Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive280

Joey Gibson (political activist)
Version 1 (older): "Gibson's political activity is frequently met with criticism. Nine days after a far-right advocate allegedly stabbed three men on the Portland TriMet transit system, Gibson hosted a rally met by thousands of counter-protesters."
 * Talk:Joey_Gibson_(political_activist)
 * Talk:Joey_Gibson_(political_activist)
 * Talk:Joey_Gibson_(political_activist)

Version2 (most recent version): "Gibson's political activity has met with criticism. On April 2, 2017, nine days after far-right advocate Jeremy Joseph Christian allegedly stabbed three men on the Portland TriMet transit system, Gibson hosted a Patriot Prayer rally which was met by thousands of counter-protesters. Christian was seen at the rally yelling racial slurs. Gibson denounced Christian's actions and said he ejected Christian from the event due to his 'bizarre behavior'."

After some attempts to resolve the problems that I see in both these versions, I'm coming here for help.

There appear to be basic verification problems with both versions. The second version appears to confuse the timeline and references as well.

There appear to be two different intents here: To document the criticism that Gibson's political activity has received, and to document Gibson's relationship with Jeremy Joseph Christian. The first seems far better supported by available reliable sources, so both versions appear to ignore due weight. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Zak Smith
This page does not display any content relating to controversy surrounding the career of the subject. Specifically, announcements have been made by a number of role playing game industry publishers in the past week in response to sexual abuse allegations against the subject. Reasons for lack of content on the page have included lack of authoritative references, and the nature of the allegations. Content relating to the controversy has been removed by anonymous editors. The publishers have made their announcements on typical platforms for the industry. The announcements have been reported by industry related media outlets. The announcements have not been picked up by the mainstream media. The subject's involvement in the controversy should be reflected on the page in some way.

On Articles_for_deletion/Zak_Smith the subject's notoriety has been proposed to be too low to warrant a page. This may explain the lack of mainstream media coverage of the recent controversy. Either the subject is notable, and the content relating to the controversy should be referenced, or the subject is not notable, and the page should be deleted. Recent views of the page have far outweighed the views since the page was created in 2015, suggesting that the notability of the subject is largely due to this recent controversy.

If there can be agreement on the approach about how to proceed to include content relating to the specific recent controversy, then this would enable the editors of the page to proceed with confidence.

Merxa (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The last time there was a big go-around about RPG related content there was a lot of dispute over the reliability of trade publications to establish notability. I suspect the rather contentious consensus of that discussion would best boil down to the top tier publications being reliable for non-controversial claims and statements of undisputed fact. The situation with Smith doesn't match those caveats. However I think the reality is that Smith's article demonstrates a total lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage of his career. In fact the only article I've been able to find that unambiguously implies notability is a Vice article from 2012 which is about his relationship as it was perceived then with his ex. As such, we can infer that any notability he has is intrinsically tied to that relationship; if Wikipedia is unable to comment on the end result of that relationship, because that part of the relationship is absent from WP:RS it'd be almost perverse to allow the relationship, as reported seven years ago by Vice, to confer notability to Smith.


 * Of course, Smith hasn't been doing nothing since then. And it'd be easy enough to argue, for those who have ties to the industry, that Smith's contribution to We Eat Blood, while not the final straw that broke the camel's back, was a significant factor that led to the restructuring of White Wolf Publishing and the break of Paradox Interactive with Martin Ericsson. However, again, this is mostly based on back-channel chatter and not on reporting in reliable sources that, honestly, couldn't give two shits about the back-room drama of role playing games. So this poses a conundrum: a person who may be notable for his bad behaviour, but who is not notable enough for his bad behaviour to get comment outside of the back-channels of his subcultural connections. In light of this, I think the prudent course of action is for Wikipedia to say nothing; presenting a sanitized view of this figure's career would be far worse. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Matt Bellamy
Since the 5th of February an IP has been adding poorly sourced info to this article violating the BLP policy, here is the latest. I have reverted several times (some with edit summaries) thinking they will quit but unfortunately not. The IP in question keeps using songmeanings.com, which I was led to believe is an unreliable source at Wikipedia. Other editors that have reverted said IP include Diannaa and Stwalkerster and as such, I mention them here. Would page protection be an unreasonable request for such a circumstance?  Rob van  vee  15:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Make a post on WP:ANEW as well. This is an edit war that's been going on for 2 weeks it seems, with an IP just re-adding the same low-quality unsourced information each time its removed. At this point, it doesn't seem like the IP is interested in engaging in conversation and a block is likely the only thing that will stop the information from being re-added. SWL36 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They have changed IP addresses several times so wouldn't page protection be better?  Rob van  vee  17:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted it (and I think did for the same reason) because it was an unattributed copy-paste from Muse (band), which probably breaks the CC-BY-SA licence due to the loss of attribution. I've not checked more recent edits. stwalkerster (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sara Duterte
Edit-warring to include the previously disputed material.
 * Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive277
 * Talk:Sara_Duterte
 * Talk:Sara_Duterte

This looks like an attack on Duterte. While there may be some material due mention, at best it looks like a lot of OR and material taken out of any broader context in order to attack Duterte.

Help would be appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like massive content blanking without consensus to me. Oh fuck it, why not just blank the entire article because there are one or two things you don't like? Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This article seems quite short. What is the "broader context" that you are edit-warring over? MPS1992 (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it, User:Ronz, why do I suddenly worry when I see your username? What have you been up to in the past? I would love to be collegial, but this just seems weird. Why your sudden need to protect some politician in the Philippines? What are your ties to that region? It's fine not to answer these questions, perhaps I am just paranoid. MPS1992 (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

On review, this article needs a lot of work, and much of it is heavily biased in a way that is not compatible with WP:BLP. MPS1992 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux
I am having a dispute with at the "Stefan Molyneux" article. Discussion can be found at Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 6. Other opinions welcome. Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess posting it to the BLP noticeboard instead of the RS noticeboard means your argument is that 'hyperlinks can violate our BLP policies'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * A quick review, I believe that while discussing that Molyneux has views related to white genocide, calling him a conspiracy theorist is supported by only one source, and that language should not be included. Just because one believes in what would readily be considered a conspiracy theory does not make one a conspiracy theorist.) --M asem (t) 01:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * —we are not required to internally link in any and all circumstances. This is one in which we should not. The source itself is reliable. But it devotes all of half a sentence to the assertion under discussion. Furthermore—White genocide conspiracy theory is not a concise subject. It is a sprawling area for discourse. We are writing a BLP. It is unfair to Molyneux to both convey the import of that half-sentence in the source and simultaneously link to an article than contains an enormous number of wrongdoings grouped under the umbrella of "White genocide conspiracy theory". Use common sense. Wikipedia writes articles on well-defined and anodyne topics. And Wikipedia writes articles on amorphous and seriously disparaging topics. Do we know that the source is implying that Molyneux is "a neo-Nazi, alt-right, white nationalist/supremacist"? The source speaks for itself. Please look at this version of the article. It is the last time I edited it. Look at the first sentence of the "White genocide" section. A quote from the source tells the reader that "Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide". What more do you want? It seems to me that you just want to link to the White genocide conspiracy theory article. Despite the fact that we do not know that the sprawling contents of that highly disparaging article are applicable to Molyneux. The White genocide conspiracy theory article can certainly be mentioned elsewhere in the Molyneux article. I placed it in the See also section. But other locations are possible. This is a WP:BLP issue. Our intent is to write conservatively about living people. And we are not required to use internal links. Like so many other things there is a proper time and a proper place. I don't oppose internal links. They are generally very constructive to an article. I don't think that internal link in this instance fairly treats the subject of this article. Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If it can be reliably sourced to the extent that it passes the BLP bar to include in his article that he supports a particular conspiracy theory (white genocide etc) and we have an article on that conspiracy theory, it can be linked from his article. The BLP is concerned with if material can be included. If that is passed, there is no policy reason that applies to forbidding relevant internal links to articles, the relevant guidelines for when not to link are MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:SOB. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * —we would not be at liberty to tar and feather the subject of a biography even if it were not a BLP. I am ignorant of the policy, but I'm sure there is one, that compels us to paraphrase instead of quote a source. Bus stop (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You dont appear to have understood my comment. If the material passes the bar to include in the article, then it can be blue-linked to a relevant article on the subject - that is a fundemental aspect of how wikipedia article links work. "I dont like the article its linked to" is not a valid reason to not link to it. If you are objecting to inclusion of any mention in their biography of their belief in racist conspiracy theories, thats a different discussion. Your comments about paraphrasing is irrelevant when referring to a specific topic. You dont need (and shouldnt) paraphrase specific subjects, as it will result in obfuscation and in this case, appears to only serve the purpose of deliberately not linking to a relevant article. If you are specifically paraphrasing in order to avoid linking to another article, you are not editing in a NPOV manner, and its also functionally idiotic as even if you paraphrase White genocide conspiracy theory to caucasian mass-killing plot theory, piped links would still be relevant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article, the way it's presented has huge synth problems. First, the wiki-link is inside a quote, further the source itself does not actually link to that article in that quote.  Therefore we are adding our entire article load of meaning to that quote.  That's OR/Synth. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wiki-links within quotes do not have to be in the source as long as its clear that the article linked to corresponds to the source author's meaning. I dont see how it could be argued someone who pushes South Africa's white genocide meme is not what the author means. Its literally a white genocide conspiracy theory. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be all well and good if you could prove that to be true. However, the source you provided here is not the source in the article, it has neither the same publisher nor writer.  So, can you demonstrate that is what the source author means?  --Kyohyi (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I dont need to. The author states he believes in a white genocide theory, we have an article on white genocide conspiracy theories. Thats as far as it goes. Unless you have some evidence that the author in fact meant something other than 'white genocide conspiracy theory'? If the only real argument is 'Well we dont know which particular white genocide conspiracy theory it is...' which is nonsensical. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the burden of proof is on the people trying to include. It is the responsibility of anyone adding content including a wiki-link in an article to demonstrate that it is accurate.  In this case it is your responsibility to demonstrate that the author means what our wiki-linked article says.  If you can't do so, it doesn't go in.  --Kyohyi (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * —you say "Wiki-links within quotes do not have to be in the source as long as its clear that the article linked to corresponds to the source author's meaning." First things first: the wiki-link is not within the quote. That is because it is not a quote. It is a paraphrase. Secondly, it is definitely not clear that "the article linked-to corresponds to the source author's meaning." The author at Radio New Zealand has no awareness of the article that we are now considering internally linking-to. Therefore we have to use our brains. And we have to choose the better of two possibilities. The linked-to article addresses a subject that is poorly defined and sprawls over a large area. This is not a fault of the linked-to article. But it is a cautionary factor that has to be taken into consideration when contemplating linking to that article. It is simply a fact that some articles address subjects of limited scope and other articles address subjects whose scope is more amorphous. We have to think twice before linking to articles that include everything but the kitchen sink. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * As a wholly separate issue but tied with this, the naming of White genocide conspiracy theory is actually probably not POV compliant - we shouldn't call out conspiracy theories that directly as a title. But because we have the Armenian White Genocide article (a different thing altogether), then this article should be named "White genocide (conspiracy theory)" That may not seem like it would make much difference but in the linkage issue about, related to the Radio NZ article, you'd only like to "White genocide". --M asem  (t) 16:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The article White genocide conspiracy theory covers a lot of ground. It sprawls over a large subject area. It includes a large range of characters. It should be included as an internal link somewhere in the Molyneux article. But it should not be linked-to in the same sentence as (That can be seen in this version of the article, edited by me. Note that you will find a link to White genocide conspiracy theory in the "See also section". I put it there.) We do not know that the author at Radio New Zealand endorses  Molyneux's membership in the group of people described at our White genocide conspiracy theory article. That article is a laundry list of types of people. It begins by saying "The white genocide conspiracy theory is a neo-Nazi, alt-right, white nationalist/supremacist conspiracy theory..." Let us start with the term "neo-Nazi". No source whatsoever describes Molyneux as a "neo-Nazi". But what does the reader think when we cause an assertion by Radio New Zealand to link to White genocide conspiracy theory? Clearly the implication is that Molyneux falls under the heading Neo-Nazism. Of course we should try to avoid that. Even if this were not a BLP we should try to avoid misconstruing a person's identity. The article White genocide conspiracy theory cannot just be casually linked-to. That is because its definition is so amorphous. Bus stop (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Your issue is valid but that's an issue on the WGCT page that should be evaluated. I've actually gone and BOLDy adjusted the first sentence there to better define that the theory can be believed by, say, someone that is alt-right but not necessarily neo-Nazi as is the case here for Molyneux. --M asem (t) 23:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It might make sense to reword that introductory sentence at 'white genocide conspiracy theory" - the theory has been advanced by white supremacists and neo-Nazis, but the theory itself doesn't hold an ideology. That said: reliable sources explicitly connect Molyneux's white genocide stuff to the white supremacist movement - so I don't see a huge problem here. Nblund talk 23:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have personally watched hundreds of hours of Molyneux's videos, and he never describes white demographic decline as a "genocide" nor a "conspiracy".  Furthermore I skimmed all the sources that were supposed to substantiate the WGCS accusation, and none of them contained a pertinent SM quote. Opinion columnists parroting each other without ever citing any relevant direct quotes do not substantiate the allegation. If we include the WGCS accusation in the article at all it should be attributed inline, not stated as fact.  This would be similar to the way Wikipedia reports SPLC blacklistings on BLPs.Jwray (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "I have personally watched hundreds of hours of Molyneux's videos" - braver person than I. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "I have personally watched hundreds of hours of Molyneux's videos, and he never describes white demographic decline as a "genocide" nor a "conspiracy"." I'm sure he never has and never will refer to his conspiracy theory beliefs as conspiracies. Most conspiracy theorists actively avoid using the word "conspiracy". As for whether or not he's ever called it "genocide", that's really immaterial. We have no requirement that a person be quoted as stating the exact names of whatever conspiracy theories they believe in order to report that reliable sources have stated clearly that they do. Finally, he may not have used "genocide", but he's used the terms "horrific violence", "crisis", "civil war" and "slaughter" in the titles of his videos. And it's quite certain it's a favorite subject of his, because even when he has the common sense to tone down the rhetoric just a tad, he still can't shut up about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The ongoing violence against whites in South Africa is a fact, not a conspiracy theory, regardless of who uses it as a talking point.Jwray (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I see this is turning into a bull session. Let's cut to the chase. The Radio New Zealand source does not support the contents of the "White genocide conspiracy theory" article—not by a long shot. Therefore the proper way to inform the reader of all relevant information without misleading the reader is to include the relevant quote from Radio New Zealand in the body of the article and the link to the somewhat related "White genocide conspiracy theory" article elsewhere in the Molyneux article. I am not 100% happy with this next suggestion but the best placement for the internal link to the "White genocide conspiracy theory" article is in the "See also" section. Unless anyone can come up with a better suggestion for the placement of that internal link. Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Exactly how is the RNZ article not talking about the WGCT ? It's certainly not talking about the Armenian White Genocide in any type of context, but clearly elements of the right-wing WGCT. Is there a third meaning for "white genocide" that is out there? --M asem  (t) 15:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Radio New Zealand source does not support the contents of the "White genocide conspiracy theory" article—not by a long shot. That is simply and obviously untrue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * —this is the source. The relevant quote from that source is "Mr Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide and claims that violence is caused by how women treat children." That source also refers to Molyneux as "alt-right" and a "provocateur". I am arguing that the descriptions of Molyneux in the RNZ source are a world apart from the descriptions of people in the WGCT article, especially suggestion of Neo-Nazism. That is so far off the mark that it calls for caution in linking to the White genocide conspiracy theory article. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That source also refers to Molyneux as "alt-right" and a "provocateur". I am arguing that the descriptions of Molyneux in the RNZ source are a world apart from the descriptions of people in the WGCT article, especially suggestion of Neo-Nazism. So you are arguing that there's no connection between the alt-right and neo-nazism? The very first sentence of Alt-right says: The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely connected and somewhat ill-defined grouping of American white supremacists/white nationalists, white separatists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists and other far-right fringe hate groups. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if Molyneux himself stays as far away from neo-Nazism, there's still the fact that the white genocide conspiracy theory has created strange bedfellows, and its certainly not our place to try to hide that connection. There is absolutely no way that by the simple act of linking to the WGCT that mentioned that its a theory held by neo-Nazis among other groups, that Molyneux is a neo-Nazi. --M asem (t) 15:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * —Why paraphrase? Why not just quote? The answer is that the paraphrasing is just a contrivance. It is a way of linking to the all-important WGCT article. This is a misuse of Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a misuse of Wikipedia. In what way? You have asserted numerous times that linking to the CT article is the problem (while simultaneously condescending to another editor for taking you at your word that it was that very linking with which you disagreed, although to your credit, you walked back on that) but you have not once given a policy based reason for why this is so. Those closest you have come is in your comment above, where you (hilariously) try to draw a distinction between neo-nazis and the alt-right. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * —besides, there is no reason for paraphrasing. It accomplishes absolutely nothing. Once again, let us cut to the chase. The source is saying "Mr Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide and claims that violence is caused by how women treat children." Our article most accurately represents the import of the underlying source by simply saying "Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide." End of story. The paraphrasing only serves as a vehicle for including the link to the hodgepodge of an article WGCT which includes everything but the kitchen sink. If we want to tar and feather Molyneux, we can do so by pretending that the RNZ source and the WGCT article are in sync with one another. But I don't think any of us think that is true. So why foist it on the reader? Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am probably one of the first editors that would be all over this situation if there was an issue of WP:LABELing and media spin, and all that, and even here, I see zero reason not to link, and we don't even need to quote RNZ directly. "RNZ claims that Molyneux subscribes to white genocide conspiracy theory." with appropriate linkage. We are not saying "RNZ claims that Molyneux subscribes to the white genocide conspiracy theory, which means he must be a neo-Nazi." nor implying that by linking to the theory's page. --M asem (t) 16:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * My mistake about something. And my apologies to . I had it ass-backwards. The article is presently using the direct quote. (In the past it had been using a paraphrase.) But that only makes the matter worse. We are inserting an internal link into a quote. I think this is sometimes acceptable and sometimes not acceptable. I don't think the nature of the White genocide conspiracy theory article lends it to insertion within a quote. Such an internal link would be better placed in the See also section. Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is now the third time I'm asking you to justify your insistence that the link is "not acceptable". Are you going to answer me or just continue to ignore me? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * MjolnirPants—it is not acceptable because it is on too-broad a topic. Such internal links within quotes may be acceptable when the linked-to article is on a well-defined subject. (If we are referring to an "automobile transmission" we can link to our Transmission (mechanics) article. It is well defined. There can be no doubt about a source's intended meaning.) In this case the internal link should be in the See also section. Sorry for not responding earlier. I had to gather my thoughts. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * While the various facets of the white genocide conspiracy theory are fuzzy at the edges of exactly what it is, the overall concept, in contents of how RZH puts it, is correctly captured by the link. We don't have enough to know exactly how to "pidgeonhole" what Molyneux thinks related to white genocide, but that broadly the ideas he has expressed fall within the overall conspiracy theory. --M asem (t) 19:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This argument is akin to suggesting that we can't call the sky blue because it's actually a light blue with some cyan undertones. It's nonsensical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * By the way RNZ is not even devoting a full sentence to this topic: "Mr Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide and claims that violence is caused by how women treat children." Information should be in an article but information should not be given more weight or prominence than suggested by the sources. I think the internal link within the quote adds prominence to that assertion. Bus stop (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're still not answering my question. Instead, you're trying to bullshit me by pretending that I haven't provided multiple sources asserting the same damn thing already. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is starting to seem like WP:Tendentious editing. Bus stop you continually repeat the same points while omitting what others have said previously. Again RNZ is not the only source that states SM's belief in WGCT and therefore your repeated assertions about the articles only mentioning WGCT for "half a sentence" is not only nonsensical, but untrue. Here are the other sources previously linked on Stefan Molynuex's talk page under the WGCT section:


