Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive315

Can alt-right / far-right figures be described as such?
This text was removed on the Dave Rubin page, making it unclear why it was controversial for Rubin to host extremists such as Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux and Tommy Robinson. It was controversial because these figures are extremists of one kind or another (alt-right, far-right, white nationalist). By simply saying they are "controversial figures" but without specifying why, we are omitting relevant information for the readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not a neutral description of the issue at hand. The issue here is that on the Rubin page several other BLP subjects are subject to contentious wp:LABELs in wiki voice.  On the respective BLP articles there is a mix of attributed and wiki-voice use of the labels in question.  An IP editor removed the labels.  I think the IP editor was correct as they are very contentious labels and, in the Rubin article, they are made in wiki-voice with no supporting citations.  I'm more than willing to agree that there are sources that use these labels to describe the various individuals.  However, since all are BLP subjects, avoiding contentious voices in wiki-voice seems like the correct procedure in this case.  Snoog failed to link the talk page discussion [] where I've proposed a possible alternative text.  "Rubin has had guests described as alt-right, far-right, nationalist and white supremacist. Controversial guests include [list of names]" The alternative text uses all the controversial labels and lists the names but doesn't directly connect any of them.  In my view this avoids the BLP issues and respects wp:LABEL.  Springee (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah a quick look over and I think Springee is right. It is listed in the subjects article if the reader is interested. For the main article controversial is fine otherwise it comes off as guilt by association. PackMecEng (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The way it was added put those labels to those people (not Rubin) in Wikivoice, when it needs to be out with attribution of some type as labels, making it a BLP violation for those four people. You could say, "Critics have accused Rubin of providing a prominent platform to the controversial speakers with alt-right, far-right, and nationalist viewpoints, including Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux, and Tommy Robinson." Now, that's a tiny bit vague of who's who but it takes the labels out of wikivoice and put on the general viewpoints of all the guests of Rubin, still identifies why that's controversial, and lets readers see who they are and follow links if they are not by name. --M asem (t) 17:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good way to handle it. It's cleaner than what I had originally proposed and again avoids wiki-voice issues.  Springee (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah certainly an improvement. you good with that? PackMecEng (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't accept the premise, and have offered my own version based on what is said in wikivoice in the parent articles on the BLPs. While the sentence offered by Masem - Critics have accused Rubin of providing a prominent platform to the controversial speakers with alt-right, far-right, and nationalist viewpoints, including Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux, and Tommy Robinson - is definitely true, I am unconvinced by the "critics have accused" tagline, which implies that others have disagreed and also that only critics have asserted this, neither of which is supported by the evidence AFAIK. So I would prefer either something closer to my own version, or at least text that conforms to WP:BLPSTYLE. Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no doubt that all four BLPs mentioned are indeed alt-right, far-right or nationalist (or a combination of more than one), so if Rubin has indeed interviewed those people, all you need is as reliable source saying that he has provided a platform for extremists (or equivalent wording). "Critics say..." is not ideal - either he has, or he hasn't. But we can't say it in Wikipedia's voice without an RS that actually says that Rubin is providing a platform for such people. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The quality "provide a platform for controversial speakers" is an opinion, because the sourced articles do not give the impression that this is Rubin's factual goal with the show, so the "many critics" needs to be there as one point of attribution (though here, we can name the sources, "The Daily Beast and GQ claim Rubin has provided a platform..." In that phrasing, this also implies alt-right/etc. labels are born out from Daily Beast/GQ's assessment too. So that would be better. Alternatively, if there are more, and these just two, you could say "Critics, including The Daily Beast and GQ, claim Rbuin has provided a platform...". --M asem (t) 19:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If we are committed to attribution, I would go straight for the Rebecca Lewis study in Data & Society, rather than any of the journalistic pieces, based on the quality of the source. And I would attribute directly to Lewis, not to "critics". Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Lewis study is already mentioned in the article. We shouldn't use it to support the sentence/material in question.  