Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive288

Gary Graffman and other articles with similar content added
An edit I made yesterday to a BLP based on a major news article in the Philadelphia Inquirer was undone by another editor. I reinstated it, as it seemed fair and relevant to me. I then added another reference for the same news story. The same editor then undid that reference, claiming it linked to a biased blog post. It was clearly NOT a biased blog post, or I would not have referenced it. It was from a news site called ludwig-van.com that receives funding from the government of Ontario. I understand that news stories related to the #metoo movement are potentially controversial, but I have attempted to approach the topic in a factual and non-inflammatory manner. The reversions of the article appear to me to be motivated by a desire to whitewash this particular BLP.
 * I have removed the information from the Graffman article, along with several other articles where you have added virtually identical information. This is a serious BLP violation, and if you persist, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with any of the edits, but would note that Jascha Brodsky is deceased for over 20 years now so long past WP:BDP. Therefore BLP would only concern anyone else caught up such as the person mentioned above or any one else involved including accusers. This doesn't mean we should only poorly source material even if there are no BLP concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

How is a major investigative story from The Philadelphia Inquirer an example of poor sourcing? I don't believe I have violated any of WP's policies, including WLP policies. It appears to me that deleting any reference to this major news story suggests people are trying to whitewash the subjects of these articles. I have not been involved in any controversy on this website before now, so I will not be surprised if you figure out a way to boot me, but you are not accurate in describing your actions as a reflection of WP's stated policies.Deckoffa (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link that shows an editor referring to a biased blog post? Please give a careful read to WP:BLP before you resume your efforts here. I also note that OP has inserted similar content into several other articles. I've reverted those edits.   SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Look, I'm not a heavy WP editor. But I have plenty of experience in academic sourcing, and I have not provided references to any blog posts of any kind. Do the BLP rules also prevent anyone from editing the Curtis Institute article? I did not realize Bbb23 was an administrator, but I still believe he or she should reconsider these reversions. I didn't even make the edits to the Jascha Brodsky page, so I'm getting the impression someone is simply motivated to erase this news item from WP. That does not seem appropriate to me.Deckoffa (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This Noticeboard page allows you to make policy-based arguments that, if persuasive, will gain consensus for your views and editorial decisions. So please make good use of this page and please do not squander the attention of the community by making irrelevant personal remarks about yourself or other editors.  SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The edits are based on a reliable source, but seem largely WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" as per WP:NOTNEWS. We are not meant to collect news stories but rather to provide an encyclopedic overview of an article subject. Graffman does not appear to have a major involvement in the issue, and the edits also seem to imply some kind of misconduct. The info does not seem appropriate for inclusion in the subject's biography. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree that the information is undue or falls under the "notnews" heading. #Metoo cases are pertinent biographical and institutional information, and the news involved does not consist of "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities." WP's article on UCLA contains information on last year's news story about sexual harassment on campus. The Duke University article describes the rape accusations involving the lacrosse team, properly noting that they were ultimately deemed to be false. These are major news stories, not minor gossip. If the charges are proven to be false, then the articles may be updated appropriately as the information becomes available.Deckoffa (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 asked me to have a look at this matter. I agree, first of all, with Wallyfromdilbert's comments related to the Graffman article ("no major involvement"), and I just mentioned this on my talk page, where I pinged Deckoffa with a note of caution. (Deckoffa, no need to comment there unless you just want to say "OK"; let's keep this here.) I do not agree that NOTNEWS is in itself sufficient to keep this out; it is entirely possible that this warrants inclusion--it is serious enough, and the Philadelphia Inquirer a good enough source. It is also, of course, early in the cycle for this story: in that sense NOTNEWS does apply and should give us a reason to slow down. But Lara St. John is of course crazy notable, and not having any mention of this in her own article does her tremendous injustice. User:SPECIFICO, I am sure you agree there should be a way to include this information in a concise and neutral way--without mentioning Brodsky, perhaps, at least for now (though I am actually leaning toward inclusion of that name, not just because he's been dead for so long). Certainly, though, we should mention the school where this (allegedly, OK...) took place, particularly in the light of this recent publication, which is published by The Strad, which seems a reliable enough source to me, and a neutral enough article. I cannot vouch for the other publications Deckoffa cited along the way in the various edits, nor do I want to look into them right now. Deckoffa, I think I am known for adhering pretty strictly to the BLP and I am not hesitant to block for violations of it, but I am also very much in favor of us not trying to sweep things under the rug: after all, removing an accusation that has been credibly reported on is also, IMO, a violation of the BLP. I think you have a point, probably more than one, but I think you are not going about it the right way--that's fine, you are not as seasoned as some others. I urge all involved editors to look carefully at the material, to see what we can in good conscience include in which articles we should include what. As far as I'm concerned, for now Graffman is certainly out, but St. John and the Institute are certainly in, and Brodsky perhaps as well--though that may have to wait for further reporting, with more reliable sources. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I am really leaning toward mentioning this for Brodsky--"The Inquirer has located four other women who say that Brodsky pursued them sexually while they were Curtis students in the 1980s. Each asked to remain anonymous to protect her privacy." And there is more coverage, as part of the fall out from this scandal, here for instance. This kind of stuff, the institute's response and the reactions to their initial response, are certainly worthwhile. I'm sure there will be more in days to come, so while I want to urge caution, and point to NOTNEWS, I do think we should not ignore this. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, @Drmies. That all sounds reasonable to me.Deckoffa (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And thank you. Please don't think badly of the editors who reverted you: they did so in good faith, and in some cases I absolutely agree with them--as on some points I agree with you. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My comment was directed at the information added to the Graffman article, and I have not looked at how it would apply to other articles. I added the two other articles that have been discussed here to the beginning of the section above and updated the section header to provide more notice to other editors. I hope that is okay with everyone. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Three things: A rule of thumb: If you find yourself haranguing people in edit summaries, you are almost certainly doing things wrongly. Uncle G (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Deckoffa, as soon as someone reverted you, you started to say silly things in edit summaries about people wanting to ″stifle″ a ″major″ news story, and that Wikipedia editors were all working for &hellip; a U.S. music school. That's exactly the sort of overreaction that one gets from agenda-pushers, so you immediately triggered the response that agenda-pushers tend to get.  Try to bear in mind that most people editing Wikipedia will not have ever heard of this, any of the people involved, or the news coverage thereof; any more than you will have heard of, say, I Monetary Advisory.
 * Having read the Inquirer pieces, I have to agree that the Gary Graffman biography is really not the place for this, as there's really nothing (yet) to say about xem based upon the sources so far, two news cycles in, and what you did say was close to innuendo.
 * I would definitely not have written things the way that you did. Readers need to know facts, not that a particular source was the front page of a newspaper, and the focus should be what was reported.  In 2019, St. John made public for the first time her long-standing allegations that [&hellip;] maybe, or some such.  Explaining to Wikipedia editors the relevance, reliability, and depth of a source is what talk pages are for.  Also remember that the Inquirer outright told you that some of the claims are disputed by the different parties.  You wrote them as fact.
 * Thank you for the tips, @Uncle G. Given the difficult subject matter, I understand someone quibbling with phrasing, but I did not write anything that could be described as libel or even innuendo. I restated the facts reported by the newspaper and described allegations as allegations. It remains the case that a major #metoo story involving Brodsky, St. John, Curtis, Graffman and Roberto Diaz has now been completely scrubbed from Wikipedia, and I don't think it's completely silly to be suspicious of the motivations for the scrubbing, particularly as WLP policies don't even apply in two cases out of five. Perhaps there is some more proper forum on WP for airing that suspicion -- I am not an expert on the site's etiquette -- but I do not agree that there is no cause for it. I believe there is plenty in this case that merits some talk among editors about the issues at hand, but it does not seem like a good outcome to expunge every reference to it on WP. Additionally it does not appear to me to be good etiquette to delete reasonable edits wholesale and provide bland technical assertions as the only justification. Nonetheless I would welcome a compromise. As @Drmies suggested, there will certainly be more to come on the story, and I expect it will make its way back into WP eventually, without any involvement on my part.
 * Please read and consider WP:DUE. You are correct, however, that if this belongs in the encyclopedia you will not need to be advancing it against a crowd of dissenting editors.  SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI, to those interested in this case, the Philadelphia Inquirer has now published several more articles on the story in question, including a board editorial (https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/editorials/curtis-institute-sexual-assault-allegations-jascha-brodsky-20190805.html) and an opinion piece by another alumna (https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/curtis-institute-sexual-assault-allegations-response-20190802.html). It has been picked up by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/lara-st-john-sexually-assaulted-1.5234406), Violinist.com (https://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20198/27864/), The Strad (https://www.thestrad.com/news/curtis-institute-apologises-for-handling-of-recent-historical-sexual-abuse-claims/9305.article), The Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/violinist-lara-st-john-says-she-was-sexually-assaulted-by-her-teacher-at-the-curtis-institute), Musical America (www.musicalamerica.com behind a paywall) and other relevant outlets. I thought the cautious approach suggested last week by Drmies made some sense, but the information is still nowhere to be found in WP. I am clearly in no position to reinstate the information, as I do not have sufficient status on WP to make it stick. I will certainly not edit any of these articles again; I do not have any appetite for engaging in disputes with strangers out there on the internets. But to me it seems glaringly biased not to permit the info to appear even in Lara St. John's article -- even if you believe the story is at an early stage. This episode will obviously remain part of her bio for keeps, whatever your expectations may be for how it plays out.Deckoffa (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly, for whatever reason, this matter is of much greater importance to you than it is to most of the world. Because the three people mentioned in this thread are famous worldwide, it seems appropriate to err on the side of caution and await broader mainstream coverage of the matter.  When its significance is established by diverse mainstream sources, (not musical america, the strad, etc.) I doubt that anyone on Wikipedia will be opposing appropriate article text.  SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:SPECIFICO, I disagree. Deckoffa, I do not want you to be discouraged from editing. and others offered some suggestions, and if you stick to them, you should be fine. I don't have time right now to do this work, but I hope you will try to write some neutral text for the St. John article. Sorry, gotta run. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair game for St. John's article per WP:ABOUTSELF and the long-ago passing of Brodsky. But it's clearly UNDUE for Graffman's article, and it was not a good choice to insinuate it there. There's only one source, the Philadelphia Enquirer, from which the others paraphrased or condensed. Facts and concerns about the way Curtis is currently handling the story might go in the Curtis article, but not anything that could insinuate contemporaneous misconduct in the articles of the still-living individuals named in the Inquirer story.  SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, why has the news about Placido Domingo been allowed to remain on WP when it is based on one, very similar, major source -- the investigative piece from the AP? The circumstances are nearly identical, other than that Jascha Brodsky is long deceased and less famous than Domingo. The editorial reasoning that led to the deletion of the Brodsky/St. John story would suggest that the Domingo story should be deleted as well.Deckoffa (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Jose Areas
This article contains a reference to the subject being a child molester. The reference is in the first line, very prominently displayed. The reference is not sourced and should be altered or removed if it cannot be sourced.
 * UPI and SFGate from 1996 are sources (irregularly reffed). Rolling Stone in 2016 mentions this: .Icewhiz (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "arrested for", "suspicion of", "allegedy". Where is the source that says convicted of?  This came up in /Archive207 in 2014, and no source saying that was proffered then, either. Uncle G (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * gets brownie points for the phrase "irregularly reffed"., please fix your typo; I've lost all faith in you being perfect.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Santana IV article makes reference to a conviction based on a WP:PRIMARY source that seems dubious. YMMV. Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ETA the reason I say the primary source is dubious is because Regalis Info Systems is a private company but doesn't make it clear that they aren't an arm of the US government on their website. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the child molester material from the article along with the unreliable source that supports it. That website is not a government website. Nor is it a reliable source. Notice it has no About section on it that explains what it is. It supposedly finds material on government websites, but such a site cannot be used to support criminal charges or convictions of BLPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems like the wise course of action to me. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The material in the commercial website was derived from the California Office of the Attorney General's "Megan's Law" website page on "Areas, Jose Octavio", which lists him as having been convicted of "Lewd or Lascivious Acts With a Child Under 14 Years of Age" in 1997 and released in 1998. So, we have a government-maintained website attesting to Areas' having been convicted of lewd acts with a child under 14. Do we place that on this man's page? It's not a trivial question and I'd like input from others.--loupgarous (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Kathryn Sheffield
This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification.

This biography of a living person relies too much on references to primary sources.

This biographical article is written like a résumé.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.231.0.99 (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Article had very limited citations, one of which was a dead link (with nothing in wayback), and the other didn't refer to the article subject, nor support the claimed award. I BLP:PROD'd it.  BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Felix Velarde
Content sourced to sources by the subject rather than about the subject, unsourced parrotting of the subject's autobiographies, synthesis and extrapolation of facts from advertisements advertising future events. Some attention is needed. Uncle G (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Peter Ellis (childcare worker)
Peter Ellis (childcare worker) is a BLP, which contains a lot of distressing details. It's recently been heavily rewritten by an SPA. I have previously taken a pretty strong stance on the issues so don't count as impartial. Could someone with a strong stomach please take an objective look. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand the problem, looks fairly neutral to me. You'll have to be more specific. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I apologize, I didn't recognize what you wrote about the article being potentially too disturbing to read. The current condition looks ok to me as far as fairness. I'll take another look at the changes. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This article does need a close look. I'm running into statements like "Ellis was extremely popular with children and parents at the Creche", unattributed, and even the website (!) it's based on has a kind of attribution. Oh--I see now that the site is an advocacy thing. And this particular text is most likely a copyvio, copied from an article in North and South. Among the sources are also other texts from that same website (not lifted out of newspapers and magazines) like this one, and we simply cannot accept this. What kind of section title is "How it began"? Who wrote this? Drmies (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would like to know how well you are acquainted with our policies and guidelines. I would also like to know what "Removed unnecessary detail" really means--it's a phrase you have used many times for many big deletions. And I wonder if you realized that this edit will make other editors have serious questions about your neutrality. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I restored the version from before Friggenfright edited but immediately realized that doesn't solve much. The article does need attention and review... —DIYeditor (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did a copyvio search based on this article and removed a paragraph which I'm pretty certain is a copyvio (original source was from 1993, potentially in a book). There may be other instances of copyvio in offline sources, so this will require a close review. SportingFlyer  T · C  07:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion is taking place on the article talk page. It looks like Friggenfright's efforts were in good faith but may need some oversight from more experienced editors. Wholesale trimming of the article was not misplaced in principle. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Albert Toney III
User named Daubje is repeatedly harassing Albert Toney III, a living person, by inserting an edit numerous times regarding a personal civil matter, not a person's accomplishments. It's frivolous information that has no reason to be in a living person's bio. Can we end this matter once and for all or does the edit have to be deleted every time they do it? AKT2vists (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)AKT2vistsAKT2vists (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Given a final warning on their talk page. I do note that if third-party RSes had noted the civil case against Toney (in a manner that made it DUE), but left out the resolution of the case, using court documents in that fashion is acceptable, But the civil case doesn't appear to have ever appeared in RSes, so it is correct to have it removed. --M asem (t) 21:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted Daubje's edit on their own talk page, but it should really be revdel'd or at least hidden, given the content. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed and done. --M asem (t) 15:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Richard Marais
A complaint regarding the following entry in the above article (which we have removed but is persistently re-inserted) :

''On 16 April 2019, the University of Manchester in UK issued a press release. This was followed up by an explosive report by German Science Journalist Leonid Schneider at the blog ForbetterScience.comthe story is currently tagged with more than 130+ comments and fast growing on the google ranking. Marais is still to issue a public response. It is clear that principal investigator always have responsibility in scientific misconduct as the person ultimately responsibility for oversight of any publication emerging from the laboratory.''

