Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive302

David Olshanetsky
David Olshanetsky Sources do not have any information relevant to what is written. Everything is subjective. Important claims such as "he has been shown by Tumblr as the most popular male account in Europe, and fifth most popular account globall." have no source and no year, so there is no verifiability to the claim. Claims to have collabed with major companies but they dont provide any links to them and nothing comes up if you google it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.130.215.94 (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this person even notable enough to have a Wikipedia article...?? Kind of looks like self promotion.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Jay A Levy
Hi, it should be added that Jay A Levy is the twin brother of Stuart Levy as referenced in this obituary: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/stuart-levy-microbiologist-who-sounded-alarm-on-antibiotic-resistance-dies-at-80/2019/09/19/4011ea96-dae9-11e9-a688-303693fb4b0b_story.html. Someone should also link his page to Stuart B Levy's page on wikipedia. Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallac7 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Gulab Singh
Hello, in this article, I have removed some content (assets, liability etc.). What do you think of the "Criminal cases" section? Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Easily sourceable (i.e. ). However I don't think it needs a table to tell us that he was convicted nine times in one year of vandalism of a property, a sentence would do it. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Defense
There seems to be a design here that is biased and prevents others to add to the page in question, time and time again- while also stopping others the chance of upholding Wiki policies to keep information open and without libel. This disrupts the use of properly cited sources, instead fabricating the situation for biased editors against the page in question, thus breaking policy. In other matters, the majority of section 'Controversy' were indeed not removed, but rather updated with properly cited sources to prevent libel and uphold Wiki standards. As stated under Disruptive editing, "if an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." Has this not been the case regarding this page? I call for the investigation into this matter, from the wiki community that salutes to uphold fair and honest standards. There has been constant efforts to remove information, such as a "Military decorations and badges" which is perfectly innocent - thus bequeathing Disruptive Editing, enacting hypocrisy.

F&#38;INerd (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Derek Sloan
Note: Posted by User:BridgitCHennessey. I tidied the article up where refs were duplicated. I have also made a couple of edits to remove the word "notoriety" in the first para, and add "allegedly" about his tweets being racist, as neither were valid in Wikipedia's voice (refs 3 and 4 in this posting). The "racism" issue also looks a bit undue in the lead. I haven't looked at the details in the main body. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I am a member of the conservative party of Canada, and am trying to do research on the candidates for the leader. Wikipedia has always been a place for me to start because the references usually make sense, but the ones on this page don’t. I am finding them contradictory, false and even libellous. The edits certainly aren’t verified well, and clearly aren’t being made by neutral parties (NPOV), as they are posting references that are anywhere from misleading to slanderous and libelous (V, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel). The history of changes here seems to show that this has been going on for quite some time. This falls under the Biographies of living persons policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons), and should come down immediately. I am relieved to see that the page has been locked to more editing, but disappointed that the libelous references are still there.

Can an editor please unlock them to remove the offending remarks and then lock to editing again? As per the biographies of living persons policy, “We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.” Indeed, this page seems to fall under the category of attack pages. “Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see #Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking. Non-administrators should tag them with. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking.”

Further to that, it seems that editors are using this page to continue a dispute. “Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.[e]”

Each point is below.

Reference 3: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2020/01/29/being-gay-is-not-a-choice-but-who-cares-if-it-is.html: This tag makes no sense because it says Sloan is noted for anti-LGBTQ views, but the referenced article states: Sloan who said “no” being gay is not a choice, in his opinion. … “But this is a complicated issue and I am not a scientist,” The article is opinion piece, highly slanted by author and does not show anti-LGBTQ views of Sloan, just the journalist’s view that Sloan has anti-LGBTQ views. This tag labels Sloan with contentious labels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LABEL) Reference 4: https://www.intelligencer.ca/news/local-news/hastings-county-calls-for-mp-sloans-removal-after-racist-tweet-about-dr-tam I disagree with this tag saying that Sloan is racist because the article talks about municipal leaders asking for his removal from Conservative caucus for questions about Dr Theresa Tam’s links to the Chinese government, and supported by tweets sent to Sloan’s account. There is nothing about Dr Tam’s gender or race here. It also is libellous (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel)

Reference 12: https://www.quintenews.com/2018/11/14/4-candidates-in-the-conservative-race-for-hla/ This tag is false. The tag said Sloan had recently moved to his riding, but linked article says nothing about his residency, only announcing his nomination and that of 3 other candidates for the right to run for the Conservative party in this riding and is poorly sourced. Reference 16: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/cause-of-sexual-orientation-is-scientifically-unclear-tory-leadership-hopeful-says-1.4789014 This tag is false, misleading and libellous (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel). The tag states Sloan argued that the science of wether sexual orientation is a choice is unclear, but article talks about the cause of sexual orientation is unclear, and article specifically states he disagrees with homosexuality was a choice. The article also states Sloan’s comments were criticized by his election campaign manager, Eric Lorenzen, criticized his comments, but Lorezen tweeted about homosexuality being a choice, not referencing or tagging Sloan in the tweet at all https://twitter.com/EDLorenzen/status/1221999833373978624?s=20 Reference 17: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/derek-sloan-conservative-leadership-1.5436227 This tag is simply false. It says Sloan has attracted controversy about policy positions, but referenced article doesn’t mention any policy, actually mentions he won’t talk about policy until announced as a candidate Refence 18: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-conservative-leadership-contender-would-let-canadian-politicians-debate-abortion This tag is misleading and false. The tag says Sloan would allow private member’s bills aimed at over-turning same sex marriage, but article states he is not intending to re-open marriage debate, stating only the Conservative party has been neutral since 2016, and only would allow MPs to bring forward private members bills of concern to them including same sex marriage. It is clearly libellous and meant to shed Sloan in a negative light. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel) Reference 20: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/tory-leadership-hopeful-sloan-blasts-trudeau-conversion-therapy-ban-as-madness This tag is outright slanderous and libel. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel) It states that Sloan argued that parents should be able to make children identify with the body they are born with, but article states he doesn’t support bill because would jail parents for helping minors with unwanted gender confusion or same sex attraction, and later in article goes on to state that he believes every responsible MP should support measures to prevent coercive counselling that harms patients. Reference 21: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2020/01/29/being-gay-is-not-a-choice-but-who-cares-if-it-is.html This article has already been used as a reference in this wiki doc, and does not support Sloan being anti-LGBTGQ, and is an editorial that only references Sloan talking about sexual orientation not being a choice, but that there is a complicated scientific component too it Reference 22 and 23: https://inquinte.ca/story/local-mp-says-liberals-too-slow-in-responding-to-rail-blockades/direct?fbclid=IwAR3ma0s2c_VuZBs2wmcDI_EMnc3iU-G5cs1S0qx3hZULhHpaORzzBj66rrE  and https://twitter.com/DerekSloanCPC/status/1228748095401451520 This tag is misleading and false. The tag states Sloan was criticized for not taking time away from his leadership campaign to help end the blockade, but the article states he thought Liberals were too slow in responding to blockades and the article goes on to state businesses in the area are calling on the federal government to take steps to restore rail service. There is nothing about people complaining about Sloan working on his campaign instead of focusing on the blockade.

As you can see, this document is full of false, misleading and even libellous information. It fails in many instances to the biographies of living persons policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons) The majority of the points are not neutral (NPOV), verifiability (V) is weak at best and based on the edit history is ongoing and meant to cast Sloan in a negative light, clearly meant to hurt his chances in his leadership race. It needs to come down and needs to be locked to future edits.


 * I've gone through it a bit, and removed some statements (lifesitenews.com had already been removed) and reworded other statements to fit the cites a bit better, but it needs more eyes/trimming. I don't have access to the Globe and Mail, so I couldn't check anything referenced to that properly.Curdle (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yousef Al Otaiba
There is currently information on the Yousef Al Otaiba page that doesn't abide by WP:BLP guidelines, including inferences of wrongdoing that aren't directly supported by the sources and information about other people that is adding undue weight to the insinuations. I have been trying to improve the article for several months by using a more neutral tone and reorganizing to give proper weight to negative topics, but my edits have continually been wholesale reverted by another editor. I've tried to work with this editor, but received few responses until I attempted to make my proposed changes. We're at an impasse and I would appreciate others' thoughts on the situation. You can review our discussion on the Talk page. Quorum816 (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yousef_Al_Otaiba#RfC_on_hacked_emails_section


 * Sorry, but I'm not really seeing what your complaint is. I looked at the talk page discussions and really can't figure out your reasoning. How are words like "double life" defamatory? If this is how the source described it, then that is how we should. Use of synonyms would be acceptable, but "partying with friends" has a completely different meaning. Also university bios are perfectly acceptable sources for certain kinds of info. Even other bios are acceptable, including autobiographies to a certain extent. Secondary sources are actually preferable to primary and tertiary (third party) sources. And so are notable opinions if properly attributed. In short, from the vagueness of the comments both here and there, I have no real clue what you see as the problem. Zaereth (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * My issue with this section, and the page in general, is that I've tried to edit it to better align with WP:BLP guidelines, but the edits have been reverted because of the size of the edit rather than the actual changes. If there is a disagreement with a certain part of the edit, others are more than welcome to go in and edit that part, but that doesn't mean the edit should be reverted entirely.


 * The discussion with Huldra has continually devolved into niggling over small phrases, like "double life", which I removed per WP:LABEL and WP:WEASEL, rather than discussing the larger issues on the page, including the irrelevant, and unrelated content that is giving undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to an event. Quorum816 (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, you see, that's all a fine generalization, but it still doesn't explain the problem. What you've written basically boils down to "another editor keeps reverting me". It doesn't tell me anything about the BLP issue, as you see it. I am trying to see what it is that you see as the BLP violation, so I'm asking that you explain it in detail from your point of view. From what I've seen, Huldra is having the same problem at the talk page. You say this is a BLP issue, but give no indication of how or why.


 * For example, "double life" is not a label. It is an action that someone does. The idiom is "leading a double life", which means a person is being this over here and that over there. For example, Superman leads a double life, both as Superman and as Clark Kent. If I have a wife in my home town, and secretly have another wife the next town over, then I would be out of my mind, but leading a double life. The idiom itself can be either good or bad, but it's not a label. An example of a label would be "gay", "straight", "republican", "democrat", "catholic", "muslim", "jerk", "saint", etc... These are things people are, not what they do.


 * Likewise, "double life" is not a weasel word. Weasel words are vague words of authority, meant to add credibility to statements. These tend to be words like "they say", "authorities indicate", "according to some", "scientists say", etc... For example, "Scientists say that global warming is a myth." The weasel words are used to lend credibility to the statement. It sounds good to the untrained ear, but what scientists? We would need to exchange that with a specific name. So that's why I say I'm not following your train of thought. If you could clarify, that may help.


 * This board is for BLP violations. If you think the problem is with the other editor, then WP:ANI would be the place to report it. If it's a simple content dispute, which is what it looks like, then you should use WP:Dispute resolution. Talk it out, and if that doesn't work, get a request for comments. But wherever you go, be specific. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I've attempted to get additional opinions via WP:RFC, but no one has responded, hence why I posted here, I was looking for other editors to go to the talk page and weigh in on the discussion. If you feel it makes more sense to discuss this on WP:Dispute resolution, I will go there. Thanks. Quorum816 (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, dispute resolution is actually a process that you do, not a place you can go. RFC is a part of the dispute resolution process.


 * See, this is part of the problem, and I am really trying to help you here, but I need you to help me. I think we have a huge communication problem here. The same problem exists at the talk page, and I'm sure at RFC as well, which is likely why no one replied. I'm replying here, because I really want to help you break down this barrier, so we can all understand each other. (And frankly, you're lucky that anyone replied at all.)


