Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive289

Individuals accused of assaulting Epstein's sex trafficking victims
Should the individuals identified in court documents as having been accused by Epstein's victims (some/all (?) of which were minors at the time) of assault have that mentioned in their Wikipedia bios? Per the Miami Herald (which will likely win a Pulitzer over its role in busting Epstein):


 * "One of the men accused of having sex with one of Epstein’s victims is former Maine Senator George Mitchell, the once formidable Senate Democratic minority leader who in 2008 — the same year the Epstein deal was finalized — was named one of Time magazine’s most influential people... Besides Mitchell, they include: the late scientist Marvin Minsky, modeling scout Jean-Luc Brunel, former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, 71, Hyatt hotels magnate Tom Pritzker, 69, and prominent hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin, 62. Giuffre has previously identified Epstein’s lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, 80, and Prince Andrew, 59, as two of the people with whom she had sex."

I suspect this will be a contentious subject on various bios, so I'm putting it here preemptively. In my opinion, these accusations should be included on the Wikipedia bio of every individual mentioned above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Given that the case has taken an unusual turn (Epstein died this morning by apparent suicide), we don't know how this trial will proceed. I would not add info on this if only named in court documents. However, if the media make a bigger statement on this as to make its coverage well beyond UNDUE, then we probably need to add it per BLPPUBLICFIGURE since we are talking public figures here. --M asem (t) 15:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have always thought that investigative journalism (which this source is described as in the link) should be treated as a primary source and we should use news articles that report on what investigative journalists have said. That way we do not provide undue weight to facts and opinions that appear in investigative journalism but are ignored in the rest of the media. So in this case, if the bulk of the news media are reporting these names, then they should be included. But if they only appear in the investigative articles of Julie K. Brown and Sarah Blaskey, then we should not. I don't think that Wikipedia articles should include negative information about individuals that most mainstream sources choose to ignore.TFD (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "one" investigative article reporting from court documents is not enough of a bar. That's where I would UNDUE as the metric here. If it becomes impossible to search on these individuals' names without tripping over their claimed role in this report, then we can include. But if one has to dig through search results, we should avoid. --M asem (t) 16:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you google, say, Bill Richardson, then this is all that comes up (at least on my Google), and with reporting from the standard list of top news outlets. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that his name is not coming up in association with the Epstein case, but its an interesting set of RSes - Bloomberg (ok), Reuters (ok), Vanity Fair (ehhh), Daily Caller (very ehhhh) and so on. And no NYtimes, CNN, WAPost, BBC, and so forth. It's weird set. I'd wait at least one more news cycle, particularly as Epstein's death is going to dominate the situation for the next 24hrs. It's heading for inclusion but just not quite there yet, IMO. --M asem (t) 16:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Mentioned in ABC,, CBS NBC and other news sources, so I would name them in articles about Epstein.
 * But that doesn't establish weight to include in their biographies, since they are passing references in articles about other people. News media will determine how significant these accusations are and may choose to run articles about the individuals, at which point we can weigh the significance. People say all sorts of things about famous people all the time.
 * By comparison, anti-Clinton anti-Obama conspiracy theorists have received wide coverage and there are Wikipedia articles, but we don't repeat all of them in their BLPs.
 * TFD (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * At this point in time I would suggest not mentioning. These are accusations rather than charges etc.  They may evolve into something more substantial but so long as the sole source for the information are the unsealed court papers I would be reluctant to assume they were reliable given the BLP concerns.  However, if additional corroborating evidence is presented by RSs then my objection would be addressed.  Springee (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I would also not mention an accusation recently unsealed against some of Epstein's alleged accomplices until it's been the subject of a trial and the accused been convicted (or found guilty in a civil proceeding). WP:BLP is clear on our duty to be conservative regarding contentious statements on biographies of living persons which are also wikipedia articles. The ethics of those records being sealed in the first place are immaterial to WP:BLP concerns. After trials end in convictions or damage awards against subjects of wikipedia articles, those court findings are no longer contentious and may be mentioned in BLPs.
 * WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SENSATIONAL and other considerations argue against these accusations being allowable if ordinarily WP:RS are trying to beat each other to eyetracks/readers by publishing sensational stories with short news cycles. If popular press articles are the only sources we have, the wikipedia project would be their accomplices in any inaccuracies they commit or the accusers may have committed in hopes of garnering legal settlements, if we publish the accusations based only on that evidence. --loupgarous (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be due to include some of these mentions at the Epstein BP, but I wouldn't mention this on other BLPs unless/until there is significant additional coverage that focuses on an individual's ties to Epstein. At this point, I think Dershowitz is really the only person who fits that criteria, and it looks like this is already mentioned in his bio. Nblund talk 21:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLP and given the wide coverage in press, these accusation should be included for all "public figures", but not for others per WP:BLPCRIME. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Mitski
Some unfounded allegations of rape/sexual abuse were put on Tumblr a short while ago and, despite almost all reliable sources concluding the allegations are false and were claims made by a mentally ill fan, users continue inserting the claims to Mitski's Wikipedia entry. It also seems to violate WP:BLPRS, because any reputable sources that have been cited are ones reporting the allegation's falsehood. This has happened before with artists including Isaac Brock, Conor Oberst, and John Darnielle, and the allegations in those cases were removed. Unless a reputable source corroborating the allegations against Mitski emerges, they should be kept off of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trvrplk (talk • contribs) 16:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPKINDNESS toward Smmary
I can't reconcile what's written in WP:BLPKINDNESS with the ongoing demeaning hostility and exclusion Flyer22 Reborn continues to direct at BLP subject Smmary.

Here is a complete list of edits by Smmary in the last year:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MaryKayLetourneau&diff=prev&oldid=885732755
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MaryKayLetourneau&diff=prev&oldid=884327235
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MaryKayLetourneau&diff=prev&oldid=884319774
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MaryKayLetourneau&diff=prev&oldid=884315905

That's it, all Feb 2019, and all wholly reverted by Flyer22 Reborn.

Before proceeding, I want to quote from BLPKINDNESS at length:

"Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern."

You can see through the four edits that there is no doubt that this BLP subject tried to fix what she sees as errors. Therefore, the expectation is that all will approach with leniency toward those activities, and kindness toward the BLP subject. It hit home for me what the motive was when the BLP subject write: the Wikipedia article has caused harm to my family due to presentation of material that purports as 'fact', and at closer look, the articles relied on are skewed on facts and not coroborated. Her edits, comments, sourcing, and motives stated on her user page show Smmary is very solidly and clearly a BLP subject seeking to fix errors. Now she is also a verified account, and has agreed to refrain from edits, but those are the 4 she made. Just those 4.

Ok, having studied those 4 changes (which I largely believe to be improvements based on my own careful study of NPOV-secondary sources), now see Flyer22 Reborn's comments to Smmary, and please evaluate whether they show "every effort to act with kindness".


 * "... you need to watch your WP:COI." - Leniency? Kindness?
 * "It is not a good idea for you to edit the Mary Kay Letourneau article. At all." - Leniency? Kindness?
 * "We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, not your 'facts.' You shouldn't be removing text like 'having sex with' as though you were simply found in the car with the boy."

This last one has serious problems, most notably failure to assume good faith. Some background: For many years, Wikipedia claimed as fact the dubious claim that the subject was found having sex on the night of her arrest. An administrator's intervention finally put an end to Flyer22 Reborn's belligerent insistence that this most salacious claim must survive. I hope it's clear that a BLP subject arrived to correct what ultimately we ourselves concluded was misinformation. But far from leniency and kindness, Flyer22 Reborn abused the BLP subject in response.

And this abuse is ongoing. Look carefully at the 4 edits at issue. Now look carefully at what Flyer22 Reborn claimed on August 5th that those 4 edits merit shunning:

"Given the issues with Smmary's editing... you should stop pinging Smmary to this talk page. We are not going to by Smmary's words on these maters."

There are no issues in those edits, and this is not leniency or kindness. Additionally, Flyer22 Reborn false and severe claim about Smmary--that these 4 edits in February compel us all to shun her--is both a severe and persistent false claim about a living person.

Any ideas about how to stop this abusive behavior? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs)


 * Administrator's intervention? That editor is not an administrator. And belligerent insistence? And most salacious claim? And abuse? I can't with you. I really can't. Zaereth and Kmhkmh's recent replies to you here, here, and here are clear. Also pinging BullRangifer and John from Idegon since they have addressed your odd and problematic editing at the Mary Kay Letourneau article, and in relation to Letourneau in ways that others have seen as you likely having a WP:COI or a severe case of WP:BLPCOI. BullRangifer has been very clear on your talk page about how your editing of BLPs has been problematic and is out of step with how we are supposed to edit BLPs.


 * And do learn to sign your posts consistently.


 * For anyone wanting the full story, do see Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 4. I didn't add the "sex in the car" aspect to the article. But it was there in that article (and still is) because numerous reliable sources have reported on it. These sources are not merely tabloids. As the discussion shows, I did some investigating and saw that there were two "caught in the car" incidents. I worked out wording with others, and it was agreed to keep the "sex in the car" aspect, but to word it as "reported," and to include the "Fualaau told detective Dane Bean Fualaau that he and Letourneau had kissed frequently and that he had touched Letourneau on the thigh, but that no sexual intercourse had occurred" aspect as well. And so we ended up with this. I am no longer interested in engaging with Mcfnord. As far as I'm concerned, Mcfnord should be topic-banned from editing BLPs. See what BullRangifer stated on Mcfnord's talk page for why. The following previous discussions also provide context: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 141, Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281 and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * None of the 3 examples you highlighted seem particularly wrong. In fact the second one seems to be similar to what many would say. I mean there are only so many ways you can say, "It's a bad idea for you to edit an article concerning yourself". I also have no idea why you're bring this here now. BLPN is not a great place for dealing with editor behavioral concerns even if they relate to BLPs. It's a particularly bad place for dealing with long stale concerns. If you believe there is a pattern of editing which warrants some form of restriction on Flyer22 Reborn, you should open a case either on WP:AN or WP:ANI. You would likely need to demonstrate that remains an ongoing pattern  so some diffs way more recent than March and frankly you'll need much better evidence.  That said, I don't agree with not pinging Smmary for the reason stated. While the statement "" is true, there's no reason to not ping Smmary for that. If Smmary complies with our policies and guidelines they are entitled to express an opinion on the article talk page, just as with any other editor with a COI. They will need to argue for any charges in a manner compliant with our policies and guidelines and if they argue in a manner inconsistent with them, like keep suggesting changes based on personal experience or memory it's likely they will be sanctioned. But we're very far off that happening.  I'm not saying Smmary should be pinged. Considering it's been March since they last edited it seems pointless at this time. It's also not necessary to ping a subject everytime you propose an edit to an article concerning them. Still if you want to ping, go ahead. Remember that when someone give bad advice like Flyer22 Reborn did here, your best solution is sometimes to just ignore it an more on. There's no need to make a big deal over bad advice.  Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne, yes, of course, Smmary is allowed to comment on the talk page. When I made the "you should stop pinging Smmary" comment, I was caught up in how she edited the article before -- based on her personal experiences/memories -- and her calling reliable sources like the Los Angeles Times unreliable and saying they got their facts wrong. See Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 141 if you haven't already. As long as her arguments are guideline or policy-based, I don't mind listening. This is why I stated "Not without WP:Reliable sources and valid guideline or policy-based statements, we aren't." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Flyer22: The 4 edits you call "based on her personal experiences/memories" are factual improvements, nearly all of which I've substantiated using strong sources, work that was also expected of you. The only statements she made about the L.A. Times were: "The LATimes article does not fit the reliable source definition" and "this article is not corroborated or backed up at all with reliable referencing". I share this critique of the one article, which is the more dubious long-form journalism, with many anonymous sources. You parlayed those two sentences about one article into an attack on the whole journalistic source so ferocious that it knocked you off kilter. Really? 107.77.205.115 (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sign in. You "share this critique of the one article"? I'm sure you do. I disagree with you for reasons I and others have already gone over. I did not point to four edits anyway. You often don't want to go by what reliable sources state, such as the age of the victim most commonly being reported as age 12 because you think age 13 sounds so much better. It doesn't matter what you or Smmary say about the boy's age. What reliable sources say and WP:Due weight do. And "nearly all" is not "all." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I haven't bothered responding here because I couldn't really top what Nil Einne said. Plus I'm really bad at noticing pings, since I tend to start scrolling before the page has even loaded. (Did you know at 99 they stop counting?) Much of what I see is really a content dispute which should be hashed out on the talk page, but much of it is going on through a slow edit-war, and the talk-page discussions tend to focus more on one particular editor's dislike for another's personality. That's why I suggested and still highly suggest that Mcfnord read WP:THICK. We all have to learn to put aside our personal emotions and learn to get along.


 * You know, I respect and admire most of the people I encounter here, and listen to and take their opinions very seriously, even if I don't agree with them. Especially if I don't agree with them. For most of the regulars, I just sit in awe of their intelligence, but few of them I have ever called "friends". Two that I would consider my friends, Buster7 and Writegeist are two that I vehemently disagreed with on many, many occasions (on political issues, even!); one a lovable character and the other a surly, cynical individual with a very dry sense of humor. (If you think Flyer22 is hard on people, you've never met a Writegeist.) Drove me absolutely nuts at times; love 'em to death.


 * Nil is right, Mcfnord, this is the wrong venue. If your issue is a behavioral one, which it clearly is by your own words, then the place to take it to would be an administrator's noticeboard. That's what admins are for. Here, you're unlikely to get much more of a reply than Nil already gave you, but there you might just find that what goes around comes around. Zaereth (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

James Martin (priest, born 1960)
Should the added material in the following diff be included?

