Talk:Michael Klaper

Edits by Michael Klaper
Michael Klaper has complained about this article. I started this talk-page discussion here so he and others can discuss it if necessary. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Self-published source in a BLP
I have removed the section labeled Criticism for now because it was based entirely on this article published in David Gorski's self-published blog Respectful Insolence, which is a clear violation of WP:BLPSPS policy no matter how much of an expert Gorski is. Respectful Insolence is separate from Science-Based Medicine. I realize Gorski and Jillette was discussed previously, but remarkably nobody recognized BLP issues. People wishing to add reliably sourced criticism must due so in compliance with not only WP:NPOV but WP:BLP. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that there was a bit of undue weight to the Gorski source it should not have been put in the lead in my opinion but if you do a search for "Respectful Insolence" on Wikipedia it is used on nearly 30 Wikipedia articles including biographies Judy Mikovits, Tyler Henry, Sharon Begley, Andrew Wakefield, Kathleen Seidel, David Wolfe and Brian Hooker. As well as a source to debunk various quackery including germ theory denialism, cupping therapy, Detoxification foot baths or the claims of Penta Water etc. It is clearly seen as a reliable source. You have removed Respectful Insolence as a source on Michael Klaper's BLP but it is still used on many others. I find it unlikely other users are going to agree with you to remove this source because sometimes blogs by experts are aloud on Wikipedia. It appears to be a notable exception. Maybe this issue should be raised at WP:FTN and WP:RSN. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you also removed the Gorski source on another BLP Sharyl Attkisson . To be consistent we either need to remove this source from all BLPs or we need to restore it. We can't have the source being used on some articles and not others that would be inconsistent. There clearly needs to be discussion about this on a board so we can get a consensus view about how reliable Respectful Insolence is. WP:RSN might be a good idea. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Respectful Insolence should be disused as a source for other BLPs, I simply haven't gotten around to them yet, and BLP violations are more pressing problems than inconsistency in source usage. Reliability of a source is a separate issue from self-publishing. . WP:SELFPUBLISH states: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer, and WP:USESPS explores this in more depth. Respectful Insolence, whether hosted on ScienceBlogs or its own site, is entirely self-published, with the author being the sole editor and publisher. It may be reliable and even appropriate in certain cases, so long as its (i.e. Gorski's) views aren't granted disproportionate prominence and does not involve claims about living people. Wikipedians unfortunately tend to be less careful when writing about people that Gorski (and/or society at large) criticizes, as if a negative reception is a pass to circumvent WP:BLP or other policies. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)