Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive305

Gregory Tony
, There is an online "newspaper" that has posted info that is derogatory about this person. The online paper is the Florida Bulldog which has information that contradicts an actual newspaper's account Sun Sentinel. The main facts in dispute is that one says he was arrested and charged while the other says he was not arrested or charged and that it was self-defense. Neither source is listed at WP:RSP. If the counter argument based on a published paper can't be used to present the opposing position from what appears to be an online blog, then the entire event shouldn't be in the article at all.ToeFungii (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have edited the article in question. To centralize discussion, please comment at . Thank you, and stay well, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC) RSN section link updated 17:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why was the Philadelphia Daily News article mention also removed?  Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing the three articles, the controversy should be mentioned using this sentinel article as the primary reference since it discusses both the Philly News and Bulldog article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Both sides need presented for WP:NPOV and I think Morbidthoughts suggestion to use the Sun-Sentinel article is a good one. It's used as a source for over 9000 articles on WP and a traditional paper. Tony can't prove a negative, which would be he wasn't charged or arrested because if that's true there would be no docs saying that (even expunged or sealed records remain on a law enforcement inquiry for a record when he was hired). So all he can do is make the statements that he did which is what the Sun-Sentinel reports while the Bulldog does not (and other media picking up the story are basing their reporting on Bulldog thereby ignoring Tony's statements). So saying he was charged/arrested/etc is ok, but Tony's side that he was not should also be presented for a balanced view, ie pro/con.
 * (The RfC is whether the Bulldog is reliable only mentioning Tony because it's what raised the question, while whether/how this shooting should be reported is the purpose here on BLP noticeboard which isn't the place to argue whether the Bulldog is reliable.) ToeFungii (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The main thing is to report that he shot and killed a man when he was 14 and failed to disclose it when his job expected him to. You can note what he said about why he failed to disclose it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My issue is that multiple editors removed Tony's contradicting statements, so Morbidthoughts we agree, put both sides out there. To adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP both sides need to be aired. It's no different than Biden's sexual assault allegations. A claim has been made against him, and he disputes it and both sides are aired. If Tony's statements are correct that he was not arrested, then look at the copy of the paperwork in the Sun-Sentinel article and he did not lie. The paperwork asks have you been arrested or fingerprinted. If he was not arrested, then the answer no to that question is not a lie. Make no mistake, if he lied, and its proven, then that should be out there, but thus far there are no sources disclosed in any article incl Bulldog. The only paperwork ever referred to but not made public is a police report which apparently did not state there was an arrest or this would be over. This is like me asking when did you stop beating your wife. If you've never beat your wife, then how do you answer and prove it. The answer is you can't prove a negative which is why such a question would be objected to in court and sustained by a judge. I'll also grant that Tony could make this all clear if he simply gave a release to make the documents public. I'd like to know the truth so I wish he would, but doubt he will, but that does not change the facts as we know them now. Both sides must be presented or the issue should not be allowed on the page. ToeFungii (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have to give greater weight to what reliable sources say than Tony's interviews and recollections that may be self-serving. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You also have to balance the reliability and level of bias in the primary news source, which the Bulldog is a biased source if you dig into their donors and boards and articles. Using the Sun-Sentinel which itself put forth a pretty balanced presentation was the right thing to do. (Incidentally all, incl the S-S, source back to Bulldog). The fact that the FDLE has opened an investigation will give this clarity hopefully. ToeFungii (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't dig that deep. We most certainly can assess the reliability of sources here, but that's better done with the specific source in question. The Bulldog source is a well-written piece of journalism. It has a very neutral tone, but leans heavily toward interviews with family members who, albeit very emotional, were not there and really have no way of knowing what really happened. That info is unreliable, even if much of the rest is. Now from reading the article in it's context, there is only one use of the term "arrest", but I read from that is that they are not legal experts and have confused the technical definition of the term. What they probably meant and should have said was "indictment". For there to be a trial there first needs to be an indictment. This occurs when the grand jury decides there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime. You can be indicted and charged without ever being arrested, but you don't get a trial without being indicted and charged, and a lot of people, including reporters, do not know the difference.