As I explain on the article's Talk Page, the added material blatantly misrepresents the underlying sources and attempts to confer legitimacy on a campaign by anti-LGBT extremists to disparage the article's subject. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This article also violates WP:NOR as I explain here: Talk:James_Martin_(priest,_born_1960). --PluniaZ (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't, as explained on the talk page in responses to your claim.In my opinion, you are allowing your agreement with Father Martin to cause you to behave in a way that is disruptive to Wikipedia, and you should stop, take hold of yourself, and work towards convincing other editors on the article talk page. If you can't do that, then you must drop the matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see: WP:FORUMSHOP — Ched : ?    —  15:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This report should be closed; I'd close it myself, but I'm not a regular here, so I think that would be inappropriate. If there is a BLP violation -- and it is far from apparent that there is, since views within a hierarchical organization which oppose the hierarchy's official positions are always going to be controversial -- it is a minor one and can be easily dealt with through the normal consensus process on the talk page. It appears to me that PluniaZ is so unsure that his arguments will prevail on the talk page, that he has engaged in blatant WP:forum shopping in an attempt to help insure that their opinion will prevail in at least one venue.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to note that PluniaZ's arbitration case request has been rejected by the Committee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Lara St. John
I'd like to reopen this issue. My minor efforts to update a few WP pages with a recent news story were repeatedly deleted, based on the incorrect assertion that they were defamatory or inadequately substantiated. Why has the similar news about Placido Domingo been allowed to remain on WP when it is also based on one 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) 18:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Deckoffa. The answer is simple. That info violates policy on several levels, but the primary ones are WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. In the case of such people, we don't list criminal allegations, regardless of whether they were reported in the news. These allegations can have serious repercussion on both the person and their families/acquaintances, etc... We're not a news organization, so we can wait. If the allegations become a conviction in court, and is written about in reliable sources, then we can add it. For the case of Domingo, you're exactly right. He is far more famous, and so falls under the exception to these rules, for which, see WP:PUBLICFIGURE. In short, if someone is famous enough, and there are allegations being talked about all over the place, there is no point in tying to protect their right to be innocent until proven guilty. The very notoriety of the allegations are enough to include even before a verdict is pronounced. Zaereth (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, the primary person accused was long dead by the time the public accusations were made so the idea of a court case to establish guilty makes no sense. Likewise they were long past WP:BDP so BLP issues don't arise in relation to them although they may in relation to other people including the accuser but also anyone else involved (I know some of the previous attempts specifically accused some named living individuals of failing to adequately deal with complaints) as I mentioned before. However we still need adequate sourcing to establish significance. Nil Einne (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Asha Rangappa
has re-added the subject's dob multiple times. No reliable sources apparently exist; the best source is maybe a mention on twitter. I don't want to edit war myself, and at this point I feel like I'm involved, can someone else go take a look? --valereee (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , despite her or his stated reluctance, has been edit warring with me as a quick glance at the Talk page on the Asha Rangappa will show. I've never heard of the article's subject before this current week. I've tried very hard to accommodate "V"s demands, I found a plethora of sites that had the subject's date of birth. None of them suited her or him. Finally, as Asha ("V" has insisted that the patronymic not be used, which is fine with me) is a particularly public person (i.e. ubiquitous talking head) presumably be paid for appearances on numerous networks. I went first to her Instagram account to which she directs her followers, and then to her Twitter account. On the latter, I found what are probably actual, rather than Internet "friends" sending her birthday greetings, to which she gave a friendly response and verified her birthday. I pasted the entire interchange to the Talk page. Valereee demanded the URL for the Twitter exchange. After I went back and looked it up again (and found that Twitter has an internal browser, so one can simply type in her name and the word "birthday," I tried to post that to the Talk page. Wikipedia automatically blocked that URL. In my 12,000 or so edits in as many years, I think I'd only posted something from Twitter once before and am very unfamiliar with that service. So I reposted it but modified it by putting the word "twitter" in parentheses to see if that would avoid the block and satisfy "V", and let "V" know that I'd modified the URL and the reason why. "V" could have simply eliminated the parens and gone straight to see the exchange, with her or his own eyes, that I'd already posted in toto, and which AR had posted to her long-existing, password-protected, Twitter account. Again "V" didn't find that sufficient, and stated that we really didn't need a D.O.B. in the article, and once again reverted my edit. I had already spent a couple of hours searching for something that would satisfy "V" and realized that might be impossible, so reverted her or his deletion. Then "V" came to the notice board to get a referee to decide the issue, which I gather might be motivated by "I don't like it." I should note also that a reliably sourced and notable statement made by the article's subject which I'd posted to the article was deleted around the same time by an IP editor from an IP address originating from the Federal Housing Finance Agency that has very infrequently used to make Wikipedia postings. "V" has removed the DOB as posted by another editor before, on March 6. When I first looked at the article, a few days ago, I had also corrected inaccuracies. I note that Valaree, back in March when first posting to the article, had eliminated another source as being unreliable while retaining the bio info that was sourced to it. One edit made by "V" was solely to change the spelling of the word "graduate," to graduatee, which doesn't exist in the English language, but may possibly be a transliteration from Hindi (see https://dict.hinkhoj.com/graduatee-meaning-in-hindi.words). "V" has also eliminated non-notable info in the article. I did so too since it mentioned Asha's a vegetarian which is possibly a description of the majority of the subcontinent's ethnic population (I'm a vegetarian, and don't feel the preference is particularly notable these days.) If "V" had not quickly reverted my DOB edit, I probably never would have returned to the article, as I didn't have it on my watch list. This is possibly more than anyone needs to read to come to a conclusion, so I'll stop here, but feel that the issue may be one of "article ownership" rather than sourcing. My thanks to any editor leaving feedback. Activist (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not saying I couldn't have accidentally inserted 'graduatee' into an article, totally could have after a couple glasses of wine, but I can't find it. Diff? Not sure what the point of the Hindi question is. --valereee (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:DOB requires the birth date to be widely published in reliable sources or reasonably inferred that the subject does not object to the information being public. I'm not sure a Twitter post would qualify as that, especially if she is using it to communicate with friends and acquaintances. Also, I don't see the need for the month and day, especially for a subject of relatively low notability. That information should be further discussed before being reinserted. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Asha's Twitter feed shows that she is being followed by 380,917 persons. Activist (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased that Valereee confesses that she or he inserted a non-English word for a correct one as her or his entire edit to an article, which would include writing a subject line and hitting "publish," explaining that two (?) glasses of wine could be the cause of such actions. I don't drink, so I don't have personal experience that would be helpful here though it would seem quite possible if the editor weighed about 75# and had a bad liver. As far as characterizing anything on Twitter as the basis for the removal of Asha's birth date that the article's subject herself acknowledged on Twitter, Valereee goes on to edit a post that I'd initiated by changing my words "Asha alleged, without providing any evidence, that child sexual trafficker Jeffrey Epstein was able to bribe New York's Metropolitan Correctional Center guards to 'look the other way,' thus allowing him to commit suicide," Valereee instead writing, "Asha theorized on Twitter that the 'simplest explanation' child sexual trafficker Jeffrey Epstein was able to commit suicide was to bribe New York's Metropolitan Correctional Center guards to 'look the other way'." I had written my edit to avoid plagiarism. Valereee's edit both quoted precisely from the text, which could be construed as plagiarism, and directly acknowledged Twitter as a reliable source. So Valaree's rationale for her or his objections to both my "good faith" edits in question seem odd at minimum. It would be at diff 910545989, 12 August 20:33 (mine) and 21:33 (Valereee's). I "theorized" that the problem here might be article "ownership," rather than accuracy and reliability. It's just a theory, of course, and I didn't even do it on Twitter. Now to the subject of the propriety of birth dates of children on the article, I removed the name of her son and his birthdate, sua sponte, though they were reliably sourced, because I didn't think they were important to the article and to accommodate Valereee. For some reference a moment ago, I went to Donald Trump's article and his son Barron, the same age as Asha's son, has a name and birthdate. Then I went to Chelsea Clinton's article, which I find does not have the names of her three children, but does have each of their birth dates. If we were compelled or advised to remove such names and birthdates, that would almost certainly affect millions of articles. Lastly, Valereee has taken many other editors of Asha's article to task and has regularly done many reverts, and left notes of caution throughout the article about the subject, because, legitimately I assume, she or he notes that Rangappa is a patronym, and Asha is properly referred to by her given name, rather than by her father's name. So Valereee has reverted the edits of others (not mine, as I've always respected Valereee's wishes and claimed authority on the matter). You might treat that issue lightly, and do the same. I personally don't care which name Asha prefers. Given all this, I hope you will evaluate your conclusions in light of the above, though whether you keep them intact or modify them is entirely up to you. P.S. I've always been a Dilbert fan, reading that strip and Doonesbury, thence tossing the comics into the recycling. Have a good day. Activist (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Best way to display birth year and age correctly
When doing a DYK review, I stumbled upon Alina Morse. From the sources published about her, we can (WP:CALC) with certainty say that she was born in 2005 because two sources from 2019 called her 13 and 14 years old and 2005 is the only year for which both can be true. However, the infobox uses birth year and age and thus displays "2005 (age 13–14)" when we know she is 14 as of 11 June 2019. Is there a template that handles such cases? age as of date renders 14–15 which of course is also incorrect. Regards So  Why  09:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to replace the template with "2005" so no age is shown. That's on the basis that showing 13–14 seems silly although I know, for example, 43–44 might be shown for a similar case with an older person. Some complex wikitext might handle showing the range before June and the higher age after June, but that seems pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Birth based on age as of date is the template you want.-- Auric   talk  18:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really, because it would give me "2005 (age 14)" when I know based on the other sources that her birth year has to be 2005. I would need a birth based on age as of two dates template but that does not exist, does it? Regards So  Why  15:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard again
This page is in the middle of a huge knock down drag out fight. Depending on who you believe there are serious attempts to either demonize Gabbard or to whitewash the article (I will leave to to the reader to decide which).

Before I go to ANI or AE, I would like to invite any editors who are interested in having a NPOV article to jump in and fix any POV problems (from either side of the current disputes) they see. If you are more interested in rooting for Team Read or Team Blue (or one particular player on Team Blue) than NPOV, please stay away. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I notice that four of the active editors have consistently added negative information to this article, while removing negative information in articles about Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats. I think it may be time to take this to AE. TFD (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sigh. OK. I will start gathering diffs and putting together a timeline. I hate politics. Do you think that if we asked them really nicely and apologized for that whole revolutionary war thing the UK would take us back? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You can always use the strategy I did: marry a Canadian. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I was just reading Today We Celebrate the Time Canada Burned Down the White House. Any chance we can get them to do it again? (Note: That was NOT me rooting for Team Blue. I have a low opinion of both major US political parties. If I were given the choice, I would like to see a Green or Libertarian president -- not because I think it would be an improvement but just so we can be disappointed by someone new.) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Canada didn't burn down the White House, it was the Russians. It's in the Mueller report. TFD (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I read in on InfoWars so it must be true. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Guy Macon, yes, sure, welcome home, but you'll have to learn how to make tea - Boiling water, not cold or merely hot, freshwater not salt, teapot quantities not a whole harbour. & it is the right to bare arms not to bear arms.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * We seriously need to apply NOT#NEWS to politician pages. As an encyclopedia, we should not be trying to document every single one of their views, and certainly not in the real-time nature of typical news reporting. See what their legacy turns out to be and then add the sourcing that supports their views from that legacy. Don't try to second guess importance. --M asem  (t) 20:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Snooganssnoogans has taken over ownership of the article in the last months. (From 10% to 18% according to wikiwho). I'm not sure that SS agrees with you that this is an encyclopedia and not an election guide / political newspaper.  This question should be put to them at ArbCom.  The civility pillar should be enforced:  the fact that SS has been allowed to denigrate my contributions & cast aspersions on me for years speaks volumes about Wikipedia's broken processes and misplaced priorities. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 11:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Please present a case at WP:AE with diffs showing the behavior before making claims like "...has been allowed to denigrate my contributions & cast aspersions on me for years speaks volumes about Wikipedia's broken processes and misplaced priorities..." If you have a case (I haven't examined the evidence for myself) and you don't file a report at ANI or AE, then you have only yourself to blame and shouldn't be blaming Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I've tried to draw the community's attention to the problem, at WP:AN, WP:ANI. People clearly recognize there is truth in what I've said, but it's always crickets all the way down... ^^ 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 22:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * May I please have a list of the times you tried to draw the community's attention to the problem AN or ANI, with links to the archives? I am preparing a case to put before Arbcom, but I have not yet been convinced that the problem I need to present to Arbcom is the problem you describe above. Not trying to give you a hard time her, but I really need to see these crickets for myself. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sashi tried at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008 and I tried in the same thread at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008 (warning: prepare a stiff drink before you read that brawl of a thread). See also the pending WP:AN (and the underlying RfC, and the battle that preceded it). My personal introduction to this was back in February at Talk:2018 United States elections. I wouldn't normally bring up stuff that old, but hey, Snoog just posted diffs from February as part of his ANEW report against Sashi at WP:ANEW. Search for Snoog's name at ANEW archives and you'll find a gazillion threads that all end in no action, or page protection, and the occasional boomerang. Honestly, I think ANI or AE will be a complete waste of time. Admin (writ large) either don't seem to think there is a problem or aren't interested in trying to solve it (I can't blame them; they're volunteers). I'm not quite sure if Arbcom will be any better, particularly with everything they have on their plate now (I guess we'll see how the Polish Jews case comes out, because I see these as very similar issues). I think there is a larger problem than one or two editors, though, and it's exactly what Masem points out above: the US politics area has turned into a political newspaper, with editors fighting to stick in the latest quotes from second-rate media (e.g., the Daily Beast). Every article on US presidential candidates, for example, are complete junk, filled with, "In August 2019, so-and-so said such-and-such," or "This newspaper wrote that so-and-so is this-and-that", etc. etc. It needs a major overhaul and a reintroduction to NOTNEWS. I think I am among many editors who have given up on editing in that topic area. – Levivich  02:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's pitiful enough, to know that corporate news media & politicians are trying to destroy the progressives in the Democratic prez nomination race. That's happening on Wikipedia? very sad indeed. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * During the last presidential election cycle, there were about 12 experienced editors who consistently added negative material to articles about Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein, while removing negative information about Hillary Clinton. Since then they have continued to add negative information to articles about Trump and Tulsi Gabbard, while defending mainstream Democratic candidates such as Kamala Harris. Some of these editors previously were involved in GMO related articles, removing negative information about GMOs and adding negative information about their opponents. Two of these editors were involved in an off-wiki group that coordinated editing of articles about Eastern European-related subjects, adding negative information to articles about Russia and removing negative information about Eastern European nationalists. Part of their strategy was to get opposing editors banned. The scheme was exposed by Wikileaks and resulted in arbitration action. While I have no direct evidence that this is continuing today, I think this is something that Arbcom should look into, particularly as many of these same editors have claimed that Russian trolls are trying to manipulate Wikipedia content. TFD (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Is there anything I personally can do to help this situation? I don't see my jumping in to the articles and adding one more warrior to the battlefield as being constructive. I could file a case at ANI. AE or Arbcom, but it looks like others have tried that and it didn't resolve the problem. Is this intractable? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed this article particularly closely, but I someone needs to be enforcing a "no airing of grievances until Festivus" rule to keep every single content dispute from turning in to a referendum on editorial conduct. I know folks are frustrated, but I've found it really difficult to wade through the sniping in order to offer input on the core content issues - which are often fairly mild. I also think a lot of the primary sourcing could be excised - despite the constant talk page conflict, I think the amount of just plain useless content is probably the thing that is most problematic with the actual article. Nblund talk 15:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you think the situation could be improved with a couple of topic bans? I've observed several disputes at the Gabbard article and I've noticed the same problem. Some of my thoughts are outlined here. I would be interested in your perspective. As things stand it wouldn't take much to convince me to issue topic bans for two users whose usernames start and end with the letter "S". ~Awilley (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that topic bans until a week after US election day would be an excellent solution. I will not speculate on who should be topic banned before I have examined the evidence myself, but I do see one or more likely candidates for a topic ban ending a week after the election. I do most of my editing on engineering topics, where we traditionally put up with "difficult people" because we have a shortage of editors with enough knowledge to make useful edits to topics like Power Factor, Hall effect. Cockcroft–Walton generator or Austin transformer. The pages of US presidential hopefuls are just the opposite: pretty much everyone understands the topic, we have a large pool of good editors willing to make good edits to the pages, but a few "difficult people" are driving the good editors away.