Springee (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , except that if it's the Daily Beast and GQ then I would not include it anyway. We should draw a distinction between those sources that comment on the political hurly-burly, and those which are the hurly-burly. The Daily Beast is undeniably the latter, GQ probably somewhere between the two (there have been some very thoughtful pieces there but also some blatant rabble-rousing). Guy (help! - typo?) 20:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Lewis report, that is probably the preferable source to use (doesn't appear to be SPS, not quite peer-reviewed), but that should still named. Or a way to work all three sources, something like "Critics have accused Rubin of providing a prominent platform to political extremists.(DB, GQ sources). Rebecca Lewis of Data & Society in a 2018 report stated that Rubin's guests are part of a network on YouTube with more extremist views that amplifies far-right politics. These guests include Stefan Molyneux, "a talk show host who promotes scientific racism,' Lauren Southern 'a Canadian citizen journalist who has since been barred from entering England because of her vehement anti-Islam and anti-immigration activism", and ..." (the quotes pulled from the report directly). You have plenty of material in that to be quoted to avoid the issue of bare labels, and probably plenty of names to pick from.  (And man, that's a scary picture on those network graphs. That's an article in itself ....) --M asem  (t) 21:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , and why is "citizen journalist" so much like "independent researcher", in that the first word invokes a repudiation of everything normally understood by the second. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The Lewis piece is AFAIK the only scholarly study cited in the article, and definitely its highest-quality source. Why should we not cite the "providing a prominent platform" thing to her, since many of the journalistic pieces cited point back to her study anyway? Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Lewis study was published by her own institute. It was not published in a scholarly journal.  It is effectively a white paper by her institute.  Also, her article says shows like Rubin's provide a gateway to more radical right material rather than act as a platform (other sources made that claim).  Some scholars also disagree with her work.[] Springee (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "her own institute"? She doesn't appear on its board or editorial team.
 * Also, are you proposing that Quilette piece as a reliable source on the topic? Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The institute that employs her vs an independent journal that published her work after review. I'm not proposing using Quilette in an article.  What I'm saying is the Quilette author has credentials equal to Lewis and she points out issues with Lewis's work.  You claimed that Lewis's work was at a scholarly level but that simply isn't the case.  Lewis has some level of credentials in the field but the same is true of many scholars at CATO or The Hoover Institute.  Since the work wasn't released via a scholarly review process this isn't the same as an article appearing in a real journal.  Springee (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the Lewis piece was not peer-reviewed, but it is certainly "scholarly" in a sense in which the Quilette piece is not - the latter is anecdotal student journalism, while the former is a systematic study following an established methodology. Newimpartial (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet someone with scholarly credentials points out flaws with the study (and rightly so). Quillette doesn't claim to be a scholarly journal but that doesn't mean the contributors lack the scholarly standing to criticize Lewis's work.  Springee (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * An in-progess Masters degree is not a "scholarly credential", and I don't see any scholarly criticism in the Quilette piece. It is anecdotal political journalism and, if anything, uses a sloppy mischaracterization of Lewis's work to cast aspersions on it. Which is about what one can expect from Quilette - a straw man argument that will appeal to their readers' assumptions. Newimpartial (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You might review Lewis's limited credentials. Springee (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like she's a highly-cited researcher whose work appears in and is covered by mainstream sources (i.e. not Quillette), and she's a Ph.D. candidate at Stanford, where she teaches classes with a specialization in online disinformation and extremism. Those are pretty decent credentials. MastCell Talk 00:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * We describe people the way that reliable sources describe them; it's really simple. Reliable sources describe Molyneux and Southern as "far-right" and/or "white nationalist", so if we change that to simply call them "political personalities", then that's a bad edit, and a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV. It's an example of an editor inserting himself between the sources and the reader, and misleading the reader. It is absolutely not a BLP violation to describe someone as "far-right", or as a "white nationalist", if reliable sources describe them as such. MastCell Talk 00:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am in complete agreement with this. We don't whitewash (terrible word, but whatever) people's political and social positions if there are RS for those positions. Black Kite (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , this, exactly. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with MastCell and Black Kite. If reliable sources call the individuals white supremacists, etc. we call them that. If the consensus of sourcing is that he's provided a platform for alt-right/white supremacist individuals, we say that as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with MastCell, Black Kite, TonyBallioni, and others. This is simple: we describe people (and groups, political parties, movements, etc.) as the high-quality reliable sources describe them. Full stop. Neutralitytalk 01:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting we avoid the labels. My concern is using the labels in wiki voice with sourcing that is inadequate to support such labels in wiki voice.  Again Masem provided a good alternative that address the wiki voice concern while still keeping the labels.  BLP etc isn't something we dismiss because sources like Vox, HuffPo etc choose to use labels.  Springee (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that we should label anyone in Wikivoice, especially when it's political in nature. WP:REDFLAG is also at issue here, as is WP:BLP and associated 3 core content policies. If the labels were science-based, that's a different story, but when we're citing news sources and published opinions, we use in-text attribution. All of the above instances are political in nature; i.e., the left accusing the right - which is reason enough to avoid stating anything in WikiVoice. Avoiding labels is not whitewashing, it's avoiding tendentious editing and/or subjecting ourselves to potential BLP liability - I'm saying the latter with a high level of RL experience. It doesn't matter who we are writing about because the same applies across the board; i.e., neutral, dispassionate tone, no subjective labeling, no ideological basis in Wikivoice. Atsme Talk 📧 17:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't "the left accusing the right". Reliable non-partisan sources routinely describing Molyneux (for example) as a white nationalist/white supremacist (e.g., , ), and it's not helpful to misleadingly recast the issue in partisan terms. WP:REDFLAG isn't an issue either&mdash;it's hardly "exceptional" to claim that there are white supremacists active on the Internet, nor to describe someone as a white nationalist when they were literally banned from social media for promoting white supremacy. As for WP:BLP, it tells us to follow the sources, not to suppress or bowderlize their content based on editorial discomfort. MastCell Talk 19:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , it makes sense to distinguish mainstream commentators making goods faith contributions to political debate, from extremist grifters - whether they be animal liberation loons or neo-Nazis. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No one, I think is saying to remove the labels, but labels are labels and are subjective and absolutely cannot be left in bare wikivoice, just as terms of praise or the like. I've been through this logic many many times before but you cannot avoid some type of in-line attribution with labels, whether that's a named source or some comment like "widely considered", but how to determine when to do that needs to be done by a literature survey to see how frequently the label is used. (That's beyond this discussion but I've talked to this point before, as well as how to apply those sources into the article). You can do this once on the respective talk page of that BLP's article and then the arguments on that label should become moot in the future. But key here is that just becuse "the media uses the label all over and we follow the sources" doesn't mean that we throw out impartiality and neutrality in wording of how we write that, and labels can never be objective by definition, we're just required to fine the right way to incorporate that language when its needed per WEIGHT/UNDUE.
 * That said, this article being about Rubin, bringing those labels onto those BLPs into here is difficult, because technically now, unless you have a mass of sources that talk about Rubin's show and the same four people as guests and using those labels, it gets into synthesis to combine those sources. If the sources talking about Rubin's show use those labels (not at a point that I can easily check) then absolutely we need to be stating the name of the sources and probably quoting here to take the labels out of Wikivoice. If they don't use those labels and WPian editors are pulling that from our other BLP, that's wrong. If those sources failed to id why those people were "problematic" save for a generic label, we can't fill in those blanks, not our job. Guy says which, no, we can't. If the source failed to do this, we can't go and fill in those blanks. We can wikilink and let readers figure that out but we can't make that direct connection for them. --M asem  (t) 20:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again I will point out that, if "we" are committed to attribution, the Rebecca Lewis piece is probably the best bet since it is not only the highest-quality source, it also discusses most or all of the "controversial" figures using appropriate labels - if there are any discrepancies between who Lewis labels in the study and who is discussed in the WP text, those should be easy enough to resolve.