 * "In the last year, YouTuber Stefan Molyneux has done a series of videos warning of collapse and imminent civil war in which he interviewed some of the most prominent names on South Africa’s far-right, including Simon Roche of the rightwing prepper group Suidlanders"
 * "...some of the far right’s biggest conspiracy theorists, like Stefan Molyneux, who regularly uses his platform to argue that blacks are genetically inferior intellectually to whites."
 * "So why these rumors of an uprising against whites in South Africa now? Trump didn’t start them with his tweet. Tucker Carlson didn’t start them. I’ve been receiving emails for a year or two now from anxious friends abroad about tidbits they’ve read about growing anger towards white people here—mostly in the U.K. tabloid press or on the Twitter feeds of the Canadian right-wing provocateurs Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux. Not just from right-wing friends—from left-wing ones, too. "
 * "Discussing the film with Southern, Molyneux alleged a conspiracy of silence from the media and NGOs on the non-existent genocide, and plumbed white nationalist fears, saying that “they don’t want to scare the whites in the west with what happens when whites become a minority in a highly aggressive and tribalised world”. " Pokerplayer513 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Those sources look good, . I will concede those sources support the Molyneux alignment with the White genocide conspiracy theory article. I hadn't seen them or I skimmed over them. Question: why not add them to the article? My apologies if I've wasted everybody's time. Bus stop (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not see how these quotes prove that SM believes in the White genocide conspiracy theory. None of them even mention the conspiracy. One can believe in disparities in intelligence over large populations and in demographic changes in the West without believing there is some concerted effort to diminish white populations. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you continue to use this site for no reason other than your quest to whitewash the articles of right-wing figures I will ask an admin to block you from editing. You're a static IP, so don't think they won't do it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * MjolnirPants—you do not know that anyone is using the site to whitewash articles on right-wing figures. A point was made. Why not just respond to the point that was made? Bus stop (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Because said "point" is a blatantly false claim of fact that comes from an account with a history of making blatantly false claims of fact, who has never made an edit that wasn't in defense of a right-wing public figure. Seriously dude, I put the links to the evidence right there in my comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Start advocating BLP violations on the BLP's of left-wing figures and I'll defend them as well. The fact remains that the posted sources do not show what you are claiming. What you are claiming is an interpretation of the sources. It's fine to have your own interpretation, but it's still OR and thus doesn't belong in a BLP. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've already told you multiple times now; if you're just going to keep lying, I'm not going to discuss anything with you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * MjolnirPants—just respond to the points made. No need to talk about the person making the points. Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not debating reality with a proven liar. And I'm not going to repeat this argument with you because last time, you refused to answer questions, failed to address any of the problems pointed out with your arguments by multiple other editors, made numerous bare assertions without providing any rationale, and just otherwise refused to engage in a reasoned discourse, preferring to just keep repeating your nonsensical claims as if that would convince anyone. I'm not the first editor to point out that this is pure tendentiousness on your part, but I will be the one to ask an admin to do something about it if you can't or won't drop the stick. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How can you call anyone a "proven liar"? That is mind-boggling. Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it's true. The IP claimed that none of the sources I dug up, which copied to this thread mention the white genocide conspiracy theory. That's not only demonstrably false, it's demonstrably false even if the sources consisted of nothing but the quotes I provided. The IP also has a history of making such demonstrably false statements, always in defense of a right-wing public figure. The IP literally just got off a six month block for exactly this sort of behavior, and immediately started engaging in it again. I've already pointed out to you once that I'd presented the evidence of this. But apparently, you need me to spell it out for you because you can't be bothered to click a link.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Their argument is in opposition to your argument. They were blocked but they are no longer blocked. They are not engaging in block-worthy behavior at this time. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already explained myself. If you don't think that's good enough, that's your problem, not mine. If you continue to beat this dead horse, I will ask an admin to topic ban you for a month or two. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is improper to dismiss the comments of an editor on the basis that they were blocked recently. I believe they made a valid point. For the purposes of a productive discussion there is nothing gained by focussing on another editor's recent block. Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Bus stop please read the previous/above discussion before commenting. MPants at work answered the question regarding whether or not SM believes in a "conspiracy." You even responded to his answer, but as has been the case with most of your edits on SM, you completely ignored what he said and continued with "I see this is turning into a bull session. Let's cut to the chase. The Radio New Zealand source does not support the contents of the "White genocide conspiracy theory" article—not by a long shot." If you still think the IP has a point, then state what you think that point is and we can proceed (please include policies and/or sources). I'll let you find the answer yourself because it's on this exact BLP page and explaining the same thing over and over (or in my case reading over and over) is tiring WP:ICANTHEARYOU. | Further reading on "white genocide" and how it's a far-right fantasy Pokerplayer513 (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not call another editor a "proven liar". Not even if they are an IP and not even if they were recently unblocked. Bus stop (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Bus Stop, why are you saying this to me? You reply has nothing to do with what I said. That's now two edits in a row on this page where you have just repeated what you said previously and again you're misrepresenting what others have said. This is not a WP:Battleground. You inability to respond to others in a constructive way leads me to believe you are either not editing in good faith or you lack the ability to. Either add to the discussion or don't post. All of this has been explained to you and I haven't seen anything change. Also, please check the Mind your own business essay. I don't really know what's going on between the IP and MPants at work, but it's clear you don't either Bus. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP has a history of making claims that are obviously untrue (such as in this thread, where they claimed that none of the sources you copied over here actually refer to the white genocide CS), and has has literally never made an edit that wasn't part of an attempt to whitewash a right-wing public figure, such as Molyneux or Ben Swann. You can see some more of their shenanigans lower down on this page. The IP had just come off a 6 month block for doing the very same thing when they posted that complaint about the lede at the Swann article. I've been dealing with the IPs rather obvious distortions and POV pushing since last May, and it's gotten to the point where WP:AGF is out and WP:PACT is in. I'm not asking you to get involved (I'm not planning on replying to the IP anymore myself), I'm just saying this so you can at least know what's going on. I don't use the term "liar" lightly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment — for the record, this SPLC page on Molyneux provides plenty of quotes with links that clearly show Molyneux's stated views on race . -Darouet (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * —we should bear in mind that our own opinion of the SPLC is that "The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on far-right politics. As an advocacy group, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be properly attributed per WP:RSOPINION." Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Or we could ignore that particular right-wing talking point -- especially since the page you're trying to undermine is a collection of Molyneux's own words. Or are Molyneux's own words "a biased and opinionated source"? --Calton &#124; Talk 15:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, Calton, I am not "trying to undermine" the page. I'm just trying to keep us on the up-and-up. We don't want to cast aspersions of racism on someone without fully examining what inarguably is a reliable source. If in our own estimation the source is "biased and opinionated", that is something we should bear in mind, even if it is Molyneux's own words that we are focussing upon. Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you now asserting that those quotes from Molyneux are not racist? If so, you are begging for a topic ban per WP:CIR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * understanding that SPLC is an advocacy group, I wanted to know Molyneux's actual opinions, and the SPLC website both quotes and links them. I have to write, I try to be skeptical of media claims of this sort - to verify a person's beliefs myself and satisfy BLP requirements - in this case Molyneux's words speak for themselves. - Darouet (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW we cannot take those quotes on the SPLC page ourselves and then call them "racist", that's OR. But we clearly have what the SPLC is saying among other sources to identify that several groups consider him racist, eliminating the issue. --M asem (t) 16:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Masem—we already have material deriving from that source in the article. I made this edit based on that source back in December 2018. It presents the conclusions reached by the SPLC and it attributes those conclusions to the SPLC. Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just concerned that Mjolnir's statement that implies we as editors can write in WP mainspace that some BLP is racist by simply reviewing what said person is known to have said. As long as teh SPLC is being attributed to that, we're fine otherwise. --M asem (t) 18:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My statement implies no such thing and if you think it does, you have completely failed to parse it correctly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * MjolnirPants—my opinion on whether the quotes are racist or not would constitute original research. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to answer the question is both noted and telling, by the way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are asking me to comment on a subject of your choosing. Why would I pontificate on something as irrelevant as my interpretation of the quotes of the subject of this article? And wouldn't doing so contravene the notion of WP:FORUM? Are we supposed to shoot the bull whenever one editor poses a question to another editor? Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You were already commenting on it. I asked you to clarify your comments. You refused to do so. Telling, if unsurprising. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But I was not already commenting on it. That is the point. It is your initiative to open up a conversation as to my interpretation of the Molyneux quotes. Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But I was not already commenting on it. You are lying or incompetent to discuss this subject:, . ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This just keeps going around and around in circles. If it helps, with absolutely zero authority, I declare MjolnerPants the winner, not so much because their arguments were much more convincing, remained on point, are free of logical fallacies, or what they have in directness they lack in tact, but because Bus stop's are far less convincing and remaining too on point, basically just spiraling into circulus in probando, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, argumentum ad infinitum, and other forms of kettle logic. We can argue "Did not" "Did so" for the rest of our lives and it won't get us anywhere. Zaereth (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you flirting with me? Because it's working. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * argumentum ad infinitum and other forms of kettle logic confirmed. I don't even know what's being discussed anymore. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was gonna say the same thing. I couldn't possible name a winner without knowing what was being debated, and I lost track of what was being debated... --74.195.159.155 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The RS cited above and in the article seem adequate to support a statement that Molyneux belives in / promotes a white genocide conspiracy theory. If such a statement is included in his article, it is consistent with general practices on here that the mention of the white genocide conspiracy theory (whether using those exact words or a paraphrase) would contain a wikilink to our article on that topic, unless the article is already linked-to in an earlier place such as at the beginning of the section Stefan Molyneux via a template like Main. -sche (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with the current wording or it being linked to the WGCT article. Radio New Zealand reported that Molyneux subscribes to a white genocide conspiracy theory --74.195.159.155 (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Gawvi
The article is displaying an ugly error message for "Born" in the infobox because someone claiming to be the subject removed the birth year, and an IP tried to restore it but messed it up. I normally fix a few of these every day either by removing the birth date altogether if I can't see a good source, or by fixing it. What do people think about this unfortunate case? Ref 2 is an arrest record for a traffic violation and failure to appear. Is that a reliable source? It seems petty to rely on that. There might be something in the Twitter refs (omg) which I don't open. Should the birth date be deleted or restored? Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I've removed it, it's not relevant or significant in my opinion. Not that it means anything, but reading random webpages suggests that many "failure to appear" offences are because the offender, for example a speeding ticket recipient, tried to appear, discovered after driving 100 miles that the courthouse was closed on that day, then went home to their country of origin, then 3 years later discovered that the county was still trying to pursue them for their failure to appear, etc.... MPS1992 (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Camille Rowe
In article: user: repeatedly inserting biographical details such as a specific birthdate without cite. Example edit-diffs:, , When pressed, they state that they have no cite and that it probably can't be cited to our reliable-sourcing standards (example: ) but they state that this is not a problem because it's so well known and other bio articles don't cite such details (see edit-summaries and my talkpage). For other details, they use social-media (instagram/twitter) as a ref, but the links (when they are even provided) make no mention of the claimed details. User was warned uw-biog2 and I replied to their concerns on my talkpage, but the behavior has not changed. DMacks (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging User:Melcous who also disputed the addition of bio content without source, and who was promptly and reverted without supplying a source supporting the content. DMacks (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible some of the references in the article on the French Wikipedia could be used to support enhancing what is now basically a stub? My French is nowhere near good enough to be sure, though. Any French speakers here who could take a look? Neiltonks (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Meiling Melancon
I have reviewed this article closely and have two main issues: 1) I do not believe that this person is notable enough for Wikipedia. Their roles and appearances do not rise to the level of an actress of even moderate success; 2) The references and citations are of poor quality. I have attempted to find additional references and source material with no luck. Basically, I think this should be deleted. Coffee312 (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not really the right place to raise such questions. Take a look at WP:BEFORE for a guide to how to go about making this proposal properly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro
User Beyond My Ken reverted my edit in the article Ben Shapiro where I changed the caption from "(2016)" to "Shapiro in 2016", as the infobox caption is supposed to be stated in articles about invividuals (Michael Jackson, John F. Kennedy, Elizabeth II, et cetera). I changed it back to the way it's supposed to be stated. Just informing you that he might revert it back to the former incorrect way. Must be a new user who doesn't know much about Wikipedia. –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 22:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently the user has done it in the article Richard B. Spencer as well (his edit). I don't know why he does it when several people have to tell him that his way to put the caption is wrong. User might be a troll. –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 22:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sullay—we know that it is Shapiro because it is the Shapiro article, and we know that it is Spencer because it is the Spencer article. Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this might be better off at the Might Be a Troll noticeboard. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Must be a new user who doesn't know much about Wikipedia., the next time you think to characterize another editor's experience, you may want to check their contributions first. BMK has been around for 5 years longer than you and has about 100 times more edits. You should probably try to discuss this with them, rather than running straight for a noticeboard. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, MPants. Actually, I've been here since 2005 (see User:Beyond My Ken/My backstory), so that's 11 years longer. As for the complaint, it has absolutely nothing to do with what BLPN is for, it's a stock content dispute.  I happen to think that our readers are smart enough to realize that the picture at the top of the page titled Ben Shapiro inside the infobox titled "Ben Shapiro" is a picture of Ben Shapiro.  Another editor told me on my talk page that if it wasn't labelled with the name, it might mean that the picture was of a "stunt double" or a "lookalike", ignoring, of course, that any such image would be deleted as soon as it was discovered.No, I stand firm, we should not treat our readers like idiots, and the caption should provide only the pertinent information not obvious from the image itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Given his love of logical gymnastics, I actually wouldn't be all that surprised if he had a stunt double. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've contributed to Wikipedia since 2009. Kept a long break, registered originally in the Finnish Wikipedia in 2014 and started writing there. I started writing in the English Wikipedia in 2016, that is correct. But never in my decade in Wikipedia have I seen a caption as idiotic as (2016). May I ask you MPants at work and Beyond My Ken, what do you think about the many articles I gave as an example of a normal caption (Michael Jackson, John F. Kennedy, Elizabeth II)? The vast majority of Wikipedians see that as a proper way to write a caption, but one user doesn't and thus rewrites Wikipedia into what he personally believes is the correct way to do things. –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 00:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSPlease explain just what, exactly, is "idiotic" about "(2016)". Did you not understand it to be the date of the photo?  Did you believe it referred in some way to his weight or his height or his eyesight or the RGB value of the color of his shirt?The point being, if you understood it was the date, then you have understood all the pertinent information that is in "Ben Shapiro in 2016".  You already know that the image is of Ben Shapiro (unless you're of the "stunt double" school of thought), so the remaining semantic value of the caption you prefer is "in 2016".  Would you be happier if the caption said "in 2016", because I could live with that, even though "in" is totally unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The relevant guideline is WP:Manual of Style/Captions. However, note that this is a guideline and not a firm policy, thus can be modified to best account for variables in certain situations. (Please read the little box at the top.) Beyond My Ken is correct in that this is not a violation of BLP policy, thus bringing it here is just cluttering up this page, because there's nothing we can do from a BLP standpoint to help you. This is a content dispute that should be taken to the article's talk page. Beyond that, it's just a caption, so I see no need to get so worked up about it. Life's too short. Zaereth (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * —the Infoboxes at Ben Shapiro or Richard B. Spencer have these names in bold at the top of the Infobox. Please tell me why the name is additionally needed in the caption.This is also a beautiful solution. The name is not being used redundantly. And additional information is being provided.I've taken the liberty of making this edit. Bus stop (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Potentially accessibility, but I am not 100% sure on that. --M asem (t) 04:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How so? Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Would a visually impaired person not be able to see the name at the top of the Infobox? Bus stop (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not know for sure, but if there's any alt text on the picture (which there should be), a screenreader would start with the name above the infobox, then the alttext of the picture, and then the caption. That alttext may have enough text to put too much "space" in terms of language between the name and the date. --M asem (t) 04:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. I don't know about screenreaders. Bus stop (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:ALT – I think pretty much all images used in articles need alts specified, or else the screen readers read the file names, which is basically junk for the reader. I added an alt to Ben Shapiro and ran a screen reader emulator (VoiceOver), and it reads "Ben Shapiro, link image A photograph of Ben Shapiro speaking image link at link Politicon, link Pasadena, California, June 2016", which I think is good? Leviv&thinsp;ich 05:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. OK, if that solves the problem, great. Bus stop (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