 * I've read the talk page discussions, but I still don't know what the problem is, so I'm asking you to explain it --clearly as you can-- here, so I can understand what you mean. My guess, however (no offense) is that the misunderstanding may be on your part more so than the rest of us, but if I can clear it up I would be happy to help. Zaereth (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the help. Here are the issues:
 * - WP:UNDUE: It’s 6 paragraphs long filled with excessive details about one instance of hacked emails. I.e. it includes all of the back-and-forth about hosting a Taliban Embassy in Abu Dhabi instead of just plainly stating the facts. It also veers far from the subject of the article in some cases, including when discussing Mohamed Fahmy.
 * - In some cases, the excessive details lead to guilt by association WP:BLPBALANCE: "observed the exploitation of trafficked girls in Abu Dhabi". This sentence insinuates that Otaiba was involved in human trafficking, but the source specifically states that he wasn't involved in the situation.
 * - Some of the extra details are sourced improperly: An opinion piece on the NYT, a blog/news outlet that isn’t credible/information isn’t verifiable (All Gov).
 * - Some of the emails that are detailed can only be found within an Intercept article. WP:PUBLICFIGURE notes that for something to be included, it must be able to be found in several, verifiable sources. I.e: According to The Intercept, one of Al Otaibas friends, Roman Paschal, expressed that he allegedly observed the exploitation of trafficked girls in Abu Dhabi.
 * - Finally (and I realize this isn’t directly related to BLP) the section is just confusing and includes typos and run-on sentences (contributing to the undue weight): “In other emails, he described how the Emiratis have had a more bad history with Saudi's than anyone else and has warred against them for 200 years over Wahhabism.”
 * Again, the edits I proposed did not try to hide any of this information, but presented it in a cleaner way that sticks to the facts. Quorum816 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Zaereth Just wanted to check in and see if you saw this, thanks! Quorum816 (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy
An editor keeps re-adding the same BLP violations to the lead as seen in the following: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4.

I tried explaining to them what it is they are doing wrong but they have made no attempts to discuss the subject instead become antagonistic (accused me of being communist?) and kept on re-inserting the same lines. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Update since then: I added a warning template on their page in diffA, which prompted them to comment on my talk page in diffB (where there is a ongoing discussion) and to re-insert the same but modified addition on the article in diff5 albeit not in the lead this time and in a new section. I tried to preserve the contents of the addition while removing original research in diffC but they reverted it in diff6. At this point, it has gotten quite edit war-ish and I do not intend to continue. I am requesting additional eyes on the topic which would be very helpful for resolution. Tayi Arajakate Talk 17:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to resolve here because what was written by the now reverted user is an extremely POV, tabloid-like take on Roy's actual works about the complexities of terrorism and the role of state institutions. This user debased Roy's decades-old and consistent commentary - regardless of anyone's agreement or disagreement - into a tabloid piece about an "investigative journalist" who revealed to the world Roy's "conspiracy theories" - a reference which is a flagrant BLP violation in this context.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Carl Benjamin's rape joke
once responded to a political opponent that he "wouldn't even" sexually assault her. He then later followed it up with a joke that "with enough pressure" he "might cave" on that stance, "but nobody has that much beer".

That is accepted. What's contentious is how to present that information. Currently, this information is presented as a summary in the lead and body of the article. However, it breaches NPOV by omitting important information, making it seem more offensive than what the reporting really said.

Numerous editors have seen the NPOV issue and attempted to fix it. They've typically tried to add the full quote, or parts of it. But they've always been reverted and challenged by other editors, who argued WP:QUOTEFARM and that it should be succinct.

The editors who wanted neutrality eventually gave up, and the editors who wanted to keep it simply outlasted their opponents. No consensus was ever achieved.

I have reviewed their arguments over the rape joke, in the talk page, and archive 5 and archive 6.

I proposed a compromise that should satisfy both neutrality and succinct-ness: Just improve the summary. This makes it neutral while maintaining succinct-ness.

Here is the compromise I proposed, and here is the talk section I created about it. I clearly laid out and quoted the sources that support my proposed edit.

However, they won't accept my suggestion. Since I addressed the WP:QUOTEFARM and succinct-ness issue, they now argue their own personal interpretations of it, and falsely assert that there was a consensus.

They also call out my right-wing bias, which I'll admit to having. However, I am also challenging their left-wing bias.

The evidence of my bias: My editing history. I have been overzealous in the past, but I'm trying to do it the right way now.

My evidence of their bias: They continue to resist even though WP:QUOTEFARM has been addressed. Grayfell's personal views of my proposed change. Bilorv having a Feminist tag in his profile and removing it 9 minutes after accusing me of bias.

I have no evidence of bias from the other editors.

I believe this is an ideological conflict, and I'm escalating it so neutral editors can resolve the conflict. Amaroq64 (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Now that I've reviewed the discussions again, I see a couple of errors I made. Fippy Darkpaw proposed creating a new section for controversies. The table will be updated to reflect this.

173.176.159.21 complained about the neutrality of the article in general, not the neutrality of the rape joke, and could be removed. 107.77.221.156 could possibly be removed since they might be the same person as 107.77.221.57.

Amaroq64 (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, it certainly is an ideological conflict on one side. It's very funny that thinks that I am attempting to hide that I'm a feminist, as if they're the first alt-right SPA to argue that it is inappropriate for me to edit in alt-right topics because of that userbox rather than the umpteenth. I changed my userpage to highlight a much more important discussion than this one that any good faith editors reading this should go and participate in rather than wasting more editor time on this sealioning.
 * My edits to alt-right topics are not wholly negative; I trust that following Wikipedia policies will lead to the overall most accurate and reliable information we can give people. In this case I am motivated only by our policies on minimising the length of quotations where possible and of highlighting the short quotes that have been most widely covered by reliable secondary sources—and in fact I don't actually believe that quoting "pressured into rape" rather than "rape" makes Benjamin look any better, so I certainly have no political agenda here.
 * It should be unsurprising that a table whose columns are labelled by ostensibly mutually exclusive positions "Keep It As Is" or "Make It Neutral" does not tell the actual story of what longstanding consensus on this page has been.
 * Given their contribution history, Amaroq64 has made it clear what their intention is on this website—introducing alt-right bias to articles—and I propose that they should be topic banned from alt-right and far-right topics, broadly construed. If this forum isn't the right place to decide upon that then I plan to raise the issue at WP:ANI. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , we should reflect reliable independent sources and avoid, to the greatest extent possible, ever quoting a word that Benjamin himself says. Guy (help!) 22:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * for a BLP of a public person that is a completely inappropriate suggestion. Why should we consider Benjamin's texts only filtered through the lens of biased third parties? Wefa (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Support the additional material in the quote. Though the comment was off color, the context is critically important here. Using partial quotes is very problematic in a case like this. Additionally, this is a BLP so if there is a conflict with how the material is presented we should use the "best case" possible. Leaving out context is not that case. Springee (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "off color"??? and: the context somehow makes it better??   Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In what sense is the context "critically important" here? Trying to plumb the nuances of a joke about sexual assault is like asking whether the problem with the Nazis was that they chose ugly uniforms.  Moreover, we need to bear in mind that the quote in question is a serious affront to a living and serving politician.  While the event is certainly notable, I don't believe exhaustive detail is required.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * that remark was an answer to a "what if someone hold a gun to your head" type hypothetical question. And all that done was in a roundtable situation in a humour-laden exchange of thoughts. That's the context. Wefa (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not think adding "be pressured to" as suggested by Amaroq64 is needed or appropriate. There is no difference between "might be pressured to rape" and "might rape", and it is certainly not "important information". The comment "making it seem more offensive" suggests to me that Amaroq64 believes being "pressured" is a justification or at least partial justification for rape (suggesting that a person saying they would rape someone without being pressured is "more offensive"). Regarding adding additional parts of the quote to the article, I have not seen any persuasive reason for including more. The comment was universally condemned by reliable sources, and so the idea that additional "context" is needed so that readers can understand it was a "joke" seems to go contrary to NPOV. When reliable sources can be adequately expressed in prose, that is preferable to including quotations. We already include Benjamin's defense of his statements. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. On a legal and moral standpoint, rape is justified (or at least not unlawful) in situations like direct and effective coercion or duress. (the "gun-to-your-head" scenario). And by his "there is not enough beer for that" answer, Benjamin purposely illustrated the silliness of the question posed to him. It was a question posed to him in a friendly, humorous setting and he reacted in a manner you would in such a context - honestly and with mild repudiation of the question. Again - context matters. Wefa (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear that the quote in the wiki article matches that found in the sources. This is a small change and there is no reason not to make this better align with RSs given this is a BLP and contentious material.  Additionally, if the OP's information is correct it does seem that a majority of involved editors support some level of change in this direction.  I would suggest a RfC might be a way to address the concern.   Springee (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course the information is not correct. For instance, Ryk72 objected to such text as speculating on whether and under what circumstances he might rape [Phillips] (no longer present) and to mentioning the rape comments at all, not what I'd call "Make It Neutral". SVTCobra argued for less text on the rape comments, precisely the opposite of what Amaroq64 is suggesting. etc. etc. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ryk72 objected to ... mentioning the rape comments at all., I don't recall that I took such a position, and on review of the Talk page archives, can't find anything with my signature which supports that statement. I do find that I wrote I have no objection to a well phrased inclusion of the events, which is in contradiction. Diffs, please? - Ryk72 talk 00:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was talking about your position on mentioning the comments in the lead specifically (the context of this discussion), which I believe you opposed on multiple occasions with arguments like As above, this article is about Benjamin, not Phillips and This level of detail is unbalanced, per WP:BALASP, and off-topic. We're well in the weeds if we're documenting every tweet & interview comment of the article subject, let alone those of other persons. As above, this article is about Benjamin, not Phillips. Nonetheless I see that I've oversimplified your perspective (though not so egregiously as Amaroq64 listing you in a column heading "Make It Neutral" alongside many other editors with vastly differing views), for which I apologise and have struck that part of the comment. — Bilorv ( talk ) 08:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The comment of mine (singular not multiple) as quoted, is, in context, explicitly about inclusion of the full text of a tweet not by the article subject. (See: here) It is, therefore, not an objection to mentioning the comments in the lead. - Ryk72 talk 12:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The table is correct. I collated the users by which policy stance they were taking in the bigger picture, NPOV or overriding NPOV with "keep it succinct". Ryk72 and SVTCobra both ultimately argued that we are misrepresenting the rape joke and that should be fixed. I think you just tried to sow doubt about my honesty to make it easier to dismiss my case. Amaroq64 (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think it's appropriate to include a list of individuals unless there was something like an RFC or other clear way of collecting the information like that from multiple people. This list seems to be collected from multiple conversations about sometimes different language, and then makes assumptions about a "bigger picture". The list also has the implicit misrepresentations that the users under so-called "make it neutral" are agreeing with your point, when they have not said that, and that the users under "keep it as is" are arguing in favor of it not being neutral, when that is not what they have said either. I think it would be better to remove your list of names and allow those editors to speak for themselves. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I find the table misleading. And I mean no offense to you, as you obviously put a lot of effort into creating it. The problem is that is turns consensus into a tally of votes. But consensus doesn't work like that. Consensus is a weighing of arguments, meaning that one person with a good argument can beat a whole slew of poor arguments that fail to convince anyone. It's like the old saying, there are three kinds of lies, little white lies, bold face lies, and statistics. I'm not by any means calling you a liar or anything, but I have to take the table with a grain of salt because it has no real bearing on consensus. Zaereth (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can agree that it's better for them to speak for themselves. I did comb through the various discussions and categorize them broadly based on which policy they mainly seemed to be arguing, and I can understand the potential problem with that. But I also think removing the table would remove evidence that there's a contentious issue and that there have been many editors who wanted to fix the NPOV issue. I can quote any user on that table to justify where I put them, if necessary. Amaroq64 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I notified every single editor on that table that this discussion is happening. Amaroq64 (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I could improve the table by changing "Keep It As Is" to "Keep It Succinct". In its current form, it's based on the fact that it seems those users wanted to prevent it from being changed, regardless of what arguments were presented to them for why it should be changed. Amaroq64 (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You made a lot of assumptions in this list and several editors have said it is misleading. I think you should be removing it entirely at this point. No one needs "evidence that there's a contentious issue". If you want a list of names, then start an RfC and allow editors to weigh in themselves. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between inviting them all to this discussion and creating an RfC? The "Keep It As Is" column could be categorized better, but every editor in the "Make It Neutral" column argued that it has an NPOV issue and wanted to do something about that. Amaroq64 (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I did this with the understanding that not everyone has the time and energy to spend hours looking through the archives and sources. So I took the burden of proof on myself to let anyone see with a casual glance that there's a problem that can't be solved without uninvolved input. Removing the table would require everyone who sees this discussion to spend hour(s) going through it themselves, and makes it easier for my ideological opponents to dismiss that there's an issue. Amaroq64 (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you need to manufacture evidence that an issue is contentious, then something is amiss. You're taking the burden and skewing it, even if unintentionally. The table gives a false impression. It's like when commercials use a graph to show how much better their product is than the competition's, but fiddle with the scale to make theirs look much better when there is really only a minute improvement. Unless you include everyone's comments into this table --in context-- it is just meaningless marketing.


