, or just date of death? Levivich (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Absent conflicting evidence, I don't see an issue with date and place. Slywriter (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no issues with the consensus that seems to be forming. FWIW: There is discussion in the aforementioned conspiracy forum HERE that appears to confirm that it was written by a family member and published by the NYT today, but I don't actually see it in the NYT. - Location (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I think there are certain details beyond the fact/date of death for which a paid obituary would still be a reliable source. Date or year of birth/age at death if otherwise unknown; dates of degrees received, if receipt of the degree itself is otherwise attested. BD2412 T 21:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

BD2412 - If consensus is with you here, that's fine, but I personally don't find details like that nearly as reliable in this context. Circumstances of the death of the subject person are pretty assuredly within the immediate knowledge of whoever is posting the obituary; things like date of birth, education, et al, may not be. In my experience, that sort of information is much more susceptible to 'family legend.' But, as I say, no worries if that's just me being a stick-in-the-mud. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I share Dumuzid's skepticism about using paid obituaries for anything other than date and possibly place of death. Grieving relatives cannot be counted on to do fact checking of family lore about a great grandparent. Cullen328 (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I hope whatever the consensus is, we can update WP:OBITUARIES with specific guidance about this issue. Levivich (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC) ETA: I think it's safe to presume the person writing a paid obit has first-hand knowledge of date and place of death, and/or can refer to the death certificate which would contain those facts. So I think a paid obit is reliable for date and place as essentially a primary source. For historical/biographical details, however, it would be an unreliable secondary source. So I would draw the line at OK for contemporaneous facts like date and place of death but not OK for historical facts. Levivich (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

As a side-question here, which is the notable subject here, the author or the book? The case for his notability here seems to entirely rest on the book, which makes me think that the article should be about the book instead, with the authors name as a redirect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm OK either way, but I think he was somewhat notable as a conspiracy theorist well before his book. THIS 1967 article has been reported to have been the first article addressing the "conspiracy phenomenon" and Lifton is (briefly) mentioned in it. - Location (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)

John_Campbell_(YouTuber) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Apologies for bringing this article up again, but I wasn't able to follow up on the comments made before it was archived. I did attempt to add the BLP Noticeboard template to the article talk page in order to direct conversation over to this page, but another user keeps reverting it. How do you all find time to edit/guard pages so? I only have a few minutes every few weeks. It must favor the retired or unemployed. So, question-how are the comments given here carried forward to the editors guarding a page? Is there a volunteer editorial board? Or is it up to me to post the article here, take note of the issues which are agreed on by consensus, and then attempt to make the edits? I ask because it seems whenever I make an edit on John Campbell's talk page, there's a small but notable group of editors who block any discussion or changes. I can only imagine the haboob which will follow actual content modifications to the main page. Any advice welcome. Altairah (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Altairah. There are plenty of fully employed Wikipedia editors who have much more than a few minutes every few weeks to edit Wikipedia. People spend vastly more time than that watching TV or YouTube, knitting or gardening or whittling or gourmet cooking or reading novels or jogging or playing chess or video games or poker, drinking in US bars or UK pubs, applying makeup or trimming their beards or playing with and feeding their pets. I have been editing Wikipedia for 14 years and was self employed full time through most of that, although I am gradually winding down to semi-retirement. The problem with your comment above is that after reading it, I have absolutely no idea what you think the problem with this article actually is. So, instead of blowing off steam criticizing other editors for the amount of time they spend on their hobby, why don't you take the time to explain to us what the actual problem is. Despite the multiplicity of our hobbies, none of us are actual mind readers. Cullen328 (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk

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.

---

That Elon Musk has criticized Black Lives Matter is not documented by any source. I have made all my remarks here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#%22and_has_criticized_the_Black_Lives_Matter_movement_[...]%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_source_and_should_stand_in_its_own_sentence_in_any_regard But to sum up my most essential remarks: The Wikipedia article links this article from Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/11/23/musk-wars-with-the-left-left-suggests-activists-killed-moderation-plan-and-baits-black-lives-matter-supporters/?sh=67b70a152aaf that doesn't in any way definitely say that Elon Musk has criticized Black Lives Matter. The article talk about a tweet that could appear to have a critical attitude toward Black Lives Matter movement. Forbes' article links an article that shows this tweet https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-tweets-cop-killed-unarmed-black-man-ferguson-1849815713 In the tweet he doesn't even mention Black Lives Matter, but the Ferguson protests. We could say he has been critical of the Ferguson protests. To be very specific, he has been critical of "Ferguson Protest's use of a slogan" Whether that is equivalent to being critical of Ferguson Protests, in general, is also questionable. It is not in any way equivalent to being critical of Black Lives Matter. That's not just poorly sourced, but not sourced in any way.

‪176.22.160.62‬ (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

All I had to do was a quick Google search and I found plenty of reliable sources relating Musk's statements to attacks on BLM and black Twitter employees. See some examples:

• https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/elon-musk-twitter-ferguson-protests-obama-b2231181.html
• https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-mocks-staywoke-shirts-twitter-black-lives-matter-dorsey-2022-11
• https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-stay-woke-twitter-shirts-black-lives-matter
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-23/elon-musk-makes-fun-of-twitter-t-shirts-linked-to-blm-protests
• https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/elon-musk-black-twitter-influencers-hate-speech-rcna59474

Those were all from the first page of results. The Forbes reference should probably be replaced with one or more of these, yes. Silverseren^C 05:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

None of those sources confirms that he has criticized Black Lives Matter ... 176.22.160.62 (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Every source you have just posted contains somewhat the same story as in Forbes.

A story about Elon Musk making fun of "Stay Woke" shirts. Making fun of Stay Woke shirts is not = criticizng Black Lives Matter.

You aren't automatically criticzing Black Lives Matter because you are critical of the so called Woke movement.

We don't even know whether Elon Musk was conscious about the shirts were made for the black staff - even if he was, it doesn't qualify him as a criticizer of BLM

I have already adressed all the other issues. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/independent-media-bias = left-wing

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/nbc-news-media-bias = left-wing

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/bloomberg-media-bias = left-wing

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/insider-media-bias = left-wing

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/mashable = left-wing

Oh god ... what is this even.

But the sources fail too if you look at them with scrutiny 176.22.160.62 (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend this discussion on allsides -- perhaps not an absolute authority. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

But as the IP points out, these all are talking about Musk tweeting in a mocking post of t-shirts with a Stay Woke hashing on it. There is no explicit connection to Musk and BLM, these sources all bring it up to try to suggest an association but that's too weak for BLP principles. We certainly can talk how Musk is critical of the "woke" movement (there have been other incidents), but we can't jump to BLM from that. Masem (t) 14:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Critical of the right's caricature of the "woke movement" anyway. "Woke" just means being aware of systemic/historical bias/injustice, which is why the shirts have ties to BLM. When people who care about that kind of thing hear the right's anti-"wokeness" rhetoric, it's easy to take it as face value, i.e. not the generalized reactionary resentment it usually is, but actual criticism of concern for systemic racism. In any event, because of that distinction, I agree that partaking in some vapid lib-owning isn't the same as "criticizing BLM" directly. "Criticizing" implies intent. It would be more accurate to call it "insensitive" or something (at the risk of invoking another caricature). There may be a way to combine it with coverage of this kind of comment, though? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

We do want to be carefully of a claim that Musk may be racist or similar views similar from compiling RSes of his social media posts that do not directly spell out what he believes. Thats OR. Also we don't need to laundry list of every tweet that was found to be be offensive but had no followup. We want to summarize his views, not document every awkward social media post. Masem (t) 15:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Exactly 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The Independent is a reliable source and that story also says "(Musk) then criticised Black Lives Matter protestors. He said that the shirts stemmed from the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and that those protests were misguided. "Hands up don’t shoot" was made up,” (Musk) said. “The whole thing was a fiction.”" Whether that's enough for a mention, I'm not sure. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

He didn't criticize the Black Lives Matter protestors. It's an interpretation based on the tweet you can find in this article

https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-tweets-cop-killed-unarmed-black-man-ferguson-1849815713

He is criticizing whether some physical circumstances surrounding an event took place that a slogan refers to, and he links a federal investigation report that found no evidence that Ferguson held his hands up when he was shot - something which Independent leaves out ... so no, it isn't a reliable source ... in this regard.

The problem is that he isn't criticizing the political symbolics of the slogan either.

Neither can we say the report itself is critical to Black Lives Matter. No, it isn't, it just comments on whether some physical circumstances surrounding an event really happened, and that is what Elon Musk is commenting on. You can't just interpret your opinions into this. You might argue it sends anti Ferguson protests signal, or you may extend it even further to that it sends anti Black Lives Matter signals. But it's speculations. The problem is too that just because you once apparently hints something that doesn't automatically mean that it is relevant to your entire biography, wtf?

176.22.160.62 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The Independent article quite literally says that he criticised the BLM protestors. That's a near verbatim quote from the Independent. You don't just get to say "Well, I don't think he did" and then nullify the plain language of The Independent. It is a reliable source, you dear random dude from the internet, are not. --Jayron32 15:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

We know what Musk wrote, which didn't mention BLM at all, but the Independent makes the claim it was. We know that the Independent made an assumption here and claimed something Musk did not say directly. As such, we would need to include that claim with attribution to the Imdependent if we were to include it. Masem (t) 16:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Attribution is fine. Claiming that an actual reliable source is wrong because we think so is not. Stating "According to The Independent" is fine here, but unless we have a correction OR we have other equally as reliable sources broadly disagreeing or countering the statement (and silence is not disagreement), then the statement is backed up by a reliable source. --Jayron32 16:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The source isn't necessarily wrong. It's just an interpretation or an assumption as said.

The problem is that you absolutely refuse to look into the source. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

We ate not blind to problems with RSes that are making interpretive statement from typically short social media posts. Not in this case with the Independent (it appears as a valid conclusion), but if they said from Musk's tweet that Musk was critical of MLK Jr., that would be something we'd question even if inclusion was necessary. Masem (t) 16:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, the Wikipedia article doesn't use the article from Independent, but two sources from Bloomberg and Forbes where no support can be found.

With regards to the Independent article

We must make objections to the claim that Independent is a reliable source.

A source isn't just either unambiguously reliable or not unambiguously reliable. Reliability depends on subject that is being covered as welll.

Independent are left-leaning

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/03/07/how-left-or-right-wing-are-uks-newspapers

https://adfontesmedia.com/independent-bias-and-reliability/

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/independent-media-bias

Considering Elon Musk is a polarizing figure and has recently shown support for a Republican figure (stands on Elon Musk Wikipedia page too) https://www.google.dk/search?q=elon+musk+polarizing&ei=3xyRY9WXCfCwrgS89LOQDA&ved=0ahUKEwiVg7D2z-j7AhVwmIsKHTz6DMIQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=elon+musk+polarizing&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzoKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzoFCAAQkQI6BQgAEIAEOgsILhCABBDHARDRAzoOCC4QgAQQxwEQ0QMQ1AI6BQguEIAEOgQILhBDOgQIABBDOgcILhDUAhBDOgsILhCABBDHARCvAToKCAAQgAQQxwMQCjoGCAAQFhAeOgUIABCGAzoFCCEQoAE6CAgAEBYQHhAKOgYIABAeEA06BwghEKABEApKBAhBGABKBAhGGABQuwFY7CNgzSRoCHABeACAAXKIAZsPkgEEMjUuMpgBAKABAcgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Considering all the polarization around the hate speech versus free speech debate, the Twitter drama, and that Elon Musk has taken the "pro free speech at the expense of hate speech" stance which is anti-left/democratic, etc.,

and democrats losing trust in Twitter after Elon Musk's takeover https://morningconsult.com/2022/11/17/elon-musks-politically-polarizing-effect/

Considering that the Independent's story about Elon Musk doesn't just revolve around Elon Musk's actions that are apolitical.