This complaint concerns one Leonid Schneider who runs a blog dealing with scientific misconduct in which he is self appointed arbiter, judge and jury. This behaviour has already led to his conviction and fining for libel by a German Court. Here he has sought to interfere with a basic 4 paragraph Wikipedia entry on Professor Richard Marias by inserting a paragraph concerning the alleged fraudulent behaviour of a single member of staff out of approximately 900 people in the Manchester CRUK Institute of which Richard Marais is the Director. It was Professor Marais himself that identified the issue and reported this (former) member of staff to the authorities where there is at present an ongoing disciplinary process. There is no imputation whatsoever on the behaviour of Professor Marais, who at all times has behaved in a professional and ethical manner.

Yet the contested entry seeks to imply the opposite. Further it is out of context of the rest of the entry, it is misleading, it is unverified, it is there basically to publicise Schnieder's own blog. In short it breaches many Wikipedia guidelines on the biograpies of living persons policy and should not be there. Yet every time it is removed, he, or one of his agents reinserts it.

Further and more specifically the Schneider entry is wrong and misleading in that: 1. The 16th April press realise is out of context to the rest of the biography. 2. The "explosive report" is Schneiders subjective view only of the impact of his own blog. 3. The final sentence, is factually as well as grammatically incorrect.

For the above reasons we assert that there has been a violation of the biographies of living persons policies and accordingly request you put a block to prevent any further unauthorised amendments to this article with immediate effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Barristadolas (talk • contribs)


 * Forbetterscience.com does not appear to be a WP:RS - let alone one for BLP controversies. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The sourcing being used here outright fails WP:BLPSPS - a Twitter message and a blog are not sufficient to include these types of allegation, and even according to the blog, the U Manchester's press release was removed. There's nothing usable to source the section so its removal is 100% appropriate. --M asem (t) 14:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also to add, its unfortunately a very slow edit war, but you El Barristadolas, appear to be fully in your right to revert without incurring edit warring per WP:3RRNO. If it continues, seek out page protection. --M asem  (t) 14:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have filed a Request for Page Protection, due to ongoing IP attempts to include "controversy" sourced to a self-published source. I will note, however, that the matter was never brought up on the talk page, which should be done when in an edit war if only to establish that there were concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I found three other BLPs referencing Scheider's self-published work, so I have blacklisted this domain and his Twitter. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Borče Sredojević

 * Diff: here 1
 * Diff: here 2

User keeps reverting poorly sourced information/statements. Article fails WP:V, with reference both inline and external links that are scarce, biased and unreliable for article on BLP: unreliable and biased (Sportlive.ba), extremely politically biased and slanted toward narrow local ethno-national subjects and perspectives (Glas Srpske), and self-published (Zerodic.com with sort of blog-like or forum-like discussions; also, affiliated article on alleged "national" team, which serves as a sort of background support for claims put forward here, is based on even weaker and fewer references, just two or three, one of which is another self-published mysterious "Non-FIFA News agency" which is private blog (last time they published in 2012 were hosted at blogger.com, defunct since that times, or changed hosting service)). I removed and rephrased the content so that can be verified with existing sources, but User:FkpCascais keeps reverting it while completely ignoring my Talk page discussion initiation, although they use it as a sort of diversion as they keep suggesting how I should use Talk page.

Also, User:FkpCascais also rationalize their revert only through edit-summary, but in dishonest and misleading manner, claiming alleged agreement on pushing ethnic adherence of persons (footballers, coaches, etc.) into the lead of Bosnia (and/or Balkan) football and sport BLP's, which is untrue and simply unacceptable as it would mean that editors can go against Wikipedia guidelines, namely WP:OPENPARA, WP:Lead, MOS:BLPLEAD and WikiProject Football/Players MOS, just to conform with Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak, Albanian, or any other editors' ethnic and/or national(ist) feelings and reflexes.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  22:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

FkpCascais, what say you? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

FkpCascais's topic ban from the Balkans was just lifted by Sandstein in June. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, User:FkpCascais is mostly fixated on my inner motives, intimate thought processes and personality, complaining about it by putting forward various innuendos and mind-reading recapitulation - allow me to say, their only arguments are ad-hominem - which they posted everywhere else except on disputed articles Talk pages - so they remark here that I hold "strong feelings" against one of the administrative entities in Bosnia, and "trying to discredit and erase everything related to it", while user complains how they themselves and their fellow "Serbian editors are a but tired of that attitude against our articles, template and categories, etc."(!?). Similarly, they than turned to what they perceive a "friendly" sysop with the following incredible complaint-pleading. However, user started "resolving" dispute by discarding WP:GF completely, and making strange remarks and requests like here and here. For entire duration no input was given at any of disputed articles TP by user, although he gladly suggest that to me, I guess to discuss things there with myself - to which user replied in edit-summary, again, while reverting yet again, that there is no problem with references whatsoever and proceeded to discuss this matter on, to me, a random sysop (linked above), which I found accidentally.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  09:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I answered on the talk-page of the article. The editor is removing perfectly fine sourced information just because deals with an issue he wants to see erased Republika Srpska official football team. If the editor wants to see the article deleted, he should make a proper RfD before going around erasing information from individual articles, and calling perfectly fine sources unreliable just because they deal with something he unfortunatelly dislikes. I believe the user should be warned not to erase sourced information like that. FkpCascais (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And no, that is not ad hominem, I just speak streight without pretending anything. This is currently a highly politicized matter in Bosnia, there is a tendency ammong nationalist Bosniaks to consider anything regarding Republika Srpska as "offensive". Well, I am sorry, this is not Bosnia, this is English-language Wikipedia, and we should keep neutrality above anything here. FkpCascais (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * User assumes a lot, and all to often brings misleading claims into debate, instead of focusing on contentious matters and given arguments, such as usage of unreliable and biased sources for BLP. Everything I did can be easily checked in "diff's". Now I'm going to try and clarify some more:
 * - locally based and ideologically driven media outlet, run by unique identity group exclusively, which is closely affiliated to local-entity government, ruling party and its boss, whose separatist rhetoric is naturally mirrored for decades in this media outlet, which is disturbing enough matter for international community and its representatives in Bosnia-Herzegovina can't be considered reliable and neutral - in other words, everything they write should be taken with a grain of salt size of a mountain
 * - another unreliable source, an obscure sport portal is used - of all Balkan's high-quality sport portals editor(s) includes this website because it confirms its article claim, which can't be found anywhere else - and as the article claim itself is extraordinary so it demands high-quality source, not some obscure Internet site;
 * - but even if we agree to use this obscure sport site, and this biased and ideologically driven media outlet, and if they are really giving us neutral and reliable information which can be used to confirm and verify these particular article statements, than, it shouldn't be problem to find same information in all those high-quality media outlets too, or at least these information should be widely disseminated through other media as well, if they are really valid (notable and verifiable) editors should be able to find some and put in the article next to one which are contentious.


 * But trouble is there are no other sources for such information whatsoever, whether low or high-quality, and that's why User:FkpCascais focus on me - giving us lessons in history, ethno-nationalism, politics, assuming a lot on my own privacy, what is or may be my identity, knows my feelings, my personality, what I think, what I'm gonna do, and than tries to use that against me, instead of focusing on searching for quality sources.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Santa, so after all, I was right, the only thing that mattered to you regarding that article was really his link with Republika Srpska official football team, both as player back in 1992, and his nomination for main coach in 2008 (your edit). At that time he was just another in your list of targets, as you did the same at Stojan Malbašić and Vlado Jagodic. Your goal was to empty the categories so you could further back up your proposal for deletion. That is dishonest, you should propose the deletion first, you know that very well, and not delete the category from all articles and then ask to delete it as useless.
 * Second thing, now that the article gained attention, seems so nice from you the effort you made to improve the article, thank you. However, you didn´t fixed the main problem, which is why you remove info about R. Srpska, and worste, you remove valid categories for which you still didn´t got the answer if are going to be deleted, or not. You should restore them, and wait.
 * Third thing, your personal opinion about Glas Srpske as source, based on your conspiracy theory about some political parties drama in Brcko (its in his comments at bottom of Talk:Borče Sredojević), misstrust in, how you call it, "boss" Milorad Dodik (he is the current president of Republika Srpska), and further claim that " Glas Srpske is the local ideologically driven media outlet, based in Srpska entity, and run by Serbs exclusively,..." is very anti-Serbian biased and really offensive. It could even make sense if we were talking about some highly disputed political issue, but we are talking sports, football. What are they, because they are Serbs, they are going to lie the result? Lie the name of the players? You went way beyond here. Republika Srpska is not only a totally legal democratic entity today, but you, from your perspective suggesting is some sort of North Korea is instane. Much more, again, speaking about only a football game. And yes, it was a game of Republike Srpska, obviously the best source for the line-up of the game will be a source from... R. Srpska (!?).
 * Fouth thing, me giving lessons on history? Yes, it was a game played in 1992, an era before internet, so obviously we don´t have all major international sports websites talking about it. Also, at that time, in 1992, that team played as a national team of an unrecongnised country, as one of many new teams comming out from what was ex-Yugoslavia, so the game by that gains much in importance giving its historical context.
 * Why don´t you say it streight? Your problem is with Republika Srpska, which has its Football Association of Republika Srpska and its team, Republika Srpska official football team. Instead of you going directly to the articles and provide your reasons why you think they should be deleted, you are going around deleting information about it from biographies, related articles and trying to erase related categories. It´s a no-no. FkpCascais (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And just to add one final important explanation, Republika Srpska official football team is one of the many teams from the Category:European national and official selection-teams not affiliated to FIFA. When coaches are appointed to some of those teams, we add that information to the article, we add the participation of players in games of those teams, that information is valid per WP:FOOTY. You disliking one particular team and going around removing everything you can regarding it, is wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * For gazillionth time: you should focus on finding reliable and neutral sources not me and my prerogatives as your peer-editor, such as my right to dispute biased source - I hope that you read WP:Sources at least once to know that it's editors who question and establish source neutrality and reliability, not some invisible force. You should focus on my arguments, not on making allusions and insinuations about my preferences, and my intimate thoughts - because don't get me start about your own behavioral and POV pushing history regarding editing in Balkan scope and your treatment of fellow editors, I can shift my focus too, only that's won't improve my arguments one bit, neither will your focus on me and what may or may not be my inner drive or (dis)liking improve yours.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  23:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And since you are assuming and insinuating about my motives regarding questioning sources such as Glas Srpske, here's the most recent report on thorough research of Bosnia and Herzegovina media - Disinformation in the Online Sphere: The Case of BIH - created by main fact-checking organization Zastone.ba working in the region of former Yugoslavia (there are couple of these organizations, they are based in Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro - they cooperate really, really closely, share everything and often come out as one):
 * in Briefing at china-cee.eu (PDF link is included at the page)
 * same report on zastone.ba web-portal, here's direct PDF link: here's direct PDF link
 * briefing at EU Bosnia (europa.ba) web portal with PDF link included: EU Bosnia
 * Report is just above 100 pages long, and here's two excerpts regarding Glas Srpske among few other outlets:
 * - The report on political disinformation in BIH specifically tracked down Russia`s state-run propaganda machine (such as RT and Sputnik) contributing to the influence campaign in BIH by serving as a source to SRNA (RS News Agency), RTRS (RS Radio-television), Glas Srpske (main public daily in RS) in distributing the most of political disinformation in BIH.
 * - The only exception is Bljesak, the one media from the Federation of BiH which remains in the large disinformation hub through strong connections with several media located in Serbia (Sputnik, Informer) and Republika Srpska (RTRS, Glas Srpske).