 * This is not to say that I agree that attribution is required, which I don't. For Southern, as an example, Great replacement conspiracy theorist is not a "controversial label": it is how she is notable, and was essentially her job title for a period of time. Newimpartial (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a very very hard time accepting the idea that (any) "conspiracy theorist" is a career or job title - one actively earning money or the like (at its base that would be like an activist or a writer, etc.) Now, she appears to be self-stating that she accepts that, which is different, but we still need to be careful with using that term about her on Rubin's article. Again, you have material in the Lewis report to identity enough on this page about Rubin why she as a guest (along with Molyneaux, etc.) are why Rubin's show is problematic without having to resort to other nonattributed labels. --M asem (t) 21:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Could all of these guests accurately and constructively be called "right-leaning"? We are paraphrasing, are we not? If "right-leaning" or any other such umbrella term can be accurately and constructively deployed, why are we agonizing over more specific labels when those more specific labels serve political, pigeonholing purposes? This is not even the article belonging to Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux or Tommy Robinson. We are discussing the Dave Rubin article. It is bad enough that articles like the Molyneux article consist of nothing but label after mind-numbing label. Is it necessary to force people into political pigeonholes at other people's articles? These labels are meaningless, or close to meaningless, in my opinion. I think their main purpose is to dismiss people and the ideas and arguments that they represent. It is also a lot harder to explain their ideas and arguments than it is to simply pin a label on them. I favor using a simple, general term such as "right-leaning" (or something similar) to refer to all these guests when mentioning them at the Dave Rubin article. Bus stop (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So you consider "right-leaning" to be synonymous with "white-supremacist"? Because I know a lot of right-leaning people who would be very offended that you'd equate the two. It's deeply misleading&mdash;and unfair to people who are truly "right-leaning"&mdash;to use "right-leaning" as a euphemistic code word for extremists and white supremacists. And since reliable sources routinely note the extremist nature of Molyneux's/Southern's views, it seems just plain false to pretend they simply "lean" to one side of the political mainstream. I don't think falsehoods are an improvement over clear, if unpleasant, truths. MastCell Talk 23:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * —isn't there an umbrella term for these enumerated guests on Dave Rubin's show? Couldn't we just call them all racists? A quick perusal of the articles of Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux and Tommy Robinson finds some references to race in each article. If there is a better term than "racist" we should consider it as well. All we are trying to do is refer to a collection of guests on The Rubin Report. I don't think that should entail in-depth, separate labeling of each guest. The question is—what do they all have in common? Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , some labels definitely can be left in wiki-voice. Jenny McCarthy is an anti-vaccinationist. Stefan Molyneux is a white nationalist. When there's no significant mainstream dissent, we don't need to weasel. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on prior discussions, I would agree that if we were at McCarthy's or Molyneux's articles - where a body of sources sit - these labels are ones that ones that can passed w/o attribution due to self-assertion. But this is where I put caution above, when we talk about them on another topic, we can't carry that language (including the ability to say in wikivoice) unless we have sources at the current topic also using that language. If all these sources talk that Molyneux is a controversial guest on Rubin's show for his extreme positions but do not at any point identify his white nationalist stance, we can't introduce that ourself, even though we could reach out to probably multiple articles on Molyneux to show where he self-states that; it is both an OR problem - guessing to what "extreme" stance the author was getting at, and a BLP problem because in less agressive cases WPians could introduce something that may be a NPOV. As a hypothetical, say there is a important piece of abortion-related legislation aimed to provide easier access to clinics, and we have a media piece talking about how the bill was set up by a legislator; while we would normally identify that party of the legislator, a WPian adding that the person was also a Catholic (reported in numerous sources but not the one about the bill), as to throw doubt to the purposes of the bill, would be inappropriate despite being true. If sources did call that out, we would be fine otherwise.