But revolve around Elon Musk's actions that are political(ly questionable), and that those actions get depicted in a way that is, anti-left,

for example anti-BLM and anti-antiracism such that it fits into the rethorics of the bias of the newspapers.

Considering that Independent's story appears to be an outliar (Dumuzid did a mini research on that too)

Considering that the information on the Wikipedia article was added 1 day after the event took place and hasn't passed the test of time at all

and suffers heavily from recency bias.

Considering it fails "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments. Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. References must be cited in context and on topic."

on "passing comment" - and "unclear or inconsistency passages" because the paragraph of the article in question contains

"He then criticised Black Lives Matter protestors."

<- "He said that the shirts stemmed from the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and that those protests were misguided."

which isn't consistent or clear - being misguided isn't a critique either, if anything, it's a critique of those who have caused the misguiding (who is not mentioned),

even if that seemingly is a critique, it fails "open for multiple interpretations", and the connection between the opening statement of the paragraph and the rest of the paragraph is definitely not clear or consistent.

Considering that the article was written by https://www.independent.co.uk/author/andrew-griffin whose area of expertise is "Technology editor and science reporter" thus fails https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:GREL&redirect=no . You guys aren't analyzing your sources, lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.188.128 (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

- CONSIDERING ALL THIS, I don't think we can take this source or the information in the Wikipedia article seriously. At least not yet.

In any instance, using the Bloomberg and Forbes articles as sources have to be fixed. What do you think?Dumuzid (talk · contribs)130.225.188.128 (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

We need quotes from Elon Musk, not from left-wing media.

If you look in the paragraph you talk about, it refers to the tweet you can find here

https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-tweets-cop-killed-unarmed-black-man-ferguson-1849815713

which I have commented on. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Your casting of aspersions against news sources that report things that you don't like is only reflective on you, and not on their reliability. --Jayron32 16:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm just looking into the source.

Why do you refuse to talk about the content that the source covers? 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Because you are straying into WP:OR territory. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

No, that is what you are doing

"Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments. Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. References must be cited in context and on topic." 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia prioritizes secondary sources. While I quite agree with you about claritty, passing comments, attribution, etc. The Independent Source says what it says. It's perfectly fair to point out that it's an outlier or the like, but to say "I think their interpretation is incorrect" is a non-starter. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say their interpretation was wrong. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

But I'm strongly questioning that we can use that interpretation from Independent based on this Tweet

https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-tweets-cop-killed-unarmed-black-man-ferguson-1849815713

which Indepedent refers to in that very paragraph of the Independent article

as a source confirming that Elon Musk is criticizing Black Lives Matter.

That's not well sourced in any way.

Well, some people already said, we could attribute the claim to Independent.

Alright, that's ofc. possible - I didn't mean to disagree in that regard 176.22.160.62 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is your "original research" as we would term it around here. I don't necessarily think we should use the Independent quote, and there are arguments to be made against it, but "here's my reasoning as to why they are wrong" is just not what we're after. It can be a compelling argument in real life, but Wikipedia is weird. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

First of all. I'm glad that we can agree that the Wikipedia article isn't backed up by any source.

The Wikipedia article uses https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/11/23/musk-wars-with-the-left-left-suggests-activists-killed-moderation-plan-and-baits-black-lives-matter-supporters/?sh=650c6fb12aaf

which says "bait". It uses an another Bloomberg article that says "links"

Maybe you're right about original research. But I'm just trying to understand the source in question from what the source itself covers.

But I guess you are right that that is allowed to use interpretive claims.

"Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. "

But I'm still questioning whether Independent is a reliable source.

The problem is here that a source isn't definitely reliable or not reliable. Reliability depends on what you cover.

We know Independent is left-wing medium - I posted a source before (I could try to look for more sources perhaps).

If a left wing medium covers a person whom we know have been criticized sharply by the left (because of hate speech issues) and indeed criticizes him in a way that is in harmony with the left wing agenda (pro Woke movement, etc.), then it is strongly questioneable whether we can call the source reliable. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree it's not backed up by any source, though I don't necessarily think it belongs in there. In real life, criticizing the rationale behind reporting can be very convincing. I think you make a fairly good case here. But on Wikipedia, we default to secondary sources like the Independent. That's some evidence for the proposition put forward. They interpreted the evidence, and I don't think that interpretation is wildly off, even if I don't agree with it. So we don't (on Wikipedia, at least) get to say "I have the superior interpretation, so the source is incorrect." But then you're getting closer to Wikipedia arguments. Noting bias is fine; it's usually not a reason to discount a source, but can certainly make attribution seem appropriate. A better argument here would be "no other reliable sources interpret this the same way" (which is true, from the little investigation I have done). THAT is a convincing Wikipedia argument. You can say "as a total outlier from a source with a known bias, it isn't really WP:DUE to be included in this manner." You will basically always be on firmer ground if arguing about what the secondary sources say rather than why they say it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"it's usually not a reason to discount a source, but can certainly make attribution seem appropriate."

Yeah, glad we can agree on that.

Thanks for your inputs - I'm not a Wikipedia editor admittedly.

Alright. It is worth noting, if anyone missed it, that the Elon Musk article doesn't use the source from Independent, but from Bloomberg and Forbes. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate your neutral take. This will probably be the last comment on the subject because it's taking time from my study.

I wanted you and other people also to take notice of how it is written in the Wikipedia article

"He has promoted conspiracy theories relating to the attack of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband, and has criticized the Black Lives Matter movement, specifically stating that "hands up, don't shoot," a rallying cry that arose after the 2014 shooting of an unarmed black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri was based in "fiction."

I find it inappropriate that the story about "criticizing" BLM doesn't stand in its own sentence. I don't think it is appropriate to connect it to a conspiracy theory.

[In general there appears to be a lot of bias issues in the Wikipedia article, but I don't have time to go through it all. This is an unsubstantiated claim (well, the talk page is huge) yes, it's just a warning]

I hope, sincerely, you will strive for increased neutrality! Cheers. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, another problem to add is recency bias. This information was added approximately one day after the event.

It seems very desperate. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not how this works. Wikipedia does not analyze what people said or did. It summarizes the analysis of reliable sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments. Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. References must be cited in context and on topic." 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The quote from The Independent is not unclear or inconsistent. It is in plain English and rather easy to follow. Again, if you have a source that itself says the Independent is wrong, then we have something. Unless and until you have such a source, you don't have a leg to stand on. That doesn't mean we must include it, I agree, but your multiple attempts to argue that The Independent should not be used merely because you think it is wrong (without any evidence that it is other than your own analysis of the information you have chosen to highlight), that's a non-starter. If you think it isn't wrong, then I'm not sure why you're arguing? I'm fine with deciding that we don't mention the conclusions of the Independent; I don't really have a dog in the race here. I just don't like to see people repeatedly making bad arguments. --Jayron32 17:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I would like you to check the conversation between me and Dumuzid. I think we can agree on something. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

And thanks for your inputs about original research issues. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The Independent is a reliable source quoting it is perfectly fine. Due may apply as this is recent, but no other issues apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This "reply section" is outdated,

check my reply

23:36, 7 December 2022 130.225.188.128 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not reliable in this instance as I have thoroughly explained in

23:36, 7 December 2022 reply 130.225.188.128 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Not only does this source completely fail if you look it with scrutiny which me and Masem have done

which apparently is not allowed because that is "original research".

It also fails internally (in itself). It fails at so many parameters that I can't believe it, lol. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

New information has been added in my long post written 23:36 8. december

The article from Independent also fails https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:GREL&redirect=no

@Jayron32 @Dumuzid 130.225.188.128 (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright. I hope you have read 23:36, 7 December 2022

We need to talk about this passage too

"He subsequently tweeted criticism of Twitter executive Vijaya Gadde's policies to his 86 million followers, which led to some of them engaging in sexist and racist harassment against her"

The passage is completely meaningless as it isn't relevant to Elon Musk's critique, this isn't relevant to Elon Musk's person either.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220428030308/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/04/27/technology/twitter-elon-musk-news

Look at the source - the article says nothing about whether Elon Musk's critique is sexist or racist or inspires it or anything alike, and Elon Musk isn't responsible for "some people" (2 people or more) in his large following.

As I pointed out in the talk page - it is, frankly, extremely trivial that at least "some people"(2 people or more) engage in sexist or racist attacks if a person with a following of many million people criticize a woman who has held "censorship"(it's a private company though) power over million of people (to the better or to the worse).

This is extremely trivial such that you can't expect anything else. And it's still not relevant to Elon Musk. If it is relevant to Elon Musk because he is a "polarizing" character, then use

the word "outrage" which the article uses too. The New York Times article actually sums up the events as "In tweets, Musk takes aim at Twitter executives, creating outrage."

So why would the Wikipedia editor cherrypick the detail of that situation that is centered around the racist and sexist attacks against Ms. Gadde? If you wanna sum up a situation in short detail, you wanna sum it up generally, instead of cherrypicking specific detail of the situation.

When it happens that those detail also coincide with framing Elon Musk sexist or racist in subtle way, it's very critical. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I just made these article edits to try and address some of the points discussed above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Genuinely, thank you for taking my concerns seriously. I think there is likely much more about the article that can be discussed, but I don't have more to add - other than something that, honestly, must be a very, very uncontroversial suggestion.

"He has promoted conspiracy theories relating to the attack of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband." [... *NEW SENTENCE* ...]

Elon Musk's statement about the slogan in question isn't a conspiracy theory which no sources suggest either, thus shouldn't be connected to the first verb of the sentence. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that concern was already addressed by the edits I made. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The article is getting better definitely.

I will give you two suggestions now

The first suggestion:

I have made a suggestion on the Elon Musk talk page which has been ignored for days now with regards to the first sentence

"Elon Reeve Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/ EE-lon; born June 28, 1971) is a business magnate and investor."

This suggestion is very close to undiscussable imo.

It is absolutely undiscussable that Elon Musk is an entrepreneur.

This seems to be his most common label, and the label can even be found on book covers too.

https://imusic.co/books/9798648453920/caleb-bennett-2020-elon-musk-paperback-book

https://www.saxo.com/dk/elon-musk_paperback_9781761036835?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7N-E3KHr-wIVAwWiAx3wWgINEAQYAiABEgIm-PD_BwE

Otherwise:

https://www.biography.com/business-figure/elon-musk

https://astrumpeople.com/elon-musk-biography/

"He is not only an entrepreneur but [...]" (they make it sound like it is obvious for everyone)

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61234231

"Born in South Africa, Mr Musk showed his talents for entrepreneurship early, going door-to-door with his brother selling homemade chocolate Easter eggs and developing his first computer game at the age of 12."