across the top is not going expect it to open with a paragraph about some other political commentator born in 1984. SO I don't really care which way this discussion goes, though I'd slightly prefer to see it go the less verbose route. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  13:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that this caption crusade is back. I don't care whether or not we include a subject's name in a caption, although that is a widespread practice on Wikipedia. I do think that a caption consisting of only the year lacks descriptiveness. I am also very opposed to putting parentheses around any caption. IAR is not valid reason for changing an informative caption to a caption that is uninformative and oddly styled. Sullay is correct.- MrX 🖋 12:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is neither "oddly styled" nor "uninformative". A valid concern was raised concerning accessibility for the visually impaired but that apparently was addressed. As far as "styling" is concerned, we provide as little styling as possible. There is no styling imparted by superfluous words. The less clutter, the better. As concerns a caption being uninformative or lacking descriptiveness, we have the "missing" information at the top of the image in the Infobox. We are only talking about an Infobox image. We are not talking about other images within an article. An Infobox image in a biography such as Ben Shapiro or Richard B. Spencer boldly displays the subject's name at the top of the image. Verbal text below the image is therefore freed up for the conveyance of other information. You are in essence arguing for redundancy. And I would contend that you are arguing for visual clutter. Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bus stop and BMK in that adding the name brings no value whatsoever, and creates visual and textual clutter. However, I will state that the amount of clutter it creates is immaterial and not damaging to the article. I mean, we display the title of articles in a big, serif font at the top, and then almost always start the first paragraph by repeating that title. I mean, I'm fairly certain that the person who clicks on a link to Ben Shapiro, and sees a page with Ben Shapiro
 * Adding parentheses around a date is indeed oddly styled and uninformative. To paraphrase another editor, it's kind of idiotic. If a bold edit to a caption requires as much justification and mental gymnastics as I see in this section, it's fair to say that it was a bad edit to begin with. The visual clutter argument is pretty silly as well. - MrX 🖋 13:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the visual clutter argument is pretty silly. I said it. But it is silly. But the "mental gymnastics" to which you refer is not on the part of those trying to keep the Infobox simple. The "mental gymnastics" is on the part of those going to great lengths to oppose an eminently defensible move to omit superfluous information and to instead put other information in its place. The "other information" is actually new information (as opposed to redundant information) and to an admittedly slight degree this change reduces "clutter". Bus stop (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't actually seen any captions encased in parentheses, though I noticed the OP seemed to be using parentheses to encapsulate the text of the various captions they were discussing (there may well be parentheses in BMK's edits, I'm just saying that I haven't seen them). I agree that there's use for parentheses around captions. I would also point out that there is just as much "justification and mental gymnastics" opposing the edits, here. That's part of the reason I'm rather ambivalent about the outcome here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We see this a lot on Wikipedia. Those presenting the more farfetched argument accuse those presenting the more reasonable argument of being radical or proposing something outrageous. Perhaps Wikipedia is a microcosm of the real world. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break (Ben Shapiro)
Anent image captions in general - ADA requires accessibility for handicapped persons, so the test of a caption should be whether a blind person hearing the caption or text would reasonably understand what the image is. Frankly, were I to hear "2016" as the entire description of an image, I would have no idea what the heck the image was.  In short, unless there is separate "alt text" for the image, the caption should be completely clear. Right now the ALT text does not give either date nor place, just "Ben Shapiro speaking.". For video clips, this is also a major issue https://www.3playmedia.com/2018/09/24/automatic-captions-wcag-ada-508-compliant/  In short, this is a far more complex issue than heretofore discussed. Collect (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Far more complex in what way? Are we incapable of creating ALT text saying "Ben Shapiro speaking at Politicon in Pasadena, California, in June 2016"? Aren't we talking about two separate channels for providing information? It would seem to me that we can tailor our information for the "channel" under consideration, providing more or less information as we deem optimal. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's a problem consisting of missing alt text. If that's the extent of your issue with short captions, then I will happily add descriptive alt text for any such image that needs it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the ALT text was brand new this morning - and was not there when the issue of "(2016)" being a sufficient caption arose. Second, many people do use the captions to figure out what an image is (I suspect, in fact, that most people rely on captions), the ALT bit is simply a legal requirement entirely. This is an endemic problem on Wikipedia at this point, involving a great many images overall.  I doubt that you have the time to correct more than a relative handful of the defective ALT labels and defective captions. See alt attribute http://jkorpela.fi/html/alt.html  espec. http://jkorpela.fi/html/alt.html#captions   "In particular, if the image has the empty string as its alt text, a user who does not see the image at all (and might not even know about the existence of an image) would still observe the caption text."    That is, a person who viewed the page prior to this very morning would have seen (or heard) "2016" only. Nothing more. This is unlikely to meet with US law in that regard.   Collect (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If the problem you're referring to is people not requiring the alt text not knowing what the picture is of, I would direct you to the comments in this section pointing out that the images in question are on a page titled after the person's name, in an infobox with the person's name as a header. Anyone having difficulty figuring out that the image is of that person has much deeper problems than the lack of a caption.
 * Again, I'm not opposed to a more verbose caption. I would (mildly) prefer a less verbose one, but I really don't see how a more verbose one could damage the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To me, the examples in WP:CAPTIONOBVIOUS just definitely prove why one way is better than another. I don't understand how anyone can argue against those examples, it's just so damn clear to me. But I guess reasonable people disagree on all sorts of things.
 * Doesn't your screen reader read: "Ben Shapiro, link image A photograph of Ben Shapiro speaking image link at link Politicon, link Pasadena, California, June 2016"? Or does it come across as something different?
 * And even before the alt text was added, I don't understand how "Ben Shapiro link image [filename] image Ben Shapiro in 2016" gives any more information to the reader than "Ben Shapiro link image [filename] image in 2016"?
 * Obviously me using an emulator is not the same thing as an actual reader's experience with a screenreader.
 * I ran a little impromptu test yesterday on about a dozen very-high-profile biographies. This is what I found:
 * If you remove the "Name in Date" and replace it with just "Date", people will complain.
 * If you change it to "Location in Date", nobody really complains (or reverts)
 * If you provide more than "Location in Date", people complain.
 * "Location in Date" seems to be a happy medium. Even if no image alt is provided, the reader would still read the name of the person just above the image, and even the non-sighted reader would know what article they're on. And it's pretty straightforward to write an image alt that flows with the caption. Accessibility is very important, but I think that's more about writing good alts than writing bad captions. Leviv&thinsp;ich 16:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you remove the "Name in Date" and replace it with just "Date", people will complain.
 * If you change it to "Location in Date", nobody really complains (or reverts)
 * If you provide more than "Location in Date", people complain.
 * "Location in Date" seems to be a happy medium. Even if no image alt is provided, the reader would still read the name of the person just above the image, and even the non-sighted reader would know what article they're on. And it's pretty straightforward to write an image alt that flows with the caption. Accessibility is very important, but I think that's more about writing good alts than writing bad captions. Leviv&thinsp;ich 16:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Location in Date" seems to be a happy medium. Even if no image alt is provided, the reader would still read the name of the person just above the image, and even the non-sighted reader would know what article they're on. And it's pretty straightforward to write an image alt that flows with the caption. Accessibility is very important, but I think that's more about writing good alts than writing bad captions. Leviv&thinsp;ich 16:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If you were blind and you heard "2016" being the only info you had about an image, what the hell would you think it meant? A calendar? The ADA exists for good and substantial reasons.  Blind people exist in this world. Collect (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * tbh, if I was blind and I heard "2016" being the only information about an image while I was on Ben Shapiro's page, I would assume it to be an image of Ben Shapiro in 2016. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me ring my small, useless, annoying bell here yet again. Collect, I agree with you that ALT captions are important and really should be informative and geared towards those who need them.  I am not sure that's really what we're talking about here--as I am not sure making the regular caption conform to ALT standards is a good approach.  Furthermore, I would argue, this is something we should do because it is unquestionably right to do so.  If you predicate your support upon the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), then we're going to have to think long and hard about the interplay between the ADA and Communications Decency Act s230.  Let's do the right thing because it's right.  But also, I would humbly suggest that we should keep the two issues (normal captions and ALT text) separate when appropriate.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In the case at hand no ALT attribute existed for the image until this morning. Zero. Nada. Rien. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Shapiro&diff=884048276&oldid=884035913   shows the addition of a very short ALT attribute. And assuming that blind people read is iffy. Collect (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The question is—does one aim conflict with the other? I'm trying to understand this. We construct articles for able-sighted people and we construct articles for visually-impaired people. At the moment I'm able to see, but I'm absolutely concerned with visually-impaired people as concerns constructing our articles. Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the two aims don't conflict. It's not like we are here, today, for the first time, considering how ALT and CAPTION interplays in an image for the non-sighted. It seems to me *cough* the internet has been around a while, and these things have been figured out. MOS:ALT is a damn good explanation. Nobody anywhere suggests that captions should be written for non-sighted readers; that's what ALT is for. The caption is for both the sighted and non-sighted. The ALT is to give non-sighted readers a useful substitute for an image. Honestly, we're not even arguing about anything here unless somebody thinks the current way Ben Shapiro is set up (with an ALT and CAPTION) is wrong; so far no one's said anything that's specifically wrong with the way it is now. (Talking about how it was wrong before it was edited is just a waste of time.) Leviv&thinsp;ich 17:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Levivich, I just wanted to be sure I wasn't misunderstanding the situation.And thanks for the earlier link to WP:CAPTIONOBVIOUS. I think it is suggesting that superfluous information can be omitted. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * User has now been blocked under a wikipedia policy violation, discussion about what is only a wikipedia essay is not going to change that. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the user was blocked for a procedural violation (3rr); that is in no way dispositive of the underlying issue. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, with all due respect to you also, this is the wp:blp noticeboard and there is clearly no blp violation at all. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I will point out that the present alt text is not appropriate, per our MOS. A blind person is not going to know what Shapiro looks like, so the text should be something more like "A middle-age Caucasian man speaking with his hands gesturing" or something like that. His name should not at all appear within the alt text. --M asem (t) 20:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * agreed, updated to that. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of describing him as "A middle-age Caucasian man speaking with his hands gesturing" but why not include the name in the alt text? Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm MOS:ALT gives the advice but I thought one wasn't supposed to name the person, but it seems in context of article about the person pictures, the person can be named, along with other descriptive elements. Either way, I think now this should be brought to a MOS board. I'm going to raise the question at MOS:ALT 's talk page. --M asem  (t) 20:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Inviting all editors to join the conversation about image alts here. Leviv&thinsp;ich 22:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * as an update, I have immediately been reverted by a user יניב הורון (Yaniv) with a block log as long as the original violator BMK https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%91+%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F Govindaharihari (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * BLP issue labelling Shapiro racially as "Caucasian" (as well as describing him in the image as middle age - he was 32!) is unacceptable unsourced OR on a BLP. Calling people with a Jewish background Caucasian has umm, some baggage. - absent a source, your unsourced racial labelling should have been reverted, and alluding to your reverter's block log does not look good.Icewhiz (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I misspoke earlier when I expressed endorsement for that wording, but upon further reflection I would consider that original research. Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting BLP issue at Kirsten Haglund
I've come across an interesting BLP issue. Kirsten Haglund, a former Miss America, got married in 2012. There are reliable sources for this. This isn't in dispute. However, in her social media (Twitter is what I noticed, though there could be others), beginning in early 2018, she made references to leaving an abusive marriage. There are no reliable sources that I can find that corroborate a divorce. The edit history on the page shows a user named "Kirsten1488" who we can venture to guess is the article subject, as well as IPs associated with her hometown, removing the marriage material and stating that she is divorced. So, this seems like a bit of a sticky situation for Wikipedia. It seems to me to be wrong and unnecessary to leave the marriage info on the page if she is indeed divorced and especially if she was the victim of domestic abuse, however, WP:V usually trumps all here, and the available tweets, while from a verified account, don't specifically indicate a divorce or a divorce date, just a general end to the relationship due to abuse. Are there any analogous situations to look to for guidance here? What's the right move? Marquardtika (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The operative word there is "if she is indeed divorced". If I, myself, can't tell, then the solution seems obvious. Aside from that, tweets are not generally considered to be reliable sources in themselves (when talked about in a RS, well, that's a different story"), just for reasons like this. Zaereth (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You have to avoid synthesis. You can't assume that she was divorced from the person she married in 2012, or that he was abusive; she may have been married four times since then. You need actual reliable sources, not interpretations. - Nunh-huh 00:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I get the above points. That's why I think this situation is interesting. Wikipedia probably lacks an effective mechanism for dealing with such situations. There's no guarantee that the dissolution of a relationship will be covered in reliable sources. So that puts some article subjects, some of whom may be victims of domestic abuse, in a position where their article has inaccuracies about their personal lives, but they'll never be corrected because most peoples'--even notable ones--relationships aren't generally covered in the media. This just seems a bit...off. Also, based on Lauren Duca, we do take people's Twitter pronouncements about their relationship status at their word. I found a contact form on Haglund's website, and I think I will fill it out and tell her to Tweet out her relationship status if she wants it to be corrected here. Marquardtika (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing. Even if she did divorce, it is unlikely it would be deleted from the article. Instead, we'd say, she married on so-and-so date, and divorced on so-and-so date. Although I feel for her abuse, the past doesn't just disappear. What we do not need to do is actually name him, because he's apparently not notable enough to have an article of his own, so for the reader this is just a hollow name. (For her...) There's simply no need to specify who, just use pronouns and general descriptors. (Plus we're not Facebook or some dating site, so declaring relationship statuses to the world is really not what we're about. In the scope of the entire article, this is more trivial than is her career and accomplishments.) Zaereth (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Jade Love Kids
A lot of edits in the edit summary are rather slanderous. Can someone look at the contributions of an IP address that has no edits except on that article? They writes slanderous lies about the person then claims "they sent some thugs over to" their house to hurt them, etc. Some odd sense of humor, but I think it should be removed from the edit summary entirely.  D r e a m Focus  17:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the edit summaries should be removed. Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reported the ip to AIV, noting that the edit summaries need oversight, and have sent an oversight request as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oversighted and blocked. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * next time, if you see any libel, please contact oversight through one of the methods listed in Requests for oversight to get the libel oversighted, rather than publicly posting about it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

