Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive323

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Second impeachment of Donald Trump

SNOWBALL CLOSE
There is a clear consensus that the piping of "Incitement of insurrection" to the Sedition article is supported. Closing per the snowball clause. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

Second impeachment of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors are repeatedly trying to wikilink the impeachment charge of "incitement of insurrection" to Sedition. This interpretation is not supported by reliable sources and is potentially libelous.

I suggest linking the phrase to Incitement or linking each term separately: "incitement of insurrection".

Further discussion:

-- AnonQuixote (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not really a new interpretation because "incitement of insurrection" is the literal definition of sedition. So, sedition is probably the article we have that best matches the charge; that said, I would be in favor of piping the link as "incitement of insurrection", since that's the language used in the article of impeachment. From WP:NOTOR:

Accurate paraphrasing of reliable sources is not considered original research. In fact, in most cases you are actually required by policy to write in your own words rather than plagiarizing the source's wording. This includes: using synonyms rather than quotations

"Sedition" is merely a synonym for "incitement of insurrection", so there shouldn't be any problem here. AnonQuixote, you seem to be working with a different definition of sedition than the rest of us. What does the word mean to you? ― Tartan357 Talk 10:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Do you have a source for your understanding of the term "sedition"? Otherwise, my opinion or yours is not relevant. Conflating incitement with sedition is clearly original research. AnonQuixote (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
AnonQuixote, um, yes, I cited the dictionary definition in my above comment. ― Tartan357 Talk 06:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
In a legal context there are several different charges relating to incitement and sedition. If you can provide a legal RS that shows that the House charges are considered the same as a charge of sedition, then please do so. Otherwise it's considered improper synthesis to combine ideas from multiple, unrelated sources. AnonQuixote (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
AnonQuixote, no, that's not what's at issue here. No claim is being made that Trump has been legally charged with sedition per that specific definition under U.S. law. We're only talking about adding a wikilink to our general article on the subject, which is perfectly appropriate, since "incitement of insurrection" is the literal definition of sedition. Words mean what they mean, regardless of U.S. law. ― Tartan357 Talk 06:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
information Note: Congress can impeach any federal official for "Treason, Bribery, or High Crimes and Misdemeanors" which given the legal scholarship, effectively means anything they feel denigrates the office they hold. They don't have to be legal codified criminal offenses for Congress to impeach. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Linking from the charges to the article on sedition implies that that's what the charges were; I do not believe this is justified by sources. In fact, at least one source specifically contrasts the impeachment charge with potential sedition or seditious conspiracy charges against some of the rioters.[1] The impeachment itself repeatedly uses the phrase "incitement" to describe Trump's actions, while stating that the mob, not Trump, performed "seditious acts". AnonQuixote (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The reversions to "incitement of insurrection" were in the "accusations" field of the page's infobox. Before it was removed, "sedition" was a description of the official charge, not a statement of fact as to whether sedition occurred. So it's use was not libelous at all. A single wikilink to a more specific term would also be more helpful than two links to more general pages, per MOS:SPECIFICLINK. —WingedSerif (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source that Trump was accused of sedition? AnonQuixote (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
AnonQuixote, Trump is accused of inciting insurrection. Given "incitement of insurrection" = "sedition" as noted above, there should be no issue with this phrasing. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 07:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
agree to linking to sedition per Gwennie Vikram Vincent 07:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
If it's so obvious, it should be a simple matter to provide an RS that supports this interpretation. AnonQuixote (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
AnonQuixote, no, we are allowed to paraphrase. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. You've taken this issue to three different venues, and, AFAICT, everyone has disagreed with you so far. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
A handful of Wikipedia editors is not considered a reliable source. AnonQuixote (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
AnonQuixote, that's an absurd thing to say. Nobody is citing "a handful of Wikipedia editors". But we do decide disputes on Wikipedia through discussion, and a WP:CONSENSUS appears to be building that this is appropriate paraphrasing as described in WP:NOTOR because the dictionary definition of "sedition" is "incitement of insurrection". ― Tartan357 Talk 08:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
So far several editors have stated their belief that the phrase 'incitement of insurrection' means sedition in this context. However, not a single reliable source has been provided to support this claim. On Wikipedia, we need to follow reliable sources, not a majority vote of editor's personal opinions. AnonQuixote (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
AnonQuixote, sourcing is important, but please understand that you seem quite heated right now. I understand having an argument, that's part of discussion. However we need to be nice to each other here on Wikipedia. For a lot of political articles you frequent, there can be a tendency that can easily fallen into.
Please understand that language can be complex and sourcing of controversial issues can be even more so. So let's lay this out clearly:
  • Reliable sources including the Articles of Impeachment accuse Trump of inciting "violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts" against the Government.
  • Dictionary definitions as listed above state clearly that the "incitement of insurrection" is a synonym of sedition.
  • WP:NOTOR states that paraphrasing is allowed. (In fact, it's encouraged, because WP:PLAG would occur if we copy-pasted source text.)
  • Impeachment functions as a grand jury charge against an elected official in the US. Provided it fits under "Treason, Bribery, High Crimes and Misdemeanors" outlined in the Constitution, it can be brought. (Also, Congressional impeachments are immune to the double jeopardy protection in the Bill of Rights). They aren't charges pursuant to the US Code.
So, putting all of those together, as at least three editors here have told you, and the other editors are the other venues have told you, it is fine. However, this uncompromising behavior might not work out well for you if you continue. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 08:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gwennie-nyan. I'm not sure why you are accusing me of getting heated. Please remember to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks against other editors.
As I've already pointed out, the text of the impeachment does not state that Trump committed sedition, and no reliable source supports this claim. Combining multiple, unrelated sources is considered a form of original research per WP:SYN. AnonQuixote (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
AnonQuixote, Gwennie-nyan has not made any personal attacks; they are being perfectly cordial. Please note that false accusations of personal attacks are, themselves, personal attacks that many of us dislike quite strongly. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
You and Gwennie-nyan have both made the unfounded accusation that my conduct was disruptive. Please refrain from further accusations of this nature. AnonQuixote (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
AnonQuixote, I'm not accusing you, I'm just relaying my own perspective as to the wording of your comments. I am assuming good faith. That's why the above message exists in nice bullet-point format. This isn't WP:SYNTH. We're just trying to lay out the logical puzzle pieces so you can understand where we're coming from. However, it seems that despite our best efforts, you aren't understanding anything we're relaying to you.
I want you to be able to develop, learn how the wiki works, and become a good, constructive editor. This conduct won't help you in that. I'm honestly concerned about you having witnessed your conduct since you joined the wiki. However I try not to rub newbies the wrong way. One of the hardest things about the wiki is learning that even our best intentions might be flawed and so it's important to accept good-faith criticism and inquiry from other editors. (Note: That must go both ways) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 09:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
AnonQuixote The "heated" observation could be a reference to your need to respond to every comment that does not agree with you. A good way would be to just observe the arguments and data pouring in and then try to address them together which would actually add weight to your points. You accusing me of "harassing" you when I templated you with a 3RR(when in fact 1RR is in effect) is a good example of being "heated up". All of us are trying to come to a consensus of a complex issue where there are no direct translation and hence we are looking at synonyms which fit and that is what the term 'sedition' appears to be for most of us. The reference is not to the charges or legal proceedings that are underway but to the incitement act that was performed. The links I provided were to explain the concept in context. I would urge you not to respond immediately. Even if it is reverted you can come back with a strong RS that perhaps contradicts the consensus and we will definitely reexamine. Best! Vikram Vincent 09:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Some references on the phrase sedition in context

https://www.chicagotribune.com/featured/sns-liststory-what-is-treason-sedition-coup-20210107-gegwe2fqqndqfedsff3vdo32va-list.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/13/house-impeachment-trump-458589

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/06/trump-is-guilty-sedition-impeach-him-again/

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-sedition-william-barr-1073455/

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/01/06/ted-cruz-accused-of-abetting-sedition-and-inspiring-pro-trump-riot-by-resisting-bidens-victory/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/01/05/trump-trumpists-dangerous-enemies-american-democracy-column/4134081001/

I think the phrase sedition is quite appropriate from even a non-USA perspective. Vikram Vincent 07:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's look at those articles individually.
  • [2] defines sedition as "any conspiracy to overthrow, put down or to destroy by force the government of the United States". It does not state Trump was charged with sedition.
  • [3] quotes House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer as saying "Reject sedition, tyranny and insurrection" in a speech. This was a political speech, not an official statement and does not specifically accuse Trump of sedition.
  • [4] is an opinion piece that accuses Trump of sedition. Max Boot's opinion is not what the House voted on.
  • [5] is an article from October 2020, not relevant to the impeachment proceedings.
  • [6] is about Beto O’Rourke accusing Ted Cruz of sedition, not about the impeachment.
  • [7] is an opinion article from January 5, prior to the events that led to Trump's second impeachment, discussing what the author considers "sedition fatigue" in the American public.
In summary, none of these sources support your contention that the impeachment charge was equivalent to sedition. AnonQuixote (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
AnonQuixote, I think what Vincentvikram is trying to do is give you examples of the word "sedition" being used in context, beacuse you have doubted the dictionary definition. They are not claiming these sources specifically accuse Trump of the crime of sedition as defined under U.S. law. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I have questioned that the claim that the impeachment charge is equivalent to a charge of sedition. None of these sources support that claim. AnonQuixote (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
AnonQuixote, you're entering WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. I and others have repeatedly told you that adding a wikilink to our page on sedition does not imply that Trump has been charged with sedition as defined under U.S. law. No such claim that the impeachment charge is equivalent to a charge of sedition exists in my or others' comments. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Please stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks. I have no objection to adding a wikilink for the term sedition on the page. What I object to is wikilinking from the phrase "incitement of insurrection" to "sedition" when no reliable source supports that interpretation. AnonQuixote (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
AnonQuixote, I do not see any personal attacks in my above statement. What do you see as a personal attack? ― Tartan357 Talk 08:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Accusing me of disruptive editing for engaging in discussion. AnonQuixote (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
AnonQuixote, it's not that you're engaging in discussion, it's the way you're going about it. However Tartan357, perhaps this isn't the venue to call it what it seems to be, if you believe that to be merited. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 08:52, 16 January 2021 (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.

Alternative solution

AnonQuixote appears to be correct in the above discussion. A core principle of BLP policy is that all content must strictly adhere to no original research policy. If someone is accused of conducting original research or otherwise adding unverifiable material, the best practice to address the allegation is to provide a direct quote from at least one reliable source that directly supports the statement, or alternatively provide a proper inline citation in the article space. As far as I can tell, nobody has provided or even tried to provide a source that says the charge was specifically for "sedition" and nobody has disputed that the charge was for "incitement of insurrection".

If the argument is that "incitement of insurrection" must be paraphrased to avoid plagiarism or whatnot – which is not true – then this revert (reverting paraphrase) does not make much sense.

Funnily enough, simply redirecting Incitement of insurrection to sedition would make the content policy-compliant. No pipe needed. Politrukki (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh. The RFD was closed early. Someone already linked Incitement of insurrection without piping even though that was not previously discussed. Politrukki (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sholam Weiss

I've been monitoring and editing the page on Sholam Weiss. There is another user however, who is removing maintainence tags without consensus - related to the potentially PoV pushing nature of the article. There is an active RfC on the talk page regarding the quality and tone of the content on the page. I was hoping that some uninvolved 3rd party could possibly provide some guidance on that situation.

Thanks,

BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 15:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

BrxBrx At least one of the participants (Mcaserta31) was blocked as sock. If you add maintenance tags, each one should be explained on the article talk page unless the purpose is otherwise obvious. Some maintenance tags can be removed unless there is explicit consensus to keep a tag, although removing a tag may be disruptive regardless of whether such consensus exists. Politrukki (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this a talk page BLP violation

I noticed this discussion about the Kenosha Unrest Shooting suspect in relation to the Proud Boys talk page[[8]]. IHateAccounts described Kyle Rittenhouse as "white-supremacist (alleged) murderer". Two editors noted that this was a BLP violation (Distelfinck, JPxG). My feeling is this would be a BLP violation since it is stating that Rittenhouse is a murder and strongly implying he is a white supremacist. Still, I think IHA could argue this is just his opinion and since it isn't in the article it doesn't cross the line. I don't want to step into quagmire that is the Proud Boys article but I would be interested in knowing what others think and it would help myself calibrate where the line is on talk pages. I have no opinion on the article level content. Springee (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is a violation, but not the only one. BLP policy applies to all pages. Where are admins when we need them? Politrukki (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Because Kyle Rittenhouse is documented to have made a White Power sign at that restaurant, deeming him a White Supremacist, on a talk page, is probably okay. Even if this, somehow, is proven to be not the case, the likelihood that a defamation suit would be launched over this seems just so extremely remote. Not to mention the extremely remote chances that it would succeed, even if it did. Therefore, censoring someone from expressing that viewpoint in the course of a discussion seems like a poor trade off. As for calling him an "(alleged) murderer" — that confuses me. Mainly, because I don't understand how charges of "intentional homicide" actually square away with charges of "murder." El_C 00:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I tend to agree with EL_C here: this, to me, is on the edge of acceptable. Definitely not in an article, but there is some factual support for both descriptors. I think it's perfectly fair to say that it would be best for IHA to tone down the rhetoric a bit, but a the same time I do not think it is a violation of Wikipedia policies or something that should be removed. Just my $.02! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Without making any comment on general patterns of talk page behavior of the editor, I agree that this, in itself, isn't a particularly egregious offense. That specific talk page is quite acrimonious all around (I only dared step foot there because I was specifically pinged by the feedback request bot; it may be of interest that there's also a whole AN/I thread about people's behavior in that same discussion). I don't know this guy from a hole in the ground, so whether he's a white supremacist is really out of my wheelhouse (I also don't particularly give a hoot about him). jp×g 10:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I also agree with El C, et al. More evidence would be required to call him a "white supremacist" in an article in Wikipedia's voice, but as an editor's personal opinion on a talk page, there is sufficient support evidence to make it not a BLP violation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not understand what your speculation on a defamation suit has to do with anything. The standard is "Contentious material ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices". Soap boxing in talk pages is not improving the article. The whole discussion is meta discussion.
As you very well know, the community does not always agree on how BLP policy should be enforced on talk pages. For example in this RFA (see question 6 specifically) the candidate was asked about redacting a talk page comment that described a living person's allegation as a "wild claim". Many defended the action, while others disagreed. One administrator said the "BLP redaction ... was spot on". Another one said "Zealous enforcement of BLP is usually considered a positive thing."
And did you already forget this incident where an editor scrubbed a fiery but peaceful comment from a talk page? Later claiming, "I actually think that the comment I removed from the talk page was a kind of BLP violation."
In the ANI discussion mentioned by JPxG, editors seem to agree that BLP removals were within policy. Politrukki (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@El C: Just to clarify, when somebody has been photographed making the OK sign, calling them a White Supremacist, on a talk page, is "probably okay"? Those celebrities making the gesture can all be called White Supremacists? --Distelfinck (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Context matters. Paul McCartney? Probably not a white supremacist. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
No doubt. Also, not sure what my assertion that only the Arbitration Committee has the authority to censure admins (which, again, is just a fact) has much to do with anything. Furthermore, as already mentioned, at the time, Drmies invoked WP:ACDS, so pretty much the only way to be able to reverse his action —even among admins— would for the Committee to weigh in on the matter (arguably, a quorum of uninvolved admins at AE could prompt this, as well). Again, I'm not the one who came up with these rules, I'm just explaining them as plainly as I am able. El_C 22:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Raz Simone

Resolved
 – It looks like Jdphenix's edits resolved the original problem and there have been no further issues.

