Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive313

Charlie Kirk - BLP vio

 * See  for the closure of the parallel discussion about the same disputed content. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Noncompliant material was restored in Turning Point USA. The material is a BLP violation, it is irrelevant to the article and noncompliant with WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. The attempt is to content smears Kirk via guilt by association. An administrator needs to take action to stop the editors removal of the BLP vio by the editors who keep restoring it. Atsme Talk 📧 13:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason that you have accused me of trying to smear someone on a noticeboard, linking to an edit of mine, calling for admin action, without notifying me? You know that there is a lengthy, open RfC on this. O3000 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was unexpectedly delayed, and hopefully I now have everything fixed at the article TP, and alerts properly made. Do you also need a DS alert for AP2? Rhetorical question, no need to answer, you're aware. You already know what BLP policy states, and I consider guilt by association using SYNTH a BLP violation despite the sources supporting irrelevant material. They don't support guilt by association. You knew when you restored that material that it was a BLP vio and that it was removed twice - 1st time here by and restored by . Then I removed the section and you restored it, claiming it was still under discussion. We don't discuss BLP violations - we remove them. You were aware of this edit by  when he removed another BLP vio in that same article per the following edit summary: choosing to err on the side of caution with potential BLP violations). That RfC was opened June 19th, and the last comment was made June 27th, with the exception of my comments today while trying to get everything updated. The section title 2020 Presidential election has nothing to do with the content; then we have Turning Point USA, Turning Point Action and Students for Trump ALL legally separate entities until Turning Point Action purchased the assets of Students for Trump - but still a legally separate entity from Turning Point USA regardless of Charlie Kirk. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the attempt was to connect Kirk to Lambert and create guilt by association. It is very difficult to AGF with comments like this and this - clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:OWN and WP:OR. And the tone by  has been far from dispassionate or collegial in a collaborative way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mmm, help please with where the BLP vio is to this non-American. Kirk created a new group called Turning Point Action (which is obviously related to Turning Point USA) and did this by taking over Students for Trump, and if you look at the article for that group, it makes it clear that Kirk took it over, and it makes it clear that Kirk took it over after the previous characters ended up in legal issues.  Are you saying that the reference to Fournier and Lambert in the Turning Point USA article is an issue, and if so how woiuld you word it? Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Black Kite, that would probably skirt WP:OR. Turning Point Action is a 501(c)(4), and Turning Point USA is a 501(c)(3). There is a big difference legally between the two, and what they are allowed to do. We cannot/should not conflate the two which would be an embarrassment to the encyclopedia. If there was a BLP for Charlie Kirk, then he can be listed as founder or organizer of those non-profits, as long as we state the facts. I'm sure there is going to be bias in how these article will be treated but our job is to leave our biases at login - not an easy task, but what we must do. Atsme Talk 📧 19:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not tell me what I think.
 * That it is a BLP vio is your opinion. The RfC statement said nothing about BLP.
 * This is the second time you brought this here.. You did not get a ruling that there was any BLP vio then and are trying again.
 * The RfC is still open.
 * El C's revert was unrelated. As far as I can see, El C has not removed this long standing text.
 * You didn't answer my question. O3000 (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody's telling you what you think. I see what the edits tell me.
 * It is a BLP vio, not an opinion and I provided the diffs that support what I say. Yes, the RfC statement said nothing about it, and that's the problem.
 * Wrong - get your facts straight. The first time was about this removal and this revert of a BLP vio. El C removed it again. The material is no longer in the article, and it should not be.
 * The RfC is still open after nearly 30 days of ignoring the obvious consensus? Got WP:STONEWALLING?
 * El C's revert was related to that BLP vio, not to this second BLP vio. Re-read, and be better informed.
 * Your actions answer your own question.
 * You would be wise to revert your edit and focus on the BLP vio, SYNTH and NPOV issues, Forgive me, but I couldn't care less about the politics here - my focus is on credibility and how our readers view our articles; therefore, adherence to BLP, NPOV and NOR are paramount. We have enough criticism in mainstream media about NPOV issues, and scrubbing articles to favor a certain political party. The Intercept, WSJ, Slate, Medium, Nature, University of Warwick, MIT, and on and on. Atsme Talk 📧 19:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You would be wise to strike your PAs, in the first post claiming I was attempting to smear someone, and the second post claiming I knew my edit to be a BLP vio. Both are false accusations. As for further discussion, there was already lengthy discussion when you brought this here the first time. And the links you just posted are completely irrelevant. O3000 (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You violated BLP and now you're trying to make it personal against me? Provide diff of PAs as I did in my comments. Atsme Talk 📧 19:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * After linking to an edit of mine, you stated: The attempt is to smear Kirk via guilt by association. The second: You knew when you restored that material that it was a BLP vio The Pas are in this thread. These are false accusations. And I have NOT violated BLP. You are the one that has been making this personal from the beginning of the thread. O3000 (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what you consider PAs, but you don't see a BLP vio? Regardless of whether it was intentional or otherwise, the BLP vio is obvious. What I care about is strict adherence to BLP policy - that's our job. The paragraph states In May 2019, Kirk created a new 501(c)(4) organization, a political action committee intended to target Democrats, called Turning Point Action, which purchased the assets of Students for Trump. It goes on to explain who founded Students for Trump, and that Lambert was one of the founders, that he left the organization and pleaded guilty to felonies and faces prison time. The paragraph ends with After Lambert's arrest in April, Students for Trump distanced themselves from him. It doesn't end with Turning Point Action distanced themselves, or that Kirk distanced himself, or that Turning Point USA distanced themselves - no. If the article is about Turning Point USA, why is that paragraph even included, and what does it have to do with the election if not to imply "guilt by association" in an attempt to smear the political opposition? It was not warranted criticism about Turning Point USA cited to a high quality RS - no, it was designed to discredit Turning Point USA and Turning Point Action and Charlie Kirk who heads up the two entities. That is what the paragraph implies. Convince me otherwise, please. Atsme Talk 📧 19:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * AGAIN, you accused me of attempting to smear someone. You then claimed that I knew it was a BLP vio, a falsehood. These are personal attacks whether or not it is a BLP vio. I have never attempted to smear anyone and have never attempted to violate BLP. All I did was restore text under RfC discussion. O3000 (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been a month since the RFC has been started, and it should be closed by an admin. Further the BLP concerns can be removed without removing the entire section per WP:ONUS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I would think since the text has been around for quite some time; onus would be on removal, particularly since there is an active RfC. You can request closure at . O3000 (talk)
