Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive300

Unsourced claims about a living person being involved in a criminal conspiracy
At Talk:Julian Assange, has twice referred to GRU agents as Assange's "accomplices". The word "accomplice" means "a person who helps another commit a crime." The clear implication that SPECIFICO is making is that GRU agents aided Assange in committing a crime. Just to remind editors: Assange has not been charged with anything relating to the 2016 US election / DNC emails / Podesta emails, and I do not know of any reliable sources that state that he criminally conspired with the GRU.

I asked about this apparent BLP violation at User_talk:Drmies, but the admins who commented there did not feel that SPECIFICO's statements are a BLP issue. One admin who commented there,, has made similarly troubling (and unsourced) statements at Talk:Julian Assange about "Assange cultists" and a "unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists" who are supposedly promoting an appeal by 130 prominent German politicians and journalists on Assange's behalf (diff of RfC vote and subsequent comment). commented that SPECIFICO's claims about Assange engaging in a criminal conspiracy are essentially true. commented that the comments about Assange are probably not legally actionable, because they could be construed as an editor's personal opinion, and that editors have more leeway on talk pages. My understanding of BLP is that a claim does not have to be legally actionable in order to violate policy. BLP is meant to urge caution when discussing living people, and the policy goes beyond the bare minimum legal requirements. WP:OR or WP:SYNTH claims about Assange criminally conspiring with GRU agents would seem to me to violate BLP, even if for legal purposes, they could be construed as editors' personal opinions.

I am concerned about the apparent anything goes attitude towards Assange. He is a living person, and these sorts of accusations about him - including on talk pages - should be well sourced, or else they should not be made at all.

I would be interested to hear what others think of this issue. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * That's a bit of a sticky wicket I'd say. Without digging too deep into this, in general I'd say that Assange has reached a level of celebrity status, albeit sort of a celebrity in the way Manson was in his day. As such, BLPCRIME doesn't come into play, but rather these things fall under WP:WELLKNOWN. That gives people much more freedom in reporting on unsubstantiated claims or allegations about them, and far more freedom for editors on talk pages to discuss or even opine on those things. (And aside from BLP, that's also the basic legal view in the US, that celebrities have far less freedom to control their own information.) That said, there still needs to be sources, and per WELLKNOWN there should be a multitude of them to choose from. Zaereth (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You're seriously comparing Assange to Manson? -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * In celebrity status, yes. Zaereth (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * For making claims about a BLP, even personal opinion, they need to be sources. I always saw it as if you would not put it in the article it does not belong on the talk page. I would also like to hear more about Newyorkbrad's interpretation of BLP policy because, I will be honest, I have never heard any of that expressed in policy before. PackMecEng (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * In my experience it's not always that black and white. In many cases a lot rides on just exactly how something is phrased. You can't say, "so-and-so is a wife beater" but you could definitely ask, "I heard a rumor that so-and-so is a wife beater, does anyone know if this is true or not?" I could easily say on a talk page that "Joe Schmo is a jerk." No one could seriously infer from this that he truly is one, but the clear implication is that of a personal opinion, and WP:NOTCENSORED seems to cover that. Zaereth (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not censored has a BLP exception, as it should. If you read over the rest of it you will also find most, if not all, is not applicable to what we are talking about. Also yeah Joe Schmo is a jerk is problematic and not appropriate even on a talk page in my opinion. PackMecEng (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the word "accomplice" is clearly an informal usage recognising the documented fact of his collaboration with GRU spies in the theft and publication of DNC emails. It would be inappropriate in mainspace, but this is a talk page discussion where the OP has been stonewalling for years. Guy (help!) 21:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See my previous response about it not mattering if it is a talk page or not. Because it does not matter if it is a talk page or not. BLP applies to all pages, regardless of your personal conspiracy theories. PackMecEng (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , in mainspace it would be WP:SYN but not a WP:BLP violation because he is indeed provably involved in the theft and leaks. On Talk, the SYN issue doesn't exist. This is a blatant WP:CRYBLP, aiming to exclude an editor with whom the OP, a single-purpose account, has a dispute. Guy (help!) 10:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Forum shopping, eh? You already raised this on Drmies' user talk, and apparently didn't like the answer. I think you are headed towards a topic ban. Guy (help!) 21:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think the OP can be accused of forum shopping, as Drmies specifically told them, "it seems to me that if that is not enough for you, you should consider BLPN" on Drmies's talk page. . – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think the term "accomplices" has only a legal meaning, as it can also refer to more general wrongdoing. Given WP:WELLKNOWN and the function of talk pages as a place to discuss issues, while repeatedly using "accomplices" seems unnecessarily antagonistic, I don't think it rises to the level of a BLP violation for a person like Assange, especially when my understanding is that he has been accused of being a criminal accomplice. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Assange has not been accused of any crimes relating to the 2016 election. The charges against Assange all have to do with WikiLeaks' publications in 2010, which have nothing to do with the GRU. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer with my language. I meant accused by media outlets and major political figures, not indicted on criminal charges. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I was asked to opine on the legal question (it's well-known that IRL I'm a litigation attorney) and I did; I wasn't pretending to serve as the BLP judge and jury. Whether the reference to Assange on the article talkpage violates BLP is probably debatable although I know I personally would not refer to him in this manner. I would also note that for better or worse, the debate now on multiple talkpages about the disputed wording is focusing much more attention on the wording than it would otherwise have received.

There has to be a little bit more leeway for discussion on talkpages than in the articles themselves, because otherwise we couldn't have an open discussion about whether a disputed assertion can go in the article or not. Talkpage comments are written by individuals rather than in "Wikipedia's voice," and talkpages are also marked with the NOINDEX parameter that is supposed to keep them out of search engine results. Of course that does not mean that a talkpage is "anything goes" territory. A negative assertion is permissible there only if it's at least defensibly correct, and also if it's reasonably relevant to discussion of what belongs in the article, as opposed to "WP:NOTFORUM" territory.

Putting "so-and-so says" doesn't automatically make a BLP violation less of one. If "John Smith kicks puppies" (with no reliable source and no reason to believe it's true) is a BLP violation, then "Newyorkbrad says John Smith kicks puppies" is no better. The tougher question, as I've written about before, is what to do when an allegation is unproved or even clearly incorrect, but the fact that the allegation has been made is independently newsworthy. A relatively recent example is Donald's Trump's implication that Rafael Cruz (Ted Cruz's father) may have been involved in the JFK assassination. "Rafael Cruz may have been involved in the JFK assassination" is a ridiculous lie and certainly could not be included in Wikipedia, but might "Donald Trump implied that Rafael Cruz may have been involved in the JFK assassination" be treated differently?

This issue arises all the time in newspaper reporting. The canonical example, discussed by Michael Kinsley in his article collection CURSE OF THE GIANT MUFFINS (excellent book, silly title), was the allegation in 1988 that presidential candidate Gary Hart was having an extramarital affair. The allegation was widely rumored, and printed in some periodicals, but reputable newspapers believed there wasn't enough evidence to support the allegation and/or that the allegation was not worth reporting. But then Hart's poll numbers started dropping, and it looked like it might affect the outcome of the election. There comes a point when even the most careful newspaper can no longer write "Hart's support percentage has dropped by 15% for a reason we won't tell you about." Analogous situations arise on Wikipedia and they can be among the most difficult BLP issues to resolve. For more examples, see my essay BLP examples for discussion, all of which are drawn from actual situations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You certainly can have open discussions, you just need sources to back up your assertions. Which is what we ask for pretty much any discussion on an article talk page. Why would accusations towards a BLP be less? Also going back to defensibly correct, to meet that bar sources are required as well I would imagine. There are no exceptions for it being a talk page, in fact just the opposite. The policies apply just as much to user and article talk pages as they do article space. PackMecEng (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I agree with you Brad. "So-and-so says..." would be problematic, which is why I didn't phrase it like that. For the most part, I think people are just splitting hairs here. We have to be able to discuss things on talk pages, or else the OP would be in violation for simply bringing this here. In such instances you can't define a word by the word alone, you have to look at the entire context in which the word is used ... which I don't have time to dig through and find, hence the generalizations. Zaereth (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

, what the Mueller investigation has claimed (as I understand it) is that the GRU used fake identities to pass emails to WikiLeaks. Assuming this to be true (though it hasn't been established in court), that's very different from Assange conspiring with the GRU, and it also doesn't appear to involve any criminal activity of Assange's part. The idea that Assange has "accomplices" in the GRU is WP:SYNTH. It's an explosive accusation, and one that editors should only be making if they can point to rock-solid sourcing. Can you point to such sourcing? If not, I think it's obvious that we have a BLP issue on our hands. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Who has used the word "conspire", other than you?
 * The loose meaning of "accomplice" does not require that Assange knew they were GRU agents, and he does not have to be formally charged with a crime to actually have been involved in the commission of crimes, crimes that GRU agents have been convicted of committing.
 * The Trump/Cohen/Stormy Daniels situation is partially analogous. Trump has not been formally charged but Cohen is in jail for the crimes they committed together, and in this case, Trump knew he was committing a crime. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies here. Even the worst, unproven and false allegations must should be documented here when they are alleged in multiple RS. If there are not multiple RS, we don't document it. Otherwise we should generally do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC) (slightly revised, per my comments below)
 * Uh, what? That's absolutely not what PUBLICFIGURE says, at least the "must" part. It does mean if public figures come under accusations that are documented through multiple RSes, that's a minimum requirement before anything about those accusations can be posted. But at the same time, consensus of editors can choose to omit or wait to see what happens, per RECENTISM, NOT#NEWS. Case in point Neil deGrasse Tyson could easily have been 5-6 paragaphs long if we include all the specific claims that were well documented by various sources per PUBLICFIGURE, but instead we waited, and when he was cleared of the allegations, left it to that; still DUE enough to include since it affected parts of his career. Reading PUBLICFIGURE to "must" include all such claims is absolutely wrong and is unfortunately consistent with the present attitude across WP among a large number of editors to made mainspace articles on certain detestable public figures as "scarlet letters" to them. --M asem (t) 01:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh my! No, Masem, I did not mean it that radically. (If I had, I would have highlighted must. I have now modified it somewhat.)
 * I certainly accept that there are exceptions (but whitewashing must never be suspected) and that RECENTISM, NOT#NEWS, etc. apply. I'm referring to those well-known situations where multiple RS have covered allegations, and we then have the opportunity to shed more light on the situation, especially when we can present the well-known allegations, per PUBLICFIGURE, and then debunk the charges. We serve an important service here, because, as we know, allegations often get trumpeted in the news, but the debunking gets whispered.
 * WP:PUBLICFIGURE has a clause (added by me) about including denials. Maybe we should add that details about the debunking of charges should also be included as a requirement of PUBLICFIGURE. Does that sound reasonable? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, and to me, all I would add is that editors should allow the news cycle to run a few times before rushing to add something something reported by multiple RSes, and that when 20/20 hindsight can be used to revise what was initially reported, that should be done too. --M asem (t) 03:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , neither must nor should, but may, I think. Guy (help!) 11:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, of course, without references there can be no SYNTH. So OP might consider reading up on synth.  SPECIFICO talk 01:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , s/claimed/found/g - your persistent attempts to frame this as anything other than fact are tendentious and disruptive. Guy (help!) 10:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just going to keep throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks? PackMecEng (talk) 15:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're a bit vague. What part(s) of Guy's statements are you contesting? Or are you contesting that the Russians interfered in the election, or that Assange and the GRU were closely involved in the dissemination of stolen documents? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The constant calls from JzG to sanction people they disagree with. Heck this is the second time in this thread. It gets old when you see the same pattern. PackMecEng (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarificaiton. I see it as a legitimate objection to denials that the sky is blue. These facts are so firmly established by myriad RS we use in multiple articles here that denialism amounts to forbidden advocacy of fringe POV based on unreliable sources. That is forbidden as (1) editing in articles and when it appears as (2) repetitious aspects of discussions on talk pages. We sometimes forgive newbies and driveby editors and commentators for showing their ignorance, but repetition is tendentious and worrying. We also often just delete such comments made by IPs as violations of forum and tendentious advocacy.
 * We still need to get a response from you and Thucydides411 if you are actually denying the "sky is blue" narrative of RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe you need to take your obsession down a notch. Perhaps a AP2 topic ban to get your mind off purity tests for editors. PackMecEng (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, an obsession with basing content and discussions on RS is really a bad thing, especially here at BLP/N, considering that that is the very subject of this thread. Here we don't really care whether unsourced negative information is properly sourced.... -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a certain amount of leeway we give on talk pages of BLPs on accusations, and in a case like this, I dont see the use of the term "accomplices" being violations of the principles of BLPTALK as long as no one is pushing for that inclusion on the actual mainspace pages, but it is something editors should be aware that can be used in the future against them at places like Arbcom if they are reviewing that editor's views in certain topic areas and whether they should be editing there. It would be completely wrong to make a completely baseless accusation that has zero foundation against a BLP in a serious manner (eg "Bernie Sanders is the devil!") and stick to one's guns.in discussions (separating that from sarcasm), and a user that continues to make baseless BLP violations like that should have adminstrative actions on them. But given how many people have spoke ill of Trump and his allies on numerous talk pages (eg statements that would violate BLP if on the main space but we know fall into the sarcasm area on talk), this specific point is not the case to make an example out of. --M asem (t) 00:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It isn't necessary. Where the editor writes "So you withdraw your objection to the text that mentions the indictment of his accomplices?" they could just as easily write "So you withdraw your objection to the text that mentions what I perceive as the indictment of his accomplices?" or some such language. Has the editor been asked if they wouldn't mind making an adjustment of that sort? Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

"Accomplice" doesn't have a clear enough meaning as "criminal associate" to violate BLP here. Accomplice can be used in the sense SPECIFICO did without implying a crime. Mueller reports that the source of the DNC emails WikiLeaks leaked was GRU agents. So to say on a talk page that they were his accomplices in leaking the information does not seem problematic. BLP should not be a bludgeon to attack editors for inconsequential disagreements over what certain wordings on a talk page might insinuate. I find this to be bordering on vexatious litigation over such a trivial matter. If editors are to be prohibited from allowing any hint of a POV to tint their choice of words (for example that leaking the emails was wrongdoing) we would be at ANI nonstop over it these days. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In the loose sense of the term, it can include any and all individuals involved in the commission of a crime. They do not have to know each other, or even know they are involved in committing a crime, yet they are helping each other, ergo "accomplices".
 * For example, Trump may not have known (ha!) he was colluding with the Russian election interference, yet he was certainly inviting, welcoming, aiding and abetting, and co-operating because he knew he'd benefit from it. That makes him an "accomplice" in the loose sense, but not enough to be charged with "conspiracy" (but only because Mueller wasn't able to collect enough evidence to charge him, and even then, Mueller wouldn't have done it because the DOJ rules precluded it. Therefore he left open the possibility to charge Trump with obstruction, and also provided a pile of evidence of collusion.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * talked explicitly about "the indictment of his accomplices," so it's clear that SPECIFICO meant "accomplice" in a legal sense. If you just look at what writes below, you can see that there are editors arguing that Assange really is criminally culpable in some way. At least BR is trying to provide sourcing for that claim, but you'll also notice that the sources do not exactly back up BR's claims - BR is engaging in SYNTH to make extremely serious accusations against a living person.