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/061015/how-elon-musk-became-elon-musk.asp

On Investopedia they have even put him under the section "Entrepreneurs".

I can't even find any sources that call him an investor - I can find sources that talk about how "he invested in x company" how he was an "investor in this company". Finding sources that describe him as an investor, in general, seems very difficult and even if such sources exist, they must be very underwhelming compared to the sources that call him entrepreneur.

I have seen sources that call Elon Musk an inventor (the danish Wikipedia call him that actually), but I find that is likely to be disputeable, but I don't know.

One thing is sure "entrepreneur" should be included in the sentence before "investor".

"investor" should probably be removed too. "business magnate" can arguably stay, but

"entrepreneur" should come first.

The second suggestion:

With regards to:

"Musk's statements have provoked controversy, such as for mocking preferred gender pronouns, and comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler."

Adolf Hitler analogues are extremely common and have been seen on both the right-wing and left-wing, thus

this analogue does not give us insight into Elon Musk's views. We have to understand how he used the Adolf Hitler analogue to

emphasize his view. He used the analogue in the light of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_convoy_protest .

Another problem is the use of the word "controversy". This problem might extend to many Wikipedia articles.

Many Wikipedia editors refer to reliable sources, but might forget:

Generally reliable in its areas of expertise

The problem of the word controversy is https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/controversy?q=controversy

"public discussion and argument about something that many people strongly disagree about, think is bad, or are shocked by"

The problem is that lots of newspapers, including reliable newspapers, use this word in a completely careless way.

The word describes a quantity, MANY people. But if they are not referring to any polls, human research survey, etc., or if they don't work for an institute that conducts such surveys, then they can't just

throw that word carelessly.

Words such as "controversy" should be replaced with words such as "heated discussion" rather.

I have seen a discussion on this problem on Danish Televion TV2 News among Danish mainstream newspaper editors-in-chief

before (I might be able to find it later ...) 130.225.188.131 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

We should be careful with a source that reaches takes the same basic facts as other sources yet reaches a different, more negative conclusion. This is especially true when we can look at the facts and in good faith say, those facts don't mean what the source is saying. Springee (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, it's helpful to un-indent these threads from time to time, so I'm doing that now. It's running right off the right side of my screen. Like trying to read a totem pole.

I really haven't been following this discussion too closely. Entrepreneur, investor, mogul. Tomato/Tomaato. These are little details that should be worked out on the talk page. That's not what this noticeboard is for.

I do agree with you, 130, that in most cases people use the word "controversy" incorrectly. Usually you see this here in so-called "controversy sections", where suddenly any dispute, lawsuit, spat, traffic ticket, or any negative thing a person has ever done --real or perceived-- is deemed a "controversy" and lumped into a single section. This causes all sorts of problems, not the least of which is throwing the entire article off balance by loading all the heavy stuff on one end. (Do that on a plane and you'll crash.) However, I looked at the section you're speaking of and that is one case where we're actually using the word correctly, so I'm not sure what the complaint is. Either way, this discussion is no longer about anything that is a real BLP issue, so I'd suggest taking it to the talk page. Zaereth (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I kept it to the talk page. You just get ignored. Anythingyouwant actually fixed the concerns that were brought up in the beginning.

IT appears like Elon Musk's biography has been attack of political motivations clearly.

Check

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&type=revision&diff=644912934&oldid=644895983 [I'm not referring to this specific revision, just noting that it was written differently in the past - I don't know when it was changed]

The Wikipedia page even used to call him an entrepreneur - ofc. lol.

It's horrifying.

There's also a guy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QRep2020

who systematically insert negative information and stories about Elon Musk in every article that is related to Elon Musk, lol.

The guy disagreed with two of my suggestion WITHOUT giving any reason. I tried to ask him - still didn't give me any reason. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

See, this is where I get confused, which is part of why I haven't been following along too closely. The first link you just provided was just the insertion of the letters "IPO", which for all I know stands for "Illustrative Purposes Only", or "International Press Organization". Possibly vandalism but was reverted as a good faith edit. Whatever the case, I have no idea why you're showing it to me, but it has me utterly confused.

The next link is the history of the Musk article, but why you're linking it is a mystery to me. Am I supposed to see something there?

The third link is to someone's user page. It says something about Musk, but no clue what I'm supposed to glean from that. If people on the talk page are having the same problem, it could be the reason you've gotten no reply. I certainly don't know how to reply, except to let you know we seem to be having some communication problems. I'm really not very interested, though, and I think this particular conversation has run its course some time ago. Zaereth (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

My bad. I did actually make a couple of editions to my post right after I had posted it. It's a bad habit - editing my post after I have posted rather than before posting.

I was just pointing out that the Wikipedia article on Elon Musk in the past was more objective.

Secondly, I just wanted to cast light/warn you on the actions of the user QRep2020 in the history page of editions and

to cast light on all the user's editions. I apologize if this is not the right place to do it. Please tell me if there is a page to report users.

I don't want to highlight the specific actions the user has done - just casting light on the user - because I don't have the time.

Nah, my suggestions were specific and clear and were also finally met.

I do disagree too that I should have kept all this to the talk page. Some of the content was framing Elon Musk subtly as a racist, sexist and frame him as a criticizer of BLM without being backed up by any sources - it is close to defamation.

Look at my first thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#Replace_%22highly_polazring%22_with_%22highly_discussed%22_and_remove_extremely_trivial_story

The first respond I get is from "Slatersteven":

"Because RS say it?" from a guy seemingly questioning my motives - and I still don't know what RS is, honestly, and I tried to ask him - I didn't get one.

The next reply I get is from "Muboshgu":

"I would argue saying he has '86 million followers on Twitter' is trivial given that an estimated half of them are bots"

He is not making any point here or replying to my concerns, but just seem to have an issue with Elon Musk.

I also get a reply from "QRep2020":

"Disagree against both recommendations"

Without giving any reason.

Therefore I came here because the talk page is a complete shitshow. Content with the possibility of damaging one's reputation shall be taken very seriously, it didn't get taken seriously, therefore I came here. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright. Entrepreneur or not is not about defamation. The case that started my thread has ended. My bad. I will keep the rest to the talk page. At the end it's worth noting that QRep2020 has been banned from the page before. I had no idea about this until I went into his Wikipedia page. It doesn't come as a shock. https://www.reddit.com/r/elonmusk/comments/u86csy/guys_we_succeeded_qrep2020_is_now_indefinitely/. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

unblocked. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above I agree that we shouldn't report that Musk said things about BLM. It appears that there are no quotes from Musk about BLM but a few sources that interpreted his quotes to be an attack on BLM. This is a general issue with a lot of the press when dealing with controversial figures. They often take comments that are compatible with a view that is considered negative and then take those views to mean the negative thing. Rather than differing to "it's a RS" we as editors should question when a source appears to be jumping to a conclusion. While it would be OR for us to write "[source] took the statement to mean Y" we can decide if other sources didn't reach that same conclusion then perhaps this isn't a good conclusion and should be left. Deciding to include poorly founded conclusions about controversial figures is a systematic bias that exists in Wikipedia and is a reason why we should be very careful with BLPs. Disclaimer: I've been accused of being anti-Musk and anti-Telsa. Both are true and a largely avoid editing those topics for those reasons. Springee (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everything. I'm the person who wrote this thread, and I have been on an interesting journey learning the policy of Wikipedia, etc. But I have lost all faith in BLP and maybe HASS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities,_arts,_and_social_sciences . I have spent a lot of time putting fine arguments forward, referring to Wikipedia policies, and followed the principles of WP:AFG, etc. But at this point I can't any longer. The Elon Musk article has been captured by activists, and at this point I regret that I even tried to make it a neutral and a valid encyclopedia entry because I think the best that can be done now is to let the article become obviously partisan such that no one in his/her good mind buys into it, but laughs at Wikipedia instead. Sometimes I have wondered whether that is actually the goal of one of the editors, lol, and whether I should contribute to that goal (but I won't).

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Yeah, Wikipedia articles on HASS subjects are doomed. Have fun. Jatlin1 (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

No idea what "allsides.com" is, but for the benefit of the IP, we don't care if some site considers some sources to be "left wing", and nor do we care if some sources are "left wing". They are still reliable sources that can absolutely be used as sources on WP. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• NEW CONCERNS

My and many other editors' good faith revisions get reverted without any reasons or arguments which goes against WP:TALKDONTREVERT. A good example is this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=1126239322&oldid=1126238371 which I tried to get back as well, but that was reverted too ... once again without any explanation - that is despite I brought it up on the talk page, but the vandalizers don't wanna participate in any dialogue. Some of the information in the article is not backed up by any sources as I have shown here [[...%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_sources|Elon_Musk#The_entire_sentence_%22Musk's_statements_have_provoked_controversy_[...]%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_sources]]

There continues to be so many issues about this article. Question is why isn't this article marked with a warning or something like that? I tried to revert the editions of someone who was alleged of COI on Cher Scarlett https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1093142001&diffmode=source . I have brought it up here [[..._along_with_deleting_his_responses_to_critical_tweets_from_Cher_Scarlett_[...]%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_sources]], but this edit has also been reverted without any attempt to meet me in a dialogue. Jatlin1 (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You don't have consensus. Simple as that. ~ HAL333 03:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Nor do yourself. Question is why you don't enter a dialogue. Jatlin1 (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no clue what you're referring to. Your first link is something done by an entirely different editor, and the others just link to the talk page. Nothing specific in the talk page, just the talk page. I'm not going to read the whole thing, and I can't read your mind. If there is something specific you want us to look at you'll need to either tell --specifically-- what that is, and link to specific diffs or talk page sections at the very least.

The policy you linked above just says not to delete comments from talk pages, but has nothing to do with the article itself. The article is covered by WP:BRD, which says be bold, and if someone reverts your boldness, then talk about it rather than edit warring.

When it comes to BLP rules, however, we're a lot more strict. If someone adds a BLP violation we are obligated to remove it without discussion. Even if it is only a potential violation. It should then be discussed and not reinstated until there is consensus that it is ok to do so. Keep in mind that BLP rules apply to all of Wikipedia, including talk pages, user pages, and especially main space, so even on talk pages you have to be very careful what you say. Zaereth (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Your first link is something done by an entirely different editor

Yeah, that's coherent with the concern I just told you

My and many other editors' good faith revisions get reverted without any reasons or arguments which goes against WP:TALKDONTREVERT. A good example is this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=1126239322&oldid=1126238371 which I tried to get back as well, but that was reverted too ... once again without any explanation - that is despite I brought it up on the talk page, but the vandalizers don't wanna participate in any dialogue.

Just use ctrl+f on the remaining, but I will edit it. The policy you linked above just says not to delete comments from talk pages, but has nothing to do with the article itself. The article is covered by WP:BRD, which says be bold, and if someone reverts your boldness, then talk about it rather than edit warring.