 * The Bulldog source never actually says he was arrested, and gives no details about an arrest. It actually says he turned himself in, which in itself doesn't mean arrested. Once someone is arrested the clock starts ticking and there is a limited time before the case must be brought before a court, so it's not uncommon for someone to be indicted without an arrest. All the Bulldog source says that he failed to report an arrest, which is an obvious error on their part because that's not what the form asks for. It asks if he had a criminal record, which is not the same thing.


 * Now it's up to the authorities to decide whether there was any wrongdoing on his application. They will decide if he actually does have a record, because they will be able to access his sealed files. But the Bulldog sources never once says he was arrested. Zaereth (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand, . I wasn't referring to the Bulldog. I was referring to the Philadelphia papers that both reported he was charged with murder. Tony answered no to an application question that also asked whether he was charged so the issue of whether he was actually arrested is a deflection and irrelevant. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Zaereth, you made me go back and re-read all the articles. The question shown on the S-S was "have you ever been arrested, charged, received a notice of summons to appear for any criminal violation." as well as "...suspect in any crim inv." as well as "...ever fingerprinted." It would be cutting real fine hairs to think the answer of no would be correct if bail was in fact set, or at least in my experience going back to the mid-90s. Morbidthoughts, I think we are more in agreement than not because the Bulldog is no longer a cite which was my issue and I had already agreed with you generally about the Philly articles other than they weren't sourced. I'd make additional comments but I'll limit it because it'd be me speculating based on almost 20 years experience but almost exclusively at the federal level. My original issue was, and I think has been resolved, that the Bulldog is not a reliable enough source, and referenced a police report that obviously did not say there was an arrest (which would not be unusual based on the articles) and otherwise was based on interviews. So hanging your hat on that Tony's denials are self-serving is no different than interviewing the other family who too would give self-serving comments so there is no reason to exclude Tony's denials which are in the article now although I think they could be placed better but they're well enough. Morbidthoughts, if you think that I'm in any way advocating that Tony was truthful, I am not, but his side deserves to be stated if the allegations are made. I'm glad that the FDLE is looking at it, and I hope they work it quickly but with the Covid-19 that's probably wishful thinking. ToeFungii (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Subramanian Swamy: anti-Muslim?
Subramanian Swamy is an Indian politician who has called for the disenfranchisement of Muslims in India and the demolition of Mosques in India, as well as saying that Muslims in India were "not in an equal category" to non-Muslims in terms of protection before the law and India's constitution. Can Wikipedia described these views as "anti-Muslim"? One editor argues that it's a BLP violation (the same editor tried to add text in Wikipedia's voice describing these actions as a counter-terrorism strategy), and has been edit-warring "anti-Muslim" out of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I would like to bring in an opposing view and add some more details that haven't been included. In interviews the politician has said that he is not anti-Muslim and he even welcomes all the Pakistani Muslims who want to live in India. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbyxx0-pFHg