 * I agree with that the types of things being written about Assange on talk pages (and here, I might add) paint a picture of editors' views about him. Whatever one's personal political views are, it is wildly inappropriate to air those views so openly and unnecessarily on talk pages. It gives a strong impression of biased, politically motivated editing. That this has been allowed to go on for so long reflects badly on the admins patrolling AP2 topics. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It has already been explained to you by nearly everyone here and at User_talk:Drmies that the word "accomplices" is being used here in a loose and common sense of the word, not a strict or legal sense. That you are repeating your accusations, rather than absorbing and accepting all these explanations, is not convincing or encouraging. As I will explain below, you are using a straw man of your own creation as a cudgel in your accusations against User:SPECIFICO. You also need to be careful when describing talk page discussions as "politically motivated editing." -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

(moved from below, where it was in the wrong section):

Can you cite passages in which reliable sources state that Assange criminally conspired with GRU agents? It looks to me like you're engaging in WP:SYNTH. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thucydides411, after all the explanations, your continued use of the word "conspired" is puzzling. Above, I asked you: "Who has used the word "conspire", other than you?" You have not replied. I checked both diffs you posted, and I don't find that SPECIFICO used (or even implied) that word. Unless I'm missing something, you seem to be using a straw man of your own creation in your accusations against User:SPECIFICO.
 * You also ask if I can cite "reliable sources state that Assange criminally conspired with GRU agents." I don't know if they exist with those exact words of yours (not ours), and it's a moot point since neither I nor SPECIFICO make such claims.
 * That Assange was involved with GRU agents in receiving and disseminating stolen documents, which is a crime, is a proven fact. (As I describe above, "In the loose sense of the term [accomplice], it can include any and all individuals involved in the commission of a crime. They do not have to know each other, or even know they are involved in committing a crime, yet they are helping each other, ergo 'accomplices'." It is theoretically possible that Assange was involved in the commission of a crime without knowing he was committing a crime.)
 * Are you really openly doubting that fact which we document in several of our articles, with RS backing? Such a denial may well an AP2 violating matter as it could be viewed as making war with the narrative described by RS.
 * Your opening statement above does seem to show that it is you, not SPECIFICO or myself, who have introduced the word and thought of "conspire". No one else is seeing that, but you insist on asserting it as a seemingly false accusation against other editors. Please be more careful:
 * "At Talk:Julian Assange, has twice referred to GRU agents as Assange's "accomplices" . The word "accomplice" means "a person who helps another commit a crime." The clear implication that SPECIFICO is making is that GRU agents aided Assange in committing a crime. Just to remind editors: Assange has not been charged with anything relating to the 2016 US election / DNC emails / Podesta emails, and I do not know of any reliable sources that state that he criminally conspired with the GRU."
 * It is not just an "implication", but a legal fact, that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime. Why Assange hasn't been formally charged, unlike the GRU agents, is a question you'll have to ask Trump and Rohrabacher, who actually made a quid pro quo offer of a pardon, rather than a justified criminal indictment, to Assange, in exchange for a cover-up and denial that it was the Russians who hacked and leaked the emails. The sources are below, without any synth violation. That's what RS document. There is your answer as to why Assange is not criminally indicted for a crime that did happen:
 * "On February 19, 2020, numerous sources revealed that lawyers for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Westminster Magistrates' Court that Trump had Dana Rohrabacher visit Assange at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London on Aug. 16, 2017. There, he made a quid pro quo offer of a presidential pardon to Assange, in exchange for Assange covering up Russian involvement by declaring that "Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks": "[Lawyer] Edward Fitzgerald...said he had evidence that a quid pro quo was put to Assange by Rohrabacher, who was known as Putin's favorite congressman."
 * Whether he "conspired" with GRU agents to do this is beyond my paygrade, and makes no real difference. The more important fact is that the crime(s) did happen. An analogous situation is the dossier accusation that there was a "conspiracy" of "co-operation" (between the Trump campaign and the Russian leadership). Note those two words. The unproven first charge is focused on, while the proven second allegation is ignored. Strange. Well, Mueller could not prove "conspiracy" (likely because of Trump's obstruction of evidence), but Mueller did provide a boatload of evidence of the "co-operation"/collusion, and the "co-operation" is the important part, because that is what's proven to have happened. The Russians did interfere in the election, and the Trump campaign did invite, welcome, facilitate, and co-operate in it because they expected to benefit from it, and they lied about all of it.
 * Are you also going to dispute that this happened, as documented in several of our articles, with plenty of RS backing? Such a denial may well be another AP2 violating matter as it could be viewed as making war with the narrative described by RS.
 * Maybe you have a completely different explanation for all this, in which case I will happily retract anything I've gotten wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Why, on a Talk page, must we debate language? Anything can be said in myriad ways. Why would anyone care what language was used? If there is debate, the language can be altered. This isn't article space. It is always possible to say the same thing using alternative language. I perceive this as debate for the sake of debate. —wouldn't you say the same thing another way? Or are you committed to that particular means of expression? If someone asked me to say something differently on a Talk page I would welcome the opportunity to do so—or I would explain why a particular locution was inordinately important. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand your comments about there being somewhat more leeway on talk pages for discussion of subjects that we might ultimately decide not to include in article space, due to BLP objections. But when editors exhibit extremely antagonistic attitudes towards the subject of an article, and make the sorts of statements we're seeing here and at Talk:Julian Assange, there's a problem, in my opinion. has been making completely unsubstantiated statements about "Assange cultists" and "MRAs" that really have nothing to do with article improvement. has repeatedly referred to GRU agents as Assange's "accomplices," which is completely unnecessary and is simply an inflammatory insinuation. Several editors have suggested that it's not so serious because SPECIFICO was not speaking in a legal sense (though I think the fact that SPECIFICO was speaking about indictments makes it clear they did mean it in a legal sense). Yet just above, here at WP:BLPN, is explicitly stating - as a fact - that Assange committed a crime. Again, this has nothing to do with suggesting article content, so I don't see why there should be greater leeway for this comment. It actually looks to me like BullRangifer is just expounding on their (extremely negative) political views about a living person. All of this extremely inflammatory discussion of living persons is completely unnecessary for discussing article content, and in my opinion, should not be tolerated by administrators. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for NYB, but based on what I see across multiple talk pages, if we took what is being point out here as "unacceptable" with potential for admin action, we might as well start forming a mass queue line for as many equivalent violations there are elsewhere. Maybe because we've gotten lax in the last few years with enforcing BLPTALK in light of recent events, but trying to enforce it now, or to make any specific editor an example would be a massive disaster. I fully believe we should have a sitewide caution "Please tone down your criticism of BLP" and hope people back off, and remind those that forget, only using admin actions when all other attempts have failed. But in this specific case, this is not the issue to make the stand on without disastrous effects. --M asem (t) 03:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I find it ironic for you to go down that path given that you edit on virtually no topic other than Assange. Guy (help!) 10:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

, above you write: "...BullRangifer is explicitly stating - as a fact - that Assange committed a crime," with the obvious implication that I said it, and that it would be wrong and/or a BLP violation. As you know, this is a complicated matter involving multiple people and lawsuits, so instead of putting words in my mouth, as you have done with SPECIFICO (who does not use the word "conspired", as you claim), how about citing me exactly, in context, and then explaining exactly what's wrong with my actual statement. Making an accusation against me without evidence is not good, and thus I have no way of improving my understandings and wordings. Please explain your understanding of the facts, and I'll gladly revise any statement of mine that is factually wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you didn't state above that Assange committed a crime? Anyone can look above and read your above post - specifically, the paragraph beginning with, "It is not just an 'implication', but a legal fact, that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime. Why Assange hasn't been formally charged, unlike the GRU agents, is a question you'll have to ask Trump and Rohrabacher, who actually made a quid pro quo offer of a pardon, rather than a justified criminal indictment, to Assange, in exchange for a cover-up and denial that it was the Russians who hacked and leaked the emails." You should not be making these sorts of statements on Wikipedia. They don't serve any purpose related to editing the encyclopedia, and they violate our WP:BLP policy. Why you would think it's appropriate to make these accusations about a living person at WP:BLPN, of all places, is beyond me., do BR's above accusations about Assange fall within the leeway you discussed earlier? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thucydides411, thanks for quoting me exactly. Now I know what we're discussing. (There are many possibilities above.) The next thing that will help me will be to do what I asked for: explain "exactly what's wrong with my actual statement" and "explain your understanding of the facts" so I can "revise any statement of mine that is factually wrong." I love to learn and will revise my wordings and thinking accordingly.
 * Just for the record, what I have written is based on the content in our articles and the sources we use (plus other RS). Maybe I have misinterpreted something, so it should be easy to explain what I'm getting wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this has moved well beyond a discussion on what content belongs in the article, or even what content belongs on the talkpage of the article, and is now just a political/legal discussion/debate. On an important topic to be sure, but I don't think Wikipedia is the best place for it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the purpose of BLP/N is not just about article content, but about violations of BLP, and that's why we are discussing this. Thucydides411 has still failed to do anything other than object, but not provided reasons why the statements they don't like violate BLP. Personal objections are not evidence. They are just "I don't like it". They have not yet provided arguments or evidence that the statements are not factual or not based in RS, even though I have repeatedly asked for such evidence. That's why we are here, so this can't be brushed under the table.
 * False accusations made against SPECIFICO and myself should not be allowed, and evidentiary rules assume that accusations are false until proven. The burden of proof is in Thucydides411's court. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging Thucydides411. I see you have time to make other edits, so please respond to these concerns. You shouldn't leave accusations without evidence against SPECIFICO and myself laying here. That is sanctionable behavior. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Well,, that's sort of my point. These sorts of political statements about "Assange cultists," "MRAs," about Assange's supposed "accomplices," etc. have no place on Wikipedia. As you can see here in this thread, tries to initiate these sorts of long political discussions, and is now trying to goad me into responding to their pet theories about how Assange's conduct in 2016 was supposedly criminal (I'll only note that an American judge dismissed the DNC's lawsuit with prejudice, and stated explicitly that Assange's actions were protected by the First Amendment: ).
 * I do not believe that these sorts of attacks on a living person would not be tolerated - as they're being tolerated against Assange - if they were directed at someone who is more popular among Wikipedia editors. If WP:BLP doesn't count for people that Wikipedia editors don't like, then the policy is meaningless. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thucydides411, please stop evading the issue by repeating your seemingly false accusations against me and SPECIFICO. I am not "goading" you. I am asking for you to present evidence that your complaint is anything other than IDON'TLIKEIT. Please don't assume that everyone sees things your way and just takes your accusations at face value. Maybe mainstream editors see things quite differently, and don't assume your accusations are true.
 * This means you should promptly provide arguments or evidence that the statements are not factual or not based in RS. You have not done that yet, so until you do, we are innocent until you prove us quilty. You shouldn't start proceedings here and not present any evidence. Doing that is just an abuse of BLP/N, and admins should sanction you for doing that.
 * I'm waiting. Provide arguments or evidence that the statements are not factual or not based in RS. (THAT is what BLP/N is about.) It should be easy for you to do that, certainly easier than wasting our time with these seemingly frivolous accusations. You can be sanctioned for this, and I'll call for a topic ban from AP2 if you don't provide evidence. If you do provide satisfactory evidence, then I'll revise my statements and thinking (I can't speak for SPECIFICO), and I'll thank you for enlightening me. That would be a good outcome. We certainly don't want to violate BLP. Don't keep us waiting.
 * BTW, that civil case by the DNC has nothing to do with the criminal case against the 12 Russian hackers who provided WikiLeaks/Assange with the stolen emails. That was a crime and not protected by the First Amendment. That is what I have been talking about. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Third party reading this, but which criminal case against Assange are we talking about here? Or are we not talking about a criminal case against Assange, but one against the Russian hackers?  --Kyohyi (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. I have always been referring to the crime(s) committed by the hackers, not previous cases against Assange, such as those involving Chelsea Manning. The context of my comments above also includes clear statements that Assange did not have to know he was dealing with GRU agents, or know that he was involved in criminal activity. Crimes were committed. That's an objective fact, regardless of whether anyone ever gets convicted. That's all. (I have not dealt with questions of culpability, but many reasonable people and RS assert that Assange knew, or had to know, that what he was doing was wrong. That is actually another matter we are not dealing with here.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Kyohyi, you may find this article interesting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually don't want to get involved, the whole atmosphere around AMPOL is one big battleground that I don't want to touch. I was just confused on the arguments being presented, and was looking for clarification.  --Kyohyi (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Thucydides411 yet again. I have also contacted them on their talk page: User talk:Thucydides411. They should either present their evidence or retract their accusations against me and SPECIFICO. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Get over it or move on. Best advice I can give you at this point. With all the pings and comments on their talk page now it sounds like badgering. PackMecEng (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PackMecEng, personal attacks which are escalated, rather than withdrawn, don't get swept under the carpet. The matter is now at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are the only one fighting for a cause and all the users and admins that watch these boards did not see an issue. Perhaps there is no issue? PackMecEng (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pack, those users and admins don't come to this page for personal attacks, rants and screeds. That's why most of us ignored Thucydides411's deflection. The BLP issue is resolved. The behavioral issues will be resolved either at ANI or Arbcom Enforcement.  SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Were you referring to BullRangifer or Thucydides411 there? PackMecEng (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing for claims
FYI, here is some of what we have at the Steele dossier article on this subject: -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , sourcing for the Carter Page allegations is extremely poor. Given its speculative nature I think that should be removed pending substantially better sourcing. Guy (help!) 10:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, I removed that content as it's not really relevant for this thread. Please come to my talk page and explain more so we can fix that matter. I'm not sure what you really mean, and this is not the place for that discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