Hi all, could someone please take a look at the personal life section of the article. It's contentious material and currently only supported by a single source. There's probably also a question around DUE. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm taking a poke at it. Wish me luck. Jdphenix (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Dena Schlosser

Dear editors,

I am Director of Media Relations at Marist College in Poughkeepsie. We have no record of Dena Schlosser (or Laettner) in our alumni database as having ever attended the College. I am writing to request that the piece of her bio that refers to her as having attended and graduated from Marist be removed immediately.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Julia Fishman Director of Media Relations Marist College 845-575-3430 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.181.100 (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done --C o r t e x 💬talk 00:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Her attendance was sourced to the Dallas Observer.[9]. This is not a BLP concern but rather a college PR concern. I would reinstate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Her maiden name was also Leitner[10] not Laettner Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Alleged involvement of U.S. Congressmen in planning 2021 Capitol storming

It's been widely reported by multiple news sources[1][2][3] that conservative activist Ali Alexander, who planned the rally that became the 2021 U.S. Capitol storming, published a video in December 2020 in which he credited multiple U.S. Congressmen with assisting in the planning for organizing a mob to pressure Congress. The activist in question has been supportive of the storming, which he called "completely peaceful" and thanked the members of congress for assisting. Alexander stated that the planning "was to build momentum and pressure and then on the day change hearts and minds of Congress peoples who weren't yet decided or who saw everyone outside and said, 'I can't be on the other side of that mob", with the intent to "put maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting".

This has led to widespread news reports with extremely harsh criticism of the members of Congress in question. For instance, the Arizona Republic published articles with the names "Reps. Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs credited in video with organizing Trump crowd in DC on day of riot" [11] and "Arizona Reps. Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar implicated by activist in Capitol insurrection" [12]. Furthermore, this reporting has resulted in congressional discussion of the potential expulsion of certain members [e.g. "If a Member of Congress willingly violated their oath of office and tacitly encouraged a mob to overturn the results of democratic elections, their actions should be investigated and they should face consequences. If that includes expulsion, so be it.].

User Springee has expressed that this content should not be included on Wikipedia as "This is effectively accusing a BLP subject of being involved in a crime. We need to be vary careful how that sort of accusation is handled"; according to them, "This is crossing over into a claim that Biggs was involved in a criminal conspiracy. That would take very robust sourcing which this is not." As a result, I wanted to open a BLP discussion. I am personally for the cautious inclusion of this material by describing them as allegations and including pushback by the accused when provided, as even though it accuses a BLP subject of being involved in a crime, the largest newspaper in Arizona has already confidently asserted that two of the representatives were "implicated" in the crime. With that said, I'm not familiar with how BLPN discussions work, and happy to defer to the expertise of others on the subject. Reyne2 (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The way the material was added to the article suggested the BLP subject was complicit in a crime. I suggested asking here so a BLP acceptable answer could be found. Unless the sources say the intent of the protests was to break the law, the BLP entries need to be clear that they were supporting a mass demonstration and they didn't (presumably) encourage or support the storming of the capitol building. It would be legal and within reason to support a protest contesting an election outcome but not illegal activities that resulted from the protests. Springee (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
As I said, the source alleged that the Congressmen participated in organizing an event with unspecified details but the ultimate intent "to build momentum and pressure and then on the day change hearts and minds of Congress peoples who weren't yet decided or who saw everyone outside and said, 'I can't be on the other side of that mob'". In other words, organizing a mob to intimidate Congress, which is not legal by general definition - hence why the only Congressman to have responded has vehemently denied any involvement. Reyne2 (talk)
Your comment on the talk page was, "The specific allegation was from a conservative activist sympathetic to Biggs and involved in organizing the storming". That suggests either Biggs or the activist intended for this to result in a crime. Were either Biggs or the activist planning something they intended to be violent/illegal? If no or if we don't have robust evidence to the contrary then we have a BLP concern regarding implying intent to commit a crime. Springee (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
In their own words, the activist stated that they themselves and other Congressmen were planning the organization of a mob to pressure Congress into voting in a desired fashion. I think it makes sense to report this fact without additional commentary. This statement has been widely interpreted by news media to indicate that the activist [and congressmen, if involved], were planning something they intended to be illegal intimidation at the very least. Regardless, it seems very clear that we are talking at cross purposes to one another. Therefore, I think it makes sense to wait until others enter the discussion and defer to their judgmentReyne2 (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I would be very careful including any content implicating a subject with organizing the storming or rally. I see no source for this other than Alexander's Periscope post itself. Jdphenix (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


I'm more inclined to agree with Springee. "Widely reported" is a bit of an exaggeration. Biggs is a representative from Arizona so of course the The Arizona Republic would be more inclined to write about him. Other than that, the CNN and Daily Beast articles only have a few lines each on the matter. There's nothing particularly wrong with the sources, however, we have to show extreme caution when writing about a BLP being involved in a crime (especially in this scenario--something tantamount to treason or conspiracy against the government is not a joke). This could potentially be libelous information. At the moment, I don't really see a lot of merit to the allegations. We typically don't need to include breaking news coverage every time an extremist accuses a politician of something. It would probably be better to allow the story to develop to see if there's any real evidence to corroborate the allegation. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Alexander made the statements that back the claims being discussed, but I see no additional information out there. At this time, I would oppose addition of any content that implicates the mentioned subjects in the organization or the storming of the Capitol. Jdphenix (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Honestly as this article reads to date, it's basically "Here's a man, here's his extremist political views", uses laughably biased sources like the Daily Beast to support statements like "shady data collection operations". Stop the Steal, the movement he's credited with founding, doesn't have it's own article here. Is he WP:N? Jdphenix (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Never mind. This isn't about the Ali Alexander article like I thought when I first read through the discussion. Concerns still stand. Jdphenix (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
If Ari Alexander is not a credible witness then I would have even larger concerns regarding using claims attributed to an unreliable primary source to support contentious implications/claims against BLP. Springee (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Jdphenix, don't overdo it: "laughably biased" is a gross overstatement. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Drmies, I don't doubt the Daily Beast for accuracy. They are biased though. On this particular claim, they source a Medium blog post to support the "shady" claim. Jdphenix (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The Washington Post joins CNN: [13]; a number of local outlets are joining the Arizona outlets [14] [15] [16]. Is CNN + WaPo insufficient? Reyne2 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/us/online-extremism-inauguration-capitol-invs/index.html
  2. ^ https://www.thedailybeast.com/stop-the-steal-organizer-in-hiding-after-denying-blame-for-riot
  3. ^ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2021/01/10/paul-gosar-andy-biggs-credited-video-organizing-trump-crowd-dc/6603721002/
This still comes down to RS saying "activist said X". Since this is a BLP we need to err on the side of not spreading accusations or associations with a crime. Springee (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This issue had again come up at the Andy Bigs article. Here is the discussion [[17]]. I don't feel that the argument made by FantinoFalco (talk · contribs) that the news source is RS is sufficient to overcome the BLP issues associated with implying someone was involved with a crime based on the claims of an activist organizer. Springee (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue is, that Springee (talk · contribs) comes up with changing rationales for reverting edits. The edits clearly point out, that the allegations came from Ali Alexander and are not confirmed. However, they have been picked up by major news organisations and local lawmakers. This is all stated, so there is no legal exposure here. --FantinoFalco (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The opening of this discussion states that it has been widely reported etc. The discussion still does not support inclusion. Basically nothing has changed. Springee (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Exclude - I agree with Springee. Accusations are like elbows - everybody has one, and it doesn't make the material encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion. It's opinion journalism based on rumors and/or speculation; i.e., a theory, and when several people are involved, it becomes a conspiracy theory. It has no place in our encyclopedia. The problem with biased sources is that they tend to believe the speculation that supports their POV whereas unbiased sources would respond along the lines of what I just presented, or not publish it at all. The latter really needs closer consideration. WP doesn't need clickbait. Atsme 💬 📧 13:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi

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

Pelosi lost the speakership in 2011 after the Republican Party won a majority in the House of Representatives in the 2010 elections. But she retained her role as leader of the House Democratic Caucus and returned to the role of House minority leader. In the 2018 midterm elections, the Democrats regained control of the House.[3] When the 116th Congress convened on January 3, 2019, Pelosi was again elected Speaker,[4] becoming the first former Speaker to return to the post since Sam Rayburn in 1955.[5] Under Pelosi's leadership, the House of Representatives impeached President Donald Trump on December 18, 2019.

The bold captions highlight my concern - That is the biggest and false lie I have ever read in a wikipedia article I am shocked and disgusted at how wikipedia would stoop so increbidbly low to have such obvious lies in this article about nancy pelosi.

TRUMP WAS ACQUITTED AND NOT IMPEACHED! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cringeworth (talk • contribs) 13:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you read Impeachment of Donald Trump (which was conveniently linked to in the very sentence you are making a baseless complaint about), you might learn something. FDW777 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Impeachment in the United States#Procedure, which is a dry read, but in short, articles of impeachment are debated and voted on in the House of Representatives, and upon a successful vote, the civil officer is impeached. Then the Senate considered the same in the form of a trial. Upon conviction in the Senate, the civil officer is removed from office. Trump specifically has been impeached, but that is not synonymous with conviction (by the Senate) or removal from office. Jdphenix (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Or to put it more simply the fact he was acquitted proves he was impeached since you can’t acquit someone who wasn’t charged in the first place.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Certain folks are outraged that Mike DeWine and Gretchen Whitmer don't have impeachment in their articles, although they were never impeached. Those proposals never made it to first reading; therefore were never "introduced", not even "bills", let alone "resolutions". Here we have an impeachment that actually passed (without removal from office), yet certain folks would like wash that away.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about the fact that we tend to get majority leader confused. Speaker of the House & House Majority leader. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing false or misleading in the sentence under discussion. She was the House speaker when Trump was impeached and that is certainly notable. There is no controversy here. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

ivan misner

Hello, We need to change some information of the bio of Ivan Misner, sadly his wife pass away the last year, and we want to communicate who he is and what he does without being an advertising. Any Editor can help us? Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.81.177 (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The date of his wife's death was added 6 November 2020. If you have suggestions for making the article sound less like an advertisement, please post them on the article's talk page. Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Frank Shankwitz

Have I done the right thing on this one? I've removed some detail regarding his death, article was changed wholesale without sourcing, rather important in a bio. I've done a cursory search but found zilch. I'm uncomfortable with BLPs. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 04:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, you did the right thing. There aren't any obituaries showing up online. There's WP:NODEADLINE: if he is dead, he'll still be dead when reliable sources publish the fact. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sholam Weiss

The article on Sholam Weiss, recently the subject of a presidential pardon, is a mess. It appears to be subject to extensive COI editing and the lengthy list of maintenance tags, added by another editor, speaks for itself. It requires experienced eyes. I have commenced a discussion on the Talk page about starting over from scratch. Coretheapple (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Bonnie Henry

Resolved

More eyes appreciated, to determine whether recent edits violate WP:BLP enough to merit rev/deletion. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:A138:DD39:2B64:7F79 (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Those diffs have been revdel'ed some time in the last 10 minutes. Don't know which admin(s) did that, but thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I should know to check the deletion log by now, you'd think. Thanks to Primefac for taking care of this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Always happy to help. Primefac (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Vermin Supreme

Vermin Supreme has stated they do not wish their real name used in their article... there is an OTRS ticket: [18] documenting their request. See also revision to the talk page, where an OTRSer says the request is valid. The topic has come up before at BLP, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive121 and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive221 ... There appears to have been some edit warring over this, not sure why. I propose to edit the name out and potentially leave the article semi-protected to reduce the warring. Someone with oversighter might be needed to remove the revisions that have it. ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The question is how well reported is his real name and in such cases, relative to his wishes. If his name only came up from investigative digging, we obviously should honor the request. If the name is a regular thing associated with news repots of him and it is clear he had no problem with it then, its hard for us to put the genie back in the bottle. --Masem (t) 16:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
To add, a quick Google check shows this appears to be more the former (only crappy poor RS sites make the connection) but it would be helpful for confirmation by other editors. --Masem (t) 16:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I haven't found the text of the OTRS ticket yet (have to dust off my access) but absent revocation of it, the real name isn't notable, isn't reported in regular news that I can find, and Vermin himself requested that it not be shown on the talk page and then in the ticket. So it is clear he DOES have a problem with it. I am notifying the admin Billinghurst that was reverting the removal, since their edits leave the page in the WP:WRONGVERSION, LOL ++Lar: t/c
I'm not as active around here as I used to be and I forgot that the tickets are only visible to volunteers and I let my volunteer-ship lapse. But I'm satisfied of the ticket's bonafides nonetheless given the diff I gave. If I do not hear objections soon, I will be making the edits to remove the deadname. ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
You have my agreement. I don't see enough indication that the real name is sufficiently tied to VS in any RS to be included by WP, so compliance with the ORTS confirmation is 100% appropriate. --Masem (t) 18:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Change to remove birth names has been made by me, editing through full protection, which will expire soon. Let's see what happens next before considering further protection. ++Lar: t/c 22:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Demagogue

I would like an opinion about the article Demagogue. The article includes several examples of historical demagogues, some from ancient history and some from the 20th century. Up to now we have had a local consensus that living people should not be used as examples of a demagogue. But there have been recurring suggestions that Donald Trump should be added as an example - informal suggestions and two formal RfCs:

  • February to May 2017 Closed as no consensus to include; “By about 2 to 1, editors are opposed to Donald Trump's inclusion, mainly because he is not yet a historical figure.”
  • July to October 2020 Closed as no consensus to include, with comment that the question could be revisited after the election.