 * As a specific example, the Lewis report does not actually appear to use "white nationalist" at all, but she does get deep into Molyneux (in the context of a guest on Rubin's show) as "openly promotes scientific racism, advocates for the men’s rights movement, critiques initiatives devoted to gender equity, and promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories" (pg 37) so any of those describers can be attached to Molyneux to be clear of why he is a problem for being on Rubin's show. Of course, the other thing to consider is that as you are selecting blue linked names you could let those blue links speak for themselves rather than necessarily fishing in the report for descriptors. Lewis gives enough descriptors/labels to this central group (not all of Rubin's guest and not the Intellectual Dark Web ones) that we can tell they are the alt-/far-right extremist views that have influence and thus we don't necessarily need the specific labels on any individual. --M asem (t) 14:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To make matters worse we have an explicit denial. Molyneaux says "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

In that same article the Guardian uses "Canadian alt-right internet activist" for Molyneux in its own voice. It certainly wouldn't say "right-leaning" lmao. Newimpartial (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes,, we are keenly cognizant that many sources characterize Molyneaux in many bad ways, hence my suggestion concerning the use of the umbrella term "racist" to cover the group of people under discussion. Aren't Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux and Tommy Robinson all racists, according to at least some reliable sources? Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually dispute the implication that the Guardian, or others mentioned, are trying to day that Molyneux et al. are "bad". I regard "alt-right" and similar as essentially descriptive labels in this contexts rather than being used by the sourced to praise or condemn.
 * And my reservation about "racist" is essentially that it is insufficiently precise; e.g., I'm sure some reliable source somewhere has referred to Joe Biden as "racist", but this shouldn't be the same category. Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I chose the word "bad" out of many equally applicable terms because I believe the broad swathe of the American population roundly condemns "white supremacists". The overuse of labels in the absence of further explanation makes an article uninformative. Wouldn't we expect to find extensive quoting from Molyneux in his article showing the reader why he is considered a "white supremacist"? The man is verbal. He isn't a visual artist or a musician. His quotes could be included so that the reader could examine his words and see him in nuanced detail—or are all "white supremacists" the same? Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, if that's how the figures are described by reliable sources. If such a description is used by a large number of sources, and if the description is not seriously contested by other reliable sources, then they can be used without attribution per WP:WIKIVOICE. It's not that hard to categorize people as far-right and alt-right based on their publicly stated social/political positions, and there's nothing exceptional about either of these descriptions. - MrX 🖋 20:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think people should be should be characterized as racist without attribution even at their own article much less at another article. "Racist" is the de rigueur criticism of everyone in the day in which we live. Trump is of course racist. It would virtually be negligent not to call Trump racist. Bret Weinstein was forced to leave his teaching position under the accusation of racism. There is no reason not to use attribution. The reader should be immediately apprised of the origin of the accusation. Bus stop (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't a racist be described as a racist? Because it could make some people uncomfortable? We're an uncensored encyclopedia. We should call things what they are. If there is serious dispute, we should use attribution and include non-marginal opposing viewpoints as policy requires. The overuse or misuse of the word racist as a convenient insult is not Wikipedia's issue nor does it apply to this discussion. - MrX 🖋 21:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The racist label may not be the best example to start from given that it is one of the "objective" labels that can be defined -- but it still has subjectivity to it. That is the nature of labels is that there is no formula or rules or anything like an objective, quantitative test for that purpose, and thus some people may use the label to describe a person as racist when others would not. Again, "racist" is a case where there's not as much subjectivity as other terms like alt-right, etc. so its a poor example but we still need to be careful about its use. It is not something that can be factually applied to person in wikivoice because there is no standard consistent definition of "is a racist" that every writer and reader can agree on that we can reliable use. Only long after the person has died and that is the long-term view of academics can we readily adopt that. Of course, with a living person and the current subject of discussion, and a survey of the reliable sources should a significant to overwhelming use of that label, we are bound by DUE to include that, but we still have to keep it out of Wikivoice, and again, how to do that based on that survey (whether named attribution is needed or not or just a general broad stance "is generally considered a racist."