 * Regarding the demolition of Mosques - he's suggested for removal of those 300 particular mosques that were built by earlier demolishing Hindu temples. Regarding the disenfranchisement, he's asked them to be disenfranchised until they accept their ancestors were Hindus. While I agree that in definitely unfavorable for Muslims, I think more than an anti-muslim person, that makes him a Hindu nationalist (which is already mentioned in the main paragraph of the article). And what has mentioned isn't enough to mention the "anti-muslim" thing in the first three lines of the article. Amazingcaptain (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I had a bit of a look and the lede looks better now without, the bit of a stretch so high in his profile that he He is known for his Islamophobia. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone were fired from Harvard for writing that blacks should not be allowed to vote in the United States unless they recognize that the US is an intrinsically white nation, and this firing was covered in the international press (incl. BBC News, NY Times), I'm pretty sure it would indisputably be in the lead. But alas, this relates to Muslims so it apparently can't be bigotry (note that I asked whether we are allowed at all to say these comments are "anti-Muslim", not exclusively whether they belong in the lead) and it can't be notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I noted that because you had edit warred the claim back into the lede. Is not not just possible to report his actions in the related section informing the reader without the direct accusation presented as if a statement of fact? Govindaharihari (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, if someone calls for the disenfranchisement of Jews unless they recognize that the US is an intrinsically protestant nation, would you say it's an accusation rather than statement of fact that this person is anti-Semitic? But of course, sordid bigoted speech against Muslims can't be described as anti-Muslim. This reminds me of this vote by the way (no POV indeed...). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing the need to compare other stuff exists. As for that comment of mine, at that time it was my position and I stand by it when said it was relating to a situation from 6 months ago, I also stand by my comment here that you have indeed edit warred this detail into the lede today. Anyway, I just wanted to make a simple comment, as that is what was requested by your post here, please take it as just that, as a disclaimer, I am not a hindu and I am not a muslim, I just saw the post and went and read a few articles and passed a comment on the question. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I offer no opinion as to whether the article should call him "anti-Muslim " or not but I do think it should be clarified that he called for the removal of mosques that were (purportedly?) built on the sites of demolished Hindu temples (hundreds of years ago?) not just "he said 300 mosques should be torn down " without giving any reasoning for what sounds like an arbitrary number. Smeat75 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That was present, however removed by them in this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subramanian_Swamy&diff=957008653&oldid=957008130 Amazingcaptain (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not what RS report. This is what NYT says, "The article called for the demolition of 300 mosques, some built over temples." Nor does a source like the BBC mention that qualifier: "Mr Swamy, a trained economist, recommended demolishing hundreds of mosques in the article.." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * [This] is the original article that the NYT reports that has caused all the controversy. He's clearly said to remove those mosques that were built at temple sites. Amazingcaptain (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * RS do not consider this necessary context. Neither do I. After all, the extermination of Muslims in Kosovo is not reasonably justified because they live in the territory that Christian Serbs lived in hundreds of years ago. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't feel these comparisons to other countries and other situations are helpful. The purpose of this notice board is to get outside opinion, not for the editors of the BLP to continue their conflict at another venue,  and as an outsider I feel it should say something like "he called for the removal of numerous mosques,  some of which may have been built on the sites of Hindu temples hundreds of years ago". As it is stands now,  it just says "he called for 300 mosques to be removed" without giving any reasoning which makes him seem arbitrary and aggressive . I'd say that's very POV and a BLP violation. Smeat75 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll need multiple reliable secondary sources describing him as such before inserting that label as a description. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Caroline Calloway
Hello!