As a result of the above discussions, we have an invisible comment in the article not to add Trump as an example. But recently there have been multiple attempts to add Trump to the article - so many that I had to semi-protect the article page. There has also been renewed discussion at the talk page.

I am personally WP:INVOLVED in the question, being strongly opposed to naming any living person as an example of a demagogue. My opinion was most recently summed up here: “This article has had a strong tradition of not listing ANY living people as demagogues. I support that tradition. Listing living people would open the floodgates to constant edit warring. Partisan POV pushing would come into play, and BLP violations would be inevitable. IMO only the judgment of history can decide whether a person was a demagogue.”

I am sure that the suggestion will continue to be made. I am coming here for an opinion on whether Wikipedia’s BLP policy has anything to say on this question. Could the inclusion of a living person ever be appropriate? Might the quality of the sources be determinative? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

In my view, it could be appropriate at some point in the future, but since it's a pejorative term, great care would need to be taken, and the addition sourced very rigorously, merely mentioning that some consider a person as such isn't sufficient. Labeling 45 as such has not risen to that level of rigor and I support keeping them off the list for now, in accordance with consensus as it stands. I've called him that in personal rhetoric but that was rhetoric, not scholarly discourse. ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Justin Boyle

Justin Boyle Defamatory information that has been unproven continually getting added to this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nz kiwi chch (talk • contribs) 02:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Nz kiwi chch, I've semi-protected the article for a week due to disruptive editing. Please explain here and on the talk page what the concern about the allegedly defamatory information is. Negative information sourced to reliable sources is not defamation. Fences&Windows 18:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Individuals, like Jake Angeli, who were connected to the 2021-01-06 attempt to seize the US Capitol building

The article on Jake Angeli, the tall bare-chested guy with the Norse/neo-nazi tattoos, who was one of the people who tried to seize the US Capitol building, was nominated for deletion. The article ended up being kept.

My main point, in this comment, is the suggestion that there will be dozens of other individuals connected to the 2021-01-06 attempt to seize the US Capitol building, who also merit standalone articles.

In the Jake Angeli AFD I compared individuals who played a role in the attempted seizure to the people who played a role in the attacks on the World Trade Center, in 2001. The Jake Angeli article ended up being kept. But I'd like to see a broader discussion of individuals like him.

When I was a newbie I started two articles on individuals who survived the WTC attack, Stanley Praimnath and Brian Clark (September 11 attacks). Those articles were subsequently nominated for deletion, and it was then I learned that, in the earliest years of the wikipedia, there had been a vigorous discussion after well-meaning contributors started many stub articles on perfectly nice individuals who were mere survivors, victims or heroes of that attack. Apparently, there was a mass deletion, and almost all articles on individuals best known for a connection to those attacks were deleted.

At those AFD over Praimnath and Clark good faith contributors argued that they were instances of BLP1E individuals. Other people pointed to the substantial numbers of interviews and profiles of these men had been published or broadcast and argued that they measured up to GNG.

Since those first two AFD I have started other articles on individuals connected with the WTC attacks, including Orio Palmer and Marcy Borders, the Dust Lady, which were both nominated for deletion.

So, returning to Jake Angeli, and the people who played a role in the seizure, or in escaping or countering the seizure, in my comparison with the WTC people I agreed with the mass deletion of the articles on perfectly nice people, when all that could be said about them is that they were nice, and were a victim or survivor of the attacks. I argued that there were a small number of people, maybe one or two hundred, who merited a standalone article due to measuring up to GNG, after the attack.

In the Jake Angeli discussion, I suggested that Angeli was not alone. I suggested that while most of the thousands of people present at that US Capitol on 2021-01-06 will never merit a standalone article, or even a sentence in a related article, there are probably at least dozens of individuals who didn't have any coverage here, but who now measure up to GNG.

I am not aware of any other articles on 2021-01-06 people, other than the now-deleted article on Ashli Babbitt, but I anticipate more are likely to be started, as some of the ringleaders are identified. I think it would be a good idea to anticipate the inevitable AFDs on those individuals. Similarly, articles on heroic defenders are likely to be started, and AFDs on those articles are also inevitable.

In the Jake Angeli AFD I tried to engage with those in the "delete" camp who argued that he did not merit a standalone article because he was a "classic BLP1E"'. The AFD closed before I fully responded. So I thought I would ping them, and renew that discussion here.

I am going to leave aside explaining why I disagreed over whether Angeli's RS coverage, prior to 2021-01-06, established BLP1E should not apply to him.

  1. I think BLP1E's wording allows for standalone articles on individuals known for a single event, if their role is central, and long-lasting.
  2. I think BLP1E's wording allows for standalone articles on individuals known for a single event, if they then subsequently measured up to GNG.
  3. It seems to me that the BLP1E arguments against covering Angeli with a standalone article contained a serious misunderstanding of policy.

    It seems to me those BLP1E arguments all said some variation of "Angeli is known for XYZ! There is no way that XYZ should be considered notable!"

    It seems to me this is a classic instance of WP:ATA#I don't like it.

    I am not a reliable source. I know I am not a reliable source. So, I know my personal opinion of what kind of activity should measure up to wikipedia notability is irrelevant. It seems to me that the good faith opinions of those who, personally, don't consider XYZ worth covering should be seen as irrelevant, when professional reporters and professional editors at respectable RS did think it was worth covering.

Here are those {{ping}}s: @Future Perfect at Sunrise, KidAd, Herbfur, MelanieN, NickCT, Missvain, Zacharie Grossen, Praxidicae, Surv1v4l1st, Gnangarra, Bearcat, Ibrahim.ID, François Robere, Themoother, ValarianB, Reywas92, Darryl Kerrigan, Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold, and Mr Zappe: Geo Swan (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. "A few" such people may merit articles. But I argued that there were a small number of people, maybe one or two hundred, who merited a standalone article due to measuring up to GNG, after the attack is a non-starter. In an encyclopedia where we have to fight to keep an article about an accomplished physician or astronomer, suggesting "one or two hundred" articles about people whose only achievement is being part of a major event is way over the line. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • MelanieN my estimate of hundreds of individuals with a connection to the WTC attacks? That was just a guess, not a quota. Each one would require serious consideration on a case by case basis. My argument would remain the same if there were only 99, or 49 individuals genuinely notable individuals known for a connection to the WTC attacks.
I think you may have agreed to my main point, BLP1E doesn't bar starting and maintaining standalone articles connected to either the 2001-09-11 or 2021-01-06 events, or any similar events, if they clearly measure up to GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • And 99, or 49, is still out of the ballpark. I suspect there may turn out to be a dozen or two who gain notability, probably through criminal trials as Darryl Kerrigan suggests below. And of course BLP1E doesn't bar articles where the person clearly meets GNG; that's a straw man argument. If they meet GNG that's a given; any special notability guideline can be overruled by GNG. But simply being involved in the event does not get a person to GNG. Below you suggest that we should have articles about people who were "central to the event". I agree. And there will probably turn out to be people "central to the event" whose names we don't even know yet. But to suggest that there might be 49 or 99 or 200 people, all of whom were "central to the event"? I'm too well brought up to say what I think of that estimate.
You claimed, at the outset, that people's earlier arguments against inclusion amounted to "I just don't like it", but in fact those people were citing an established WP guideline. It appears that you are the one who "just doesn't like" BLP1E. And if you are trying to get BLP1E repealed, this is not the venue to do it. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think MelanieN was disagreeing with my main point - individuals who were NN prior to 2021-01-06, but who then genuinely measure up to GNG, are not barred from having a standalone article about them, by BLP1E, because it acknowledges individuals may be central to an event, may measure up to GNG, and would then merit a standalone article.
My asserting that hundreds of individuals connected to the WTC attacks may merit a standalone article was merely a guess, not a quota. I don't think challenging that guess is a challenge to my main point. Geo Swan (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that we too often have to fight to keep articles about notable academics, scientists, and political figures, but that is not a good reason to delete articles on unsavory people who nevertheless meet the GNG. We have a claque of editors, including some prominent admins, who treat Wikipedia as a notability game rather than an encyclopedia, and who also often are intent on purging articles on subjects they do not believe are significant to them, regardless of their notability. BLP1E and NOTINHERITRED are widely applied without regard to their actual "terms" (even neither includes enforceable policy language) to create absurd results. It is no longer uncommon to see inane arguments like "scientists do not inherit notability from their work" and "authors do not inherit notability from their books" received not only uncritically but approvingly. The sad fact is that too much of our administrative caste is really NOTHERE to support the maintenance and improvement of an encyclopedia, but is devoted to enforcing their own social norms and unencyclopedic preferences. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A key point of the GNG that appears to have been ignored by the above AFD is that we are looking for enduring coverage. At this point, the best we can discern for any indivudal NN prior to Jan 6 but otherwise a major figure doesn't have anything to do with enduring coverage because we can't evaluate that yet; this is all a burst of coverage. We should not have any articles on these people yet at all, particularly under BLPCRIME as well. --Masem (t) 04:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I've only been active on a couple of these, but they all present the same WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME issues. There are substantial recentism issues as well. From my perspective, beyond these issues there is the failure to write about any of these guys in anything resembling an encyclopedic length. Really, assuming they are all convicted, a list article on the lot with s brief entry on each would make a lot more sense, but right now the set has an air of counting coup by writing as many article at as much length as possible. Mangoe (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Geo Swan: The core question is what Wikipedia wishes to be - a compendium of notable knowledge, or of all knowledge. There is nothing wrong with either, but Wikipedia has intentionally limited its scope to the former (also see Encyclopedia#Etymology and Encyclopedia#Characteristics). Angeli doesn't seem to have much importance in these events beyond his slightly eccentric image, and that alone isn't enough to merit a standalone article (also see Darryl Kerrigan, Masem and Mangoe replies).
Reflecting on your statement that you'd like to see a broader discussion of individuals like him; on MelanieN's reply, and on the West-centric focus of Wikipedia: how many articles do we have on the millions of individuals who took part in the Arab Spring, and - after counting - do you still think the Capitol riot merits one or two hundred such articles? François Robere (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
FWIIW, most of the open AfDs mentioned by Reywas92 above have now been closed as delete. As has Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jade Sacker, another article about a non-notable 1/6 individual.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Summary

Thanks to everyone who voiced an opinion here.

I think MelanieN and some of the other respondents here have endorsed my main point - namely BLP1E is not a complete bar to covering individuals initially known for involvement in a big event, when that individual subsequently measures up to GNG. It has been my experience that those arguing for delete at AFD pretty regularly call for deletion under BLP1E, even when they measure up to GNG. It is a relief to be able to point to this discussion the next time I see someone ignore GNG in their call to delete an article on a BLP individual. Geo Swan (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Geo Swan, I wish you would quit announcing, as if it was some kind of revelation, that I and others agreed that a person who is originally known for one event may later go on to meet GNG and will then qualify for an article. As I already pointed out, of course GNG trumps other guidelines. That’s nothing new. The argument will revolve around whether the person actually meets GNG or has simply gotten a bunch of short-term headlines. You seem to think that means they "measure up to GNG"; no, it doesn't. As pointed out at WP:BLP1E, "The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Since it is impossible, within a week of an event, to tell how persistent the coverage will turn out to be, the vast majority of articles about participants in the Capitol riot will rightly get deleted at this time, per BLP1E. The article might be recreated months from now if the person is still in the news - in other words if their coverage turns out to be persistent. That will probably apply mostly to people who have high-profile criminal trials, but we'll have to wait and see. Without an article in the meantime. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
MelanieN, I'm happy you haven't had occasion to notice those weighing in at AFD to base delete opinions on BLP1E, and ignore that the individual was one BLP1E individuals for whom GNG outranked BLP1E. You participated in the Jake Angeli AFD. I named four articles on individuals first known for their association with the WTC attack. Well in three of those four AFD on those individuals contributors called for deletion based on BLP1E, even though those individuals measured up to GNG.
  1. The sole justification in the nomination of Brian Clark's 1st AFD was that he was known only for one event - ignoring the copious RS coverage.
  2. Orio Palmer's AFD had delete argument based on ONEEVENT without regard to his clearly measuring up to GNG.
  3. The AFD for Stanley Praimnath took place in August 2007, which was either before BLP became a policy, or before it was well-known. The first delete not-vote explicitly uses the phrase "famous for only one thing"
WRT your assertion that it will always take some time to determine for the GNG qualification of an individual first known for involvement in a single event. No. Sorry. I don't dispute it may take time. It certainly doesn't always take time. I know you read the Angeli AFD. I pointed out the case of Chesley Sullenberger there, and that close to a dozen people held the good faith belief he was yet another instance of a BLP1E individual who would be forgotten in a week. They redirected the article, blanked the article, placed a prod on it and initiated an AFD. Geo Swan (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't always take time. The plain language of WP:BLP1E begs to differ with you: "The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC) BTW your arguments would be easier to follow, and certainly a lot less wordy, if you didn't keep dragging in other articles about other events. As you saw, all your talk about 9/11 articles just confused me. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
MelanieN, I still think you have agreed with my main point - multiple times.
Doesn't the plain wording of BLP1E say "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual..." Okay, doesn't the opposite of "If that person otherwise remains..." include individuals who were first known from a big event who can't REMAIN low-profile because, as soon as RS started writing about the event, they were no longer low-profile? I already offered you a really significant counter-example, whose name I won't repeat, since you say you don't like that. Geo Swan (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I mean no offense by this, so please take it as constructive criticism in the hopes it will help overcome this communication barrier. Your logic is really hard to follow. I mean, I had to read the above statement 10 times to try to get some sense of what you are trying to say. As I boil it down, what I get is "A, then B. Not A, therefore not B." Is that correct? That's called denying the antecedent, which is a logically flawed argument. I don't think Melanie is really agreeing with you at all; rather, as I read it, just the opposite. It's just really difficult to follow whatever the point is you're trying to make, and in this case I think all the examples without analogy are only hurting, not helping you make that point. I hope that helps, and that you take it in the spirit in which it was given. Zaereth (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
How many 2021-01-06 individuals will measure up to GNG?