 * You think wrong. WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Consensus is not established by how long the material has been there. It's clear that part of this material is disputed. The fact that there is an RFC discussion does not sidestep the removal. When consensus is established from the RFC to include, then the material can be reinstated. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS is incorrect in this case. Standard practice has always been that longstanding material is presumed to enjoy consensus, and (with obviously-relevant exception of clear-cut WP:BLP violations) a consensus must be demonstrated to remove longstanding text. See WP:QUO and WP:NOCON - when there is no consensus (outside of BLP concerns), the standard is to retain the existing text, not to remove it.  I find it baffling that longstanding editors could be unfamiliar with that. --Aquillion (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOCON says (bold added as most relevant).  Schazjmd   (talk)  00:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record here, WP:ONUS does apply because the material was challenged as a WP:BLP vio, and probably also applies to WP:BLPGROUP, all of which is further reinforced by WP:GUILT, an ArbCom principle that clearly states: Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties. Consensus also confirms agreement by the participants that the text as originally proposed did not comply with multiple policies when evaluated as a whole. The reason the material was challenged and removed is stated in the edit summary: (→‎2020 Presidential election: Remove BLP violation per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi#Guilt by association) If further clarity is needed about the content that was juxtaposed in the paragraph to create "guilt by association", I suggest opening a case at ARCA. Atsme Talk 📧 00:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It was challenged by an editor known for challenging material that went against their political views. That editor than violated WP:PA and WP:AGF three times, making false accusations and asking for admin action on two pages with no notification against the accused. and was cautioned on their TP by an admin. Are you sure you want this to go to ARCA? Particularly since this is all settled.. What is your goal here? O3000 (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, this is out of hand,, , and have all three removed text under an unclosed RfC discussion despite the fact that all three took part in the RfC. This is not the correct process here. O3000 (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * These aggressive tactics need to be countered by aggressive tactics. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * BLP takes precedence over an RfC in progress. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition, BLP demands that "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion last month here on this very subject. There is no consensus that there is a BLP vio after a great deal of discussion both here and on the article talk page. O3000 (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus for inclusion reached in that discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it was a completely different discussion and different BLP vio. El C removed the material that Nomo & BMK had replaced when it was challenged as a BLP vio - not unlike what is happening now. Atsme Talk 📧 20:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We should not be engaging in BLP violations, regardless of an RfC being open. Doesn't matter who put it in. Just be the better editor and remove. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus that this is a BLP vio, regardless of Atsme's personal attacks. Just be the better editor and follow WP process. O3000 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP Process is to remove BLP violations. If there is disagreement then leave it out until there is consensus to include, whether that be locally, from an RfC, a third opinion, or dispute resolution. Personal attacks like those from, or any other editor, such as those here and here should be avoided. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No idea why you are bringing up unrelated personal attacks. I am talking about two leveled by Atsme in her first post in this thread, not only making false accusations on a noticeboard, but not informing. As for removal, Atsme removed a great deal of text; most of which is nothing like a BLP vio. O3000 (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to focus on the BLP vio you restored, and try to understand why it is a BLP vio because that is all I've been discussing. Atsme Talk 📧 20:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Declaring yourself correct and making false accusations against others does not convince. O3000 (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How about someone explain the alleged BLP violation and that can be discussed separately from the rest of the content removed. It seems like there are two separate but linked issues being discussed here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And now, as you've seen, we have an editor with five edits removing more material. O3000 (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OMG, time for popcorn while we watch the mud-slinging! Anyways, quick outside opinion, I would tend to agree that the OP's diff link does look like a heavy-handed attempt to discuss somebody named "Lambert" in an article that is not about somebody named "Lambert". Also a technical note, BLP and RFC are parallel processes, but while theoretically BLP should be more urgent and treated as such (but in practice sadly is not, as this noticeboard shows) - this is about an article named "Turning Point USA", so does not necessarily meet BLP criteria (that said, of course LPs have rights outside their own biographies; but that's not strictly the use of BLP) Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * BLP applies to any biographical content of a living person, no matter where on Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , but in this case there is no question that the material is factually accurate, and external sources mention it in the context of TPUSA and Kirk, so there is no BLP violation (and this is not the first time Atsme has raised exactly this assertion and failed to get consensus for her idiosyncratic interpretatiuon of BLP).
 * To be clear: Atsme ios allowed not to like that content. She is allowed to argue for its removal via the usual arguments we make for inclusion or exclusion of material. But to continue to insist that only her version is acceptable and that inclusion is a BLP violation is, by this point, disruptive: it's well over a month since she started this WP:CRYBLP campaign, this is her second trip here with it, and as far as I can tell she has not modified her absolutist position at all, despite numerous experienced and independent editors pointing out to her that there is no apparent violation. Guy (help!) 07:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, there are a series of recent edits before protection that inserted original research and editorializing in a distorted attempt at NPOV. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The material about the financial crime is absolutely UNDUE for the article. I agree with the BLP problem with respect to guilt by association. It's not a bright line violation in my eyes but the concern is legitimate. However, even if there were no BLP concerns the material is clearly UNDUE and comes off as a coatrack. Springee (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There's just no BLP violation here. For the purposes of this board, that's what matters. There's a weight argument, there's edit warring going on, there are procedural issues, there are even some copyvio concerns that have come up along the way ... but not BLP. Ultimately the outcome of the RfC is fairly clear at this point. Include the first part, and not the last part. Let's just implement that, block the SPA that's over 3RR, trout for the WP:CRYBLPing, lots of trouts for edit warring over RfC-pending material, and let's move on. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with every word. O3000 (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made a WP:NAC of the discussion. Full reasoning both for taking this action and for the basis of the close is explained in detail in the close itself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a case of WP:CRYBLP (and indeed WP:STICK). When Atsme says "noncompliant material was restored", she "forgot" to mention that she deleted it and was reverted, or that her idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:BLP does not have consensus, after extensive discussion. The events are widely reported, if Atsme chooses to read this as an accusation in Wikipedia voice of campaign finance fruad then that's her problem not ours. Guy (help!) 21:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why, because my position aligned with consensus and yours did not? Déjà vu! WP:STICK indeed, and I'll add WP:BULLY. Your words were hurtful, Guy, and totally unwarranted. It looks to me like your purpose here now is not to move along and allow this discussion to end; rather, it looks more like you're here to rally your team against me. What exactly do you mean "that's her problem not ours"? Why are you isolationg me from "ours"? Who is "ours", Guy? If you and "ours" are unable to recognize blatant BLP vios, that is a project-wide problem, and not mine alone. Refresh your memory:
 * And don't forget WP:GUILT the next time you want to debate keeping unfounded allegations of racism in an article where it doesn't belong or you think it's ok to juxtapose a guilty plea by Mr A with an intro to Ms B. Atsme Talk 📧 07:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, because your position didn't align with consensus. There is no BLP violation, regardless of how often and how dogmatically you assert the contrary. Here's what I said a month ago, when you raised this before:
 * The contention that Kirk is an "all lives matter" troll is trivially proved by reference to his Twitter feed.
 * I am not calling him racist. I am calling him Trump-train "all lives matter" radical right. That doesn't mean racist. It does mean sufficiently unconcerned about racism to make comments like "all lives matter" when it's the Black people who are being killed by police.
 * Trump is not racist either, in my view. He is just fine with racism when it's to his benefit - whether that is excluding black tenants so white people will pay higher rent, or pursuing a white nationalist immigration policy. I think he is genuinely puzzled that comments like "shithole countries" attract opprobrium. America is on fire, and Trump decides that it would be a great idea to threaten long jail sentences for pulling down statues of traitors erected in the 20th Century by racists pushing back at black equality. I don't think he's a racist, but the racists certainly do.
 * I do think that Charlie Kirk, friend of the Trump family and vociferous Trump booster, is smarter and has a much wider exposure to differing views. It is vastly harder for him to plausibly argue that he genuinely thinks "all lives matter" is an appropriate response to "black lives matter". But the most likely explanation is not actual racism on his part, but that racism is less important to him than tribal point-scoring.
 * To pretend that Charlie Kirk is anything other than completely cool with racism from his "tribe", based on his recent tweets, is wilful denialism.
 * "If Black Lives mattered to Planned Parenthood, why would they position 70% of their abortion clinics in predominantly African-American communities?"
 * "If black lives mattered to Black Lives Matter, they would be protesting outside of Planned Parenthood not trying to tear down statues of Abraham Lincoln"
 * "Planned Parenthood is more systemically racist than any other "institution" in America"
 * "The European Union is putting travel restrictions on all Americans. Will the media call the EU racist for protecting their continent?"
 * this arm-waving denial of systemic racism.
 * Again,. I am not calling him racist. I am saying that if you want to remove any mention of his involvement in racially charged statements, you have a hill to climb on NPOV grounds.
 * Nothing has changed. It's exactly the same with Tucker Carlson. These are prominent radical right figures whose response to protests over the killing of Black people is to downplay them, the "all lives matter" approach. Some sources conclude that this indicates racism on the part of Kirk and Carlson. My view is that this is not racism, it's about creating a culture where it's fine to say the quiet part out loud. Guy (help!) 07:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —aren't you being ludicrously biased? Their response to "the killing of Black people is to downplay them"? It is laughable that you could say that on a Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm curious, have you read a newspaper since May 25? I'd think it would take less than eight minutes and forty-six seconds to work out that Black Lives Matter is about Black people being killed by police, and that "all lives matter" and (even worse) "blue lives matter" are specifically designed to dismiss and trivialise this.
 * "If black lives mattered to Black Lives Matter, they would be protesting outside of Planned Parenthood" casts BLM in the light of the hyper-privileged mindset of anti-abortion activism. It's grotesque. Guy (help!) 21:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, ludicrous in what manner? Isn’t this obvious? The slogan “Black lives matter” to anyone who understands English grammar, means that they matter too; as everyone already knows that white lives matter. The fact that some folk counter with “all lives matter” as a response to ‘black lives matter” is an attempt to belittle a centuries old problem that doesn’t appear to matter in some quarters. It’s a slogan. Slogans are brief. You can’t explain details in a sign. Did Rousseau actually suggest that people will eat the rich (“mangeront les riches”)? And comparing this to Planned Parenthood doesn’t belong anywhere near a Wikipedia discussion. O3000 (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the "the hyper-privileged mindset of anti-abortion activism" to which you refer, ? Isn't abortion a question that depends mostly on one's view of the morality of that medical procedure rather than a question that depends on how "privileged" or "unprivileged" a person might be? Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They are privileged because they were not aborted, so therefore they can be activists. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt the reference is to the "privilege" of being alive. More likely the reference is to the concept of social privilege or some variant of that or some related concept. Except for the Grateful Dead most of us take life for granted. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , anti-abortion activism comes from privilege. In much of the world, safe, legal abortions are unavailable either because of theocratic government or lack of healthcare. And as practised in America, it is almost entirely about controlling women. To place anti-abortionism, as Kirk does, above the murder of Black Americans by police, is grotesque. Kirk opposes the death penalty but only because it is more expensive than life in prison. He doesn't seem to care very much about non-privileged lives. Guy (help!) 21:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —from where do you derive that Kirk "place[s] anti-abortionism...above the murder of Black Americans by police"? Bus stop (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , you see right up there, where I linked his tweets? Guy (help!) 08:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To read someone's tweets and take those views to Wikipedia is OR. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To read someone's tweets and take those views to Wikipedia is OR. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The central issue in the abortion debate is a "moral" issue, . You are saying that "anti-abortion activism comes from privilege". Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , bless your little heart, believing that grifters are engaging in a principled moral stand. Guy (help!) 16:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * —you are making the farfetched assertion that the abortion debate is about "privilege". It is not. The abortion debate is about whether or not it is moral to end the life of a fetus. From where are you deriving that "anti-abortion activism comes from privilege"? And by the way, I am not taking any stance on that question. I neither assert that abortion is moral or immoral. The problem is that you are implying that there is a "privileged" versus "underprivileged" component to the abortion debate. Where do you see that? From where are you deriving that the debate is importantly concerned with whether someone is "privileged" or not? Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, I am making the entirely reasonable assertion that Kirk is a troll. Today's gemns include "According to Twitter, it is perfectly acceptable for Iran to call for the open murder of Jews but a handful of credible & certified doctors aren’t able to share good news about saving lives from the Chinese Virus".
 * By "credible and certified doctors" he means the "demon sperm" kook.
 * He's a troll. Guy (help!) 18:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * He writes "According to Twitter, it is perfectly acceptable for Iran to call for the open murder of Jews but a handful of credible & certified doctors aren’t able to share good news about saving lives from the Chinese Virus". What does this have to do with your farfetched assertion that "anti-abortion activism comes from privilege"? You are calling the subject of a WP:BLP a "grifter" and a "troll". It is merely my opinion,, but I think you've gone overboard. Bus stop (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Jasmina Vujic
There is debate about the inclusion of a Daily Beast article referencing this person's connections to a Serbian political party. One editor believes it is unfounded, but I believe it is a well-researched and sourced article. Iangcarroll (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Filter 1068
Filter 1068 traps addition of the wife of Derek Chauvin. This was a 100% legitimate WP:BLPNAME issue when it was created, but there was only one hit prior to today and since yesterday a substantial number of sources have been published which identify both Chauvins as defendants in a tax fraud case (e.g. [https://apnews.com/56bea6e3d1ea1aaeba129522df43294f substantial writeup by AP).
 * Also see: Special:Permalink/969265324
 * Also see: Special:Permalink/969265324