 * Could we have you or another uninvolved administrator go though the pages for all of the current US presidential hopefuls and at the very least give the obvious "Rooting For Team Red, Rooting For Team Blue, And Rooting For Individual Players On Team Blue" editors warnings and DS alerts?


 * I would like us to look at the history of the pages for all of the candidates listed at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries, 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries and 2020 Green Party presidential primaries, excluding those with over 10% in the polls (Trump, Biden, etc. already have plenty of admin attention to their pages). Would it be helpful for me and perhaps a couple of other uninvolved editors to do a first sort and identify potential problem editors? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree that we have many "good editors" on the AmPol articles. What we do have are a lot of editors that edit little other than this arena of articles and many are hell bent to twist the balance one way or the other via the use of reliable sources (NOTNEWS). I would suggest that if no TBs are issued, this be done only if an editor can "walk away" from that arena for at least a guaranteed period as I just did on one article in particular. If editors can't do that, and evidence shows they are editing in a combative, overly bold, uncompromising and partisan manner, then TBs are probably best. Especially true if they have had multiple warnings/previous penalties for similar issues in similar arenas.--MONGO (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It's unclear to me why Guy Macon's (who wants the Gabbard page to prioritize her surfing over her comments and actions on Assad and Syria despite the latter being her main claim to notability prior to her presidential run) and TFD's (who holds a clear POV on Gabbard and is in this very thread spitballing conspiracies that those who brush up against him in content disputes do so because they are part of a secret cabal) opinions are consulted here. Both of these editors have strong POVs on the subject in question (and TFD has been involved in countless content disputes with me), which informs the grievances that they express. Both don't like that the Gabbard page sticks to RS coverage of her rather than the kind of content that they personally like, and both have a distrust of media RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's also unclear to me why I'm being considered for a ban over my editing on the Gabbard page. All the content that I add exclusively adheres to RS coverage, and I have resolved all of my disputes on the page through the appropriate channels, often painstakingly so. I challenge you to find anyone who has wasted more time trying to get uncontroversial RS text included on a page than I have on the Gabbard page. I literally had to take every single edit I made in a large edit and resolve it bit by bit on the talk page because one editor vetoed it all indiscriminately (and after wasting weeks on this, most of the content of course ended up in the article). The content is neither positive nor negative: I simply stick to what RS report. This can be her uncontroversial positions on economic matters and the environment, as well as her controversial positions on Syria and Narendra Modi. I have added content that highlights her fringe positions on Assad's use of chemical weapons, as well as immediately adding content that made her position less fringe when such content became available. Every content dispute of mine has been taken to the talk page, and if there was no resolution in these content disputes, I took them to RfCs. The page is so dysfunctional that even though the RfCs concluded in favor of my preferred edits, I was prevented from implementing my edits and I refrained from edit-warring the RfC conclusions in. All the content removals I have done have been based on policy, and would be uncontroversial on any other article except this one, mostly because of pushback from one editor. I have also repeatedly called for administrative attention to the page and encouraged community-wide input on disputes on the page. I have gone above and beyond to comply with Wikipedia policy and resolve content disputes on the page. My editing on the article has been a clear net positive. It would be an egregious case of false balance to ban me from the page because I happen to make edits to the article that the editor responsible for the dysfunction of the page disagrees with. As far as I can tell, the only way to avoid this ban would have been to simply abandon the page, let another editor make edits that I believed violated Wikipedia policy, and refrain from adding RS content of my own and argue for it on the talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is OK to respectfully disagree with an editor who makes a good-faith suggestion that maybe, just maybe, a page should be 3% human-interest and 97% political wonkery instead of 100% political wonkery, but making multiple snarky comments about that disagreement as if the other editor did something wrong or stupid is is not OK. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would not have commented on you and your history on the page if your advice was not actively sought after as some kind of neutral observer. It's not an attack on you and your capabilities. If a topic ban is being considered on myself on the advice of two editors who have expressed concerns about the editing on a particular topic, it's entirely valid for me to make clear that the editors in question have a history on that topic, hold drastically different opinions than myself on how RS should be treated, and do not hold neutral POVs on the topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that you being topic banned is NOT being considered on my advice. You just made that part up. What I said was "I will not speculate on who should be topic banned before I have examined the evidence myself, but I do see one or more likely candidates for a topic ban ending a week after the election." I never included or excluded you as a candidate for a topic ban, nor will I until I take the time to examine the evidence for myself. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. You were asked to weigh in on whether I should be topic banned, as if you were a neutral observer, when you are not a neutral observer. That's all I'm saying. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You accuse me of having a bias for Gabbard, but if you look at my record, I have also argued for the exclusion of smears against Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Donald Trump and other candidates. And you and I have been in 100% agreement in the case of smears against Clinton, Warren and Harris, because you have never agreed to adding any negative information about them, while all of your efforts on Gabbard have been to add negative information. Incidentally, Gabbard did not come to public awareness with her visit to Syria but when she quit the DNC and endorsed Sanders. And that is why you and the other editors who supported the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 take an interest in this article in my opinion.

I was asked what action should be taken. Snoogassnoogans and about a dozen other editors began editing in the last presidential cycle and have consistently edited articles in favor of some candidates and against others and have applied content policy and guidelines differently depending on which candidates they favored. That is certainly not in the best interests of the project. ANI is inadequate to deal with it, due to its complexity. This comes under tendentious editing. There is of course bad faith editing on the other sides, but seems to be controllable. I would suggest therefore an ARBCOM case, although it is a lengthy and involved process. I had actually thought that the pro-Clinton editors would have gone on to other pursuits following the 2016 election, but they haven't.

TFD (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * (1) I completely reject the idea of negative/positive/neutral content. (2) However, if edits can be construed as negative, here is a partial list (I cannot sift through thousands of edits) of some edits that you would very likely consider to be negative to various other Democratic 2020 candidates: Kamala Harris (literally substantiating a Tulsi Gabbard criticism of Harris), Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Joe Biden Bernie Sanders, John Delaney, Marianne Williamson. As for the Elizabeth Warren page, I have only edited content related to her Native-American heritage, with one exception: Noting that she was a Republican until the mid-90s. I know he's not currently a candidate, but Michael Bloomberg was considered a very likely Democratic candidate at the start of the year when these edits were made. Richard Ojeda was a candidate but has now withdrawn Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In the first Biden edit you changed that according to The New York Times the crime biil made Biden "loathed on the left" and threated his 2020 campaign to "over time" the bill became controversial and Biden said he made a mistake. Essentially you toned down the criticism. It was only after the crine bill that people saw its problems and Biden expressed regret for its unforeseen consequences. In fact the legislative approach had been pioneered with the Rockefeller Drug Laws of 1973 and the three-strikes laws in various states. A number of your edits follow that pattern: any negative information is balanced by spin. Yes Harris opposed cash bail, but only for gun related offenses because low bail costs attracted them to San Francisso. You leave out that bail remained high for non-violent crimes, and is now leading the fight to end cash bail. No mention for example that bail for drinking under the age of 21 was set at $5,000 and welfare fraud under $400 at $3,000. BTW, I assume you probably dislike Sanders also, but his article has attracted very little hostility
 * I am not saying btw that any of the edits you listed were wrong, just that they are presenting information that was already in the article or would be included in the best possible light.
 * TFD (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * What a surprise. Adding flip-flops to the pages of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are suddenly attempts to portray them in a better light! Being pro-cash bail is suddenly something that's going to be good for a Democratic candidate in the 2020 primaries! Saying "criminals flock to San Francisco to exploit its low bail policies" is a totally rational assessment of how criminals think that will definitely appeal to 2020 Democratic voters! It's almost as if the notion of negative/positive/neutral content is arbitrary BS, and whatever edit I make (I am after all part of a secret cabal of a dozen editors who are conspiring to wreak havoc on Hillary's enemies, in your view) must be negative/positive if they are on whatever arbitrary list of anti-Hillary/pro-Hillary Dems that you have created. And for what its worth, I posted three edits regarding Biden, and the edit that you claim toned down criticisms of Biden actually removed BLP violations because the source does not say Biden was "loathed by the left" and it does not say his candidacy was threatened (I should of course have kept these BLP vios to prove my anti-Biden bona fides) while it added his flip-flop. And what better evidence of my work for the Kamala Harris campaign than a failure to add a court document hosted on web.archive.org that doesn't mention Harris at all... seriously? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