 * Here's connection between media outlets in Republika Srpska and ruling party SNSD and it's leader M.Dodik:
 * Fact-checking organization Raskrinkavanje (partner of the above mentioned Zastone.ba) analysis: Krizni PR Dodika

-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  00:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Am I mistaken to remove sources which contradict later claims made by two Republika Srpska Football association operatives in following interview, which appeared in another interesting source offered by FkpCascais himself at one point after spending two days digging it out around Internet, only to shoot himself in the foot as he obviously read only bits of its text without noticing glaring contradiction and obvious refutation of his own previous claims and claims found in references.
 * Interview with these two R.Srpska FA operatives is conducted by Serbian media outlet sometime in August 2010, so I am going to translate only relevant bits and operative's responses from Serbo-Croatian, which still comprise of considerable portion of the published text:
 * Article intro states:
 * "The Republika Srpska football team will play its first official game in September [2010] in Novi Grad / Bosanski Novi, it is announced from the Republika Srpska Football Federation through Belgrade media.
 * Editorial:
 * "Interestingly, the match between the Republika Srpska and Serbia was recently agreed, but FIFA intervened and threatened to disqualify Serbia if it dared to play that match." (they referred to some celebration from previous year, but this or any other match never took place)
 * Branko Lazarević reply (FA operative introduced as "Director of all FA teams"):
 * "Even though our team has not played any matches, we have the coat of arms, the jerseys are in sale, and the Republika Srpska Fan Association has been established.";
 * Slobodan Tešić reply (introduced as another RS FA operative):
 * "There is no longer any reason for us not to play matches. It is time for the RS national team to come to life and get the place it belongs to and to start representing Republika Srpska football".
 * By the way, note that at the very moment when some writer claims that Borče Sredojević is or will be appointed RS national team manager, Sredojević is already employed by Bosnian FA as assistant manager on Bosnian national team for three years and will continue in that role for four more years, reaching WC 2014 finals in Brazil.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Eric Alexander (jazz saxophonist)
Disambiguation page for Eric Alexander shows Eric Alexander (jazz saxophonist) "(born 1977)" whereas the main article states he was "(born August 4, 1968)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.229.149.212 (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, there's nothing about date of birth in the "bio" on Alexander's own site, and other supposed biographies on the web merely quote that one. Nor on his official facebook page. Allmusic.com has August 4, 1968, so I've changed the disambiguation page. But I could wish we had a better source. Bishonen &#124; talk 08:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC).
 * What's wrong with either of Richard Cook's books? The The Penguin guide to jazz on CD gives just 1968, but that's enough for the disambiguator.  Then there's  which gives day, month, year, and place of birth. Uncle G (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Adam Everett Livix‎
Adam Everett Livix‎ and Articles for deletion/Adam Everett Livix could use some eyes versed in BLP policy. Subject had some coverage in late 2014 following his arrest on a rather wild and wide ranging set of plots - our article is based mainly on this burst of initial coverage. However, he was subsequently: "Livvix was judged to be psychotic and found unfit to stand trial. Since then, he has been held in a mental institution in Israel. Earlier this week, Livvix was returned to Illinois, where he faces charges for stealing farm equipment" per LA Weekly. Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for alerting us to this. Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail on BLPs
How come there are almost 1000 BLPs which use the Daily <Mail as a reference? --174.254.66.213 (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * sofixit? Guy (Help!) 23:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Easily said. What about restoring them? Currently at AN/I. My goodness, you have some problems in your community. --69.120.40.196 (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral statements of incontrovertible relevant facts should not be removed simply because they are cited to the DM. You may replace the citation if you find another that covers all of the cited material, but statements cited to the DM should not be removed unless they are clear-cut gossip or irrelevant trivia. Softlavender (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. --69.120.40.196 (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I must concur with my IP colleague's identification of a veritable plethora of bovine excrement in Softlavender's claim. "Neutral statements of incontrovertible relevant facts" that are cited to the Daily Mail should have the citation replaced if possible, and if not the citation to the Daily Mail should be replaced with a Citation Needed tag. The use of the Daily Mail as a reference is to be generally prohibited. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, if you cannot source it to anything but the DM, then it's highly likely to be said bovine excrement. Regards So  Why  14:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just sayin'. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." If you add that to WP:BLP, a delete on sight approach is not unreasonable, but of course it's better to try to find a good source first. Restoring deleted DM stuff would seem to fall under WP:ONUS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems obvious to me. In practice, we have an editor restoring multiple swathes of garbage sourced to this poor source, without demonstrating any onus, and (so far) without facing any sanction. Most of the material is still there. Very poor. --69.120.40.196 (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We had two RFCs on this, both with clear-cut outcomes. WP:BLP is also very clear that the standard for sourcing for BLPs in particular is very high.  On BLPs, the Daily Mail should be removed on sight without exception, outside of perhaps the very narrow case where the Daily Mail's own views are the subject of discussion; and restoring it is a clear-cut WP:BLP violation. If you think the removed text is uncontroversial, find a WP:BLP-compliant source and restore, but do not add or restore the Daily Mail as a source to a BLP - at a bare minimum, given the BLP concerns, you would need consensus on talk per WP:BLPRESTORE. If the text seems uncontroversial, the text could be left with a fact tag rather than being removed, but citing the Daily Mail in a BLP is worse than citing nothing at all (since it could mislead readers into believing the text is legitimately sourced and can delay finding a meaningful source for the statement in question.)  EDIT:  Also, as an observation on reviewing the disputed edits - on multiple occasions you seem to have restored the Daily Mail when we were already citing better sources.  It's hard to know what to make of that - there's definitely no defense for citing the Daily Mail when better sources are available. --Aquillion (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Left hand, meet right hand: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015. Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Re: "Neutral statements of incontrovertible relevant facts should not be removed simply because they are cited to the DM." I strongly disagree. If it is only in the Daily Mail, it isn't incontrovertible. We have caught them outright making things up too many times. And if it is also in another source, use that source. Also, even if the material itself appears to have zero problems, we should not cite the Daily Mail. Again and again we have seen them grab something from another source, added a few made up details to make it better clickbait, and publish it as if they wrote it with one of their writers as the "author". Thus any time we cite the Daily Mail we are very likely to be linking to a copyright violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the time editors would have used the Daily Mail because it was more convenient for them, not because it said something other sources did not. Also, a lot of their stories are picked up from wire services. So unless information is dubious or violates weight, it's better to find other sources. I recommend The Express which is almost identical to the Daily Mail in its coverage. TFD (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That isn't what the RfC concluded. May be some problems using the Express on BLPs too, as it's a tabloid with a poor reputation. So I don't think that's a good bit of advice. 82.132.217.13 (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Re: "That isn't what the RfC concluded.", here is what the RfC concluded:


 * "Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference.


 * The general themes of the support !votes centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication. Examples were provided to back up these claims. The oppose !votes made three main arguments:


 * The Daily Mail is actually reliable for some subjects. This appears to have been adequately addressed by the support !voters: if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead.


 * The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically, and it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion. These seem to be good points, but should come up very rarely. Editors are encouraged to discuss with each other and apply common sense in these cases.


 * Singling out one source does not deal with the other poor sources that are currently permitted. This point is outside the scope of this RFC, which concerns only the Daily Mail. However, the discussion is closed without prejudice towards future discussions on such sources.


 * There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate." --WP:DAILYMAIL


 * So the question of whether we should use the Express is irrelevant (but feel free to post an RfC about us not using it as a source) and we are definitely encouraged to review and remove/replace the many places where The Daily Mail is still used as a source.


 * It is a big job, but if we work together we can do it. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I will add that the IP in question seems to have been removing text wholesale, which IMHO should only be done when either it's controversial in some manner, potentially defamatory, or there's reason to believe a better source can't be found. The appropriate thing to do is to remove the cite to the Daily Mail and replace it with a fact tag, ideally after a quick search to try and find a better source. --Aquillion (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That also wouldn't be very good. WP:BLPSOURCES requires decent, non-tabloid sourcing for anything on a BLP. --82.132.186.187 (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Understand that mass undertakings (here, going through and removing DM sources and material sourced to it) in a single swift action would be a problem step per WP:FAIT. We know DM has to be fixed, but whereas DM has some problem articles, not all of what they publish is falsification, and so in many of these cases, I would expect the same information can be sourced to a more reliable work. That will take some time, unless someone puts a task force together. (Remember, WP is a volunteer project) Now, on the other hand, adding a new DM source can clearly be stopped, and IIRC it is already on an editing blacklist to warn editors about this. It's just going backwards take more effort. --M asem (t) 19:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Mail on the Daily Mail
A while back on the talk page, a former WMF Audit Committee / Wikimedia Nederlands board member posted a link to the Google notification that the article had been partially de-referenced. It turns out that this is related to a lawsuit Carina Trimingham lost (cf.  ). In that decision, the judge said that "his judgment was not a licence 'to repeat the words complained of indefinitely or in any circumstances', as it was not a libel action in which a defence of truth had been proved." (source) Still, it's interesting that Google is substituting its enforcement power to that of a UK judge. Should en.wp remove the Daily Mail article mentioning Trimingham in the entry? Should it include the Daily Mail's comment on their ban from en.wp? 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 13:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Using the Daily Mail for words directly attributed to the work or from its staff to support articles that are about the DM or events they have been involved beyond a media participant is fine. This is akin to BLPSPS - we normally would avoid a bad SPS but allow the BLP's own SPS where quoting them is appropriate for inclusion. --M asem (t) 13:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because we notionally can doesn't mean we should. A secondary source is still preferable. --Aquillion (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggest using this source:

Mayhew, Freddy. "Wikipedia ban condemned by Daily Mail as 'cynical politically motivated attempt to stifle the free press'" Press Gazette, 10 Feb 2017


 * Suggested edit:

The Mail responded by stating: "It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry at this move by Wikipedia – a website that is notorious for its own inaccuracy and false truths, and which was co-founded by a man who doctored his own biographical entry." Hillbillyholiday, who initiated the discussion which led to the ban, admitted to "using Mail-style tactics of blatant sensationalization [sic] and flagrant misrepresentation of sources," adding that it, "seemed rather ‘poetic’ at the time."

Seems reasonable? 3 WAY WIKI ROSS (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * How's about just "The Mail responded by stating: "It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry at this move by Wikipedia – a website that is notorious for its own inaccuracy and false truths, and which was co-founded by a man who doctored his own biographical entry."??? Also, is it a BAN? Or just an instituted policy not to use the DM as a single source for information for BLPs? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In particular, mentioning Hillbillyholiday by name is completely inappropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No, he's not been getting a very good press, lately. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is off-topic and would better be covered on Talk:Daily Mail, where I believe it has been discussed at length. --Aquillion (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Re "is it a BAN? Or just an instituted policy not to use the DM as a single source for information for BLPs", please read WP:DAILYMAIL. In the closing comments, do you see anything that says anything about BLPs? Or does it say that the Daily Mail is generally unreliable, and its use as a source is to be generally prohibited? Does it say that the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability and should not be used as a source in articles, or does it say something else? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Laurent Koscielny
Due to his recent departure to Bordeaux from Arsenal F.C, Koscielny's Wikipedia page was adorned with a snake emoji, which is defamatory content. Although I have removed the content posted, there is still a possibility that more libelous content could be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natan191 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Supermodel
This is on labeling certain models as "supermodel" in their lead paragraphs. I personally think they shouldn't be labeled as such even though their supermodel status are rock solid like Bundchen and Schiffer. Being a supermodel is not a job per se, you don't label someone a "superstar" or a "sex symbol" as form of identification in the lead paragraph. It will also lead to other models-of-the-moment to be labeled as "supermodel" based on random articles here and there. Thoughts? Maxen Embry (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In the interest of keeping the discussion all in one place, I'm noting here that for those interested in participating, the poster has already initiated a discussion on this topic at WP:Village pump (miscellaneous).  C Thomas3   (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Zoe Telford
Please stop reverting the changes I made on the page. They are well sourced and updated. Ms. Telford is one of the most established actresses in British TV - she is not one of those one and done persons. If there were any errors, they were not intentional. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.D.Tipper (talk • contribs) 15:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Jayley Woo ‎and Aloysius Pang
Requesting rev/deletion of multiple disruptive edits to both articles. Also a block of the two responsible registered accounts would be helpful. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The two accounts are ✅ and blocked. Cheers.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bbb. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Mohamad Barakat
Single purpose accounts repeatedly delete information based on reliable sources and spread advertisements, text in Portuguese and misnamed sources    in the article about this Brazilian ophthalmologist known internationally for his involvement in sports doping. I suggest to permanently block Rafaelbernardes who did this again even after a warning. moved the article to Draft:Mohamad Barakat after it was vandalized again by the same single purpose account, just after I had put this note here. Please block this user permanently. Omikroergosum (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Sydney Ember's page repeatedly vandalized
After writing a piece on Bernie Sanders' presence at the Iowa State Fair for the New York Times, Sydney's page is repeatedly being vandalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.153.98 (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

BC Trans waxing case
There's an ongoing case before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal that deals with a trans woman who filed a complaint after she was denied waxing services at several salons throughout BC. The case has received some mainstream press coverage, and a lot of sensational coverage right-leaning websites, but it is not a major story as far as I can tell. Two questions have come up on the talk page:


 * 1) How much (if any) coverage is appropriate for the BCHRT page? Are edits like this one appropriate?
 * 2) Should we include JY's full name in the entry? The Tribunal previously subjected her name to a publication ban. That has been lifted, but WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLP1E might still apply here.