Do we think this filter is still justified? Guy (help!) 16:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, because she still is a non-notable/non public figure (or someone trying to avoid being a public figure) person, and BLP recommends we try to avoid harm. In the context of the bigger picutre of the Floyd protests, she is just the wife of Derek, that's all she needs to be identified as, even when noting that "Derek and his wife were charged with tax fraud." Her name is not relevant to the story; naming her makes it a bit easier to write but absolutely not required. --M asem (t) 18:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not Justified: Subject is an indictee in a non-notable tax fraud case that has received notable coverage in the New York Times, USA Today, CBSNews, ABCNews, NPR, LATimes.com, FoxNews, BBCNews, TheHill.com, MinnPost.com, MSN.com, StarTribune.com, NYPost.com, Yahoo.com, NBCNews.com, NYDailyNews, BET.com, MercuryNews.com, Independent.co.uk, StarTribune.com and many others. Her name has not been concealed by any cout or occupation. Per WP:BLPNAME, there is no reason to omit.  Kire1975 (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that the tax fraud case has gained attention through her husband who became notable from criminal proceeds from the Floyd arrest. That's the only reason she may be at the center of attention and per BLP's overall principle we should be very well aware this doesn't make her a public figure like her husband is. --M asem (t) 03:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If the George Floyd thing never happened, how about a Mrs. Minnesota contestant who got a a thousand word article in the Pioneer Press in 2018 that includes the name of her husband/co-indictee for tax fraud? There are whole pages about less notable figures. Kire1975 (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If Floyd never happened and an article was created on her, there's a good chance it would've been deleted at AfD. Let's not pretend she's well known in her own right. That said, one could make the argument that she's not WP:LOWPROFILE (per the criteria there). But I'm not sure how many people you'll sway with that argument. I continue to advocate for not mentioning the same, but think mentioning the relationship is fine. Consider that information on Wikipedia will persist long after WP:Recentism dies out. To restate my opinion from the now-closed section elsewhere, Wikipedia has a responsibility to BLPs. She's not really a high profile individual inherently due to her involvement in the tax fraud, she's gaining publicity due to her relationship with Chauvin, and using the 2018 pageant as a reasoning for her being high profile is a dubious claim imo. We don't give any additional useful information to the reader by naming her, so I don't see this as being a hard decision to make. The whole point of BLPNAME is to be policy for Wikipedia not to name someone when RS' do, where it would be inappropriate to name. I don't really see good reasoning here for why naming is appropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * She is being discussed in terms of a single event. She is directly involved with the topic of Derek Chauvin. Her name has been widely disseminated. It has not been intentionally concealed by a court or occupation. There are hundreds if not thousand of reliable sources about her by now. Change my mind. Kire1975 (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be wise not to mention her name. Even if we were to consider her notable enough, she'd be notable because she's Derek Chauvin's wife, and not because of the tax fraud she participated in. Given the sensitivity of the subject and the social unrest and outrage centered on her other half, we need to be extremely careful with the amount of information we reveal. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The lawyer for the individual in question told the press he had started the process to legally change their name, because the individual in question had received death threats. On a personal level I agree with everyone else here - death threats are terrible - even ones that aren't credible.  However, this individual's name, their old name never qualified for protection, under the "not widely disseminated" passage of BLPNAME as their old name was very widely disseminated.  When I first counted how many google hits, in early June, 269,000.  269,000 google hits - no one has ever explained how it ever made sense to try and protect a name that widely disseminated.  I've always supported protecting their new, and as yet unknown name.   mentions the WP:LOWPROFILE guideline.  Yeah, the individual doesn't meet the criteria for of LOWPROFILE.  The first paragraph of LOWPROFILE contains the sentence "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable."  Well, the individual in question was the subject of multiple scheduled interviews. WP:LOWPROFILE explicitly says individuals who have given scheduled interviews don't qualify for LOWPROFILE protection.   mentions WP:RECENTISM, and predicts the individual would be forgotten, eventually, if only we don't include their name.  First WP:CRYSTAL, second, this case will remain significant in the same way as Rodney King, or OJ, and Kato Kaelin, a peripheral character who might very well be forgotten in a less prominent case, is still remembered, still recognized, still gets google news hits.   and  have both asserted this individual is only known for a single relationship, and that single thread is not sufficient.  Please recognize that heavy-handed administrators have been slapping revdel's on every discussion where coverage of other aspects of this individual's role have been discussed.  You and I simply can't have a meaningful discussion over the other ways this individual is notable enough to earn some mention in other articles so long as those heavy-handed admins are revdel'ing discussions that mention the individual.  One of those administrators was even going so far as to revdel edits that merely linked to an RS article where the RS article made a passing mention of this individual's name.  I wish I were just making this up.   has claimed the BLPNAME passage for names that have been "intentionally concealed" kicks in.  Yeah, let's protect their new and unknown name.  That is the name that is being "intentionally concealed" here. I won't try to explain why EEng is the only person here who has speculated as to what the new name would be, but I have asked them to quit doing that.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is the second time in less than a day that your fevered brain has emitted this accusation about me . Do it one more time and I'll have you at ANI so fast it'll make your pointy little head spin. Some very smart people had to waste their time crafting an edit filter just to keep you in check, but I doubt that will be the technique used in future if you keep this up. You need to go find something else to be obsessed with. EEng 13:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We are an encyclopedia, not the TMZ. We cover material at a high level, not drilling down as far as some media outlets are going to in trying to cover Derek Chauvin (someone they want to villify in relation to Floyd). That means nearly everyone with a connection to him is getting pulled down with him, including his wife. So yes, maybe they together are now in a tax fraud case. Those happen all the time, as pointed out, absent the case involving Floyd, the case probably would have only be a brief mention in a local MPS newspaper instead of widespread coverage. We need to use common sense here, not blind adherence to "oh the name's out there in 100,000s of sources". BLP is the rule and this is the time we should be following it as would we do for non-notable close family members of notable people. --M asem (t) 13:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your reply. I offered a challenge to whether this name ever met the BLP criteria for protection, and is your answer basically, "we are not TMZ"?  What do you think of my point that it is only her new and as yet unknown name that merits protection?  As above, we can't have a full, meaningful discussion over how much of the RS coverage of this individual is at the TMZ level, and how much is at the NYTimes level, and merits being summarized in other articles, so long as such discussion risk being revdel'd any time someone asks other contributors to review a url to an RS article that includes her name.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Even her old name (at this point) is unnecessary, for the reasons I'm say. The rest of the media is digging as deep as they need to fill 24/7 coverage, they are trying to learn everything they can about Derek because of what he did, etc. His wife had nothing to do with, and while she's part of this tax case, that's wholly unrelated. Let the media dig, but that's where we need to draw the line, until it is shown to be of direct relevance to the criminal factors related to Derek's involvement with George Floyd. Think about what the case will be like 5-10 years down the road, what are key facts? Is it the wifes name? Not at all (at this point, at least). --M asem (t) 14:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Kimmy Yam, of NBC, wrote an article about the individual I won't name. I am not going to include the url to her article, as those revdel'ing administrators past history suggests they would be likely to disruptively devrel this discussion.  Please do me a favor and do yourself a favor, google "Kimmy Yam" NBC.  You'll recognize that article near the top.  Please take a good look at it before you repeat your claim there really isn't any merit in covering this individual in more detail.  Thanks.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am assuming you're talking the June 22 article, which touches on her, but only as to set up a discussion on how women of her ancestry are treated in the US. Not sufficient to name from that. --M asem (t) 14:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Thanks for looking.  I am not sure you found the right one.  The article I am looking at was published on June 22nd, but it doesn't merely "touch" on the individual, over half a dozen paragraphs address the individual.  I think I have to clarify that, so people who read your comment don't take your dismissal at face value, and think it is a mere passing mention.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason to believe including this person's name would improve readers' understanding of the subject, so I'd prefer to continue to exclude. —valereee (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Noting for the record (as the person who initially added the filter, though you should direct any blame to since it was his idea) that I've got no objection to modifying the filter as appropriate based on the outcome of this discussion. Not that my permission is actually needed or anything. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure if you're being "blamed". However, I'm assuming an edit filter creator is expected to do some level of due diligence before creating a new filter, even at someone else's suggestion? Again no blame, I'm just curious about your comment. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the "blame" comment is just me giving EEng a hard time. No deeper meaning :) GeneralNotability (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I will retaliate at a place and time of my own choosing. Technical note: probably the separator between the two names should be *{1,10} or something like that, instead of * or whatever it is now; I think there needs to be a real EF grimoire to gather good practices like that. E<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are right. Guy (help!) 13:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm right. Didn't you get the memo? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for clarifying some of the background of this filter. I have no real experience with these filters, and I am going to assume your implementation of this filter is consistent with the general way filters are put into place.