One thing worth observing at BLP/N, I think, is that wikipedia contributors are living people. As for the rest, it should really be at ArbCom with more formalized statements & diffs. In my view, given the discussion of Awilley's actions in the area (T Ballioni, El C, among others, cf. their talk page), I would expect them to be a party. But we should give them time to get settled, as mentioned above, Wikipedians are people too. The evidence will show that the AE mass-spinning sanction Snoog has never -- to my knowledge -- appealed was given for a reason. The last article I wrote about en.wp is almost a year old now. At that time Snoog was more of a tweeter fan as you'll see if you read the first paragraph and follow the links provided. At the time the Daily Beast turned up 5142 times in an insource:"thedailybeast.com" search. As of this writing there were 7457 instances of the same Daily. That's 2315 in about a year, or  roughly 6 references added a day. Much more impressive is the rise of twitter: 78,026 today, 35,735 a year ago. That elephant has more than doubled in size! Guy & HillBillyHoliday will probably be sad to note that the number of references to the Daily Mail has also grown during the same period. (27,336 --> 31,919) Here's a direct link to the research on frequency of source usage back in Aug 2018 for those who wish to see how their favorite rag has been piling up against the others in the last year! ^^ 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 00:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe until the day after inauguration day. – Levivich 23:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There's a journalist, Helen Buyniski, who appeared on Chris Hedges' "On Contact: Wikipedia - A Tool of the Ruling Elite" on RT. In the show, she said there was bias in editing articles about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. She provides further discussion in "Wikipedia: the Modern Delphic Oracle" on the Progressive Radio Network in which she names Snooganssnoogans and several other editors as working to inject bias into these articles. In another article, "Wikipedia: J’accuse," she mentions the problems SashiRolls encountered when they tried to add information about the use of Clinton Foundation money following the Haitian earthquake. Now I realize this is alternative media, however I think it would be useful for the project to determine the accuracy of these allegations one way or the other. TFD (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Nothing screams "here's a credible person with thoughtful commentary" more than someone who appears on "False Flag Weekly", hosted by a 9/11 Truther and Holocaust denier, and writes columns for the renowned conspiracy website Centre for Research on Globalization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter who wrote it if the charges are true. I am not prepared to pass judgement (I need to see diffs and check them out for myself) but I think that there is enough here for an Arbcom case. If there is nothing to the accusations, Arbcom will clear Snooganssnoogans' name.
 * Here is the link: Wikipedia: the Modern Delphic Oracle on the Progressive Radio Network
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize that she co-hosted that show and note she that she did not do so when she appeared on RT or wrote her articles. Still, I think there is enough for ARBCOM to look into this. TFD (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Are we sure this is an Arbcom-level case? This one discussion would not be sufficient for what Arbcom would usually consider the community's failure to solve the problem first. --M asem (t) 22:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * TFD,Guy Macon: beyond just rattling off the names of a half dozen experienced editors, what evidence does this provide for that charge? The author seems to be pretty thoroughly bonkers. Undisclosed paid editing for a political campaign would probably be illegal, it would definitely be a huge violation of the rules, and the article you've linked to seems wayyyy off in tin foil hat territory. Did I miss some evidence somewhere? That really seems like something you should strike out and drop. Nblund talk 22:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity for the kind of mindset that spitballs that I‘m part of a secret cabal of Wikipedia editors and whose advice is sought after on whether to ban me, I decided to check out this "journalist" that TFD brought to the table. I half-listened to her on "False Flag Radio" (hosted by a Holocaust-denying 9/11 Truther) where she delineates her views on Wikipedia and the great conspiracy that I myself is apparently a part of (MjolnirPants, Neutrality, BullRangifer and Volunteer_Marek are also part of this conspiracy per this woman):
 * 1:40 - The interview starts out with Helen complaining that the Wiki page for the 9/11 Truth movement says that 9/11 Truthers are conspiracy theorists. She suggests that the reason for this is that Wikipedia is getting money (no mention of who is paying and why they care what the 9/11 Truther page looks like).
 * 5:40 – Laughing it up about how Wikipedia editors have "Zionist Aspergers". Previously in the interview, they say only individuals who are paid or individuals with Aspergers put a lot of time into editing Wikipedia.
 * 11:00 – Wikipedia admins are following the orders of Jimmy Wales, a Randian who is working for the corporate overlords. Wales‘s motivations are to be able to go to Davos every year, so he orders the admins to make sure the Wikipedia pages look a certain way.
 * 15:20 – Moaning about how the Wikipedia page for Gary Null mentions that he is a HIV/AIDS denier, and that he encourages HIV-positive individuals to use dietary supplements rather than antiretroviral medication. They laud this Null figure at several points in the interview.
 * 20:00 – Wales is described as some kind of hack who had no skills and just took credit for Wikipedia, which was created by someone way smarter
 * 21:30 – There‘s a lot of money exchanging hands between Wikipedia and Google, and Wales is looking to profit on running ads
 * 35:00 – I stopped listening. There's literally nothing interesting that this woman has to say, unless you want to do a drinking game over how many times "basement dweller" (or synonym) is said in this hour-long audio. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow! Looney tunes... -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe the thing to do is to just start an evidence gathering page, collect the diffs, see what/who is there, and then decide whether to take it to RFAR or ANI or somewhere else or nowhere. One option, if the evidence page shows problematic editing from one or more editors, is to bring that to the attention of those editors and see if a voluntary resolution can be negotiated, before taking it to any noticeboard. – Levivich 23:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Helen did a lot of digging around off-wiki for Gary Null, her printed work is quite well referenced. She's consistently stretched a few things I've said beyond what I have ever claimed to know, though. For example, I have no idea when Minassian Media was first hired and have never claimed that they were directly related to any house POV folks there might be out there. I also can't claim to know they weren't, so I'm not that annoyed with her.  One thing I am sure of is that the Clinton Foundation page was started by User:Clinton Foundation, which wasn't blocked until 16 months after it created the entry.  Ah back when things were so much simpler!  Now some people edit over 15 hour stretches, day after day, sometimes taking 2 or 3 hours of breaks in the day, sometimes not, for months on end.  I often think it "must be nice" not to have to do a day job, but I've also understood that it may also be tough not having a day job to do and feeling obliged to edit Wikipedia instead. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 00:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Nblund, since Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) in 2015 there have been dozens of sanctions and no end in sight. The major editors in these articles have been parties to numerous ANI and AE requests, either brought by them or against them. Meanwhile, there are ongoing content disputes in articles about controversial national figures (which includes all major presidential candidates) with massive amounts of discussion. TFD (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, but how do you go from there to endorsing an article that insinuates that multiple editors are part of some kind of vast left wing conspiracy involving the Clinton foundation? Repeated tendentiousness is grounds for an ARBCOM case, but this article just looks like someone pulling a Breitbart and using "alternative media" to smear editors off-wiki. Anyone can do this. And it undermines any legitimate gripes you might have.
 * Do you have any evidence for this at all other than just bias? If not, why not just apply Occam's Razor and ask whether the simpler explanation (contentious topic area and strong feelings) explains what you're pointing to?  Nblund talk 15:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would argue it would be extremely difficult to put down AP2 sanctions on anyone being named here. There are some behavior flareups from the back-and-forth, and plenty of 1RR notifications, but I mean, talking the long term editing patterns of those named is well beyond the type of scope that AE on AP2 would be suited for. Nor would I isolate the situation to just those editors named. It is a wiki-wide problem, maybe with a few editors in the spotlight because of their editing on high-profile articles like this one, but it goes well beyond these editors. Hence, again, Arbcom or AE is just not appropriate right now. --M asem  (t) 16:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand why Helen & TFD both want to draw attention to the BCP (biography of corporate person) protection on the Clinton Foundation entry. The relevant discussion is here and here. I would pay particular attention to SavvyJack's comments as they have done a good bit of work on entries about Haiti on en.wp. Related material can be found in particular here and here. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 16:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not know whether there is off-wiki cooperation. I do know that there are by my count 17 editors who extensively edit or have edited these articles and seem to mitigate criticism of some subjects including Hillary Clinton, while adding criticism to subjects including Donald Trump, Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard. Of these editors, two had previously cooperated off Wiki in articles about Eastern Europe, one has been blocked as a sock, one has been blocked for unrelated reasons, and four others appear on the ARBCOM enforcement log. When a successful AE was brought against Snooganssnoogans, six of these editors (including one not included above) defended his editing. They made up half of the editors responding. Furthermore, I don't know how often SashiRolls has been brought to AE or ANI, but it appears to be entirely in disputes with this same group of editors. (I haven't read through them all so could be wrong.) TFD (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not know whether there is off-wiki cooperation. Then stop bringing it up. Speaking as someone who is at least halfway sympathetic to some of your complaints here: this is not helpful. Nblund talk 18:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought I was replying to your question. TFD (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a note I have just noticed that has been blocked. I have doubts about the wisdom of blocking a participant in this discussion while it is still ongoing. (I do not wish to get involved in the substance of this discussion, this is just a heads-up about a potential problem.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocking only one editor when there are arguably a couple “misbehaving” is always shameful. Awilley’s crusade against SR is starting to look like harassment, per the updated T&S / Arb standards. Maybe an Arb Iban between those two is necessary here? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, she is a controversial politician. That's OK. Actually, I would strongly agree with her about cutting the military expenses. Yes, there are content disputes. That's OK. Do not bring this thing to WP:AE or Arbcom because this is going to be an enormous waste of time. My very best wishes (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, MVBW, why would this be more of a waste of time than the current Eastern Europe case (Holocaust in Poland) or previous cases like the one surrounding the Gamergate controversy? I've noticed that at least one of the very active actors in the AP area has most frequently edited Gamergate controversy and its accompanying talk page. Having never contributed to either of these conflicts, I wonder what it might be that brings people to AP from those areas? 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 18:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Category:Climate change deniers
(I don't know where this should go, but I went with this board because it relates to the BLP policy.)