"Changing ethnicities to prove a point"
I wanted to bring some attention (from an admin hopefully) to this discussion, and specifically a series of pointy BLP edits that are linked and detailed there. (This section header is a quote, btw). Thanks - wolf  02:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The editor in question has a lot of flawed reasoning, not the least of which is argument from authority, argument from ignorance, and circular reasoning. The editor assumes the term "English" to refer only to ethnicity (I assume, psychologically speaking, because they likely see the world through those terms). This assumes that the word "English" has no other meanings. English can mean: Descendants of Anglo-Saxons. It can mean: People who come from England, a region of the British Isles. It can mean: The English language, or speakers of the English language. It can mean: Mannerisms and styles of people from England. English can be a synonym for British, etc... Likewise, British can mean, Descendants of the Britons, a Celtic peoples. People from the British Isles, etc... In this context, it seems clear that "English" means: A person from England. (Just like when I call myself an Alaskan, I mean, a person from Alaska, a state in the US.) Zaereth (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, it is generally customary to post a notice of discussion at the article's talk page when you report something here. I went ahead and took care of that for you. Zaereth (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I dont think I've posted here before, so it didnt occur to me. Also, the actual "prove a point" comment came from an IP. Might've been Q4477 EWLO, or this might involve multiple users, so this was more of "look at this issue" than "look at this one editor". But anyway, youve notified them so the bases are covered. - wolf 03:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * At English people I find:Use of the word "English" to describe Britons from ethnic minorities in England is complicated by most non-white people in England identifying as British rather than English. In their 2004 Annual Population Survey, the Office for National Statistics compared the ethnic identities of British people with their perceived national identity. They found that while 58% of white people in England described their nationality as "English", the vast majority of non-white people called themselves "British".I don't know how the above applies to the issue at hand but I thought I'd provide it as it is lifted right out of our article on English people. Bus stop (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have some serious concerns regarding that section; the link to the quote is broken and I couldn't find the reference through searches. Similarly, several of the other sources are no longer in service.  One that is in service is a link to a sports article that doesn't seem to me to support the proposition for which it is cited.  But even if all that were borne out, it might be an argument against assigning a blanket ethnicity of "English," but on a case-by-case basis, I don't think it enough to overcome self-identification or strong sourcing.  After all, even if 90% of non-white people don't identify as "English," it doesn't invalidate the 10% who do.  As is so often the case, I think there's an easy prescription here: sources.  Thanks all.  Dumuzid (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not arguing in endorsement of the article. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