A related discussion has been opened at ANI.  SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Ava's Demon
Controversial WP:BLP content twice added here, sourced to reddit, twitter and patreon. I've removed it twice, and the new editor has posted it to their sandbox. Would appreciate more eyes on this, thanks. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've left a non-template message explaining the WP:BLP policy on the user's talk page and tagged the sandbox for CSD as a WP:G10 attack page. The criterion "...or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced," should apply to material sourced only to self-published sources. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Sandra Meigs
In the midst of a determined promotional campaign, with unacceptable sources. More eyes will be appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Michael Dixon (political activist)

 * The article is not sourced and when I proceeded to make comments on the talk page I noticed someone claiming to be the subject has objected to the material. Otr500 (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Much of the article can be sourced to its external links. A look at user:Mickyd47 suggests that they might not have been the most serious of Wikipedians, possibly someone of the same common name. --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Topi Lehtipuu
The External Links Official Website for this site links to an adult site. Can someone fix this? He has no official website but it should like to http://maestroarts.com/artists/topi-lehtipuu
 * Fixed the link Curdle (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Rodney Reed
Should Reed's prior crimes be mentioned in his article if they have been covered in reliable secondary sources and served as the basis for his death penalty conviction? It is being argued he's not a public figure and thus should be shielded when to the contrary he has gained a lot of media attention willingly and has appeared on Doctor Phil's show and hung out with celebrities like Kim Kardashian in an attempt to promote his case. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The question to ask yourself is two-fold: Was he convicted of those crimes, and were those convictions discussed in reliable sources. If you can answer yes to both those questions, then you have your answer.


 * When thinking about celebrity status in the context of WP:WELLKNOWN, you have to look at just how much coverage those crimes got. If they were only covered by a few, local newspapers, perhaps even picked up by a few national news outlets, then no. If they are being reported in every newspaper and magazine across the nation, perhaps even getting worldwide coverage, then yes. A person doesn't have to be a movie star to be a celebrity, some are known only for crimes they committed, but simply appearing on Dr. Phil or the Kardashians, for that matter, isn't going to cut it. Zaereth (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the question may be more complicated than that. Reed was convicted of a rape and murder. The question of his guilt or innocence has become the subject of public debate. Reed had been accused of multiple prior rapes, one of which led to his suspicion in the case for which he was convicted. The question is whether the article should include discussion of the accusations for which he was not convicted.


 * The issue is well-outlined on the article talk page. Fundamentally, there is a clear consensus that the previous accusations against Reed should be included. Further, Reed is a public figure as a result of the case for which he was convicted alone, if not for the many other reasons cited. Lastly, even if he were not a public figure, that would mean only that "editors must seriously consider" whether such information should be mentioned or not.


 * Omission of these other incidents would deprive readers of available information that they may, or may not, consider significant in weighing his guilt or innocence in the case in which he was convicted. WP should err on the side of giving its readers available information, and let them find the truth for themselves. Concealing information in the interest of persuading readers should never be condoned. John2510 (talk) 00:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is. Going only on the information that I've been provided with here, what you're saying is that he was convicted of a crime, and it has received very widespread coverage in reliable sources, correct? We can report that, no problem. You also seem to be saying that this widespread coverage includes information of past crimes, of which he was only accused, but used as evidence against him. We can report that too. The key factor is that "a" is a subset of "b", and that multiple sources have covered it in that manner. To what detail depends upon the coverage in sources, but we're not gonna cut out a part of the story if it's necessary. Do we report that he was accused of crimes which were used in evidence against him, but not say what those crimes were, or do we go into vivid, gory detail about all of them, or somewhere in between? That depends upon many factors, including just how necessary is it for the reader's understanding, but more importantly it's coverage in RSs.


 * If you want a more specific response, I'[l need to see diffs, but that won't like happen today. Zaereth (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * By the way, I forgot to mention, while I get what you're trying to say, we shouldn't be worried about the truth of the story, nor in whether the reader will judging this person. This is an encyclopedia article and not a court room. All the reader really needs is a summary of the entire story --the gist of it-- and we should leave all boring details to the lawyers. You can't be objective worrying about guilt or innocence. Zaereth (talk) 01:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The basic issue is that Reed was convicted of rape/murder of Stacey Stites and sentenced to death. This received widespread national coverage, which unquestionably warranted Reed getting his own Wikipedia page.  The full story of his case has received less coverage (although still reported in a number of reliable secondary sources).  The full story is that: (1) the reason he was charged in the first place was that he was currently under investigation for *another* sexual assault charge (for which he was visually IDed), and (2) the reason he was sentenced to death was that the prosecution introduced evidence (during sentencing in the Stites case) that he was responsible for raping a 12-year-old girl (for which he was a DNA match, and I think possibly also a bite mark match?)  The prosecution did not pursue these additional charges in court, because he was sentenced to death in the Stites case.  One editor on the Rodney Reed page has repeatedly removed all mention of these additional crimes, despite a growing consensus that this information should be included.  His argument is that Reed is not a "public figure", even though Reed clearly made himself a "public figure" (as defined for BLPCRIME purposes) when he attempted to become famous (to avoid the death penalty) and succeeded.
 * There is currently a social movement to exonerate Reed, which is based in large part of the public's ignorance of the other crimes for which he was accused and linked to by visual ID, DNA, etc. It is impossible to accurately tell Reed's story without including the information about the additional crimes for which he was charged.  By omitting this information, it makes it more likely that someone would believe that some kind of injustice had occurred.  To tell this story without bias, we need to describe why Reed was charged and why he was sentenced to death.  Because he was not convicted of these crimes, we need to say "alleged".  But this information has to be included in any fair treatment of the material...  The reasons why he was charged and sentenced to death are crucial to the story and clearly central to his notability. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Just a hint, in case it hasn't gotten across, you'd all do much better if you provided links with these posts. Even a link to the article would be wonderful, so a person doesn't have to copy/paste his name and scroll to the top, and... What I'm seeing here resembles a bit of a real-world drama being played out on Wikipedia. Questions of why are always questions of opinion, it askes for a motive and that requires reasoning on the part of the person being asked. There is nothing factual about why, and as such those answers need to be attributed to someone (and that includes variations of why, like "what for" or "how come").


 * In looking at the article (very briefly) I would say this has received enough coverage to warrant inclusion. Look, when you're convicted of a crime you've lost your right to privacy on the issue. Everything associated with that crime becomes fair game. Now we can't go looking for other crimes he may have been accused of, just for the sake of doing our own invwestigation, but if this is all part of the trial, and has all been reported in RSs, then we can cover it too. But it's a mistake to look at in terms of explaining the "why" and "our readers need to know the truth". That's emotions talking. Be Spock. Forget all the "why"s and "need to"s. Just summarize the info we're given.


 * But nothing beats seeing the actual text in question, and I don't have time to hunt for it today in the history or scour through the talk page. Links or quotes of the text is worth a thousand posts. Zaereth (talk) 03:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A reversion of the text in question: The offending text (all of which is referenced to a reliable secondary source) is exactly what I described, and includes: "Local law enforcement already had Reed's DNA on file from a separate ongoing sexual assault investigation in which Reed had been visually and genetically identified as the perpetrator," "Reed had also [claimed that he was in a clandestine sexual relationship with a rape victim] in a previous sexual assault case for which he had been tried and acquitted", "[During sentencing, prosecutors pushed for the death penalty by arguing that Reed was likely to pose a danger in the future based on a history of similar previous cases] in which Reed's DNA matched the perpetrator's, including the rape of a 12-year-old girl," and "Although charged, Reed was never tried in these cases because he had already been convicted of capital murder."  The references include:  (although more could be found ), which have been used elsewhere in the article with no complaints as to their reliability. Bueller 007 (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Reed is a public figure, regardless of how he achieved that status (voluntarily or involuntarily). When you have an array of diverse sources like: The New York Times, BBC News, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Rolling Stone, Business Insider, Vibe, both CNN and FOX News, plus all three network news, ABC, CBS and NBC reporting about his case, he is a public figure. And then in addition to the local (Texas) sources, there are many other sources that discuss and/or mention the other allegations against him: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. I agree on including the content in question, using "alleged", and also use attribution where necessary. Isaidnoway (talk)  12:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This person's entire notability stems from his conviction for this crime and the debate over whether he was wrongfully convicted or whether the sentence was too harsh. Many different reliable sources have reported on how the sentencing took into account past charges, including charges that were dropped or cases where he was even acquitted at trial. This is a major element in the arguments over his status, with prosecutors pointing to all these allegations as evidence that he's a danger to society, and his supporters saying it's unfair that prosecutors brought up past cases where he was never found guilty to justify the death sentence. Basically, I think this information is directly related to the subject's notability and is essentially required for readers to understand what's going on.
 * As for BLPCRIME, I think it's clear that that policy is meant to protect relatively unknown people from being associated with criminal behavior absent a conviction. Rodney Reed appears to satisfy WP:WELLKNOWN, since there are large number third party reliable sources discussing him and these allegations. But even if that doesn't make him a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, we'd still need to include this information. He's notable because of his conviction for murder and rape, and the past charges are extremely relevant to the very public debate over his conviction and sentencing. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If details have been covered in reliable secondary sources then it may be acceptable to add them. IIRC last time this came up, a significant concern is that some editors were adding or wanted to add details where the only source they were using was primary sources, generally court transcripts and the like, with silly claims like "The portion of the SCOTUS case being used is not a primary source. It's a third-party analysis of Reed's defense claims and the claims made by Texas. That's called a secondary source." Such misuse of primary sources isn't acceptable, and editors need to ensure they rely on secondary source coverage of such details. Nil Einne (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think Reed is a public figure just because he has received enough coverage to be found notable as the subject of a Wikipedia article. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE says, "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." I do not think Reed is going to receive the sustained coverage or notoriety that would rise beyond general notability to the level of a public figure. If Reed is a public figure, then how many people on Wikipedia would not be a public figure and would lose the protection of WP:BLPCRIME? That would seriously undermine the point of having the BLPCRIME policy, and I don't think we should have an exemption to the policy for people convicted of heinous crimes (both because they are occasionally innocent and they also have family and other people who are affected, in addition to reasons about what Wikipedia is not). I don't agree with the statement by John2510 earlier that "WP should err on the side of giving its readers available information, and let them find the truth for themselves." I think Wikipedia should have a policy of restraint for BLP topics, especially when dealing with criminal accusations, and I think we should be guided by BLPCRIME in this case, which says, "editors must seriously consider not including material" without a conviction. On Reed's article, accusations of a crime without a conviction should only be included if it is relevant to the case for which he was convicted and supported by multiple reliable sources. I think most of what Bueller 007 included in their diff above could be included, although all accusations should make clear they are accused/alleged, including allegations of DNA verification. I do not think the recent additions by an IP editor or CaptainPrimo  are appropriate, especially given the primary sourcing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree the recent addition is completely unacceptable relying solely on court transcripts, a clear violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Even this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Reed&diff=942802178&oldid=942802105] which may have been what started this discussion is mostly the same, just one paragraph which is sourced to a secondary source (although post-millennial at best needs to be used with great care on BLPs) and that wording change which I make no comment on. While I often engage in abstract discussion too, as I did above, ultimately there comes a time where it's pointless. Maybe there could be justification for the inclusion of a section sourced to secondary sources. It's likely to be difficult to say for sure until someone actually tries. I don't understand why people keep telling us there are secondary sources, but then the additions or contested edits rely solely on court transcripts. Nil Einne (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you have an opinion on whether Reed rises to the level of a public figure per WP:BLPCRIME? A central issue seems to be whether (1) "serious consideration" needs to be taken when accusing Reed of crimes (such as multiple sources and a connection to his trial or sentencing) or whether (2) he is a public figure and so anything reported in secondary sources is legitimate to add. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll give my two cents, since you've asked a straight-forward question. Reed was convicted of a crime, so BLPCRIME doesn't apply to that particular act. Any other crimes that were brought up in the case, whether related or not, if they were part of the case and that has been covered by reliable sources --showing how they are necessary for understanding the case-- then those most certainly can be included as well, but only in the context of the particular case. On the basis of BLPCRIME alone, we can't go looking for other criminal acts of which he may have been accused, just to fluff up the article.