Any input is appreciated. Nblund talk 14:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * On the first point, I don't think it needs to go into that much detail, simple that the waxing businesses refused service on cultural and religious oppositions against servicing trans individuals. A reader can figure out the rest. On the second, I would omit at this point, BLPPRIVACY and all that. Yes, the news outs her, but we don't have to unless she opts to become a public figure herself.  (eg same logic we used at Star Wars Kid until he actually fully accepted his association with the name.) --M asem  (t) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "Question - do we have indication of WP:LASTING coverage of the incident in national or international press or is everything clustered right around the same time? In addition, was there any significant legal precedent set by the complaint? My initial reaction is no we don't include under WP:BLP1E but I would want more detail first. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm involved in editing this article and wanted to clarify some points. The first is that nobody, at this time, is proposing that the name be added to the article. The BCHRT held a hearing, but no decision has been reached. Once that decision is reached, I think it will be time to revisit the subject (including adding the name), as only then will we have an idea of what the legal precedent will be. Secondly, this individual is a fairly well-known activist (they recently spoke before the Canadian parliament) and they have made numerous public comments and statements about this case. They're also a contestant a national pageant. It's my personal opinion that they are not a "low-profile individual" as Wikipedia would understand that term, and therefore the name may be suitable for inclusion at the time a decision is reached and there is further coverage of that decision. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Was her name connected to this case when she testified? I can't really find a story on that. The story is big in corners of the internet where trans people are a source of perpetual outrage, but not really in the mainstream press. It's clear to me that some other users (not you, Cosmic Sans) have tried to use the page to spread some serious BLP violations about her, which is part of why I'm especially concerned here. The speculation about her genitals seems like we're going out of our way to dwell on humiliating and salacious details about JY that have nothing to do with the Tribunal. Nblund talk 16:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (Thank you, I couldn't put a finger on what was nagging me about the overly described objections in your OP post, but that's basically it - it feels degrading to trans individuals to go into that much detail.) --M asem (t) 16:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We can present the facts neutrally and without being insulting to anyone. The legal question to be decided in this case is whether these salons acted in a discriminatory fashion by refusing to wax the biologically male genitalia of an individual who identifies as a woman. There's really no way to avoid discussing that. But when we do discuss it, we can do it without being gratuitous. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If the case is still ongoing, and no legal precedent has been set then I'd say WP:TOOSOON likely applies to including information; let's wait until her case achieves some WP:LASTING coverage. As for the subject's name, without WP:RS mention of her, it's hard to assess whether she's somebody Wikipedia would consider a public person. Furthermore, if this article is likely to be a target for transphobic WP:WEASEL entries, that would not incline me further toward a lenient interpretation of WP:LASTING, WP:BLPPRIVACY and frankly, with regard to the Human Rights Tribunal page in particular, WP:DUE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LISTCRUFT. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we agree that it's too soon. The immediate issue that has raised by posting here, though, is whether we should add any information that discusses these core allegations (e.g. the genitals issue) without stating a name. I don't think that raises any BLP concerns that this noticeboard could deal with, though, because it doesn't actually identify the complainant. In other words, NBlund's point one is a typical content dispute and not a BLP issue. NBlund's second point, though, refers to the use of the name - which is not actually happening on the page at the time. The impression I get, and nblund can correct me if I'm wrong, is that they believe the name should never be used. My position is that I'm reserving judgment until the decision comes down. In short, I don't see anything for this noticeboard to do at this time. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BLP applies if there is any potential for a specific individual to be identified, which is clearly what's at stake here. We're not talking a proverbial "Jane Doe" here, or a broad class of people. --M asem (t) 17:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If this becomes a landmark case that warrants extensive coverage, it might be reasonable to mention her name as part of that coverage for convenience sake. But I think that's unlikely. BLP relates to content about BLPs. Nblund talk 18:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting including the individual's name or new information sufficient to identify them. The individual became mainstream news within hours of the lifting of the publication ban so even the first sentence of the listing allows people to Google search and find her name. Stick to the issue you raised in the noticeboard and stop moving the damn goalposts. This was never a BLP issue. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * All in or all out. Note that the salon owners and workers are BLPs too. We can't only describe one side without the other. I would suggest leaving the waxing case out all together as NOTNEWS until there is a verdict either way - but if we are covering interim proceedings - the defense, which involves genetilla concerns is relevant to a bikini wax.Icewhiz (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We can easily describe the workers' side by stating "cultural and religious objections to serving trans clients", and not at all bring up genitalia (as, it should be obvious to a reader that a bikini wax is going to get to those areas). Respects their claims but also respects the trans indivdiual here. That said, of course, TOOSOON/NOT#NEWS is a fully acceptable argument to not include at this time. --M asem (t) 17:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Except, do they have "cultural and religious objections to serving trans clients"? I assume the salon does more than just full Brazilian waxes.  What if the trans client just wanted legs waxed and not bikini area?  I doubt they'd have the same objections then.  "Cultural and religious objections to serving trans clients" indicates they wouldn't serve her at all, whereas the impression I got was that they wouldn't provide this particular service to her. I think that's an important distinction. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Then just say "....cultural and religious objections to providing Brazilian waxes to trans persons." Again, a reader either knows or can quickly read from our article that a Brazilian wax includes areas around those parts, and thus should be very clear why it would raise these issues. There's more ways to phrase the objections raised by the waxers that give their side fairly without insulting the BLP at hand here. --M asem (t) 18:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources don't say the respondents refused service based on gender identity. Putting that in the article IS a violation of BLP. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this story is currently being covered mostly in the right leaning press, we're going to be hard pressed to offer a neutral take on it ourselves. I haven't seen any factual reporting on JY's genitals, and I really doubt we ever will, but as the National Post states, the core question is really: "should a business be allowed to deny service on the basis of gender identity?". That doesn't necessarily hinge on her anatomy. Nblund talk 18:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All in. The details nblund so desperately wants to remove from the article is what has made the waxing cases notable to begin with, period full stop. The waxing cases are about the allegation that salons refused service based on gender identity where the salons argue they refused service based on the presence of presumed physical testicles. The sources have not indicated the salons refused service due to gender identity- the complainant did. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's still more gentler ways to talk about the objections to handling male parts than what the phrasing had but respecting concerns of both sides.  Maybe  "....cultural and religious objections of handling trans women's private areas in their Brazilian waxing services."  (again, should be clear without descending into more explicit terms). --M asem  (t) 18:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources do not indicate the issue is about handling trans women's private areas. The sources indicate the issue is about handling gentically male genitals. There's no reason to be gentle here. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally, when one says "trans woman" we're usually talking pre-transition, so it will be fairly obvious to the reader what the situation is. The language that was being added was far too graphical, and entirely unneeeded to get the point across. --M asem (t) 19:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And, notwithstanding the question of whether discussion of a trans woman even should be anything to do with the state of her surgery, I'll reiterate that digging into the trousers of a WP:BLP is absolutely beyond the pale. Simply put, WP:PRIVACY should forbid intrusion into such a specific detail. Particularly in a way that allows Wikipedia to present a veneer of transphobia. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there's a difference between reporting the case, including the allegations of the case, and "digging into the trousers." I don't think anyone wants to do the latter. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * has threatened to use OS on the talk page. Wikipedia does not follow Canadian court orders and WP:NOTCENSORED applies. If there is consensus to include the name but DQ uses Oversight to remove it, please report her to WP:ARBCOM. w umbolo   ^^^  18:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's easy to see how raising the question of the state of an individual woman's gender confirmation surgery is a WP:BLP violation. If we must go "all in or all out" I'd say all out. WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS apply. Come back after the tribunal issues judgment. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the IP 75.162.75.252 is the same editor that was blocked previously for multiple BLP violations (which were oversighted) on this article (75.162.216.6 contribs). If Wumbolo wants to back that editor up, that's their choice. I don't think it's a particularly good idea, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Wumbolo, of all people, would want to be carefully adhering to WP:BLP in all circumstances right now. Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , given your past actions in recent days you are treading perilously close to an indefinite block for trying to intimidate an oversighter. has already warned you about your recent threats on your talk page, so I will make it even more clear: if an oversighter suppresses something and you or anyone restores it while it is still suppressed will be ’d. Suppression is a tool of first resort, and suppress first and discuss on list after. If there is a possibility of it being libelous or personally identifiable information, we will always suppress first and undo as needed, and your attempt to intimidate DeltaQuad here is unacceptable. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to involve myself in whatever dispute is going on here, but is a reminder that complaint about OS can be taken to Arbcom really tantamount to intimidation? I see it as something along the same vein as saying that edit warring can be reported to the edit warring noticeboard or something like that. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trust me, you really don't want to involve yourself in that dispute. If there is an OS block I'd strongly recommend you discuss that civilly and not immediately run to Arbcom, regardless of what Wumbolo might propose. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ArbCom can review oversight actions, yes, but saying “if you suppress, I urge anyone to take you to ArbCom” certainly is an attempt to prevent the use of suppression where it may be warranted. Suppression is a use first-discuss later tool, and an oversighter will almost always seek immediate review if they feel it may be controversial. Calling on suppression to be dependent on community consensus and threatening an ArbCom case over it is not what the intent of ArbCom review of OS actions is for, and certainly has a chilling effect. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ArbCom and CUOS serve the wiki-community not Canada, is all I wanted to convey. w umbolo   ^^^  19:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For context: DQ said they would oversight JY's name while the gag order was still in effect, and did so after it became abundantly clear that multiple single-purpose accounts were trying to publicize her name alongside a host of other completely egregious BLP violations. Cosmic Sans has raised a good faith content issue, but other editors were just trying to export some Reddit garbage to Wikipedia and there was absolutely no ambiguity about their motivations or the need for oversight. Nblund talk 19:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I haven’t looked at the original case, but my point was that we have someone basically telling an Oversighter they’re going to make their life difficult if they take a discretionary action that they would almost assuredly seek review on reeks of trying to create a chilling effect, and we should not tolerate that, especially on things that potentially impact real people. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I absolutely agree, I just wanted to emphasize that DQs threat of oversight was not a response to material that could ever be construed as a legitimate talk page discussion. Nblund talk 19:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Based on discussion here, including the well-received point by that the defendants in this tribunal should also have BLP protection, and in light of the use of transphobic dog whistles such as genetically male genetalia in this thread I've WP:BOLDly blanked the section on the article page. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Simon, I won't revert your blanking at this time but I don't think that it's founded in policy. WP:BLP refers to "full names." I don't see any policy stating that we can't even talk about the case in general terms simply because one of the unnamed parties might have BLP protection if they were to be named. Can you give me a direct quote that supports this interpretation of WP:BLP? Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC) By the way, I don't see any consensus on here or on the talk page that the section should not exist at all. It does appear that the consensus is that it should exist in some form. So I may end up reverting that. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a poor idea. Much better to err on the side of caution and leave it blanked until a consensus develops. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I ended up reverting it before I saw your reply. Nevertheless, from what I can tell (and correct me if I'm wrong), only Simon has expressed the opinion that the section should not exist at all. And I'm still unclear as to what policy, exactly, is being used to support this blanking. WP:BLP discusses full names. No full names are used. So where is the beef, so to speak? Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a trivial matter to access the name of the individual who submitted the tribunal complaint via the refs included in inline citations. This, taken together with rampant speculation about her genetalia in the article make for an absolutely egregious violation of WP:PRIVACY the technicality that you need to click one link to see her name doesn't excuse us of our duty to protect the privacy especially of private citizens who don't constitute Wikipedia's definition of a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. And based on my review of same sources, I'd suggest that the individual being discussed here is categorically not a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. She's a private individual, who should enjoy enough privacy to not have the state of her genitalia being speculated upon within an encyclopedia! Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Simon, I think we all agree that WP:BLP covers full names and birth dates, at least at a minimum. Your argument that someone could, with enough investigation, eventually discern an identity and that confers BLP protection so we just shouldn't discuss it at all does not appear founded in policy. Can you give me an exact quote from the policy on which you rely? Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy could be WP:BLPCRIME (as this is quite close) - we have a case involving the livelihood of several BLPs and the private parts of another BLP before a tribunal. We should be careful in our treatment of the case until it is resolved.Icewhiz (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really apply as nobody is accused of a crime here. But nevertheless, WP:BLPCRIME doesn't say that the case cannot even be discussed. I see no policy-based reason to blank this section. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * x3 So two things. First, what I'm arguing is, based on my interpretation of WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:PRIVACY we should err on the side of protecting the identity of private citizens. However you're selectively disregarding my deletion criteria which included not only WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:PRIVACY but also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Simply put, the notability of an event depends on that event having some lasting significance. A tribunal hearing a complaint does not confer lasting significance though a tribunal deciding upon a complaint might. When we balance the needs for WP:PRIVACY of private citizens with the demands that Wikipedia not be a news outlet but rather comment only on events with WP:LASTING significance, it's far better to err on the side of caution. As I mentioned at article talk, I think that a case might be made for re-inclusion after the tribunal reaches a decision. Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * x2 But also, yes, I support 's (admittedly broad) interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that's your interpretation, Simon, but I don't believe it to be a correct interpretation. Can you give me a specific quotation from Wikipedia policy that supports the contention that we cannot even discuss a pending case even if names aren't named? Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is WP:GREENCHEESE please describe why you find my interpretation of the interplay between multiple policies unconvincing. Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Simon, the reason you can't quote policy is because none exists to support your position. But if you'd like me to describe why I find it unconvincing, it's because BLP and BLPPRIVACY both talk about personal information in terms of full names, addresses, and the like. It does not support, in any way, the concept that even discussing a court case without naming names somehow implicates these policies. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How about we see how other regulars on this noticeboard feel about that. There's plenty of them who have been active in this discussion. And so far none of them have supported your position over mine. But rather than assuming, how about we wait and see what consensus is. If the consensus at the blp noticeboard is that my BLP and notability interplay concerns don't warrant the action I took I'll self-revert. If the consensus on this noticeboard is that I am correct in my interpretation, I'd ask you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In this case we are discussing allegations of human rights violations by private individuals (and not large corporations). This is skirting around the edges of criminal law given that the defendants are private, relatively unknown, individuals - and we should not imply these home salon workers were on the wrong side of the humans rights code prior to a verdict.Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A neutral presentation of the facts does not imply that the workers broke the law, just as a neutral presentation of fact under BLPCRIME is permissible. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And that still doesn't address WP:TOOSOON or WP:NOTNEWS in the slightest. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's different, Simon. A true BLP concern, founded in policy, can be grounds for an immediate blanking of the section and subsequent discussion at the BLP noticeboard. If your argument is simply TOOSOON/NOTNEWS, that should be taken up on the talk page and handled like any other content dispute. BLP concerns are considered more serious, and we can't conflate BLP reasons to delete something with TOOSOON/NOTNEWS reasons to delete something. As it stands, the best argument so far is that WP:BLPCRIME somehow applies even though there's no actual crime alleged, and even then it doesn't require blanking of this section because BLPCRIME does not prohibit discussing the crime in general terms without naming names. There really is no BLP-based policy reason to blank this section. If you are willing to rescind that argument and instead talk about TOOSOON/NOTNEWS, let's do that on Talk. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP in a nutshell, just says that BLP material "must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." The core policy concern is neutrality and weight, and I think there's a plausible case to be made that there's no way to cover this neutrally at the moment. Where we have the discussion is a different question. Nblund talk 20:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You call it "transphobic dog whistles" but others call it biology, see Male reproductive system. w umbolo   ^^^  19:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note Based on this discussion, I have closed the thread at WP:AN3 that Wumbolo raised against Nblund. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW Nblund violated 3RR but made a convincing case that they were removing BLP-violating content. I urge anyone reading not take any action against Nblund without additional evidence of wrongdoing. w umbolo   ^^^  19:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Gee thanks. I'll return the favor and assume this comment isn't as petty as it looks. Nblund talk 19:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Did you just revert back information with WP:BLP issues? Really? So when it's your own Arbcom enforcement case it's the most important thing but when its an actual article with BLP implications those don't matter? Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the name is the only issue at the article. Notice that I did not restore the controversial bit. w umbolo   ^^^  19:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea that discussing a court case in general terms without naming names somehow violates BLP is not founded in policy. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It pretty much is, quoting The section "mentions" this individual not by name but in a manner that it is rather easy to figure out who they are from online searches and other news reports. If a controversial claim is made to some person that can be readily identified - just not necessary on WP - BLP kicks in. It would be wholly inappropriate to say, in Wikivoice, "One of The Squad has been taken bribes for their vote." because we can narrow who that might be to one of four specific people, whereas "Some in the history of US Congress has taken bribes for their vote" is fine because the class of past Congresspeople is far too large to personally identify any specific one. (Though obviously, sourcing is required). --M asem  (t) 20:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , your quote from BLP only addresses who the policy applies to - it does not say that we cannot discuss a case even in the most general terms without the use of names. In fact, BLP discusses "full names" and "addresses" as examples of material we should be concerned about. If it truly supported your interpretation, why would it limit itself only to those two categories? The opinion that BLP forbids us from discussing a case even without names is not found anywhere in policy. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * At issue is that there is clearly a identifyable individual at the center of this case. Those are her complaints that drove the case. She is not an anonymous Jane Doe, but a person with a name we're just not including yet. BLP 100% applies to anything dealing with this case. Mind you, outside of repeating her name, the only issue I see at play is the excessive description of what the waxers' complaints were, everything else is necessarily part of covering the case in full (presuming we continue to include it). That's the caution that BLP emphasizes. --M asem (t) 20:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this section is particularly suspect because it seems like we're cramming it in so just so that we can talk about JY. If I go over to the page for Cleveland, Ohio and create a subsection where I talk at length about how Don King killed someone there in the 1960s, it would probably raise BLP concerns — even though it is true and even though it is probably acceptable on Don King's own entry — because it would be off topic and WP:UNDUE in a way that seemed to serve no purpose beyond publicizing a story that made him look bad. Nblund talk 20:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Excluding "genitalia" or other detailed descriptions in favor of "Brazilian wax" wikilinked to "bikini wax" is only appropriate if the RSs have describe the objections in those terms. Otherwise Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. How does the reader know exactly what the extent of a Brazilian wax is without having to look it up? How does the reader know the reason why a Brazilian wax has been described as objectionable without them connecting a lot of dots and making assumptions? Why obfuscate the actual objections? If the objection is stated as being to dealing with the individual's genitals, that's what the article should say. How is this related to BLP? People (usually) have genitalia, we aren't revealing any personal secrets. I think it would be a potential BLP violation of one side of the dispute to whitewash the issue. Also I think it is far from obvious to the reader that "trans woman" implies pre-transition? What do you call such a person post-transition if not "trans woman" as well, the other category being "cis woman", correct? The reader is supposed to know all this? I support the All in or all out position by. Either include both sides accurately or just leave it out because of TOOSOON, NOTNEWS and BLP considerations. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The National Post story describes it as a wax that involves "the removal of pubic hair around the groin". The various IP editors seem particularly preoccupied with specifying "male genitalia", "scrotum", or "penis and testicles", but there is no reliable reporting on her genitals, and including a debate about them on the BCHRT page seems pretty egregious - leaving it out entirely seems fairly reasonable to me.  Nblund talk 22:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, I should have investigated it more rather than just replying to what I saw here. We absolutely should not state anything that is not in secondary WP:RS coverage. I take it the Toronto Sun, National Review and Washington Examiner are not reliable sources (they do mention male genitalia). —DIYeditor (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's hard to imagine how they could have fact checked that particular claim, right? JY appears to have disputed it, and I don't really think anyone is going to learn anything about the BCHRT by reading a fact-free debate about whether or not someone has a penis and testicles. Nblund talk 23:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The efforts to hide the genitalia of the subject, and to blank it out, under the argument that "no reliable sources" cover it, came up to naught: "Yaniv, who identifies as female but has male genitalia", said the tax-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canada's federal broadcaster. XavierItzm (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * (ec) My issues was mostly with how the original statement describing the complaints of the waxers that seemed to me to glorify on the focus on genitalia, to the detriment of the trans woman at the center of the case, as if it were an insult toward them in Wikivoice (eg to me, reading "She's still has male parts, lets make a point to point this out"). We don't have to whitewash the word out, but we should be using it in a more respectful manner that covers why the workers have issues with performing the wax without glorifying the focus on it being about genitalia. I mean, here's a line from the Toronto Sun that I think is much more respective of the trans woman but still hits the point that the waxers had issue with, compared to what had been in our article "she was not comfortable carrying out a Brazilian wax on a person with male genitalia, nor did she have the training for it." ( - ignore the clickbait headline). I still fully agree with all in or all out, but I'm just saying "all in" does not require the type of language that was present to start. --M asem  (t) 22:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If the Toronto Sun is a reliable source shouldn't we include the specific objection? If the conclusions are obvious to the reader from "trans woman" and "Brazilian wax" then we are making the same BLP violation against the trans lady, and if it is not clear aren't we obfuscating the issue at hand? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming we're going "all in" 1) TSun is reliable, and 2) I have no problem with that being the description of the issue from the waxers side. I'm keeping in mind, in researching this, the person at the center of this case is getting very little media respect (eg NatRev and there's an article I won't link from Reason that has the name of the person in the link that are definitely loaded against this person); that Toronto Sun article is the first that gives a fair coverage of both sides without commentary. But because of the amount of poor reporting on this, I'm leaning more to keep this case out until there's clearly more reporting that is less critical of the issue and just reporting the facts. --M asem (t) 22:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Like OP, I see several questions: whether to include anything (I see the section has been removed), whether to give or link to RS which give the person's name, and apparently whether to get into the weeds of what a Brazilian entails. IMO the summary content we had on this (stably for the last few months, until the last 10-15 days) was OK—and dealt with complaints filed with this article's subject, which is the BCHR Tribunal, not the individual—though I certainly don't think it's so vital to understanding the article's subject (the Tribunal) that it has to be included, if others would prefer it be "all out". I don't think we need to add what a Brazilian wax is; an editor added "scrotum" on the 10th but I removed it because RS didn't get into such detail. Regarding the name, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Columbia_Human_Rights_Tribunal&type=revision&diff=907567702&oldid=904970776 comparing] the old version to the most recent version before blanking, it seems some user(s) wanted to add two sentences about the name initially being concealed and then revealed (sentences which, notably, don't actually bother to include the name, but linked to a source which did), which does seems excessive; iff we decide to include the name, or a ref which includes the name, I would simply add it to the first sentence...but, like Masem, I don't see that she's the sort of "public figure" who could be named, under BLP/BLPPRIVACY... -sche (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. Too soon. If this blows up into a big thing covered in multiple MSMs, and shows some kind of lasting impact, then I'd look into revisiting it, but at the moment this appears to be another headline of the week, and by next week will be all but forgatten. I say just wait and see how it plays out. But, most definitely, we should not be naming names. This person is not, by any stretch of the definition, a public figure. Zaereth (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would dispute the reliability of the Toronto Sun - they're a tabloid, and one of the worst tabloids in Canada. They regularly blend editorial and news, and have weak to absent fact checking. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In the UK the story has now been mentioned by The Guardian but so far only as opinion . Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned at article talk, per WP:EVENTCRIT the existence of coverage of the event does not confer notability since it could be seen as WP:ROUTINE - a human rights tribunal hears a human rights case. We should wait to find out if this tribunal case has a WP:LASTING impact before risking the WP:BLP minefield it's going to represent. Basically: until the tribunal makes a decision, this whole thing is an irrelevancy and BLP concerns should remain paramount. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You know, when you've been told an event doesn't meet notability guidelines and violates BLP as part of a larger article, creating an independent article is a violation of WP:POVFORK and a pretty severe one. Deletion discussion here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in any of the discussions or edit until now. This is a major case in Canada that has been covered by mainstream press. We don't have to name the complainant, but it should be noted that the BC Human Rights Commission made the hearings public because JY was so public herself. She has conducted many interviews. The reporting is not limited to describing the case, but how the Human Rights Commission operates. I'll add that JY is already part of Wikipedia in the Meghan Murphy and the Lindsay Shepherd articles describing twitter bans instigated by conflict with JY. Since reliable sources are germane, here are several from mainstream sources. I'm not including tabloid papers or any right wing media blogs etc:


 * CBC News with full names and details
 * Financial Post discussing issues with BC Human Rights Tribunal
 * Multiple National Post Articles and editorials, , ,
 * The Globe and Mail
 * The Guardian (UK)
 * PinkNews - an LGBT oriented publication
 * The Times (of London)
 * Global News (Canada)

This controversy is significant in that the Human Rights Commission has to balance differing rights and it raises very important questions. It doesn't need to include the more salacious aspects of JY's alleged communication with minors, or even her admitted dislike for some ethnic minorities. But there's no lack of verifiable sources that meet wikipedia's RS requirements.

Finally, regarding mention of her male genitalia, JY has acknowledged she's pre-op in public interviews and it goes to the core of the Human Rights issues. To wit, should women who only wax female genitalia be forced to handle male sex organs? That's fundamental to explaining this and the balancing of rights.Mattnad (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Application of WP:MUG
Has there ever been any consensus established on how WP:MUG is to be applied to infobox images? I guess that the fact that the section exists as part of WP:BLP means that there sort of is a consensus about this, but it's not clear how often it's applied. Two examples of this recently came up during a discussion at Commons: Jeremy Lemont Saunders and Victor Salva. The infobox images used in both of these article are mug shot photos. Both files seem to be properly licensed as WP:PD; so there's no copyright issues involved which will lead them to being deleted from Commons. Since both individuals are still living, it would be unlikely per WP:FREER for a non-free file to be uploaded and used for primary identification purposes, but a different freely licensed image could be used if found.The "Salva" article makes mention of him being convicted of a crime and serving a prison sentence, but it's a relatively small section of the article and doesn't appear to be the primary reason why Salva is Wikipedia notable. It could be argued that image's current use is justifiable, but it also seems a little undue. For reference, this was brought up at Talk:Victor Salva, but never addressed. The "Saunders" article, on the other hand, contains no content at all about crime or criminal conviction. Perhaps he was arrested, but there's nothing about it in the article (maybe there once was but it was removed); so, there's no context of any kind to justify using a mug shot photo in the infobox and no discussion of the image could be found on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A mugshot should only be used in the case where the only notability of the person is being convicted of a crime. Otherwise, it is taking away from the other notable factors and thus distasteful. (If the persons is convicted of a crime like in Salva, the mug shot can be used in that later section of the article, even if this means no infobxo image). --M asem (t) 22:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look . For reference, I came across these two articles per c:COM:VPC, but there’re probably more. What you posted is how I’ve always tended to interpret WP:MUG as it deals with BLP image use; however, I wonder if the same reasoning can also be correspondingly applied to articles about deceased individuals where a non-free image might be allowed per item 10 of WP:NFCI. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Same issue though: unless the deceased individual was only known because of their crimes, using a non-free mug shot as the infobox image is not appropriate, and there would be less likely reason to use the mug shot in the body. MUG is clear that these shots should be seen as degrading and inappropriate to use in general, unless that's literally all we can talk about a person. --M asem (t) 23:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, an editor professing to be the subject of the Saunders article has objected in the past to the mugshot being used as the Infobox photo. However, it appears someone recently re-added the mugshot with this edit. Muzilon (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that . I think per the Help page request comments (except for the last one) and what Masem has posted above that the file should be removed regardless of whether it was really Saunders who made the request since there's nothing at all in the article about any arrest or criminal charges and the photo seems UNDUE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages relating to "Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons"
The following talk pages contain collapsed discussions about hearsay material, consisting of serious criminal claims about a non-notable living person. These claims are not part of any police investigation, nor have these allegations been verified in any other credible way, apart from being on an inflammatory YouTube video, being posted on Facebook, being posted on a conspiracy theory website with no editorial policy, and being reposted on social media, mostly alongside blatantly transphobic abuse. In every instance I have looked at, the material may well be hoaxes, tampered with images, or some form of hearsay "embellishment" of events and the living person targeted with these allegations is reported to have denied any knowledge of them. Both discussions were either started or inflamed by comments from an account which was later revealed as a sockpuppet account from an indefinitely blocked user with a history of "disrupting" transgender related topics.


 * British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
 * Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons

I request that an administrator deletes these collapsed sections as a violation of BLP (WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:AVOIDVICTIM) and provide a warning within those discussions that no unproven serious allegations about any living person can be reposted or linked to on Wikipedia talk pages, and any such unverified material should be immediately removed.

If people wish to discuss this request, please avoid unnecessarily repeating the non-notable person's full legal name, or repeating the hearsay, or reposting the problematic links.