 * Let me say that I accept that there are occasions when the Wikimedia Foundation, and wikipedia administrators, may have no choice, and really can't make certain decisions in an open and transparent manner. I do, however, think those occasions are relatively rare.  I would encourage WMF directors and staff, and wikipedia administrators to make their decisions as openly as possible.  When complete transparency is not possible, I'd encourage partial transparency.


 * This particular filter says "You may not view details of this filter because it is hidden from public view." There is no signature, or date, or link to the general policy the filter implementor thought justified the filter.  Was that level of obfuscation really necessary?


 * Perhaps you could answer some additional questions?
 * This filter - are its actions based on urls in the edit? Certain administrators were revdel'ing good faith contributions when the urls in the references pointed to third party RS that made passing mention of a name they thought they were authorized to obfuscate.  So, filters like yours don't go that far?
 * Where is this filter active? The person who reported it, a couple of days ago, on Talk:Derek Chauvin, was able to include urls on the talk page the filter blocked from article space. I assume it only acts specific namespaces.  Does it just act in article space?
 * Is this filter active on every single article, in article space, or has it been restricted to only act on articles related to the Killing of George Floyd? There are third party RS articles that cover the individual in question in contexts outside the Killing of George Floyd.  Will this filter act there too?
 * When a filter's content and history is not being obfuscated, where would interested parties go to review the discussion that lead to its implementation?
 * How common is it for filters to be put in place when one individual makes an off-wiki suggestion for one?


 * Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , in order:
 * 1. Its actions are based on the addition of the name we're discussing to an article, its presence in an edit summary, or someone creating an account with that name.
 * 2. It is active in all spaces. I assume that it did not flag because there were dashes or underscores or something in the URL between the parts of the name where it expected spaces.
 * 3. It is active on all articles.
 * 4. WP:EFN, and that is a reasonable place to raise concerns about private filters as well.
 * 5. We usually prefer on-wiki discussion, but there is a (private) edit filter mailing list for discussions on topics where we don't want to go into detail on-wiki. That is where this came from, since EEng is an edit filter helper.
 * Now, a bit more about private filters: they are restricted so that a limited number of users (administrators and edit filter helpers) can view them or their recent hits.They are used for those times where we don't want people to be able to see the filter (either to prevent abusers from circumventing it, or in this case because the filter itself contains sensitive information). I can't do much about "no signature, date, or link to policy," that's just how MediaWiki implements filters - the hide status is all-or-nothing and the filter names are deliberately vague. In this case, I agreed with EEng's suggestion that including the name of Chauvin's ex-wife following their divorce was enough of a privacy issue that an edit filter was appropriate (especially since there had been a few edits immediately before I implemented the filter which were revdeleted). Because of the BLP privacy concerns and because her name is sufficiently unique to have a low false positive rate, I handled this like we handle most major BLP privacy situations - addition of the name is blocked in all articles and all spaces. And yes, I gave EEng a hard time above, but the final decision to implement and activate the filter was on me. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I proposed the filter after WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039. By their nature, private filters are created after a less-than-transparent process. The question How common is it for filters to be put in place when one individual makes an off-wiki suggestion for one? is silly, since everything, in all areas of human endeavor, begin with one person's suggestion (which in this case, as already noted, had to be off-wiki); the right question is: was there then the usual discussion among filter managers, and the answer is yes.This discussion is pointless except the extent that it considers whether the filter should remain. The last comment is valllerrreeeeeee's I don't see any reason to believe including this person's name would improve readers' understanding of the subject, so I'd prefer to continue to exclude and there's been nothing on point since. And I agree with valllllerrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , both and  have articulated this well, and I find their arguments above persuasive. Guy (help!) 13:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't think I need any convincing along those lines. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , no indeed Guy (help!) 22:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't think I need any convincing along those lines. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , no indeed Guy (help!) 22:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Rosianne Cutajar
Article says that she was elected directly to the Maltese Parliament in the 2019 elections. There were no general elections held in 2019 in Malta. The bit that states that she became a member of parliament by virtue of a casual election following the 2017 elections is correct. There have not been any general elections since.