 * And another problem is that you are basing this upon your own interpretation of what these people said, which is most assuredly colored by your own biases and metaperceptional skills. And I don't mean that as an insult, this is a problem we all have in communicating with others. Only by seeing the real discussion in it's full context can others make their own determination of the consensus, the validity of those comments, and whether it is contentious in their minds or not. Zaereth (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it help if I put a clause under the table that it should not be considered an authority on the stances anyone took, just an illustration that there's a problem? I can quote every user in context, but that will take time, and this could be a more immediate fix. Amaroq64 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added a collapsible table with links to the conversations that I based my placements on. I did find one error that seriously misrepresented one of the editors' stances, so I corrected their placement on the table. Amaroq64 (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Only two comments: 1) this is definitely the case that full context quotes from his are likely needed because editors can piece-part what he's said since to go either way. The prose should explain that after the comment, he was criticized for it, and he tried to explain himself, and that explanation should use full statements where possible without judgement for us to stay neutral and impartial. Yes, in general, no one should joke about rape, but it is not our place as editors to either villify nor whitewash that away, but simply document the controversy. 2) There is nearly no reason for this to be in the lede, given everyone else there. It's part of his failed campaign but there's no clear indication how much it affected it (minority party to start so before it was a snowball's chance).  No need to scarlet-letter in the lede further beyond what can immediately be put there, its certainly not affect him long-term. --M asem  (t) 17:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would recommend you look through the published articles about Benjamin, as they seem to overwhelmingly note the rape comments. Going through Google and Google News as well, the rape comments seem to be the most frequently discussed aspect of Benjamin's life, even more so than the Gamergate controversy. I think it would be hard to justify including his UKIP candidacy without including the topic that is discussed in many if not most articles about his candidacy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In discussion of his candidacy in 2019 it's brought it, certainly, and while I know enough about him and have little respect for him, its also what needs to be recognized as mudslinging during an election. I'm not trying to say to whitewash it away, but I TONS of coverage in the March-Oct 2019 period, and then little beyond that from RS, all which to me is standard media reporting on the skeletons in the closet of a candidate (though it appears he may have even been investigated during that 2019 period though obviously nothing came about?) We have to be aware that while WEIGHT/UNDUE is important, the impact of election coverage media bias and mudslinging should be taken into consideration. In the period from 2016 up early 2019, only when he joins UKIP more commentary related to the rape statement, but appearing more in the context that UKIP is seen as this group of alt-right/far-right people. Maybe there's some reason to keep something in the lede, but the lede should be super-high level. What's in there now I think is even too detailed because we're talking naunces of what he said and in what context. I don't know immediately how I'd rephrase what's in the lede, but I'd fully avoid the quotes there if possible. Maybe "Benjamin's off-colour commentary related to rape in 2016 towards Jess Phillips dominated his 2019 EP candidacy." --M asem (t) 18:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you know this, but UKIP were a pretty major party when it came to EU elections, both because of proportional representation and their main-issue policy being rather pertinent to EU elections. It wasn't obvious just how badly they'd do in 2019. The rape commentary dominated coverage of Benjamin's UKIP candidacy and so is the best way of summarising this party of the body, and a major part of Benjamin's career. I don't oppose using quotes as long as it is mentioned e.g. "Benjamin's widely-condemned comments about rape in relation to Jess Phillips dominated his 2019 European Parliament candidacy". Though I think this is rather the opposite direction to what Amaroq64 wants us to move towards... — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying for the lede, that's not the point to get into the nitty gritty of the mess that happened. What I read from searching, any more details beyond a simple high level statement (yours is better than mine) requires more explanation for us to stay neutral. That's fine to expand upon in the body, and I don't have opinions to how much more to expand there, but the lede is not the place for that expansion. --M asem (t) 20:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree the lead could be shortened and goes into too many details. My previous attempt to shorten it at least a little was later reverted by GergisBaki . I would support Bilorv's suggested summary of the dispute in the lead. However, I do think that it needs to be addressed in the lead in at least some way. I also want to note to Masem that the lack of coverage since October 2019 (which is not a long time) seems to be more due to the lack of coverage of Benjamin generally, while more recent articles that talk about him still often mention the comments about Phillips. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also wanted to add that I agree with fully avoiding the quotes in the lead in a rewrite if possible. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think it was mudslinging. It was a valid use of his own words to demonstrate his unfitness to serve as an MP (a view the people of his constituency apparently endorsed). Guy (help!) 22:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not trying to in any way validate his statements with this, but just that we should be using more care in reading the media's intentions during the election. We should not be approaching this from the editorial standpoint point that "it validates his unfitness" no how much one believes that true, but should "how much the media believed it validated his unfitness". Subtle difference, probably not a bit impact on the prose at the end of the day, but its important going in right to resolve the neutrality issue. --M asem (t) 23:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem in regarding the use of full context quotes etc. I don't know enough about the article subject to say if this material should or should not be in the lead so I'm abstaining from that question.  Springee (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Presenting "Make it neutral" as an objective fact is a good demonstration of why editing the Carl Benjamin article is such a time-sink. YouTubers, especially those from Benjamin's corner, build careers on attention like this. It is in Benjamin's professional interest to be as evasive and inflammatory as possible, and trying to turn this into something other than a WP:FART is just helping him with his PR. As I said on the article's talk page, taking this issue to "dispute resolution" (which was that-a-way) is trying to drum-up wikidrama over an extremely minor detail. Benjamin's fans are not arbiters of "neutral", and Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, so whatever adjustments are made will almost surely be a waste of our time in support of gossip. Grayfell (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You have evidence that I have a "right-wing bias", but you don't have evidence that the previous editors seeking neutrality were biased. Regardless, there is contention between numerous users other than me over whether he's being represented fairly. The BLP noticeboard is the better place to put this, because a living person having their reputation potentially damaged (more than merited) is important and is what this noticeboard is for. Amaroq64 (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Where did I say anything about you having a "right-wing bias"? Where did anyone say that? You shouldn't have introduced this to the discussion, since it doesn't matter. "Biases" are not some objectively measurable thing you are capable of seeing and we are blinded to. Your comments about this imply that you believe your position is inherently "neutral". This is directly contrary to how Wikipedia determines a WP:NPOV, and also poisons the well for further discussion. We do not consider your personal degree of confidence in your own position when evaluating whether or not something is neutral. You are not qualified to describe the motives of other editors based on your own understanding of what is "neutral", and tabulating these into a table is not a productive use of anyone's time for that and many other reasons. Grayfell (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Support to make it neutral. I still dont understand how people make things say one thing when it is obvious from a prima fascia case that it says something else completely. Very tired also to see people doing this on bio page that normally should require a higher treshold of evidence as described in the BLP guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking at the current version of the lead, I think it could be improved by removing the parenthetical aside so that final paragraph reads like this: In 2016 in response to Member of Parliament, Jess Phillips' complaint that she frequently received rape threats from men online, Benjamin tweeted to her: "I wouldn't even rape you." Criticism of this comment and related remarks dominated press coverage of his European Parliament candidacy. The lead just needs to mention what's notable about this person. The "I wouldn't even rape you" bit is enough for a summary of the incident, and there's no need to paraphrase any more of it in the lead. In general, when someone is well-known for a few specific comments, then I think it's best to just present them in full in the article instead of trying to paraphrase them. Document what he said, and then why it's relevant. Also, I don't think that kind of —aside— really fits the encyclopedic tone we're going for. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I of course support all efforts to make it neutral. But how does one do that when opinions are so polarised? The most logical option should be that we present the data as un-manipulated as possible. Previously I recommended that the setup to his punch line be included. This was shot down as not being relevant, despite it giving proper context and being supported by the referenced source. Rather than try and address the lengthy comments above I’ll just offer my quick and dirty summary of what I think would be a reasonable revision.
 * In May 2016, MP Jess Phillips' stated that rape threats are commonplace for her. In response to this Benjamin Tweeted "I wouldn't even rape you #AntiRapeThreats #FeminismIsCancer" and repeated this on his YouTube channel. This received moderate media attention where he refused to apologise. After Benjamin entered the 2019 European Parliament elections, the media revisited this tweet and continually brought it up to both Benjamin and Phillips. In response to the media’s focus on his old tweet, Benjamin released a mock blooper reel video. In which he attempted to rebuke the media by saying “I’ve been in a lot of trouble for my hardline stance of not even raping her. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave.” “But let’s be honest, nobody’s got that much beer.” Benjamin maintains that his statements were jokes, and that rape jokes are empowering to victims of rape because "it's a lot more empowering to not be controlled by jokes". Benjamin was investigated by West Midlands Police for the comments, and a police spokesperson said he was "dealt with by way of words of advice".
 * If you would like to inform yourself, you can watch the mock blooper reel or a video on how a joke that subverts expectations can be humorous. -EatingFudge (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have citations for your italicized paragraph above? Dumuzid (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , with respect, I've reverted your edit to the article directly because it's clearly a contentious situation and we do not yet have consensus for this new version of the text. — Bilorv ( talk ) 08:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. That's fine. Maybe it's the wrong time to be bold. I just think that the current incarnation of the lead is very close to being fine, except for that issue, which just seems clearly inappropriate. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, those proposed versions above are evidently false. Benjamin did not send this tweet in response to Jess saying she got rape threats. He sent it as a reaction to her publicly demanding substantial internet censorship because she got rape threats. That is an entirely different argument. Especially if you put it in the context that Benjamin was a well known critic of feminist youtubers, and that some such feminist youtbers have advanced the concept that criticizing their public statements constitutes harassment and must be sanctioned. For Benjamin, Philips was just another, more powerful player pushing the same line, and he responded to that open threat with a legally safe provocation on free speech grounds. It was Philips who brought the whole rape topic into the political debate and attempted to weaponize it, and it was Benjamin who reacted in a traditional British liberal fashion. All this can be seen easily from the primary sources - the various videos and texts that were published at that time by the participants. It can not be seen by reading the Guardian, though. There we find this caricature of a strange extreme right internet nerd unhealthily obsessed with raping Jess Philips. So the correct description would be something like >>In 2016 in response to Member of Parliament, Jess Phillips' demand for more extensive internet censorship because she frequently received rape threats online, Benjamin tweeted to her: "I wouldn't even rape you."<<. But, for this we would have to respect the primary sources enough to priorize them over secondary source articles from newspapers deemed "credible" by Wikipedia's committees. And whether we, collectively, are able to do that is anyone's guess. Wefa (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Edited to make my position on the matter clear (previously this was placed as a comment) Alduin2000 (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support keeping it as it is I haven't read all of the comments on this page but I have read a few. Some people (at least one person) has said that categorising people into the table as it is given is problematic because, although it may accurately portray what editors were arguing for at the time when they were discussing issues in the lede, the actual wording of the lede has changed considerably multiple times and so people's positions on the current lede may differ drastically compared to what is implied in the table. I won't talk for anybody else but this is certainly true for me. I vaguely remember various problems with the lede including excessive detail and (perhaps unintentionally) biased wording. However, the reason that I argued for "Make It Neutral" in the past is because the wording was something akin to "and subsequent comments in which Benjamin speculated as to whether or not he would rape Phillips" (although now that I write this it seems a little more extreme than I remember it being - nonetheless, it was a wording that concealed the fact that the comment was a joke). The current lede may not be perfect but, with regards to this comment in particular, all of my issues have been addressed and far from "giving up" on making change, I simply find the current wording to be unobjectionable. Given that I was placed on this list and invited to add a comment, I thought this would be relevant context as to the current consensus (or lack thereof, I'm not sure) as to whether this comment should be changed or not. Alduin2000 (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for misrepresenting your position. You have a good point. I tried to put a ton of effort into building a rock-solid case that something is wrong here, and we need more eyes on it to solve the problem. But even with everything I tried to do, I still wasn't able to account for the shifting contexts that your guys' discussions took place in. I agree with the change someone made to the table header to try and resolve this. Amaroq64 (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do not think this whole matter can be solved, unfortunately. If you work through Wikipedia's body of rules, it's self-image on topics of contemporary history and politics is "the considered sum of what is written in the papers". This is not explicitly written down anywhere, but this is what effectively results from its sourcing rule system on controversial topics with at least methodologically honest editors. Now, we could do an extensive debate of what the pros and cons of this mechanism are, but here and now we wont be able to change that. And one unfortunate consequence of this is that Wikipedia is necessarily as broken as the press system in general is. The case of Carl Benjamin is a special example of this. Benjamin has been systematically smeared and defamed by practically all left wing British mainstream papers. The Guardian ran a "ceterum censeo" style campaign against him, where in every single article about him or even mentioning him there was a remark characterizing him as "the man who wrote about raping Jess Philips" in some way. And once he joined the Brexit bandwaggon and was recruited by the minority UK independence party, the British papers loyal to the Tories became, at best, indifferent on the matter. As the above debate amply shows, this smearing is a reality you can not undo under Wikipedia's rules. For one, it contaminates practically all allowed sources (as Wikipedia has excluded most of the conservative sources from consideration), and it also forms the reality for many of its editors. If your mental image of reality is formed by The Guardian and The Observer, then Carl Benjamin is the person who writes (presumably approvingly) about raping Jess Phillips, just like Milo Yiannopoulos is said to have been banned by Twitter because he harassed Leslie Jones. Those of us who "were there" back then, saw the referred primary sources as they were published and the ensuing debate first hand and know a decidedly different story on those cases can not do anything to change that. The current debate climate is not conductive for a solution. For the time being we have to live with Wikipedia's erosion of NPOV, and see it slowly become Leftopedia on political matters. And that includes the constant low key disparaging of conservatives in their respective BLPs. Wefa (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article adheres to Wikipedia's policies. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't. Even though Wikipedia neutrality must still pick a position according to what the sources say, that has not been done here. You can see the talk section I created on the article itself where I show that a number of reputable sources use the "pressured into raping" language. It's not just slanted because the media is slanted. It's slanted beyond what the media was. Amaroq64 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Benjamin is not a "conservative", not even by his own self-definition, and doesn't collectively speak for political conservatives either in the U.K. or the U.S. any more than any random internet meme celebrity who appears on the left-wing side can be said to speak for progressives. This is especially ludicrous given that Benjamin's electoral career has failed miserably in even attracting voters who aren't disposed to be left-wing. If anything, Benjamin's pro-far-right identity politics approach and collectivist attitude in line with the alt-right movement he's a key figure within make him a great anti-conservative speaker in the same philosophical sense as people in the broader left-wing (compare the similarly far right and anti-conservative orator Oswald Mosley to somebody like, say, the classically conservative wordsmith Edmund Burke). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Benjamin defines himself as a classical liberal. But in the context of a left-right spectrum he is certainly not on the left half of the spectrum. Furthermore, Benjamin is not alt-rigfht - he is quite critical of figures who are commonly identified as alt right, like Richard Spencer or white supremacy groups. Wikipedia defines alt-right as "loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement".  That does not characterize Benjamin at all, with the possible exception of his activity for UKIP - but then, many commentators shy away from classifying UKIP as far right, either.
 * On the internet, Benjamin comes from the skeptics and rationalists youtube crowd - folks who spend their time criticizing ideology and nonsensical belief systems. From this position he early specialized in debunking political nonsense produced by certain internet feminists and other leftwing ideologues. That in turn made him an enemy in their mind. The usual reaction on the left to fundamental criticism is to assume and proclaim the critic is evil, and the pattern on the Internet has been to associate everyone with the alt right who is on the net and criticizes the left in fundamentally hard hitting ways.
 * In sum, I consider Benjamin a moderate conservative - he shares their generally high national pride, a law and order view preference on domestic politics, an appreciation of free markets and a restrictive view on immigration, while he disagrees with many of them on God and the Church and, certainly, on internet politics. On civil rights matter Benjamin strongly supports equality of opportunity and rejects any efforts to advance equality of outcome. The alt right classification in the article, OTOH, is part of the ongoing effort to paint him into a far right corner. Wefa (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've looked at the article as it stands right now, and everything appears in order. What exactly is being proposed as a change? Specifically? I genuinely want to know. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I point to my comment above: we do not need to get into the detail of the exact quotes in the lede of the article, as its getting into excessive details that need the space of the body to really discuss property in an NPOV manner. Bilorv suggested (see above) "Benjamin's widely-condemned comments about rape in relation to Jess Phillips dominated his 2019 European Parliament candidacy" for the lede which is completely fair. --M asem (t) 06:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Rape in relation to"?? I see no reason to degrade our article so that it ends up being less informative to readers.  "rape in relation to" is opaque -- certainly much more opaque than a version that tells us that the comments were actually about raping Phillips.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The wording can be fixed, but as I describe above, in the lede getting any further into the details of what he said and what impact that had would require excessive weight in the lede as to maintain some neutrality and impartialness here. For anyone controversial as soon as you start finding yourself needing to pull quotes into the lede, you're probably going down a rabbit trial. Right now, considering 2 of 12 para (outside the lead) cover the situation around his comments, 1/3rd of the lede about it is inappropriate. --M asem (t) 22:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy changing comments about rape in relation to Jess Phillips to comments about raping Jess Phillips, as I think is suggesting. My previous choice of wording—on reflection—was an attempt to compromise with fans of Benjamin, but there shouldn't be a compromise on NPOV when none of the sources are in their favour. — Bilorv ( talk ) 07:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ""Benjamin's widely-condemned comments about rape in relation to Jess Phillips dominated his 2019 European Parliament candidacy" would be factually false and not appropriate. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * we seem to continue to technically agree while fundamentally differing on our point of view. Again, you are right. But Benjamin's original comment was not about rape, at all. It invoked the term rape - previously invoked by his opponent Jess Philips in the proposal he reacted to - to make a point about internet censorship. Unfortunately, though, there is no way toexplain that in 3 words, so the task to shorten the lede and make it more accurate or fair seems .... challenging. Wefa (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing, and I'm giving this advice for free. "Neutral" doesn't necessarily mean fair. We want to be fair in balancing everything by weight. That more or less means how much space it deserves depends on how notable or significant that info is. That's part of neutrality, but the bigger part is to, as best as possible, keep your own views to yourself, try to put all personal biases aside, and write like an uninvolved person who is completely detached from the situation. That's always challenging, but neutrality is something you can't try to force or else it will surely be biased. You just have to summarize the info that you're given.