 * A person rises to the level of public figure when there are just so many sources out there it's difficult to pick and choose. For this crime, he may very well rise to that level, but can the same be said for these other alleged acts? If there is enough coverage out there, we can add them. If not, then we should not.


 * As an example, say (strictly for the sake of example, this is not true) someone like Harrison Ford or Britney Spears was accused of a crime. There would be tons of coverage out there reporting on it, even if something minor. That's when you really know you're famous, or infamous as the case may be. But unless such widespread coverage exists we should leave it out, lest we open ourselves to every bit of tabloid gossip that crosses a printing press. Zaereth (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My view is similar, I think, to Zaereth. I don't think Rodney Reed can really be called a public figure. Yes he may have sought attention, but AFAICT, it seems to be mostly or exclusively as part of his attempts to get his conviction or at least sentence looked at. Likewise most of the press attention seems to have focused on his conviction and sentence. By way of comparison, someone like Mumia Abu-Jamal seems to have sought and received wider attention. As I understand it, there is actually a concept of "limited purpose public figure" under US law, which perhaps best fits with Reed however I don't think it's a good idea for us to use such terms since it conflates the US too much with legal definitions, requirements and risks. Still, I think this is one case where treating public figure solely as a binary may not be the best solution, and I'd note that BLPCRIME doesn't seem to completely forbid covering alleged crimes without convictions but rather "seriously consider not" even for non public figures. Since his primary notability arises from his conviction for a crime, his article is always going to cover that in some detail. Other crimes he has been accused but not convicted of, should normally stay out. But if they been widely covered in secondary sources then we may considered making an exception. I'm not sure if this applies here.  However there's another consideration. Since these alleged crimes were apparently considered in handing down the death penalty, it may be that some details is needed to help understand his case so I can see merit in adding some level of detail if there is some coverage in secondary sources even if many such sources don't mention such details. Further, I believe such allegations may be considered in his legal appeals for clemency, or at least in his political appeals, which would also add to this view. I feel we should be far more strict, i.e. require widespread coverage before including material which some people feel makes a difference in deciding if someone is guilty of crime but where it doesn't seem to have been considered in any official capacity.  IMO these articles which are mostly about crimes, are always tricky. I'd note that often, and including here, this isn't one sided either. I know there is some dispute over whether to include details on one part of his defence about allegations the victim's fiancé was involved. Again, while I'd normally oppose inclusion of material alleging someone else committed a crime, unnamed but easily identifiable, it seems easily possible that such details are needed to help understand the case and supported by coverage in secondary sources. There also seems to be some dispute over various technical aspects. While some of these e.g. the prosecutors are probably public figures reducing concerns, others like technicians are probably not and so similar considerations may apply.  While I'm a BLP hawk, I do think with most articles of this sort, there is always going to be a complicated delicate balance of what we should cover in the interest of fairness to all involved. While we require secondary sources and are guided by them, ultimately often editorial judgement also comes into play and we can't simply go by the number of sources covering the detail. At least in this case, I'm fairly sure we will not be in the nasty situation where e.g. someone is convicted or loses a case which is widely covered, but then since they are a fairly unknown individual, no one seems to notice i.e. no secondary source coverage is found when this conviction or case is overturned on appeal. Leaving us with the with the unfortunate requirement to either ignore such an important detail, or ignore BLPPRIMARY.  Nil Einne (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , you apparently have not read this thread or looked at the history of reversions in this article. The removed additions, along with the secondary sources you requested, are already given above. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I wasn't aware of the primary source rule before. After taking that into consideration, I consulted secondary sources and used them to add information relevant to his claim of fame (such as the circumstance of his arrest and information presented in the penalty phase) as impartial as possible. Is this okay? CaptainPrimo (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not looked carefully at your additions but thank you for making an effort. It's unfortunate you were not aware of our clear BLP requirements, but now you are aware, you are not simply ignoring the problem or trying to get into pointless arguments claiming that Supreme Court court transcripts are secondary sources. Your efforts are the sort of thing which go some way to actually improving the situation, unlike many previous efforts of IPs and Bueller 007, who have just insisted secondary sources existed, then either added material only sourced to primary sources, or defending the addition/opposed the removal of such material. Nil Einne (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * actually I did read this thread and look at the history. That's why I said what I said. I don't really give a fuck what secondary sources have been presented in this thread. I do give a fuck that people keep adding fucking crap sources only to primary sources. Let me repeat what I said above. most of this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Reed&type=revision&diff=942801642&oldid=942801478] completely unacceptable on a BLP. Shit like this even more completely unacceptable [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Reed&diff=943759144&oldid=943135633]. So let me repeat one more time. I don't give a fucking shit what crap you or anyone else tells me about secondary sources existing in this thread, or in the article talk page. I want you, or someone else to fucking add the fucking material sourced to secondary sources rather than exclusively to primary source. Or if they are not going to, then stop fucking adding or defending crap only sourced to primary sources. As long as people add material only sourced to secondary sources then I will maintain my view that this is completely unacceptable, since for the final time, I don't give a shit what secondary sources exist. What I care about is editors actually adding them when editing like CaptainPrimo seems to be trying to do so. Then we can actually discuss edits which may be usable rather than going around in dumb circles because someone adds material only sourced to primary sources, complains when it is removed, tells us secondary sources exist when we point out the problem without actually using them when adding material to the article, and them or someone else comes back a few months later and the same cycle repeats. There is some ancient history linked above [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Reed&diff=928501587&oldid=928498930]. I don't care to comment on it since 1) It's ancient history. 2) It's complicated 3) I'm too annoyed that you seem to think it's okay to adding fucking crap sourced only to primary sources simply because secondary sources allegedly exist even though they were never added in the recent contested edits. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you okay? I just added material sourced only to secondary sources and you still replied like this. CaptainPrimo (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my reply was exclusively directed at Bueller 007, hence the indenting and reference to Bueller 007 in at the beginning. Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Laszlo Toth
I just came across Laszlo Toth, which portrays its subject in the lead as someone who is still alive, but is categorized in Category:2012 deaths; furthermore, the disambiguation page László Tóth lists this person as having died in 2012 as well. I could not, however, find any reliable sources backing up the claim that Toth has died. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Me neither. Hungarian WP-article didn't help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, a lot of it may originate from this [//www.heavenaddress.com/Laszlo-Toth/419863/service_details] which isn't an RS, especially since the birth details don't quite match. My feeling is no RS will be found. This could easily be one of those many cases where the the person has died, but because they're so obscure no RS picked it up or simply confusion, we won't know until some RS bothers to look in to it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

licypriya kangujam
It appears that there is ample evidence that much of her bio has been manufactured by her father in attempt to shoot her to fame. Her Wikipedia is a source of the same:

1.Kangujam attended the UNESCO Partners' Forum 2019 (Biennial Luanda) in Luanda City, Angola invited by UNESCO - The UN categorically stated in a tweet that she was not invited by them - anyone could participate.

2. She addressed on climate change along with President of Angola João Lourenço, President of Mali Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta, President of Malawi Hage Geingob, President of Republic of the Congo Denis Sassou Nguesso, First Lady of Angola Ana Dias Lourenço, First Lady of Namibia Monica Geingos, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2018 Denis Mukwege, UNESCO Director General Audrey Azoulay, Deputy Prime Minister of Guinea Francois Fall and all Culture Ministers of Africa.[6][7][8][9][10] - none of the articles mentioned are legitimate sources naming her as "addressing" the issue. The only legitimate sites do not mention her name.

3. In 2020 Licypriya published a letter to the participants at the World Economic Forum with activists Greta Thunberg, Luisa Neubauer, Isabelle Axelsson, and Loukina Tille, calling on companies, banks and governments to immediately stop subsidizing fossil fuels. In an article given to The Guardian they said, “We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now – as in right now.We call upon the world’s leaders to stop investing in the fossil fuel economy that is at the very heart of this planetary crisis. Instead, they should invest their money in existing sustainable technologies, research and in restoring nature. Short-term profit should not trump long-term stability of life.” - none of the sources attribute hehr as the publisher of this letter.

4. Campaign for teaching climate change in schools She has been campaigning to make lessons in climate change mandatory in schools and as per her request the government of Gujarat has included climate change in school education - The government of Gujarat has not credited her with this initiative being a result of her request.https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-times/climate-change-has-now-entered-the-classroom/articleshow/71253635.cms There is also no evidence on the Gujarat Education website that Climate Change has been introduced into their curriculum: http://gujarat-education.gov.in/

5. A section entitled "Controversy" was added and removed without any legitimate justification.

6. An article pertaining to her father's arrest for using UNESCo acronym when he had no association with UNESCo was deleted without justification. Considering her parents are leveraging her as a child activist, this information is relevant to her portfolio.

It appears that her father/guardian is using Wikipedia as a means to justify her "Work" as an activist to help her gain notoriety and success as a celebrity activist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicwithoutlyrics (talk • contribs) 09:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, this article needs some serious work. The lede is very well written and seems to cover all the major points of her notability. The rest of the article, uh ... not so much. It is written in the second person and is more filled with this sort of pseudo-academic/narrative style that focuses more on pushing her message than telling anything about her, the person. There is a lot of name dropping, as if trying to show notability by association. The fact that many paragraphs end with five or six references is odd (not that it indicates a problem within itself, but does raise some red flags). And an entire five paragraphs on the so-called "survival kit"? A potted plant in a backpack? Granted, I can see that it's only symbolic, as such a thing would serve no real function, but we seem to be giving a huge amount of weight to it, and if that's her major claim to fame...


 * She's obviously gained attention with her views. I don't know if enough to confer notability; possibly. Many of the sources, as you mentioned, are no good, so it's hard to tell until that has been cleaned up. But this article is about her, and not a soapbox for spreading her views, so I would keep that in mind.


 * You are most welcome to do some serious gutting, cleaning, and fixing to that article. I don't see how anyone could seriously object. Zaereth (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the contest over infoboxes on notable biographical articles
Hello, I am Thatstinkyguy. I'm a simple editor here on Wikipedia. I wanted to discuss the glaring omissions of infoboxes on biographical articles of notable celebrities. Even though there are more, two that stood out to me in particular are Stanley Kubrick and Cary Grant. What I did was look the the archived talk pages of these two articles to see why there are no infoboxes. I tried to get in touch with one of the users who opposed the addition of infoboxes for both stated ones, Dr. Blofeld, via their talk page. Here was my message:

This message from me was undone/deleted by Dr. Blofeld themselves, stating in their edit summary:

Looking back, the title name of "Your thing with infoboxes..." probably wasn't the best name on my part looking back, but judging from the summary here, it seems as if Dr. Blofeld was not interested to hear what I had to say. So, I went to an administrator, DeltaQuad, with my concerns on the stance of the omission of infoboxes on articles of notable celebrities, the two I mentioned being Stanley Kubrick and Cary Grant. Here was my following message to DeltaQuad's talk page:

I got a response on the DeltaQuad talk page from user, Cassianto. They responded with the following:

So I responded to Cassianto on their talk page. This was my response:

My first response on this was from user User:SchroCat. Their response to me was:

Finally, I come here to express my concern. I think SchroCat got the wrong idea on what I was saying on these. I wasn't out to attack or berate anyone. I was doing my best to be firm and serious, not straight-up mean. If I was mean anywhere, I'm sorry. On their point of the world and Wikipedia being a big enough place for people with opposing views, I agree with this, but I'm talking about a biographical article standard (infoboxes for notable people/celebrities), not an opinion. And the fact that they didn't want me to respond to them is kind of unreasonable too.

Some time after this however, Cassianto responded to me with this:

This response was quite revealing. Sure, Wikipedia has issues but this thing with celebrities having infoboxes is not and should not be one of them. I thought it was quite funny how he compared my reply to an Oscar acceptance speech. As you can see, with my questions, they answered (from purely their own opinion) that infoboxes diminish the quality of some biographical articles. This part is my favorite: "Unfortunately, a few numpties stopped me from deleting infoboxes that had been forced on to articles without discussion. Otherwise, I would be deleting the whole lot of them and asking for a discussion to take place on the article's talk page on the merits of including an infobox - but like I say, this place is broken." Yeah, he is not making a good case as to why celebrities biographical articles should not have infoboxes. There should not have to be a discussion over a biographical article standard such as an infobox for a celebrity.

Since it's a standard, can infoboxes now be added to Stanley Kubrick, Cary Grant, and others?