In December 2015, this category was deleted as a result of a CfD and a parallel discussion at BLPN (Archive 231). There was consensus to delete the category on grounds of being "contentious", but was this decision appropriate? – Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 04:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you mean, its clearly true it is conscientious, but that (in and off itself) should not be grounds for deletion. The problem would be inclusion, and that maybe grounds for deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Having waded through much of the prior discussion, the only valid difficulty in having such a category AFAI can see, is the name. This is one of those situations (like pro-life/pro-choice) where the commonname is unfortunately somewhat 'loaded'. I obviously agree with Slater above that inclusion criteria need to be clear and might be difficult to enforce, but that in itself is not a reason to NOT have the category.Pincrete (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * When I started the BLP discussion I put a notification on all affected BLPs and pinged all participants in the CfD, and I explained what event had caused me to start it. The BLP participants were Peter Gulutzan MastCell Masem N-HH Prhartcom RevelationDirect JBL NorthBySouthBaranof TPX KarasuGamma M.boli Niteshift36 Milowent Anythingyouwant JRPG Jonathan A Jones alanyst Bonewah Zaereth Jess Bluerasberry Ssscienccce Marcocapelle agr Collect Softlavender Ryk72 AusLondonder Govindaharihari Sphilbrick Guy Macon Mangoe The Anome. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pinging me. I suppose this is related tangentially to post-1932 American Politics, from which I am indefinitely topic-banned by User:NeilN (who has not been around to respond to my unbanning request at his user talk), but I do stick with what I said before about this category, FWIW.  Cheers!&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Opposed to "denier" category. Denier is often flung as an insult, it sounds like the person is being accused of having a psychological problem, i.e. in denial. That makes it a BLP issue. The other problem is that there is no clear definition, you can find people with opinions all over the map labeled "deniers." Bjørn Lomborg for example appears in somebody's list of Top 10 Climate Deniers. What he denies are the economic benefits and urgency of addressing climate change. In my own practice I've stopped using the term except for a few unambiguous cases, since "denier" too often means somebody who fails the speaker's purity test. Thanks for the ping, Peter Gulutzan, and thank you for being a fair-minded and generous-spirited person in Wikipedia discussion. M.boli (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support restoration but it would be very recommendable to add "activist" or something similar that stresses the definingness of the characteristic. So Category:Climate change denial activists or Category:Climate change scepticism activists. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your suggested "activist" has caused me to re-think my opposition. The inclusion criterion–what people would have in common–would be opposition to addressing climate change. I still don't like the "denier" label, but you have have captured a crisper definition of what would make this a useful category. M.boli (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose anything with "denier" in it. It is a term invented by the opposition specifically to imply that it is like Holocaust denial. Using a loaded category that the proponents of a position use is nothing new; both "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" were chosen to imply that the opposition is against choice or against life -- and we use the more neutral and descriptive Anti-abortion movement and Abortion-rights movements. Climate change denial is not only loaded, but it is a term used only by detractors. Nobody calls themselves or their group Anti-life, Anti-choice or Climate change denial. (Strange that we disambiguate Anti-life as a pejorative term, but Anti-choice redirects to Anti-abortion movement. Seems a bit POV to me.) Oddly enough, Holocaust denial is used by many some holocaust deniers, who see it as an accurate description based upon them (correctly, in their view) denying that Hitler killed millions of Jews. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually very few holocaust deniers self-describe thus (as the page will confirm). 'Historical revisionists', 'truth-tellers' or simply 'historians' is how they self-describe. It's a detail, but the idea that we can't categorise people by terms used by their critics is not borne out. There are other good reasons for using something other than the rather crude term 'denier' IMO though. Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I should point out that in some places Holocaust denial is a crime, and the fact that many holocaust deniers have in fact lost libel actions about being called a holocaust denier. The courts (in many cases) have said these people are holocaust deniers.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support restoring - the term is used extensively by sources, hence not "POV". Of course whether or not it is included in a particular article can be POV. That does not make the term unencyclopedic or not useful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting involved in this again. —&#8288; 烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 09:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Denier" is a pejorative term, not merely descriptive, and open to interpretation. Our article on Climate change denial defines it as "... part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions." That is very broad and subjective. Who decides what doubt is unwarranted, for example? Are people who say it may already be too late then to be labeled climate change deniers based on the last prong of the definition? In addition we do not have a good way to cite sources for inclusion in a category, and BLP demands strong sourcing for controversial claims. And who is important enough to be included? Does the category cover every politician who has a Wikipedia article and is on record as expressing doubt about the reality of human-induced warming or has opposed measures to stop it? That might include most members of the U.S. Republican party and quite a few on the growing European right. That would make the category too broad to be useful. The decision to remove this category was correct and should stand.--agr (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in principle I recognise the sentiments of those who object to the word 'denier', despite it being a commonly used term - however it shouldn't be beyond us to find a) a more neutral descriptor b) to establish objective criteria for inclusion and c) as with all cats, inclusion criteria should include that this is a significant defining feature of the individual, which is covered in the text of the article in some depth. I endorse that this would be a useful cat and am somewhat surprised that it was deleted.Pincrete (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment:  I never thought this category was a BLP concern worth much consideration.  If someone is of the opinion that climate change does not exist, why would this category addition be considered anything but simply descriptive, if not positive?  The primary reason we fret about this is not because of the use of the term denier, but because we think it labels such people as having significant deficits in knowledge and/or cognitive abilities.  Surely we can come up with something like Category:Flat Earth proponents that would get consensus?--Milowent • hasspoken  13:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you can spend all day searching and fail to find a single peeson who is labeled a climate change denier and is of the opinion that climate change does not exist. You will instead find the following (listed in order from most unreasonable and unscientific to most reasonable and scientific)
 * [1] Conspiracy theorists who think all climate scientists are lying (but who, in general, accept that the climate changes from natural causes).
 * [2] People who don't deny the existence of climate change but believe that the magnitude is smaller than the climate scientists say it is.
 * [3] People who don't deny the existence or magnitude of climate change but believe that human activity is a smaller factor than the climate scientists say it is.
 * [4] People who don't deny the existence or magnitude of climate change or how big a factor human activity is but believe that it is beneficial instead of being harmful.
 * [5] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that we are on the brink of a naturally-caused ice age prevented only by human-caused warming.
 * [6] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that geoengineering can reverse human-caused climate change.
 * [7] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that humans can adapt to changing climate.
 * [8] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that the computer simulations are flawed. Pretty much everyone agrees that previous computer simulations made predictions that turned out to be wildly wrong. People in category 8 believe that the same is true about current simulations. Climate scientists say that they have fixed the problems and the simulations are now accurate. But of course they said that the last time too.
 * [9] People who don't deny [see list above] and accept the climate change simulations but reject the economic simulations -- again pointing out that no economic simulation has ever been able to successfully predict the future economy.
 * [10] People who don't deny [see list above] but doubt that increasing the size and power of the government is the solution, arguing that those with the most money generally get the government to do what they want done.
 * [11] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for North America and Europe to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on Asia, India, Africa, and South America
 * [11] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for the US to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the world.
 * [13] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for California to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the country or the rest of the world.
 * [14] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for Los Angeles to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the state, country or world.
 * All of the above views are regularly called "climate change denial" in the popular press. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you have strengthened 's point above. The common thread is do nothing about climate change. A category tying them all together could have utility. (Your assertion about not finding any flat-out deniers is wacky however.) M.boli (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * They also often switch from one of those positions to the next when too many people see that the first one is untenable. This is because they only care about doing nothing about climate change and not about the reason for doing nothing - it is only a pretend reason anyway. The underlying cause is market fundamentalism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon, there are gradiations like this all over wikipedia regarding categories. Climate change is not unique.  We are tying to create categories that help our readers, and no category is perfect.  Indeed I just found out about and wrote Orlando Ferguson after chiming in here earlier with my reference to Category:Flat Earth proponents.  Doctor Ferguson (who was not really a doctor) did NOT believe the earth was completely flat, instead, he thought there was some elevation change topping out at the north pole, and that the earth was SQUARE.  But I still put him in Category:Flat Earth proponents and he definitely should be there.  Here, if the consensus of mainstream news reporting is that someone is a climate change denier, some category seems appropriate, because it can help our readers.  Nuance can be shown in article content.  Indeed, it can be the case that someone falling in your category [14] (the "most reasonable" in your hierarchy) is just making an argument to support his general opposition to any intervention steps, although he actually believes like US President Trump that China invented global warming as a hoax. .  But if some comedian makes a random joke about global warming one day, that doesn't merit inclusion.--Milowent • hasspoken  19:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Orlando Ferguson died over a century ago. The category we are dealing with primarily involves living people and, under BLP, our standards are much higher. Indeed, dealing with people who expressed doubts 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago about humans causing global warming and then died presents yet another problem. The further back you go, the less certain the science was. Are they all deniers?--agr (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Newspapers definitely thought Orlando Ferguson was nuts, but they were always polite. That's also our goal.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As I just tried explaining to an editor who can't seem to grasp the issue....... Aside from the word "denier" being loaded with implications, it's not really accurate. For example, I have a userbox that says I am skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. According to him, I'm a "climate change denier". Skeptic means I am not convinced and have doubts. Not denial, doubts. And Anthropogenic means man-made, not all. Do I deny that there is climate change? No. Do I have doubts that it is primarily manmade? I do. But labels like "climate change denier", regardless of how many media sources recklessly use the term, is not necessarily accurate. As an encyclopedia, I think we should strive for accuracy. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The whole problem with categories that include WP:LABEL language is that we cannot provide a source at the category page as required by BLP. Yes, on the main page of a categorized BLP that should be sourced, but we're still using labeled language, so factual inclusion may not be there, just the perception from a few members of the press or the person's peers. We should not have these types of categories where inclusion is based on a subjective evaluation of the person by other sources. --M asem  (t) 13:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was a significant contributor to both discussions above, which I suggest people read, and I haven't changed my mind. I don't like BLP categories which are controversial or can be considered as derogatory, and I especially don't like them when the criteria for inclusion seemed to be subjective, ill-defined and poorly implemented.  For example the orginal list included a "lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change" and also included a minor UKIP politician where the sole reference in support of the categorisation was some retweets (not even tweets) an account in his name had made. As far as I can tell the whole category seemed to be little more than a list of individuals whom some editors didn't like. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose "denier" label support other neutral categorization to be decided Wikipedia has challenges tagging people who support fringe ideas. This proposal is similar to many others I have seen. We look for third-party verification of these things, which is a bias of Wikipedia which has benefits and drawbacks. I like that Wikipedia maintains its quality control; I regret that we do not have good systems for helping researchers identify obvious information like "who has published a paper confirming a certain concept". The longer term solution to this problem that I see is modeling this kind of issue in Wikidata, probably through the meta:WikiCite project. There are maybe 500 people who have contributed significantly to that project and many more would do more if it were more developed. I think there is community consensus within that project that people want to be able to query Wikidata to generate lists of things like who affirms or rejects various positions in publication. Lists like this are likely to become part of Wikidata culture because that project has so much more power to quickly verify these claims than Wikipedia. I like that Wikidata makes it relatively easy for people to enrich data for such purposes; I regret that we currently lack training materials and that anyone wanting to do this will have to be patient and persistent as they ask questions to human for support in an environment without sufficient documentation.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support restoration (until a more neutral term is found). Understanding that the term Denier may be used subjectively, Climate change denier is a useful descriptive category when applied correctly and it is a term that is used extensively by reputable third-party sources. Until such time that a more clearly objective neutral name for the category is chosen the category and its title Climate change denier should be restored. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC) (~ add I think I have a problem in that I dont see the label as 'pejorative' as others do here, i just considered it as a environmental position.)
 * Alternative suggestion. Since one mother category would be Category:Climate change skepticism and denial, why not call it Category:Climate change skeptics and denialists? That way, it would also contain scientists who rejected the concept before there was a consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the opposition seems to be based on the perception that the category itself is "perjorative", surely there is some title that won't be seen that way? Perhaps Category:People who've decided humans had a good run.--Milowent • hasspoken  19:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As the title is obviously pejorative in nature, and intended to be so, and is not a self-ascribed attribute to those who would be in such a group, it violates several policies and guidelines. Sort of like having a category for "Self-Hating Gnarphists" or "Gnarphist Nazi-Fascists" or the like. Collect (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * oppose Since this is a pejorative label, it's a problem (as I said last time) that it tends to be stuck on anyone who deviates from a certain political orthodoxy, even if they agree with the core thesis of anthropogenic climate change. It's not a clear binary like "did a certain even occur" is. I doubt the will of the community to police the category even if it is very narrowly construed. Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. SemiHyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 16:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Alternative suggestion: Category:Climate action skeptics The criterion would be opposition to addressing global warming, as described by the scientific consensus. It doesn't sound pejorative, it seems to cover most of the varieties without arguing who is in and who is out. This category would apply to people where that is a substantial part of what makes them notable. -- M.boli (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said 3 years ago, I tend to agree with Masem that this probably shouldn't be a category (under any name). --JBL (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose My two cents: From a neuropsychological standpoint, categorization is a natural reaction. It's really hard-wired into the brains of any animal with an amygdala, and in particular, occurs in the area here the amygdala connects to the hippocampus. This area acts like a filter of information based upon emotional saliency, before storing it as memories in the hippocampus. No information is cognized (comes into consciousness) until it passes through this area for filtering. The purpose of it is manifold, but primarily it serves as a form of file-compression (not too unlike compressing a computer file) for faster processing and easier storage. For example, when you drive through a forest, you could not possibly remember every single tree along the way. Only those things that grab your attention --that have some importance or significance (salience) to you-- are committed to memory. Everything else is erased and simply stored as generic categories, ie: spruce tress or birch trees, etc... The processes in your brain which determine what is salient and what is not are your emotions, thus what you commit to memory depends solely upon whether it invokes an emotional response or not, and therefore this area of the brain is also our emotional center.
 * The purpose of categorization is to allow us to focus on the details which are important to us while discarding all of the info that we feel is unimportant, so it doesn't bog us down in the moment. That's what makes it so useful but also what makes it so dangerous. The same processes that cause us to categorize plants and animals into different taxonomical groups is exactly the same thing we use to categorize people. Thus, the emotional center of the brain is also the area where racial or other forms of hatred, prejudices and stereotypes form (all forms of categorization). When you can reduce something as complex as people to a simple label or title, it causes others to ignore all of the information involved and treat the individual as having all the characteristics placed upon that label. This is what makes it an extremely effective propaganda tool, because it turns a discussion into an us against them thing, rather than a collaboration or healthy debate of ideas, by creating an "in-group" in which "we" are all complex and individuals, and an "out-group" where "they" are all the same and (predominantly) bad. That's the way it has been used since the dawn of history to incite hatred or violence against others, from Babylon to the Romans to the Nazis to todays modern-world of political hatred.
 * We need to be really --extremely-- careful when categorizing people. Categories can be a great and very useful thing, when used properly, but they can be a terrible tool for both the nefarious and those with nothing more than good intentions, alike. This is one of those categories that is made to be divisive and does more harm to the debate than good. Zaereth (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Procedural Oppose The CFD conversation on this topic was extensive and had a large group of editors with different viewpoints, including those that came as a result of tags from biography discussion pages. While I respectfully disagree with the outcome (I favored renaming to be more neutral) the process lead to a reasonable outcome and I don't see anything that has changed recently to suggest a differnet consensus. If anyone feels the CFD was closed improperly, the right path is at WP:DRV. Thank you for tagging me to provide input; much appreciated! RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As much as I think true climate change deniers should be identified as such, I don’t like the concept of pigeon-holing beliefs into binary categories. O3000 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support restoring. I missed the original debate. After reading it and giving it some thought, I'd have voted keep. It's an identifiable and notable stance, just like Holocaust denial, and with potential to kill even more people. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support restoring I know I am fighting a rising tide (see what I did there?), but let's get back to talking about sources: if Reuters (or another RS) describes someone as a Climate change denier (using those exact words), we can categorize them as that too (though WP:DEFINING still applies). If there is not a source that says that, putting a person in the category constitutes original research. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Bad Rfc the OP didn't give a good reason for starting it. My opinion is in the prior BLP discussion. If nobody objects I will ask tomorrow for a formal close, "by an administrator" since an administrator closed the last one and this is like an appeal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: I asked today for a close by an administrator. I added earlier a DoNotArchiveUntil 14 August. Information for closer: I have just noticed that the OP pointed to the wrong version of the BLP discussion, where it was closed, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support restoring Support bringing back the word "denier", generally speaking is a descriptive and commonly known and used term. Why we should crack our brains to reinvent a wheel again and using some conspiracy words not to affect on someone’s emotions or attitudes. I don't see the label as the others do here and I did not see any depreciation "pejorative" it just express the sbm positions and views - and this is normal to have both affirmations and negations. We can found other term more neutral but it would change in essence, nothing - the problem still exists. However, the worldwide scale of these impacts has not been satisfactorily assessed.--IuliusRRR (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alternative suggestion. I think the distinction between "skeptic" and "denier" is relatively unimportant. Change to Category:Climate change skeptics. Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Since we have Category:Holocaust deniers to categorize individuals who "actively promoted" Holocaust denial, it would be consistent to have Category:Climate change deniers to categorize individuals who actively promoted Climate change denial. The category Category:Climate change skeptics would make an acceptable compromise, as a second choice. —  Newslinger  talk   04:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:LABEL. Additionally, the meaning of the term can vary depending on who is using it.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support restoration see what Marcocapelle wrote about possibly including the word "skeptic" in addition to denier (e.g., Category:Climate change deniers and skeptics) or just having a "AKA"/redirects thing at the top of page that notes other terms for it. It may also be notable to this discussion that on wikipedia, the "pro-life" actually redirects to "[|Anti-abortion movement]", similarly for pro-choice "[|Abortion-rights movements]" 24.217.247.41 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My take: Well, they are deniers. We got a whole damn article on it: Climate change denial. But since these people are not as bad as Holocaust deniers (depending on how extreme your viewpoint is), I guess we gotta consider WP:LABEL in terms of a category for them. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would absolutely reject anything with "skeptics" in the na,e as this is pseudoskepticism of the most blatant kind. There is a mountain of evidence to show that this is not honest skepticism, it is instead a deliberate agenda to undermine climate science for the specific benefit of, and often paid for by, the fossil fuel industry. I would support people-first language: "people identified as climate change deniers" for example. Guy (Help!) 17°:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Always found the deniers label attacking, perhaps ,'people who dispute climate change' is much more npov. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Guy Macon. This is a subject with too much neuance and "denier" is too often applied by various external sources to other people as a pejorative to shut down legitimate disagreements. Springee (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support restoration, but also a rename to something like skeptics. WP isn't in a position to make a value judgement about what the real-world scientific consensus is, nor the real-world RS biographical consensus about deniers of/skeptiks about/activists against the data on climate change. —&thinsp;AReaderOutThataway&thinsp;t/c [SMcCandlish via public WiFi] 16:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion - per WP:LABEL <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 16:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Per Guy Macon's rationale that "denier" is too ambiguous and could be attached to a variety of different sorts of people who don't want to support the scientific consensus on climate change for various reasons. As such, the category isn't particularly informative or useful. The WP:LABEL concerns don't point toward deletion of the cat though, as there are certainly plenty of WP:BLUESKY climate change deniers, for whom attaching that label would be strongly supported by multiple WP:RSes. Which is what WP:LABEL requires of us. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Guy Macon's explanation that "denier" is an inherently inaccurate label. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 01:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

JMSN
You have the wrong age on my wikipedia. The birthday is February 6, 1987

Let me know if you need any more info please.

I am Christian Berishaj the Artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.174.25.109 (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the 1983 birth year category. I could not find any other mention of current age or birth date. The birthday could be added if a reliable source is provided. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard (redux)
We could use another opinion on this discussion. To summarize: Humanengr added this content which quotes statements from Gabbard's campaign literature where she condemns the "establishment war machine". I reworded, because I believe the quote is excessive and because it used the phrase "neoliberal/neoconservative war machine" in Wikipedia's voice. We have not been able to reach an agreement on whether or not this is appropriate.

More broadly, I would appreciate some input from other editors regarding how much campaign material is "too much" when working with a BLP entry for a presidential candidate. For my part, I think that we can safely leave out most stuff unless it is picked up by a reliable secondary source, but that standard would mean that we took a big red pen to a huge chunk of Gabbard's entry. Nblund talk 15:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's going to be a long 15 months before Americans stop trying to elect a president again for a week or so, isn't it? Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I'm pretty sure we're going to re-model our electoral system after the gong show before too long. Nblund talk 16:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * On what policy basis is this a proper forum for discussing these issues? Humanengr (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it's material related to a living person, and because it appears to be the one-stop shop for all threads Gabbard related. You could make a case for WP:NPOVN as well, but the goal is to get outside input, so why does it matter? Nblund talk 16:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your “Because it's material related to a living person” is not what the top of this page says. It’s specific to certain conditions. Suggest we bring this back to the talk page. Another cmt have been posted there since. Humanengr (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd take the cue from the language of BLPSPS (even though that's not the type of source here): material should not be unduly self-serving. She is, as all candidates, bolstering up her position for the election race. It is not our place to be a platform for the candidates, but to simply document that they are a candidate and have made stands on specific topics of interest. Unless we need the full quote to state how she is defending her position from misrepresentation, as short a quote should be used, better if it could just be summarized. And yes "war machine" 100% needs to be quoted and attributed outside wikivoice. --M asem  (t) 16:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Concur with Masem. (All salt about endless American election cycles aside.) Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * +1 for the above. It's a bit like Rachel Maddow's policy on Roger Stone: she does not report stories along the lines of "Roger Stone says thing", because that is what Roger Stone does. She does report stories that are about Roger Stone, in a significant way. Not every campaign press release deserves to be repeated in the Wikipedia article.
 * Except for Elizabeth Warren of course. Because she has a plan for everything. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1ary sources can be used when 2ary do not address a particular issue. I’m ok w quoting ‘establishment war machine’ (as Gabbard did). Re ‘self-serving’: see my cmts on talk page. Will look again re shortening. Humanengr (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

See my note above re returning to talk page. Humanengr (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