 * Now the more space we give it; the more prominent it becomes in the article. Suddenly the whole article is about this and little of anything else. If a person's bias is toward minimizing the situation, then adding more is the opposite of achieving the "fairness" they seek. If your bias is toward maximizing the situation, then more should be exactly what you want. To remain neutral, we should be aiming for neither, but for a simple summary of the facts. Now everybody has biases one way or the other, and they affect our own perception of reality, so it is challenging but not impossible to mostly avoid in writing.


 * To overcome it, imagine that this only deserved a single, short sentence in the lede, because perhaps he was notable for so many other "great" things. (I said, just imagine, and "great" in quotation marks was being sarcastic, in case it wasn't obvious.) How would you summarize this info into one, short sentence? That's how you begin. Now as it turns out this apparently does deserve an entire paragraph. This short sentence becomes your introduction sentence, or opening sentence for that paragraph. The following sentences are just elaborating on what the first sentence said, and breaks it into its different aspects. In this case, it's simply what happened, what was said, and what the response was. It seems we have that all fairly well covered in the lede as it exists right now. The lede is not a good place for context. The lede is where you first start to build context that will make the info in the body more interesting and easier to understand. That's simply because the brain absorbs info in a non-linear fashion. Whether it's an article like Potential energy or Elton John, it's always a bad idea to get too detailed in the lede. All you need for building context for the body is the gist of it. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty much Zaereth's first point here: to keep the lede to the appropriate size and weight relative to the current coverage in the body related to the rape comments, there's no way we can keep that tight without ending making it look like a bad situation for Benjamin in the election, which was factually true. That doesn't mean WP itself is casting doubt in Wikivoice to Benjamin directly, just that we are saying his campaign was marred by it. The resolution of the situation then can be explained in depth with quotes and more details in the body. --M asem (t) 22:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. But I don't think some of those arguing for more detail realize it doesn't help make him look any better. It just makes this stand out like Denali. (Although part of me has to wonder if he seriously intended on winning, or if this was more for publicity.) Zaereth (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, an alternative is to have a very short lede (basically a dictionary definition) followed by a longer introduction section, which is basically an expansion of the lede. This is something I almost always do in articles I write, (for example, see alloy or basic fighter maneuvers), but that approach is better for technical and scientific articles and the like, but ill-suited to biographies. Either way,, you want the lede to get the point across in as few words as possible. Zaereth (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to comment saying I agree with Masem's approach. The discussion in the lead only needs to mention that he made widely criticized comments to introduce the topic, which can covered in more detail in the body. I think Bilorv's suggested wording is probably fine, but it doesn't have to be that. If others feel like there needs to be a quote in the lead, then we should just pick one as an example, probably just stick with the "I wouldn't even rape you" one. We really shouldn't be trying to analyze the whole exchange or provide extensive background context in the lead. He made some controversial comments and they received a lot of coverage during his campaign. That's all that needs to be said about it in the lead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Broadly agreed, but a pedantic point: he didn't make controversial comments. In fact the mainstream reception was uncontroversial and unanimous. He made universally condemned comments. — Bilorv ( talk ) 07:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Not that I disagree, but that's a conclusion on your part. His comments clearly caused a controversy (widespread public debate outside of media coverage, like we're having now), but we can't condemn them in wikivoice. We can possibly say such-and-such a source condemned them, but not us. To say they caused a controversy is neutral and factual, but the reader should make up their own minds on whether to condemn them. (Readers like to make up their own minds and not be told what they should think. The old writing adage goes, "Show, don't tell". As obvious as it is that it was intended as a joke, it's equally obvious that it was in horribly bad taste, and stating the obvious becomes condescending to the reader.) Zaereth (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I do disagree. Back then, Benjamin was a moderately known Youtuber. His tweet was reported by his enemies, and usually in a distorted fashion, like "Benjamin tweets about raping Jess Phillips". Those who condemned him over that condemned not him but the caricature his enemies drew. Second, once you leave the realm of Wikipedia-approved leftwing publications you will find folks approving or understanding that comment. And third, you will find that the media echo in 2016 altogether was so very sparse that you can not call that "universally" at all. If anything, Benjamin was universally unknown.  That only changed when he became a UKIP candidate. Wefa (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Too much detail for the lede. Like I said, by the current wording it's obvious to anyone with half a wit that it was intended as a joke. It's also more than obvious that it was an extremely bad, horribly bad joke, and he got backlash for it. No surprise to anyone. If you want fairness you really need to look at it in terms of weight. Do you want this to be a mountain in the middle of molehills, or should we give it the prominence (how much a mountain stands out against its background) it deserves; no more and no less? This is not the only thing he is notable for, and we need to put his entire life and career into proportion. Now if you want to expand the entire article for the sole purposes of making this bigger, yet still balanced, then you're more than welcome, but I wouldn't expect that to increase it's prominence in the lede. If anything it will likely decrease it or stay the same. Zaereth (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It doesn't belong in the lede. Maineartists (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree if it didn't take up a fairly large portion of the body, but as it stands three or four sentences in the lede seems appropriate. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the body (a summary of a summary), and should really be just like a miniature model of the body, with everything sized in direct proportion. It's prominence in the body is an entirely different matter that's open to plenty of discussion, preferably at the talk page. And that's a problem that can be remedied by simply expanding on the rest of his life and career (if possible). Zaereth (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep on the lead as is MOS:LEAD: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. An entire section is devoted to this aspect of his public life, so it should be on the lead. No editorializing to paint it as less than it was should be introduced. It's not our job to interpret his comments and then present them to the readers in a context that the majority of us finds appropriate. The readers can judge for themselves. We are only responsible to provide them with an accurate account of the events.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruption at Douglas V. Mastriano


See history. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * ~ DrWillow Continues to remove content that maintains a NPOV, is verifiable and is not original research while adding sections that can be considered original research and does not maintain a NPOV.