Thank you for your time!

- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Thatstinkyguy


 * That is not how WP works. This is controversial (addition/removal of infoboxes have resulted in two Arbitration cases), and cannot be done simply because you think it's a no-brainer.  No, without consensus to do so, you may not add infoboxes to those articles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, a couple more notes:
 * This is very wordy. You can just use diffs to show what people said, you don't need to copy/paste the whole conversation.
 * Per the instructions at the top of this page, this seems more appropriate for Requests for comment/Biographies than this noticeboard. BLPN regulars will know better than me whether to close this discussion and send you to the article talk pages, or if I'm confused.
 * It's good manners to notify people if you're talking about them.
 * I'm concerned that you just happened to choose to talk about two of the most contentious arguments about infoboxes. How did you come to notice that these two articles did not have infoboxes? Hint: Do not say you came across them randomly, that would not be possible.
 * --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please summarize why you think infoboxes belong, and what they should contain for the examples given.
 * Infoboxes highlight basic information and areas of notability. They tend to get bloated with information that detracts from notability. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thatstinkyguy. Please read the note at the top of the yellow box at the top of Talk:Stanley Kubrick, the note that starts "The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators" and you will see it says "You may not add an infobox to the article, as there is currently no consensus for one. Please see . Everybody's all talked out about infoboxes, so no new infobox discussion or RfC may be started on this talkpage earlier than September 2021", among other things. That's what's known as a discretionary sanction. I added it myself, after a lot of bureaucracy and an elaborate discussion (which the footnote leads to). So, no, we can't add an infobox to Stanley Kubrick, not before September 2021, anyway. Pleaase note that I don't mean to scold you for not seeing this on the talkpage before. There is frankly a lot of crap in the yellow box at the top, and people can definitely be excused for not reading it all. However, in case somebody tries to edit the article in order to add an infobox, they will see a big, shouty so called "edit notice" with the same information, which is harder to miss. (Click "edit" and you will see it.) If you wish to appeal against that discretionary sanction of mine, that can be done at Arbitration enforcement. That is how WP works. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC).
 * . I saw the notice on the Stanley Kubrick article. I'm just not gonna try arguing anymore. It just seems like I'm stoking flames. Thanks for the replys.
 * - Thatstinkyguy (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Thatstinkyguy


 * It's not so much that you're stoking the flames, per se, but that you've really offered no reason as to why it would be necessary, or even beneficial. In fact, in what little of I've just read of the entire debate on the talk page (which was a lot, but barely scratched the surface) I've really seen no real, logical statement either for or against them. It's mostly a case of "I like them", "I don't like them", or "this is the way we've always done it at this article".


 * The only real argument against them that I found was "we work hard writing these articles and want people to read the whole thing", which is more vanity than anything else, and is logically invalid because it assumes an either/or and negates a third or fourth probability, like that about 90% of people who view any particular article, on average, are not going to bother reading the whole thing. (The vast majority of viewers are just researching some particular question they want answered, and will only skim the article until they find it, followed by those only looking to find out what the heck this thing is, and the people who only came to look at the pictures, with the actual readers coming in far last.)


 * You see, Wikipedia works by consensus. This is not a counting or votes, but a weighing of arguments. If your argument for them is convincing enough to others, consensus may likely swing your way. If not, then consensus will likely not. And if your argument is simply "I like it" then it's not counted at all. As far as I can tell, consensus on this topic was never achieved because nobody really ever came forth with a real, logically valid argument either for or against them, so by default we simply leave the additions out. There really can be no more discussion on this matter until next year, because people are simply tired and getting very annoyed by it, but that's ok, because it gives you time to prepare a truly good argument. And then I suggest you simply make your case and step back and let the ball roll where it may, accepting whatever result comes from it. In most cases, the more you try to force it; the more resistance you'll encounter. (Keep in mind that this is a place where people can battle for years on whether or not the "the" in The Beatles should be capitalized. True story.) Zaereth (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ja'Net DuBois


She passed away a few weeks ago. Editors have been slowly removing qualifications and sources on information about her that's unclear (mostly her birth information: the year, her given name, place of birth, and father), and using Wikipedia's voice to present one-sided information based upon poor and primary sources. Most recently we have https://dam.tmz.com/document/c5/o/2020/03/11/c524058645cd44c19325454b899ffb73.pdf, that appears extremely dubious. The best sources have avoided giving birth information, and it's unclear where we should draw the line on which to use and with what qualifications. Help would be appreciated. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers
The editor Peter Gulutzan has since at least November 2018 repeatedly removed reliably sourced content on climate change denial / fringe rhetoric on BLPs by claiming that there is a BLP violation in covering inaccuracies made by prominent climate change deniers:


 * Myron Ebell (removal of content sourced to Climate Feedback)
 * Guus Berkhout (removal of content sourced to Climate Feedback)
 * Joanne Nova (removal of content sourced to peer-reviewed publications, Science magazine, PolitiFact, National Geographic, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning InsideClimate News)
 * Ian Plimer (removal of Climate Feedback)