I wanted to inquire about recent changes made to Calloway's Wikipedia page. Calloway's page is currently semi-locked, eminently used to mitigate vandalism on specific pages, eliminate internet trolling and protect the subject of the page. In addition to the lock, recent edits excluded Calloway's financial fundraising and contributions to COVID-19 relief as well as the three part installment of her essays on http://IamCarolineCalloway.com had been removed. Lastly, Calloway's occupation as an "Influencer" was changed to "Nothing". It seems as if someone maliciously sought to tamper with Calloway's work. The changes made are both incorrect and biased and are potentially libelous. Attached are many articles about Caroline's work as an artist, writer and influencer:

https://www.iamcarolinecalloway.com/ https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/apr/28/caroline-calloway-survived-being-cancelled https://www.documentjournal.com/2020/04/caroline-calloway-is-the-unlikely-antihero-of-the-corona-era/

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiddo12345 (talk • contribs)
 * Are you connected to Calloway in any way? Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing someone's occupation to "Nothing" is going to be a BLP violation 99.99% of the time but Morbidthoughts has resolved that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caroline_Calloway&diff=956925430&oldid=956872631]. As for the rest, while we allow the limited use of self-published sources for BLPs, someone's "three part installment of her essays" is not something we're going to mention unless it has sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Only one of your sources, The Guardian is a clear reliable secondary source. I have not assesses Document Journal.Nil Einne (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed, rewrote, or recited several assertions that were cited to a first-person essay by Calloway's former friend for The Cut. Even though, there seemed to be fact checkers involved, it is still a WP:PRIMARY source with claims about another person. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin: Comparison to Hitler
The Putin page includes two long sections where all kinds of politicians and pundit debate whether he's like Hitler or not. This seems like a BLP violation. It's also just weird and unencyclopedic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. Putin may not be a good person but I don't think that sort of content has any value here and comparing people to Hitler is typically not a good thing.  Springee (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously WP:UNDUE and a breach of WP:NPOV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The stable version had just a couple of sentences, not 13 paragraphs. Editorially it is over-cited and I don't really like the long list of wikilinked names (maybe move them to a footnote?), but probably due. I think addition of a sentence or two from historians noting that Putin is not Hitler (which can be gleaned from Guodata's expansion) would help with neutrality and also serve to show that a brief mention of this viewpoint is due. I do agree that the proposed expanded version quickfails and I have reverted per BLP. VQuakr (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the content even in VQuakr's version is undue, especially as its own section. I also don't particularly see the relevance of the comparisons when made by non-experts. Maybe it would be relevant to include something in the section about Ukraine, but the sources should be high quality and preferably discussing multiple instances of the Hitler comparison, not just a bunch of miscellaneous sources discussing single individual instances. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Should be removed entirely. I see a huge list of politicians who have compared him with Hitler but Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX and such sections are highly capable of setting a bad precedent. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Should be removed per all of the above. A few historical figures aside, comparisons to Hitler are usually ill-founded. Yet you don't even see such a section on pages of comparable genocidal dictators. Might be worth a brief mention b/c of Ukraine, with a counter balance but certainly not its own section. Still, it's all attributed to other politicians who may have their own axes to grind. --Griboski (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It should be removed entirely. Amazingcaptain (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. IMHO, any editor found comparing a living person to Hitler, irrespective of "sources", should be blocked at sight. — kashmīrī  TALK  10:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. So, Godwin's law applies to Wikipedia articles too? Maybe it was inevitable once Godwin joined the WMF. Cabayi (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Shincheonji Church of Jesus: current alleged persecutions
Greetings

I wrote it to Oversight, who advised me to address it here instead (see their reply below).

Self-paste follows: -- I may be overly sensitive here and inexperienced (see my edit and WP history) but I have just come across a danger of using a current event and a WP article as a basis for witch hunts, harm and more. I am using this tool for the first time and am typing it on a mobile early in the morning, so please excuse brevity and style.

The article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shincheonji_Church_of_Jesus

the presumed danger here: https://en.shincheonji.kr/bv_covid19Response_9607 and my, maybe naive, public musings about it on its Talk page, diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shincheonji_Church_of_Jesus&diff=943849273&oldid=943847663 [This talk section updated since then]

Please monitor it, lock it, or else tell me I am being paranoid here.

Best regards

Zezen, far away from Korea and without any COI -

Oversight wrote: Unfortunately, the edits associated with your request cannot be suppressed under our policy <" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="" style="">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight>;. If you think this matter needs attention from administrators or editors, please visit the appropriate noticeboard (<" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="" style="">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Noticeboards>;). Thank you for sharing your concerns and please contact us again if you have any in the future.

Sincerely, Primefac The English Wikipedia Oversight team

Signing off for archiving bot Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Max Baer Jr
The article cites Filmography, List of Credits, 1982, The Circle Family, unknown role, Television Movie. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286546/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 states that Max Baer Jr. played the part of Hearst Circle.

Signing off for archiving bot Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Alice S. Fisher
Comments are appreciated on whether a Senator’s opening statement from a Judiciary Committee hearing of Alice S. Fisher are appropriate to include in a nominee’s bio. Talk:Alice S. Fisher JZ at LW (talk)

Signing off for archiving bot Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This request has now been addressed. Thank you! JZ at LW (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Rubin (journalist)
The Jennifer Rubin (journalist) page has had some serious problems with tendentious editing for a long while now. Because Rubin is willing to criticize Trump, recognize that climate change is a thing and a bunch of other things that are contrary to what some claim are conservative orthodoxy these days, a number of rightwing POV pusher are trying to remove any mention of her as being "conservative" and are trying to fill the page with poorly sourced critiques from unreliable and deprecated right-wing sources. The page needs more eyes and probably some kind of protection. It's getting tiresome to deal with it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's already been semiprotected five times and every recent IP edit has been vandalism or a BLP issue. I've semi'd it for 3 months this time. Black Kite (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Surya Shekhar Ganguly wiki page
Would anyone please explain the following points.