We should not use content that is sourced to the candidates themselves (e.g. plucked from interview transcripts, taken from campaign website, tweets). There's no reason not to rely on secondary reliable sources for this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * As I noted above, given that no valid reason has been provided for bringing discussion here and there has already been further discussion on talk page (by ), it seems more appropriate to pursue discussion there. Thx Humanengr (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The goal is to get outside input. We can hammer out specifics on the talk page if you would like to propose something that is in line with the general consensus here (e.g.: we should limit direct quotes from campaign materials), but changing the venue isn't going to change the results of the discussion.  Nblund talk 17:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * One thing NOTBUREAUCRACY does not say is “mis-cite and misuse policy”, which you seem inclined to do. And, without justifying your use of this forum per my request, you invite comment uninformed by prior discussion. Humanengr (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @: Except that there are no 2ary sources for this. Humanengr (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that kind of answers that on notability, whether this information is due inclusion, doesn't it? Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Which part of WP:NNC do you not understand? Humanengr (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources here are being used to guide UNDUE evaluation, not notability. --M asem  (t) 18:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was typing quickly. I meant WP:DUE here. I've revised my previous statement. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@ — thx. Does the following satisfy for §'Establishment war machine'?: "[edited in view of cmt below] In her campaign launch, Gabbard called on everyone to take a stand against 'neolibs and neocons” from both parties promoting regime changes and also against the foreign policy establishment for starting a ‘New Cold War' arms race. In a campaign email released later that week, Gabbard spoke of the threat posed to freedom and democracy by “media giants ruled by corporate interests … in the pocket of the ‘establishment war machine'' which deploys journalism to 'silence debate and dissent.” She calls out ‘chickenhawks' … in both parties', in addition to corporate media and the military industrial complex for driving us to war 'for their own power and profit.”"
 * Speaking about the first/initial comment in this thread, I do not think that quoting her directly was a problem. Some might perceive such quotation as an attempt to present her in a negative light (because they consider such views "extreme"), but this is not the case. As a politician, that is her views, and she wants them to be delivered and promoted. That could be the reason to only briefly summarize her views (instead of direct quotation), but quoting her directly is not a negative information and not a BLP violation. Overall, I think this is all a typical content dispute about a highly controversial politician, nothing else. My very best wishes (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Humanengr (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Does this quotation properly summarizes her views on this subject? I am not sufficiently familiar with her views to make a qualified judgement, but it probably does. If so, then such quotation is fine. If not, one should cite something else. Briefly summarizing subject's views is usually better than providing a direct quotation though... My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From my rather extensive readings, this does properly summarize. I edited the above to reduce the quotations a bit, but kept key phrasings, including that reflected in the revised title. Humanengr (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

BOP registration numbers
I noticed someone posted the Federal Bureau Of Prisons registration numbers of a bunch of severely mentally handicapped people over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_Muslim I think it might be a good idea to remove em. Nick Humley (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Where on the page does it say that they are "severely mentally handicapped"?-- Auric   talk  18:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the BOP numbers and rewrote the lede a bit. That said, 's description of them is in extremely poor taste, at best. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Convert from Orthodox Judaism to Muslim extremism, and eventually get shut down and imprisoned for inciting violence against synagogues, British MPs and two guys who make fart jokes for a living? Not exactly a model of sound judgement and wise decision making. But yes, adding the BOP numbers is silly and meaningless.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  18:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Adam Edelman
Hi,

I have taken a look at the article, and the 'Disqualification' section is clearly biased - the only sources are his own words, and it does not meet the guidelines for the living peoples biography. Please see this link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Edelman and I'm sure it will be obvious. Some of this content should be entirely removed or flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.201.73.18 (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the unsourced material, and trimmed the puffery and non-NPOV content from the article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Checking on BLP applicability
specifically the section Allegations of mistreatment of transgendered employee.

This company faced a lawsuit from a transgendered individual which was reported in RS for the video gaming industry. (Surprisingly?) the name of the individual was not named by any of these RSes, though the name is discoverable through court documents. We have taken steps to trip the full name out since court documents are not acceptable for this type of naming (particularly with trans individuals), but a fair question now is related to BLP. This person lost their case, so it had no significant effect on the company. The case is hard to discover outside the period it happened, there wasn't a mass rush of "Valve is anti-LGBTQ!" complaints or the like. So I am wondering if it is just better not to mention it at all in the interests of BLP. This is not to whitewash the legal claim away from Valve, but companies get sued all the time and we don't report every lawsuit, unless it becomes newsworthy, and I think this is just cause to remove.

On that same matter, should revdel be used to remove the edits with that name on both mainspace and talkpage? --M asem (t) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed the section about the law suit. It simply didn't have enough impact on the company as a whole to be mentioned.
 * I believe that the person you are talking about is otherwise non notable.
 * I'd be surprised if people objected to deleting revisions that contain the name (or other personal information) of non notable individuals. If it is not the preferred name (e.g. a pre-transition name) then it should definitely be removed. Nick Humley (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The section has been removed, I think that's a good decision. I don't think revdel is needed. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the removal of the section, for WP:BALASP reasons, given the limited, and unsustained, coverage. I don't, however, see that the material meets any of the criteria at WP:CRD; and do not support revdel. - Ryk72 talk 16:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the section removed there is no need in it. And also, I doubt that the revdel is necessary.IuliusRRR (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Taylor Swift
I would be grateful for any input at Talk:Taylor Swift. Cheers, gnu 57 04:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Selman Akbulut
I came across the Selman Akbulut article today. The article was fully protected 2 days ago, after an ongoing edit warring and a BLP dispute regarding the Selman Akbulut section in the article. I left some comments today at the article talk page. It would be desirable if some other previously uninvolved editors take a look and provide some feedback there. There seem to be WP:COI issues involved, and the 'Controversy' section is currently sourced just to two primary sources, the university official documents concerning the ongoing disciplinary case regarding the subject. I did a bit of google searching and could not find any news coverage of the case, although maybe I missed something. I am currently of the mind that it would be better to remove the entire 'Controversy' section from the article for now, until and unless more solid independent secondary WP:RS sources become available. In any case, some extra eyes on the article and its talk page would be useful. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Bruce Ohr
This wikipedia page is clearly politically biased. Proof has been uncovered directly contraindicating what the author has written about his involvement with his sources and how he abused them in the Trump investigation. He has left a paper trail and his 302's prove this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8BF0:5AA0:4D97:3BE3:AC2D:7CFA (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what author you are referring to. If the author of the article, note that most wikipedia articles have many authors rather than a single one. Anyway if you have reliable secondary sources which cover what you are claiming, I suggest you bring them to the talk page and discuss what material you want to include. If you lack reliable secondary sources then there's nothing to discuss. 'paper trail' and 'his 302' are irrelevant to us without coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact there's already a discussion Talk:Bruce Ohr. Unfortunately like you, whoever started the discussion failed to provide any reliable secondary sources or even concrete proposals for change. Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Harrison Carter
Suggest for deletion as it is not a notable person. The article was written by the person themself. This article would be better on their own website or on their Google page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0C:5BC0:40:15D3:6145:3EF3:958E:A3D8 (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Eliot Cowan
Hello,

This article about Eliot Cowan looks like self promotion, some of the links are broken, most of the references point to self promotion, there's no proof or critics of Cowan's pseudo-scientific approach.

I wonder how this can of sentence ended up here "A series of dreams, encounters and experiences guided him to apprentice with Don Guadalupe Gonzalez Rios, an eminent Huichol shaman" - this is not encyclopedic knowledge.

Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdrk (talk • contribs) 11:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I doubt it's self promotion. For that, there are usually tell-tale signs in the writing style (ie: spatial, temporal, and narrative perspectives don't match, and details are given that only the subject could possibly know; you're reading third-person pronouns but it still feels like first person). The writing style there does seem oddly familiar, though.


 * The entire article is based upon one source, that and a broken link that, from the title, appears to be a list of bibliographical data which in itself does not confer notability. I'm not sure about the reliability of the one source; a yoga magazine. I don't know their reputation for fact checking and what not. The article looks well written and very professional, but lacks that sort of neutrality that one would expect from a good RS. Likewise, our article lacks the same neutrality, as if not written by the subject but by someone close to the subject. All in all, I'm not sure that it is enough to demonstrate notability either. This may be a good candidate for WP:Articles for deletion.


 * Keep in mind, I have great respect for ancient cultures and their traditional practices. Many of our modern medicines such as aspirin are simple plant derivatives that people like the Vikings knew about a thousand years ago or more. I'm a great proponent of knowing your local wildlife, so I'm not basing this review on any bias toward modern medicine. (Plants contain a vast variety of chemicals both beneficial and toxic, some are edible and abundant enough to feed the world, while others are extremely poisonous, enough so that a tiny bit of its sap is enough to kill a whale. It's healthy to be aware of your surroundings.) Zaereth (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Efficacy of plant-derived medicines aside - is there anything to indicate this person is a notable herbalist? Or shaman? Or author? Or camp-runner? Article is almost certainly a candidate for AfD, and definitely a candidate for copyediting. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Aside from the fact that he wrote one book, published by a company I've never heard of, with no other traces of even reviews, I'd say no. A quick google search seemed to confirm this. Zaereth (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I've PRODded the article. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC).

Joe Denly
this diff is a potentially libellous BLP violation (since reverted, but needs deletion?) Spike &#39;em (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've revision deleted it, along with the next edit summary in the history. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC).

Jacobin on Andy Ngo
In Andy Ngo, this article from Jacobin Magazine is used as a source for this material: In addition, according to Jacobin, friends of two activists said that they had to go into hiding after Ngo revealed their names because they became subjects of harrassment. Connor Smith, a Portland DSA member, has accused Ngo of recording and publishing a sign-in sheet with names of members of the organisation during one of their events, and claimed that as a result he received threatening messages. Jacobin does have an editorial board listed on their website, and the author of this article, Arun Gupta, appears to be a professional journalist who has written for other publications. However, I've seen very little to convince me that Jacobin has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and this article in particular is written with an obvious agenda. It begins by criticizing the mainstream media's coverage of Ngo, and the first claim in the article is supported only by this: Friends of two other activists claim they went into hiding after Ngo spread their names and they became targets of harassment. (for the second, the author appears to have actually spoken to Connor Smith, so that at least is a more direct claim). I'd like to see other editors' opinions on this. Is this Jacobin article reliable for these claims? And if it is, does including second-hand accusations from "friends of two activists" violate BLP? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would think that Jacobin is the type of partisan source that we should not be relying on as a sole source for claims about a living person. Unless there's any other sources reporting this material, it might not be duly-weighted anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Without any corroboration of the claims from a more "mainstream" source, this feels UNDUE, and the type of material BLP would caution against including for lack of sourcing. --M asem (t) 04:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Jacobin is not less partisan than many of the sources used in the article already. Moreover I struggle to understand how it's not "mainstream"? BeŻet (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I also think that their statement is ambiguous. Are they saying that the two friends were harrassed? Or are they saying that the friends said that the activists were harrassed? Hard to tell from what they wrote. So in addition to being from non-RS, it's not even clear what they are saying. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Get an additional source or drop it. O3000 (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. &mdash;Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 14:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this assessment. This source is quite valuable as while most sources focus on Ngo getting punched, sources like this explain the backstory and the reason why he got punched. Moreover, it is a respected magazine, and rejecting it as "not mainstream" or "partisan" is quite dishonest. If we want to achieve a balanced view of Ngo, adding context is quite crucial. BeŻet (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd like to add that "However, I've seen very little to convince me that Jacobin has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is extremely dishonest. BeŻet (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that the context is definitely due and should be included, but that this is a really specific accusation to hang on a single source (even though I believe Jacobin to be generally reliable). I would prefer to find a second source rather than just removing the allegations, however. If we can get some other source that talked to these people I would think it would be enough. Loki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson
There is a RfC about an addition to the lead section. See talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Erica Thomas
is an American politician - (black and a Democrat) who was involved in an embarrassing incident in a supermarket: Erica Thomas which takes up about half the body of the article. User:TheTruthiness. On the 12th an IP added unsourced defamatory content which was reverted today by User:Horse Eye Jack and reinstated with a change of wording and a source by TheTruthiness]]. This seems totally inappropriate, as does The Truthiness's insistence that unnecessary material about her be added to. Horse Eye Jack reverted it with the edit summary |Does not accurately summarize the information in the source", TheTruthiness reinstated it, I reverted and TheTruthiness reinstated it again. I really would like more eyes on this. I see that Thomas's article has been a target for IPs this month. Doug Weller  talk 18:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Totally undue coverage of this event.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty WP:NOTNEWS.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  18:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * RECENTISM much? IF this was a more national public figure, there might be a reason to include this, but at this point there's no clear impact on her career. Should not even be covered. --M asem (t) 18:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I trimmed it down: . Also started a section on the article's talk page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've topic banned User:TheTruthiness from pages related to Erica Thomas. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC).

Arvin Vohra
There are several incomplete or out of context quotes on this page, which is the page for the potential Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 2020. Examples:

1. Rather that quoting the original person, quotes are coming from people quoting the person. The original quotes are easily accessible in the articles referenced on the page. I have fixed one of these, but there seem to be quite a few. 2. Opening sentences of satirical articles are placed as if serious, without including relevent information of the rest of the article. 3. Relevant information missing, literally including political views! Why are a candidate's political positions missing? These are easily available through project votesmart and other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.195.214 (talk) 02:29, March 17, 2019 (UTC)

theophile obenga
Too much basic and critical information in missing from the English article; such the 1974 Cairo Symposium, his colaboration with Cheikh Anta Diop, his training of scholars in Europe, America, and Africa, etc. At least translate the French article into English !!! Too much bias in the talk section, question credentials, professor status, etc. This makes the article REEK of racism, implicit and explicit bias.umm ok

Jo Swinson
This page is being spammed with 'she is a Tory' stuff and needs to be controlled.