 * The user seems to have some conflict of interest in the page as they continue to reference a "Adams county opposition" in their edits.


 * Examples of removed content include section about controversial statements made on the Senator's Official Campaign Facebook page that have been covered in the news.


 * Section Follows:


 * "Mastriano has been the subject of a number of controversies over his statements made on his campaign's official Facebook page. On May 7, 2019, Mastriano was accused of spreading Islamophobia after sharing several posts on his campaign Facebook page targeting Muslims. Mastriano has never retracted the controversial posts or addressed their content."


 * Sections removed also include local officials concerns about Mastriano.


 * ~ DrWillow continues to add content that does not maintain a NPOV and is unsourced.


 * 174.55.102.53 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The content of the page has been trimmed down here by User:Deacon Vorbis. Use the talk page if you think that any of the removed content ought be restored. User:MelanieN has applied semiprotection through 18 April, and has left a vandalism warning here for User:DrWillow. Let any administrator know if problems continue. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There have been additional instances of a new account attempting to delete the entire cited controversy section. Other edits have been made to make the section more readable and better flesh out the section which do not seem to be disruptive. 174.55.102.53 (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * New User F&INerd has pattern of disruptive editing nearly identical to DrWillow requesting SPI investigation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/F%26INerd and requesting semiprotected status for the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Douglas_V._Mastriano Hyderabad22 (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I've updated the article further with better section titles and a more NPOV overall for sections of the article. Overall the entire article needs a heavy edit to remove politicized information that is in nearly every section of the article. I'd really like the help of a neutral editor that's experienced with bios of living persons to go through this article. Most of it reads like a promotional piece copied from the subjects campaign website. I'm concerned about continued disruption by who I assumed to be the subject or related to the subject of the article. The user has not disclosed their COI and continues to edit the article. Hyderabad22 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: DrWillow and F&INerd have been blocked as sockpuppets. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Turley Richards


Good evening,

I wrote to you July 16, 2019 regarding violations of this Wikipedia page. You acted very quickly and removed the violations and I thank you for that.

I am sorry to say, that the young woman has again entered the same information, albeit with nominal different wording. I am hoping that this is enough to take further action to ensure that this person is not allowed to add this defamatory information in the future.

I am copying and pasting my original request from last July. Please help!

BLP message board

I believe that information posted to this page is in violation of the guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons. I have attempted twice to delete the information, and my edit has been reversed, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turley_Richards&action=history. Please keep in mind, I am a novice editor to Wikipedia, however as an award winning writer, am willing to receive feedback on content and style. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this serious matter.

1. "Avoid gossip and feedback loops" As Richards was never charged and/or arrested, and the country prosecutor declined to pursue the complaint, inclusion of this television expose, although factual in it's report of the original complaint, is not relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. The event occurred 16 years and 8 months ago, and is not relevant (by Richards' statement) to how he conducts business today.

2.  "Public figures" the following is copied and pasted from this section: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." As there exists only one third party source, the content about this television expose should be deleted. In addition, Richards' denial of the allegations is not reported.

3. People who are notable, but not well known. This rule states the following: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." Due to personal relationship with the subject (wife,) I have knowledge that this article has greatly adversely affected Richards' reputation and livelihood.

4. People accused of a crime. Please refer to the following: " For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." See comments regarding #1 above. This point is also relevant to "false light" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light

5. Images. In the linked news expose, Richards states he does not authorize his image to be captured and used by the news station. Since Richards is blind, and could not see the camera, inclusion of this link violates Wikipedia's rule for situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed.

In closing, please be aware that Richards is a 78 year old, blind man, who until 9 months ago was revered in his community. This article has virtually ended his career, even though he has coached hundreds of other individuals over 28 years with no incident reported. It is of note, that the story was originally added to his Wikipedia page by a parent of an individual referenced in the news expose.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.176.252 (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Min Chen (biologist)
I was reading about chlorophyll f, when I noticed a link to a page of Min Chen. From looking at the pictures provided and the information given in the page, it looks like the username (Chlorophylls) that created the page belongs to the person subject of the article. The person has no more notability than any other Ph.D. scholar/researcher. The username (and possibly a sock puppet (Chlorophyllf)) is clearly a Single-purpose account. Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the proper venue to challenge her notability. She seems to pass WP:ACADEMIC given her Prize for Life Scientist of the Year Award. I'm guessing her journal articles are widely cited by her peers. If you believe the creating account is hers, you can check with WP:COIN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also not seeing any real problems with the article. I agree, she's probably notable under WP:ACADEMIC. The article itself has none of the excess puffery typical of autobiographies - I've seen FAR worse! The creating user may well have been an SPA connected to the subject, but that was a decade ago and the article has been amended and added to by many other editors in the meantime. Neiltonks (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Konstandinos Katsifas
On Northern Epirus there's an incidents' section about interethnic tensions which involve members of the Albanian and Greek communities. One of these events is the killing in 2018 of a Greek person, Konstandinos Katsifas by the Albanian Special Police Forces. Among other issues that surround the story is that of his political affiliation which may be related to the events. News reports and agencies seem to consider it important to mention his extreme right-wing affiliations in relation to the events and the aftermath:
 * Kathimerini, a Greek newspaper: Photographs from social media show him dressed in military-style clothes, with a Greek flag patch on his arm. Reports have also suggested that he fostered extreme nationalist sympathies.
 * Fox News: Members of Greece's extreme right political party Golden Dawn protested after Kacifa's death outside the Albanian Embassy, closing a major road in Athens. Albanian media reported that Kacifa was a member too.
 * B92, Serbian agency: Due to the killing of the Greek man, members of the right-wing Golden Dawn party were protesting in front of the Albanian embassy in Athens, reports AP - a protest which shut down the street. The US agency also quoted Albanian media, who are saying that Katsifas was "a member of Golden Dawn."
 * Balkan Insight, interregional agency: Following the killing, Greek nationalists organized protests and several hate incidents were registered against Albanian property in Greece.
 * Forum für Mittelost- und Südosteuropa, interregional journalist/political comment platform with links to Andrássy University Budapest and other pro-EU institutions: He was considered as a radical Greek extremist, who has already planned the attack against the police before October 28. Moreover, he planned to message both Tsipras and Rama about the resistance of Greeks in the south of Albania. Kacifa's Facebook profile is full of threatening messages against the Albanians.

I added to the article the following: ''Kacifa had extreme right-wing affiliations. Albanian media have reported that he was a member of neo-nazi/neo-fascist Golden Dawn.'' but it was removed and I was accused of BLP violations by who reverted me. Is it a BLP issue to mention issues like political affiliation when they are reported by reliable agencies in the context of the killing and inter-ethnic tensions in the region? I'm asking the community because I am perplexed as to why - according to some editors - something that is mentioned by many news agencies which reported the events, on wikipedia can't be mentioned even with a careful attribution like Albanian media report. Thank you and I will respect whatever decision the community makes.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with the previous comment. If news agencies around the world report this and consider it relevant, Wikipedia shouldn't censor information that is carefully attributed like user Maleschreiber described. N.Hoxha (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a very serious BLP situation. Golden Dawn is a neo-Nazi organization, so this is a very serious accusation. The Fox News report doesn't say which Albanian media made the claim that he was GD. As far as I know, it's mostly Albanian tabloids that have made the claim. Please also note, Albania is not a fully democratic country with a free press, being ranked as low as 79th on the Democracy Index and classified as a "hybrid regime", and ranked 82nd by Reporters Without Borders . The reports have not been carried by any other western source besides fox news. So what we have is a situation where unnamed media (likely tabloids) from a country with questionable press freedom are used to make an extremely serious BLP claim. I also find it highly hypocritical of users that have a history of insulting Serbian sources to use B92 (a Serbian source) when it suits them. Maleschreiber, I take it from now on you consider B92 reliable and suitable for use throughout wikipedia? Khirurg (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How can someone "insult" a source? I mention B92 in order to highlight that reports around the world consider it important to note that Albanian media consider him a member of Golden Dawn. Khirurg judging them as "tabloids" or questioning their reliability is editorializing by a wikipedia editor. Wikipedia only puts forward what is considered important by media reports. If the position of the Albanian media is considered important enough to be mentioned - as should be, as this happened in Albania, then wikipedia should mention and carefully attribute it. Note how Khirurg at first accused me of a BLP violation and now that no BLP violation can be put forward he's trying to shift the discussion towards WP:RS. If that is the case, then we can close this one, but RS is also irrelevant here because there is no fact that is being put forward other than: In Albanian media it has been reported that he was a member of Golden Dawn.


 * As a side note: this is not a person who was vilified in Albania and considered a hero in Greece. In Greece too, the only party that tried to pass a motion in the Greek parliament in order to "honour his memory" was the Nazi party Golden Dawn and it was rejected by all other parties . So, note that only a very specific part of Greek society chose to identify with this person for obvious political reasons. I'm mentioning this because Khirurg is trying to put forward another narrative that frames this dispute as one in which there are two completely opposed views (Albanian vs. Greek), but very few people in Greece supported a narrative which didn't frame Kacifas in the particular way the sources describe.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Judging the reliability of sources is exactly what we need to do in Wikipedia. Not only of the sources themselves, but also of the reliability of the particular info they are providing. Some media sources are tabloid, and that is fairly easy to spot. Others may be reliable, but at the bottom of the barrel compared to better sources. But editorial judgment is required on some level to separate the wheat from the chaff. And I'd be careful about asserting any media accusations as being true, even here on BLPN, without some good sourcing to back it up. BLP rules apply to talk pages as well. Zaereth (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * (ec) Maleschreiber, first, please note I did say it is a BLP violation, and a major one. Didn't I say This is a very serious BLP situation? Do I have to quote myself now? And questioning the reliability of sources is not "editorializing". Am I not allowed to criticize sources now? What kind of logic is this? And what's this nonsense about "Trying to shift from BLP to RS? WP:RS is inextricably linked to BLP. You can't make any edits to BLP articles without reliable sources. And as far as I see, no RS have made the claim he was a GD member. The rest about "being considered a hero in Greece" is the old "guilt-by-association" trick. The fact that one particular organization honored him does not mean he was a member. This is simply nonsense. And even a cursory review of the Greek press shows a lot of sympathy for Katsifas, with only the far left describing in the way Maleschreiber is claiming. Khirurg (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not asserting or not asserting any media accusations. Media accusations though should be mentioned if the particular events are being discussed in the media. Wikipedia doesn't take sides when mentioning what the media discuss in a neutral way. What has also been completely removed from the article is the fact that Greek, Albanian, regional media have mentioned Kacifas in the context of such politics. I used Kathimerini, a Greek newspaper as a source, but Khirurg removed that as "BLP" violation too. Some editors want nothing to be mentioned at all even though all media outlets discuss the events in that exact framework.