Donozio Tumwebaze
Donozio Tumwebaze Commonly known as "Don" is a Ugandan General Medical Practitioner and an MBChB Scholar. Born on 23rd March, 1990 to the Late John Baptist Ntabwiko and Gertrude Nyirabakunzi in Rwencundezi village, Nyamarebe sub county in Ibanda district. Donozio went to Ryabiju Primary School in Nyamarebe sub county and completed his P.7 in 2003. From here, he went to Ishongororo High school for his Ordinary level education from where he developed a strong passion to become a Medical Doctor because he loved Science subjects. He completed his Ordinary level education in 2007 with a First grade and he was admitted to Standard High School - Zzana, a prominent school in Entebbe for his Advanced Secondary level education to do Sciences, and completed in 2010 with good grades. His Medical career began in 2011 when he was admitted to Fort Portal School of Clinical Officers to do Clinical Medicine and Community Health which he completed in 2014. In August 2018, Donozio enrolled for a Bachelor's of Medicine and Bachelor's of Surgery degree at The School of Health Sciences; Kampala International University in Uganda which he is currently pursuing. At the same, he works at Ibanda District Local Government. Donozio is married to Fortunate Donozio and they have one boy child named Kagira Grayson. Serupyimpyinurimpyisi (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you have a request or question related to mention of this person in Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Filmografía John Rubinstein
2012 temporada 5 The Mentalist "Judge Manchester" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.192.172.110 (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to add your suggestion, of course with a reliable source, to Talk:John Rubinstein. -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Chris Saraceno
Obviously the article is a disaster (which I have maturely dealt with by tag-bombing), and uploading a professional head-shot as "own work" is always a nice touch; but it wasn't clear to me if the guy is actually notable. Thoughts? --JBL (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's a thought: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Saraceno. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Saraceno regularly shares his life philosophies and advice": Yes, there's even WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy awaiting this contribution. -- Hoary (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you should change your user name. Nowadays we say "sex worker". <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha, thanks both :). --JBL (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Michio Igasa
This person is passed away according to company tweet,which is written in Japanese,(still listed as living person.I didn't modify it as I couldn't prove anything) Through there's no Japanese wikipedia article for this person,name is wrong,possibly gender is wrong. I myself no knowledge for Animes,so I myself cannot fix this.I need help for this article include deletion if needed.--Paperworkorange (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing his name,(I personally sent thanks),I omitted "Japanese female composer"category from his page,also "Wikiproject Woman in music" from his talk page,changed his living status to "no".(Tweet from his company clearly say "He").I have no other factor to add at the moment.--Paperworkorange (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Abdel Bari Atwan
Abdel Bari Atwan A widely known and respected newspaper editor and journalist in the Arab world, his page has a paragraph entitled 'Breakthrough' which contains a completely nonsensical story about him running a kebab van across from the BBC headquarters. It has clear racist implications and is written to ridicule this man who is a brilliant, valuable and intelligent commentator. Since the paragraph contains nothing of value I would suggest it can be removed altogether. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.107.15 (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing that section to our attention, anonymous editor. It was added this January and should have been immediately removed per WP:BLP as unsourced and biased.  It attempts to portray him as a non-journalist who became prominent through happenstance and opportunism -- a claim which would need very good sourcing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Stephen Wiggins
This edit introduces details not publicly known and cites a primary source; it is also irrelevant to the living person's reason for notoriety, and violates editing policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=970758919&oldid=970744144&title=Stephen_Wiggins
 * I have reverted to the last version before the WP:BLP violations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Eggishorn. The book reference you removed is a verifiable resource on his resignation from Caltech role. It is from a published book and verifiable from Google books and Amazon as well. Just curious why did you remove a verifiable reference? Sounds like you don't want that information to appear personally. Are you his lawyer? Could any of Wikipedia editor check this? I am not sure what is more reliable than a book reference which is published by a well-known author.

Use of People's World and a Medium source on multiple political articles
Eg at Karen Bass where People's World, and govtrackinsider.com which is on Medium is used. Doug Weller  talk 12:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The source was replaced with snopes.com. People's World is used to show that thse list senators supports the bill. Snopes is used to reliably should what the bill entails. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 13:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are serious NPOV problems and source misrepresentation going on with these additions, as well. (Not to mention some edit warring and failure to observe BRD.)  Clearly needs more eyes. --JBL (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The version I restored had different sources, I there actually wasn't a single revert at no time was the same version reverted. I replace the Medium which is a weak source with snopes and congress.gov. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 14:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You have added essentially the same section to several articles. In all cases it misrepresents the sources used and fails NPOV.  In at least two, the secondary sources didn't even mention the subjects of the articles to which you added it, making the addition completely undue.  (No, a primary source that lists all the coauthors of a bill does not make that okay -- they're members of congress (not, btw, senators), sponsoring legislation is what they do.)  And you've edit-warred at Ilhan Omar to restore it, in violation of WP:BRD. , I think the problems here go a lot deeper: I have only glanced over the parent article New Way Forward Act, but it was enough to see a Tucker Carlson column being used as a source to jam in his views, together with some quotes of Donald Trump from six months before the bill was introduced.  NB: Valoem has now extended their edit-warring to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which suffers from exactly the same problems, without having ever engaged on a relevant article talk-page or here.  I'm out, but this deserves a careful look! --JBL (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have escalated to ANI. --JBL (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Terren Peizer
Hi! First up, I have a COI: I’ve been hired on a freelance basis by Ontrak, of which Peizer is CEO, to request some updates to Peizer’s article.