There is a consensus on the reliability of Climate Feedback, which the RSP list describes as "a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements." It's starting to get tiresome to deal with these reverts of RS content, so I'd just like to get confirmation here that there is no BLP violation involved in adding reliably sourced content about the accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you discussed the issue with the editor on the various talk pages? I think we need to be very careful with a claim like that one removed from the Ebell article.  The claim in question, "Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC."" is true so long as there is one example of it being true.  Absent the context in which it was made we shouldn't include such statements in Wikipedia voice.  Such a definitive statement should include a link to the original claim as well as an attributed explanation to why the claim is wrong.  I didn't review the other examples but this first one certainly doesn't support the view that Peter Gulutzan's edits are problematic.  Springee (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. In fact Snooganssnoogans did start a thread on the Myron Ebell talk page, I hope that editors will look at my reply there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Taking the points in order:
 * (Ebell) On 30 November 2018 Snooganssnoogans started a thread on the Myron Ebell talk page beginning with the incorrect assertion that I had had said climatefeedback.org is not a Reliable Source. In fact I had said no such thing, I had said "Not compliant with WP:BLPSPS and WP:WELLKNOWN.", and on 30 November 2018 I replied on that thread with a full explanation about the cited author/editor, to which Snooganssnoogans did not reply. On 2 December 2018 -- without pinging me and without discussing my actual objections -- Snooganssnoogans started a thread on WP:RSN and got 2 editors to agree (one editor did not) that in general climatefeedback looked like an RS. On 3 December 2018 another editor re-inserted the contentious material in the BLP. I asked if others had opinions (nobody did), and I did nothing further. Would anyone like to finally address what I said?
 * (Berkhout) Once again, a WP:RSN thread Factcheck from climatefeedback.org as a source at Guus Berkhout. I participated, others disagreed, the material in question was re-inserted in the Guus Berkhout BLP, I did nothing further.
 * (Nova) Snooganssnoogans points to this edit by me on 12 September 2019 and claims it was about various wonderful publications -- which is false, as anyone who looks at the edit can see. The cited source was cup.columbia.edu, my edit summary was "Removed "Nova is known for promoting fringe views on climate science". Cited source refutes some statements in her guide, but does not say she is known for that. Poorly sourced material." Nobody disputed that (as far as I can tell), it was a fact that the cited source didn't say it, and the statement has not been re-inserted.
 * (Plimer) In this case my edit summary was "Additional source is not compliant with WP:BLPSPS, and also unnecessary, there is already a cite." i.e. I made no change to the content, so this doesn't fit with Snooganssnoogans's opening sentence that I "repeatedly removed sourced content". (In fact not only did I not remove sourced content in this case, I didn't "repeatedly" remove in other cases.) I believe it could be discussed on the appropriate talk page, and wonder what's wrong with that.
 * (consensus) I refer Snooganssnoogans to the essay don't quote essays or proposals as if they were policy. More seriously, the reference to WP:RSP (which most charitably can be described as having "limited status" the same as an essay) should not be brought into a discussion as if people who are referring to WP:BLPSPS (which is a part of a real policy) need to bow to it. In this case, I looked deeper at the claim that "most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source" and found that it was added by one of the 3 or 4 editors who thought it was not self-published, as opposed to 3 or 4 who thought it was. If someone wants to establish a consensus whether Climate Feedback meets WP:BLPSPS requirements, let's have a talk specifically about that (which as far as I know has never happened) and let's have it on the relevant page which is WP:BLPN (which as far as I know has never happened).
 * I would greatly appreciate a confirmation that Snooganssnoogans's points are without merit, because Snooganssnoogans has used the same points to accuse me of "tendentious editing". Regrettably an administrator (Bishonen) after 11 minutes agreed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Credit: The statement about "most editors" was made by Newslinger, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "The cited source was cup.columbia.edu". Just to be clear: this is a Columbia University Press book published by a recognized expert in the field of climate science. This kind of misrepresentation, one among many, amounts to WP:TE at this point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone who looks will see that I did not say there was anything wrong with Columbia, I said the cited source did not support the statement in the Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (Question to all) Is Climatefeedback something should be treated like the Politifact? I don't recall the exact location but I think people recently concluded that Politifact should be treated as something similar to a think tank.  Their opinions are often cited by others and often have WEIGHT.  However, it was also felt that they aren't a source in and of themselves.  Thus if Politifac says "Senator X was wrong..." that doesn't establish WEIGHT for inclusion.  Weight would be established if CNN says, "According to Politifact, Senator X was wrong...".  I think discussions around the SPLC have reached similar conclusions.  If that same thinking applies to Climatefeedback then I think the Ebell content, as inserted way back in the day, didn't establish WEIGHT for inclusion.  Stating a living person was "wrong" is something negative about them and thus the typical BLP concerns apply.  That doesn't mean it shouldn't make it into the article but we really should be careful that we aren't over simplifying what might be a more complex claim.  In general I would be uncomfortable with statements like the one in the Ebell article since it looks like a random sentence thrown in to discredit the person rather than true explanation of what is almost certainly a more complex position/claim by Ebell. - Disclaimer, prior to my responses here I was not familiar with Ebell.  Springee (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Describing WP:RS/P as some kind of WP:ESSAY doesn't match the effects of, e.g., "deprecated" on not logged-in users, for examples see WT:WHITELIST, WT:RSN, and WT:AFC. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What I actually said was: most charitably can be described as having "limited status" the same as an essay. That charitable description is the WP:SUPPLEMENTAL guideline: "In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Springee, I don't think that's a good summary of the consensus on Politifact. Here's the recent RFC and an earlier one . The consensus to me reads that Politifact is a reliable source for factual claims, equivalent to a high quality news source. The only exception is that their specific truth ratings of a statement ("True", "Mostly False", "Pants on Fire", etc), and any kind of analysis of percentage of false statements should be attributed as an opinion. Just wanted to note that, I don't really have an opinion on Climate Feedback Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody expects the spanish inquisition here: The Hill in a four days ago. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * RRC, you are correct. It was the opinion part that editors felt needed to be cited by others in order to establish WEIGHT.  Do we think that is the same case here?  If CF says Jane Doe made a false claim [here], should that statement have WEIGHT by itself or does that claim need other sources to establish weight?  Also, should we just quote the high level claim or should the details be included.  Again, I'm concerned about what look like random, negative statements without context.  In general I think labeling people as climate deniers is problematic given the extremely political nature of the public debate.  Springee (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with here. As I understand, we are supposed to present all views of reliable sources in proportion... and for bios immediately remove poorly sourced contentious material. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ClimateFeedback should be treated as an opinion blog site with recognition that the opinions come from credentialed academics (if verified). It carries some weight, but it's not the "supreme court" of climate change sources.
 * My search for Myron Ebel at Duck Duck Go says most sources call him a director of a center at an institute, or head of the transition team, etc. Calling him a "denier" is a derogatory term, and cherry picking a particular source is not neutrally representing more than one source(s) available.
 * Even the particular cited source (6 above) does not call Ebel a "denier."
 * The source's opinions should be attributed as such, if you want to describe claims as "false" based on them.
 * Factual accuracy and editing of material on Climate Feedback site: I spot checked this article looking at links to bios. Martin Singh's bio link gives a 404. This is a negative indicator regarding editing and reliability.
 * but if you searched for "Martin Singh, Postdoctoral Research fellow, Harvard University:' you would have found this. He is now at Monash University which is probably why the link no longer exists. So the fact that page was removed is not a comment on the Climate Feedback site. The site has been discussed at WP:RSN - people can read the entire short discussion, but here's the first two comments:
 * "An editor insists that Climatefeedback.org is a self-published source run by nobodies and that we can't use it as a source for statements such as "Myron Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC." Climate scientists note that past climate models have accurately predicted subsequent rates of global warming." Climatefeedback.org has been cited favorably recently by sources such as Deutsche Welle, Columbia Journalism Review, Axios, and the Guardian which referred to climatefeedback.org as "a highly respected and influential resource". It would be good if the RS noticeboard could clarify once and for all whether this source, which other RS cite and describe favorably and which rely on assessments by actual experts, can be used as a RS, so that editors who want to scrub this source and related content from the pages of prominent climate change deniers will stop doing so (or conversely, be allowed to do so). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Hard to argue against Deutsche Welle, Columbia Journalism Review, Axios, and the Guardian. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "*Generally reliable. With published editorial and advisory teams, a clear methodology, and multiple endorsements from established reliable sources, Climate Feedback appears to have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required of a generally reliable source. —  Newslinger  talk   10:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)"  Doug Weller  talk
 * None of that is relevant to the specific objections I made about the Myron Ebell cite, and I never said that climatefeedback.org is run by nobodies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you are telling me this as I thought it was obviously a response to the post above mine by Yae4 Doug Weller  talk 16:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It was about me as well, you quoted from the WP:RSN thread that I'd mentioned, starring Snooganssnoogans's claim re what I'd said, and I have no idea why. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , The fact that Singh's listing is out of date since around January 2017, or 3 years ago, and he reviewed 2 articles in 2019, including November, but they didn't update his info' is no reflection on their editorial performance or factual accuracy? With all due respect, I disagree. It's not a huge error, but it's an indicator; big errors start with small ones. His comments also struck me as being much too long, as compared with others, which is why I clicked. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ^This is a strange criticism of a RS. This well-regarded fact-checking website comprised entirely of recognized experts is unreliable because one author did not update his author bio on the website (moving from a postdoc to a tenure-track job) and because his comments are long. You do realize that author bios are usually written by the authors themselves? This applies to the author bios in peer-reviewed academic publications, as well as the folks who write op-eds for RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to exchange snarky insults. I stand by my original, concise list of comments above. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify my last comment ^, I did not see all your edits of your previous comment until after I replied.
 * So it might be good to review Talk_page_guidelines: "even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes."
 * Also, referring to the heading here and at User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan a review of Talk_page_guidelines: "Keep headings neutral" also seems appropriate. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans has accused me of tendentious editing at least four times (15:38 11 January, 16:00 11 January, 03:55 15 January, 14:19 15 January), and if that's accepted then Snooganssnoogans's request is taken care of. Incidentally Snooganssnoogans's claim "comprised entirely of recognized experts" is not an opinion I could agree with. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Reliable. We are in a situation analogous to that with alternative medicine: the specialists who critique climate change denial typically do so in venues dedicated to the subject of denialism, because denialism itself is not a live controversy within the field. You don't publish papers in professional climate literature saying that $RANDOMDENIALIST is wrong because (a) it's obvious and (b) it does not advance the field of climate science. So we have a number of venues, of which this is one, where specialists gather to critique a specific aspect of pseudoscience. Obviously that critique necessarily personalises things (X is wrong to say Y is hard to discuss without naming X as the source of Y). That means we have to be careful not to slip into hyperbole, but the content linked above, doesn't do that. The only thing I would do is WP:ATT everything. Guy (help!) 15:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Include. Climate Feedback is not a self-published source, just as the similar Science-Based Medicine  was determined not to be self-published in . InsideClimate News won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2013, and is not self-published because it has a sizable editorial team. The guideline on fringe theories makes it clear that "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." Climate change denial is contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change, and is a fringe theory because it "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". In-text attribution is appropriate in some cases, and I would reword some of the text to focus the criticism on the people's claims, and not the people themselves. —  Newslinger   talk   01:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I made five points on a talk page post, one of which was about InsideClimate News, I've withdrawn it. It's disputed whether Snooganssnoogans's edits have always met WP:BLP requirements, and whether Snooganssnoogans's requests or accusations are laudable, but not (as far as I can tell) whether pseudoscientific views should be pushed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You've made some reasonable points, so I've taken a closer look at each of the edits listed in 's first comment in this discussion:
 * Myron Ebell (Special:Diff/871394198): The text in the article is consistent with the the Climate Feedback fact check, but in-text attribution of Climate Feedback would be appropriate, and the text should also state the year Ebell made the statement (2018). Something like 'In a 2018 Newsnight interview, Ebell stated that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC", which was described as "factually inaccurate" by Climate Feedback.' would be fully BLP-compliant. It doesn't look like Ebell responded to the fact check.
 * Guus Berkhout (Special:Diff/919740851): This looks fine to me, since I don't consider Climate Feedback self-published, as explained in my previous comment. The text includes Climate Feedback's negative evaluation of the letter, but doesn't describe Berkhout or the other signatories with negative terms. However, the text could use some copyediting, and there's a typo in "scienctists".
 * Joanne Nova (Special:Diff/929091011, Special:Diff/915352813, )
 * I agree that "known primarily for promoting pseudoscientific views on climate change and the harms of smoking" should not be used to describe the Heartland Institute, since Powell's book does not directly say that. The main article might have more supporting sources, but I'm not sure if they're relevant in the article on Nova. Alternative phrasing, such as "a think tank that opposed the Kyoto Protocol", would be better-supported and more relevant.
 * "The book argues that temperatures have not increased" is imprecise, as Nova's handbook states that "the world has not warmed since 2001". The text should add "since 2001".
 * National Geographic is one of the sources used for the text "The book promotes the myth that there is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more will not have an impact on temperatures." The magazine links to a UT News piece, which refers to a "myth" that consists of two claims: the saturation claim, and the water vapor claim. Nova made the first claim in her handbook, but was silent on the second claim. I'm undecided on whether this is a potent enough counterargument to justify excluding "myth" from the text. There is probably some way to rephrase this unambiguously.
 * 'Her blog is described as "skeptical" of climate science.' isn't well-supported, since the cited NPR opinion piece doesn't explicitly mention Nova, but "a number of active bloggers".
 * There were other changes in those edits. No comment on these changes, since I didn't examine them yet.
 * Ian Plimer (Special:Diff/935260217): As I don't consider Climate Feedback self-published, I would keep the citation. The article text is unaffected.
 * —  Newslinger  talk   10:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This thread isn't about whether to insert that material (it already is inserted). It's about Snooganssnoogans's request. (Update: I removed some unnecessary words in that last sentence before there was a reply.) I want to discuss the edits, but does anyone object if we do so on separate threads? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objection, I added a thread related to the first accusation, my revert on Myron Ebell. I'd like to do one at a time. I think that "what should be in the Myron Ebell article" belongs better in that thread, and "should the Snooganssnoogans request be supported" belongs in this one. Some people have suggested that there should have been attribution (meaning there was an WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV violation too?), but I didn't bring that in because it is part of the WP:NPOV policy not the WP:BLP policy. And, as stated, I regard talk about WP:RS guideline as unnecessary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: The Myron Ebell thread is now archived. The Joanne Nova thread is still live and I hope editors here will give it some attention. There doesn't seem to be much interest so I won't continue with my plan to add separate threads in WP:BLPN about each article.Newslinger: since you used the word "yet", I'm not sure whether you intended to add something, or whether we're done with this sub-conversation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Newslinger: I guess you decided to not add something. The Joanne Nova thread is now archived. My other Joanne Nova revert has been discussed above. You have not tried to defend your claim about "most editors", which, as I indicated earlier, I believe is baseless. Re Ian Plimer, Snooganssnoogans re-inserted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Adding a couple more observations about Climate Feedback (aka Science Feedback and Health Feedback): It's a little early to claim good "reputation" for accuracy when they only had the notability tag removed last April related to Facebook, and a few months later were censured for a review of a video on Facebook: "The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories." -- Yae4 (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Today I made a request on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for an uninvolved editor (I don't care if it's an administrator). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Beyond reproach. I reject the WP:CRYBLP campaign to remove reliable sources by the climate change deniers active here at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy closed this with the statement "Discussion has petered out. Climate Feedback has been added to WP:RSP reflecting the consensus that it is a reliable source for commentary on climate change denialism and related topics." Guy also removed one of my edits, and archived the discussion. I believe that is illegitimate because Guy is involved (notice his comment within this thread), and that Guy's statement misrepresents what the issue under discussion is. On that basis I object to the close, and have put the discussion back. Of course, if any uninvolved editor wishes to close, or if the OP withdraws the request and accusations which are the subject (see the initial posts), then I have no objection. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did not deliberately remove any edit by you, apologies if that did happen. But this has been discussed and the source is now listed at WP:RSP. That makes the generic question posed here, moot, and leaves specific questions to be addressed on article talk pages, so I closed it on purely procedural grounds. If you think the issue is not resolved then you're free to reopen, or open a second request with more specific questions. Guy (help!) 22:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course I think the issue is not resolved but I am not free to reopen since like you I am involved -- but I believe that an uninvolved editor has a right to do so, and have re-requested that an uninvolved editor read the whole thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm coming to this discussion as an uninvolved editor based on the request for closure/review made by Peter Gulutzan. I also reviewed one of the other discussions here which contains sufficient input from the community. I've also reviewed comments made in the closing summary provided by Guy.
 * As a simplified general overview, it is apparent that the RfC came about because Peter Gulutzan, through his edits and edit summaries, suggested that certain content (such as that sourced to "Climate Feedback") must be removed under BLP policy as the content was poorly sourced or unreliable (#3 self-published). The essential question posed was whether this was incorrect.
 * Based on both discussions, the community concluded that rather than removing content as a BLP issue, the wording of the content was open to further editing for clarification and/or improved in-line text attribution. The community's attitude to the Climate Feedback source reflected the description written in WP:RSP.
 * In the circumstances, Peter can let Guy know whether he is happy with the closure as it is or if he would prefer for Guy to insert a copy of this closing summary I have made. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to object to a close by Ncmvocalist who is an uninvolved editor. I see no reason to ask permission from Guy who is an involved editor. I have removed the "do-not-archive-until" note that I had placed at the start of this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Liberal hawk


The article liberal hawk needs some more eyes, especially in the list ("Notable people associated") section. I have just done a huge trim to remove a variety of entries cited to blogs, opinion/commentary/op-ed pieces, fringe websites, etc., and have left an associated message on the article talk page, but this could benefit from further monitoring and trimming especially in light of the contentious labels involved. Neutralitytalk 19:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Peter Newsham
Persistent disruption, currently from a related government office. Needs more eyes to maintain npov, and perhaps page protection. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hitler as evil
He’s long dead, but this dispute has been going on a while and I can’t think of another noticeboard that’s as well watched by people familiar with biographical standards. Apologies for a bit of IAR here, but more people could comment at talk:Adolf_Hitler%23Hitler's_evil_in_first_paragraph? to help reach a consensus, I think it’d be helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While I don't really feel like rooting through that discussion at the moment, it would be helpful to know just how the word is being used in context. If it's simply "Hitler is evil." then no. That just looks ridiculous. Evil is one of those adjectives that gives the connotation of supernatural forces at play, and it really requires an intent to do malice for no other reason than malice's sake. There are very few people short of serial killers that truly fall into that category. However twisted his ideology may have been, most villains --in their own mind-- believe they are doing the right thing for some perceived greater good, and from what I've read about him, he falls into the latter group with people like Darth Vader (who wanted to bring order to the galaxy) or Mordred (who had serious abandonment issues due to his father trying to murder him at birth). It's far too easy to label any of these people as evil, but that really detracts from understand just why these people turned out like they did and what their true motives were. But mostly, it's just lazy writing. Show me that these people are evil and I feel like I've learned something, but tell me they're evil and I feel like I'm being condescended to, as if people think I'm too stupid to see it for myself. There's a danger in oversimplifying things. Zaereth (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * As phrased, the sentence in the lede is okay, but it seems wrong in the first paragraph, on the basis that we should be moving from the most factual facets of any person to the more subject as we move down a lede section. And while I'd not disagree that it is near-majority opinion that Hilter was consider "evil" it is still a subjective assessment and should not be ending the first paragraph. --M asem (t) 19:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know why we would ever describe anyone as evil outside of an attributed quote. We don't call good people "holy" except, say, as part of a religious title or in the context of religion. Evil is a similar sort of colloquialism that removes the necessity to use more difficult language to describe something. We might as well say "Hitler is widely regarded as one of the biggest assholes to have ever lived," which would likewise have near universal agreement but wouldn't be an encyclopedic descriptor. I'm generally wary of any use of "evil" in this day and age. It's always been a supernatural gloss that gets people to reject something without having to confront reality via things like nuance and context, but it seems to be self-consciously so these days, when calling something evil is a politically expedient way to avoid scrutiny of other social or political problems the person/event occurred in. Obviously we're not using it in that sense, but it's an example of how calling something "evil" just isn't helpful outside of a religious context, and IMO diminishes the terrible actions by moving them from reality to supernatural. Eh. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a Jewish person who lost lots of family in the Holocaust, it is inappropriate to call Hitler "evil" outside of a direct quote, and even that may be unnecessary. "Evil" is a point of view, and he surely was the hero in his own eyes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Labeling modern descendants of nobility with theoretical titles
Please see: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. It's almost as much about BLP matters as NPoV and NOR ones. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

David Clarke (sheriff) / RFC
Can anyone else weigh in on this discussion? The short version is whether David Clarke's political party should be listed as "Democrat" or left blank. Argument for listing it as a Democrat is that he ran for and won the election for Sheriff as a Democrat. Argument against is that he never (or refused to) join the Democrat Party of Wisconsin. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Left blank works for me. I'm not aware that he's ever adopted any position congruent with that of the Democratic party, but many contrary to them, i.e., building a section of border wall without permits or congressional approval. Activist (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I started an RFC on this here: Talk:David Clarke (sheriff). Your opinion is appreciated. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_McIntyre&oldid=941504092
Hi, I'm a big fan of michael Mcintyre and someone has but a slang word in Michael's full name. I have tried to edit it and but I am getting Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism notice with a -6.

Please can you help?