I don't know.

I wrote above that each will have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. I think we all agree on this.

Wapo just reported that over 100 individuals now face charges for their role in the attempted seizure. I anticipate some of them will merit standalone article. Most won't. There are also previously unknown previously non-notable defenders, reporters and staffers whose roles in the event has made them or will make them measure up to GNG.

On January 6th or January 7th there was footage broadcast of a single Capitol Police officer confronting a whole hall full of angry insurrectionists. The hall is narrow, and they advance on him slowly, he turns a corner, he goes up a staircase, and the insurrectionists follow.

Well we learned a day or two ago that his story was very heroic. For some reason the VPOTUS stayed when the Senators were evacuated. Insurrectionists were apparently a minute away from capturing Pence. This Capitol cop emerged, as a decoy, to lead the insurrectionist away, while Pence's secret service detail quietly lead him to safety. That guy was very brave and I anticipate he will get a full profile from the press, public awards from his superiors, and annual awards in his name to other cops, because of the exemplary bravery he showed.

The actual number doesn't matter, as each individual's notability will have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

FWIW I never predicted there would be hundreds of individuals meriting standalone articles from the 2021-01-06 event. Rather I predicted there could be hundreds of good standalone articles of individuals first known for an association with the 2001-09-11 event. We already 44 individauls categorized in Category:Victims of the September 11 attacks, and when you add in the survivors who measure up to GNG, we already have something like 100.

Thanks again. Geo Swan (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The way that BLP1E gets overcome is through ongoing coverage and interest in the people in question, particularly since pretty much across the board these people have no significant record in reportage beforehand. And there simply has not been enough time for that.
There are two WP problems on display here. One is the failure of WP:NOTNEWS, particularly since all of these articles are cobbled together almost entirely from news reports, and it's a safe bet that each article was started almost as soon as the first report mentioning subject was available online. The second is the inability to write something succinct.
The 9/11 victims category is not a good advertisement for this new class of single event participants. Once you take out the people who were already notable and who happened to be killed in the attack, so far the articles I've checked all take the same form: a lead associating them with the attack, a very brief obituary capsule saying where they were born and similar details of a non-notable life, and then the bulk of the article: a chunk of narrative as to the subject's actions in the attack. The thing is that all this latter material repeats parts of the larger narrative, an issue particularly obvious with the seven Flight 93 "bios". The presentation of the events of the flight as a single narrative, which some side notes on characters, is plainly better, not to mention that it obviates a great deal of parallel maintenance.
The situation with these figures isn't even that good, because very few of them fit into a significant narrative. They were just there, or did something largely unconnected with what anyone else did; some of them merely happened to be in the same place at the same time and therefore appeared in the same picture. But unless there are some serious revelations over the next months, their "biographies" are going to be, "he was the guy with the flex cuffs" or "he was one of the ones with an antisemitic slogan on his shirt." ANd odds are that their articles will look substantially the same a decade or two from now. Mangoe (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Jumping in per a note on my talk. I think one issue with BLP1E is that it is arguably self-defeating. Criterion 3 says we shouldn't have an article If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. (All criteria are necessary: according to the guideline, We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met (emphasis added)). In other words, WP:BLP1E says we shouldn't have an article if the event isn't notable or if the article's subject wasn't notable for their role in the event. But of course notability is just determined by the existence of sourcing about the person's role in the event. So what BLP1E ends up saying is that if there is substantial coverage of a person's role in an event that itself has substantial coverage, there should be an article, because the person is notable. But that defeats the whole point of the guideline, because it's supposed to advise against having an article for someone who only got significant coverage in the context of a single event. That's how we end up with arguments like those at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Goodman (police officer) (which I nominated), which say, essentially, that the subject meets GNG and therefore the article should be kept—regardless of the fact that all the putatively GNG-meeting coverage is in the context of one event. I initially thought that these arguments were specious, but now I'm starting to think that the guideline itself doesn't make any sense. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the well-thought comment. If it helps, this is what I'd ask myself: Is there enough biographical information about this person to create a standalone article that is --primarily about the person-- and not just a pseudo-biography that is really about the event. In other words, are we going to have this person's career, accomplishments (good and bad), personal life, etc.? You know, all the stuff that makes a bio a bio? That's where I believe we have to draw the line.
As an analogy (just to show how it's done) I'll use Casey Anthony. This is a very famous person and at one point even a household name. Her only claim to fame is one event, and thus she rightfully has no article of her own, because such an article could be only about that event. There's just not enough to make a decent bio on her. So we just redirect her name to the event. Zaereth (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • While WP:BLP1E was applied appropriately to delete articles on those who simply attended the January 6 insurrection, there are appropriate exceptions to be made. In particular, many folks are unaware, or choose to ignore, that BLP1E is a three-prong test which requires all three prongs to be satisfied.
  • Prong 2 clearly states that it applies only to "low-profile individuals". Per WP:LOWPROFILE: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile." In the case of Jake Angeli, with his horned fur hat, face paint, and spear, and his regular attendance at high-profile public protests, voluntary granting of interviews, posing for cameras, and other attention-seeking activities, he is the antithesis of "low profile". According, the "delete" votes based on BLP1E were contrary to the explicit language of the guideline.
  • Prong 3 provides a further sensible qualifier, stating that it should not be applied where the event was significant and the person's role was substantial and well-documented. It was on this basis that Eugene Goodman (police officer) was properly kept at AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Michael Barone (pundit)

I recently reverted two anonymous edits from 2019. Because those edits falsely implied that Barone was gay, I feel that every edit between then and now should be WP:REVDEL. Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I have revdelled as you asked, Arbor to SJ, because an unsourced relationship isn't appropriate. It cannot be verified in reliable secondary sources, but I don't believe this was vandalism. Fences&Windows 23:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Morgan D. Meyer

Texas State Representative Morgan D. Meyer, of Dallas: His listing has disappeared !!!???

Please re-post his biography from the Wikipedia archives! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.205.49 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Morgan Meyer was one of thousands of articles created by a now-blocked editor who repeatedly violated copyright - their creations are gradually being deleted en masse due to this problem, a so-called "nuclear approach". See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive276#Unblock_of_Billy_Hathorn_in_2013, https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Billy%20Hathorn/0, and Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 January 7. The article on Morgan had poor sourcing too (only one was an independent secondary source), so for re-creation we'd need significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Coincidentally, I just restored another of Billy Hathorn's deleted articles by writing it from scratch: Paul N. Cyr. Fences&Windows 00:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Roy Blunt

Third paragraph, "Roy Blunt was placed under arrest by the United States Secret Service during the Inauguration of President Joe Biden.[2]" is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9603:CD00:C05F:72D4:5570:5F7C (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, reverted the vandalism. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
NB, I was so confident that I would have heard something if a US Senator had been arrested by the Secret Service, even as a result of some misunderstanding that I didn't even bother to check before giving a level 3 immediate warning. Although I admit I did chicken out and check before posting this. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I semi-protected it. Thanks all. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Robbie Keane

More eyes welcome at Robbie Keane, where an editor who has admitted to being his publicist has recently been involved in an edit war, and where IPs are now adding more promotional material... GiantSnowman 21:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate your attention and input on Robbie Keane. As Robbie's Publicist, (which I have disclosed on the Talk page), I can assure you I have not added any additional material but only wished to ensure the content was factually accurate and from a neutral point of view at Robbie's request. Thank you for your patience with me as I am just learning the ways of Wikipedia editing! Sportcorrection (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Keith J. Krach

I need some help here. I have yet to look carefully at the history, but this article seems to be turned into a BLP vanity piece with a fairly regular frequency. I've started pruning, for the second time I think, but it's a lot. Thanks in advance. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging it; I've pulled some unreliable sources out of that article in the past. I'm taking a look to see what remains.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I've pulled out some additional bad sources and fluffy words, and if I get time I'll take another pass through later.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I dug through the history and warned a few editors for copyvio on the basis of close paraphrasing, as well as warning about a potential COI. I also pulled out a few thousand characters more puffery. I think resolved but I'll keep an eye on it.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Drmies and 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco, nice work cutting it down. Could you add a summary of the problems and your edits on the talk page for future reference, including which accounts may have a COI? Fences&Windows 23:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
For the COI I'd have to take a closer look but I think that's pretty obvious, if I remember correctly. Just look at who the big contributors are. I will tell you that I have no proof of socking and/or collusion, and that's a good thing. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Added comments to talk page to memorialize it.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

error in Wikipedia entry for Brenda Berkman

Greetings: I am Brenda Berkman (the subject of this entry). I found a factual error in my Wikipedia entry -- I find I have to keep checking the entry because errors have appeared before.

The entry states that I am the first gay firefighter and cites an article I have never seen. I don't know where the writer of the entry (or the article) got that information but it is incorrect. There were many gay firefighters -- including in the FDNY -- before me who have been the subject of publicity. Including people who came out. And the rest of the US also had many out gay and lesbian firefighters who were known to be gay and out before me.

Please remove that sentence. Thank you. Brenda Berkman

 Makes sense. Easy enough to verify. I've removed the claim. Jdphenix (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Celebrity sex tape

I find this article seriously questionable. I'm fine with a dry overview of the topic, but the listing of everyone who's been in a sex tape is something you'd find in a tabloid, and violates WP:NOT. It also seriously undermines Wikipedia's credibility. Many of the examples are poorly sourced or aren't even sex tapes at all. The remaining few high-quality reliable sources mostly focus on the legal and ethical ramifications, rather than "[rapper] was filmed having sex with three women while wearing socks". What would even be the inclusion criterion here?

Okay, I'll admit I'm a bit annoyed. But I don't see how this article can exist as it is. If it discussed things like legality, motivations, etc. at length, and there was no list of sex tapes, sure. I would just do that, but it's a big enough change that I thought I should ask about it here first. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I just stumbled on Death during consensual sex ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
964 and 965 were not good years for Popes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I think there's more non-WP:BLP-good content to weed in that article, like sextape.com and WP:TMZ. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Jason Smith (politician)

This article is being repeatedly edited and undone. Salacious material is being added and removed, several randomized and shared IPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justtoimprovewikipeida (talk • contribs) 01:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This relates to this revision which currently has been removed. It's WP:UNDUE and a WP:COATRACK starting "Smith's mother Mary, was cited by the HSUS as running the worst puppy mill in Missouri,[2] which Smith took ownership of in 2004." I don't know if the last point ("took ownership") makes something appropriate for inclusion but the original text is certainly not suitable. Articles do not use problematic relatives to smear living people. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

John Johnson (reporter)

Help appreciated. Longtime COI at the bio of a notable reporter. I can't figure out how to fix the format damage that's been done there. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Lede and categories of Tyrell Robinson

This person is a former professional athlete who has been jailed for child sex offences. Guidance welcome on how we word that in the lede, and what categories should and should not be included. GiantSnowman 10:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Looks fine to me . The lede is short and to the point as is the information about the case further down. Victuallers (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Anna Wilding

Would really appreciate some other editors, with more experience in these matters, help on what to do with this persons article. There has been an ongoing case of WP:PROMO probably ever since this article was created, as well as some WP:COATRACK and even name-dropping. Some editors have been adding a lot of information and either it is completely unsourced, a source is used that is unreliable or is Wilding own press releases. I'm sure some of what has been added maybe WP:NOTFALSE, but it just can't be verified and often is embellished like the music videos she has supposed to have done for Rolling Stones, Lenny Kravitz and UB40. I honestly have a hard time even trying to get the time line right as she is supposed to have moved to Australia when she was 16 and America when she was 19 however she was in Theatre sports in Christchurch too and acting on NZ TV.

Every time an editor has tried to clean up the article, or it was nominated for deletion, it has also led to the User(s) (maybe all the same person) then edit warring or issuing legal threats see user Real77 and here, IP 24.189.29.208 and the latest today is from IP: 66.75.9.68.

Page has been an ongoing issue with the earliest attempt I can find at clean up was from Timotab in September 2007 which then lead to its first deletion and WP:SALTed a few days later. (Her movie also ended up the same way). The article was re-created by CapsaicintheHeat, but they did so by using Anna Wilding (Director) instead. Users Haminoon and Victuallers both attempted to clean it up before Haminoon again nominated it for deletion. However, this time it was decided that she was notable due to work as a white house photographer. I cleaned it up after going through all sources and comparing what was written to what was in the article on the 7th October before finally we get to today when IP:66.75.9.68 popped up to try and add back in all the information removed, as well as to try censor information they didn't actually want on the page that I had found and added.