I'm not sure if you refer to WP:TALKDONTREVERT which I mentioned myself. But read this from WP:EDITCON

All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work.

HAL333 doesn't do this. He doesn't even wanna talk on the talk pages (rarely)

You are strict? Yet, I have pointed out dozen of BLP policies violations, but nothing happens. Jatlin1 (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

First, I know what I said, so you don't have to repeat my words back to me like I'm some kind of idiot. I have the ability to read a response and understand what is being responded to. See, we seem to be having some communication problems here. If others at the article are having the same problems, then it's no wonder that you are having such difficulties. Try to look at it from my point of view. I know nothing about this subject, nor do I really care, but I'm willing to look if you give me something to look at. But you gotta realize that where I'm at we just got dumped on with around 5 feet of snow, so everybody is hauling ass trying to dig everything out and I don't have time to play private investigator with "control-F" because it's too much of an inconvenience for you to post the actual diffs here. If you're not going to make it easy for me, then I have no interest in going out and looking for myself.

On the one diff you posted, I don't see what that has to do with your edits. Did you post that info? How am I supposed to know that? Anythingyouwant made several edits there, so it's not like I can look at the preceding edit to see if it was a reversion. Am I just supposed to read your mind? Now, I fully agree with their change there, because as it was written before it told me nothing. "Sexist" and "racist" are conclusions, but they don't really say anything of any substance. The edit made by Anythingyouwant at least gave some factual information.

If you think the problem is editor behavior, then you're at the wrong noticeboard. That's what ANI is for. This board is for BLP violations, yet you have shown me no such violations here? So what is it you want me to do exactly? My interest in this is quickly waning. Zaereth (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Leon Black

Information about a recent court case involving Leon Black, which is well-sourced and neutrally worded, has been removed by editor SPECIFICO (talk · contribs).

WP:BLP#People accused of crime says that "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material ...", however, Black is very much a public figure. So I don't understand the argument that including information about the court case is a BLP violation.

What is the consensus from folks here? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Black would appear to fall under public figure as a high level businessperson, so yes, the removal of a lawsuit against (not just an accusation) seems wrong. Masem (t) 21:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that anyone can sue anyone else. It hasn't even reached the stage where the complaint might by summarily dismissed by a court as frivolous, malicious, time-barred, or whatever. It is not getting ongoing media coverage, and there are millions of wealthy business people who get sued every day for all kinds of things. In fact, their wealth invites such suits. If this gets to the next stage and is demonstrated to be significant and a matter widely reported to the public, that merits a mention. I don't see that this has met the test at this time. SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I tend to generally agree with your approach here, but at the same time, I think these things can hit a critical mass where simply the initiation of a suit sort of demands coverage if it makes a big enough splash in the RSes. This one for me would probably clear that line, but reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: To respond to a particular point made about the possibility that the case may be "... summarily dismissed ... [or] time-barred, or whatever", this is from the Insider article which I had cited in my initial edit: "Pierson is able to pursue legal action against Black due to New York's Adult Survivor's Act, which opened up the state's statute of limitations for abuse cases on November 24." And this is from a recent CNN article: "Adult survivors of sexual abuse now can sue their abusers in New York – even if the statute of limitations on their claims has expired – under a state law that goes into effect Thursday. The new law gives adult survivors of sexual assault one year to file lawsuits against their perpetrators." So it appears the case won't be dropped due to statute of limitations reasons. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• While you're quite right about the statute of limitations issue, I cannot help but nerd out momentarily as I am not sure whether or how courts might interpret the doctrine of laches with regard to these claims, and it does not seem to be specifically addressed in the legislation. Ok. Back to your regularly scheduled programming! Dumuzid (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  I have no idea about that, but there are bigger cases based on the same legislation: Writer E. Jean Carroll sues Trump under new N.Y. sexual assault law, so I guess we can wait and see what happens. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You may be more familiar with this than I am. I have seen it mentioned only because a series of SPA editors have wanted to add it to the WP page. Lawsuits against wealthy people are not generally considered significant until they've met the intial standards of plausibility and process. OP, do you have any published commentary as to the credibility and seriousness of the allegation? SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

A lawsuit against a public figure reported by reputable sources (here. Nytimes, cnn, wsj) is something hard to bury under BLPCRIME. If it was only based on court reports or weak sources, then I would agree we could ignore it, but that not the csse. Masem (t) 22:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"... do you have any published commentary as to the credibility and seriousness of the allegation?" It seems too early for that kind of analysis to be available, all the media reports I have seen are simply quoting the different attorneys, and reviewing the legal filings. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact that it's too early for that is exactly why it's too early for inclusion in his biography. We need to be cautious. I have no idea about this matter, but we do know that involved parties may want to rush such content into the encyclopedia prematurely, so there's a bit of an inherent bias toward including UNDUE negative material. SPECIFICO talk 23:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

But what does Wikipedia policy actually state (or is there a cultural precedent that is generally followed by editors)? For example, it seems that Masem has different ideas on this. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RECENTISM. Policy is not written like laws, nor should it be, because there is no way possible to create a distinct policy for every single possibility or combination of factors that may arise. I agree with Masem, that if this was a non-notable person we wouldn't even consider adding this, but for a person as notable as the subject, there is no point in trying to protect their right to be innocent until proven guilty. That said, we are not a newspaper, and we don't have to rush into it heads in the sand and butts in the air like a newspaper either. That's the problem with news, because they give up-to-the-minute coverage, so in the initial stages of any event coverage is spotty and unreliable at best. They're just starting to assemble the pieces of the puzzle at that point. I see no harm in waiting until the story unfolds a little more and we actually have a much better picture. Zaereth (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Another section of this BLP is titled “affair” but the section describes accusations of much more than an affair, so I suggest modifying that header. Black countersued that (first) accuser and others for conspiring against him, but that countersuit was dismissed.[15] The first accuser was Guzel Ganieva, and the more recent accuser is Cheri Pierson, both represented by Susan Estrich Wigdor LLP. Given the widespread coverage in RS’s, it would seem appropriate to briefly mention the second accuser, and Estrich, and also Black’s dismissed countersuit, in the section now inadequately titled “affair” together with Black’s denial. The second accusation is closely related to the first, so the whole thing has been going on for quite a while. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, it's definitely not a one off random thing, or coming out of the blue. Updating some of the language, as proposed by Anythingyouwant, would help clarify this content. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

What "whole thing"? SPECIFICO talk 04:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Wigdor’s court cases against Black (both involving Epstein), and Black’s countersuit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Two clients of the same lawfirm do not merge so that we should call them a single "thing". These are two complaints, they have been reported distinctly at different times and they have distinct facts and weight in sources. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why we are all here, discussing about inclusion of more information surrounding these events. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

More recent news about this:

Leon Black seeks sanctions against law firm pressing rape claims - Reuters, December 16

Leon Black seeks court sanction against attorneys representing rape claims - Financial Times, December 16

Accusations of "frivolous claims". I'm not sure how long it will take the court to decide on the validity of Black's request, but the outcome should help us decide about including this information (or not) on Leon Black's Wikipedia article. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Candace Owens

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

The article was somewhat stable until maybe a month ago? Owens promotion of conspiracy topics is in question. The body of the article seems to cover some of these under a controversies section. How should the lead, as written, handle that so as not to be undue weight and npov? Should she be included in the category conspiracy theorists as well? Malerooster (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is the dispute? This article is under discretionary sanctions (BLP and US politics) so if someone is trying to removed reliably-sourced content or argue that she's not a conspiracy theorist, you can just report them to WP:AE. –dlthewave ☎ 02:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

As an editor at the article why would you ask that question here? That aside, it also should be pointed out that the conspiracy theorist category was added to her BLP and restored despite objections. dlthewave, I think you were one of the editors who restored it though it was part of a larger revert. Per BLPCAT categories like that have a high bar for inclusion. I don't think Owen's BLP meets that bar. Springee (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This article really could use a few more eyes. The body of the article doesn't contain much to support the view that Owen is a conspiracy theorist and the examples given to prove the claim are very limited in scope, reach etc and are generally from low quality sources. Yet this is material that some editors feel must be in the lead to avoid "white washing" the subject. Like this recent discussion at The Daily Caller's talk page [16] there is a difference between IMPARTIALLY reflecting what sources say and trying to turn yet another Wiki article into something that reads like a hit piece. Springee (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I would say that her promotion of conspiracy theories is not in question (vaccines, moon landing, climate change, Gates, Soros, mailbombs etc, etc.) It is whether she should be defined as a conspiracy theorist and whether that definition should be in the lead paragraph. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Gregory Tony

Eyes needed on this article for possibly WP:UNDUE BLP vios an IP has been inserting. Curbon7 (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Paul McKenna

I am looking for a consensus on an article regarding a Living Person where I have a Conflict of Interest. I have made a request at the Talk page, but as of yet it has not been answered. Upon consideration, as the request is to get a lasting consensus on a particular section of the article, I thought it might actually be better for the long-term to point multiple editors to this page to evaluate the issue. The current page wording makes an inaccurate claim and has been subject to various levels of WP:SYNTH over the years before I made my request, and given that the page previously required protection from BLP violations I thought this is likely the forum to talk to. If anyone has time to weigh in please do! Memereese (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Molly Robbins

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

Folks, this article is written like a PR piece and needs some heavy clean up, if anyone has time. Thanks.—ukexpat (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Robbins -Roxy the dog 22:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Roxy the dog 12:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Bernard Looney

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

Hi editors, I'm back again to request some small changes to the Bernard Looney article that have a significant impact on the neutrality of the text. I have tried posting something similar on NPOV/N, but have not received a response, so I thought I would make a similar post here.

Several edits were made to the article that I think do not meet the standard set by NPOV guidelines for article structure. At this point, I am specifically referring to the Russia controversy subheading and similar language in the lead. The guideline states that "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure." I think the addition of the Russia controversy subheading fits the definition.

This subheading, and related content that was already addressed (thanks to those editors who helped with that) was added immediately after news broke of the invasion of Ukraine. I believe the billing of the situation as a controversy, and a controversy specifically for Bernard Looney, is an editorialization of the available reporting. This editorialization carries to the lead of the article, which characterizes Looney's tenure as CEO "controversial" specifically because of a state which Looney does not lead invaded another. I would argue that such a characterization is non-neutral.

I would also note that it was noted bp took swift action to begin disentangle itself from its Russian business interests (The New York Times: "making it one of the first large companies to abandon Russia"; Reuters: "marking the most significant move yet by a Western company in response to Moscow's invasion of Ukraine").