Note that one of these pages has a current AfD based on lack of notability.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I should note that for context, Jessica Yaniv is the complainant in a high-profile case before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. At one point, the BCHRT had put in place a publication ban on their name. That ban was lifted due to the complainant's many public statements regarding the case. Since then, their full name has been published by many reputable sources, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Forbes Magazine, and the National Post. They've also conducted several media interviews since then. So, I don't think there are any BLP issues regarding the publication of their full name. On the other hand, I think the collapsed sections should probably be deleted as they do contain unproven allegations of criminal behavior. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * BLP states ''When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
 * The full legal name of the plaintiff in the BC tribunal case is on the court records, that does not mean that it is BLP compliant to repost it at every possible opportunity in discussions. Please take BLP seriously and remove the name from your remarks here, it is both unnecessary and potentially seriously damaging as you are repeatedly and deliberately taking action to use Wikipedia to publish the trans woman's full legal name alongside what appears to be libellous and possibly entirely hoax hearsay that targets that same person.
 * You could have chosen very easily to comply with my request in this thread to "please avoid unnecessarily repeating the non-notable person's full legal name", what do you think that deliberately not having the courtesy to the Wikipedia community to do so looks like? Your actions equate to deliberately forum shopping abusive content. --Fæ (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the name issue is a "mountain out of a molehill" situation. If someone is openly giving media interviews about the topic, I think it's hard to say that it's somehow offensive to BLP to use that name. I do agree with you as to the criminal allegations, though. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you do not "agree with me about the criminal allegations", you are doing the exact opposite. You are deliberately posting a non-notable person's full legal name right in a request to remove serious damaging hearsay, you are deliberately using Wikipedia to increase the potential serious harm to a living person. Take action. Remove the name from your comments in this thread. --Fæ (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I can't see how using Yaniv's name is harmful when Yaniv themselves is active in the media about this. There are many reliable sources covering their name. I just don't see how the mere invocation of their full name is somehow causing "serious harm" to that person. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A point on one of your comments in a closed discussion: Under WP:BLPTALK, asking questions of whether a certain allegation or sources support it should be included is generally allowable, without any other context of editor intent, etc. (eg there was much hand-wrangling about the allegations made about Neil deGrasse Tyson before an acceptable version was added - that's how BLPTALK should work). As long as the questions are asked in good faith, then there's little need to revdel that. That's in general. In terms of editor intent, however, that can change things, particularly if there's evidence they were a known provocative editor that was, for all purposes, shitposting to raise ire. Just a point to keep in mind. --M asem  (t) 14:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, "shitposting to raise ire", seems accurate. The above unnecessary naming, by the same person who has been effectively forum shopping the same stuff, and has been repeatedly advised how problematic it is, appears to be doing exactly that. Doing so is completely unnecessary in this thread and is therefore a BLP violation. --Fæ (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you can't dial back the WP:ABF and faux-legal rhetoric you are likely to be topic-banned or worse. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh, quoting policy and quoting others in the same thread, is not ABF. There is no "faux-legal rhetoric" here. The material is hearsay. It is potentially damaging. It is serious. These are facts. --Fæ (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So were many of the accusations made from #MeToo, which is why editors used BLP Talk pages to determine when they were acceptable to include on various articles, judging sourcing quality and the like. We do need to seperate out the intent of the editor in question here from what BLPTALK policy allows; we need to be able to discuss serious allegations and the sourcing that is used to validate them, unless of course the sourcing is outright bogus (like, say, a reddit or 4chan post). --M asem (t) 14:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , It ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it. This is a hot button issue for you, and your rhetoric is well over the line into strident. Please dial it back and allow the many admins watching the page decide whether others are acting in good faith or not. Aside from anything else, you need it to be abundantly clear to responding admins that you are not the source of the toxic atmosphere there. Right now, that is not at all clear. Do you see what I mean? Guy (Help!) 15:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In terms of naming, at the point these discussions were taking place: "Jessica Yaniv" was well and fully identified by the media and her own social media affirmed it. Now, if we're talking deadnaming, that's different, but at this stage, "Jessica Yaniv" is fully valid to mention on WP under BLPTALK. Whether she needs to be named in an article, that's different but that's what BLPTALK is supposed to help figure out. --M asem (t) 14:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the fact is that the trans woman has not published the hearsay, and what is under discussion is comments made on talk pages about the BC tribunal case, not about an article about a BLP subject. The plaintiff in the BC tribunal case specifically does not have to be fully named by us to understand which case we are discussing, or what is valid material for the content of an article about the BC tribunal case.
 * There is no evidence of the equivalent of a #metoo case. Nobody has gone to the police, no serious journalist has verified or published evidence that we can use anywhere on Wikipedia. All anyone is doing is taking what might be hoaxes from social media or re-reported from originally a conspiracy website with no editorial policies and no journalistic standards. That's nothing but the worst possible type of potentially hoax material to link to or reproduce about a living person on Wikipedia. There's no "it's necessary for Wikipedia discussion" in this case, or with these sources. --Fæ (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * BLP's scope is not strictly limited to pages about BLPs but any topic where there are clear individual BLPs involved, such as this tribunal case.
 * I understand your concerns on the specific editor in question, but I am speaking to the hypothetical: if the same information on the tribunbal case's talk page was brought to attention by an editor that was acting in good faith, not sure on the sourcing or quality of sources, then there is no problem with that material per BLPTALK. It was quickly dismissed, never got to a mainspace page, and the like, and I would hope that the comments left suggested to this hypothetical editor acting in good faith to make sure their sourcing is better. In the actual case, with the sock likely involved, that's different, and makes the material appear malicious, that I can respect the concern of leaving it there. But in the general case, that type of discussion is allowed to occur, and better to have it occur on the talk page before someone attempts to add it to mainspace. --M asem  (t) 14:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. Thanks for the views about policy.
 * With regard to this case, where what has been described as an attack page, with transphobic material linked from it, with potentially hoax allegations being repeated in it, created by an indef blocked user, blocked for their history of anti-transgender disruption, do you have an opinion of whether my request to remove this material is correct, and per WP:BLP action should be taken immediately?
 * Or is Wikipedia a website that allows people to indefinitely forum shop the equivalent of has had  but they can carry on reposting and effectively using Wikipedia to promote the material, even though nobody in good faith can find any police statements, legal case, serious BLP-worthy reliable sources to support these statements?
 * The latter is what has been done now in an AfD, an article talk page, this BLP/N request, and even an Arbcom clarification request, and I have not actually gone looking for other pages, like user talk pages, that might have the same material. That is excessive, you must agree. The indef blocked user behind this must be laughing their socks off at how well they have promoted attacks against a trans woman and got other users to make it so much worse. --Fæ (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns about transphobia, but I think that the material as presented has been purely factual and supported by reliable sources. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, from what I have seen it would not yet be fit for articles, and I'm not clear on how reliable the sources are. On the other hand, as Masem says, these sort of things have to be worked out somewhere, which is on talk pages. I think the analogies with #metoo are apt. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * First, let's talk about the specific sock user contributions and collapses discussions (2 of the 3 in the pages above) - that seems fully apt for revdel given the nature of the original user.
 * Second, I would agree that it is not appropriate for at least the questionable accusations to be discussed in any depth on AFD or user pages. BLPTALK is meant to confine those discussions to the talk page of the most-apt BLP-related page, and strongly discourages/disallows them elsewhere. But keep in mind, this is for in-depth discussion. Mere mention of the existence of these allegations (not any of the details) on talk pages, particularly related to admin/consensus-needed opinions to at least establish what the situation is, is a necessary element; we can't just keep dancing around with obtuse language to be clear that in fact they exist. ("There's a problem on this talk page!" "What's the problem?" "I can't say, just look!") So, for example, in this section alone, there are no problems that allegations have been mentioned. We're not discussing them in any depth. --M asem (t) 15:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cosmic Sans, You are confusing "factual" with "likely hoax".
 * There is zero evidence that the hearsay is anything but deliberate hoaxes, fabrications or embellishment. The are no reliable sources that put a real journalists name against the claim that there has been an official report of criminal behaviour. None of this material is part of the BC tribunal case. None of it has been put on the record by any lawyer and no journalist has put their name against it as "factual". Guess why no lawyer would put their name against it, even though it would immediately resolve their defense?
 * Masem, the arguments here to sit around and do nothing to correct this, and actually apply WP:BLP as stated, are increasingly bizarre. I fail to understand why this is being allowed to happen when our policies are so extremely clear. The links are above, there is no logical need to keep on reposting the likely hoax claims about a living person here, and to continually keep on using her full legal name, in addition to the other places this same stuff has been published, including the external links, that you can look at, with your own eyes. --Fæ (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with 's take on this. However with a strong caviat that attempts to game this, such as by inserting allegations into unrelated discussion topics in an attempt to WP:ATTACK a BLP or to muddy the water of a discussion should be treated as disruptive editing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify my point. I don't think that using Jessica Yaniv's full name or discussing the BCHRT case, in any way, offends BLP. I do agree that discussing criminal accusations in the article may violate BLP. I don't think that discussing these allegations on Talk violates WP:BLPTALK. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The real question for Wikipedia is not "what is the hearsay, we want to read it" but "what are the reliable sources". The source examination has gone on at length, in detail. That's done. There are no quality reliable sources. There is conspiracy websites, amateur YouTube video, Facebook pages and Twitter - along with basically one publisher (Postmedia Network inc.) that is repeating that material with no source other than the conspiracy website with no editorial policy, and zero credibility. With no reliable sources after so many people looking for sources and discussing them at length, the job has already been done to justify action, not another groundhog day excuse to repost all the same junk. --Fæ (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPTALK is pretty explicit on this exact point Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating [This link] has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article? The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion. Allegation sourced to the Post Millennial and / or the Toronto Sun would be poorly sourced allegations. As such, I'd say that, in this specific circumstance, bringing up specifics of the allegations on talk would constitute a contravention of WP:BLPTALK guidance. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't Toronto Sun considered reliable? Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 265 —DIYeditor (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought it was too but its a tabloid. (It's the Star that is the more legit news source from Toronto). But I mean, again the hypothetical user acting in good faith seeing these sources and not aware of our policies to the letter has every right to ask about them on a BLP talk page to see if they are valid.  A known troublemaker editor asking about them, however, is not appropriate. --M asem  (t) 16:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Toronto Sun is useless as an RS for basically anything more controversial than sports scores. Especially since they regularly blend opinion and reportage without any regard for what's fact and what's their opinion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Which sources tell us that the Toronto Sun is a tabloid? At the time of that noticeboard discussion DIYeditor highlighted, the lead of the article just described it as a regular newspaper. Then, a little after that discussion ended, some random newb changed the intro. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't need sources to tell us whether a source is reliable or not. Determining the reliability of a source, or rather, the reliability of the information given by a source, is exactly what we can and should do for every bit of info. Indeed, we have a whole set of guidelines and policies solely dedicated to this task. Nearly every discussion should really center around a source's reliability for a particular type of info. If it looks like a tabloid, reads like a tabloid, and quacks like a tabloid, it's probably a tabloid. Zaereth (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Zaereth, there have been Wiki disagreements on what a tabloid is. I remember watching Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 157 while eating popcorn. NinjaRobotPirate said he added a source for "tabloid" for the Toronto Sun, but the source only calls Toronto Sun a tabloid in its sorta heading, where it says, "Toronto tabloid launched just two days after the death of the 95-year-old Telegram." Other than that, it says, "Forty-seven years after its launch, the Sun is still publishing, as is the rival Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail." Globe and Mail ain't a tabloid either. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Zaereth, there have been Wiki disagreements on what a tabloid is. I remember watching Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 157 while eating popcorn. NinjaRobotPirate said he added a source for "tabloid" for the Toronto Sun, but the source only calls Toronto Sun a tabloid in its sorta heading, where it says, "Toronto tabloid launched just two days after the death of the 95-year-old Telegram." Other than that, it says, "Forty-seven years after its launch, the Sun is still publishing, as is the rival Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail." Globe and Mail ain't a tabloid either. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I suppose we can forgive Halo Jerk1 for again not understanding the Canadian newsmedia landscape. But this is a weak take. See, the Toronto Sun, unlike the Toronto Star or the Globe and Mail is quite literally a tabloid. In that it's a tabloid-format newspaper while the other two are broadsheets. Furthermore the Sun is notorious. See it's always been a bit of a dodgy paper, in the 1990s it was most widely known for publishing a picture of a woman in a bikini on page two once a week (called a sunshine girl). And after it was bought by postmedia there was no real reason to make it better - after all, for the Serious News Readers in Toronto, postmedia had the National Post. The Sun serves two main purposes: 1) to accurately communicate sports commentary and 2) to publish conservative opinion pieces weakly disguised as news. So not only are they quite literally a tabloid format paper but their poor fact checking, and constant blending of news and editorial makes them very much the sort of yellow journalism that generally gets ascribed to more well-known tabloids like the Daily Mail. And all this is WP:BLUESKY - if you're a Canadian, you know this, because you grew up with it. And it attracts very little actual attention because the Sun is old. And storied. And has always been awful. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Simonm223, that archived stuff I linked to was around the same time as the discussion about the difference between tabloids and tabloid format. Check Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 156 out. Looking at a search of the archives about tabloid format, somewhere at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 255, SMcCandlish said, "Daily Mail or any other tabloid as a source. (I mean tabloid in the sense of tabloid journalism, not the tabloid (newspaper format) size factor)." However, I agree that you know more about the Toronto Sun than I do. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Fæ complains about mentioning the individual's name and bringing attention to these allegations, but does more of the same by making a big production on a public noticeboard. They were the first to mention the name here and did it twice (necessarily so). Streisand effect in action. Maybe it would've been better to take the advice at the top of the page You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns or finding other avenues to bring attention to this without inextricably drawing more public notice to the issue. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this is false. I used the registered BC tribunal case name. At no point have I used the plaintiff's full legal name as it is unnecessary. It would be rather silly to avoid the BC tribunal case name. --Fæ (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that an Administrator with Oversight permissions (DeltaQuad) has reviewed this and explicitly stated that they will not revdel the full name. In the past, DeltaQuad had oversighted the full name but changed their position once the publication ban was lifted and sources began covering the name. Source to Diff: []. We should avoid admin-shopping here. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I will completely agree that at this point, BLP's guideance does not cover using Yaniv's name on talk pages to discussion the situation around the article. Mainspace is a different issue, but that's not what's being asked here. The press have widely reported it after the court order expired, Yaniv's talked about it in interviews and social media, the "we shouldn't name the non-notable subject" boat has sailed. This is not like the case of the Star Wars Kid (prior to his own outing), where the person kept out of the limeline, and while the name was published, it was not as widely reported compared to Yaniv. --M asem (t) 15:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

* Do not revdel, at least the material discussed below - Fae's request to revdel talk page discussions would seemingly cover this comment that Fae made in response to my comments here and here, the latter of which links to a Postmedia source. It seems to me that the whole discussion is a perfect example of what editors ARE supposed to do in non-article space per WP:BLPTALK, which specifies, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate" (emphasis added). It thus seems to me that that whole discussion concerned evaluating the sourcing - rather than the details - of a set of allegations with respect to WP:V and therefore is a precise example of what Talk pages are for. Any revdel of these sections, or even "deletion by an admin with stern warnings" short of revdel, would not be compliant to BLP policy except where the discussion veered away from the evaluation of sourcing, which did not happen in the specific thread collapsed here; I have not looked at all of the threads collapsed by Fae to see whether any of them contain material that is not policy compliant, but this one is a clear discussion of content and sourcing.