I don't know if there is anything else that can be done, if it gets protected somehow or what? But I don't see today being the last time that an editor will come back and try to add in information that isn't referenced and has been embellished. NZFC(talk)(cont) 07:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks NZFC. I see the subject has weighed in on the issue [19] [20]. Funnily enough I suspect she got the Obama press credentials based on the fraudulent Wikipedia article, which has now led to her getting a genuine Wikipedia article. -- haminoon (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
She is currently bombarding the WIR Twitter account with messages and tweets. It’s basically the same claims she is making to the public, claims of being stalked and the (completely valid and welcomed edits by NZFC) are vandalism. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hmm, nice she's also asking for my removal as well [21]. Interesting enough does that mean it's her or one or more of her followers that is doing the reverting. NZFC(talk)(cont) 08:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I am nearly certain it’s 100% her unless she has an assistant.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
NZFC After calling me an absolutely horrible person she has asked for the article to be deleted. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
HickoryOughtShirt?4 it's interesting, not sure if she actually believes it's stalkers and people she thinks she knows. I mean I had never heard of her until the 2nd deletion discussion happened. Appears she is now aware of WP:FAMOUS then. NZFC(talk)(cont) 09:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
NZFC I’d have to personally email you but she thinks you specifically are a person who is out to get her. She gave me the name of the person which I will obviously not post here. She may have a valid concern but it may not be you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I’ve also had to block her on Twitter. She was becoming increasingly aggressive and rude. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I think she's used like 9 different spellings of "malicious" in her tweets. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

So in an interesting turn of events, Anna Wilding has decided to produce her own Wikipedia Profile which amazingly links back to her Wikipedia article here to revisions when her profile had the information and references her and her husband had added to the page. NZFC(talk)(cont) 21:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Well if she can SEO it to the top of google, that might actually work for her. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, if it's confirmed as her website it could have some WP:ABOUTSELF use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know what she's talking about in the tweet where she alleges Wikipedia is using unauthorized copyvio images of her? JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@JoelleJay: I wasn't sure there either and just assumed it was her deciding she didn't want the picture on the article if the article didn't have the other stuff. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: using that website would be WP:CIRCULAR as it just links back to her article earlier revisions with stuff that had since been removed as unreferenced. NZFC(talk)(cont) 22:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The file was uploaded to Commons by owner of the copyright in 2017, and the only other place I can find it used is on a blog post from 2020. So unless there is some evidence the editor who uploaded it was lying, or some evidence of use elsewhere with a valid copyright claim, she needs to provide more info. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
From her history of making laughable claims of copyright violations I suspect she can be safely ignored on this one unless she actually comes up with some evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Only in death, råbergs Gråa Sång, JoelleJay, it is my understanding she gave copyright permission to Wikipedia to use her photos through a tweet (as in, hey Wikipedia, this photo is free of use). She is now attempting to rescind this but I am unsure if that's allowed. I know we had a professor who tried to rescind her copyright after she filled out the template and was basically laughed at. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, fix ping. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I recall the incident, unfortunately some people do not seem to understand the irrevocable part of releasing material under a free license. And to be fair, I have good anecdotal recollection where its not been explained to people looking to upload material particularly well by the community. If she has released other photos (so her actual work) under a compatible license, there should be a trail. But I am unsure what photos and where they are, there dont appear to be any taken by her on commons, not any in use on ENWP articles under a fair use exception. If she is talking about the photo of herself in her article, the copyright as far as I know isnt owned by her (she cant have the copyright on a photo taken of herself except under relatively rare circumstances) given the composition of the photo, and has been (as far as commons is concerned) released under a free license. So she is out of luck on that without some evidence the license is invalid. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Although hypothetically, if she claims she uploaded the photo to commons, it probably would be unlikely she could have given a valid license. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Its possible she is referring to these photos: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Springwater88. -- haminoon (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Anna donated these photos via her blue tagged Twitter account. (corroborative evidence in the @wikiwomeninred twitter chats) I think she is annoyed that her page does not reflect her own auto-biography. I have locked the biog down to try and prevent "new?" users from correcting stuff although another admin may need to strengthen it if it persists. But I think that we should move on to other issues to demonstrate that we don't (or do?) have a wiki editor who is out to get her. Victuallers (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Let me step in as an arbitrator who wants a clean, stable NPOV version of the article. What is this all about?
To take care of this edit war, I tried reverting to the last good version that from before September 2020. There has been a lot of POV editing by an IP address putting in COI content and a few other editors who appear to have an axe to grind in inserting problematic info that should preferably be left out per WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia's BLP policy specifically prohibits unexplained removal of content. It looks like there are editors on both sides with undisclosed conflicts of interest trying to defame her and to promote her. Now I'm not directly accusing anyone of being a bad editor. The main thing here is that we all need to compromise to meet WP:NPOV.
We can remove unsourced content if it doesn't belong, but to avoid further conflicts, it's best not to put in additional content that could be potentially defamatory (or blatantly promotional) without further discussion, per BLP/N guidelines. Both sides should calm down and reach a consensus. Sylvusdexterous (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
See what @Victuallers: can do to clean everything up. I'm hoping the other editors would stop being aggressive with me. Their aggression took me by complete surprise, because I am a random third party who just decided to pop in and clean things up after seeing an unexpected fight. Sylvusdexterous (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sylvusdexterous: you stepped into something without looking at the full picture. This is also an article that has had multiple new editors pop up, that have been suspicious in the past. The fact that you were new and came in like you did, made it look like you were another. So I apologies for misinterpreting that. However, you are applying WP:UNDUE incorrectly, the stuff added isn't minority views but properly sourced material. If the material shows a background to what the person is like, then it is valid, Wikipedia doens't need to provide a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Lastly, you need to really look into the suppose information added. It has been removed three or four times now for good reason, ignoring the IPs that are trying to add it in and ignoring Aucklandboy1981 that removed it without a summary. Myself, Victuallers, Haminoon and HickoryOughtShirt?4 are all established editors and with Victuallers and HickoryOughtShirt?4 also being administrators. Information each editor cleaned up, had an edit summary explaining why it was removed. If you look into the sources, they either don't say what they claim or are actually in her own words, like press releases, so can't be used. I ask that you revert your edits back until this discussion is finished. NZFC(talk)(cont) 21:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sylvusdexterous: I mean just look at the toured a major exhibit claim, show me where it was a major tour? The source claims two venues, showing at The Palos Verdes Art Center Museum and The Perfect Exposure Gallery nothing about touring. It is this type of stuff that keeps getting added and embaslished that editors have been trying to stop. As for removing the source bit about the one man play, I again ask that you put that back in. This person has a habit of taking legal action when things don't go her way, there is more people out there that she has threaten before and the IPs that seem to be herself and her husband have threaten a number of times Wikipedia with WP:LEGAL as well. NZFC(talk)(cont) 21:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
"Wikipedia's BLP policy specifically prohibits unexplained removal of content." Actually it doesnt. What it does prohibit is the reinsertion of material that has been removed for being unsourced or poorly sourced etc. Its not particularly helpful to remove material without an explanation, but when something is removed with a BLP argument, there is usually an explanation because its one of the few occasions where reverting reinsertion is not subject to 3rr. Editors *want* others to know why they have removed information when it comes to BLP. Amongst editors familiar with the policy, when they see material has been removed as unsourced or poorly sourced from the biography of a living person, they know that it is a BLP justified edited, even if it is not explicitly stated. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hold on. Victuallers had actually republished the original article many times, but NZFC kept putting in biased material, because its plain obvious to any other observer that this user is obsessed with his agenda against Anna Wilding. The citations were actually all valid.
Out of curiosity, I contacted the NZFC to see if they are actually editing Wikipedia. This is not a threat at all, and is definitely not a legal threat from anyone. This is just a confirmation of offline identities. You can contact them directly to confirm. But here's what they said:
This is not me or anyone at the NZFC – we do issue cease and desist letters but only for piracy of films, and never for Wikipedia posts. We never use @nzfc – it is always @nzfilm.co.nz
This is interesting though as I am not happy with someone using the @nzfc handle to do malicious acts.
OK firstly, we need to address this issue: What is User:NZFC's agenda on Wikipedia? Why is he so obsessed with Anna Wildings controversies in particular? Same goes for User:Haminoon! Oceanic22rheas (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, well if you had looked at my own page, it shows you why my name is what it is "Greetings and welcome to my page, previously I went by the name NZ Footballs Conscience but shorten it to NZFC. I got started on Wikipedia because I am really interested in football in New Zealand" As it stands also for New Zealand Football Championship. Also you can ask @HickoryOughtShirt?4: who I have also spoken to by email before after Anna Wilding accused me of being something else associated with her. As explained previously. The only reason I came across her article was because of the second deletion discussion. Then I work in Pending Changes as well as recent changes and have rollback permissions. You will see from my editing I do a lot of editing to stop vandalism to Wikipedia. The reason I take interest in this is to stop the person who the article is about to use the page as a CV with false and embellished information. What is amazing is that you turn up created today and come here to accuse me and Haminoon is much more suspicious than my own editing. NZFC(talk)(cont) 22:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I just want to make it clear that no-one here has ever impersonated or claimed to represent the New Zealand Film Commission. This is a ludicrous accusation and dead cat strategy from an obvious sockpuppet. -- haminoon (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Since your specialty is football, you have no absolutely basis putting all of these highly biased and tenuous claims into Anna Wilding's Wikipedia article.
This is a clear pattern of malicious and contentious takedowns of perfectly valid material. There is evidently no false or embellished information because it was all cited from major news sites. As you say, your specialty is football, not arts and entertainment. Wilding has had a succesful career in the US and was a guest star on Shortland St. Everything else was true and correct, and properly noted and cited. You and Haminoon need to explain your obesessive behavior of removing cited content. So please explain: what draws you to Anna Wilding's article? You obviously have an undisclosed grudge against her in real life, or you or proxying for someone else who does.
Cyberbullying and incivility are against Wikipedia's very core principles, and this sort of behaviour certainly constitutes harassment and unacceptable bias against women. Oceanic22rheas (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
On top of that, do not censor comments with collapse templates. Different opinions are perfectly valid. Oceanic22rheas (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not attacking anyone now, but am just pointing out some facts.
Here is an example of one valid citaiton that was removed: Anna Wilding involvement's in the Harvey Weinstein case and all that she had done for women's rights. This has all been attacked and censored by Haninoon and NZFC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld5-x1Hrwlo
I hope another experienced user can step in to point out and correct the vindictive editing against Anna Wilding. Speaking of malicious accounts that should be reported, take a look at User:Aucklandboy1981's behaviour, which needs to be reported. Oceanic22rheas (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
My point is clear. Regardless of who is editing, we must fix the heavily censored article on Anna Wilding and do a favour for Women in Red. It is simple and straightforward. User:Victuallers and everyone else should help. Oceanic22rheas (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, that link you have posted as never been on her page before, so hasn't been removed by myself or Haminoon. The previous ones was NY Daily which is "most editors consider the content of New York Daily News articles to be generally reliable, but question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines." and the dead link which is archieved here for WABC Radio. Then you have this one from My Entertainement News where she claims she told the Obamas. Now the wording in the article, I also would like to point out I'm not demising what Weinstein has done but more there is a history of Anna putting herself into stories. In the article it states that Wilding spoke in the nationally covered Harvey Weinstein harassment case (but then links to the Obama article). It then says she claimed that she had been a recipient of unwanted harassment from Weinstein but the wording doesn't match again with what was in the sources.

I am happy to reassess all this, espcially with the Youtube interview you posted, but you link to it on Youtube from Kalon Group page which is Anna own group again. Then the wording needs to not be emballished as has happen through out the article previously. If we stopped having people trying to insert stuff like that or claims of videos for UB40 and Rolling Stones. Even her guest appearence on Shortland St, then we could have decent discussions about the content that should be in the article, that I would like to see put back in. BLP means we have to make sure it is correct first before its added. NZFC(talk)(cont) 23:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I suffer from assuming good faith and this is even more important than Women in Red (which I have given five years to, since I co-founded it). It worries me that we are investigating editors rather than just asking them who they are. If we take an average wiki article about semi notable people then on a large portion of the articles there is a suspicion of proxy or self editing and sources that fail to be a super reliable source.... and still a useful (but biased) article. This article has varied between a puffy rose-tinted description with an occasional iffy reference to a bare skeleton of an article that is just mundane facts and several uncomplimentary references. If we put the sock edits aside then we are now left with a personality war about editors motives. My strong advice is to take a step back and assume good faith. I think that if you people discuss what you agree on then you will find out if anyone is being out of line. HickoryOughtShirt?4 and I have both had conversations with Anna Wilding which makes us both a bit biased but also a bit more informed. I'd like to see evidence of attempts to find consensus here. We stand guilty of attempting to make this article notable by the dispute that it has created. Victuallers (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Victuallers, to be honestly this has taken a lot of my time trying to help with this article. I agree there needs to be an indepth look at it with all references and claims, I was actually writing this on the talk page (its unfinished), when you posted. I am happy for stuff to go in the article, but we have to apply WP:BLP and make sure it is reliably sourced and also isn't embellished as appears to have been in the past. I'm working on going through it all, which is why I was doing the talk page but also was applying No Deadline. I was hoping the page would die down again after it was protected and I could do this earlier but it got a bit out of hand before I could start that. If we can get it all written up, discussed and agreed on, then we can get the article back to a good state. NZFC(talk)(cont) 00:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm all for consensus, but lets take a step back and remember that this is an encyclopedia, so it needs to be first and foremost accurate. Nearly all the disputes haven't been about tone or slant, but about accuracy. I disagree with Victuallers' description of the early versions of this article. The main problem wasn't that it was "puffy and rose-tinted" - the problem was that most of the article was simply untrue. -- haminoon (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Mxmtoon

Talk:Mxmtoon#Include_real_name_or_not can use help from experienced BLP-people. Subject (probably) prefers name not to be included, and there is WP:BLPNAME to consider. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be a bit of a disaster at the moment, with editors trying to add the real name sourced to primary sources like ASCAP records or sheet music. Nil Einne (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Kellyanne Conway

Hi, it'd be great if we had more eyes on the Kellyanne Conway article, as well as the intervention of people more familiar with WP:BLP than me. Recently Kellyanne Conway has been in the news as her daughter has posted audio clips of their arguments. However, things have gotten considerably worse today as Kellyanne posted a nude picture of her daughter, who is only 16 years old, on twitter. One edit was revdel'd this morning, however that was owing to the lack of source. This information has been reposted with a source, as well as an WP:EASTEREGG link to child pornography, which you can see here.