I will rest my case there. I won't make any changes myself due to my COI. Please let me know if this is not the appropriate place for such a post, and thank you in advance for your consideration. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree the article is somewhat less than NPOV. Unfortunately, Wikipedians seem often too eager to construe any dispute, criticism or negative news blip as a "controversy", then misrepresent and give undue emphasis to the "controversy" by making devoted subheadings. Wikipedians on the whole tend to be good compilers but rather poor editors. Activists criticizing somebody isn't necessarily a "controversy", no more than a critic giving a negative review to a film is. An article can include multiple points of view, including criticism, without framing every disagreement as a "controversy". The article flow (and neutrality) would be significantly improved in my opinion by the simple elimination of the two 'controversy' subheadings: MOS:OVERSECTION advises against sections consisting of short paragraphs or single sentences, and WP:RECENTISM is reduced. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I have made several edits to make the language more neutral without removing any of the substantive content. Cullen328 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both! The neutrality of the article has been definitely improved by your contributions. Appreciate the consideration of this noticeboard. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Ngozi Fulani and Sistah Space

Ngozi made the UK news a few times in recent weeks for being the victim of a racism incident at Buckingham Palace, and then for being the target of online abuse, and then for allegations of financial impropriety. IP vandalism of the article about her followed, but was stopped by temporary protection.

Background news:

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64005705
2. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/16/lady-hussey-apologises-ngozi-fulani-buckingham-palace-racism-incident

Now both IP addresses and one WP:SPA user is keen to replace "Ngozi Fulani" when written with her former name, putting her actual name in brackets, which to me seems like some sort of effort to deny her her legal name. I think it's appropriate to mention her former name at the biographcal article, but seems like a strange stretch to consider it necessary at Sistah Space. I've twice reverted such edits on Sistah Space as I don't think an article about an organization needs this level of personal detail about the founder, as it has no relation to the operation of the organization.

People disagree with me. Input would be welcome at Talk:Sistah Space. CT55555(talk) 22:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Racists wish to add her birth name because they believe it undermines her legitimacy - Marlene night be a common name in the West Indies (I don't know) but it's also a very ordinary British name, as is Headley, whereas Ngozi Fulani sounds far more African. Along with mentioning how she was dressed at the reception, the goal is to paint her as a fake and a grifter - a wannabe African with a fake name, whereas really she's just ordinary black British. Racists regard asking where you're from as harmless, and so they're trying to paint her as uppity for complaining about it as racist - by making her "Marlene Headley" they're trying to make her "just as British as you and me" and it makes her a "fake" for choosing instead an African-sounding name.

Clearly the incident was racist, as is this narrative about her name, but equally neither Ms Fulani nor Sistah Space are notable - they are notable only for this racist incident, and almost all the references on both articles were written in the wake of it. Both articles should be deleted. 87.196.73.215 (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I hope that you understand you are hurling personal attacks, despite not using names, because these are real editors who are working on the article. If you cannot ascribe to them (or this Lady of the Household who was merely doing her job) any other motivation except malicious racism then please keep quiet about it. Elizium23 (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I checked the Telegraph article and noticed it only confirmed her birth family name; it doesn't verify her actual place of birth, birth year, or her full name. Geni is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. I removed the full name, birth date, and birthplace from Ngozi Fulani[17] due to WP:BLPPRIVACY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Because of the paywall, I had originally reviewed an archived copy of the Telegraph article from the day it was published.[18] I reviewed a later copy and found that it did confirm the first name so I have reinstated it on her bio page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

List of -gate scandals and controversies

List of -gate scandals and controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

How literally are we expected to take WP:BLP, particularly in relation to notability of individuals and charges and allegations for which no convictions have taken place?

This 'Qatargate' entry in the above list article has been troublesome - for its inclusion in the first place, its wording, and its sourcing. Currently it has two US sources which do support the fact that there is an affair known by that name, but I'm not sure either of them support the general assertions about the individuals who are are implicated or that any or all of them are involved in all the misdemeanours listed.

Can we have more eyes on this please? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Not just WP:BLP but also per WP:NOTNEWS it is far too early to include this. Once the dust has settled and investigations are concluded, if it becomes more widely known as "Qatargate" (or some other "-gate", then it should be included. But not now. This is a real problem with this list, editors rushing to add every event that one or two sources refer to as a -gate before we know the long term outcomes. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS is for routine news coverage. Scandals, while pletiful, are not routine (each is unique). It's important to note that we have WP:NTEMP that says that notability is not temporary, so we don't really need to evaluate whether the scandal is long lasting.
Regardless, such a discussion belongs in the article's talk page, not in this noticeboard. Banana Republic (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Notabiloty also requires more than just a short burst of coverage. Just because a good handful of sources call something a -gate over a day or so doesn't make it a enduring -gate we should cover, particularly for BLPs. Masem (t) 17:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You can take that up at the talk page for Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament. The scandal already has its own Wikipedia article. Certainly not appropriate for this noticeboard. Banana Republic (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no requirement that the scandals result in convictions. That's why the article has sections for scandals in fiction, as well as for scandals that are nothing more than conspiracy theories. I fail to see how this could possibly be interpreted as a WP:BLP issue when no specific individuals are being named. Banana Republic (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not whether the scandal is long-lasting; it's whether the -gate name sticks in the long term. One or two sources using the term at this point doesn't mean it will come to be known as that down the line. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

While I certainly disagree with you (how many sources would be required and over what time period?), but obviously that's a discussion that's more appropriate for the article's talk page than this noticeboard.Banana Republic (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Though there is unlikely to ever be a bright-line rule about how many sources and longevity of instances, I think we can all agree that 2 sources in a 2-week period is less persuasive of establishment than 10 sources over a 6-month period. There is no deadline to complete Wikipedia. We should be always open to erring on the side of caution before lending credibility to something that may indeed turn out to be a flash in the pan. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Do we think its current wording is compatible with BLP, particularly this bit: Ongoing political scandal in which politicians, political staffers, lobbyists, civil servants and their families are alleged to have been involved in corruption, money laundering and organised crime?

BLP says:

• Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. All those implicated are living people, and most are readily identifiable, even though unnamed in the content.
• For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Most of those implicated are not public figures, but have been accused of multiple crimes.
• Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The current two sources only cover some people from some of those groups and for some of those allegations.

-- DeFacto (talk). 07:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The sentence in question is almost word for word the first sentence from the article Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament. Banana Republic (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Would it be sufficient to say "if it's determined to meet the requirements of WP:DUE and WP:BLP in an article on Wikipedia, that article can be linked to and the "-gate" term used in the list?" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Dave Schwep

Dave Schwep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dave Schwep is alive and well. Someone is trolling him that says he died, and wikipedia is the only source of that misinformation. Dave Schwep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.136.49 (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The article says nothing about Schwep being dead. It hasn't been edited for over a year. Any 'trolling' seems to be going on elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Correction: there was an uncited claim of death in the infobox - I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Jenna Presley

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

I reverted the addition of information about the subject cited to a Dr. Phil (talk show) video. I don't agree that this falls under the WP:ABOUTSELF exception since she is not the publisher of the video. I'm not sure where in RSN is the Dr. Phil considered a RS for this type of information?[19] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion caused by this poorly worded edit summary. The issue is this: There are two types of claims being made with the reference at https://www.drphil.com/videos/former-sex-worker-says-she-and-husband-work-to-inspire-others-to-live-what-they-call-a-pure/. 1) Jenna Presley (actually, she calls herself Brittni de la Mora these days) was on the Dr. Phil show 2) Brittni is now married with kids. While I think it would be reasonable to include the claim of her being on the Dr. Phil show using the website of the Dr. Phil show as a reference, as per WP:ABOUTSELF (not unduly self-serving for Dr Phil, no claims about third parties made, no claims about Dr. Phil except Brittni was on his show, there’s no question about whether she was on the show, it’s just one reference of many in the article), in the interests of establishing consensus I am withdrawing the claim she was on Dr. Phil’s show from the article so that we can more easily reach consensus together. On the other hand, I see no harm in using a Dr. Phil reference to point out that Brittni is married and has children. This claim isn’t controversial, and discussion over at WP:RS/N indicates that using Dr. Phil’s website is OK for non-controversial claims like that is OK; see for example this discussion or this discussion. I have opened up a discussion about this over at Talk:Jenna Presley but I don’t see any contentious claims being made or any reason why we can’t include her current martial status. If this discussion is to continue; WP:RS/N might be a better place for it (since the discussion about whether Dr Phil’s website is reliable enough for non-controversial content from there to be used in Wikipedia articles tends to be a RS/N kind of discussion) Samboy (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll be blunt. I never see how it makes sense to claim no claim is made about a third party when the claim is being adding to the article on some other person. Clearly a claim is being made about a third party otherwise this would not belong int he article on Jenna Presley since what goes on with Dr. Phil has jack shit to do with Jenna Presley. ABOUTSELF was intended to add claims people make about themselves. So in the Jenna Presley article they only time ABOUTSELF applies is if Jenna Presley is making a claim about herself. We can add claims about to Dr. Phil's article originating from Dr. Phil. In that vein, I don't think claims made about the Dr. Phil Show by the Dr. Phil Show website really fit into ABOUTSELF point blank. Either those claims don't relate sufficiently to a living person that BLP doesn't apply so we just have to consider WP:SPS or they do in which case the claims from a show website do not belong since these claims are published by the show not a specific subject. For small Youtube channels, there's often insufficient distinction between the channel and the person behind the channel such that I think it's fine to accept them as the same thing, but not with a massive network television show sold all over the world. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe the examples given at RSN show consensus that the Dr. Phil Show is a reliable source for BLPs. If the information you are trying to insert is that mundane, then there should be better sources out there that actually satisfy ABOUTSELF like her church site or social media. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you w.r.t how reliable of a source Dr. Phil’s website is. Dr. Phil isn’t, based on those discussions, a WP:GENREL source, but he’s a WP:MREL source (No consensus on reliability, but some editors consider him reliable). That’s fine for a mundane non-contentious claim. Samboy (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, god. I hate the Dr Phil Show. It's an hour of wall to wall commercials with little psychology breaks tossed in here or there. I wouldn't use it as a reliable source anymore than I would shows like Forensic Files or those Ken Burns documentaries. Based on true events as they may be, and as wonderful as they are, they are entertainment not news and they're formulated and edited with that goal in mind. They have no editorial oversight, and for all we know it may be about a true as the Amityville Horror (where the only true part is there was a house and everybody died). There is no way in hell that I would use any of those things as reliable sources. Zaereth (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Your personal opinion about a source (even if matching the prevailing community opinion) should not cloud your judgment of the source. At all times, we should be focused on what the Wikipedia community of established editors has concluded about the value of various sources. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

That's circular logic. Opinions and judgments are the same things. I am one of those established Wikipedia editors, and that is my conclusion (which is also another word for judgment). Zaereth (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The claim that a person has married and given birth to children is in no way mundane or non-contentious, especially when un-corroborated by more mainstream sources. It's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Coutts alleged terrorism plot

Coutts alleged terrorism plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I started this article about a recent event with a different name. Now an IP address claiming to be a lawyer representing people associated with the plot is making legal threats and editing the article. I don't agree with some of the edits, but in the context of a legal process occurring and the edits being apparently good faith, despite the COI, I figured more eyes on this would be a good idea. Check out the edit summaries and the talk page. I did warm the IP about legal threats and COI issues. CT55555(talk) 23:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not see any legal threats nor any clear indication that the IP claims to be a lawyer. You also failed to notify the IP editor, 207.148.176.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EvergreenFir (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

the edit summary state "This title impedes on that right. I am directly speaking on behalf of the accused families. We are watching for libel and this title, we believe, constitutes libel." Diff

I replied to the comment on the talk page saying I sought input here, sorry if I missed a step, I thought that was sufficiently transparent. CT55555(talk) 00:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It isn't immediately obvious from the article which sources have alleged 'terrorism'. This needs to be rectified, at minimum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The article has been renamed to address the BLP concerns. Love of Corey (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Marc Kielburger

After discussion on Talk:Marc Kielburger and then on Marc Kielburger biographical article, User:Bilorv has repeatedly restored contested material against two other contributors, appealing to an article renaming discussion on a different page from two years ago. I don't think it's neutral there, either, but as a biography of a living person, this should be held to higher standards. Both Justin Trudeau and Marc Kielburger are tarred with the accusation, presented in Wikipedia's voice, that Trudeau awarded WE Charity (which Kielburger founded with his brother) a contract for a Canadian Student Grant program in exchange for payments to Trudeau's family members. It was pointed out on Talk page that this was investigated by Canada’s Federal Ethics Commissioner, and the Trudeaus and the Kielburgers were fully cleared of any wrongdoing, but Bilorv ignored it. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The content that these two editors object to is the use of the article name WE Charity scandal. I don't think I've ever come across a situation before where somebody believes that the title of an article as decided by a well-attended requested move is a BLP violation; the solution, however, would be to move that article. I don't believe local consensus to not mention the article name at another article is a consistent outcome.