Also note that Fae's argument seems to apply the logic of BLPCRIME to Talk pages, which is ludicrous, and in reality I do not have the impression that Fae (or the journalists in question, for that matter) have the knowledge necessary to discern whether the alleged conduct comes anywhere near the threshold of criminality in Canada. While the required sources do not exist in this case to discuss the allegations in article space, legal but arguably shameful conduct can certainly be included in BLPs when sourcing and DUE requirements are met, which means editors need to be able to have these discussions in order to evaluate the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Also note that the name of the BLP subject is not mentioned in this collapsed section, though it was of necessity included in Fae's merger proposal which provides the section heading. Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I would be delighted to see my analysis revdel'ed and replaced with something like the summary " is not considered reliable for this topic".
 * If LGBT+ people are literally forced to republish homophobic material or transphobic hoaxes, and we then successfully make our case, how disgusting and stupid would it be if the evidence that we were forced to publish remains forever on Wikipedia to link to and talk about off-wiki, forever associated with our names. That's not ethical, nor is it a workable or fair process for the majority of our LGBT+ contributors, especially the very few openly identified trans contributors are likely to find this material extremely distressing to review, but who's opinions add huge value and perspective to these BLP discussions and cases and our understanding of what it means to "respect the dignity" of BLP subjects. By doing this we guarantee to drive those voices and perspectives away from these discussions.
 * Action should be taken based on proportionate and sufficient evidence, no more than that. The evidence supplied at the opening of this thread was sufficient to be both alarming and factual enough to take immediate action. --Fæ (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear on the difference between an editor making a completely unfounded accusation against any BLP, and an editor linked existing accusations (which may be equally unfounded) for purposes of querying about BLPTALK. The former case we will take action on to remove; no place on WP allowed for making these types of statements against BLP. But if we're talking about existing stories, even if we revdel the linkages, they still exist out there, and that's out of our ability to do anything about. And this is true regardless of if the BLP is a LBGTQ or not. There are a few additional considerations around trans individuals such as deadnaming that come up, but they are not that "unique" of a class to require heightened BLP enforcment and revdel that you seem to be asking for, at least in within WP's capabilities. --M asem (t) 16:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We seem to be talking past each other. Linking to a reliable source would be a useful BLP/N discussion about statements made in that reliable source. Not only are the hearsay allegations unverified, there is no reliable source to discuss.
 * We are straying into an area where there is a defence being made that anything posted on Facebook is fair game for BLP discussions.  can be found all over social media, that does not mean that we keep on posting those allegations on Wikipedia talk pages without any reliable sources to back it up. Literally the source for these hearsay allegations are social media posts and one conspiracy website. Prove me wrong by pointing to the reliable source that someone wants to discuss here, it does not exist, there is nothing to discuss. --Fæ (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * BLPSPS would prevent Facebook posts from being considered as serious sources. A newbie editor might propose them in good faith, unaware of BLPSPS, but an experience editor proposing the same would likely be warned about that as they should know better. --M asem (t) 17:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good, can we close this discussion then and per the policy immediately remove the material? There are no reliable sources. The hearsay was literally posted on facebook, repeated and possibly embellished by a conspiracy website with no editorial policies, and cut & paste wholesale by the Postmedia Network inc. in their tabloid rags. Nothing about this hearsay is anything else than stuff someone found one day on Facebook. --Fæ (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, if we were dealing with an editor acting in good faith, posting those links would not be an issue under BLPTALK though I would expect that user to be explained why they are bad sources, as without digging into ownership, original reporting, etc. the original source may not be clear to that editor. --M asem (t) 17:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec, after looking at the conspiracy site again) Good, can we close this discussion then and per the policy immediately remove the material? There are no reliable sources. The hearsay was literally posted on facebook, repeated and possibly embellished by a conspiracy website with no editorial policies who may or may not have talked to someone they found that way who is stated to be a fictional name, along with recent screenshots of websites with purported conversations from years ago that have been photoshopped (redactions are visible) and the story cut & paste wholesale by the Postmedia Network inc. in their tabloid rags. Nothing about this hearsay is anything else than stuff equivalent to what someone found one day on Facebook.
 * Literally anyone can send this website to the police, if they believe it, so where are the comments from the police and why is it Wikipedia's job to do a police investigation? --Fæ (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As the "editor acting in good faith" in question, I have explained the situation here, which is a good deal more complex than Far is making out. Indeed, Fae's argumentation about the article, while relevant from a certain perspective, was not the one that should make the biggest difference in evaluating the source per WP:V and WP:RS. There is also absolutely no policy basis for removing anything in that discussion, which is entirely compliant with BLPTALK and only refers to (flawed) published sources. Fae's argumentation from social media and "conspiracy websites" was never what the discussion was essentially about, nor were any such sources linked from the discussion.
 * Also, Fae, you seem to be under some misapprehension about the state of Canadian law. There is nothing in the Postmedia piece I linked above that, if true, would be criminally actionable in Canada, where the subject lives. Newimpartial (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Noting that if true is something of a sticking point here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, Simon. And I doubt any of it is true. But Fae keeps using the argument "If this were true, the authorities would be taking action" which not only is largely irrelevant to BLPTALK policy, but is completely irrelevant to the case at hand. Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't disagree. While I agree with Fae that the article specifically about this BLP should be deleted and that she shouldn't be mentioned by Wikipedia at this juncture (per WP:TOOSOON among many other policies) I don't think speculation on the actions of the police is apropos to the discussion. (Honestly my avoidance using the subject's name here is a little pointed if I'm engaging in self-crit.) I don't believe Wikipedia should be commenting on her because she's not a notable BLP except that a major Canadian media conglomerate latched onto her case as a Cause célèbre. Effectively, my argument is to ask whether Postmedia (which owns almost all of the cited sources in the associated articles and sections) is able to confer notability to otherwise non-notable individuals. And to challenge that it should not. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fae, with all the good faith in the world, I think it would benefit you to learn to tolerate the different perspectives at least of those who agree with you about substantive issues while disagreeing about process. For the terrain of policy-compliant speech on Talk pages about content and sourcing, there would be clear harm to the project if discussions such as the collapsed one we are discussing were to be deleted and replaced by an admin summary of the consequence of the discussion. Editors need to see the gathered evidence and how it has been evaluated in previous discussions - you may imagine it could be "distressing" for a future (trans?) reader to read your summary of the Postmedia article, but surely that reader is better off using your summary than finding and reading the original sources, the next time this question is raised. I imagine it was distressing for editors to read and discuss the sourcing of the Kevin Spacey allegations before they were reliably sourced, but it is undoubtedly a benefit to the project that sources are discussed as issues arise and that there is a continuing record of the judgements made of particular sources, both to affect content decisions on the specific source but also as precedents or reference points as we evaluate new sources. This is how we identify the tipping points for WP:V and DUE inclusion, so removing discussions "once resolved" would only promote more and less well-informed discussion of sources particularly for controversial or "potentially scandalous" claims. Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * By calling the allegations a "hoax" aren't you possibly committing a BLP violation against the accuser? Do you have evidence it is a hoax? Also, why is it particularly relevant that this is an LGBTQ+ topic, you seem to imply that that deserves some kind of special consideration as far as people being offended? Mentioning LGBTQ+ is not a trump card to win Wiki policy discussions. If a topic is too disturbing to you to edit and review material for perhaps you should recuse yourself from that topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No. The hearsay is increasingly likely to be a hoax. It is the chocolate teapot fallacy to interpret BLP to mean that "everything can be presumed to be true until proven otherwise". On that basis we can dig out every possible nasty allegation made on Twitter against anyone, and create big section titles here promoting these hoaxes and conspiracy theories. The burden of proof is on those that want to discuss the hearsay, the only question to be answered here is where is the reliable source. Can you just answer that one question please? --Fæ (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to say that an accusation appears uncorroborated by reliable sources (or what have you) but quite another is assert that someone has committed a hoax. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Likely hoax" is accurate. Anyway who exactly is the "someone" that you are worried about accusing? Produce the reliable source with their evidence. I have made no assertions about any person with regard to the publication of likely hoax hearsay. Keep in mind that the source (postmillennial, that conspiracy website with no editorial policies) is openly edited by someone using a fictional profile, and not for good reasons based on their own article on the subject. Why on Earth should we assume that anyone else named on their websites is real? --Fæ (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Where are these "hoaxes" and "hearsay"? The Twitter sources for this are not RS, because they're nearly all those published by Yaniv themself. So they're primary, they're self-published and even if they meet BLPSELFPUB for a few aspects, they're not usable here. But that's not because there is a hoax that "Yaniv said this on Twitter", when we have direct access to that PRIMARY material itself. The most contentious claims here (and the ones that aren't made anywhere on WP) are mostly accusations that Yaniv's own behaviour on Twitter was unacceptable. Now yes, we have no RS for that until some credible broadsheet journo decides to investigate. But it is still ludicrous to call "hoax" on these: Twitter provides an automatic primary source.
 * One aspect which could easily turn out to be a hoax is Yaniv's claim that they had hoax food deliveries to their home, and that the Laser Cut salon were responsible (this is in their Tribunal deposition). Without corroboration, again we can't touch that. But even that claim is sourceable directly from Yaniv (I don't know how Tribunal depositions themselves stand w.r. to perjury as a court, but I'd certainly consider the court as an accurate reporter of such). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure you are making any relevant point. You may be making a good case to remove any cruddy material which is not have high quality reliable sources per BLP. The plaintiff in the BC tribunal case is not notable, so their personal opinions from Twitter are not relevant to anything and should not be posted on Wikipedia. I agree any crud like that needs to be promptly removed, that includes hearsay from other people too, especially fake people and photoshopped or unverified evidence. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Now you're just fabricating bogeymen to be afraid of, and clearly didn't read a word of what was written (which is sadly, no surprise).
 * No-one is suggesting "personal opinions from Twitter". However there is a widespread allegation that Yaniv's behaviour on Twitter has itself been unacceptable: not any of their opinions, but inappropriate behaviour towards and around young girls. This is self-evidentiary (that's Twitter for you), but it's also primary and so outside our remit. But what you can't plausibly do is write it off as a "hoax".
 * Nor is anyone advocating (or even talking about), "fake people and photoshopped evidence". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the use of thepostmillennial conspiracy theorist website as source material for Wikipedia and the unnecessary and avoidable reposting of those hearsay allegations. Nothing else. That is what this BLP/N request has been about from the start. Everything else is tangents and hyperbole. --Fæ (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In order to determine whether a reliable source exists, it is necessary to discuss the actual sources. For the collapsed discussion we are talking about here, I linked theguardian.pe, which is one of the Postmedia regional outlets (for Prince Edward Island). To determine whether that counted as a reliable source, it was necessary to actually discuss it (and determine that the story originated in the Toronto Sun, a Postmedia tabloid). If the story had instead originated with the Postmedia's National Post, it would most likely have counted as a reliable source. This is why WP needs to have, and to record, these discussions of sources. Your post deconstructing the article may have saved future (trans?) readers the "discomfort" of reading the article, and did a good job of evaluating the "journalist"'s own evidence, but the reliability of the source depends ultimately on the discipline of the newsroom issuing it, and not on whether it's argument can be taken apart by clever editors.
 * I would also point out that you have, presumably in good faith, proposed to accuse a related BLP subject of a crime (as I gently pointed out here, and did so on the basis of Original Research rather than any kind of reliable sourcing. If your proposal were implemented as you suggested, it would most definite BLP violation, especially devoid of sourcing. I would therefore suggest that you would be better off tolerating discussions of content and sourcing on Talk pages rather than maintaining your current BATTLEGROUND approach. Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a tangent, but a factual correction in case someone misinterprets your post. Based on the evidence that was under discussion, that person has been banned from Twitter for publishing hateful speech. My description was and is accurate and sufficiently precise under the host country of this website, and the country I am residing in. So nothing there is a problem, it is an accurate way of describing why the person was banned from Twitter, not an allegation of committing a specific crime. That you live in a different country where similar words are used to describe a crime, does not stop those words being accurate, neither is it a reason to censor that description. Wikipedia does not stop describing people for whom part of their notability is being gay as "gay", just because there are countries they might choose to travel in where homosexuality is a crime. Stephen Fry comes to mind who is notable for having done exactly that. --Fæ (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the quite salient point that Wikipedia is not limited to the US (though like Twitter it is governed by US tort law), and so you were proposing that Wikipedia in its own voice accuse a BLP subject of a crime in the jurisdiction in which that subject lives, based on your own Original Research. Twitter, the courts, and the non-tabloid journalistic sources do not use the term "hate speech" as the reason for the ban, and "hate speech" against Trans people in particular is criminal in Canadian law. Your travel example is bizarre, but if I were to insert claims of "blasphemy" into a BLP for a resident of Saudi Arabia without satisfying the requirements of BLPCRIME, that would be a serious policy violation. It's called BLPCRIME and not BLPUSCRIME for a reason: the policy doesn't stop at your own parochial borders. Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is too deep down a tangential rabbit hole. If your view of how the world works were true, then Twitter would not have published their "Hateful Speech" policy, or at least exempted everyone who claimed to be Canadian and wanted to be transphobic on the site, as Twitter would be making allegations of a crime every time they applied it. However if what you say is true, then super, the facts are verified and true, even supported by court evidence using those precise words, nothing for us to worry about against BLPCRIME apart from stating the facts accurately and making sure we reference those public court documents. That's even protected by Freedom of speech in Canada as you are aware. --Fæ (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Hateful speech" (Twitter's term) is not "Hate speech" (your term). The latter is illegal in Canada against several designated groups including Trans people. Freedom of speech in Canada explicitly does not cover anti-Trans hate speech, as you really ought to know. Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I wrote "Hateful Speech" deliberately. Well done, we are in agreement. --Fæ (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that you didn't write that until just now. This is supposed to be a no-gaslighting zone. Newimpartial (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Why should WP, which is WP:NOTCENSORED, censor any content which is a matter of public record in an open court?
 * Since 18 July, Ms Yaniv's name has been published by the court (and even before that date, their initials were). There has also been widespread publication of this issue by Ms Yaniv herself through a number of channels, most Twitter. Her publication of this herself was one of the major issues in lifting the publication ban.
 * The court does not normally suppress complainant's names. "Tribunal’s proceedings are presumptively public. Orders which restrict public access may only be justified where a person can show that their privacy interests outweigh the public interest in access to the proceedings: Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 5." []
 * " There is no purpose served by the Tribunal protecting Ms. Yaniv’s identity when she does not feel the need to do so herself. Upholding a publication ban in this case undermines the integrity of the Tribunal as a public institution and can no longer be justified."
 * You have given no reason why WP should suppress information which is at the forefront of public knowledge about this case, and which has been placed there by the complainant herself. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (A point though: if Yaniv's name only came from court documents, not other RSes, then BLP does step in to say that we should not be using it or covering it, even if the court says its records are public. Obviously, we have massive press coverage, so that's not a concern here. --M asem (t) 16:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC) )
 * Do you have any other points that do not apply here, which you'd like to raise?  Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My main concern with regard to the use of her name is centered around the way in which, as I've linked elsewhere previously, it has been used in connection with speculation about elements of her private life in order to embarrass her or as a form of attack. I think it's safe to say the question of where she stands with regard to her gender confirmation surgery is not something an encyclopedia has any business commenting on. This is especially the case when one uses loaded language such as "genetically male" or "biologically male". Frankly these tenth-grade simplifications of the biological science regarding sex and gender should be beneath the dignity of an encyclopedia notwithstanding their political connotations. Ultimately, I suppose the question we should be asking is this: if a conservative newsmedia conglomerate that snapped up most of the local dailies in Canada decides that an activist should become notable, must Wikipedia follow suit. So far, the coverage provided does not satisfactorily demonstrate WP:BLP1E has been passed. And most of the reporting is either postmedia or drawn directly from postmedia to feed the online news cycle. I still maintain that, more than just avoiding mentioning her name, Wikipedia should be mute on this subject until such time as there is evidence of lasting significance. Because absent any lasting significance, all this whole kerfuffle is, is a protracted attack on one woman of no particular notability. And regardless of how individuals may feel about this woman or her opinions, it's not the place of an encyclopedia to launch a protracted attack on anyone, but especially not on one woman of no particular notability. Nor is it the place of an encyclopedia to speculate on the shape of her genitals. And the fact this has happened on this, and other pages, within Wikipedia disgusts me. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a way to approach the subject delicately. Of course, there are challenges. One of the defenses raised by the Salons is that they do not have the expertise to wax male genitalia; apparently they need a special kind of wax and a special type of training as the skin is different. Naturally some reference should be made to this. We can be tasteful about it, though. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Approaching the subject delicately implies we need to approach the subject at all. As I said immediately above, I think this is not a notable circumstance per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:ATTACK and other policies, essays and guidelines I've cited before in this extensive discussion. Again, I don't dispute that sources exist I dispute that sources existing in newspapers confers automatic notability for BLP related topics. No strong case has been presented that this event has, as of yet, any lasting significance at all. My point that no changes to law or culture have occurred as a result of this piece of conservative media cruft have been met with silence. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there is no excuse whatsoever to use Wikipedia talk pages to discuss private parts of a trans woman that you have insisted on fully naming. This is precisely the transphobic rubbish that is posted all over Twitter and it has nothing to do with removing the hearsay this thread is about. --Fæ (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
For those keeping score: most of the sources are from the same media conglomerate. The question of whether a media conglomerate can confer notability to a random BLP remains unanswered. It is definitely illegal to engage in hate speech in Canada. The question of whether certain Postmedia authors have crossed that line is not one that has, at this time, been taken up by Canadian courts, and as such is not relevant to discussion here. The central question of whether a BLP should be named when they are otherwise not notable remains in contention however is largely academic in this case as we all know exactly who we're talking about. Additional questions raised here include: whether Wikipedia should have event pages about media causes célèbres and how that lines up with WP:EVENTCRIT. What the boundaries are for what constitutes a public person. Whether it is better to approach the question of a BLP's genital shape delicately or not at all. If I've missed a major thread that bears discussion please add it but let's try to stay on topic. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