Honestly, I don't know enough about WP:BLP to be able to say if this is right or not. It's sourced, and the article has a 1RR in effect, so I'm reluctant to make any changes myself and would rather leave it to more experienced editors. — Czello 14:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed it per WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:PUBLICFIGURE for Conway, and WP:BLPCRIME for her daughter. The item had been restored several times without attempts to discuss on the talk page as required under WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
What's the problem? The controversy is well-documented already all over the media, and is confirmed to be under police investigation. This is already newsworthy and encyclopedic about Kellyanne even if it turns out Kellyanne is blameless. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a strong presumption of privacy for family members of notable people. Even though the daughter constantly posts about her relationship with her parents left and right, which would seem to waive this presumption, she is still a minor and her parents have asked media to abstain from her[22] which they ignore. I do not know the detail of the photo but the Huffington Post article[23] brings up child pornography which raises concerns whether this incident qualifies under WP:AVOIDVICTIM for the daughter since the release was non-consentual. Also I do not know if the daughter was involved in creating the photo which raises WP:BLPCRIME concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd say it should be included, it has been written about enough today. Also, I honestly think at this point an article for creation should be considered for Claudia herself, based on her disruption of Kellyanne's political operations. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Succubus MacAstaroth: Given the sensitivity of this subject, and that some edits have WP:EASTEREGG linked to child pornography and legality of child pornography, I wanted to get the thoughts of editors more knowledgeable of BLP rules than me. I think more than anything we just need more eyes on that article.
@Morbidthoughts: Also I do not know if the daughter was involved in creating the photo -- apparently the photo was a selfie that Claudia took herself but had no intention of sharing.
@CaffeinAddict: Worth pointing out that she did have an article, and it was AfD'd with a consensus to merge into Kellyanne's article. Discussion here. However, this was way back in July and a lot has changed since then, so there might be more justification for an article now. — Czello 08:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes - I can see up until now exactly, the article was a definite merge to Kellyanne's page. With the potential to really wreck her career (if it wasn't already). CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The accusation has been covered by reliable sources including Variety, BuzzFeed News, Vox, CNBC and Snopes, the Snopes story states that the nude was definitely shared as a "fleet" but notes that Claudia has said that the image was probably not shared intentionally. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes the allegations are now that Kellyanne's account was hacked, which would mean Claudia's was too. Her father also tweeted her TikTok video explaining she is looking for reconciliation. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Given what the public knows about Claudia's relationship with her parents, and the fact that only several days ago she told the internet that if she ever "had to take a break from social media" it would be because her parents were forcing her... and that she posted a message in morse code about the topless photo situation, asking the public for help and begging us not to drop the matter... the video she released asking for privacy and blaming hackers and exculpating her mother cannot be considered reliable. In context it reads much like a hostage video. Her mother has been filmed being abusive and has even threatened on camera to throw her in a mental ward. We can believe a year's worth of statements from Claudia or we can believe one single video that she likely was coerced to make. Long story short, Claudia's latest video by itself is not credible. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would say we need to wait on adding such things until more actual facts are presented. Presence of the allegation alone is not enough given what the allegation is. PackMecEng (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that the facts of the picture incident have been well reported. We don't know how it happened (accident, hacking, deliberate, etc) but we do know what happened. I disagree with editors who have said that including the incident in Conway's biography accuses Kellyanne Conway of a crime or makes Claudia Conway a victim. It can be written about factually and neutrally. Personally, I doubt that it will have any lasting importance, but it probably seems strange to our readers to a widely-report incident about a high-profile individual isn't included. I think we could exclude it on the basis of WP:WEIGHT or WP:NOTNEWS but I disagree with the BLP concerns expressed here. Mo Billings (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not know whether the photo qualifies as child pornography, but the distribution and production of child pornography are illegal. Yes, even the kids themselves can be prosecuted under some jurisdiction for taking these photos if it's a "selfie". Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I understand that. Merely stating the facts as reported is not an accusation of a crime. An image of Conway's partially nude 16 year-old daughter was posted to her Twitter account. That happened. It was reported in the media. The problem is all of the speculation here (and elsewhere) about whether that counts as child pornography or criminal activity. That's not something for us to decide. Mo Billings (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I request that we wait until Friday and then take a vote. Does that sound reasonable? Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have full-protected the article until 02:45, 29 January 2021, in response to an 02:45, 27 January 2021 request at WP:RFPP. I was kind of hoping you all would have it figured out by then. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Doubtful. I think we're gonna need a democratic vote on this. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, we don't do democratic votes on stuff like this, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. If you think it's a good idea, you can start a WP:RFC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
We do need a resolution on this matter, one way or the other. When consensus can't be reached through editing because an edit war happens - and especially when editing is restricted and there is no more opportunity for consensus - then a democratic vote is all that is left. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTNEWS it is not important that this goes into the article quickly. We can wait a week or 5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Succubus MacAstaroth: You're mistaken. As Gråbergs Gråa Sång said, we never use a democractic vote on the English Wikipedia for stuff like this. Therefore it can never be "all that is left". Certain dispute resolution procedures, especially RfCs, may seem like a vote to some given bolded supports and oppose (or whatever). But they're still explicitly not a vote, and there are important distinctions. If you want to participate in such WP:dispute resolution processes, it helps a great deal if you understand these distinctions and why we never vote on such matters here on Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

An RFC has now been called on the article talk page[24] although the syntax might be a little off. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

James Veitch (comedian)

Hello, everyone! I recently encountered this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Veitch_(comedian)

I’m not very experienced in the BLP policy but it looks like there might be undue weight or too much coverage of the controversial topic that is basically based on oral allegations and scoops. James Veitch is not even a public person (not a politician) and there are no sources confirming someone even filed a lawsuit against the comedian. I also looked further and found that Wikipedia articles on James Veitch in other languages use the same information in 1-2 sentences maximum. Please, check: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Veitch_(cabaretier) https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Veitch_(komik)

Can anyone experienced on BLP double check the neutrality of the article in English?.

Gonza2019 (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

He is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE but the paragraph can be shortened somewhat especially with the quotes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Pinging NinjaRobotPirate who made a relevant block in the past. There's been some highly suspect actions at James Veitch (comedian) with potential COI editing and socking. I am not convinced that this discussion has been started in good faith. I see some red flags about Gonza2019's behaviour—are you a paid editor? Did you create Izellah R. Connelly in connection with any professional activity? — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Blocked as a sock puppet. Could be someone hired to raise the issues as previous paid editors, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

House of Parliament raw data for dates of birth of living people

This raw data was briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#House of Parliament raw data for dates of birth of living people, and perhaps it could benefit from a further discussion here as @Nil Einne: suggested.

Should this be used as a reference for the dates of birth for living people or not? In particular, is it an acceptable reference for the date of birth of Paul Maskey? See Talk:Paul Maskey#Birthday where that date is contradicted by the Northern Ireland Assembly's website and the subject. FDW777 (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Raw data from a database should not be used to source information. If it was published on the website thats one thing, but raw data is largely useless as a source until the point where it has been interpreted and reviewed. Certainly under no circumstances should it be used in an article subject to WP:BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
My views are even stronger than Only in death does duty end, as I believe I said last time this came up. The source doesn't seem to meet our requirements for birthdates of living people. Where I differ from Only in death does duty end is I'd say the same even if it was published on the houses of parliament website. It's primary plus only linked to the subject in a very roundabout way. It's a prominent and obvious enough source that the privacy concerns aren't as strong as they are in other cases, I think MPs have to accept that the nature of their work means such details are out there. Still I don't see any reason to override our normal policies. (Unfortunately it is true that way too many articles include birthdates with even poorer sources, but that also isn't a reason to change our policy.) For 2 years+ deceased MPs, I'd prefer better sources but probably wouldn't fight it if someone is desperate to include it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Sex scandals

Should this category tree contain biographical articles (such as James Pearson (footballer, born 1993) and Nazril Irham), in addition to the stand-alone articles about particular scandals (such as Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases and Burning Sun scandal)? Cheers, gnu57 19:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I think if we are going to include bios and I'm not saying we should, the article needs to clearly demonstrate they belong. I was originaally going to remove James Pearson since the section is very short suggesting it's not a significant part of his bio. However I see that he was fired as a result so left it for now although frankly I'm not sure how significant the "sex" part of the scandal was as opposed to the "racism" part. If it was just a case of a minor kerfuffle with enough weight to qualify a brief mention in our article but nothing more I'd definitely be opposed to including it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

List of androgynous people

The List of androgynous people article, which was originally created as part of the removal of people from Category:Androgyny, seems to be a potential BLP issue. Conceptually the article is like a category, so inclusion is allowed based on the text of the articles that are included (see WP:BLPCAT). However, the article lists sources for a few of the included people. In addition, the topic of the article is related to sexual orientation, making it fall into the stricter BLPCAT restrictions, and I don't think that the article meets those standards. Notably, for some of the people, their article doesn't describe them as androgynous. On top of that, the listing of people's birth sex and gender identity seems potentially concerning.

I'm not sure what should be done here though - deletion is a bit drastic, and perhaps the article could be pared down. On the other hand, creation of a new category such as Category:Androgynous People could be the the right move.

Gbear605 (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to say, I abhor most list article as perfect example of what wikipedia is not. A good list article is something more like List of fallacies, which is actually treated like an article and gives useful information about every item in the list. (Very handy when you know someone is making a fallacious argument, but can't remember what the fallacy is called.) You're right in that a list like this is no different than a category, in that it defines the person solely by the title of that category, and people are far more diverse and complicated for such generalization. Zaereth (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
While we can follow sources, this list also requires extra careful attention per WP:LISTCRITERIA, since the selection criteria for inclusion are very subjective. —WingedSerif (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Great points here. I also wonder if the title should be qualified further? The title makes it seem like it would list all the androgynous people that ever lived. What about "List of Notable Androgynous People in the United States?"Cupnoodle2021 (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists in particular WP:LISTNAME. Most lists are intended for notable whatever only. It's not generally necessary to specify notable in the title. This list could be restricted to the US only, but I'm not sure I see a clear reason. Note that I make no comment on the merit of the list itself. Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Gbear605, thanks for raising this. I think a simpler table and some requirements could resolve these issues. Instead of risking conflating androgyny with gender identity and sex, as this table currently does, a single notes field should state whether or not the subject self-identifies/identified as androgynous and/or whether this is an outside perception of them. All those listed should be 1: notable; 2: self-identify as androgynous or have been labelled as androgynous in reliable sources; and 3: citations to reliable sources (including self-published sources for self-identification) must be used in the list itself. Currently, entries like Miley Cyrus, who identifies as genderfluid, look like original research. Fences&Windows 14:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Craig Murray

There have been multiple attempts in the last few days to describe Craig Murray as a conspiracy theorist in his bio. Various editors have reverted the change and requested it be discussed on talk. The latest diff is [25]. Murray is currently involved in a high profile court case. Can I suggest his page be protected while the case is being heard. Burrobert (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not as if there are no reputable sources for it. "Israel responsible for Salisbury poisonings" -- really? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This isn't the place to discuss its appropriateness. The addition is controversial and has been contested. Murray's talk page is the appropriate forum to discuss the addition. The addition has been made on multiple occasions by ip editors who have ignored the BLP policy of discussing controversial content on the talk page after it has been contested. Given that Murray is involved in a high profile legal case, it is possible that we will continue to get these types of controversial edits. Burrobert (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
BLPN isn't the place to discuss the appropriateness of controversial edits to BLPs? I mean, hey, I'm in favor of getting consensus -- but the edits are not obviously violating policy, certainly not in the sense that there are no reliable sources to support the term. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I raised the issue to request the page be protected because ip editors have added controversial material to a BLP page and ignored the Wikipedia policy of discussing the changes on talk when they are contested. Rather than discuss the changes on talk, the ip editors have re-added the reverted material on a number of occasions. Burrobert (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There should be a very high bar for describing a living person as a "conspiracy theorist" in their Bio, especially in the first sentence of the lede. Is a person who believes in one conspiracy theory a "conspiracy theorist"? How about two conspiracy theories? What's the dividing line? There are people who are definitely on the "conspiracy theorist" side of the line, but it should be absolutely clear before we attach the label to a living person. By the way, of the four sources given to source the "conspiracy theorist" label, only two actually apply the label to him, and one of those sources is the web page of a UK political lobby group (i.e., a source with strong biases and unclear reliability). -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This is really not a close call. It's not a matter of what one believes. e.g. many folks believe Russia didn't hack the DNC in 2016. They're not conspiracy theorists, merely uninformed ideologues. But in Murray's case, he actively and affirmatively has promoted conspiracy theories. I'm not a fan of the label "conspiracy theorist" and would prefer instead to state that he has promoted conspiracy theories. That's well Verified and DUE WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
"really not a close call", "uninformed ideologues", "actively and affirmatively has promoted conspiracy theories", "not a fan", "promoted conspiracy theories" - that's a lot of unhelpful opinion. My question was about what we should do regarding ip editors who have added contentious material to a BLP and breached wikipedia's wp:consensus policy which says: "If an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the issue". Burrobert (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
“If an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the issue”. Burrobert (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
"Do reliable sources label him a conspiracy theorist?" Here's the answer: [26], offering a "reasonably close paraphrase". And yet we have an established editor converting him to a "whistleblower"[27], thus remedying a "BLP violation" (and never mind that this "violation" is supported with reference to a Times article).
Again, the story here is that Murray is blaming the Salisbury poisonings on the Israelis. As that article makes clear, the perpetrators were of course the Russian FSB. This dispute is all quite stupid. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
We don't label someone a conspiracy theorist (much less in the first line of the lede) based on a single news article. BLP requires very strong sourcing for these sorts of negative characterizations, and WEIGHT would also have to be considered. I would honestly have expected more sensitivity to BLP concerns from people commenting on this noticeboard. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Look, sure, it's always better to have more sources. But it's not as if this ("conspiracy theorist") is a crazy/unfounded idea. There's no justification/need for page protection at this point, and edit summaries alleging a "BLP violation" are not appropriate (turning him into a "whistleblower", no less -- with no support from sources at all). We can be sensitive to BLP concerns without losing perspective in other respects. And I do find myself wondering why Murray, despite all the evidence about Russian involvement available via Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal, has decided that it might have been the Israelis instead. There's a reason antisemitism.org has also shown interest here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
It's too often the case that when a fringe theme pusher is not widely followed by RS, there will be a relatively small number of citations describing the conspiracy theories, falsehoods, racist themes, or whatever. It's also too often the case that WP editors misrepresent this relative scarcity of sourcing for a basis to deny that the individual has promoted all of the above. There is really no question about the issue at hand, only deflections by him and his followers. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A discussion has commenced at Craig Murray's talk page if anyone wants to discuss the accusation of Murray being a "conspiracy theorist".
  • Regarding Murray's statement about Israel and Skripal, this has been discussed at length previously on his talk page at "Blaming Israel for Skripal Attack".
  • the description of Murray as a whistleblower has been in his bio since at least 29 March 2018. It probably relates to his revelations about the use of torture and imprisonment while he was Ambassador to Uzbekistan, which is sourced.
  • It is concerning that an editor would casually hint on the BLP Noticeboard that a living person is anti-semitic.