It is incorrect that BLP articles are held to higher content standards; it is BLP information that is held to higher standards, regardless of what page it appears on.

I started following this article due to one of the worst cases of UPE that I have seen on Wikipedia (see SPI, Signpost) and I'm somewhat troubled that I seem to be the only one who's continued watchlisting a couple of these, so this would be a good opportunity for any interested volunteers to watchlist the Kielburger pages. — Bilorv (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

What's frustrating and strange is that Bilorv doesn't seem to know anything about the subject, and evades discussions of fact in favor of condescending legalistic-type arguments. I notice too that Bilorv has added identical language to the article Craig Kielburger, suggesting that he has some axe to grind against Justin Trudeau and the Kielburgers. Now he says that the "scandal" isn't about the Kielburgers[20], so if that’s really the case, what's it doing in the ledes of their biographies and why does he keep putting it there?Fletcher07 (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I assume you are correct about undisclosed paid editing, but bear in mind that proposals should not be discarded merely because they come from a paid editor. There would need to be a very good reason why Marc Kielburger should highlight that WE Charity was involved in WE Charity scandal in the lead. I don't have time to investigate fully but am prepared to guess that the fuss was because it involved the close family of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Is there a report claiming that Kielburger did something sufficiently bad to warrant mention in the lead? If so, that thing should be what appears, not a coatracked shame tag. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Sam Brinton - only arrested but that's been put in the article under the section heading "Criminal history"

Doug Weller talk 16:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the heading title to "legal issues", no opinion on the content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this incident should be in the lead section but I also have no clue on the depth of coverage on this person outside this incident. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Deputy Assistant Secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy" does not seem like the sort of position that normally makes a person notable, nor do criminal charges of stealing a suitcase. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This person is paid by the American public to protect the integrity of nuclear-related matters. I have no tolerance for any attempt to downplay that someone seems to have been put in an extremely important role that has the potential to put your and my life in danger if done incompetently and is apparently a serial luggage thief, indicative of deep-seated issues and of being unfit for the role. This person was notable enough for a Wikipedia page from long before the controversy, obviously in some part due to their identity. It's not like this incident is going to lessen their notability, so I don't really agree with your point, at all. 2600:1012:B02E:D11D:A9D1:DDEC:D707:D404 (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The role is highly notable as it is a Senior Executive Service position in the U.S. government, i.e. in the "class of federal career officials who rank just below top presidential appointees in seniority".--FeralOink (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing for this isn't very good, this seems to be largely covered by unreliable and right wing non-mainstream publications. I just removed some other poorly sourced content from this article, which should not have been in there Tristario (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I have now replaced the sources for this with more reliable sources Tristario (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the position wouldn't pass WP:NPOL (and Brinton's a career civil servant rather than a political appointee, so NPOL is dubious grounds here anyway). But, the individual appears to also be a high-profile figure who's been given significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. The article subject seems notable to me, though the article generally could be expanded if someone wants to put in the work. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

FYI Brinton was appointed and was not a career civil servant, although that’s what the administration said he was appointed as. It’s a bit confusing and sources are not very clear about it. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The revised heading title of "Legal issues" looks good to me. I concur with Hemiauchenia's rephrasing and recommend that it remain like that until there is a reason to change it. I am aware of the second felony charge and of a warrant issued for arrest but we uphold the concept of innocent until proven guilty in the U.S., which is the locale for these events.--FeralOink (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Date of birth

Inre "cobbling together" sources to give a DOB: WP:DOB doesn't seem clear enough on this issue.

1) Sam Brinton has unambiguously tweeted multiple times that their birthday falls on September 11 (no mention of year)

2) Multiple RS'es after September 11, 2022 (those reporting about their alleged luggage theft) report their age as "35"

3) "Cobbling together" 1) and 2), it seems obvious that Sam's DOB is September 11, 1987 (indeed, this is confirmed by court records which unfortunately can't be cited).

There's nothing secret about any of the above, so I fail to see how exactly Sam's privacy will be compromised by our reporting that their DOB is what it is. They are perfectly content with letting others know their day and month of birth, and their age is public knowledge. They should thus be perfectly aware that anyone who can count can put two and two together. Randomly chanced upon Melissa Ong as another example of this "cobbling" taking place. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 20:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's the recent discussion that led to the language at WP:DOB: "A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it." Valereee (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The edit in question. Valereee (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

So, Kol, the reason for concern is that assume you're with friends and you say, "Hey, today's my birthday!" And everyone goes "Yay!" Great, right? Lots of fun. And then a few weeks or months later, you're giving a serious interview, and the interviewer says, "For background, how old are you?" And you say , "I'm thirty". Did you just give permission to out you to doxxers? I don't think you did. Bad people may clearly be able to connect the dots and do that, but does WP want to help? I believe it does not. Valereee (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, if no reliable source has seen a reason to publish a DoB, why should Wikipedia? Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk (2)

Wikipedia says Elon Musk is a “polarizing figure”, in the following excerpt from his BLP lead: “Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure.”

Aside from poor writing, lack of inline attribution, and thin sourcing, there’s also a possible conflict between our Musk BLP sentence that I’ve just quoted, and this part of our WP:BLP policy: “Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.” Also see WP:LABEL.

I don’t think anyone would dispute this observation by Professor Thomas Zimmer: “‘Polarization’ is almost always used as a pejorative term: it is meant to invoke dysfunction, instability, conflict.” That’s how it’s used in the Musk lead, in wikivoice. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about this Zimmer fellow, but polarizing in this context simply means that some people really like him and others really don't. Not much to it. Well documented in sources as well: NBC labels him polarizing, Bloomberg says Musk is on a polarizing mission, Inc. calls him a "polarizing figure", Yahoo News calls him a "polarizing figure", Variety calls him "polarizing". ~ HAL333 05:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDECITE, it appears some sourcing (though more could be included) is present for that claim in the body. --Masem (t) 05:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

You're quoting Professor Zimmer out of context, he is speaking in the sense of political polarization not in the context of polarizing people[21]. That being said though WP:RS coverage would suggest that invoking "dysfunction, instability, conflict" would not be undue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

To say that someone is "polarizing", when reliably sourced, is hardly contentious or loaded, you act like we're calling him a supremacist. Let's save BLPN for serious issues. Zaathras (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the same context as Zimmer referred to, per the Yahoo News piece cited above: “Musk has become an increasingly political — and polarizing — figure….” A handful of the thousands of recent news articles about Musk say he’s “polarizing”, but none as far as I know employ the redundant one-two punch of “controversial” and “polarizing” in the same sentence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of sourcing (which would need to be near-universal, but isn't), "polarising" is far too fuzzy and subjective to be encyclopaedic. It's an empty word for an empty thought. Beyoncé and LeBron are empirically among the most polarizing personalities (according to one study with significant WP:RS coverage, anyway). So is Justin Bieber. It's noise.

The spirit of Wikipedia is that we are here to (reliably) document the world, not to change it. Psychology research on social proof tells us, with high certainty, that if we imply someone is controversial, we are directly and actively lowering readers' opinion of that person, no matter their starting point.

It's very inappropriate to include, especially in wikivoice, especially in the lead, especially in a BLP. Let people read the verifiable facts, and come to their own conclusion. DFlhb (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, if that is what the spirit of Wikipedia is, then...I still disagree and think the description is not only supported and appropriate but apt. Happy Holidays to all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion is controversial, and on top of that you are polarizing. 😝 Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

And I would have it no other way! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That lede sentence is honestly way more neutral than I would have expected and likely more neutral than necessary in regards to what reliable sources actually refer to him as in that manner. Silverseren^C 18:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

What if we leave neutrality aside, and just consider precision? What does "polarizing" mean, in what context does it apply (US? worldwide? media/celebrities/left- or center-left people? environmentalists? everyone?), and is it encyclopedic? When a term has been used by multiple WP:RS to refer to Stephen King, Hillary Clinton, Beyoncé, and Musk... does it have any meaning? People are focused on sourcing when that's not the issue at all. DFlhb (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Polarizing simply means "divisive". "To divide or cause to divide into two sharply contrasting groups or sets of opinions or beliefs." It simply means he has a magnetic personality; either you're attracted to him or repelled by him. Personally, I think it's pretty silly to even try to say that this adjective doesn't describe the subject, or that it is somehow a pejorative term. It simply means he's no Mother Teresa, who's loved by all, nor is he an Aleister Crowley and hated by everyone. Good or bad, those people were unifiers, but ultimately rather boring. The subject is definitely divisive and that makes him interesting.

That said, is it really necessary to point out the obvious? That's just bad writing in most cases. If I were to use this term I would do so in dialog, as in "So and so has called him polarizing." or something like that. Just my 2 pennies. Zaereth (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

My take is: "a polarizing subject" is neutral; "a polarizing person" is negative, since it clearly alludes to specific criticisms or controversies while being nebulous about what those controversies are. We could avoid a BLPvio entirely, by being more precise about what was criticized. DFlhb (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Really? Because I view it as being more of a positive term, or a little plus of neutral if anything, and we're not here to stroke his ego. But if there's one thing I've learned it's that anyone can find insult in something if they look hard enough for it. (Usually it has more to do with their own self perception than anything else.) The term is well-defined in the dictionaries, and it's not like it has any other meanings, except in physics (which is about the same as in other contexts).