 * But this situation is again unique that we're talking about a BLP Y in the context of topic X, and as I've explained above, it becomes a OR and NPOV to bring in labels that refer to Y but not in the context of X when writing our article of X. Eg: probably more than enough sources since Trump took office to say that he is widely considered racist, but it would be very much inappropriate to tag the article on "The Apprentice" declaring Trump racist there without specific sources making said connections.
 * Also, statements like Why shouldn't a racist be described as a racist? reflect this thinking on WP that needs to be toned down that leads to a lot of the conflict in the AP2 and other topic areas, in this drive that those BLPs that are on the "bad" side - the alt-/far-right area like Molyneux, Trump, and so on - that we need to document every wrong they have done. I've said this before, but BLP articles - of anyone - are not supposed to be laundry lists of all the bad things they are done. They need to be written as summaries of their life. If they have led controversial activities, that's fine, but we should be summarizing that, not documenting every time a news story comes out. Attitude that we need to make sure labels are applied reflect that same stance. It is importance that when there is a clear stance of the media (not cherry-picking one or two sources but when >25% of sources regularly reporting on a BLP) label a BLP then we should not be ignoring that, but we should definitely avoiding trying to wiggle every solitary opinion if its not widely shared. We need to be thinking much more center-of-the-road/conservatively (not in the political sense) here as we write article on controversial BLP and topics related to them, even though there is the drive to use WP to try to be the force to good to show how bad this people are... we just can't. We have to be neutral and impartial in our approach though we certainly are free to include the media's majority stance appropriately. --M asem (t) 00:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This illustrates what is wrong with discussions on Wikipedia. It's not only a hijack of the original topic, but it's built on faulty assumptions and broken logic. - MrX 🖋 11:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We have to strike a balance between Expressions of doubt and Contentious labels. On the one hand, we don't want to imply that there is any possible doubt that these people are far right, on the other hand we don't want to use the term to denigrate them. That must be done on a case by case basis. In general avoid the term when it is redundant, use it when it is not. For example, don't say "x is a member of the far right American Nazi Party." But do say, "The American Nazi Party is a far right organization." TFD (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "Racist" is meaningless in the hands of those most likely to use the term. Therefore we should always use in-line attribution. Not only are there no objective standards of "racist" but a social justice warrior is unconstrained by definitions of such terms. Critical race theory is rooted in postmodernism. The sources most likely to level claims of racism are the sources least likely to be employing anything like objective criteria. The woke left will call someone "racist" whether they are or not. Bret Weinstein was forced to leave Evergreen State College because he was "racist". But was he? Not even remotely. A couple of weeks ago Dr. James Lindsay writes "My friend and I discussed some of the breaking points that were crossed for us and for people we know. For me, it was something between seeing unfair witchhunt-like haranguing applied to public figures I respected (falsely accusing them of racism and sexism), the subversive manipulation of language, and, especially, the brazen attacks on science coming from both the activist and scholarly communities around Critical Social Justice. This happened for me a few years ago. For my friend, it was the undeniable real racism and blatant double-standards at the heart of much of the Woke activist enterprise. For some of our friends, the public defense of riots in Woke language—like “whiteness is property,” so it’s okay to burn down a business—was a bridge too far. For others, it was being bullied into allyship that’s never good enough. For so many more, it’s just the outright racism." Wikipedia should never be repeating verbatim charges of racism without WP:INTEXT attribution. Any such claims should be kept out of Wikivoice. This applies most strongly to living people. The reader should be apprised which source is leveling the charge of racism. Bus stop (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why did this discussion change from two specific political descriptions to racism? - MrX 🖋 11:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a response to this Trojan horse repeated here, which I deftly avoided but which seems to have ensnared other, more experienced editors. Newimpartial (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes! Trojan horse describes it exactly. I don't know why I didn't recognize it—it's not like I haven't seen this before. - MrX 🖋 20:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