1) Which portion(s) of the article is not written "from neutral point of view"? 2) Which evidences are "poorly sourced"? References of few old achievements/medals are are being searched on the net and soon will be updated on the page. 3) What is actually meant by "Clean up" of the page? Is it expected to be done by the contributor or the Wikipedia admin group? 4) Is there any other issues about the page that admin group want to be discussed?

We have no intention to go against the rules/regulations of wikipedia. We are ready to cooperate once clearly understood.

Diptansusengupta (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Diptansu Sengupta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diptansusengupta (talk • contribs) 10:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Brian Krebs
Just two days out of page protection and this article has been vandalised by accounts BrianKrebs3 and Briankrebs20, with links to a site containing personal information. This appears to violate BLP policies. I requested page protection again, but could someone purge the offending edits? Shritwod (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Protected, users globally locked, revdel done, pending Oversight. Guy (help!) 11:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Summer Worden
I came across Summer Worden which is listed at a noticeboard for troubled articles. It has relevance here because it may be a case of WP:BLPCRIME. Just asking project members to have a look and see what they think. The question for reviewers is, does this involves a precedent-setting lawsuit which may be notable even if the individual is not, and if so what should be done – should the suit have an article that mentions the people involved? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If the person is not notable, then we shouldn't have an article on them. If something else is notable, we could have an article on that thing, perhaps moving the article so it's no longer a biography like somethings happens with article on people when what's notable is their death or something. But frankly precedent setting or not, I don't think that lawsuit deserves its own article. However it could be covered in other articles, maybe Space law for example. In particular, it seems likely there's no question her former spouse is notable and while we shouldn't let coverage of the lawsuit become WP:UNDUE it seems to me the basics could be (and mostly are) covered in her article. Normally there may be questions whether we should name Worden at all if she isn't notable but IMO given the case etc there's likely justification to do so and likely to be consensus against removing the name. So assuming Worden isn't notable, the article should simply be turned into a redirect IMO to the article on her former spouse. There's probably no need for an AfD since I don't think the article has to be deleted although some prefer to use AfD even if the intended outcome is redirect/merge without actually deleting the article, but IMO it's generally unneeded and causes more confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nil Einne. Worden doesn't appear notable since the majority of the sources on her page are related to the lawsuit. I think redirecting the page to her former spouse, Anne McClain, makes the most sense. I also agree with Nil that the lawsuit doesn't deserve its own page, but could potentially be discussed in another article. Quorum816 (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Frederika Alexis Cull
Original heading: "Frederika cull page"

Good afternoon,

There have been a lot of changes made to frederika culls page over the last couple of months and there are a number of errors that have been incorectly accepted as true.

Frederika was born in jakarta. The information about her mother is mostly incorrect including the spelling of her first name!

The page is being sabotaged by jealous online bullies and changes should be locked after we correct the page back to its original state. You can contact me at

Thanks Psymon peers 36.71.139.22 (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Liz Crokin
Your feedback would be welcome at this discussion about whether the available sources meet the bar required by WP:BLPSOURCES for inclusion of material about conspiracy theories in the article Liz Crokin. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Alison Roman article
Could use more eyes at. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

List of LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom
There's a discussion taking place at Talk:List of LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom about the inclusion of living people - some of whom don't appear to be openly LGBT - on this list. Input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Coatrack material at Rick Bright‎
Recently I removed some material from the BLP Rick Bright that was a recent add by  []. My talk page comments were added here []. The primary concern is that the content was not about what Bright said, rather it was about what another person said in testimony after Bright. It also looks like a wp:coatrack used to insert information critical of the Trump administration's response to the COVID-19 pandemic into an article not about that subject. I think it would be helpful if other editors could weigh in. I trust that Activists intent is good faith but far too often they are inserting UNDUE material into articles and often they are using conspiratorial tone.[],[]. So in this case I'm looking for both editor opinion on the content as well as similar edits to this one (often added to BLP). Springee (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The editor has added similarly questionable/coatrack material to Alek_Skarlatos here []. I'm not sure how we can consider a phrase like "Republican Dr. Art Robinson, controversial scientist,[37], global warming denialist, and anti-evolutionist also filed for the seat." to be IMPARTIAL in tone much less why it would be in an article about a different person.  Springee (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The material has been disputed as being a little off-topic in an article about Rick Bright. But in no way did it violate BLP or add anything derogatory about anyone, so I can't imagine why this was reported here. (Note: I am involved at the discussion.) -- MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I had debated NPON or here. I picked here because the pattern is similar to the issues with the previous edits (see the links).  The Akarlatos article may be more BLP issue.  I'm happy to close the discussion here and reopen it at NPOV.  I think the bigger issue is multiple examples of coatracking (and failing to follow BRD when challenged). Springee (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * There's no rule against reporting to the wrong board, and who knows, maybe something helpful will come out of it. To me, the first diff looks like going from reporting the issue and the subject's position to trying to sell that position. It's like coming across an article about physicist, and finding its more about selling their theories than it is about the person.