 * Photographs from social media show him dressed in military-style clothes, with a Greek flag patch on his arm. Reports have also suggested that he fostered extreme nationalist sympathies., Kathimerini
 * The protest came after the death of Kostandinos Kacifa, the Greek extremist who terrorized a village, attacked the Albanian police and died during the fire exchange with the special forces., Top Channel, the biggest media outlet in Albania.
 * Wikipedia doesn't have to side with Albania's biggest channel or a respectable Greek news agency, but it has to at least mention what they have to say. The first narrative Khirurg put forward is that any mention of Kacifas and his politics is a BLP violation by definition. I was referring to that when I said that now there's a shift from BLP to RS. A strictly RS discussion isn't a BLP topic, because there is no BLP claim here other than: 1)Albanian media reported him in X manner. 2)A mention about general links to extreme right-wing politics which rephrased but for some editors using a source that says Reports have also suggested that he fostered extreme nationalist sympathies. in order to write Reports have linked Kacifas to extreme right-wing politics. is a BLP violation. How can that be a BLP violation by any standard?--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't think accusing someone of being a member of a neo-Nazi organization is not a BLP issue, I think this discussion is over. By the way, you didn't answer my question regarding B92. Do you consider it RS going forward? Thanks in advance. Khirurg (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Greek outlets like Kathimerini have noted the reports of his (purported) extreme nationalist sympathies. Meanwhile, the furor over this is a bit surprising to me, as it is quite out of line with our coverage of other such individuals with purported nationalist/far-right/etc sympathies. Example, from Unite the Right rally: . I don't think we should say in wikivoice that he was a far-right individual or whatever, but rather that he was reported (by X-sources if necessary) as such -- just like we did with Fields Jr. (maybe don't say "neo-Nazi" for Golden Dawn, they dispute this, whatever, far-right/extreme nationalist gets the gist across anyway). A major difference between Fields Jr. and Katsifas though: Katsifas has been dead for six months.--Calthinus (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is a good point which I honestly think that N.Hoxha framed rather well. Going from Reports have also suggested that he fostered extreme nationalist sympathies. to Reports have linked Kacifas to extreme right-wing politics. is both neutral and avoids wikivoice.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there's an implication in the latter statement that it is some form of organised "politics"; membership of a far-right organisation or similar. I don't see that implication present in the former statement. - Ryk72 talk 05:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully agree . Here, on top of edit-warring BLP violations, we also have language problems. I don't think editing can get worse than that. Dr.   K.  12:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * A major difference between Fields Jr. and Katsifas though: Katsifas has been dead for six months. is an inept statement. BLP applies to recently deceased people as well. They have family, kids, wives etc. Why the rush to bury them again, this time ideologically by edit-warring people with substandard command of the English language? Dr.   K.  12:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Dr.K. um, what the actual heck, English is my native language. I'm also not sure why that was necessary, or how "inept" describes the statement. Does Fields Jr. not have relatives?--Calthinus (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is inept because you should have known that BLP applies not only to the dead but also to survivors. As far as Fields jr., WP:OTHERCRAP covers this well. Dr.   K.  16:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, no, I think the well established consensus versionss high traffic pages on such contentious topics as American politics such as Unite the Right rally are instead exemplars (in this case I was involved in the page, though not that sentence) of how BLP is resolved and it is not in favor of the view that only you and Khirurg here have advocated (yes, no one else has supported you that this is a BLP violation). When RS sources say there are reports he had x-views, you report it. This is true for alleged white supremacists in the US who are charged with crimes, and it is true for alleged Greek supremacists who got into a shootout with Albanian police and died. By the way he was already nearly eighteen months ago  (with people taking selfies on his grave and declaring him a martyr for the national cause, in contravention with his own family's wishes... and, apparently, yelling  according to French press... ). --Calthinus (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But forgive me I did make a mistake. I said the difference was . Forgive me, that should be . Sometimes I forget that it is 2020. I hope it's not because I am (do desist from that) :). --Calthinus (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * A major difference between Fields Jr. and Katsifas though: Katsifas has been dead for six months. is an inept statement. BLP applies to recently deceased people as well. They have family, kids, wives etc. Why the rush to bury them again, this time ideologically? Dr.   K.  12:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No reverts by me, 3 or 4 by you Dr.K. The fact that we're discussing how we can integrate those aspects of the events now instead of dismissing them, highlights that this was never a BLP violation in the first place. It has been established that media discuss about the protagonist of these events in a particular way. That should be reflected as previously in the article (Albanian media) with the only rephrasing being done to Kathimerini. I'm ok with N.Hoxha's rephrasing, I don't think it points to organized party politics in wikivoice, but that can be reworked too.
 * Katsifas died in 2018 and it seems that his family hasn't had any problem getting into politics after that as his sister was even a candidate for the Greek parliament a year later, while his mother seems to have made some very political comments.
 * Also, BLP applies to the police officers who witnessed him shooting with an AK-47, so I wouldn't make any unfounded accusations against them.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hold your horses. This is too much to reply to. I didn't mention you specifically edit-warring that piece. But you are defending Hoxha's edit which does not accurately describe what the source says, as others have told you, and it is a BLP violation. The rest of the examples you give about his family are simply a red herring fallacy. What does the subsequent life of his family members have to do with the inaccurate BLP violations you are supporting so vehemently? Nothing. Zilch. Your logic demonstrates your POV quite well. The point of the policemen who killed him is useless. I have done nothing to violate their BLP. As far as my reverts, I made copyedits that you want to count as reverts in your push to attack me. Dr.   K.  13:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. so you have 3-4 very proper reverts, no small "copy-edits". Also, don't continue the whole BLP violation accusation. This discussion has moved way past that. Now, that we've established that in some form his politics should be discussed, I want to continue the discussion with the second part about Albanian media reports. --Maleschreiber (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Once more: Copyediting bad English, or removing text that is a BLP violation because your language skills or POV did not allow you to transcribe accurately from the source, thus becoming an unsourced invention of yours, is not edit-warring and it very much is a BLP violation. I hope this helps. Dr.   K.  13:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @Maleschreiber, we haven't "established" anything. The politics thing is basically an attempt to justify the shooting ("he was an extremist and thus deserved to die"). In any case, I note the official report from the Albanian police came out a few months ago, and ruled his death...a suicide. Go figure. Khirurg (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Official report from the Albanian police said what? Source, please? --Calthinus (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * . Khirurg (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BDP says "" The above discussion is a bit confusing, but I gather the death was on 28 October 2018. This means it's now hit the 18 month mark. So it's getting close to the "two years at the outside" mark, and so editors should start moving on from this being something best dealt with via the BLP framework. This doesn't mean we suddenly allow any unsourced allegation against him to be included, we still have to consider our other policies. But BLP is becoming less and less relevant for any issues only concerning him. While his family and friends have our sympathies, ultimately even someone dead for 80 years may have living direct family. BLP may still come into play. For example if mention something someone living or likely living said or did. And be it a family member, a friend, a police officer, a witness, whatever. But not in relation to something that is only directly about what the subject said or did, e.g. his associations or groups he was a member of. And remember also that BLP applies on talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If this wasn't clear, I do see this more as a POV dispute, as eighteen months dead is not typical BLP territory. --Calthinus (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nil, the argument is not how many years he's been dead. The argument is that in this case the sources proposed are weak and the phrasing is not parsed properly from the source by editors whose English-language skills are not up to BLP-strength criteria. But BLP is not the major player in this. Rather the information added is based on weak sources, vague allegations and improperly parsed/synthesised material, a fact which makes it an inaccurate POV piece and, by extension, a BLP violation even after 18 months have passed. By the way, no pings please. Dr.   K.  18:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * was all that needed to be said. NPOV is a separate thing. --Calthinus (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Duh, yes it is. But here we have the Balkans with language-challenged editors rapid-fire edit-warring their POV in a fog of POV/BLP violations. Editing cannot become more toxic or cruder than that. Dr.   K.  20:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's all very well but I already acknowledged there are issues besides BLP that need to be considered. In the end, this is the BLP notice board. And you specifically said "" which is correct, but in this case, the subject is close to reaching the 2 years at the outside where BDP no longer applies. Ultimately you are going to have to move on from discussing this in BLP terms since 6 months from now, unless what you are discussing directly related to some other living individual, people are rightly going to ask WTF is this on the BLP noticeboard? Oor WTF do you bring up BLP, which is irrelevant to the issue? To be clear, 6 months from now, BLP will non player point blank for a number of issues. Let me repeat one more time that this doesn't mean it's open season for any manner of poorly source allegations in 6 months. We still need to follow our other policies and guidelines. But it does mean editors shouldn't be claiming there are BLP issues if by definition there aren't since the issue only relates to something about someone who is deceased for over 2 years. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It appears that this kind of edit takes hate speech to the next level: [] clearly claiming that being born in a specific country is just enough to explain why 'hate incidents' happen.Alexikoua (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest, it looks like you misunderstood Fa alk's comment: seems to imply that the hate incidents happened because of the shootout, not where he is from. --Calthinus (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Now that it has been made clear that BLP cannot be treated as the main and only point of a discussion that is barely within the scope of BLP, I'll refrain from further comments and continue any discussion to the talkpage.--Maleschreiber (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Philip Bounds
I am not reporting a violation. I need help editing the page as the subject died earlier this month. I was trying to edit it by copying the code from another page but have obviously messed up. I tried to insert dates. I also tried to insert a photo but, seem to have messed that up too. Can someone please give me some guidance? Many thanks. Cary B42

Here is the local funeral notice page: https://funeral-notices.co.uk/south%20wales%20evening%20post/death-notices/notice/bounds/4832832


 * The infobox template has been fixed. How did you know Mr. Bounds? Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much Morbidthoughts, I was a political friend and friend and family friend. We're all very cut up about losing this witty, sharply intelligent amd charming guy at such a young age to cancer. Especially in the midst of all the tragedy with the coronavirus. So very sad. So it's much appreciated that you fixed my code. I haven't done much editing lately, as is no doubt apparent! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaryB42 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Nate Mills: BLP name correction
Please help correct the name of this BLP article. Should be 'Nathaniel Mills', not 'Nate Mills'. I am the subject and have never once used the nickname 'Nate', nor are there any known instances of such use by media or sports organizations, including the IOC and US Olympic committees.

To confirm, I can be reached by name via @olympian.org email service (I have also contacted the author(s) of the source material that was cited, who have agreed to correct the digital record.)

Assistance is appreciated, -NM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4500:7C50:9564:3503:96BD:4E49 (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. The article has been moved to your correct name. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  15:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Harmeet Dhillon
Harmeet Dhillon has been in the news recently for suing the state of California on at least two occasions to challenge the Shelter in Place Order. In one particularly noteworthy court filing, quoted in the Chronicle, Dhillon argues that the list of essential businesses "prohibits all religious leaders from conducting in-person and out-of-home religious services, regardless of the measures taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of the virus spreading. Meanwhile, the list deems the continuity of services provided by coffee baristas, burger flippers, and laundromat technicians to be so necessary for society that these activities are permitted to continue under the State Order." This vivid statement expresses her views so clearly that I was going to include it in her article. But I see that WP:BLPPRIMARY explictly says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Does that still apply if the subject of the article is a legal professional whose job is to produce court filings? I understand the urge to prevent anything that smacks of doxing or original research, but these are her own words, voluntarily placed in a public document. Certainly it's more authoritative to cite the filing rather than a news article that includes the same quote, right? Thanks. Wnissen (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Actually, the opposite is true. Anyone can say anything they want in a court filing. But reliable newspapers have professional editors and reporters whose job it is to separate the wheat from the chaff and decide what should reported to the public and what shouldn't. It is not the role of amateur volunteer Wikipedia editors to go through court filings to make those decisions. Instead, we summarize what published reliable sources say rather than doing that original research ourselves. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  16:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Finlay Calder


Melville College and Daniel Stewarts did not amalgamate until  1973. Finlay was at Melville College after my time; probably 1962 if  he started  at 5 though I agrée that by the time he  left school the amalgamation had taken place.However  the D.S. F.P. members recognised  his Melville ties    in his achievements.