I just think that's a stretch to try and play semantics like that, and that argument is rather circular, so isn't likely to convince. The premise is just as much in need of proof as the conclusion. It's a longer and more pedantic route to the same goal. Franklin Roosevelt was polarizing. Kanye West is polarizing. Bill Gates is polarizing. The problem I have is that it's so damn obvious that it doesn't need saying. It's like the old writer's axiom, "Show, don't tell." You don't need to tell me Darth Vader is evil. I can see that for myself, so pointing it out just comes off as condescending to the reader. (It's what separates the humans from the Vulcans... besides the pointed ears and bowl haircut of course.) So I say just leave out the unnecessary adjectives and show me how he's polarizing. Same goal, just a different route to get there. Zaereth (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, it should be removed. It would never be tolerated in the FDR lead, because it’s vague, imprecise, unilluminating, and also derogatory in that divisiveness is not a popular trait. Moreover, it adds absolutely nothing to the sentence in question which already says he made controversial statements on Twitter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd say it's an unpopular trait, but, rather, it's often a trait that makes one popular, so more often than not the people who are notable are those who are polarizing. "Popular" is another one of those terms that can be positive or negative depending on how you look at it. In fiction writing we're taught to make characters that are polarizing, because those are the ones that are really interesting and life-like, and keep people interested. It's practically a job requirement for the office of President. (As Douglas Adams said, "For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character.") Of course, we live in a very polarized society these days. It's almost like watching the events that led up to WWII playing out all over again. But, I digress. At the end of the day, telling people that such and such a person is polarizing is just poor writing. Now I know this is non-fiction, but many of the same principle still apply. People who are total saints or evil just for evil's sake come off as one-dimensional and boring in general. But if I'm reading a book and the writing is so bad that the author actually has to tell me someone is polarizing, then it leaves me thinking, OMG this is awful. Zaereth (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the sentence in question. The man is polarizing, not only because of his actions but also due to his (perceived) ideology and even certain personality traits he possesses. QRep2020 (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Collapsing comment by admitted block evading IP.

First of all I'm Jatlin1, and I was banned recently. In the spirit of WP:BRAR, I write this. I want to point out that all the reliable sources that call him polarizing seem to be from 2022 30. april and to be spread in the events of the Twitter-takeover. So I think those labels have issues with regards to WP:RECENT. Mind, for example "Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, with attention to the long-term significance of the information included[...]" The information in the Elon Musk Wikipedia article is also a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact and should therefore follow the policy outlined here WP:WIKIVOICE "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." Mind also Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. from WP:NEWSORG 213.237.89.41 (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

IP, your honesty is admirable but you are evading your block which is not permitted. I have blocked your IP address. Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• This revert pretty well establishes that the lead in this BLP is simply name calling. The editors who firmly control this BLP want to label Musk in the lead as a “polarizing figure” without saying in the lead why they think he is a polarizing figure. Bad editing, IMHO. It’s also telling that no one in this BLPN discussion has been willing to directly state this stuff in the Musk lead is consistent with this BLP requirement: “Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.” Musk is *rarely* called a “polarizing figure” in RS’s, and never in the same sentence where he or his statements have already been called controversial. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Cherry-pickers gonna cherry-pick whatever "feels right". --Animalparty! (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I think saying Musk is polarizing is an important claim in the lead. However, I also agree this is the sort of thing that perhaps can be taken out of a first sentence and instead put slightly later and provided with more detail. I don't mind attributing as I think that is generally good practice in cases like this. I think "polarizing" is far nicer that some of the terms that I believe could be applied to him (even before he abandoned the left to court the right). Still, this is a BLP so we should be careful with how we describe people and err on the side of bland or excessive attribution when saying negative things. (Disclaimer, I think during some TSLAQ discussions I was accused of having a bias against Tesla) Springee (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

We follow the sources, and if many high-quality sources describe someone as polarizing, it is appropriate to follow suit, unless there is some countervailing reason why we should not (for example, equivalently reliable sources contesting that someone is polarizing). That's just Due Weight 101: we explain the biographically significant material about a person, and we do so in context. Descriptive material, including characterizations, are often perfectly fine, if well-sourced and appropriate weight. I also agree with Zaathras that "polarizing" is not a particularly contentious label if well-sourced (here, it is amply so). Surely "polarizing" would likely not be the only way we describe a subject, but we do not exclude it merely because some editors have a distaste for it. Neutrality^talk 18:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"Distaste" has nothing to do with it; MOS:LABEL explicitly lists "controversial" as a contentious label, and indicates that it should be attributed if "widely used" (which is objectively not the case, since 5 sources is not "ample", here, it guides us to avoid the term altogether). (Speaking of cherry-picking, User:Animalparty, would you support that descriptor for Beyoncé and LeBron, where there's actual empirical data? I wouldn't, for the reasons I just mentioned.) The only basis for including this is WP:IAR; if you want the guidelines changed, then start an RFC. DFlhb (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

For me, the question simply comes down to editorial sense, and while I don't think being "polarizing" is a key part of the notability of LeBron or Beyoncé (although maybe getting closer in the former case), it has become so in the case of Musk, especially recently. I don't think there is a way to arrive at an iron-clad ruling on this one, and so, as with most things, I think it comes down to consensus. As I have said, I think the word belongs in the lead and that the article would be worse without it. If consensus should determine otherwise, however, that's fine. As I like to say, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers and Happy Holidays to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, very happy holidays to you! DFlhb (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• First, there are seven sources, not five; to say that he is eg. on a polarizing mission is to say that he is polarizing. But even five sources are more than ample. We usually stop at three unless there's a reason to believe that other sources dispute the claim; five high-profile WP:RSes using the exact same terminology to refer to someone is overwhelming. Since a wide variety of sources have been produced supporting it, at this point you're the one who has to demonstrate that it is disputed somehow by finding sources that disagree with them. --Aquillion (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  Strange that there is only one source in the body of the article. The lead is supposed to summarise the body of the article, not just showcase opinions taken from passing mentions in cherrypicked sources. IntrepidContributor (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  We usually violate MOS:LABEL, yes, and it annoys me. The main concern I bring up throughout this discussion, is that it's not encyclopaedic material. You want to make it purely an issue of sourcing, which it never was; it's a tone, POV and dueness issue. The content is encyclopaedically inappropriate. The same label has been applied to Hillary, Beyoncé and LeBron, with better sourcing, yet no one could consider it reasonable to put that in the lead of their BLP. We don't even call Trump polarizing! Why? Because it's terrible, substance-less writing, and, if it had any substance, would be phrased far differently. Fortunately, we already do! We say: Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology. What does "polarizing" add to that? You really think a Featured article would have fuzzy language like "is a polarizing figure"? It would insta-fail criteria 1A. DFlhb (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• As I've said on the article TP, this label should not be made in the voice of Wikipedia, and should instead be attributed to reliable sources. There are clearly some reliable sources that call Musk polarizing, but the highest quality reliable source mentioned by HAL333 only says he is on "polarizing mission" and stops short of calling him a polarizing figure. There is an argument against including it in the lead as undue according to MOS:LEAD and WP:BLP, but I don't really have a strong opinion on this. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I echo DFlhb. "Polarizing figure" is just an otiose addition, especially when we consider WP:GLOBAL. Who has become polarized? Twitter users? Americans? Nigerians? It also weakly implies that many people hold strong opinions about him. True for Twitter users! But for the world, or even just the West? Most people are either amused or don't care. I'd remove. Ovinus (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I could see something like "polarizing figure among commentators and politicians" or ideally with a "Western" in there, if either can be sourced. Ovinus (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

But the sources describe him as a polarizing figure overall, not just "among commentators and politicians." Attributing it the way you want would be misusing them and would run afoul of the WP:NPOV requirement to not state facts as opinions. If you think it is contentious that he is polarizing (ie. you think there's serious disagreement among the sources about it), you should present sources disputing it in some way. I don't think that any sources like that exist, though, since it seems practically WP:BLUE at this point that he is a polarizing figure (it would be a reasonable summary of large swaths of his article, even if we didn't have sources backing that description directly.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion: are you opposed to attributing altogether, or just to "commentators and politicians"? This noticeboard is the last stop before a RFC, so it would be good to get all opinions here. IntrepidContributor (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the very problem that MOS:LABEL attempts to address. Every source is written from some point of view, in this case that of the media. Unless who is becoming polarized is made explicit—Twitter users? the American public? anyone who's heard of him?—it's still inappropriate. Opinion polls may help the case, though. (Also, considering lead follows body, the one mention of polarization found in the body should be strengthened.) Ovinus (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

"Avoid stating facts as opinions." The problem is the opposite. "Avoid stating opinions as facts." It's not a fact that Elon Musk is polarizing. I suggest you to look at the DIKW pyramid https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-data-information-knowledge-wisdom-DIKW-hierarchy-as-a-pyramid-to-manage-knowledge_fig6_332400827. Facts are supposed to be something that is different from fleeting theories and to be something definitive, permanent and independent of the individual researcher's subjective interpretation. Facts, by their very nature, hold back and evade consensus and the nature of interpretation of the labile or fluctuating. Instead, they form the base in which every rationale, philosophical or in other cognitive respects, every human consideration, calculation and conclusion takes its starting point. It's independent of scientific paradigms, and it's definitely independent of the latest Anglophone 2022 news. WP:NEWSORG "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". Remember to extract the facts from RS News. RS News are not reliable for anything. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow. It's not often outside of politics that I see that much double-talk and technobabble which ultimately says nothing. I'm not sure what your point is, but it's a lot more straight-forward than all of that. All information can be divided into two categories: fact and opinion. Facts are observable and, therefore, recordable phenomena. They are the what, where, who, when, and how of a subject. Everything else is opinion, which comes by many names, such as theories, judgments, conclusions, POVs, etc. This is the why of the story. The reason. By themselves, facts are meaningless data. It's only when you have a theory that can connect all the facts that some meaning can be gleaned from them. So, to convey any meaning you must have both, facts and opinions. This is not only the basis of journalism but it's also the core principle of the philosophy of scientific methodology. For more on the subject, I'd suggest:

Philosophy of Scientific Method by John Stuart Mills

On Writing Well: The Classical Guide to Writing Non-fiction by William Zinsser

Understanding Journalism by Lynette Sheridan Burns

Reading and Writing: Nonfiction Genres by Kathleen Buss, Lee Karnowski

Writing for Journalists by Wynford Hicks, Sally Adams, Harriet Gilbert

Zaereth (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll add to this a statement that many will find cryptic, except to a special few. What really separates the good writers from the bad is understanding of the great power of what is left unsaid. Simply put, if you have to explain the joke, it's not funny. Like I said, it comes off as condescending. Zaereth (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Idaho Murder suspect arrested vs BLPCRIME

Could use help from experienced BLP editors viz-a-viz the specifics about the guy arrested earlier today in connection to the Idaho University murders last November. See talk and version history for 2022 University of Idaho killings; seems to me certain editors are ignoring WP:BLPCRIME Thanks

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

NAEG, for me that's actually a difficult one to decide not to name. There's no danger to the victims, and the police are actively asking for help from anyone who knew the suspect. The NYT and WSJ are both naming the suspect. Personally I think because the police are asking for help we name him as 'a suspect' or 'alleged' or 'has been charged' or whatever, because we couldn't really report that fact otherwise. I do get the question is not easy, and I'm open to other interpretation. Valereee (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Questions continue whether to add to lead/create redirects from suspect's name. I'm thinking the name in a section is probably okay, but in the lead and redirects, probably not? Valereee (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless there is strong precedence, I don't think redirect from suspect's name appropriate. Slywriter (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Armita Abbasi

Serious BLP issues that I think I should not repeat further. CT55555(talk) 15:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Peter Membrey

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

Posting this on behalf of User:Pmembrey who requested its deletion at the talk page. Jay 💬 13:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

That threats were involved is concerning. If admins don't go through with deletion using their tools, there's a good case for AfD.