Gary Null
I have received a threat from an attorney concerning this page. Best I can figure, this dif removed the offending content. Please see the talk page. If someone could look at the competing versions and compare them to the actual sources, I'd be much obliged.--  Dloh cier  ekim    21:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources are fine for the claims the article makes. Since they describe it as alt-med crackpottery, so should Wikipedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not so convinced. This relies heavily on Quackwatch, and that in turn is self published and partisan. The claims about his credientials all come from Quackwatch, and I'd be wary about relying on that site for claims of this nature. Aidstruth.org also seems questionable as a source. - Bilby (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PARITY, Quackwatch is an excellent source to combat the clickbait claims in just the lead of the article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Aidstruth.org also seems a fine source. Since 2015 it's no longer actively maintained ("Our work is done"), but their list of contributors is respectable, verging on impressive. Compare our articles on Bette Korber, Nicoli Nattrass, Gregg Gonsalves, Martin Delaney, and John P. Moore. Bishonen &#124; talk 03:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC).
 * Parity doen't apply to claims in a BLP. I'm very doubtful about using Quackwatch for claims about the validity of a living person's qualifications, per WP:BLPSPS. I'm perfectly ok with using it for questioning pseudoscientific medical claims. - Bilby (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

discussion seems to be cnetered on Talk:Gary Null. It might be best to centralize discussion there.--  Deep fried  okra    05:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Convicted sex offender? Or pedophile?
I have a question that is related to Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22, but I more interested in what general principles to follow in similar cases than in this particular case.

Our article on Pedophilia says that "Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." That's a medical/psychiatric diagnoses.

But our article on the 2009 Plymouth child abuse case says that Allen was convicted of one count of distributing an indecent image of a child and four counts of sexual assault involved children. That's a criminal verdict, not a medical diagnosis.

So should we call someone like Allen a convicted sex offender instead of a pedophile? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The criminal conviction is 100% factual (even if it was a case where the person was innocent, the courts still convicted them of that crime, that's not going to change), whereas padophile is a psychiatric/medic diagnosis and is subject to potential error and fully factual. Definitely per BLP/NOR to stay with the more factual disambiguation term. --M asem (t) 13:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

J. Brent Bill
Some one anonymously posted defamatory information on the page about me and my family. Here is the history: curprev 05:01, 20 August 2019‎ 50.254.87.33 talk‎ 2,849 bytes +290‎ Truth of tendency undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 04:51, 20 August 2019‎ 50.254.87.33 talk‎ 2,559 bytes +161‎ Added real truth undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 04:11, 20 August 2019‎ OliverEastwood talk contribs‎ m 2,398 bytes -415‎ Reverted 1 edit by 50.254.87.33 (talk) to last revision by Rosiestep (TW) undothank Tag: Undo curprev 04:09, 20 August 2019‎ 50.254.87.33 talk‎ 2,813 bytes +415‎ I’m his grandson I’ve scene it first hand. undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

I have revised and updated my information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent Bill (talk • contribs) 13:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the content that was added that was removed I assume by you [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Brent_Bill&diff=912117436&oldid=911639786] was completely unacceptable and I'm sorry you had to see that. That said, perhaps you've already recognised this but in case you haven't do note that User:OliverEastwood is not the one who added this info or claimed to be your grandson. They simply removed the info the first time it was added by an IP 50.254.87.33 who made that claim in the edit summary. OliverEastwood has not claimed any connection to you that I see. Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm fairly sure there's also no 'hackers' involved. For many of our articles editors do not need an account to edit. Adding what they did is wrong, but not hacking. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The article J. Brent Bill has no independent sources. I've no idea whether any exist for potential use; but in anything like its current state, the article is ripe to be nominated for deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Scott Morrison
This diff to Scott Morrison caught my eye. The Saturday Paper looks like an ok-ish source, but it seems odd that the story hasn't been picked up by any of the larger media outlets. There's nothing in the Fairfax or News Ltd papers, or even the Guardian Australia. Given the subject is Prime Minister of Australia I would have thought there'd be more and better sources if there really was an indication of serious misconduct. Thoughts? --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is curious. The article is behind a paywall, but since there is attribution to the source and it meets WP:RS I don't see much of a problem with the lack of additional coverage. The subject is high profile, so new sources may appear in the future contesting or confirming the added information. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Charles Finch Change Reverted
Charles' page is receiving repeat edits of poorly sourced quotes and potentially libellous.

We don’t have a family record of the editor who is claiming to be a grandchild. Charles resigned from DDL as his term of Chairmanship was up and it was prior to any store closures. His role was solely marketing and not involved with day to day US business at all any inference is slanderous and libellous and we have forwarded this to our lawyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophierizan (talk • contribs)


 * Hello. Don't know about the grandchild but not by relation bit. Seems very trivial even if true. Both slanderous and libelous? I think not, but I'm sure your lawyers will inform you of what these words actually mean. You might want to read WP:NOLEGALTHREATS and retract your statements or you're likely to be blocked, which would prevent you in helping with any further discussion. You might want to read WP:Conflict of interest, since you apparently qualify for that rule, due to your own inference of personal knowledge of the subject.


 * That said, the NY Times source in question doesn't even mention his name let alone back up the assertion that he was involved in the company's demise. In this case, I would say removing the statement is the correct thing to do. Zaereth (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I posted to 's talk page as well, but this certainly looks like UPE, and if so, the user needs to disclose it. That said, I think the BLPN concerns expressed here are very valid, and the revert was entirely correct. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, i've disclosed on my own page that I am a paid contributor.

Amy Yasbeck
There were two recent edits by two different IP addresses to the article about Amy Yasbeck. The edits changed references to Yasbeck's transgender son, Noah, as male to refer to him as female. Noah was assigned female at birth and identifies as a man. I reverted these edits since Gender identity states that precedence is given to self identification, and Noah identifies as a man. Since these two edits both happened recently, I expect it to happen again soon. I checked a source in the article that says Noah has started making online accounts private. If he wants to keep things private, I think maybe he should not be referred to by either name and without any gendered terms (that is to simply state that Ritter and Yasbeck had a child on September 11, 1998 with no references to "son" or "daughter"). Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No reason to name children if they are not actually noteworthy (that is have a wikipedia article or the potential for one), your suggestion seems reasonable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Shahid Masood yet again
Previously I raised concerns on this noticeboard that the editor had created Category:Pakistani propagandists, including Shahid Masood and some other people from Pakistan. Commenters on this noticeboard said that The name of the category seems very POV and inappropriate to WP:BLP, and I've emptied the category which could be nominated for deletion, and Creating categories should be an advanced user-right. The category was emptied and then deleted.

Störm has been constantly active on this particular BLP, including on 20 July changing the start of the lede to start the article by saying that Masood is a "conspiracy theorist, columnist, anchorperson, and a political analyst" instead of "journalist, columnist, and a political analyst". After some weeks of edit-warring over this, Störm has now reduced it to "conspiracy theorist[2], columnist and political analyst".

The source used to support this claim being right at the start of the article is currently this one from the Daily Times, entitled So what are deep web, dark web and all sorts of webs you heard from Shahid Masood?. Although this is written by the "Digital Editor, Daily Times", it seems to be very much a light-hearted opinion piece, with text like "But did you know you and I both use the deep web every day? You heard me right".

The source previously used to support this claim being right at the start of the article was this one, which does have a sub-heading "Conspiracy theory" but specifically does not call Masood a conspiracy theorist. (Dawn (newspaper) is generally considered a reliable source for matters related to Pakistan.)

Störm has also helpfully added Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists to the article. Masood might indeed be a conspiracy theorist -- in fact reliable sources suggest he believes all manner of unlikely things -- but I'm not sure that this is his defining characteristic. (The Dawn source does not mention 9/11 at all.)

Störm has also followed this up on my talkpage by suggesting that because I am originally from Bangladesh, I should not edit topics regarding Pakistan.

I would greatly appreciate feedback on, firstly, whether it is appropriate to begin the article with "conspiracy theorist" instead of "journalist" for someone who has 15+ years experience as a journalist and news anchor (including a former subsidary of CNBC and as "Chairman of Pakistan Television Corporation"), and secondly, whether Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists is appropriate given the sourcing provided.

Pinging everyone who has commented on this issue previously:

Many thanks for your input. MPS1992 (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am not familiar enough with the subject to know whether calling him a conspiracy theorist violates due weight. That objection needs to be presented in a manner that's substantive, at any case. Also, I have cautioned Störm about the inappropriate (and frankly, bizarre) comment about MPS1992 being from Bangladesh, so I consider that matter settled. El_C 00:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with him either, but I'll give my two cents. We should not be putting anything in the lede that is not discussed in much greater detail within the body of the article. The lede should be a mere summary of the body, and anything in the body that is not substantial enough to write a brief summary about doesn't belong in the lede.


 * The source in question may very well be a reliable news outlet, I don't know without examining them further, but this particular article is an op/ed piece; no different than a NY Times op/ed or an advice column. You can tell by the tone and the non-neutral ((leading) words such as "claimed", "buzzwords", "disgraced", etc... Also by the opinions the writer uses like "he really pushed it", "baseless and dramatic claims", "extremely offensive", etc... Beyond that, it's mostly just a reporter giving his personal definitions of some computer jargon (fairly common words by English standards as I understand it), or an advice column no different from Ann Landers. This is not a reliable source to support the claim that the subject is a conspiracy theorist. It's just a person stating their opinion. We'd need a lot more than that to even put that into the body of the article, but for the opening sentence that would have to be something he is primarily notable for. Zaereth (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * That argument raises valid BLP concerns. I have edited the protected article accordingly. Best to err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs. El_C 01:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Masood is not professional journalist. He is a medical doctor-turned-anchorperson, . It is disgraceful to journalist community to call Masood a journalist, . Masood is an amateur journalist who left his medical field after little success and joined booming media industry. Due to lack of profession's education, he continues to make conspiracy theories. Störm   (talk)  05:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone cares about his success or otherwise in the medical field, no-one is proposing to start the lede by describing him as a physician. MPS1992 (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Some additional sources which mention his conspiracy theories, Dr Shahid Masood, a senior analyst known for his conspiracy theories (please, note that Daily Pakistan is a Urdu-language newspaper so their English translations on the website may not be upto mark but they are reputed Urdu paper and reliable),  by Daily Times (Pakistan),  by Pakistan Today.  Please, review the available sources (as most content is in Urdu language which is not easy to access).  Störm   (talk)  06:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To give their viewpoint as they are a major contributor to the article. Also, note that Shahid Masood is very much active on WP anonymously and he once threatened User:Saqib on his live TV show. So, don't take him lightly. Störm   (talk)  06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you'd need a source for both of those allegations. And, I hope "don't take him lightly" is not intended to produce any kind of chilling effect on discussion or editing. MPS1992 (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we have enough RS to support that Shahid Masood is indeed a conspiracy theorist. For instance, Daily Times, The News International . --Saqib (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The first of those two sources may be usable, but the second appears to be yet another opinion piece ("heartless detractors" and so on) which merely mentions Masood once, quite late, in a list of twenty-six people who were among many others that wrongly expressed doubts about a reported illness. Much higher up that list, in that source, is the current Prime Minister Imran Khan, but I don't think we will be using that source to describe him as a "conspiracy theorist" in the lede of his article? MPS1992 (talk) 10:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't plan on going too deep into this. I don't speak Pakistani (or Urdu or Persian or any other languages, except maybe a few Eskimo curse words and other unuq like that). I don't know anything about this person. I do know Wikipolicy and I do know English, and the source I looked at was very well written in English. (No sign of broken English or bad translations.) I stand by my assessment of it.


 * Storm, first, if you think this should be in the lede of the article, it needs to be described in much greater detail in the body of the article. That means you'd need to find enough sources to write about all the things that make him a conspiracy theorist. We can't just call someone an name and leave it at that. We need to give the whole story of what makes him fit that name. The reader should be able to decide for themselves whether or not he is a conspiracy theorist without ever needing to be told. Once you have that all spelled out in the body, then we can revisit putting it in the lede.


 * Keep in mind that a person's occupation is what they are usually (primarily) defined as. If he makes money at journalism, then he is a professional journalist regardless of whether he was trained as one or not. Likewise, if someone trains all their life to be a journalist, but never gets a job as one or makes any money at it, then they are not a journalist. The purpose of the opening sentence is to provide a short equation that defines what this person is --what makes them notable-- based on what is found in the body of the article. (ie: So-and-so is... or, So-and-so equals...) So far, nothing in the body suggests or even hints that he is a conspiracy theorist, so that needs to be rectified before we even start to talk about the lede. Zaereth (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Storm, I think I can agree with Zaereth. You need to create a new section titled "conspiracies" and lay down all the false claims by Shahid Masood, including this one - which led Supreme Court to ban his TV show. --Saqib (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Problem, though, is that neither of those sources describe Masood as a conspiracy theorist. The second, which mentions the three month ban of his TV show, does not contain the word "conspiracy" at all. The first uses the word "conspiracy" once, saying "there was no conspiracy". Very much all of the reliable sources, when introducing the topic of Masood in a factual manner, call him things like "anchorperson and former chairman of Pakistan Television", not "conspiracy theorist", for example this one which relates his release on bail in January 2019. (I note our article mentions the arrest but not the release.) His notability is as a journalist and TV show host -- good, bad, successful, unsuccessful, prone to promoting strange claims or not -- not a conspiracy theorist. It will probably be necessary to give a mention about his making disproven claims in the lede, but they are not defining for his notability. MPS1992 (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Exactly. First, the term "conspiracy theorist" is really more of a slang term than a real profession or occupation. When we say, "evolutionary theorist" or "atomic theorist" we know we're talking about someone whose profession or notability comes from making scientific theories. "Conspiracy theorist" is one that most dictionaries have yet to touch. At best, the Cambridge English department vaguely calls it "someone who believes in conspiracies". A few urban dictionaries have given their own definitions, but the connotation is not just that of a believer but of a fanatic (conspiracy nut) or of someone who makes espousing conspiracies a profession, like the producers of Unsolved Mysteries other such shows. Something along those lines is what we'd need to call him a theorist of any kind in the opening sentence, and then it would have to take up a good portion of the article just to show that "this is what this person is."