Trevor Simpson Président DSMC London Club 1982/3  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.6.52.192 (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The college in question might be Stewart's Melville College. Our article on Finlay Calder says he was educated at that college. Due to the anachronism, I suppose the reference to Calder's place of education might be changed to Melville College, though that title is a redirect to the same thing. Your comment would be better placed on the talk page of one of the articles. It is hard to be more specific since no source was provided for his school affiliation. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Shayna Baszler
Is using a podcast interview to establish a person's sexual orientation sufficient for BLP concerns? The podcast in question is MMA Roasted, which hosted by a comedian Adam Hunter, and falls under WP:BLPSPS. I had attempted discussion in the talk page, but the removal was reverted and accused of being homophobic. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If she is out as a bisexual comedian as part of her act, I fail to see the BLP issue here. On the contrary, it is the implication that such an identity could be bad so as to fall under BLP policy, despite her own apparent decision to be open about it, that makes one cringe a bit.--Calthinus (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I mean the podcast is hosted by a comedian who is also an MMA fan. Baszler was interviewed on his podcast. She responded to his series of questions that she was dating a woman and didn't focus on gender in terms of her dating life. You can hear a clip of it here.. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, she is a wrestler. But still, she chose of her own free will to be open on a public interview. BLP is intended to cover potential harm to an individual, but this is a case where the individual herself publicized it. --Calthinus (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My issue is that not only is the sourcing not appropriate, she refused (or was uncomfortable even) to label herself. We shouldn't cite that as her coming out as a bisexual or even that she came out at that moment. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is trickier, I admit. --Calthinus (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If she does not describe herself as "bisexual", then we shouldn't either, especially if there is reason to believe she would object. Was there something significant about her dating a woman other than that it goes against traditional expectations? If not, it doesn't seem significant enough to include without coverage in more reliable sources. If she got married or engaged, then that fact could be included, but I still wouldn't see any reason to use a particular label she doesn't use about herself for her sexual orientation. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it was the classic "Do you have a boyfriend?" question and she responded that she was dating a woman, but that she had dated both (men and women) in the past. When he asked her if it (choosing one or the other) depended on how she felt when she wakes up, she says it's not about the gender but about the person. To my perception, she did not seem comfortable responding to these questions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Faber-Castell
There seems to have been some strange sockpuppetry in the following articles:


 * (courtesy ping, who was reverted by socks. The "Controversy" section was conveniently moved towards the bottom of the page, but I don't even object to this change. It should just be noted.)

See Sockpuppet_investigations/Peter_McLovin for a non-comprehensive list of single purpose throwaway accounts. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Dejan Jović
Can you please take a look at the discussion page of this Article. Topic is a bit sensitive and to me it seems like potentially libellous claims are repetitively introduced by non-registered addresses.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That entire paragraph looks WP:UNDUE to me, and mainly deals with the views of a fairly minor historian. I would suggest pruning it severely. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Kissie
I came across this article through maintenance work. While referenced, it reads like an attack piece, please could someone have a look? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , some of it could be more diplomatically stated, but this certainly isn’t an “attack piece”. We note what reliable sources state. It largely conforms to NPOV. I do, however, see at least a few sentences that could use more neutral wording. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I read through it, but was left in the dark about what her blog (which is what seems to make here notable here) was actually about. Meanwhile, I learn that "the song did not get enough attention, and many of her readers decided not to buy it", "she was attacked by a few readers who threw eggs and flour at her", "she has released a picture of her naked", "a left-wing extremist group had spray-painted "bourgeois whore" on her apartment door and sprinkled pig blood around it", "she received a lot of abusive xenophobic comments". Is she only notable for controversies? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Those were exactly the sentences I had in mind. Essentially, yes; aside from being a social media personality, she does seem to be talked about in media for the controversies surrounding her, and the events surrounding that. I’d honestly prefer this weren’t the case, but people will do what they do. When I have more time (and I’m not on a mobile device), I’ll do a partial rewrite of the article. I think at least half of that can be excluded per NOTNEWS, and a few sentences can be phrased better. But controversy appears to be a major part of her biography. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If her coverage is mainly from Aftonbladet, a tabloid, that may be why there's only controversial content. She may not be notable for an article under wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Aftonbladet is not to be compared to The Sun etc. It is not a rag mag so to speak.BabbaQ (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, someone else at RSN has compared it to the Daily Mail which is considered not reliable for Wikipedia. The wikipedia article for Aftonbladet also states the eyebrow-raising following: "The journalistic quality of Aftonbladet and other tabloid newspapers has sometimes been questioned." and "However, Aftonbladet has drawn more attention for the strident left-wing stance and controversial publications of its cultural section."  Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Arrested Development (group)
Much of this article contains promotional and over-the-top subjective language, clearly written by members of the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C54:4E80:768:B03B:7AE2:17AC:8BCF (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Oof. Yeah. I cleaned it up a little, but it was definitely a struggle to sort through all that cruft and puffery. I'd love some more experienced eyes on this page. If she wants to dance and drink all night, well, there&#39;s no one here to stop her. (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Anjana Om Kashyap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjana_Om_Kashyap

Plenty of vandalism on this page

Altaf_Qadri
Serious issues regarding my Biography page Altaf_Qadri

Somebody has put a very misleading sentence, "being fired allegedly for unethical work practices" in the 'Life and Work" section of the page. This is totally baseless and I fail to understand have editors/volunteers let it stay without any substantial proof? I tried to modify it but the edit was reverted back by GorgeCusterSabre. This sentence, if it stays on the page, will have a huge problem for my professional and well as public life. I would request you guys to kindly edit this misleading information out. Also, I would also appreciate it if the 'Nationality' is changed back to 'Indian' from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altafqadri (talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done by . If you haven't already done so, please review Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Daniele Ganser
I had to rewrite most of the article about Daniele Ganser. It is locked in german wikipedia and seems to be a rather loaded topic.

Many of the quotes were badly sourced, misquoted or just fabricated. Everything that could go wrong went wrong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0xkev (talk • contribs) 06:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I reviewed and reinstated several (not all) of your removals because your reasoning was not based on Wikipedia policy. Criticism of his books should not be removed simply because it is presented in another wikipedia article "with a weird spin" or you do not know who the attributed book reviewer is. I also did not understand why you removed cited background information about the subject to match the German version of wikipedia. and you don't have to cite to primary sources if there are secondary reliable sources that quote him. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks Morbidthoughts for your contribution. I should have explained my point more clearly. The current version is already better in terms of neutrality. Hopefully, we can steer this towards the point where it is informing and not just slandering the author (I can clearly see why people would be angry with him, but that has no right of manifestation here). Another thing is, where you already started the discussion: The citations may stay, but to have content there has to be actual discussion of what for example his NATO book is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0xkev (talk • contribs) 13:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying what you believe is the problem with each citation. I have removed the ones with blatant issues and defer to others who are more experts about the sources to review the other sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've also reorganised and tried to summarise the criticism of his book. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

John Ashton (public health director)
There seems to be an edit war, regarding contentious accusations, ongoing at John Ashton (public health director). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , protected for a week. Guy (help!) 17:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

James harden
He also won 2019 mvp award. You forgot to add that. ❌
 * Giannis Antetokounmpo won the 2019 MVP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Esther Mbulakubuza Mbayo
The picture indicated is not for Mbayo but rather for Specioza Wandira Kazibwe (Uganda's first female Vice President) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NellyKapo (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The article has no picture. If you saw this picture on Google or some other search engine, then we have no control over that. You'd have to take that up with Google. Zaereth (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia Copyright Violations
The follow is what is what is above Subject/headline: Content that violates any copyrights

Wikipedia : Copyright violations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Wikipedia :CV" redirects here.

For Courtesy vanishing, see Wikipedia : Courtesy vanishing

For the policy on personal webpages, see Wikipedia : What Wikipedia is not

§ Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site

Green check.svg This page documents a Wikipedia policy with legal consideration

Shortcuts WP:CV WP:COPYVIO This page in a nutshell: Do not add content to Wikipedia if you think that doing so may be a copyright violation. Contributors should take steps to remove any copyright violations that they find. For more information on copy and pasting text, see Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. For more information on closely paraphrasing text, see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. SO DOES THAT INFORMATION APPEAR ON EVERYONES "Content that violates any copyrights" ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesenatemployee (talk • contribs)
 * We have a template for warning about copyright violations, which links to that page. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Peter Strzok
Additional eyes are needed on this biographical subject in the news. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Joey Gibson COVID-19 video
Disputed content:
 * Talk:Joey_Gibson_(political_activist)
 * Talk:Joey_Gibson_(political_activist)

In April 2020, Gibson attracted controversy for posting a video protesting against the Covid-19 lockdowns, in which a child holds up a sign saying "Arbeit macht frei" ("Work sets you free"), the words used over the gates of Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps. After receiving criticism, he deleted the video from his website and Facebook page.

I'm unclear how the Twitter ref is reliable in any manner, let alone meets BLP criteria. (It redirects for me, and I'm unable to determine who the author is and what it is supposed to verify).

I don't know what the TruthOrFiction ref verifies at all. This ref was added after edit-warring about the content.

I've looked for better refs, but have come up empty. I also notice that there's no corresponding content at. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, it definitely happened (I saw the tweet before it was deleted), but reliable sources have not yet said anything about it (at least naming him), so neither should we. Guy (help!) 17:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. It is not necessary to point out every tiny bit of controversy a people (particularly those already the subject of controversy) gets into. Wait for the larger picture and see if RSes make a significant deal about it. --M asem (t) 17:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any valid assertion of notability. Buffs (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Josh Olson
Hi all,

I was doing new pages help before, not really with existing pages. So this is nearly my first time I read a BLP and think it has issues. (I have no COI, this is just a question of article quality)

With this page another contributor, Maravelous, perhaps more familiar with film awards than I am, seems keen on adding information like
 * award winner (seemingly irrelevant),
 * the same thing again,
 * reference to 'last' film credit (seemingly unverified),
 * stating he is 'former' screenwriter (seemingly nearly impossible to verify unless in an interview),
 * remove 'film director' description (that surprises me as one would normally add information to an article and not remove...) and state "It did not win any of these awards",
 * added "He did not win any of these. " + two remarks about lack of credit and about article subject being called an " " on some forums.

There seems to be an agreement against these additions at the talk page of the article, at least as of this year; I've not been able to check prior discussions.

I hope to gain clarification about the following points:


 * 1) Whether it is appropriate to remove the reference to the winner of the award, where the article subject was nominated but didn't win, I think in this case the winner is not relevant in the BLP.
 * 2) Whether it is appropriate to not write "His latest film credit was film XYZ in 2005" until reliable sources are found confirming that he did nothing for films since then (imdb is not reliable), whether it is ok to write in article instead "He was credited for film XYZ in 2005" without the 'latest' assumption.
 * 3) Whether it is appropriate to remove content from the article in cases when one contributor thinks it violates BLP policy, and not re-add it until consensus is reached. The re-addition of "won by black-something mountain" up to five times, after continued attempts to add "he did not win any of these awards", strikes me significantly as superfluous or redundant.
 * 4) How to write in correct English that the film which is discussed in the second paragraph won these awards for screenplay specifically and not just for the film ( the film won many other awards for things other than screenplay, and these three are for screenplay specifically ).