Burrobert (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"Popular in a minority group" as a sign of notability

Bain Ligor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article

Makushima - The creator
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bain Ligor

Recently I AfD'ed an article about an upcoming Singer and youtuber named Bain Ligor. She is ethnically a Kalmyk, and was born in Kalmykia, a state of Russia. Kalymks have a different official language of their own as well. The population of Kalmyks around the world is 300,000. And the article creator has claimed since that she has 100,000 subscribers on YouTube, so she is popular among a third of Kalmyks. We were having a heated debate on the AfD page, and it seems to be turning towards minority discrimination. It seems many editors, including myself, voting on the article are also hesitant to speak and debate freely about a somewhat sensitive topic of minorities.

My Argument: She's a Russian citizen(Kalmykia is also Russia, as much as Catalonia is Spain), who studied and is living in Moscow and sings "Mostly" Russian songs, and also sang a few songs in Kalmyk. She just happens to be Kalmyk. It is highly likely most of her subscribers are those who listen to Russian songs. I see zero GNG worthy news articles , So I nominated it for deletion.

Article Creator's argument: Apparently since she belongs to a minority , they claim that no newspaper , apart from their own community, would write an article about her. I reasoned that she's Russian as well , any Moscow paper would write about her , if eligible .they don't agree with that. And claims that by being a "NOTICEABLE PERSON OF MINORITY", she should qualify for an article. Just a claim, no written proof of her being notable among Kalmyks either. There is a certain "Information portal of Kalmyk republic, uralan.info " which seems to promote any achievement, big or small, by their locals and writes an article about it. It may check the Significant mention box, and even reliability. But I doubt its independent nature, they aim to promote locals of their state and they do.

So How should we resolve this?. The Author claims that they won't stop until the article gets created. Their intentions may be good, but I don't think this is going the right way, as things are, it would end up with their ban. They created article about "minority discrimination on wikipedia" as well , in protest. Daiyusha (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Daiyusha:, there's multiple reasons for having wiki's in many different languages but cases like this article are one such reason. There are wiki's in both Russian and in Kalmyk and this person is probably suitable for either of those. The misconception that the English wiki is the "global" or "only" or "real" or "main" or "central" or whatever wiki is part of the problem. That does not mean that the notability standards for this wiki should bend to the suggestion that is is oppressive to delete the article. Directing articles on those that have a claim to popularity only within a small group to the appropriate language is sometimes helpful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
That's just one of the subjective realities of our notability guidelines. By having people, often non-experts of the subject, participate in these deletion discussions, there will always be a bias towards evaluating subjects and sources that they are familiar with and understand. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a false premise that because Ligor is Kalmyk all of her subscribers must also be Kalmyk. Perhaps it is possible that a large proportion of her subscribers are Russians, considering Ligor sings Russian songs and lives in Moscow. Additionally, anyone who is that prominent in the Kalmyk community to the point that a third of Kalmyks worldwide subscribe to her YouTube channel should at the very least have some reliable sources that we can use from sources that target the Kalmyk community. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 00:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely. We cannot rely on subscriber numbers (or other special pleading) for notability due to WP:V - without significant coverage in reliable sources to verify the information, how can we write a biography? The sources can be in any language, including Kalmyk Oirat, Russian, or English, see WP:NONENG. Though Eggishorn is right that different language Wikipedias may have different notability thresholds (e.g. German is very strict), I'm not comfortable with the idea that topics should only be covered in a local language. Fences&Windows 16:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Werley Nortreus

If any one of you feel like draft improvement is just the thing to take your mind off of the COVID, I have a draft for you. Right now it's a BLP violation waiting to happen (or it's already happened), but the person seems to be notable from the few sources that I looked at. It needs a decent writer to bring it into shape--that could be you. I'd do it myself, but good god I hate writing biographies. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Already deleted and salted. The sources I can find are hagiographies, it all smells of paid promotion. I don't mind writing biographies, but I'm not going to try this one. Fences&Windows 17:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Bralessness has an RFC

Talk:Bralessness 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. gnu57 20:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Park Geun-hye

She is a former president of South Korea who was impeached and later sentenced to prison for corruption and abuse of power. Until January 24 her article's lead read "Park Geun-hye is a former South Korean politician who served as President of South Korea from 2013 to 2017." Then a user named Lawrencekhoo came and changed it to "Park Geun-hye is a former South Korean politician and convicted criminal who served as President of South Korea from 2013 until she was impeached in 2017." I thought that the lead violated WP:NPV and that being a "convicted criminal" wasn't Park Geun-hye's defining characteristic, so I reverted Lawrencekhoo's changes. But a user named UncleBubba reverted me. Please take a look. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think a president being impeached and then convicted of corruption is something significant enough that it should be mentioned early on although the wording could use work and I'm not sure it needs to be the first sentence. Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
BTW, I appreciate "I think" may not seem to be the best grounds for BLP. But I'm fairly sure this is reflected in recent RS where the impeachment and corruption is something that will likewise nearly always get mentioned early on. It's difficult to search, since of course most recent sources are regarding her trial, appeal, the possibility of pardon etc. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay—busy day at work. Moscow Connection removed "convicted criminal", "until she was impeached", and "making her the first Korean president to be so removed" from the lede. I thought this information was interesting, pertinent and properly sourced, so I restored it. In the same edit, he added some apparently unsourced ancestry information, "her predecessors were born either during the Joseon dynasty, Japanese rule or during the post-World War II American occupation" and did not explain his actions. I attempted to verify what had been added and, after being unable to do so, reverted the edit with the comment: Rv removal of sourced text. NPV in a BLP article does not mean reliably sourced info can't be included. The ancestry information you added, however, needs a reliable source (especially since this is a BLP page). I probably should have mentioned that this added text appeared to be WP:OR, but forgot to do so. Sorry about that!
The cited sources that I reviewed before reverting were refs #4 [28], 6 [29], 7 [30], & 8 [31].
What I find interesting is that Moscow Connection didn't attempt to discuss the issue on the article's Talk page before coming here. Not that he must, but I believe many would consider it a courteous thing to do. Nevertheless, I believe my actions were proper on a BLP page (i.e. to err on the side of safety and sourcing). If consensus is that I goofed, I'll be happy to make it right. I patrol a fair number of BLP articles, and try my best to follow the guidelines that are peculiar to them. I suppose the bottom line is that I don't see WP:NPV and WP:BLP requiring we sugar-coat sourced information just because it's in a BLP article. Very curious, though, what y'all think. Cheers! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 00:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@UncleBubba: What I found interesting was that a user came to the article basically just to add the words "convicted criminal" to the first sentence. And I didn't understand why when I reverted him, you didn't discuss the matter and just reverted me instead. Perhaps, in a way, one could say I was also very curious as to why you accepted Lawrencekhoo's version so happily.
In my opinion, it is obvious that being a "convicted criminal" is not Park Geun-hye's defining characteristic. I came here to ask someone to revert you. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: But you didn't revert Lawrencekhoo's edit—you undid it and added some unsourced ancestry information at the same time. Regardless, I don't agree about Ms. Park's defining characteristics. If her election and rise to power were defining, then it seems the charges of official misconduct (and subsequent conviction) most certainly are, as well. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 01:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@UncleBubba: No, I didn't add anything from myself. Check the history. I only put back what he removed. And removed what he added. (Actually, I even left something he added in.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@UncleBubba: Here's the difference: [32]. The honorific suffix was added by 120.29.76.183, the last sentence by Amyx90, "for corruption and abuse of power" by Lawrencekhoo. There are exactly zero additions by me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: And this is exactly why this discussion should take place on the article's Talk page: it really should be preserved for other editors to reference. While patrolling recent changes, I saw the BLP edit you made. Your edit summary said you reverted another editor's additions, but the diff showed some apparently new, unsourced text. Since you admonished the editor to read WP:BLP, I assumed you were familiar with it, and thought it odd you would add unsourced info to a BLP. At any rate, my opinion about the additions remains unchanged because Ms. Park's (well-sourced) fall from power is as pertinent and defining as the events that led to her rise to political fame. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Uncited WP:LABEL which triggers WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Elena A. Melnikova

I have just translated an article from Russian WP about Elena A. Melnikova. I have not written about living people before, but understand that this is a sensitive issue. I'd appreciate a look through, to see that everything is in order.--Berig (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Berig, you need inline-citations to WP:BLP-good WP:RS for, well, pretty much everything, and you should make an effort to add English titles/descriptions for Main works, literature and EL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I don't have time for that. I should probably just delete the article, as it is my own creation anyway.--Berig (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Berig That may be best for now, pashuto.ru doesn't appear to be independent of the topic, since she is "staff". But you can move it to draft and keep working on it in your own pace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, good idea! Thanks!--Berig (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Be Best

Persistent addition of defamatory content. Rev/deletion may be necessary. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Today’s vandal has been blocked for 31 hours. IMO it’s not bad enough for revdel. If the vandalism continues, a request to protect the article can be made at WP:RFPP Neiltonks (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Anima Anandkumar

Additional experienced eyes would be welcome at Talk:Anima Anandkumar#Newest Addition and Edit. There's been a effort for the past six weeks to add a Twitter argument to the BLP. The discussion began in December at Talk:Anima Anandkumar#Twitter Controversy and continued today at Talk:Anima Anandkumar#Recent Addition and Edit War. Obviously my approach to explaining the objections to the added content isn't working. Hopefully someone else might be able to explain it better...or even disagree with my view on the issue and support the edit. TIA. Schazjmd (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Symington_W._Smith

this reads like a lot of promotional nonsense. A lot of the claims made cannot be verified. Nothing satisfies wikipedia's notability criteria. This is a grifter using Wikipedia for advertising and promotional purposes and this misuse of the platform makes me very angry. This article should be deleted. I mean it mentions articles written for student newspapers. Seriously.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.240.125 (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for deletion.[33] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Hawyard

The article about Anthony Hayward (born 26 October 1959) seems to have been written by the subject himself or by somebody close to him. It contains information of no general interest (e.g. grades awarded for low-level HND certificates in journalism) which can only have come from the subject of the wiki. The list of appearances at small local festivals has similar problems. This does not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria on notability.

Anthony Hayward — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabbyadams (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Hayward. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Abuse to Wikipedia site for Ambassador George E Glass

George Edward Glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

we set up a very accurate history and personal story while serving at the embassy in Lisbon. When I Looked at it a few days ago someone named “Snicker2686” changed the entire thing. A lot of hard work from our public diplomacy Group was erased. I went back and added the last 2 press releases to replace the toxic opinions that snickers placed on the site. Can you please bar them from coming in and changing history. ‘ Outspoken” taken in the wrong atmosphere can be very diplomatically damaging. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StellaPT (talk • contribs) 15:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@StellaPT: You should know that I've just reverted your edits back to the version by Doggy54321. You've removed a lot of well-sourced material and replaced it with material that is not only unsourced but also fails WP:NPOV. Given that you seem to have a personal stake in the subject matter this is a conflict of interest on your part: please read WP:COI. You're encouraged to discuss the edits on the article's talk page rather than reverting to your version of the article. Additionally, we wouldn't block Snickers2686 from editing the page unless he actually violated any rules (I can't see that he has). Please also see WP:OWN: no one has ownership of this page. — Czello 16:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that the editor StellaPT has been partial-blocked from the George Edward Glass article for a year, for COI and promotionalism. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Chrissy Teigen

Persistent addition of thinly sourced WP:BLP violations. Needs more eyes, perhaps protection. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for a week and revdel'ed a couple of BLP violations. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, MelanieN. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling

Input is requested here: Talk:J. K. Rowling#Transgender views controversy in lead redux. Crossroads -talk- 04:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Andre Comeau

A new bio, with the usual issues, some puffery and namedropping. A previous version was deleted long ago, and I'm assuming this is more credible and better sourced. More eyes on this will be helpful. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 Farmers' Republic Day parade

Please see the Section #Death at ITO of the permanent link of the older version that has been contested. This subsection is a WP:NPOV summary of the information of the death of a protestor and has been added with appropriate reliable source. 2 editors are claiming on the talk page [34] that I am "in fact violating BLP, much worse by misrepresenting sources" by adding that section. And I believe that all the BLP requirements have been properly followed, no source has been misrepresented and their objection is does not have any merit. Kindly check this subsection and let me know if you find any BLP violation or source misrepresentation. If there are no BLP concerns or source misrepresentation found, please do comment below that you found none. Thank you. --Walrus Ji (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "Indian journalists face criminal charges over police shooting reports". the Guardian. 1 February 2021.
Added a ref.--Walrus Ji (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Dame Glenys Stacey

As from 1st February 2021 Dame Glenys became the Chair Designate of the Office for Environmental Protection. She ceased being interim Chief Regulator at Ofqual on 31 December 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:B095:9101:E831:3B5D:917F:EBBD (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I've often wondered what's going on in the life of Dame Glenys Stacey. (Not.) Please convey our warmest congratulations. If you'd like the article changed, then all we need to do is wait for it to be published in a reliable source. Zaereth (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Done. Fences&Windows 22:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Jeremy Stoppelman

I have a WP:COI with Jeremy Stoppelman, the CEO of Yelp. I am writing to inquire about the last paragraph of the "Career" section on that page. That paragraph is about a letter from a disgruntled employee that went viral on social media and was picked up by numerous media outlets. While the letter did make headlines, the Stoppelman page now spends more space on this viral letter than it does on him founding Yelp or taking the company public. The paragraph itself seems to favor the disgruntled employee's POV. It omits source material that describes the article-subject's side in more detail than a general denial and describes the disgruntled employee's allegations as fact.