What you forget is that Caribbean islands which were British colonies until recently were not "English colonies". People with heritage from British colonies were not "English" and so their descendants also identify as "British" to a great extent. In short, there seems to be a misunderstanding as to use of the English language at times on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should just do genealogical research with regard to 'English' biographies to ensure that all of their forebears were subjects of Æthelstan in 939. Easy peasy lemon squeazey.  Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is 2011 census data comparing ethnicity against identity (English/British) which clearly contradicts the claim in the discussion that "no one refers to British Asians as 'English'" - Mcstove (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course. No one refers to Anglo-Alaskans as Alaska Natives, although if they were born here, they are native Alaskans regardless of ethnicity. Context is everything. We can't just look at the word by itself and decide the meaning, we have to look at how it is being used in the article and, more importantly, in the sources. (For more info, see User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the amateur writer Zaereth (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * - I'm not sure what links you are referring to. The link for the ref where Elba self-identifies as English works. And in the dicussion, most of the problem edits were listed with details in this post, and they all work fine. If you could specify what links you are referring to, that would help. Thanks - wolf  11:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies--I was actually responding to Bus Stop above and the "English People" article. I have no concerns with the Idris Elba article.  I'll try to be clearer in the future! Dumuzid (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Leaving Neverland
In our article on the Michael Jackson documentary, Leaving Neverland, we have a lot of content sourced to a Forbes contributor article, What You Should Know About the New Michael Jackson Documentary, including contentious WP:BLP material. I've attempted to explain on the article talk page that anything published under the "sites" directory Forbes contributor articles are not subject to Forbes editorial control and Forbes takes no responsibility for their content. They're basically self-published opinion articles, and we're not supposed to WP:SELFPUB for content about third-parties. I've removed the content and explained my edit on the talk page. Can someone review the situation and let me know whether you think I've done the right thing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you did the right thing in removing it, and I think it's good to bring it here as well. The user adding this material has made many, many reverts (sample diff) adding or restoring ludicrously WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP breaching material to this article. I seriously doubt they understand what they are doing wrong. There may be a user conduct issue here. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yasmine Taeb
I've had a slight back-and-forth with an editor on this article; my guess, from their commentary and the sources they cite, is that the candidate isn't left-wing enough. They're trying to blackball the candidate by linking some YouTube video that supposedly shows her support to right-to-work, and some links (including to a pretty rad Democratic-y blog) that tie her to a donor whose husband works for Goldman Sachs--in other words, guilt by associated association. The editor is blocked for edit warring for 24 hours (see User talk:VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck) but given that this article is their sole interest I have no doubt they'll return to this. Two things always help: article expansion and improvement, and your eyes on the topic. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Michael Glick
The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Glick page is about me, but someone unknown to me continuously adds incorrect and libelous information on this page. This has caused me personal and professional harm and I want this page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micglick (talk • contribs)


 * the article has now been configured such that changes made by unregistered editors -- such as the problematic items previously added -- must be reviewed by an experienced editor before being accepted. This will hopefully prevent further problematic changes. Articles are not normally deleted solely because there has been problematic editing. MPS1992 (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro Israeli–Palestinian conflict
I have an issue with this line:  Shapiro later reversed his view on the West Bank issue, saying it was "both inhumane and impractical."[52]

While this is accurate, it doesn't explain the length Ben has gone to in order to retract and explain his regret in saying such stupid things.

"Stupid/Immoral Stuff I’ve Said (And Usually Retracted Multiple Times)

The “Transfer” Column: At the top of this list is a column I wrote when I was 19 years old regarding the Israeli/Palestinian situation. That column called for transfer of Palestinian Arabs from Judea and Samaria and Israel proper. That idea was stupid and immoral. I have myself called that idea “inhumane and impractical,” as well as a “moral and philosophical error.” It is also worth noting that the same people who decried the transfer column as genocidal and ethnic cleansing were very much in favor of forcing every single Jew out of the Gaza Strip in 2006, and seem fine with complete destruction of Israeli settlements in favor of a Judenrein Palestinian state."

This could be summed up better in a less offensive way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awkaratekid0108 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems like something you should either be discussing at Talk:Ben Shapiro or by simple editing the article and seeing if anyone objects. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * And I think you would have to articulate your objections more more thoroughly, . You are saying "This could be summed up better in a less offensive way". OK, but what is that less offensive way? That can be posted on the article Talk page in a new section. Or, as NatGertler suggested, you could just edit the article. But if you edit the article, also be mindful of your edit summary, as that could explain why you feel the edit you are making is called for. I might add that if you have other, only tangentially-related questions, you can consider posting them at the Teahouse. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Juan Van-Halen Acedo
Somebody is providing false information in the page of Juan Van-Halen Acedo.

1. Mr. Van-Halen has never been a falangist, or a member of Frente de Juventudes. 2. An insult quoting an external source has been included in his biography. 3. Information with misleading and false information is being persistently added to erode Mr. Van-Halen's image.

Despite numerous efforts to correct this false information, this user insistis in publishing it.

We kindly ask you to forbid this from happening.

Thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argovejo1938 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Please discuss your concerns at the talk page rather than bringing them here or edit warring. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

David Boren
I am trying to edit this page. My edit is truthful, accurate and factual. Specifically I am trying to edit the paragraph on the DAVID BOREN page as follows:

"2019 Sexual harassment investigation[edit] On February 13, 2019, it was reported that the University of Oklahoma had hired the Jones Day law firm '(Atlanta Office; Natalie A. Williams, Atty.)' to investigate Boren after allegations of his "serious" misconduct arose at the university. The university and specifically the OU Board of Regents have declined to specify whether the investigation is actually of Boren, or to specify its start or projected end date, instead referring to it generally as an ongoing personnel investigation.[48]"

I am trying to insert the specific Jones Day Law office (they have many offices) and specific name of the attorney investigating David Boren, which is "Atlanta Office, Natalie A. Williams, Atty.". However, one of your volunteer editors, by the nickname of "DemocraticLuntz" keeps removing my edit and sending me a "warning" using broad and vague language and language that is misused, and does NOT apply to my edit. He claims my edit is "unconstructive" and is "vandalizing". This is defamatory to me and will not be tolerated. The info I am inserting is TRUE and correct. "DemocraticLuntz" is simply angry as he is a DEMOCRATIC and MR. Boren has always ran on the democratic ticket when he was senator, governor. Your "editor" is making this "political", I am not.

My editing comports with your editing requirements for living persons, including but not limited to it is NEUTRAL, FACTUAL information.

Thus, if I am doing something allegedly incorrect, please let me know in reasonable detail, and not by using broad and vague language that does NOT apply to my edit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.195.106 (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit in question is this. It's unsourced and honestly not necessary.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * AFAICT your editing doesn't actually comply with the most basic requirement of BLP (or really any edit). It's not sourced! The only inline source already in the article doesn't mention that info [//www.oudaily.com/news/ou-board-of-regents-discusses-ongoing-personnel-investigation-in-executive/article_581b92e0-353f-11e9-8d6a-2fa398c3da5c.html]. Nor does the source that source links to [//www.oudaily.com/news/david-boren-spokesperson-denies-any-inappropriate-behavior-calls-sexual-harassment/article_1dcac246-2ff9-11e9-9ff6-73240d6fcf51.html]. For good measure, I also did a text search in the later sources in the article [//newsok.com/article/5622885/boren-under-investigation-for-sexual-harassment] [//www.newson6.com/story/39968323/attorney-says-david-boren-pretty-down-after-allegations-of-sexual-harassment] [//www.normantranscript.com/news/gallogly-to-boren-cross-me-again-i-will-destroy-you/article_b88f7ac6-fd84-11e8-87bf-9fde9c852062.html] still no source! (I obviously didn't listen to the videos.) While this was not mentioned on your talk page, it has been mentioned in multiple edit summaries made to reverts of your edit e.g. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Boren&diff=884771622&oldid=884766680]. This means your claims of it being "factual information" is unsupported. It may be factual, we have no way of knowing since you've failed the basic requirement to provide a source. That said, I'm not suggesting you find a source and add the information back. As EvergreenFir said, I see no reason why this info adds anything useful to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Derek Khanna
I don't know about the COI--that's entirely possible. I've been looking at two things: a. the longtime vandalism, for which I've applied indefinite semi-protection, and b. the rather piss-poor quality of the article. It's full of all-too technical stuff, possible fluffery (note the claims about his influence on that unlocking bill), inline links to stuff including his own, etc. I've pruned it some already, but I'd appreciate it if some of you could have a look. The sourcing is probably there, but the language and content need to be neutered. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. After reading the article, I feel that I haven't learned anything about this person other than he's written for several publications and worked on a committee. Most of the article is not about him at all, but about causes he's championed. There's an entire section about the RSC and copyright law, to which (by reading the article) his only contribution was that he was wrote a brief for them. Same with the cellphone-unlocking section (which doesn't bother to explain what that means). It says he kicked off the campaign and ends there, going on to descriptions about the success of it, but nothing about the man himself. It reads like part resume and part technical brief, and looks remarkably like the work of a technical writer. I think some serious trimming is in order, or at least put the technical content in the relevant articles. However, if we do that then we're left with just a resume. It is going to need a lot of work to make it an encyclopedic article about the subject himself. Zaereth (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalisation and extensive deletion of information of the page Anand Teltumbde
The page [] is being constantly vandalised and information are being extensively deleted from this page. Presently the page has been semi-protected. Here is the link to the diff comparing the present version and an older version that was verified by the subject himself []. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aratrika21 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Look, this didn't work for your last two accounts, and it's not going to work with this one either. You don't get to just steamroll everyone else. This is a collaborative project, and you've made it very clear you have no interest in collaborating. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Alfredo Morelos
I have just spotted the following:

"Harvey Price Snr signed a three-year deal with Rangers on 19 June 2017[34] for an undisclosed fee, which was widely reported to be £1 million.[2][35]

He made his debut for Rangers F.C. in a 1–0 home win against Progrès Niederkorn in the Europa League first qualifying round first leg ten days later, coming on in the 77th minute in place of Martyn Waghorn.[36] On 9 August, Morelos scored his first two Rangers goals in a 6–0 win over Dunfermline Athletic also at Ibrox in the second round of the Scottish League Cup.[37] Three days later he scored his first goal in the Scottish Premiership, heading the team into an early lead in a 3–2 home loss to Hibernian.[38]

He finished the season with 18 goals and 47 lines of primo columbian sniffed,"

"Harvey Price Snr" has replaced the correct name

"and 47 lines of primo columbian sniffed" - suggesting Morelos has snorted cocaine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.34 (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Vandalism reverted, and page protected. Many thanks for bringing this to our attention. GiantSnowman 15:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides
I'm alerting this noticeboard that more BLP-focused eyes may be needed at 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides. In my view there's an excessive amount of extremely lurid and invasive detail about sexual activities and other personally embarrassing and sensitive content, much of it about non-public figures. R2 (bleep) 18:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is some discussion at . I am (slowly) working on a rewrite of the article, which is very large and needs to be better summarized. I recently stepped away from major editing on the article to let things cool down due to edit warring.  If someone feels there are overriding BLP concerns, please do step in.  The B-class article was reviewed for DYK a few months ago and more recently had some attention for ITN. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Stacey Plaskett mistake
Stacey Plaskett - if you google Rep. Stacey Plasket, a picture comes up on the side of the google results page of Ms. Plaskett, but it says she died in 1998. She is well and alive and serving in Congress. The result that pops out is a mash up of Stacey Plaskett and Elmo Alexander Plaskett a baseball player who is indeed deceased. Stacey Plaskett Delegate to United States House of Representatives Image result for rep. plasket DescriptionElmo Alexander Plaskett was a professional baseball player — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.8.151 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is unfortunately a Google problem, not ours. Both our page and the Wikidata page have her well and alive (no date of death). Google's algorithm is likely mixing it up, but we don't control that. --M asem (t) 23:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

eric sanders (playwright)
Eric Sanders (playwright)

This article is clearly just copied and pasted from an online bio. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9209:9F00:1114:D4F5:2A02:D3F8 (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I proposed it for deletion. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Brie Larson
"Her complaint about being interviewed by a majority of white men led to an attempt at review bombing Captain Marvel's page on Rotten Tomatoes with sexist comments."