Over the past month, has been making regular updates to this article that I believe violate WP:NOR, WP:BLPPRIMARY, and WP:NPOV. Unless I’m deeply mistaken about WP:BLP, this should be pretty evident from a cursory look at the article. If it isn’t, please set me straight.

Two of the most notable items, in my opinion:
 * References 22, 23, 24, 31, 35, and 36 are all primary sources, with no secondary WP:RS available
 * Inclusion of information not germane to Peizer (e.g. the information on Michael S. Wachs and Richard Josephberg)

Really not trying to wikilawyer this to death, so if I’m wrong and this is acceptable for a BLP, please let me know and I’ll drop it. Thanks for your time and feedback. Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Miss Gaulke is trying to whitewash an article about her client, and has been doing so for weeks now.
 * She willfully ignores references already in the article, or those presented to her, and attempts to insert obvious falsehoods.
 * Check the article's talk page for all her previous delete requests, and the supporting evidence that she's been presented with, but which she chooses to ignore.
 * Frescard (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since returning from a decade-long hiatus a month ago,  has been something of a WP:SPA on this topic. I would really appreciate a third opinion here. Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I know Wikipedia doesn't have deadlines, but the inaccuracy and non-neutrality of this article have real-world consequences. I am trying to address this issue transparently, ethically, and in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. I really appreciate any help. Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Alright. Since you're honestly trying to do the right thing, as boring as all of this is, I took a look. You're right. That article is a terrible mess, so I did some clean up.


 * First, I removed all of the court documents and links to sites containing court documents as a blatant violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. That was the most distressing thing I saw, which provoked me to jump into action, because those should be removed at first sight. Then, while I was at it I went through many of the other sources, and removed company promotional material. Some sources were perfectly good sources, like the NY Times and Wall Street Journal, but they were about other people and never once mentioned his name, and neither was what was written in the article. (It almost appeared to be placed there as a guilt by association thing, but we don't have any need to use this as a platform to air the dirty laundry of non-notable people.) Many sources that list companies he supposedly owns also never mentioned his name nor supported any of the info used in the article. There was a company press release to what appears to be a blogsite, Biosphere, which also never mentioned the subject once. All of this stuff I removed in addition to the many, many court documents that were used.


 * I'm afraid the rest of the article looks to be in equally bad shape, but I think I got all the court docs, and other bad, unsourced, misrepresented, or irrelevant sources from that section. I don't have time to go give this article a good overhaul, but it really needs one if anyone is interested. Zaereth (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with removing court documents (even though I only used them to support uncontroversial facts), but you also have deleted many other primary sources that should be acceptable, according to WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, like links to SEC filings or annual reports. While these are self-published, the information taken from them were factual statements (e.g. what a company produces or who the CEO is).
 * According to WP:PRIMARYCARE, "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." If you look at Bausch_Health, for example, you will find dozens of press releases, SEC filings, etc., all self-published, and not once contested, so, I'm not sure why they were deleted here.
 * Also, if you didn't find Peizer's name in some of the sources it's because he's doing business through multiple shell companies (that's why I included the list of financial vehicles he's using). Frescard (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We can use primary sources to support some basic, non-controversial claims, but never claims about living persons. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. We also can't combine sources—in this case, sources about financial ties and separate sources about wrongdoing by other companies or people—to insinuate wrongdoing by the subject. See WP:SYNTH. Controversial or negative content about living persons absolutely needs to be supported by reliable, third-party published sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "We can use primary sources [...] but never claims about living persons"...
 * According to WP:BLPSELFPUB, "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: 1. it is not unduly self-serving, [etc.]", so that seems to contradict your absolute statement that you can never use them. Frescard (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP tends to talk about "primary" and "SPS" sources as distinct types of sources, but sure, some primary sources could be self-published sources. It's probably more accurate to say that primary sources (such as public documents) shouldn't be used to support claims about living persons unless there's some kind of exception like BLPSELFPUB. There are always exceptions, and probably always exceptions to those exceptions. Woodroar (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, so we agree that it would be ok to use SEC filings and the subject's website as primary sources, as both are self-published (as long as we only use it for non-controversial, non-promotional facts)? Frescard (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * SEC filings are public documents and can't be used for claims about Peizer per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Even if they weren't public documents, it's unlikely (and probably impossible to prove) that they were written by Peizer, so WP:BLPSPS is irrelevant. Now this SEC filing might be usable for claims about Urethane Technologies Inc, for example, but we'd still have to be careful. Peizer's personal website can certainly be used to support some claims about Peizer himself. Whether it can be used for claims about a company that he owns and where other people work, that's questionable. I think most editors would be fine if he was the sole employee, or if the claim was something as simple as "Peizer works at (or owns) Company X". But anything much beyond that could be self-serving, too indirectly related to Peizer, doubtful, and so on. And if a third-party source contradicted any element of the Peizer's own claims, we'd want to remove the SPS claims. Woodroar (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While it isn't really defined in the guidelines, I would assume that what is meant by "public documents" are Public records (i.e. birth certificates, court records, etc.). But not every document that is accessible to the public is a "public document" per se (otherwise every webpage would fall under that definition). SEC filings are basically announcements by the company to its current (and potential) shareholders. They're like press releases, but for stuff that has financial consequences. Look up a few business-related pages on WP, and you will find SEC references all over the place (e.g. in the Bausch_Health article I mentioned above, that has over 20 SEC references, and, even though it's a pretty popular article, nobody has ever complained about them.) Also, if somebody is the CEO of a company, then he will sign that document, so it doesn't really matter who wrote it. That signer is responsible for the content. Frescard (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Our article on Bausch Health is irrelevant because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We're talking about the applicability of WP:BLP to claims and sources in Terren Peizer. Woodroar (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You might want to read a bit further than the headline for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS:
 * "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology."
 * "Non-fiction literature, such as an encyclopedia, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred."
 * So, yes, it does matter how things are handled in other articles, especially if there's ambiguity in the guidelines. Frescard (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What you're doing here is called original research. As a tertiary source, we prefer secondary sources over primary and other tertiary sources. Primary sources can be used when it is necessary to clear up confusion left by the secondary sources, but that's only in very specific cases, and in those cases there needs to be a secondary source to augment. We cannot use primary sources like that on their own, and especially not official government documents, including court docs, case filings, birth certificates, tax records, license registrations, patent applications, etc...