I was hoping by posting here an impartial editor might take a look and see what they think. I can take a stab at a shorter rewrite to propose on Talk, but I thought it might be preferred to flag it and see if an impartial editor is willing to look into it. CorporateM (Talk) 01:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The last paragraph in the career section is only five sentences, and is actually shorter than either the paragraph on him founding Yelp or taking the company public. It's barely longer than the quote from him in the "Management style" section. Considering it seems like a pretty neutral description of the dispute and Stoppelman is mentioned repeatedly in the sources about it, I'm not seeing an issue with the content. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I reduced the word count of that paragraph by a quarter, while retaining the content. The details are at Talia Jane. Fences&Windows 22:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
FYI - This CNN article explains that the letter went viral because Stoppelman responded to it on Twitter, explains Stoppelman's POV, etc. CNN is also probably a better source than some of the borderline stuff on there like Buzzfeed. I kind of roll my eyes at news events about Twitter conversations, but it did get press coverage. Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the BBC or The Washington Post (two of the four sources cited in that paragraph) are "borderline stuff". The other two sources are BuzzFeed News and Quartz, which are considered generally reliable at WP:RS. If you think additional sourced information should be added, I think posting on the article's talk page first may be the best move, and then you could point people on this noticeboard to that conversation if you think that additional input would be useful. Regarding the CNN source you cite, the article seems to be mostly describing what the letter said and what Stoppelman tweeted in response ("In the letter, Jane mentioned that Stoppelman frequently posts about increasing homelessness. She said many Yelp employees face similar hard times... On Saturday, Stoppelman addressed the letter on his Twitter (TWTR) account in a series of five posts... He continued by noting that he's 'been focused' on the high cost of living in San Francisco and has backed a group trying to bring awareness to the issue. He also noted that he's often spoken out about the importance of making housing more affordable."). The currently cited sources seem to rely on Twitter conservations far less than that short CNN article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Michael Lissack

We have a SPA IP account inserting critical material onto the above article. It looks like a BLP violation to me but Lissack is known to me so would someone else please take a look at it - thanks -----Snowded TALK 20:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Well sourced information removed on BLP grounds

Volunteer Marek removed this text from the Bogdan Musiał article[35] 

Historian Andrzej Żbikowski [pl] compares Musial to Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, considering that both have "equally strongly polonocentric and apologetic stances".[1]

He is claiming that it violates BLP, but giving no explanation in light of the fact that it's sourced to a scholarly source. Is this concern valid? My understanding is that BLP does not give us a license to remove well-sourced negative information or whitewash article subjects. (t · c) buidhe 21:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Żbikowski, Andrzej (2019). "The Dispute over the Status of a Witness to the Holocaust: Some Observations on How Research into the Destruction of the Polish Jews and into Polish–Jewish Relations during the Years of Nazi Occupation Has Changed since 1989". New Directions in the History of the Jews in the Polish Lands. Academic Studies Press. p. 412. ISBN 978-83-949149-1-2.
  • Given the claim being made, the sourcing needs to be very good, especially if someone else has challenged the content. The actual source seems to make a single reference to Musiał, comparing one of his books to Chodakiewicz: "However, in an article in English in a post-conference report from Ludwigsburg he [Marek Wierzbicki] was far more cautious in generalizing about the extent of such collaboration in Jewish communities. More cautious, in any event than Bogdan Musiał—the author of Rozstrzełać elementy kontrewolucyjne! This book could easily have appeared in the Fronda Library alongside Chodakiewicz's work for its equally strongly polonocentric and apologetic stances." The wording you present above does not seem accurate, and I'm not sure that type of single mention is particularly useful to make any contentious claims in a BLP. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ran Avni

the metadata photo when you share this article on an iphone has a photo that is not Ran Avni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfinston (talk • contribs) 01:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to give you the run around, but this is not our fault. Our article doesn't have a picture. We get these complaints a lot, because certain providers (such as google is notorious for this) they try to anticipate what you want based on past search history, and just inserts whatever pic it can find that even remotely fits what it "thinks" you want. You have to talk to whoever provides your sharing services, because it didn't come from us. Zaereth (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Tyler Mitchel

Photographer Roger Erickson photographed the cover of Vogue(Mexico), with Lily Aldridge, published March of 2003. He is also African American. In order to avoid misleading the public, please clarify which country the Vogue cover was shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:82E0:C2D0:A1D4:8227:238E:71F2 (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Chad Johnson (television personality)

Chad Johnson (television personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm bringing this here partly per WP:DOLT. At the time of the legal threat, the sourcing was particularly poor. This has been improved after it made it to ANI, still until I changed it a few minutes ago it still had 'screamed "I hope you fucking die"' in the lead. I just removed any mention of the arrest and later career (it's still in the article) but I'm not sure if this will stick. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure enough, someone reverted me making the bizzare claim the subject was notable for those things, even though they happened in 2020 and the article has existed since 2017, and the criminal charge at least seems to be a clear case of WP:BLP1E Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Nil. I'm the one who restored that info to the article. I am aware of WP:DOLT but I don't think it applies here because the incidents are well-sourced - this is not an example of someone creating a smear article without reliable sources. Anyway, the account(s) that were constantly removing that sourced info, and recently threatened legal action, were blocked, which seems like WP:DOLT might apply in that sense, but since the information is all true and well-sourced, I think it's a moot point. I also didn't know you posted about it here until I looked at your contributions page; you didn't mention it in your edit summaries or when you posted on my talk page. That would have been helpful I think. Wes sideman (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the information probably does not belong in the lead. Calling it "sourced" is technically correct but Fox News and Daily Mirror aren't the greatest of sources for negative BLP information. I moved the references to the body section where there is already an extensive discussion of the allegations to preserve them but they really are not appropriate to the lead per WP:DUE. As the arrest has not been tested in court it is not worth making it one of the first things that people read here about this person. He was notable for his reality show career before the arrest so that is what the lead should discuss. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says the lead in the article is "a summary of its most important contents." Over half of the contents of the body of the article relate to the arrest and porn career. Doing searches of reliable sources reveals the same thing - most of the coverage deals with the subject's arrest, less of it with his porn career, and the smallest amount is the stuff that actually talks about his appearances on reality shows. While it's true that his notability started with reality TV, it seems a big stretch to say that the arrests and the porn career are not significant parts of his notability now, given the evidence. Wes sideman (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The issue is not MOS, but WP:BLPCRIME: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. This is policy that trumps the MOS. Johnson is a public figure so mention of this accusation is allowed but that does not mean that it belongs in the lead. The if/then above is also somewhat backwards. If half of the contents of the body (although that proportion is not, in actual fact, correct) are about accusations, then reducing the contents is the answer, not adding it to the lead. The most salacious parts of that section are not directly sourced and probably should be removed, for example. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
You can't just look at policy one bit at a time. I often tell people you have to look at it all at once, like one, giant equation. For information to be included, every factor in that equation must be satisfied in order to comply with BLP.
First is sourcing. Regardless of who is regurgitating the stories, the story about the alleged domestic abuse (notice I say "alleged" because nothing has been proven in court, and BLP rules apply to talk pages as well; even the sources are very careful in this respect), the alleged abuse was in reality reported by TMZ and Toofab. TMZ is definitely not a reliable source, and Toofab looks mighty questionable, and the reviews are not so good either. These other sources are just repeating what TMZ and Toofab said, and are very careful to state that, so that the reader will know how reliable the info is, and who to blame if it's wrong.
So, already we've failed RS. Then we have way too much space devoted to this per the rest of the article, which fails DUE. We're supposed to give a summary, not the whole, detailed story, and we need to weigh the sourcing (all originally sourced material in proportion to all original sources about this info), and put it into its proper percentage. Then, the lede is just a very quick summary of all the main points in the article, in their proper proportion. (I like to think of the lede as simple a scaled-down model of the article. For a good example of how a lede should summarize the body, see Honey).
Then you have WP:BLPCRIME to consider. I'm not sure this falls under the exemption to that, WP:WELLKNOWN because there just isn't a lot of independent coverage out there on this story, not like there would be for, say ... Charlie Sheen. To pass WELLKNOWN, there needs to be significant, independent coverage to the point that there is no longer any point in trying to protect their right to be innocent until proven guilty. (And before people cry "celebrity", as far as famous people named Chad Johnson go, a quick google search shows he's at the bottom of that list, below the football layer, soccer player, etc., and the lame sourcing in our very short article also seems to confirm that.)
Oh, and on top of that, naming the alleged victim is also not cool, especially when that person is not notable enough to have an article of their own. So, all in all, unless some better sourcing comes along besides TMZ and Toofab, and a lot of it, I would opt to just leave it out of the article entirely. Zaereth (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I think Wes sideman is missing one VERY important part of writing Wikipedia articles. Information which has a reference is available to be put into Wikipedia articles, however it is not required to be in Wikipedia articles. Which is to say, that before you put anything in an article, you must source it, but, and I cannot stress this enough, merely because something is mentioned in a reliable source, this does not mean that the article MUST have it. In order to decide if a particular reliably sourced fact should or should not be mentioned in an article, and if it should, where and with how much prominence and in what phrasing and all sorts of other decisions still need to be made by Wikipedia editors making editorial decisions and when they disagree, to use consensus building to solve the disagreement. In this case, no one is objecting to the information because it lacks sources; your assertion that it has sources is at once both true and mostly irrelevant to the reason people want to remove it. Instead, things like WP:UNDUE, WP:BLPCRIME, and a variety of other editorial concerns have been raised that you have failed to address. Build consensus that it is relevant enough to his biography to include in the article first before re-adding it. --Jayron32 20:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with everything you said, except that I do think it lacks reliable sources. The reliability of a sources depends greatly on the info it's giving, and when they all say, "according to TMZ", then I have to question the reliability regardless of whether it's Fox News, People Magazine, or The NY Times. If they don't want to own it, then we shouldn't either. But I think BLPCRIME is the dominant issue here. Zaereth (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Given the consensus of experienced editors here I have reduced the arrest section to the essentials that I feel are barely supportable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Wes sideman, I have once again reverted your attempts to add these allegations. You have already been informed that TMZ is not an acceptable WP:RS for salacious allegations of criminal activity. Your "I didn't hear that" attempt to re-add this is verging on tendentious editing. Please do not attempt to add anything to this section again. Thank you in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Eggishorn Is cheatsheet.com a reliable source? Wes sideman (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
NO. How do I make this clear? You have demonstrated that you are determined to insert information that multiple experienced editors, including an administrator, have told you is not allowed by policy. You should not be trying to find an acceptable source for this information to justify its inclusion. You should be leaving the article alone for the time being. Pursuing this course of action is likely to end in frustration or worse. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Eggishorn I'm just asking the question. I don't intend to add anything else to the article without permission. If cheatsheet.com is not a reliable source, why is used as a reference on the pages of over 100 articles, including many biographies? (Robert Downey Jr., Kid Cudi, Jimmie Johnson are just a few examples) I don't know why you're yelling in all caps; this does not seem like it merits the level of anger I'm perceiving from you. Wes sideman (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF and please do not mistake a single-letter typo for shouting. If you are perceiving anger, it was not intended to be implied. I have a sticky shift key I sometimes miss correcting. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, no problem. However, I should also explain, and should've explained in the beginning, that what I added in the first place was because I noticed in the article history that the info about the arrest and porn career were there at some point, and was removed without explanation. I pretty much restored it and found what I thought was better sourcing. Then this guy started making a dozen sock accounts and threatening me on my talk page and making legal threats. He's still doing at this very minute. Wes sideman (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Socks placed back in drawer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I think others have explained things well enough so I won't comment on most of it. I'll just say that while I understand how wrong it is that you're being inappropriately targeted over your work in the article, and it very frustrating when someone with a likely COI edits inappropriately, the proper outcome is always that we ensure the article is as it would be if we paid proper attention to it and put aside the inappropriate editing. Also about "alleged", please remember that this is not over general actions but over specific allegations of criminality. For example, if there's a video of a woman shooting her boyfriend in the chest, does this mean there's no doubt she's a murderer? Well no, maybe he asked her to since they were shooting a Youtube video trying to demonstrate using an encyclopaedia to stop a bullet and she's only guilty of manslaughter. Likewise, even if you find someone holding a gun standing over a dead body with a bullet wound in it, this doesn't mean the person is going to be convicted of murder. Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Vicky Ford

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

Hi there

A single user (AugustB1914) is making repeated edits to this page which are not objective, convey no new useful information and appear politically motivated.

Rather than repeated corrections or deletions it would be much preferable to ask them to stop

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFixed (talk • contribs) 13:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@MrFixed:, you should let another editor like AugustB1914 know when you mention them on a noticeboard such as this. This is as easy as using a template to "ping" them when you post like this: {{u|AugustB1914}}. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive323&oldid=1006295503"