There is no references about part "Her complaint about being interviewed by a majority of white men". When i tried to add them, content author rejected with no explanation and looks like he is going against Wikipedia guidelines! In my opinion if there is references, that Rotten tomatoes comments were just sexist, there were bad reviews, about Captain Marvel movie, then people should know why it happened, without skipping that part. All required references should be added, also its like turning things around, skipping crucial part! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC) If for others this complaint is acceptable, i would like to see his other articles reviewed, cause looks like author prefers personal interests over facts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 12:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This does actually have non-clickbait coverage e.g., but you can't look at Brie Larson and say that her remarks about "white dudes" deserve more than a half-sentence there. It would ruin the entire section's flow. With regards to "want to see" nonsense, it belongs to Captain Marvel (film) after and if it passes WP:Recentism. If it is significantly covered in that article (in several sentences), then it deserves a mention in Larson's bio, which will have been restructured by then (as the film will have been released), and this won't be WP:UNDUE. As I've skimmed over Larson's bio, it seemed to have a negative POV, but I'm not certain.  w umbolo   ^^^  14:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I want to point out this part "review bombing" and "sexist comments"! There was no reviews, but poll weather people will go to movie or not. This senence promotes fake news and it also has references to fake articles. I suggest to use references, where is also visible poll, before it was closed. Also promoting that all comentators was just trolls is stupid idea, without proof that they was actually trolls. Knowing that they faked idea, that it was actually reviews not polls, makes everything to look as fake story. So pleas don't promote any propaganda in articles, weather it is west, Russian or someone else and instead use checked resources!!! User:Wumbolo so i won't agree with you that nothing should be changed. If you also promote idea than wiki should promote fake news, than it is very very bad... + if there is references to poll downvoting, that there should be at least 1 reference why it happened! Nothing more, just reference is enough! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 06:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC) I don't even get it why i should fight here so that here is just truth written. It that really that bad for you in US, that you can't even write truth, if some feminist is involved!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian
Like I noted at Talk:Kim Kardashian, has repeatedly added disputed content to the Kim Kardashian article. The latest version of the content is seen with this revert by me. The concern is that the content that Liselanora is adding contains material about a supposed enemeies list (in previous versions), feuds, rumors, includes some trivial material, and includes some poor sourcing. Before I jumped in, Vistadan was reverting Liselanora. I left a message on Liselanora's talk page about WP:Edit warring. If Liselanora read that page, Liselanora should have realized that the next best course of action was to take the matter to the article's talk page. Instead, Liselanora re-added the material. And I reverted for a second time. Although it makes sense to include some makeup and fashion material in the article, it should not be overly detailed and it should be supported by WP:Reliable sources only. Appropriate WP:Tone is also an issue. A "Fashion ventures" section was in the article, but it was recently removed. And we can see that it contained some poor sources (although it also contained some WP:Reliable sources).

Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll start with, this subject is really far-removed from the subjects I normally read. I don't know much about the subject, and I had no idea she did anything other than appear on TV and look beautiful. It almost seems ironic that she made her fortune in make-up, because from what I've seen she's one of those many women who look a million times better without any make-up whatsoever.


 * That said, the edit in question looks way too promotional, describing too much detail of her specific products and where "you" can purchase them. It's poorly written and, on top of that, it's written in the second person. For example, I was very much surprised to find out that her app was not only shut down for unknown reasons, but her sisters were also shut down, but not at all surprised that it would cost "you" a monthly fee to use it. It also surprised me that the widespread backlash against her "kimojis" was "released" by Kim herself, unless she created the backlash as a publicity stunt which the edit doesn't say. (Seems to me that the feminists would have done that.) That's just a small sample of the poor writing. I don't have time to go through all the sources to evaluate them individually, and did not go through the history to look for other questionable edits, but from what I have seen, you were most certainly justified in removing them simply based on the writing and promotional tones. Zaereth (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Zaereth, thanks for giving your thoughts on the matter. Liselanora asked me on my talk page if the content would be fine to include if the feuds material was excluded. But, as we've both noted, that is not the only thing of concern about the addition. I didn't even notice the second person use, but the MOS:YOU guideline is clear about avoiding that. I will point Liselanora to this discussion. The ping above might not have been enough to direct the editor, who is new, here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand, I'm one of those who never thinks to click on the little red box at the top of my screen. (Usually because I'm too impatient and start scrolling before the page has even loaded.) I'll look into it a little deeper when I have some more free time. Perhaps I can help offer some advice. I only had time to look at the one edit, but for Liselanora I will clarify that term "poor writing" it wasn't meant as a personal insult. The simple fact is that "easy writing makes for hard reading", and besides the second person, what I saw was a lot of sentences that had dual meanings, depending upon how you look at it, which can be very difficult for a writer to spot. And sometimes this duality can have unintended consequences. Thanks for your diligence, Flyer22. Zaereth (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The editor is still adding the material, with superficial "clean ups." I'm either going to have to take this to WP:ANI or start an RfC on it. I do see that you recently posted problems with the material on the article's talk page, but, given the newbie that Liselanora is, Liselanora is unlikely to understand enough at this point in time to include actual quality material in place of the poor material. And Liselanora will keep adding the disputed content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Struck through parts of my above post since Liselanora's latest addition is about something else. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw that edit before I posted at the talk page, but decided to let it go for the moment and concentrate on giving some advice. Judging by her writing style and communication style, I have a feeling that Liselanora is rather young, which is why I was trying to spell it out in very simple terms. (I know, some us had to grow up fast, but some of us have the personality types for it. Not everyone does.) Some people can learn from instructions, while others need to visually see what we're trying to tell them (by example), and yet others can only learn by hands-on experience (trial and error). Liselanora strikes me as the latter. The fact that she posted her latest changes on the talk page, combined with the fact that she corrected the double meanings and second person in her make-up addition, suggest that she is trying to figure it out but just not grasping what people are telling her. I think that posting her changes on the talk page is a very good idea, but she also needs to learn to wait long enough for people to respond. I'd like to try and help her understand, because there may possibly be a decent editor in there, in the future, but I also think it will take a lot of work on her part and WP:COMPETENCE still applies,. And we're not all here to teach her. I have watchlisted the article, and will keep an eye out for any more changes, but I'm hoping that explaining it in simple terms with examples will help her understand. Zaereth (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand what you mean. Again, thanks for helping. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Charles Burnett
Hello.

The images of important filmmaker Charles Burnett, are NOT of Mr. Burnett, but of a someone's child. Please fix this disrespectful nonsense. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.152.80 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Dominique Lévy
There is inaccurate and personal damaging information on the page for Dominique Lévy. The information in the ‘Personal Life’ section is no longer accurate. Dominique Lévy is separated from Dorothy Berwin. In addition to that fact, the information noted regarding their number of children in the referenced article is actually incorrect. We do not have any articles to reference this information because the subject of the article has since then wanted to retain her privacy and the privacy of her children. Due to the change in relationship, and the sensitivity of this personal information, the subject of the article would like please have the Personal Life section removed and any reference to her former partner and children removed from the Information Box. Very much appreciate your help dealing with this personal and sensitive situation. JacksonWW123 (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed all the non-notable names of people who do not have an article of their own. There is just no need to name private citizens. I also removed the personal-life section as this was sourced only to an op/ed column. Zaereth (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much Zaereth. In the Information Box the number of children is incorrect. Subject of the article has only 2 children, not 3. Would it be possible to please correct this? JacksonWW123 (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Using one source to suggest that an individual (in his article) has read a book, then juxtaposed with another source that states the book is anti-Semitic?
This seems awfully POV to me. Like writing "In elementary school he read the racist childrens book Dr. Seuss." Certainly that would be taken as a BLP or at least a POV issue? Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The book in question is not comparable to Dr. Seuss; rather, it's comparable to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Like that book, it's a vehemently anti-Semitic fabrication of conspiracy theorist nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've not read the book and I have no reason to believe it isn't anti-Semitic. However, is that a widely held view? There is no mention of anti-Semitism on the article for Gary Allen, nor in these NYT pieces from 1998 and 2018. If any alleged anti-Semitism is the subject of debate then it must be an issue for Wikipedia's voice to "take sides" on the matter. Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is better described as subtly anti-Semitic. Unlike the Protocols, it does not claim that the Jews control the world but instead says it is controlled by "insiders", some of whom are Jews. You have to read between the lines. Unless someone is aware of anti-Semitism, it is possible to miss the anti-Semitic message. TFD (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Saying a person has "read" a book does not justify saying, or implying in any way, that the person agrees with, or holds opinions congruent to, the book. I have read the JBS "Blue Book", Mein Kampf, the works of Chairman Mao and Lin Piao, speeches by Fidel Castro, Das Kapital, the Communist Manifesto, parts of The Prince, and a slew of other works. Saying or implying that a person agrees with any book he or she has read is WP:OR and/or violative of WP:NPOV.   If a person has said he agrees with such a book, that is a different matter, but, as phrased, the answer is that the Wikilink to the noted book does not violate WP:NPOV but ascribing its specific views to a person is violative of policy. Collect (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest, since forgot to do so, that people should refer to the edit history of Alex Jones prior to weighing in. They've left out some context. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've looked back to August 2018 and found that has previously removed the claim for similar reasons but did not start a talk page discussion. They noted, as I have, that the issue of the book being anti-Semitic does not appear to be a unanimous opinion. Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In short, the conflict is whether to call a book that Jones claims had a profound impact on him and that he has publicly recommended antisemitic when the source that calls the book antisemitic is separate from the source that confirms Jones' fondness for it. It's the same book and there's no dispute that Jones has promoted it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The implication that the subject promotes anti-Semitism is still there. This is not consistent with the subject's stated views on the book, let alone his stated views on Jewish people, which is why it's a BLP concern. Even if we are to believe that the book contains anti-Semitic ideas, then presumably, it should also contain other ideas that are equally notable, so singling "anti-Semitism" is sorta WP:COATRACK as well. I don't believe the book's contents matter anyway. I think and  have hit the nail on the head. If you think that the book is anti-Semitic then that is a topic better addressed on the Gary Allen article.  Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's pretty much just WP:SYNTH. You are implying that Jones is antisemitic using a source that doesn't mention him at all. The source that does mention him and the book together doesn't comment on antisemitism at all, but indicates that the important role it played in his background was as a basis for his conspiratorial thinking. If you are writing an article on the book, these are both appropriate sources. If you are writing an article on the person, then only one is. Jones might be deeply antisemitic for all I know, but you're going to need a source that actually says that to connect the two.  G M G  talk  15:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I forcefully disagree. Jones is recommending an antisemitic book. That it's antisemitic is not in doubt. That he recommends it is not in doubt. All we do by occluding that link is give cover to racists. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. And if the antisemitism of the book is deeply relevant to Jones, then you should have no problems finding a source that says that.  G M G  talk  15:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Right because antisemites never try to couch their views in allusion and metaphor in a weak attempt to remain part of mainstream discourse. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. You still need source.  G M G  talk  15:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For this, we'd need a single source that says that we'd need, contained within the same source (and ideally, reiterated in similar fashion in multiple sources), that the person promotes racism by recommending said book, or has had their racist views shaped by reading books such as that. As long as the claim the book is racist is separate from the ststement that he read the book, it is a BLP/SYNTH violation to combine them. --M asem (t) 15:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do RS say it, if the answer is yes then it is sourced, if the answer is no then it is OR, and as far as I know no policy is over ridden by "but they are antisemitic, I knows". If it is so obviously (and Jones support of it) antisemitic, someone would have mentioned it. This is a BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The book is "subtle anti-Semitism." It claims that the world is ruled by "insiders," some of whom are indeed Jewish but asserts that it is not claiming there is a Jewish conspiracy. This subtle anti-Semitism has been compared to current conspiracy theories about George Soros. It's possible for a reader to be unaware of the anti-Semitic messages. Whether or not Jones was influenced by the book's anti-Semitism is a conclusion that needs to be sourced before it is included. We would not for example say that Martin Luther King was named after the German anti-Semitic Martin Luther or that Olivier starred in plays by the anti-Semitic writer William Shakespeare, although we could describe the connection if it appears in reliable sources about King and Olivier. TFD (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

ingrid newkirk
Her bio needs to be addressed. Particularly this statement. "She is known, in particular for hating Pit-Bulls and lobbying for easier requirements for their euthanization, as well for the media stunts that she organizes to draw attention to animal-protection issues in order to pretend that her organization actually helps animals rather than killing them hours after adopting them from shelters or abducting them from homes or off the street." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.113.102 (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I have dealt with the more obvious violations, who added it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Page may need protection.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes protect this page. Subtle and unsubtle vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 17:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

2017 Interstate 75 rock-throwing deaths
I recently stumbled across this again and I've removed some of the information in the article. I wanted to double check some of my work with you guys.

Here's the deal: In 2017 there were two cases of teenagers throwing rocks off of bridges. In both cases, the teenagers killed someone, with one person in specific being responsible for the deaths in each group. The article listed the names and ages of these teenagers and in one section, listed the general area where they lived (ie, their town name). The article also had some slight issues with tone and NOTOBITUARY in how the sections were written out.

I removed the obituary and tone wording - that's not what I'm worried about. What I wanted to get some discussion on is the removal of the teenagers' names in each section. I don't feel that we need their names to tell the story of what happened. There's also a question of future harm since almost all of the teenagers were under 18 when each death happened. Only in one situation was one of the teenagers 18. I don't know that it's really necessary to have their names up on Wikipedia for something incredibly awful they did when they were young and incredibly stupid. The kids range in age from 13 - 18. If they were all adults admittedly I wouldn't worry as much but essentially I removed their names because they were minors and there's more of a question of future harm for them. I suppose that there's a question of them being notable for one event, although the article has been kept the prior two times at AfD, once by no consensus.