 * I feel for you in some ways. There are a lot of journalists right here in the US, especially on the national scene, that I wouldn't believe if their tongues came notarized. That's why I often prefer sources like the BBC, HKN, or France24 for information about the US and other parts of the world. But I can't just start putting labels on them no matter how much I want to, especially in the first sentence, unless I can show that the label is a defining characteristic of them. There are most certainly conspiracy theorists out there, but all I'm seeing here is a journalist that may be good or bad at their job and who may or may not have either beliefs in or reported on conspiracies. Those are things for the reader to decide, we should just give thee facts. Zaereth (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Promotional and POV issues at Kioka Tanksley
Someone with BLP expertise or an interest in addressing promotional and POV issues should take a look at Kioka Tanksley and its editor(s). ElKevbo (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Had a clean up and de-waffle (if thats a word), need to keep an eye on it for COI editing. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted the reversion of 's changes.--  Deep fried  okra    08:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks we appear to have a WP:SPA and possible somebody with a conflict of interest in fluffing out her article, may need to consider protecting or other actions if they return. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This looks like maybe AfD material here tbh. Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I tagged for notability and improvement of ref's There were removed ref's that were mostly facebook and press releases.--  Deep fried  okra    16:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

St Ninian's Falkland
The most prominent thing in the article purporting to be about a school is two criminal convictions, very detailed. Some attention needed. Warning: unsuitable for editors disturbed by accounts of sexual offences. Uncle G (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Also no sources cited for shorter content in other articles. Uncle G (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sexual abuse cases in the Congregation of Christian Brothers


 * That article reads like a rap sheet. Not at all encyclopedic. Nearly all of the sources appear to be primary ones, and few inline to support such statements. This looks like it's in need of some serious work, if not deletion for lack of secondary sources and encyclopedic tone. Zaereth (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My first impulse was to WP:CSD the thing. I redirected to Sexual abuse cases in the Congregation of Christian Brothers for now. This thing was created 28 July by who had not edited since 2011. I still want to G10 the thing.--  Deep  fried  okra    08:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bit concerned we are naming individuals without any references, appear to be a lot of accusations on the page rather than "cases" per the article title. MilborneOne (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Buried in amongst all of the stuff that wasn't the subject, there were in fact three sentences that were about the school, sourced to, although one wouldn't know it from the bad bare URL citations.  I am tempted to restore (only) that part.  The source goes into quite a lot of detail on the school, supporting far more than a mere 3 sentences.  Would that the article creator had written about the actual subject!  Uncle G (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Allen Frances and his Donald Trump controversy
At the Allen Frances article, controversy material was recently added about Trump and some older material. With regard to Trump, I'm concerned about WP:Recentism. The other material may be WP:Undue. Frances is an American psychiatrist, known for his involvement with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). I started the following section at the article's talk page: Talk:Allen Frances. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow. Ok, where to begin? I'm not seeing the controversy there. He made a statement of opinion, but where are the widespread public debates over it? I think that merely putting that in a section of its own labeled "controversy" is synthesis and adds undue weight to the statement. Then in the following paragraphs we have a bunch of figures that have nothing to do with the subject, but appear to have been added to give credence to his statement. A classic case of synthesis again. The statement itself might be worth adding if it really shows something about his character (which it does his by far more than Trump's) but only if it is being scrutinized reliable sources and experts in the field, not because an editor thinks it is somehow more important than all the other quotes to choose from. Zaereth (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The preposterous comments that Trump has killed millions more people than Hitler, Stalin and Mao should definitely be part of the record here. It is not synthesis to quote the man but it you want the full text added then we can do that as well. Eerily the comments have not been retracted but the host of the CNN talkshow where the comments were made was taken to task and apologized for not challenging Frances...the host said they technical issues and he couldn't respond in time. I have no comments as to other removals of information.--MONGO (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Frances isnt some talking head...he is Professor Emeritus and former head of Duke University Psychology department and a well known expert. His statements carry weight, even if they are ludicrous.--MONGO (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with MONGO. How is this a BLP issue? This Professor said this statement on national TV, it's not some conspiracy theory, BLP is not an excuse to shield an article from criticism. Have you seen the myriad Trump articles we have on Wikipedia? Sir Joseph (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * SMirC-what.svg I’m not seeing it as a BLP issue. He said what he said, it was covered in MSM - in fact, it was on MSM that he said it - and as the former chair of psychiatry at Duke University it was clearly notable. WP:RECENTISM and SYNTH do not apply here. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 08:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I say synth because labeling something a controversy should be followed by evidence that the statement was controversial. The term has a very specific meaning, which can be found in any dictionary, "a widespread, public debate about a topic or issue". There is nothing in the article about such a debate.


 * I find people on Wikipedia often misuse this word. Whether it is for nefarious reason or simply because they don't know the meaning of it, it does give a certain slant that otherwise would not be there. Then going to various sources which have nothing to do with the subject nor the specific statement he made. It's like watching the news trying to validate a Saturday Night Live sketch. I could see adding all the actual numbers if a reliable source --discussing the quote-- did themselves, but otherwise they give unnecessary weight to a ludicrous statement that need not be there. If someone wants to look up the numbers, then let them, but we shouldn't be going out of our way to add weight to this statement and make it into something bigger than it is. Zaereth (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That he stated the comment that Trump may have killed "millions" more people than the 3 worst mass murderers in the 20th century is notable because Frances is notable. Frances appears to want to attribute all current (none can be proven) and future of these millions to Trump not embracing climate change alarmism, apparently, as he has clarified his remarks.--MONGO (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Where is Collect when you need him? Plenty of famous and influential people have made comments, whether positive or negative, about Trump. That doesn't mean we should include every comment someone has made about Trump. This isn't about protecting Frances from criticism. Zaereth is right that we judge weight and what is a controversy by the preponderance of reliable sources and what they state. We shouldn't call something a controversy unless reliable sources do. That is what Zaereth means by WP:Synthesis. Mention of the Frances statement does not need to be in the lead. Nor should it have its own "Controversy" section. That is WP:Undue, and it is WP:Recentism. Do we know how this statement is going to line up with Frances's career? No. Is it as important as other things he's done? No. There are no reliable sources to indicate that this statement is as important as, for example, Frances being known for his involvement with the DSM. And the rest of the text that was in that section had nothing at all to do with Trump, and should never have been added. Also likely what Zaereth meant by WP:Synthesis. And looking at Muboshgu's recent edits there, Muboshgu agrees with what Zaereth and I have stated. Thank you, Muboshgu. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I feel the among of detail on Frances page is too much; it's important that he's spoken out against Trump related to climate change, yes, but there doesn't seem to be an excessive amount of controversy here, particularly since Frances clarified himself later about the numbers. Most of the content feels more appropriate on some page about criticism towards Trump, where these details can be explained, but they don't need to try to make out Frances as some wacko. With the wording on Frances' page, it seems more an attack on Frances, where the issue is just how Frances spoke of his numbers on the off-the-cuff interview and later clarified them. --M asem  (t) 19:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I dunno...Frances also apparently was doing a Twitter dance upon hearing one of the Koch brothers died. I never said wacko...course a reliable source might do so. If notable people are going to go full Godwin's law and make over the top ludicrous statements that even under clarification are preposterous, covering this up is unencyclopedic. Is his page suppose to just be about his achievements? Maybe the fact that Duke University, in response to his deaths comment have stated bluntly that he is retired and has no role at that institution anymore. That they are apparently also distancing themselves seems to be notable as well. I repeat I did not say wacko.--MONGO (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The statement might very well be notable. II may be the ranting of someone going senile. II don't know, nor is it my place to judge. I do think it needs to be put into proportion with the rest of the article, and that means determining just how much of a stir this has created, are people all over talking about it, and does it have any particular impact on his life and career and, if so, how much in proportion to the rest of the article? ((It's not a very long article for someone who is apparently such a notable person.) I don't think we should be adding to it just for the sake of taking up more space, using sources that never once mention the subject. If it's a big controversy, then stick to what the sources say and give it the same proportion of weight they do. It's not our job to either support nor refute his words. Zaereth (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Note ArbCom in its infinite wisdom placed me under an eternal ban from any comments whatsoever concerning "American politics" ever and this was interpreted to even include an innocuous query I made about connecting a nameless person with a totally unrelated "extremely evil" person from another country. Thus I cannot comment even on when the next (FITB) might occur etc. Much less on any (nameless person) who might be connected with (nameless event) in a (nameless) country. If a section were opened not mentioning even one of those nameless items, I might well opine. Collect (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Imad Wasim
Concerned about the content of this and this diff - both of which I've reverted as soon as they appeared on my watchlist. I wonder if the content may need to be removed from the page history or not. Not 100% sure if it should be or whether this is the right place to put this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked not to add that back w/o gaining a consensus. I also redel'd for now to be on the safe side. ANy admin can undo if they thought that was undue.--  Deep  fried  okra    17:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks - appreciated. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is interesting timing in the part of that editor; to try to get Wikipedia to repeat an unverified (and asserted to be false) accusation from two years ago, the week that Imad Wasim gets married. Uncle G (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is interesting. 'Twill be interesting if they respond here as well.--  Deep fried  okra    00:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of the gossip column writer from L.A. Confidential-- "on the QT, and very hush-hush". --  Deep fried  okra    00:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Paul Craig Roberts
IP who in one edit summary claims to be subject has removed content as "libelous and misrepresentative" that was then restored. Could someone sift this? I'm offline till tomorrow.--  Deep fried  okra    01:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

OK The Only Reason I put that Back was because it said that In the source from the site,

The Lies About World War II By Paul Craig Roberts

Irving is the historian who spent decades tracking down diaries, survivors, and demanding release of official documents. He is the historian who found the Rommel diary and Goebbles’ diaries, the historian who gained entry into the Soviet archives, and so on. He is familiar with more actual facts about the Second World War than the rest of the historians combined. The famous British military historian, Sir John Keegan, wrote in the Times Literary Supplement: “Two books stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War: Chester Wilmot’s The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War.”

Despite many such accolades, today Irving is demonized and has to publish his own books
 * I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists. You simply cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.
 * It is amazing how much power Zionists have gotten from the Holocaust. Norman Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry. There is ample evidence that Jews along with many others suffered, but Zionists insist that it was a unique experience limited to Jews.
 * The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force. A significant percentage of German war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German lines on the Russian front. War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported after war’s end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany desperately needed whatever work force it could get.
 * No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews. This is extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have required massive organization, budgets and resources. What documents do show is Hitler’s plan to relocate European Jews to Madagascar after the war’s end. With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that Hitler was going to leave to Stalin. There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews. Hitler said over and over that “the Jewish problem” would be settled after the war.
 * This article was originally published at PaulCraigRoberts.org on May 13, 2019.

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/05/15/the-lies-about-world-war-iiJack90s15 (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC) https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/13/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/

Just for clarification

Jack90s15 (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Its on his main site to he Believes in holocaust denial that is why people are trying to remove what he said about itJack90s15 (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Though the IP editor is indignant about misrepresentation, I can't figure out what the misrepresentation consists of. Clearly Roberts is sympathetic to some of what David Irving has written. (Wikipedia describes Irving as a holocaust denier). The direct quotes from Roberts that are included in the Wikipedia article do appear to be correct. The IP claims to be Roberts: There is also a registered account, Jasper Highlander, who makes some edits similar to those of the IP. The only fragment of a sentence that we might consider rewriting is "Roberts writes in support of the views of David Irving on World War 2 and the Holocaust,.." Is it possible that Roberts doesn't like his sympathetic review of Irving to be described as 'support'? Roberts has been described as a conspiracy theoriest and a 9/11 Truther, and we have a fairly well-written paragraph about that. Luckily the IP hasn't tried to remove that information. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Though the IP editor is indignant about misrepresentation, I can't figure out what the misrepresentation consists of. Clearly Roberts is sympathetic to some of what David Irving has written. (Wikipedia describes Irving as a holocaust denier). The direct quotes from Roberts that are included in the Wikipedia article do appear to be correct. The IP claims to be Roberts: There is also a registered account, Jasper Highlander, who makes some edits similar to those of the IP. The only fragment of a sentence that we might consider rewriting is "Roberts writes in support of the views of David Irving on World War 2 and the Holocaust,.." Is it possible that Roberts doesn't like his sympathetic review of Irving to be described as 'support'? Roberts has been described as a conspiracy theoriest and a 9/11 Truther, and we have a fairly well-written paragraph about that. Luckily the IP hasn't tried to remove that information. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Though the IP editor is indignant about misrepresentation, I can't figure out what the misrepresentation consists of. Clearly Roberts is sympathetic to some of what David Irving has written. (Wikipedia describes Irving as a holocaust denier). The direct quotes from Roberts that are included in the Wikipedia article do appear to be correct. The IP claims to be Roberts: There is also a registered account, Jasper Highlander, who makes some edits similar to those of the IP. The only fragment of a sentence that we might consider rewriting is "Roberts writes in support of the views of David Irving on World War 2 and the Holocaust,.." Is it possible that Roberts doesn't like his sympathetic review of Irving to be described as 'support'? Roberts has been described as a conspiracy theoriest and a 9/11 Truther, and we have a fairly well-written paragraph about that. Luckily the IP hasn't tried to remove that information. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The text in question is the section at permalink. That is a BLP violation because it is cherry-picked to associate the subject with David Irving whom reliable sources have described as a Holocaust denier. Editors do not identify who is a denier based on their selections of published work. When a couple of gold-plated reliable sources have published a conclusion, the article can give their attributed opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also sorta a reversed BLPSPS violation I would say, allowing Roberts sole opinion be used against Irving, if I read that right. (normally this would be a problem on a page about Irving, but BLPSPS applies everywhere) --M asem (t) 02:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I do believe there is a potential issue of whether that book review is significant, but honestly, it's probably far less contentious a description than what a proper treatment through an independent reliable source would yield. I'll say, I've looked through Roberts' publications of the last several years and... well, it's actually kind of interesting to me that he is not getting more mainstream attention. It is very difficult to find sources discussing his recent work that are not bloggers or conspiracy theorists. A few have given it brief mentions ADL, SPLC, Hope not Hate. The article already has a sourced section describing the older 9/11 conspiracy mongering. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Claudine Auger
Born in "Nazi Occupied France"????????????????????? France is France. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.101.158.54 (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP issue? --  Deep fried  okra    09:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * German-occupied France--  Deep fried  okra    09:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems to be under the impression that country borders today match those througout history. -- Auric   talk  13:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone should tell that to Vercingetorix--  Deep fried  okra    15:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Or Cardinal Richelieu for that matter.--  Deep fried  okra    15:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

BLP and Categories
I have no idea how categories NPOV and BLP all intersect, but for those of you interested in this, please take a gander at. Can we list BLPs in that category without running afoul of NPOV and BLP vios? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)