[1] and [2] are what appear to be a non-notable recognition. [3] is only saying that the subject is a member of IT Professionals NZ, and was written by the subject (primary source). [4] is a Google Books link to a CentOS book that the subject authored and not exactly a good source for biographical information. [5] is a self-published university page for a research group and just mentions the subject name. Nothing about joining PolyU in Nov 2010 which is mentioned in the article. [6] is a link to the subject's thesis. [7] is a brief profile on a self-published site. [8] is the subject's GitHub account. [9] to [13] are links to websites that list the subject's published works. I don't know how much the subject contributed to the papers his name is on, but I don't think this fits the WP:NPROF#C1 and we don't have secondary sources to comment on the the influence and impact. This paper appears to be the most cited paper he contributed to, with 215 citations. Overall, the sourcing does a poor job for demonstrating notability and regardless of the subject's stated circumstances, there's a strong case for deletion. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

AfD link WP:Articles for deletion/Peter Membrey. Jay 💬 07:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa has an RFC

Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.. The subject is recently deceased (less than a month ago). Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Kim Seon-ho

See also: Talk:Kim Seon-ho § On Using Dispatch and Misleading Sentences

I have huge problems with this part regarding his abortion controversy.

This part---> "On October 26, 2021, a Korean media outlet published new evidence challenging the accusations of Kim's ex-girlfriend, citing sources from close acquaintances of both Kim and his ex-girlfriend. Screen-captures of chat conversations from acquaintances revealed that the ex-girlfriend had been the one to suggest the abortion, contrary to her claims. The pair then split up about a year after due to questionable circumstances surrounding the ex-girlfriend's personal life. Testimonies from acquaintances of both Kim and his ex-girlfriend continued to surface, refuting various claims previously made by the ex-girlfriend. Following the new reports most companies began resuming advertisements featuring Kim. The production team of the film Sad Tropics also announced their decision to proceed with their project and list Kim as the lead actor."

That parts are mostly using source from Dispatch. It's a Korean entertainment website which is quite notorious for their rumors.

Screen-captures of chat conversations from acquaintances revealed that the ex-girlfriend had been the one to suggest the abortion, contrary to her claims. ---> this part particularly troubles me based on the report from Dispatch which show anonymous sources from "friends". Moreover, that sentence is also blaming one of the parties here (the ex-girlfriend).

If we use official sources, the person (Kim Seon Ho) or the ex-girlfriend never said that the girlfriend pushed for the abortion. Yet that page is using a report with anonymous sources (not corroborated by either party) to suggest the girlfriend asked for abortion (abortion was illegal in South Korea at that time).

Just for context, Dispatch is notorious for their rumor news. In 2018, 200,000 people filled petition to have it banned. Some people are trying to use loophole because Dispatch has not been cited as either reliable/unreliable source on Korean wiki here. But I do not think Wikipedia should use gossip with anonymous sources to defend celeb. Please check. If Kim Seon Ho's fans are running that page, they can just keep evading the Edit War rules by reverting my edit with different accounts. This is my proposed edit:

On October 20, 2021, Kim's ex-girlfriend issued a new statement, stating that there were some misunderstandings between them and that she has received an apology from him. She also apologized for causing unintentional damage.[53] On October 26, 2021, a Korean gossip media Dispatch published testimonies challenging the abortion accusations of Kim's ex-girlfriend,[54] however no confirmation about this from either Kim Seon-ho or his ex-girlfriend. Following the new reports, two companies began resuming advertisements featuring Kim.[55][56] The production team of the film Sad Tropics also announced their decision to proceed with their project and list Kim as the lead actor.[57] In July 2022, Kim Seon-ho later apologized for the controversies.[58] TheWandering (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article due to the edit war but with the above from TheWandering I'd appreciate a second opinion on whether the wrong version (which was the stable version) is in fact the wrong version and should be modified. I've read through it so many times now that I can't see the forest for the trees. Thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Callanecc I have removed the following sentence "Screen-captures of chat conversations from acquaintances revealed that the ex-girlfriend had been the one to suggest the abortion, contrary to her claims" as it's failed verification and isn't mentioned in neither existing source from SCMP and Manila Bulletin. This sentence in question was added back in November 2021 via this revision (retrieved via WikiBlame) by inactive User:Lexipediagrey, however no updates to the existing citations were provided back then and the citations has remained the same to date. You as an admin is free to revert my changes if you feel the changes is inappropriate without needing my permissions. Fyi, I didn't participate in the edit war, only commented in the article's talk page pertaining to the usage of SCMP and Manilla Bulletin, of which there are no consensus on replacing and/or removing the SCMP and Manilla Bulletin source among the various editors that had commented on the article's talk page which is also one of the OP concerns. — 🎄🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 13:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

LEONCIE

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

Happy New Year As a Professional Singer, Musician Composer,I, LEONCIE would like to report Libellous Defamatory attacks on my good name. The defamatory attacks have been going on for many years now and it has become Intolerable.It is Destructive Negative and Damaging. Whoever started this page in Icelandic and English did not get my written permission to do so. A Biography must be written by a Professional Author who has talked with me eye to eye .This wikipedia,Defamation and hate Campaign of Terror to damage and destroy My Reputation has caused me a lot of Emotional distress,Job losses, Sleepless Nights,Anxiety and heart problems. Everything in this wikipedia ATTACK PAGES, in Icelandic and english Speading Malicious Rumours,Slanderous Assertions,and false Information has caused me Severe Mental Anguish and has also upset my Family. There is an article called GLATKISTAN and it is simply Lies,Libel and hate. On 18th March 2022,I complained to Wikipedia about this GLATKISTAN LIBEL, AND WIKIPEDIA REMOVED it from the ENGLISH page with my name on it. After finding that it is an UNRELIABLE SOURCE,which violates the date of birth, Style and Instrumentation wikipedia deleted that Glatkistan article. Please be kind to remove that article in Icelandic,And please let me know. Kind Regards..Leoncie,Singer Musician, Composer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.164.3 (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, please stop making accusations of defamation per WP:NLT, or you will be blocked from editing. Secondly, please confirm what information on the English-language article is incorrect. Thirdly, a 'professional author' will not be allowed to write your article per WP:PAID. Fourthly, if you have issues with the Icelandic-language article then you need to contact that website directly. GiantSnowman 13:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

On "A Biography must be written by a Professional Author who has talked with me eye to eye ." Not on this website, no. WP-articles are made by whoever feels like spending time on them. The aim for a WP-biography about you is to summarize WP:RS, independent of you. WP:ABOUTSELF sources has some use, but will be used carefully if at all. Like GiantSnowman said, you have to discuss Icelandic WP at Icelandic WP. English WP has no extra power over other WP:s.

Some recommended reading:

• Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing
• WP:OWN
• WP:BIOSELF

Noting that I spent some time editing Leoncie last year[22], and the article is pretty much as I left it then. IMO, there's nothing WP:BLP-awful in it atm.

Btw, if you are interested in providing a WP:LEADIMAGE for the article(s), let me know and I'll try to guide you for the process. Gleðilegt nýtt ár! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Noting also User talk:Leoncie. If that user is you, you should request unblocking per the instructions on that page instead of editing unregistered. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive336#Leoncie. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI ping to @C.Fred if you're interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the English version that is destructive or unduly negative. The critics' descriptions of her are suitably sourced. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Eric England (director)

The section "Sexual abuse and assault allegations" is supported by a citation to one reference, a horror site called "Dread Central. The website includes an update to its original post in the form of a rather lengthy statement by the article subject. I question (1) whether the website meets the reliable source standard and (2) whether such claims should remain in the article unless and until additional sources meeting the reliability standard can be cited. I would have simply removed the section, except for my question whether Dread Central is a reliable source under our standards and whether one source is sufficient. Instead, I brought the issue here for other eyes to view and weigh in on. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Dread Central has been discussed once at WP:RSN (here) and consensus there seemed to be that it was broadly reliable. Whether it is sufficient to establish that such a serious allegation be included in the article is another question entirely, however – I can't find any other coverage in reliable sources, and the article also cites a Medium essay and a twitter post for their discussion of the allegations, neither of which seem to be suitable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  I removed the section. We can’t have such a serious crime on a BLP sourced to only a horror film review website. Thriley (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Keith Ablow

• Keith Ablow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone keeps removing Dr. Ablow's "M.D." and referring to him as a "former psychiatrist." Despite Dr. Ablow's controversies, nothing removes his M.D. nor makes him "not" a psychiatrist. Many psychiatrists do not practice. Many surrender their licenses for many reasons. Dr. Ablow has NOT surrendered his license and has appealed the decision of the Board of Medicine in Massachusetts to suspend that license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fact Fellow 111 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether Ablow is a psychiatrist or former psychiatrist – I've never hear of him before now! – but according to wikipedia's manual of style we do not use postnominal letters for degrees, so removing the "MD" is correct here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Asra Nomani

Your article contains this utterly irrelevant attack on The Federalist, to which Nomani contributes. The attack has absolutely nothing to do with Nomani, but it is clearly intended to reduce her credibility in a thoroughly contemptable manner. Given how much dishonesty public health administrators have engaged in while labeling all alternative views (often perfectly credible viewss) as "misinformation," to include this statement without any qualification is outrageous. Remove this paragraph:

"She is a senior contributor to The Federalist which published many pieces that contained false information, pseudoscience, and contradictions or misrepresentations of the recommendations of public health authorities.[31][32] While ballots were being counted in the 2020 United States presidential election, The Federalist made false claims that there had been large-scale election fraud.[33][34]"

I have contributed to Wikipedia before. But there is not a chance I will again if this sort of thing is to be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:4D30:494A:370D:4DA3:99B (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be an example of overzealous Wikipedians striving to ensure that every time The Federalist is mentioned, it MUST also be mentioned that The Federalist has also published pseudoscience and misleading content about the 2020 election. But unless the Federalist articles were authored by Nomani (and there is no indication they are), it has no place in her biography. And I have remove it. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Big Scarr

Big Scarr died three days ago. The official cause of death has not been announced, but his mother said it was an "accidental drug overdose". Mothers will say a lot of things, but not all of them are correct or encyclopedic. Should the cause of death remain blank until it is officially announced? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

It's currently cited to WP:TMZ, which has no consensus on its reliability. If there are not any other reliable sources, WP:RSBREAKING is also a concern. I'd say keep cause out for now. —Bagumba (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

There are other sources, but they all seem to be referring to the TMZ 'report'. I don't think it's contentious or defamatory (there are no conflicting reports) so I think it's fine for it to be in the article as long as we're clear it's not been officially announced per the police statement but not in the info box. JeffUK 09:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)