Basically, should we retain their names? If so, what is to be gained by including them? ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  20:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do want to say that I'm not going to fight tooth and nail against re-adding them, but them being minors does make the presence of their names something to discuss. Not all of the media lists their names either, so their names aren't automatically universally known in relation to the deaths. It's not the same as say, Brock Turner's name being extremely well known in relation to the People v. Turner case. So to reiterate, my question(s) are these:
 * Should we include the names of minors who are involved with these deaths. Some of the minors were sentenced but had those sentences overturned.
 * Would including these names potentially harm them in the future? This is particularly important in the cases where the minors had their sentences overturned because the judge hoped that clemency would help them lead better lives.
 * Is the coverage that includes their names heavy enough to justify mentioning them in the article?
 * Would not including their names remove something vital from the article that would justify including them? (IE, is potential harm outweighed by the potential need for Wikipedia?)
 * I'm going to tag the users in the most recent AfD to take part in this and give their say. . I'm not arguing for deletion of the article - what needs to be discussed here is how important it is to include the names of minors who are involved with crimes relating to the death of a person. I'm not entirely sure if all of them have been sentenced or not in this situation, but I suppose that it should be asked if we should handle minors involved with crimes (at least when it comes to names) the same way we would legal adults. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  21:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents - anyone convicted as an adult (i.e. minor tried as an adult) - no issue. For minors - depends on how the sources treat it. If more sources avoid naming the minors (and this vary by locale and period) - so should we. Otherwise, we should name.Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good summary of the situation presented. I guess the time element question can be looked at with 1999 Interstate 75 rock-throwing death - later this month marks its 20 anniversary. Two of the teenagers were convicted and I believe it was mainly due to the age limit as described here. –  The Grid  ( talk )  21:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The press named the boys in these cases freely. The judges did not seal the trial record. These kids weren't skipping flat pebbles across a pond, they were dropping large rocks from overpasses onto cars. People died. These two crimes took place in the U.S. where the press names. It would be different in, say, Germany, where the press does not print the names. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The current version of the article, w/o the names, is fine. There's nothing of encyclopedic value to be gained by adding the names. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Non-noteworthy people did a noteworthy crime. Even the 18y.o. The conventions of the press and legal meaning are all factors to me. Mcfnord (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Editor claiming to be Mary Kay Letourneau
Opinions are needed at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say, an editing restriction to not edit the Mary Kay Letourneau article and another request to contact wp:otrs and verify their identity. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Govindaharihari. As seen here, we still need some opinions on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Neil Thomas Ministries


Mr. Thomas died in 2014, but has recently received coverage re: allegations of sexual and financial abuses. There are at least two separate issues that require administrative attention. The first is the obvious, edit warring over the content. Yesterday I requested page protection. I'd appreciate more thoughts as to whether the accusations merit inclusion--I've pared content on the subject to a minimum. The second issue is yesterday's repeated additions of copyright violation text, lifted from one of the newspaper sources. So some rev/deletion is necessary, regardless. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy
What is the rule on living people who deny a negative characterization of them? I though it was to include the denial, even if the denial is likely to be false. Under "public figures" BLP policy says "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." For this reason I reverted JzG's removal of the fact that Jenny McCarthy denies being anti-vax, he then reverted me, I checked BLP policy to make sure I was right and reverted him again and then Bradv reverted me. Could somone here clarify for us what the proper interpretation of BLP is here?. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , why do you feel it important to include this information? Bradv 🍁  18:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I though we had a policy to include a person's denial of any negative characterization that we mention in the article? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , we don't have a policy to include poorly-sourced falsehoods in BLP articles. Again, why does this matter to you? Bradv 🍁  19:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * When you say this is "poorly sourced", are you suggesting that we can't verify that she really said this in the interview? and why didn't you remove the preceding sentence that is cited to the same source? As far is it being a "falsehood", assuming the interview wasn't fabricated, it is fact that she denies being anti-vax, she may really be anti-vax, but again, I thought we had a policy to mention that the person denied any accusations. I never said or implied that she was correct to deny this, just that we should state the fact that she denied it.
 * This matters to me because as a wikipedia editor, I strive to write/improve articles so that they are accurate, fair and consistant with wikipedia's policies, this includes reverting editors who misunderstand these policies, and asking for guidance at the appropriate noticeboard if there is confusion over how to interpret or apply such policies. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As pointed out below, her denial is already included in the article, with the full context of her quotation. Distilling that article, or even her entire quote, to a simple denial is a falsehood based on a clickbaity headline. Including the full quote, with context, would be undue for the lede, but it is properly fleshed out in the body of the article. I'm not going to respond to the second part of your comment other than to ask this rhetorical question: the anti-vax movement is a global health concern and a growing threat. To what extent are Wikipedia editors responsible? Bradv 🍁  19:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't contain anti-vax material that I'm aware of, so I'm surprised you would think that wikipedia editors are responsible for the antivax movement, also this is really kind of off topic. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally not, but people will insist on trying to crowbar it in, or at least whitewash reality-based sources about antivaxers and their bullshit. In fact keeping Wikipedia free of antivax bullshit is a constant battle, especially the last couple of years. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but they usually give up after being reverted a few times, and a lot of the persistent ones are IP's, so the pages affected can be semi protected, as Jenny McCarthy currently is. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But some engage in long-term WP:CPUSHing, shop things round the drama boards, insist they are not antivax at all (rather like McCarthy), and refuse to accept that we don't give deference to self-serving claims that are contradicted by the overwhelming consensus of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So this is another of your misleading accusations? Can't we just discuss the content? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Her denial appears to be required by WP:PUBLICFIGURE. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. Fairly straightforward. PackMecEng (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Her denial should be included.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Her clarification is already in the body. I don't see a need in the lede considering that she's probably the most vocal of anti-vaxxers having written three books on the subject. O3000 (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no rule that says it can't be in both places. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Her denial is not a blanket denial She still claims that vaccinations can be dangerous, doctors don’t prescribe them correctly, and the pharma industry makes unsafe vaccines. It’s not much of a denial. That’s why it needs to be fully explained, which is too much detail for the lede. O3000 (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * she still claims that vaccinations can be dangerous, doctors don’t prescribe them correctly, and the pharma industry makes unsafe vaccines ... ok... and??!? MPS1992 (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As with most antivaxers, McCarthy is aware that openly espousing antivaccinationism is generally understood as a fringe position. Instead, she makes demands for mythical "safe" vaccines, while continuing to promote long-debunked antivaccine tropes such as the claimed link between MMR and autism, and the claimed role of thimerosal in causing autism. Simply repeating her own statements that she's not antivax, honest, from primary sources, without reality-based context to establish that this protestation is bullshit, violates WP:UNDUE. There's a widespread misunderstanding that we are like a newspaper, and should always give the subject the last word. In fact the tendency of papers to do this comes from historical conservatism over fdear of libel. It's a long time since making true statements about a public person was a real risk, but they continue with it almost as a matter of style. It's not how an encyclopaedia should work. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a misunderstanding of policy, we have plenty of context and sources for the fact that she is anti-vax and your criticism of her statements to the contrary do not change the BLP requirements. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It's undue for the lead, but it's already in the body with pretty lengthy block quotes about what she considers to be or not be called anti-vaxx. People quoting WP:PUBLICFIGURE need to read the article. Valeince (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but if the accusation is so prominent in the lead, shouldn't the denial be in the lead too?


 * Yes her denial is peppered though the end of that section. It is mentioned enough that the source for it in the lead starts with that. But our lead does not mention it at all, which it clearly should. PackMecEng (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. The consensus view of all reliavble sources is that McCarthy is an anti-vaccinationist. Pretty much everyione calls her that. Sure, she denies it, but Bernie Madoff denies being a fraudster and we don't put his denial in the lede. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well for our BLP policy that is all that really matters isn't it. Also with how much it is mentioned in the article, it should be in the lead as well. Since the lead is supposed to summarize the body. PackMecEng (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a poor analogy. Bernie Madoff was convicted in a court of law.  Jenny McCarthy wasn't.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Even when reliable sources don't buy the denial we still mention it per BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No we don't, per WP:UNDUE. We are not a newspaper, we do not give the subject of an article the last word when all independent sources say they are lying. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)}


 * The lede seems unbalanced as it is -- this person seemingly had a lengthy career in modelling, acting, television hosting, writing, et cetera, and only later became a anti-vax spokesperson. But our article starts with the anti-vax thing, which is inappropriate. Then we have a quote -- in the lede! -- describing her as "the nation's most prominent purveyor of anti-vaxxer ideology" cited to a source whose title is itself "Jenny McCarthy: I Am Not Anti-Vaccine"! The use of the word "but" in the disputed addition is a problem which should be fixed (because it implies that her denial may mean that the accusation is incorrect), but the denial should still be mentioned. MPS1992 (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Her anti-vaxx advocacy is what she is most prominent for today and most certainly what history will remember her for. Her other achievements, besides promoting falsehoods about vaccines, include posing nude in Playboy, one season on the View, and minor roles in non-notable films and TV-shows. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with MPS1992. The article suffers from WP:RECENTISM.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In what way? Most sources about her now seem to mention the antivax bullshit, she seems to want to be known for it, the rest appears mainly to be away of funding the antivax. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The anti-vax section is longer than the section on her modelling and entertainment career, the things she's primarily known for. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:UNDUE, please could User:JzG or User:Bradv. who between them seem to be pushing this thing, propose a re-written section about anti-vax that does not take up most of the whole article? If they are unable to do so, then per WP:BLP, the whole section will need to be blanked until this can be sorted out. MPS1992 (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not pushing anything, I only objected to this edit. I'm fine with including the full quote and context in the body, as it is now. Bradv 🍁  02:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So reflecting it in the lede is also OK -- the article lede should reflect the important aspects of the article body. MPS1992 (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just as an example of WP:RECENTISM, the section on her anti-vax beliefs is the largest section in the article whereas her TV show on MTV, Singled Out, only gets half a sentence in the body. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * She was cohost of an MTV dating show in the 90s for a couple of years. How does that compare to writing books pushing anti-vaxxing, being president of Generation Rescue, which pushes anti-vax views, campaigning around the country on the same themes for a decade?
 * It's the former that made her famous, not the latter. How can you justify such lopsided coverage?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. Her denial should not be included in the lede. Individuals who hold fringe views and promote falsehoods, conspiracy theories and other things with negative connotations generally reject that they hold fringe views and will try to re-package their views to avoid the stigma.... it would be absurd to add "he rejects that he is a conspiracy theorist" to the lede of every conspiracy theorist, "he rejects that he is a climate change denier" to the lede of every climate change denier, and "he disputes that he is a racist, referring to himself instead as a "race realist"." They all dispute that they are [insert description with negative/controversial connotations]. Anti-vaxx folks typically always claim that they're not against all vaccines, they're just asking questions and so on while misinforming thousands of people by pushing lies about the dangers of vaccines. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per BLP we still have to include the denial, as wrong as with think it is. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know many antivaxers who actually admit to it. Most of them claim to be in favour of some mythical perfectly safe vaccine tested, of course, through a process of randomised double blind trials that not IRB would ever approve. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do know many antivaxxers who admit to it. Aren't you on Facebook? :)  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear that we're going to achieve consensus. I suggest someone start an RfC and let the community decide.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prob'ly right. But, I'd give it another day. O3000 (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that we will need an RfC. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The lede seems fine, and her denial is included in the article. Any denial of a clearly notable and well-referenced aspect about a person is going to require context, which we do. Before anyone starts an RfC, it would be useful to review how similar denials are treated: Jared Taylor and Joey Gibson (political activist) immediately come to mind for having long-running attempts to place the subjects' personal opinions of themselves on par or over the opinions of others. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right. The idea of giving the subject the last word comes from newspapers, not encyclopaedias. X is an antivaxer, source, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, but X denies it, source X, quoted in Y, is not compelling. We'd need some independent sources that conclude that she's not an antivaxer to balance the hundreds that conclude she is. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * X is an antivaxer, source, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, but X denies it, source X, quoted in Y is not at all compelling evidence that X isn't an antivaxer, but it is factual and policy compliant, and saying it will not mislead people into thinking X isn't an antivaxer, precisely because it is not compelling. We'd need some independent sources that conclude that she's not an antivaxer to balance the hundreds that conclude she is. True, except saying she denies being an antivaxer is very different from concluding that she isn't one. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, we really shouldn't look to other examples because this type of situation (where sufficient sources are there to make the claim that "X is a Y", and there's at least one source that is X claiming they aren't) has been so pushed to ignoring what X has said in favor of the number of RSes. Any type of claim is a WP:LABEL (there is nothing (yet) illegal about being an anti-vaxxer, there is no reason to red-letter a person over this), and regardless if there's 1 or 100 sources backing it, it has to be treated with care, and as per PUBLICFIGURE, with the counterclaim from X, if it has to be covered at all. This is the type of writing that is worsening our BLP articles, far too much focus on stuffing as much negative stuff in and as early as possible without considering consequences to tone and impartialness. Prime example of the total breakdown of BLP and core policies "because the press said so". --M asem (t) 01:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * She appears to have changed her position, at least partially. I don't see why it should be particularly controversial that she has done so. We should quote briefly what she has said in the past, and now. (I want to emphasize briefly--I consider the entire section much too long and disproportionate. We have no way of knowing whether she has changed her actual opinion or just her public statements, What we cannot do is call her anti-vax in the lead when she now says otherwise--, but we can certainly say  that she was known for anti-vax statements, but now says that ...      DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC).
 * Where do you get the impression she has changed her position? Bradv 🍁  01:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Daily Beast interview--. As I worded it above,, it may not be what she things, but what she says, but ifshe says she is not anti-vax, we can say that she says she is not anti-vax.  DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That interview is from 2014 though. This is not about new information, this is about Tornado chaser trying to shoehorn a defense into the lede. Bradv 🍁  04:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * this is about Tornado chaser trying to shoehorn a defense into the lede No, this denial has been in the lead and I reverted a BLP-violating attempt at removing it. Please stop the insinuation that upholding BLP on an article about an person means I must agree with them. Tornado chaser (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "what she is most prominent for today" is not what Wikipedia is here to record. Rational thinkers' righteous and probably rightful outrage at the damage that her influence might do, is not what Wikipedia is here to record. The lede must change. MPS1992 (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mentioned at WT:GGTF due to the appalling state of the lede. If you can't see why, then I can't explain it to you. MPS1992 (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I do like the change that just made to the article, but this sounds a little bit like she could admit to being antivax but doesn't think she is the most prominent antivaxer, maybe we could change it to "although she says the characterization of herself as anti-vaccine is inaccurate."? Tornado chaser (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Bradv says above that the anti-vax movement is a global health concern and a growing threat. This is absolutely true, correct, and important -- I read a BBC article today which said exactly that. Bradv also asked, with exactly the wrong and very foolish implications, To what extent are Wikipedia editors responsible? The answer is that Wikipedia editors are not responsible for these outbreaks of stupidity -- instead, other types of social media are responsible.