His full name is Michael Hazen James McIntyre, not Michael Hazen Ackle James McIntyre


 * Looks like your fix in this series of edits is still in place, so this appears to be Thank you for sorting it out. MPS1992 (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * incidentally, the -6 is just the number of characters added or removed, six in this case being "Ackle" and a space probably. MPS1992 (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Karl Ferris
A compendium of unsourced personal and professional history. If I did a surgical strike there'd be almost nothing left. More eyes and thoughts appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I moved the page to draft space. Most of the content is unsourced. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was moved back to mainspace, IMO properly. Draftifying a twelve year old article is not really a good idea. It appears like a unilateral deletion, unless you plan on notifying the several dozen editors that contributed to it over the years. if you feel strongly about it, you may wish to take it to AFD, although I doubt you'd gain consensus. Sure wish there was a viable alternative to that ad staying on display till someone fixes it. I don't often edit bios, but I think Bob's surgical strike idea isn't wrong. Perhaps the lack of content will inspire someone to work on it. John from Idegon (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did WP:BEFORE and there seems to be enough coverage so AfD does not make too much sense. My rationale was that 99% of this extensive BLP is unsourced and has been edited extensively by an editor that claims to be the subject of the article. There is no viable "surgical strike". If the unsourced content is removed, only one line and a galery of images would remain. I have now opted for tagging the article with citation needed templates, if it does not get improved, I will try to source the most basic claims adding references from reliable sources and remove the rest requesting references to add it back. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been taken to AfD by another editor. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Problems with single editor applying persistent negative edits to my wiki BLP - how do I prevent this?
re: []

I would like to request help dealing with an editor persistently adding negative or unbalanced comments to a wiki page about me. The View history shows that the same editor (1884e) has persisted with this behaviour for over 6 months and has made constantly negative, or sensationalist, edits. I believe that this behaviour, and these edits, violate the requirement for balance and neutrality, and respect for BLP.

If a third party (or more) could spare the time to assess this situation and adjudicate/advise, that would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.118.11 (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Without having scrutinized the individual edits yet, the user being reported is obviously a WP:SPA. I’d urge the community to look into the possibility of at least a temporary partial block from the article itself based on this alone, and seek consensus on the talk page if their proposed changes have any merit. They do appear to have attempted to use a blog as a source, though as I said, I haven’t yet looked at the individual edits. Their editing is at least disruptive, and single-purpose. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do they use a blog as source? I look at this edit claiming to revert additions of blog as source and find instead the sources being reverted are the websites of the magazines Nature and The Scientist. Given that and other aspects of the state of the article, I find myself less concerned about the editor being complained about here and more about the editor doing the reverting. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That was my quick and dirty take as well. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , you’re quite right. I was relying at a quick look at the edit summary at the time, and assumed the summary wasn’t deceptive. Both of those are indeed reliable sources, and are suitable for inclusion. Now that I’ve had a chance to review some of the individual contributions, there does appear to be some effort to whitewash the article. I still feel that it would behoove us to encourage the SPA to edit more broadly, but being an SPA isn’t technically against policy, sans disruption. I brought up the partial sanction as a temporary measure only in the interest of preventing further edit-warring. Additionally, there should be a visible COI notice added to the top of the article talk page. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * the editor in question has indicated that he does edit elsewhere, but that he has taken on WP:MULTIPLE to edit this topic more anonymously, which as long as it's not being used to disguise a WP:COI, should be considered legitimate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw that. Appreciate you linking, though! I actually meant the OP, who claims to be the subject of the article. It’s standard to put a banner on the article talk page, so that other editors are aware of the situation. It’s not overly necessary at the moment, due to the tag on the article page itself. I’d do it myself, but it’s been so long, I don’t remember the template markup. I’ll find and add it later; as I said, it’s not urgent. Just noting it should be done at some point. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And for anyone trying to follow the claims, the "more than 6 months" appears to be assuming the account (which edited last August) is the same user as  (which seems appropriate, given the similar account names and similar edits.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * An administrator has now undone all of the recent efforts on this article, stating at Talk:Alan J. Cooper that he intends to shut down for edit warring anyone who reinstalls the sourced information at this point. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I (the aforementioned administrator) intervened to stop what appeared to be an edit war, and to suppress potentially defamatory material that must not be allowed to remain in an article (or be visible in its revision history) without high-quality reliable sourcing. Once people have had a thorough discussion and have reached a consensus as to what information is properly sourced, it will be fine for people to fix up the article.  As for the editor using multiple accounts, he/she should (IMO) make a more concerted effort to justify this manner of operating per WP:SOCKLEGIT, lest he/she find him/herself accused of sockpuppetry.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a frankly extraordinary decision. I strongly urge you to actually look at the last version before your oversight spree, where you will see that the "potentially defamatory" material was principally sourced to Nature (journal). Instead you have restored a hopelessly out of date version packed with factual inaccuracies. I really don't see why any good faith editor would bother to work on this article again when everything can be swept away in a moment on spurious grounds. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you change to revdel rather than suppress please? I would like to be able to back you up on this but can't see the content. I would hope revdel would be sufficient? Guy (help!) 09:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

, every single editor on Wikipedia, including those with advance privileges such as administrator or oversighter, are fallible human volunteers. Mistakes happen. They're sorted out via discussion. Your hyperbole is not helpful to a colligial discussion. Please check your emotions at the door. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have changed my earlier "suppression / oversighting" of the material in question and downgraded it to "revision deletion". It is still, for the moment, invisible to non-admins, but any admin can see the deleted material now and may, at their discretion, make it fully visible once again.  My intention was to act quickly to protect Wikipedia from damage resulting from possibly defamatory material in the midst of an edit war, and I still believe this was a valid concern, but it is clear that I overreacted, and I offer apology to those who were justifiably rattled.  I would still caution everyone involved that edit warring — even (or perhaps especially) in the midst of an ongoing discussion — is not a constructive way to handle a situation; nor is socking, which inherently generates reasonable suspicion of bad faith; anyone who feels he/she has a justifiable reason to need to use an alternative account in a contentious situation should strongly consider discussing the matter with a checkuser or an arbitrator (see WP:ALTACCN). —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

As an admin I have had a quick look at some of the revision-deleted history. My feeling is that 1884e should be topic banned if they resume their SPA role of adding as much "Controversies" detail as possible. The article should include the simple fact that a dismissal occurred for serious misconduct, but the righting-great-wrongs details that 1884x wants to insert (links to complaints leading up to the dismissal) are over the top and not the purpose of Wikipedia. In summary, there should be a very bland statement in the lead and a single sentence in the body mentioning the dismissal with the source in this comment, and nothing further. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Lucas (film) - Sexual abuse allegations
This section is definitely WP:UNDUE for this article. It's very similar to the Sexual abuse allegations section in Corey Haim's bio already, which some of the detail itself is probably unnecessary and a likely WP:BLP violation. Can someone with a little bit more experience than me with dealing with these sensitive issues take a look and cleanup as necessary? Also, see "My Truth: The Rape of 2 Coreys", a movie about the allegations, which ironically has less detail than "Lucas" does. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed the sexual allegations section from the article. It's not directly related to the movie and it violates WP:BLPCRIME. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Andy Biggs
insists that the votes that Biggs and Ken Buck the those two alone took against the coronavirus bills should not be included in their articles and has reverted them, as has one other editor. The edits were well-sourced. The two naysayers are not keeping the news of their votes from the public and seem to be quite proud of them. I asked Springee to take it to the article's Talk page, but Springee refuses to allow that, quickly reverting twice. Springee also reverted Biggs' notorious radical climate denialism from the article three years ago and his equally notorious comments are currently not in it. I left this note on the article's Talk page. These votes are certainly not libellous or defamatory. I gave a bad example, about the recent death of a notable person, but otherwise, I hope other editors will consider this situation. "Lyle Waggoner died yesterday. Someone has had the nerve to confirm his death in his Wikipedia article. Do you think that's too soon? Should news be kept from the public? Outlier votes such as taken by Biggs and Buck are highly significant. The vote was 415-2. Two days after they voted against it, the Senate had also passed it and Trump had signed it on 3/6. I Googled 'Biggs' 'vote' 'coronavirus' and 'House' and got: 'About 112,000 results (0.45 seconds)' His WP article got 1,200 views on 3/7. Do you think that was because it was his wife's birthday, or might it have had something to do with intense public interest in who he is and why he votes the way he does? Wikipedia is not censored, and how is erasure of such info not censorship? Activist (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)" Outlier votes such as this are engraved in American history, i.e., Jeannette Rankin's vote against declaring war on Japan immediately after Pearl Harbor, or Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening voting against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Much of the public might be aware of Rand Paul's objections to the passage of "unanimous consent resolutions," that prevented adoption of critical legislation. Springee appears to think that conservative legislators should have well-sourced descriptions of their controversial and very public behavior kept from Wikipedia readers for some indefinite amount of time, and that the reverts done by that editor should not be subjects of discussion or interest from WP readers. This is very frustrating. Activist (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Bigg's climate edit in question was a roll back of a sock editor per EVADE []. Springee (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think Activist has really summarized what is happening here., an editor with very few edits, added effectively the same edit to the BLP of every congressman who voted against a recent coronavirus bill.  Here is an example text []
 * Buck voted against the March 14, 2020 Coronavirus Relief Bill that passed the House by a vote of 363-40. The bill includes free virus testing for those who lack insurance, paid sick leave, family and medical leave programs, enhanced unemployment benefits, additional food aid and federal funds for Medicaid.
 * While this text passes WP:V it is likely undue to dedicate a section of a congressman's bio to how they voted on this bill. This is especially true since the text seems to be a bit of a soapbox for parts of the bill but doesn't address why these congressmen may have opposed the bill.  I don't think we normally add the way a representative votes on a single bill to their bios as it can be UNDUE.  Such information may be DUE in terms of illustrating support for a larger issue but not as a stand alone fact.  The additions by Harry mattison were largely reverted by .  ZZB's edits were reverted by [] and Activist [] in various cases.  However, in all cases, these are edits to BLP and thus if challenged the burden in on the editor restoring the content to show there is consensus for the inclusion.  Since this edit involves a number of articles but is largely the same material/issue in all cases I suggested that Activist raise the issue here.  Springee (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Springee's points above. While I initially removed all the insertions by Harry mattison, I've avoided engaging in an edit war to again remove these mentions which appear to simply be trying to shame these politicians by pointing out their opposition to that particular bill. Per BLP and UNDUE these mentions should be removed unless there is some kind of widespread criticism of their stance on that particular legislation. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 18:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the relevance of how many edits I have made? Every editor at some point has made very few edits. Please do not assume I am trying to shame anyone. We are supposed to Assume_good_faith. On a related note, 8 senators voted against the bill today. This is newsworthy. Harry mattison (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That you have very few edits opens up questions of WP:SPA. Regardless of the specific motives, UNDUE is still an issue.  I've reverted the 8 senator entries for the same arguments as were made regarding the house members.  Please note that this means that absent new consensus that material should not be restored.  Again, even if you feel the particular bill was important you would need to show some larger, lasting context to justify including what is a factoid on the BLP pages.  Springee (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Springee says "I don't think we normally add the way a representative votes on a single bill to their bios as it can be UNDUE". The world isn't normally faced with a global pandemic comparable to coronavirus. In an extraordinary time when Congress is voting on extraordinary bills that are supported by the vast majority of its members it seems appropriate to include on Wikipedia who in Congress opposes these bills. Harry mattison (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Springee says "you would need to show some larger, lasting context to justify including what is a factoid on the BLP pages". ZimZalaBim says "these mentions should be removed unless there is some kind of widespread criticism of their stance on that particular legislation"

How is an editor expected to meet these arbitrary criteria?

"Some kind of widespread criticism"? According to whom?

"Lasting context"? How long does an editor need to wait to determine if a fact meets your definition of "lasting"?

Wikipedia is full of information that doesn't meet these criteria for things much less important than the US Government response to Coronavirus, and I don't understand why these standards are being selectively enforced. For example:


 * "In April 2018, she signed onto a letter formally nominating President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize "in recognition of his work to end the Korean War, denuclearize the Korean peninsula and bring peace to the region."