* Comment - the only question here that interests me is, Under what circumstances, if any, should BLPTALK-compliant discussions be Admin deleted or revdel-led? I hope this question can be answered in the negative, but it is surely the only one that can actually be resolved in this venue, at least provisionally. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

More specifically, as spelt out at the start, should anyone have actually read the threads, the issue is hearsay allegations reported on thepostmillennial website. This material has fake names and photoshopped images. It is salacious and weird, mainly because why the hell would anyone choose to publish evidence of a serious crime there, as opposed to going to the police, or going to a real newspaper. The website has no editorial policies and it is not regulated by any external body as it does not publish material from actual registered journalists. There are 2 named "editors", and one of those is fictional. This hearsay was cut and paste directly from thepostmillennial by a Postmedia Network employee named Graeme Gordon, who posted the same story and material in an unknown number of Postmedia Network websites. This seems to be a common practice for Postmedia Network. The websites are tabloid style news outlets, with plenty of salacious headlines and act as unmoderated forums, hence the same sites have attracted haphazard public comments which include threats of violence and transphobic abuse. The hearsay includes various historical claims (several years old, despite recently taken screen shots) about the trans woman plaintiff in the BC tribunal case.

As far as I am aware, "thepostmillennial" has no direct connection to Postmedia Network.

There are no other original sources for this hearsay, apart from thepostmillennial website.

None of this should be necessary to spell out here at BLP/N, because it is all made clear in the links at the start, if you follow them and follow the claims and urls posted. Nothing else raised in these discussions is relevant evidence. --Fæ (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel similar to you in this Fæ. There are concerns, talkpages are usually less policed and as far as I know, don't return in google searches so as I have seen there is much more leeway than in an article, I don't think it is ok though and BLP policy is that it is project wide. talkpage and all. The idea I think is that if you can't get it in the article, spam it on the talpage.Govindaharihari (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fae, please refrain from erroneous statements, by which I mean the following:
 * In the discussion we were talking about above, nobody linked to thepostmillennial but only to the Postmedia site, and only to determine its reliability as a source. The only one discussing the allegations themselves is you, when you repeatedly (and inaccurately) characterize them as "serious crimes".
 * You keep referring to "evidence of a serious crime", although it has been pointed out that nothing in the postmedia piece - even if it were all true - would be a crime in Canada, the jurisdiction in which anything that might have happened, would have happened. Therefore BLPCRIME - which appears to be the underlying basis of your argument - does not apply.
 * It has been pointed out to you that BLPCRIME does not even apply to Talk pages; the relevant policy is BLPTALK. You have therefore suggested absolutely no policy-compliant basis even for deletion much less revdel. "Hearsay" is a legal concept; all non-profits sources, reliable or not, are "hearsay" in the way we use them on WP. Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Canada, Criminal Code section 172.1. The hearsay is precisely this. --Fæ (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You appear to be following the wrong publication in Postmedia, perhaps. The Gordon article directly attributes thepostmillennial. --Fæ (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no 172.1 accusations of any kind in the Postmedia source. Newimpartial (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are looking at. It's clear cut. Completely explicitly this. --Fæ (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And this is precisely why we are not allowed to do OR as editors. There are simply no allegations of criminality, or of acts which, if committed, would be criminal. It is not our job as editors to "fill in between the lines". Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * (EC)This is important where understand the "good faith" part of BLPTALK comes into play. If we know an editor has some dislike for a certain BLP, and that editor continually spams such links knowing they are bad, that's something actionable. Or if there becomes a clear sign of IP brigading to include such links on talk pages, actions can be taken then. But I've stated above about a novice editor acting in good faith presenting such a link for the first time should neither be put to task for that link, nor should that link be removed per BLPTALK. The problem with the link should be explained, so the editor (and other editors in good faith that follow) are aware. Also I will add that it can be helpful for editors working in good faith to be aware of actual hoaxes and the like floating around as to be able to address attempts to change content in a bad manner. It should be clear that in either of these cases, very little detail of the actual accusation needs to be discussed, just the link and discussion of why it is a bad source/potential problem. That all fits within BLPTALK. I don't see the accusations getting significant discussion in the hatted sections that have been marked from the original OP, so there's little reason to revdel those, they are following policy. --M asem (t) 20:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I have now noticed the connection between Postmedia Network and thepostmillennial. Graeme Gordon writes as a "freelance journalist" at the latter too, describing themselves as covering "Loonie Politics". So basically, this amounts to a single source as this looks very incestuous. --Fæ (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Loonie is a Canadian coin. "Loonie Politics" is the tongue-in-cheek name of an online Canadian newsletter. gnu 57 21:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody has argued in this venue that there is any reliable sourcing for this, so let's not move the goalposts. The only question is whether there are policy grounds to delete the Talk page discussions you (legitimately) collapsed. So far, you haven't provided any. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As you appear to be looking at the wrong article it's no surprise you think this. The Gordon article I am looking at explicit quotes claims by Slatz, posted from thepostmillennial. There is no OR, you just read the text. --Fæ (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Slatz refers to "victims" but does not allege criminality, which suggests that she may understand Canadian law better than you do. Also, the National Post ran its own story on this topic today by an actual journalist, which I will not link here, so I think it would be foolish to regard this sourcing question as permanently settled. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Postmedia has been running this issue on every outlet they own, even trotting out confirmed Lich Rex Murphy to write one of his trademarked snyde, pun-filled opinion columns for the local papers. Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with the October election with a pro-LGBTQ incumbent I am sure and is rather an indication that this one woman who filed a human rights complaint in BC is suddenly The Most Important Canadian. But that's another reason why news coverage != automatic notability for BLPs. That said, I broadly agree with Masem and Newimpartial in post-break analysis of how to handle the specific issue of revdeling contentious sources in BLP contexts. (And I wouldn't worry too much over the non-Canucks missing Canadian in-jokes or subtleties of context. We remain too British for the Americans, too American for the Brits and too French for either.) Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't revdel discussions from talkpages that are about the inclusion/exclusion of material. Even if the material is not used. Otherwise you have to have the same discussion over and over again every time a new halfbaked loon shows up to rerun the same discussion. Archive/collapse yes. Delete no. BLPTALK specifically addresses this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This is the most astonishing "black is white" double think. When Slatz describes minors as being "victims", claims this has been reported to a child abuse service, "sexual harassment of minors", and "trying to share child porn" this literally could not be clearer as why the hearsay material should not be on Wikipedia. How is Canada a haven for "sexual harassment of minors" and "child porn", so that is never a crime? Please supply a source as I do not recall Canada ever being a favorite holiday destination for people looking to do this sort of thing without fear of prosecution.
 * Don't be silly, it's hearsay about a serious crime and Wikipedia should not be republishing it or linking to this hearsay anywhere without WP:BLP compliant reliable sources. --Fæ (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I will AGF and answer your question, Fae, though I am not sure that is what you want. In Canada,"sexual harassment" (of adults or of minors) is not a criminal charge and therefore not a criminal allegation. There is such a thing as criminal harassment, colloquially known as "stalking", but the bar for that is high and it is not ALLEGED in any of the Postmedia pieces. Sexual assault is another criminal charge, in various forms, but that hasn't been ALLEGED by anyone either in this case. You are the only one supposing that a "serious crime" is being discussed, and that just ain't so. You don't get th make up WP:OR allegations just because it might suit your POV.
 * And by the way, like it or not, today's National Post piece is undoubtedly RS so this entire discussion is largely irrelevant, aside from its policy implications. Newimpartial (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem locked into the same rhetoric. Child pornography and any attempt to own it or share it, is a crime in Canada. Please do not keep finding ways of implying that it is not, because you understand Canadian law better than I.
 * Sure, with the National Post (owned yet again by the Postmedia Network) " brandishing a Taser" post, if someone wants to try adding owning a taser to the BC tribunal case article, that's fine, but will probably be removed as irrelevant. However "The RCMP detachment in Langley confirmed an arrest and search of a home in the area but could not confirm specific details, charges, timelines or named individuals, said Cpl. Craig Van Herk." is vague, it clearly and deliberately does not actually confirm that the plaintiff in the BC tribunal case the article is about, has been arrested.
 * However the National Post makes an entirely mysterious statement of "several allegations of harassment" existing. It provides zero new information. Given the history here, and the exact phrasing of what the National Post says about "allegations", this is again the Postmedia Network recycling the hearsay from thepostmillennial conspiracy website, the site where some of their own regular contributors publish, the same issues apply for it being a WP:BLP failure. None of these statements have been confirmed as fact rather than a possible hoax. --Fæ (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The postmedia article I linked from on the Talk page contained no pornography allegations. Perhaps you should pay attention to the actual sources under discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It was the source you linked to that I read an then followed to their actual source that they were cut & pasting hearsay from. There are only so many ways to keep spinning and reframing this, however you do it, it is a BLP failure.
 * The objective for Wikipedia should be to document the BC tribunal case, not to find excuses to promote damaging serious hearsay of any kind, regardless of the personal opinions of individual Wikipedians are as to what might be a crime in Canada and what might not be based on spending several hundred words wikilawyering the text. --Fæ (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The National Post is certainly a WP:RS though also certainly one with a strong POV. However we can argue, as I have, repeatedly, for other grounds that this content is inappropriate for Wikipedia. I would suggest that it would be advisable to give this specific line of questioning a rest as unproductive and, as you are concerned about the content, review the multitude of legitimate policies, essays and guidelines I've cited as grounds to exclude discussion of this BLP on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this discussion has gotten a bit into the weeds. For BLP, the questions are always verifiability with some care given to living people who are private persons. There's no lack of reliable sources on these topics even when you ignore "tabloid" sources. So first test is met. Then there's the second consideration of privacy. JY seems to celebrate and participate in the public discussions of this case when it suits her. If the Human Rights Commission felt that a publication ban should be lifted for these reasons, it's reasonable that wikipedia can address these topics too.

Now, regarding some of the peripheral allegations (ie. predatory behaviors), wikipedia routinely covers items that are mere allegations, or innuendo provided it's sourced. For instance, allegations that Prince Andrew may have sexually assaulted young women are both salacious and (yet) unproven in any way shape or form. Once JY jumped into the limelight, repeatedly pressing her version of events, she's really no different from any other public figure who's in the news. There are several reliable sources, excluding the Postmillenial, that mention JYs alleged behaviors.Mattnad (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As has been discussed at length in various fora, Postmillenial is a blog and not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the point was sources other than PM were offered. So even if not all the sources are RS enough are.  Springee (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there are plenty of non-PM Sources for the broad stroke of the Human Right Tribunal case but for the background details of potentially predatory behavior with girls or immigrant views there are also a couple. I haven't bothered with any of the Sun, Daily Mail tabloid types, or conservative magazine like the National Reiew.  These also cover the topics:


 * An article written by Helen Joyce, who's also an editor for The Economist in Quillette. Quillette has seasoned editors and contains a variety of more intellectual pieces.  It meets all of the requirements for RS.
 * An article from the National Post - a major Canadian newspaper that states in part, "(JY) is the subject of several allegations of harassment, including claims she has a history of vulgar sexualized online communication with teenage girls, at least one of whom has contacted a national tip-line for reporting the sexual exploitation of children."
 * An article for The Spectator (US edition) that includes details of JYs less than progressive views about immigrant women.


 * Just as an aside, you don't have to agree with the publisher's editorial policies or political leanings. They just have meet WP:RS guidelines.Mattnad (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces are generally not considered reliable for statements of fact. The National Post might work, but this is kind of a moot point: Yaniv herself isn't notable, and no one has made an argument for actually including these accusations in mainspace - so there's no real point discussing them on talk pages. The only real question was whether we should oversight those irrelevant talk page discussions or simply hat them. Nblund talk 15:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not clear those are opinion pieces but I agree that right now its to be determined how these allegations are necessary. We still should be allowed to discuss and not censor talk pages.  Where we disagree is on notability of JY.  Up here in Canada (where I now reside) this is all over the radio and many papers.  I read other editors suggesting it's not notable unless it hits US papers like NY Times or Washington Post.  Those papers only occasionally write about Canadian issues.  English Wikipedia isn't only about what's important to Americans.Mattnad (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)