Some editors think that dangerous stupidity in the real world can be fixed by breaking BLP rules in the Wikipedia world. They are wrong in this belief, and their edits should and will be reverted. MPS1992 (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Very well said! Tornado chaser (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Pope Francis
The article on Pope Francis contains extensive criticisms of Pope Francis that are not sourced to a secondary source, as required by WP:BLPSTYLE. With one exception (discussed below) all of the criticisms are sourced to news articles and opinion columns, which are primary sources by official Wikipedia policy per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Among the criticisms are extensive defamatory allegations against Pope Francis in the section titled "Sexual Abuse". The other criticisms are largely theological and political but nevertheless need to be sourced to a secondary source per WP:BLPSTYLE. The one secondary source given is to a book by Ross Douthat (Footnote 496), but the user fails to give a page cite and the claim represents a fringe view and mischaracterizes the dispute (no one is claiming the Catholic Church can overturn its doctrine in response to the sexual revolution and modernity). The criticisms have been repeatedly reinserted into the article as seen here: Special:Diff/885689580 PluniaZ (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * News sources are secondary sources. ""Primary" is not another way to spell "bad". Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources.".Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, news sources are not secondary sources per WP:PRIMARYNEWS unless they meet the criteria for one of the following categories: Historical Reports, Analytical Reports and Book Reviews. None of the news sources given in the article meet the criteria for those categories.  I never said "primary" sources are bad or not reliable.  I said official Wikipedia policy requires that in a biography of a living person, criticisms must be sourced to a secondary source, as specifically stated in WP:BLPSTYLE.PluniaZ (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Provide an example of one that fails then.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting essay, although I'd bet I could find sources to counter the arguments made on the page. It is not an official policy or guideline, as the little box at the top says. More of a "tips on what to look for" page, although some of us may disagree a bit with the author's interpretation. Zaereth (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, the official policy is on WP:OR. Footnote c defines the following as primary sources: " investigative reports... editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews..."PluniaZ (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, news opinions and analysis are secondary sources; simply rote reporting from news sources are primary. What is of concern is UNDUE and RECENTISM. If these are only a smattering of a few sources that otherwise cover the Pope, then it's UNDUE. --M asem (t) 18:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, news opinions are specifically defined as primary sources in WP:PRIMARYNEWS. The only categories of news reports that are secondary sources are Historical Reports, Analytical Reports and Book Reviews. In response to
 * Slatersteven's request for an example that fails, the very first source given in the Controversies section of the article is a news report that contains extensive criticisms against Pope Francis: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/04/vatican-civil-war-conservatives-battle-francis-lent.  This is not a historical report, analytical report or book review.PluniaZ (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No I asked for one that fell foul of the examples of primary news reporting, this is not a primary news report as laid down by those criteria. It may be critical, but it also appears to be an analysis of events.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It does fail the criteria for being an analytical report, which is described as follows: "The newspaper publishes a week-long series of articles on health care systems in the nation. This is not merely a piece that provides one or two comments from someone who is labeled an "analyst" in the source, but is a major work that collects, compares, and analyzes information." This column is not a major work that collects, compares and analyzes information.  It is a one time column, which Footnote C in WP:OR defines as a primary source.PluniaZ (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Its an example only, not an exclusive criteria. I have asked you how it fails any of the examples of news reports as primary sources. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this.Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an opinion piece. The second paragraph in the article states, "If he’d had any inkling of what these last four years would be like, he would surely have wept in that Room of Tears."  That is commentary in a newspaper.  It is not an analysis of the merits of the criticisms.  The author merely repeats criticisms and occasionally adds her own commentary.  Footnote C in WP:OR specifically defines this is a primary source.PluniaZ (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As I often do, I find myself in agreement with Masem on this. I think you're making the wrong argument, or rather arguing for a technicality while overlooking the real policy this violates. Just because something is found in a reliable source (primary or not) doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion nor fit into the scope of things. We're here to provide the sum of all knowledge. Not all knowledge, but a summary. It's important to look at all the policies as working in unison, like one big equation, rather than focusing one part to the exclusion of the rest. If you look at WP:UNDUE you'll see that this not only needs good sourcing, but enough of a media blowout to warrant a mention. Within the scope of the entire article against the scope of media coverage, the weight this deserves --at this point in time-- is infinitesimal. Zaereth (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. To be clear, are you saying that the disputed material should not be included in the article because it gives undue weight to minority positions?PluniaZ (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not looking at minorities or positions. What I mean, is that, given how much sourcing is out there about all the other stuff in the article, how much weight does this deserve. I'm only looking at coverage in reliable sources. If you took all the sources out there about this subject (not just from the article, but all of the sources) and put them on an imaginary scale, then put these on the other side, you get a measurement of how much weight this deserves. Compared to the size and scope of the article, does it deserve half the article, an entire section, a whole paragraph, or a single sentence, just to put it in balance with the entire article? Or, given the small handful of sources which may or may not be questionable (I haven't dug that deep), does it require less than a sentence, perhaps a single letter or a pixel? That's where I think we're at right here. Zaereth (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYNEWS is not a policy or guideline and has not been vetted by the community. It misrepresents the Yale University source that says news article written "at the time" are primary sources, while current news articles are secondary sources. In practical terms that means that an article about Pope Pius XII, should not be based on news articles from 1939-1958, the years of his reign, but on books and academic articles about him. Researchers using articles written at the tie would not take them at face value, but would take into consideration private papers from the time, and subsequent statements and writings by him and people close to him. Their findings would then serve as secondary sources for the article. But today's news report is the only information about what Pope Francis did today and hence is treated as a secondary source. TFD (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If we go by the transformational concept of secondary sources, news reports are primary sources if they make no attempt to offer insight or analysis on a report, as there's no transformation. News analysis and opinion would be secondary sources however. --M asem (t) 20:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If the Pope makes a speech, that is a primary source. If a reporter summarizes what he said, relating what he or she considers important and putting it in their own words, that is a secondary source. If inside sources tell a reporter what happened at the Vatican, their statements are primary sources. But the reporter then compares the accounts and provides a judgment on their veracity and his or her article is then a secondary source. It's only when a reporter is on the scene relating events as they occur that one could consider their reporting a primary source. But then their reporting for the 9 o'clock news would be a secondary source since they would be able to synthesize what they saw with those of other witnesses, films of the event and comments by experts. TFD (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We consider the reporter's summary of what the Pope stated as a primary source, with the understanding that as a reliable source with journalistic integrity, it is summarizing to a degree than any other person, reviewing the Pope's speech, would consider as the important points - eg there is no transformation. It's the same principle as with the difference between recaps and reviews of published works. A recap is primary as long as the summary is generally what any other person would obtain, without interpretation or stressing on a minor point, while a review is secondary. Most day to day news reporting is primary for that reason. --M asem (t) 17:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "If a reporter summarizes what he said, relating what he or she considers important and putting it in their own words, that is a secondary source" - no that is still a primary source, both by wikipedia's guidelines and in academia. Primary & secondary sourcing when it comes to news reporting is not who says it, it is the level of analysis and research involved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your feedback. Based on the recommendations of Zaereth, I propose that the article on Pope Francis be revised as shown on this diff from my sandbox page: Special:Diff/885734328. In sum, the article as it currently stands gives undue weight to fringe criticisms of Pope Francis from theological and political extremists. The only substantive criticisms that have generated meaningful coverage in mainstream news media relate to sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. I have removed the more minor allegations (relating to his handling of particular cases of priests), and moved the section into the "Papacy" section of the article, thus eliminating the need for a separate section on Controversies. I would appreciate your feedback. PluniaZ (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any support for this at all. Your interpretation of how WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:BLPSTYLE intersects seems prima facie absurd, since it would effectively bar us from ever covering any negative breaking news about a subject, ever; this plainly does not reflect current practice or policy, nor is it a reasonable approach.  Contrary to what you're saying, WP:BLPPRIMARY does not bar primary sources - it merely exhorts us to use extreme caution (which is appropriate), and gives examples that are much more extreme than anything you're objecting to here.  My main takeaway from this discussion is that BLPSTYLE and / or PRIMARYNEWS need to be reworded to make this intersection more clear - plainly policy does allow news sources to be used for negative material in some cases (with significant caution per WP:RECENTISM and the like, but it is not simply forbidden the way you're implying, and I don't see how anyone who has ever edited a breaking-news BLP could believe it is.  That interpretation would make it impossible to keep anything negative about anyone up to date at all.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that my interpretation of WP:BLPSTYLE was in error because I mistakenly thought that WP:PRIMARYNEWS was an official policy page. I apologize for that.  Nevertheless, Zaereth has pointed out that appropriate weight must still be given to each criticism, and "the views of small minorities should not be included at all." I respectfully submit that the criticisms I removed in my latest revision (here: Special:Diff/885734328) are the views of small minorities that should not be included in the biography of Pope Francis.  For example, the idea that Pope Francis is a "crypto-protestant" or has fallen into "apostasy and modernism" are obviously fringe attacks by religious extremists.  Likewise, the "appeal against changes on the death penalty" was a fringe attack covered only by right-wing media outlets First Things and EWTN.  The same goes for criticizing him for giving political knighthood to an abortion rights activist.  Outside of a few far-right Catholic media outlets, nobody cares.  And in the discussion on Amoris Laetitia, there is no actual criticism of Pope Francis from anyone of note, but rather a discussion of a technical theological inquiry from a group of cardinals, which belongs more appropriately in the actual Wikipedia article on Amoris Laetitia. PluniaZ (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: I've made a WP:BOLD revision to WP:BLPSTYLE to bring it into line with WP:BLPPRIMARY, here. Since it's pretty bold I wouldn't be surprised if someone objects and reverts or if it requires hashing out, but given the seriousness of the policy I feel that this is definitely something that needs to be hashed out, so I've started a discussion about it here Please take any discussion of if / how to change the relevant policy there. (Of course, changing WP:PRIMARYNEWS would be easier and might also be worth considering, but I feel that the apparent contradiction between WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPPRIMARY is more serious and needs to be resolved, even if it's really just a matter of a few words.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I will say there are definately some issues with sourcing. The very first paragraph under 'sexual abuse' makes a number of claims about the Pope that are not supported by the sources used. The reuters piece contains no actual criticism of the Pope directly. They may be supported elsewhere, but BLP requires in-line citations for controversial claims. There are other issues later down where sources are being used to justify wording critical of the pope, when on reading they are actually critical of the church. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I withdraw my concern regarding the use of secondary sources, which was due to a misunderstanding of the authority of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. I have made revisions to the article intended to address the concerns of Only in death does duty end regarding sourcing. I eliminated all statements that are not sourced and restructured a few paragraphs for better flow. I also deleted the fringe criticisms regarding apostasy and crypto-protestantism. You can see my changes here:   PluniaZ (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Update I have made a few more edits. Cumulative changes here:  -- PluniaZ (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

parisl latsis kassidokostas
hello to whom may concern

kindly note that the bio of Paris kassidokostas latsis is constantly violented False information, gossip and many other not real sources have been writen in order to draw bad attention or serve other purposes kindly take some action in order to respect the whole environment of the wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieKalou (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Article is Paris Kassidokostas-Latsis and above editor appears to be blocked.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  12:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a SPA with a clear COI They've been trying to turn this page into a resume for a few weeks now. Neiltonks (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Nevada Killing Spree
What are our rules on naming persons accused of crimes notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia? I ask because this has come up in a series of recent AfD discussions (Articles for deletion/List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens, 2019 Nevada killing spree, Killing of Nabra Hassanen). We are, of course, talking about major crimes (murder) that had been in the national news. These are U.S. crimes and the names of the suspects have been all over the front page. Is naming the accused-but-not-convicted suspect permitted. I would be happy to know where to find the rule on this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The event articles shouldn't even exist, and I believe are in AfD. O3000 (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCRIME. If public figure/well known (e.g. a celeb or pol) we name. If relatively unknow - we almost always do not name prior to conviction. The exceptions tend to be very high profile and large impact (e.g. a major terror attack with multiple casulties) - and need to be discussed case by case.Icewhiz (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The most straightforward read of WP:BLPCRIME is that, in the exception of the most extreme cases, having been suspected of a notable crime is not sufficient to treat the suspect as well-known. This largely grows out of WP:ROUTINE, WP:BLP1E and WP:LIBEL in addition to Wikipedia feeling it is correct not to risk the justice process by engaging in the chance of incorrectly naming somebody in relation to a crime prior to a conviction. Even in the case where a confession has been reported, we must consider that, prior to a trial, we have no way of knowing if that confession was extracted under duress. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)