One particular situation would be where the label is synthethized from other sources. Say, there is a reliable source for the fact that one event gathered controversy because the 'right-wing provocateur' John Doe attended it. Then, someone would combine sources that do not detail this controversy itself, and the end result would look something like: "controversy arose, because the far-right white nationalist[1][2][3][4][5] attended the event". This seems very common. Only the main biography should include details and multiple sources at this level, not some short mention elsewhere. I also recall there was some edit-warring over how to desribe the DSA in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's bio, but not the DSA article itself. Silly, right? --Pudeo (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Silly, but understandable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Refocus
I love it as much as the next guy when editors hijack a thread with thousand-word jeremiads about how critical race theory is The Real Threat Facing America. But this thread started with an actual, specific question. To get back to it: it is a fact that David Rubin uses his show to give a platform to far-right extremists and white nationalists, like Southern, Molyneux, etc. We are in the business of conveying facts to our readers. We are not in the business of finding creative euphemisms to suppress or minimize those facts. These guests' appearances on Rubin's show are relevant not because they're "controversial", but because they are extremists&mdash;that context is clear in reliable sources, and therefore should be clear in our article as well. MastCell Talk 19:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, this discussion has died down so I have a question, where from here? This is contentious material related to a BLP with what looks to me to be no consensus. Normally this would mean remove the material. However, in this case the question isn't inclusion so that wouldn't be the correct action. I think we have consensus for inclusion in some form. The question is inclusion of what? My read is one side is saying we can follow the parent article and include labels in Wikivoice and/or labels that are supported by the parent article even if they are not supported by the sources in the Rubin article. The other side is saying that the Rubin article's sources are not sufficient to apply the labels in Wikivoice so we should use some type of attribution in the Rubin article. How do we handle this in a BLP, no-consensus state? Springee (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * —the question is "labels" versus "label". One umbrella term of reference should cover the group of people referenced in the Rubin article. In other words—what do they have in common? The answer is possibly seen in the original post initiating this discussion: "This text[1] was removed on the Dave Rubin page, making it unclear why it was controversial for Rubin to host extremists such as Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux and Tommy Robinson." What is the umbrella term of reference? The term of reference is "extremists". I am saying this not because I think "extremists" is the most apt term. I am simply saying this because it is one blanket term (umbrella term) to cover all the people referenced in that sentence which is found in the Rubin article. Only one term should cover all such people if they are to be referenced from the Rubin article. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I see your point but I don't think I like "extremists" as the universal descriptor. Again, I think Masem's proposal is best because it is the best compromise between those who want specific labels in wiki-voice, those who feel the labels used must come from sources within the Rubin article (thus attributable) and those who want to avoid the labels in articles not about those being labeled.  "Extremist" is probably a true descriptor but I don't think it captures what makes them controversial.  An extreme-cyclist or ultra-marathon runner is an extremist but not in a way that is controversial.  At the same time I can see the issue with "controversial".  Someone like Dennis Prager is controversial for what many feel are misleading or deceptive arguments regarding relatively mainstream topics.  Masem's proposal adds more detail to the specific controversies in question without putting things in wiki-voice.  Springee (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing how alt-right or nationalist are WP:LABEL-quality labels; they're neutral political descriptors that many people use for themselves and which are used widely in academica. Even far-right is an academic terms with a widely-agreed definition; I don't agree that it is automatically the sort of value-laden label that LABEL describes.  When such sources are widely used by the sources and not in serious dispute, they should be used.  Otherwise we end up in a situation (which we seem to be approaching now) where any neutral, objective description of their politics, no matter how well-sourced, will be rejected because some people view those politics negatively.  A political slur is a WP:LABEL; describing someone as a nationalist is simply describing their politics.  