Thanks, --Gryllida (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the film did not WIN any awards Maravelous (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I am happy with your removing the awards entirely if you feel they are irrelevantMaravelous (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I find the nominations relevant, but not their winner. Gryllida (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Briefly skimming through this, it looks like you are taking good precautions. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Hipal. Thank you. I also would be interested in answers to these questions so that I can get a clearer idea of how the current policies apply to this article and this situation. Gryllida (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Quick answer to everything: If high-quality, independent and reliable sources don't mention it, neither should we.
 * So, unless sources state otherwise:
 * 1 - The winner is irrelevant, UNDUE, and undermines the pov of the article.
 * 2 - Including "latest" is original research, and undermines the pov of the article.
 * 3 - I interpret BLP's The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE to mean that content should not be restored without consensus. The situation you describe is edit-warring against BLP.
 * 4 - I'm not clear what the question is. Diffs would help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you!
 * For 1, please confirm that the event of
 * one contributor removing content from BLP and writing somewhere, either in edit summary or in talk page, that they think it violates the BLP policy,
 * is sufficient circumstances for another contributor to not re-add this content until agreement (consensus) is reached.
 * For '4', the diff is here. I am wondering what is the correct unambiguous way to specify this in the current revision. Is writing 'He was nominated' sufficiently informative, or more should be written? I am a foreigner and would be interested in an independent opinion.
 * Thanks, Gryllida (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please indicate if I'm missing something, with a verifying source: In both cases, it appears the sources don't mention it, so it doesn't belong. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For '4', the diff is here. I am wondering what is the correct unambiguous way to specify this in the current revision. Is writing 'He was nominated' sufficiently informative, or more should be written? I am a foreigner and would be interested in an independent opinion.
 * Thanks, Gryllida (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please indicate if I'm missing something, with a verifying source: In both cases, it appears the sources don't mention it, so it doesn't belong. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gryllida (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please indicate if I'm missing something, with a verifying source: In both cases, it appears the sources don't mention it, so it doesn't belong. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Zoe Boekbinder
Sarahsullivan555 created Draft:Zoe Boekbinder, and when this was declined due to lack of notability, proceeded to remove the redirect at Zoe Boekbinder and replace it with their article anyway. I have reverted this change and informed the user via their talk page but they are unresponsive and continue to revert my edits. I'm assuming the user is acting in good faith but there's not much more I can do here. Akakievich (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thry also conserved their talk page into an article for the person. I tried to remove it but a bot prevented my from doing so.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sexual assault accusations Timothy Hutton
This is the continuation of a discussion on the merits of maintaining the statements of sexual assault allegations on Timothy Hutton's article. This discussion was originally started at Teahouse:

Buzzfeed News broke the story in March 2020 that Timothy Hutton had sexually assaulted a child in 1983. These allegations were put in Hutton's article, with Buzzfeed News as the primary source. All the other sources that serve as additional references to the sexual assault allegations statement are not exactly news sites or trustworthy and highly consistent. Entertainment Weekly, for example, had simply copied a large bunk of BuzzFeed News's original article and did little to no original reporting.

Biographies of living persons states: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

I would assume that while these allegations are definitely noteworthy and relevant by their very nature, it is of no less equal importance to maintain high standards in terms of verifiability and multiple reliable third-party coverage. I'd appreciate to hear two cents on this from more seasoned, experienced editors in this regard. Charmanderblue (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I dug around and found a few more sources, including a March 2020 Variety article and Deadline Hollywood article, that details both the incident along with the legal aftermath, that could be included in the article. Both of those articles are considered reliable by the Wikipedia community., I think there are more than enough reliable sources to include that information in the article. --   LuK3      (Talk)   20:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Existence of the allegation and of Buzzfeed reporting seems clear, if not DUE much content as it's not a lot of coverage. I see it also mentioned in Fox News, LA Times, The Independent, NY Daily News, Vulture, Variety, MSN, etcetera.  It so far is just a bare notice and seems handled with a 10-foot pole, but the Buzzfeed story on this is mentioned in numerous places.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Josephine Cashman
A user claiming to be the article subject has inserted promotional material instead of purely removing disputed material, while making legal threats. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have aligned the text with the citations in the article in a neutral manner rather than from her edits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Adam Riess
Can some additional eyes, particularly familiar with BLPs in the sciences, look in on this article? IP user is holding himself out at Riess and voicing some concerns about the controversy section of the article. If I follow the salient points, the claims in the controversy section all source from a rival(?) scientist. I think it is worth looking into the IP's claims, even though I'm not ready to pull the section out pre-emptively. —C.Fred (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the suggestion that the data was doctored since the source was a personal blog rather than a peer reviewed journal. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * FWIW. Carrying over content from my duplicate post. Assertion of libelous content removed in this edit. They take umbrage with the Controversy section. I don't see it myself. A complaint from someone claiming to be Riess was carried over to ANI - -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 05:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Brendan Leipsic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Leipsic

OK, this guy was a naughty boy. But marking him as 'death by Instagram' is vandalism of the Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.35 (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah that edit was vandalism which I reverted. It looks like semi-protected the page earlier as well. --    LuK3      (Talk)   18:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Tarek Fatah
Problematic content added by a blocked sock which claims that the subject: "has been criticised for spreading fake news.... Fatah had tweeted the same video twice in the past, each time spreading a different lie against Muslims.... his continued pattern of spreading fake news on Twitter... some critics have argued that he is an external agent who wants to create communal disturbances in India.... AltNews.in accused him of "blurring the lines between rational scepticism and contempt toward the Muslim community."

I am sure that accusing him of being a hoaxer and a liar and using some critic' website and his own opponents to accuse him of promoting violence and religious hatred is absolutely a BLP violation. He hasn't been charged with any of these allegations levied on him by his opponents. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Anuna De Wever
Not sure if this is the right place, but the BLP Anuna De Wever (a climate activist) has in the past 24 hours attracted a couple of IPs with a bee in their bonnet about the prominence of an unofficial Flemish "battle flag" being mentioned in relation to a far-right attack on her (e.g. here and here). At the time of the event there was as much (or more) in the media about the flag as about the attack itself, but these IPs claim it was not relevant and are removing sourced material that draws on that media coverage. Some measure like semi-protection would seem to be in order. I don't want to just keep reverting, given the 3RR rule and this removal of sourced material not being blatant vandalism like page blanking or inserting derogatory information. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I requested semi-protection over at WP:RFPP. The article has been a target for the past year or so. I warned the new IP about WP:edit warring, it looks like 95.19.235.124 was blocked for edit warring earlier today. --   LuK3      (Talk)   21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like the page has been semi-protected for a year. --   LuK3      (Talk)   02:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There looks to be some liberties in the disputed paragraph that the cited sources do not directly verify. Namely that she was attacked due to her fame and that the men who attacked her were members of the far right. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

, why did you make edits that contradicted one of the citations? Also your POV pushing in this edit summary is peculiar. Also, English is my first language. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Theodore Roethke
Someone added a pic to Theodore Roethke which looks like a completely different person than the original pic in the lead. The caption of the new pic has the right name though. Now there are two different people pictured on one article and I don't know what to do. I know he's not living but wasn't sure where else to ask. Hillelfrei  talk   22:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Relatively easy to judge by image quality that the newly added image is a completely different person than the one documented in the article (the documented one died in 1960s so we can tell the diff). --M asem (t) 22:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a male model. User account reported to UAA Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Terry Considine
A brand-new user has made some major edits there with what looks to me like a promotional edge. Bringing it here in the hope of drawing another pair of eyes. --JBL (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Brian Krebs
It looks like some serious BLP violations are going on at Brian Krebs including posting of SSNs and other sensitive information by user Drugyn. Please can someone assist, I suggest protecting the article, banning the offending user and removing the sensitive data from the history. Shritwod (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Offending edits have been revdel, the used adding blocked for a week. --M asem (t) 15:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Dana MacDuff
Poorly sourced bio. I attempted to remove names of previous wives, unourced, non notable and BLP concerns. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and afd'd the article due to his unclear notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought of that after initiating discussion here; thank you, . Isn't there a speedy deletion rationale for articles created by blocked accounts, too? If so, that might be relevant here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:79AD:9587:3F30:15D7 (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is but the article has been around over 8 years and been contributed to by multiple editors that a speedy wouldn't be appropriate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it. I've seen it invoked a few times, but have never used it myself. 2601:188:180:B8E0:79AD:9587:3F30:15D7 (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Awards
I have on my watchlist, following some spectacularly lame edit warring. It is, frankly, revolting. There is no version of reality where we should be including the "VH1 Best Celebrity Bikini Body" award in an article.

Is there already a guideline on what to include in awards sections / lists? These are a plague on Wikipedia, with many software companies, for example, sending their PR teams to pad out articles with utterly unremarkable industry awards that everyone in the business knows are purely a promotional tool for the awarding publication (and an excuse for a lucrative "gala dinner"). In my view we should not include an award unless:
 * 1) There is an article for the award (e.g. Academy Awards), and ideally the specific award (Academy Award for Best Actor);
 * 2) The award is covered in reliable sources independent of the awarding body (i.e. provably not press releases).

See if you think the Latina Beauty Award for Styling Product for Holding your Style qualifies. Yes, really. Guy (help!) 17:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I know of no such policy, but I think there should be one. Of course, there are likely some I've never seen before, but WP:Awards doesn't cover it. (Perhaps we should change that to WP:Industry awards so someone can make a policy.) I see the same thing here a lot, because we get so many no-name porn stars cross this page, whose entire article is sourced to some industry awards nobody outside the industry has ever heard of before. I might as well have an article for receiving a barnstar. As you mentioned, I think this is at the intersection of multiple policies and guidelines, such as RS, GNG, Notability, Significance, etc... If it looks trivial, walks trivial, and quacks trivial, there's a good bet it's probably trivial, and I think a little common sense and editorial judgment is required. Zaereth (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Rear of the year I'll get my coat Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's one I was thinking of including as an example: it's widely discussed in the press, but you note that these days it tends not to be mentioned outside tabloids because the world has moved on. I would suggest the same might apply to the FHM 100 most beautiful women list. It exists mainly to sell copies of FHM, and most of us would know better than to imply that someone's merit as a human is in some way defined by how hot the editors of FHM think they are.
 * I think we should not include these. See also WP:HOTTIE for evidence of the evolving Wikipedia position on this - that used to point to a satirical essay saying "all hotties are notable" (itself a response to arguments for inclusion of biographies based on presence on similar lists). Guy (help!) 13:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the governing policies are DUE and NOT. I would agree with a guideline along the lines Guy suggests. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 21:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Coming at this problem for other awards like for video games, it should be: the award should be notable (the body of awards), or the award is being given out by a notable press or trade group with a document-able process that involves some type of nomination and voting stages that is vetted by those not involved. Those that are just decisions made by a single outlet or person, those strictly based on fan voting, (awards that include a mix of panel votes with fan votes can be included) or the like should not be included at all. This should generally help eliminate sill vanity or BLP-problematic awards, and leave those that have shown a reputation due to the notability of award or group giving the award. --M asem  (t) 21:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have created a starter for ten here: Awards and accolades. Guy (help!) 13:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good start. Thanks. Zaereth (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I would like to add my two cents here if that is ok. I think we should only include the major awards that are popular across the media (tv, movies, and music). I do not understand why we can’t use some particular bodies for sources like the people’s choice awards as all of the nominations are done by the fans and posted to the official website and I know some people like to update the tables as soon as they win before it’s even published online anywhere because they are watching it or listening to it. Same with the Pulitzer Prize as we should be able to list their website as the source since they are the official source. I also do not feel we should include Miss USA and other beauty pageant winners on their respective articles because it is only open to women who are slim, pretty teeth, most men (and some women’s) dream date. I think as a team we could compile a pretty complete impartial list of what awards throughout the world (soon universe as people on Mars may have their own awards and Wikipedia too) and to what is considered the valid source for them. Just thinking here. GalendaliaChat Me Up 10:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * What I would say is that we are not a newspaper, and we don't need to be as up to date as they are. We don't want to be a newspaper, because they are at the bottom of the barrel as far as reliable sources go. Why, you ask? Because they rush things and that causes too many mistakes. Way too many, especially at the beginning. We don't have their deadlines, so we can afford to take our time and get it right. The official website is a primary source, and it most certainly can be used, but it should be backed up by a secondary source. That means, we can wait until it is covered by Newsweek, or Time, or your local news, or whatever secondary source you like before we go back to the primary source. Everything you mentioned are things that are likely to be covered by some secondary source, so it's no big deal to wait for them. What we're trying to cut down on are these awards that someone just made up off the fly for the sole purpose of handing someone an award, and I think Guy's idea is an excellent way to filter a lot of those out. Zaereth (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think this should be moral or cultural. You are saying "we get so many no-name porn stars cross this page, whose entire article is sourced to some industry awards nobody outside the industry has ever heard of before". Why would we be concerned that "nobody outside the industry has ever heard of [the award] before"? Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)