 * The point is not just that they may contain private and personal information --not just about the subject of an article but for anyone else named in those documents-- but also that you're doing the work of a reporter and not a researcher. That's OR, and the way many of these sources were used it's also synthesis.


 * The way we determine the significance of any information, that is, how much weight to give it, is by it's coverage in reliable, secondary sources. If no source is covering it, then it is an indication that nobody out there has thought the info significant enough to report in a newspaper (not noteworthy), thus we give that info absolutely zero weight in the article. When a RS picks up on it and decides to report it, then we can go back and add it to the article, and, only if absolutely necessary, use a primary source to augment those sources.


 * A lot of the sources I removed did not say what was written in the article. The links to the companies ... one read like a sales brochure and the other just gave a basic company profile, but did not say what was written in the article, read like promo material. These I took to be more of the sort of links spammers would leave.


 * But, while the rules tend to be a lot more relaxed on other types of articles, BLP rules trump all of those by a long shot, even though they also work in accordance to them. WP:BLPREMOVE really demanded that I remove that stuff, in conjunction with all of the other policies stated. BLP rules are very strict about these things. I hope that helps explain.


 * The rest of what I saw looks to be in equally bad shape, like the sources in the lede for example. Now there is a lot of stuff that he's notable for that really aren't covered in the article. According to at least one source, he served as a witness in a trial, and that's what really rocketed him into the spotlight. The book goes into some great detail about it, but not our article, which seemed to be cherrypicking. Of course, all we need is a summary, not all the details, but that info should have some prominence. But we don't need to go digging up every piece of info we can find on this guy, the companies he's owned shares in, and all the lawsuits that have been filed against him, because that's what RSs do. We need to have some standard, or else every article would just become a repository for any dirt people could dig up. We need to show that the info is significant and we need to give it it's due weight, and this is done by a preponderance of reliable, secondary sources.


 * The thing I'd keep in mind is that a biography is about defining who the subject is, as a person, meaning what makes them notable. To determine what makes them notable, we have to look at what people have noted about him, and weight that info against each other to determine how much weight to give it. Zaereth (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"what makes them notable" — The thing with Mr. Peizer is though, that his notability is mostly negative. I have about 30 articles about him, and there's only a single one (by his hometown paper) that's positive. Every other source basically has the underlying tone of "this guy might be a scammer". And these are reputable sources... Financial World - From Rats to Riches: "Remember Terren Peizer, the stool pigeon who turned state's evidence on Michael Milken in exchange for immunity?" Wall Street Journal - Curb Your Cravings For This Stock - "... it'll be a rare success for Peizer, who's promoted a series of disappointing small-cap medical or technology stocks" Forbes - Small world, ain't it - "The thinly traded stocks Peizer's been involved with since leaving Drexel are a mixed bag." CBS News - Prescription For Addiction - "Depending and who you talk to, [Peizer is] either a revolutionary or a snake oil salesman" If the general tone of secondary sources is negative, shouldn't the article reflect that? After all, if you look at something like Elizabeth Holmes' coverage, that's not very balanced, either...

But, since we're getting into specifics now, should we continue the discussion on the article's talk page? Frescard (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If most of the sources about Peizer are negative, then the article should probably reflect that, yes. (There could be exceptions, like WP:BLP1E, but I don't think they apply here.) But what's important is that we get it right. These need to be quality sources (especially for controversial or negative claims), we need to accurately summarize what the sources say, and we can't combine sources to imply anything that the sources don't actually say. That being said, discussing the specifics at Talk sounds like a good idea. Woodroar (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've started with rewriting the first paragraph there now, so let's see how it goes... Frescard (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Emma Roberts
Over at Emma Roberts there's some lively discussion over whether Garrett Hedlund should (or should not) be included in the infobox as a partner. Argument against is that it's not a long-term relationship, and argument for is that the relationship is 17 months in, and the definition of "long-term" is subjective - indeed one definition of "long-term" would imply exclusion of any relationship less than 10 years, which is clearly nonsense. There is also commentary about her pregnancy, but I feel this is more about defining when a person in a relationship becomes a partner, rather than (in one editors own words) a fling or casual relationships. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If is has been reported in some decent sources as notable relationship then it could be included, not just celeb gossip. For comparrison the details are mentioned in his personal life section but not in the main infobox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hedlund#Personal_life, which is currently the same as Emma Roberts personal section. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , why should anyone care? Srsly. Leave it out. It's trivia. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not down to you to tell me whether I should care or not. If you don't care, don't get involved.  Real helpful. The couple have been reported in Cosmopolitan and Marie Claire - they're reliable and decent sources aren't they?.
 * All right, ignore the fact that this is on the Emma Roberts article - the question remains, when does a relationship qualify for "partner"? It seems fine over at Keanu Reeves.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What quotes are there from Emma and Garrett? Thanks for the links, but looking at them thre is no comment or statement from the subjects and it looks a lot like cosmo and Marie and both very celeb type sources not like mainstream news. I am with User:Guy on opposing this content change.Govindaharihari (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Govindaharihari and Guy. The info is triva, meaning fine details that are really irrelevant in understanding the subject. Lot's of people care about trival info of all kinds, so there's nothing wrong with you caring about what interests you, but that doesn't change the fact that it is trival. Now who someone is in a real relationship with is often the kind of trivia we can add, but then what you need are sources reporting on their marriage or the subject actually saying they are "partners" or whatever term you prefer. This happens all the time, where someone gets married while they're in the spotlight, and it get's included in their article, but then the spotlight moves on and nobody reports their divorce. The subject's themselves often come here complaining about that, but we're not facebook and we don't keep up to the minute tabs on people's relationships. We have to wait until it's reported somewhere very reliably.


 * To answer your other question, there is no set date. It's all subjective, and really depends on a mutual understanding between the couple. We, as outsiders, cannot act as mind readers, nor set a specified time limit, that, when the bell rings, bam! You're committed! It doesn't work like that. I've had "relationships" that lasted well over a decade, but I would never call that person my partner (at least not in the sense that you're using it). I've had others that I would call a "partnership" after the first couple of weeks. It all depends on what the two people think and feel, and that we can't know unless they tell us and some RS reports it. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

ICloud leaks of celebrity photos title
Opinions are needed at Talk:ICloud leaks of celebrity photos. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Gavin Wood
> He has also been credited for coming up with the concept of Web 3.0.

There is no source at all behind this claim. "Web 3.0" is generally considered coined by Tim Berners-Lee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.137.65.1 (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you - you are correct, and I've removed the claim from the article. - Bilby (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)