 * Same but opposite in the fifth diff. The info about Robinson is totally irrelevant to the subject, and not only is undue but irrelevantly undue. The article is not about Robinson or the other candidate. There is no need to list their positions or compare campaign funds (the article is not about the campaign either). And I think there may be some BLP issues with the labels, as these are subjective labels and need either very good sourcing and attribution to someone with the expertise to make that call, or he describes himself that way (not as good though, and should still be attributed). However, it is irrelevant to this article. All in all, it looks like a little activism rather than reporting, no pun intended. Zaereth (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Tedros Adhanom
There are multiple issues at this page. Because Adhanom is director general of the World Health Organization and is the target of both criticism and conspiracy theory, his page could really use help from editors who have time.

Some editors have correctly noted that much of the article is written in an unencyclopedic manner, hence this tag. However, we should fix up the article to remove the tag asap.

Unfortunately the section on COVID-19 is highly unbalanced and needs attention. -Darouet (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't find the Tedros Adhanom section obviously problematic. Can you be more specific? Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I had made some corrections . You can see there's also a discussion at the bottom of Talk:Tedros Adhanom. Regards, -Darouet (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to include notable, sourced and neutral data about a BND report regarding Tedros, and the WHO's response to the allegations. This has been reverted twice now by User:Thucydides411, claiming it is a POV addition. I started a discussion on the talk page after his first revert, but the user has decided to refuse to engage in that discussion. Does anyone here see a reason this data should not be included? — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 07:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I haven't "refused to engage." Not everyone edits round the clock. I have now explained my objections to your additions. In short, I think they tend to turn the page into an attack page. There is no BND report, as far as I can see from Der Spiegel. There is a claim that Der Spiegel sources vaguely to the BND. Whether the claim comes from an anonymous official, an unmentioned document, or somewhere else is not stated by Der Spiegel. The claim - that the Chinese government asked the WHO to cover up information that the Chinese government itself had already publicized - in itself is highly dubious. There should be stronger confirmation of this claim before it is included in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have responded in detail, and with a myriad of additional sources that cover the BND accusation, at the talk page of the article. There is no logical reason to exclude such notable information. It should definitely not be stated as if it is a fact, but my edit was carefully done to ensure that both the accusation and denials were given weight. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 09:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Your edit claimed that the BND had released an intelligence report stating that Xi Jinping had pressured Tedros Adhanom to delay reporting human-to-human transmission and delay declaring a PHEIC. Der Spiegel does not claim the existence of any such report. Der Spiegel says, "Nach Erkenntnissen des BND" ("according to the BND") and "Nach Einschätzung des BND" ("in the estimation of the BND"). That's it. Whether someone in the BND spoke to Der Spiegel, whether there is a BND report - all this is unclear. The problem with this claim, beyond its weak sourcing, is that it contradicts what is publicly known. The Chinese government publicized the existence of human-to-human transmission on 20 January, yet Der Spiegel is claiming that they somehow heard from the BND (in some unspecified way) that Xi pressured Tedros to cover up human-to-human transmission on 21 January. This is an extremely dubious claim, and the sourcing is very thin. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Der Spiegel cited intelligence from the country's Federal Intelligence Service" (NZ Herald). If the word "report" you feel is somehow wrong, fine take that out... "intelligence" in this context has the same meaning as "intelligence report". The sourcing is not remotely thin, I've showed that The Telegraph, the Associated Press, and even the WHO itself have covered this BND claim, and the subsequent denials. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 23:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)