 * "In 2009, Blackburn voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act"

Harry mattison (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * One has to look at what post-vote coverage from reliable secondary coverage. Yes, we as WP editors can review the official records and make determinations of which way someone voted but that means nothing and to give a vote on a particular topic without a secondary source to back it up created UNDUE weight on that.
 * As examples of where there is the type of coverage covering a vote, NYTimes "On Historic Impeachment Votes, Three Democrats Cross Party Lines to Vote ‘No’" would be appropriate to mention that on the three pages. Another I could see but don't have an example would be when a Congressman later decides to run for President and thus a more details analysis of their issues becomes appropriate to include, then certainly these secondary sources are going to point out key bills they may have voted for or against that support or (more often) belie their position. --M asem (t) 21:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Harry mattison, I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:RS. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 22:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim WP:RS Reliable sources? I cite the official website of the US Senate and the NY Times listing of the roll call. There is no question that they are "reliable". RS says "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact" Harry mattison (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You miss my point. You asked above how an editor is supposed to meet some "arbitrary criteria" such as lasting context and widespread criticism. That's what WP:RS helps to address. It isn't just an editor suggesting there's something notable about a single vote on a single piece of legislation, but that some reliable source in accordance to WP:RECENT suggests it is the case. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 01:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "When dealing with contemporary subjects, editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time" - Dear ZimZalaBim, so you think that how the US Government responds to Coronavirus will not be notable in the future? And which members of Congress support or oppose this response is not notable? If so, please do let us know why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry mattison (talk • contribs) 18:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are 528 total members of Congress. They vote on hundreds of bills a year. That's roughly 50,000 "bits" of info that we're clearly not going to add just because we can check congressional records. So we have to rely on reliable sources on what they focus on. And if we look at Biggs record, particularly with the coronavirus bills, he is not in the news because of his views on the coronavirus but because of the anti-gay. Its even clear in the sources he's not against providing coverage and remedy for those impacted by the coronavirus but that he does not like that it backends in gay partnerships within a federal law. It clearly falls within the existing anti-gay section due to amount of coverage on this point. --M asem  (t) 19:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Uh, oh! "backends in gay partnerships?" What are we to make of the use of that term in that context? Also, "528 members of congress?" 528? That would be 535 at last count (since the admission of Alaska and Hawai'i), including the one Califas vacancy going from Highway 101 east to Highway 14 and southeast to the north San Fernando Valley, a seat that will soon be filled, plus five non-floor voting representatives and one resident commissioner." WE DEMAND ABSOLUTE ACCURACY & POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AT ALL TIMES OR MEASURES WILL BE TAKEN!!" Activist (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Further, yes, it very well might be notable to include an discussion on how the US government responds to CORVID-19. We can wait and see how that unfolds, since WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS very much apply here. But more importantly, your initial edits (and single-focuses persistence since) don't really align with wanting to provide a balanced encyclopedic summary of the government's response. Instead, tour edits were targeting individual representatives' votes on one particular bill, with very POV language that appeared intended to cast them in poor light. That's not how this works, especially with WP:BLP. I hope you understand -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black">talk 22:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Harry. It's helpful if you indent your comments, because just how you indent them makes them easier to tell which thread here you're responding to. The participants of this discussion are likely watching it, so there is usually no need to ping them every time.


 * The question here is not one of reliable sources, but of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM, and quite frankly WP:NOTNEWS. Now that you have RSs, then we have to put that into balance with the rest of the article, and this is done by a preponderance of RSs. In other words, now we have to decide just how much space to give it, in comparison to all the other coverage about these people that is out there in the world (not just what's in the article, but all the other coverage). With politicians, and especially senators and congress people, that's going to be a lot to contend with. Do we give it a whole section, an entire paragraph, a single sentence, or would even that be too much (perhaps a single letter or nothing at all)? This is decided by the scope and breadth of its coverage in RSs.


 * See, we're not a newspaper and we don't have nearly enough room to list every vote made by a politician. The idea is to summarize this entire person's life and career in an encyclopedic style, not provide a blow by blow account of everything they have ever done like a sportscaster. The very nature of summarizing is that we need to whittle down that life and career into the major points, and excise all the fine details. And this looks to me like one of those fine details. Newsworthy info, to be sure, but I'm not seeing encyclopedia worthy ... at least not yet. Give it some time and see how it develops. If it's forgotten by a week or two, then I see no point in including it, but if it's a hot topic by then, then we probably should. Although this is a unique encyclopedia where info can change daily, we should still write with the idea that what put here will be lasting. Zaereth (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Zaereth I agree that Wikipedia should not "list every vote made by a politician" or "provide a blow by blow account of everything they have ever done". The entire world is plunging into an unprecedented economic, social, and medical crisis. Do you really think how our elected officials respond to this crisis is a "fine detail"? And do you really think the response of the US Government might be "forgotten by a week or two"? Data like this and stories like this strongly support the importance of this issue and its worthiness for inclusion in an encylopedia. Harry mattison (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Zaereth "Do we give it a whole section, an entire paragraph, a single sentence, or would even that be too much" - that is a good question. If someone wants to move this info into some other topic (like Healthcare or Votes on Significant Legislation) then that's fine with me. That seems to be how Wikipedia should work. But reverting my addition and trying to justify it with a long, evolving list of reasons (diminishing my input because I haven't made 'enough' edits, accusing me of trying to 'shame these politicians' by stating a fact in neutral language, suggesting that the NY Times is not a reliable source) is not right. Harry mattison (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually on Biggs, I now remember reading this, and his vote against the COVID bill is significant, but not as a separate section as being added, - but that it reinforced his anti-gay stance and can be summarized as one sentence in the existing "LGBT Rights" section, with something like   (Rough language). That makes it notable to include in that section, but not a whole separate one. --M asem (t) 21:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Masem's arguement with respect to Biggs makes sense. It's worth noting that part of the reason why much of this was reverted was because Harry mattison's added virtually the same paragraph to almost/all the reps and senators who opposed the bill even if their reasons weren't listed. In the case of Biggs I would argue that his opposition to the bill shouldn't be in a section about healthcare but would be notable in a section on LGBT issues. It appears he opposed the bill based on a combination of pork (often a reasonable justification for opposing what is obsessively a good bill) and for the LGBT issues. Thus the opposition to the bill further clarifies his POV on those issues rather than on his opinion as to what the government should do for covid-19 related issues. Springee (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Masem's suggested wording would not be appropriate. What Masem cites (The Hill) says "Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs was one of 40 Republicans to vote against the coronavirus relief bill passed by the House on March 14." That cannot justify Masem's suggestion "Biggs was one of two Representatives that voted against the coronavirus relief bill" etc. -- because Biggs's vote as one of two was on March 4 about a different affair than the one referred to. Please keep separate the discussions about the March 4 (415-2) vote re H.R.6074 - Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act and the March 14 (363-40) vote re H.R.6201 - Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got the different bills wrong. But what I do think that The Hill article and others like it is that they call out Biggs' vote among the 40 Republicans against HR6401 because of his pre-established anti-gay stance and his objection based on the language related to family. The amount of covers for that suggests just enough (one or two sentences) to explain that under the section  mentioned. --M asem  (t) 14:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I had to look at the objections to edits. Mattison has been characterized as an SPA based solely on his edits to the second of the two coronavirus bills. In fact, it's true he's made very few edits, but has edited for nine years. Accusing him of being an SPA account, IMHO, is perhaps of an example of a policy that doesn't exist but should: WP:TOATWASWS (Throw objections against the wall and see what sticks.) WP hasn't been a major part of Mattison's life, as opposed to those others of us posting on this situation, so I would venture he has had no reason to dive into the minutiae of WP policies prior to these edits, but there is nothing at all wrong with his reasoning about the inclusion of the votes in the articles on Biggs (and Buck), who cast a bizarre vote against the first bill, an absolute non-response to a critical vote dealing with a calamitous emergency situation, and Biggs' opposition to the first had zero to do his apparent homophobia. However, he cited a homophobic basis for voting against the second measure which drew entirely partisan opposition from 20% of the Republican House members, as if that justified his personal hopes for inaction. The only "No" vote against the bill in the Senate, I have just discovered, was indeed from Rand Paul who takes pride in being an outlier for sometimes unfathomable reasons. The media has taken a great deal of interest in the Biggs' and Buck's "No"votes on these bills because as a pair, they are so patently extreme. Biggs has a history of such irrational voting dating back to, i.e., when he objected to passage of an Arizona bill that would have prohibited holders of vehicle operators' learning permits from texting while driving. Citing BLP as a reason for WP to exclude mention of this pair of votes is simply an extraordinary stretch. Again, IMHO, it's nothing short of absurd. On that latter subject, Biggs and Buck have both long had a penchant for making undeniably absurd statements and putative justifications for their actions. Activist (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, again we have two issues that have been convoluted. One is HM's mass adding of a semi-POV sentence to over a dozen BLPs noting the subject voted against a particular bill.  In no case did we say why this was signpficant nor did we explain why the subjects might have voted no (too much pork, didn't go far enough, symbolic while knowing the bill would pass etc).  Importantly per Wiki standards we didn't have RSs saying why this vote was DUE with respect to the article subject. HM rightly notes that the response to the covid-19 virus is going to be very notable but in context of a single politician it may not be.  Two is if the material is due in the specific case of Biggs.  As added, again the answer is no because, as was originally added we didn't have RSing saying why this vote was significant in context of an article about Biggs.  Later RS's noting Bigg's public stance against the bill for LBGT reasons.  That does had WEIGHT for inclusion in Biggs (but not the other BLPs).  However, this vote is still not DUE in context of voting against the bill.  Rather his publicly stated reasons are DUE in context of his LBGT stance/positions.  In all the various BLP cases, as added by HM, the material was UNDUE.  However, in the case of Biggs, some additional context appears to make it due in context of LBGT issues.  Calling HM a SPA is not unreasonable in this case.  A single purpose account can make good or questionable edits.  Springee (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above unsigned paragraph & sentence fragment were posted by Springee, per: diff=946679887&oldid=946665088

HM's unfamiliarity with WP protocols and conventions should not be enlisted to dismiss his posts. When I saw them I responded to them writing essentially that I agreed with the posting as far as Biggs and Buck were concerned, but would have to look up the posts as far as the other 38 "R" reps who joined them in voting against the second bill and looking at the pertinent policies. I hadn't looked at the roll call of the Senate vote at that point but was not surprised to see it was solely Rand Paul, once again. I didn't mention the effect of Paul's many previous votes against motions for unanimous consent but what they have done has at times functioned to permanently shut down consideration of a bill which the other 99 Senators supported. That behavior is obviously notable, though it did not affect Senate approval in this particular case as it did not involve such a motion. I wish Rand were more than a shadow of his dad, but that's neither here or there. Secondly, Second, I noted above that HM has been posting for nine years, but I failed to mention that he has only made an edit to a solitary political player's bio in the past, and that was a long-deceased, genuinely bipartisan officeholder. Suggesting without any basis that an editor is possibly an SPA has the peril of casting their editing in a negative way because it can certainly be used as a pejorative.This is but one of the many germane comments from the WP article on SPA's:"Before adding such a tag make sure you are doing so with good reason. Please consult the general test and the 'who not to tag' section below, in deciding whether the editor is actually an SPA. Please keep in mind that the tag may be taken as an insult or an accusation to the tagged editor — use with consideration." Mattison has not posted to political articles before excepting I think to one about the late Massachusetts Governor Edward J. King a few years ago. King died 14 years ago. Diannaa, a prolific editor and helpful administrator, walked HM through a couple of WP policies a few years ago. King was registered as both a Democrat and a Republican. Again, that doesn't hardly demonstrate that HM is an SPA, nor justify tarring him with that brush. HM may indeed be the Harry Mattison who is the actual subject of a WP article which he has not edited. For the conspiracy minded, I note that HM's most recent edits before the ones about this past week's votes were to an article about an American female HS, collegiate and professional middle-to-long distance runner, a field that I've covered extensively, including authoring articles. (In the time I've spent on this I could have finished one about Erika Birk-Jarvis that I've had sitting in the hopper for a month.) Woo, woo!! Activist (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No one has tagged any posts. Reasons why the edits, even with regards to Biggs and Buck, were UNDUE have been made and you haven't convinced anyone that the original edits were due.  You have made a reasonable case that similar information is due in Biggs for a related reason.  This is a case of WP:ONUS.  The onus of explaining why the material should be in the article is on the person trying to add it.  So far HM's explanations aren't sufficient.  That's all there is too it.  Springee (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

, please review this discussion and keep it in mind in context of your recent addition here []. Beyond an edit summary that raises BATTLEGROUND concerns, the problem is DUE weight to the issue. We have that Biggs opposed the bill based on pork and LBGT issues. We don't need a rambling middle section that you added. Please keep in mind that CONSENSUS needs to be achieved if material has been challenged. The best way to do that is the talk page. Springee (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Springee, that you deleted text that botched the article, eliminated a necessary citation that sourced the upper text, and you conflated two House bills that were heard and passed two weeks apart as if they were only one. If it's your way but the highway, there are too many potholes to allow it to be navigable. Why didn't you read the corrections to your deletions? I left a message on the Talk page to that effect which you ignored and 17 minutes later you posted the above advising me to do what I'd already done. I also paid attention to your complaints about the edits from days ago and felt I sufficiently addressed them, deleting much of my original text that you were initially grousing about but restored the necessary citation which you'd eliminated in your zeal. What is your problem? Maybe this from Merrimam-Webster can help you understand: "Definition of conflate  transitive verb 1a: to bring together : FUSE b: CONFUSE.  Okay. Got it? Activist (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You can fix the citations without bloating the text and giving it UNDUE weight. Your talk page comments didn't clearly address what you felt was broken.  If you had said, "Your revert here [link] removed this citation [link]" then it would be an easy matter to see you were correcting a citing error.  Instead you added new text to the article in an area that was previous disputed as UNDUE.  The correct procedure here is to move to the talk page, get consensus then move forward.  Springee (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Shelby Davie
Shelby Davie is an American Rock Singer, who was born on (June-14-1985) as Shelby Faith Davie in Springfield, Oregon. Shelby Davie Plays the Synth, Piano, Drums, Electric Guitar, Electric Bass. Shelby Davie was once the opening act for Da Mafia 6ix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelbyfaithdavie (talk • contribs) 05:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * If this person is notable (by Wikipedia standards), then somebody unconnected with them will eventually create an article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Bernard J. Taylor
The recent updates to the article appear to have been posted by the subject himself. A quick search of social media for his name reveals that to be true - the collaborator Gareth Price and he discuss him making further additions to reflect the collaborator being involved.(Facebook link deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.118.182 (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Linking to Facebook discussions is WP:OUTING, more or less and probably needs to be rev-deleted. I've removed the FB post for the moment. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)