There is room to argue over whether those descriptors are well-sourced enough or accurate enough, but I would strenuously object to the assertion that calling someone eg. a nationalist automatically falls under WP:LABEL. --Aquillion (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing how your comment is a reply to what I was saying. I think that could/should be a separate topic but the issue here is really how do we move forward with a no-consensus state.  We do not have a consensus for the current wording but I think we do have consensus for including something.  The question is what.  Springee (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Alt-right" is perhaps the epitome of LABEL because it is vastly subjective term, no one agrees where it starts or differentiates itself from the "right" or the "far right". Labels do not necessarily need to be "negative" though most are, but core is their lack of an objective measure (not one that "the media says so, so we go with that"). A "nationalist" itself may or may not be a label depends on context, but a "white nationalist" becomes more of a problem as there are very subjective bounds on that definition, with a grey zone that separates it from the more mainstream "conservative" GOP platform if you go by some media reports. The fact that Molyneux self-identifies as a white nationalist is an exception not a rule as many that seem to be called white nationalists try to deny association with the term, which should clearly make it a label for our purposes. Being a label doesn't invalid using but it requires numerous careful steps to keep it out of wikivoice and apply the appropriate type of attribution to the level it is used in the media. --M asem  (t) 13:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The Economist writes "Editor's note: This article has been changed. A previous version mistakenly described Mr Shapiro as an 'alt-right sage' and 'a pop idol of the alt right'. In fact, he has been strongly critical of the alt-right movement. We apologise." What does it say about the term "alt-right" if an astute publication like the "The Economist" can make this error? Bus stop (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Lenny Gomulka


Everything in this article has been fully verified. We are asking that the administrative caption at the very top of the article be deleted as all needed citations have been included and verified. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgomulka (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added extra citations and removed the template, since the citations should be sufficient now. Gbear605 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Bruce Loveless, COI editing, and the presumption of innocence


Bruce Loveless is a retired US Navy rear admiral. Recently, I've cut his article down from 8 kilobytes to about 6.5 kilobytes. I've removed an unsourced list of military awards, plus various other unsourced content.

About a year ago, User:Bfloveless removed one sentence of sourced text. I've now restored it.

But I've been having second thoughts about having restored the text.


 * A) WP:DNOLT says: "When editors blank articles ... they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before assuming they're disruptive".
 * B) WP:SUSPECT says: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by : Editors must seriously consider including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."
 * C) I also wonder whether or not Bruce Loveless meets our notability criteria (WP:BIO / WP:NSOLDIER) at all. If not, then we can just delete the whole article and ignore all of the above.

Your thoughts and suggestions would be welcome. Or, of course, feel free to edit the article directly.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, we don't report allegations unless there is a conviction in a court of law, and that conviction has been covered by reliable, secondary sources. The exception to that is WP:WELLKNOWN, in which case it will be so widely reported that it's just in every newspaper and magazine that you see, in which case there is no longer any point in protecting their right to be innocent until proven guilty, but this means that the allegations or incident need to be well known (well covered), not just the person by default. Zaereth (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Loveless is part of a very very big scandal (see Fat Leonard scandal). There's a ton of reporting on Loveless's involvement. These aren't "allegations", they are criminal charges. I disagree with Zaereth that this interferes with the presumption of innocence. Loveless has been charged and is presumed to be innocent unless and until a court finds him guilty. There is no reason to exclude this content. Mo Billings (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear : I hear you. Still, I think that either you haven't read our WP:SUSPECT policy or you simply disagree with the policy. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have read that part of the BLP policy and I wholeheartedly agree that we should consider if it is appropriate to include information about criminal charges in BLPs. In this particular case, I think it is appropriate to include the charges. Mo Billings (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that you removed the information about charges from Loveless's article. I don't know if you've taken the time to Google search the case, but the charges are most definitely "well-known". Also check the table in Fat Leonard scandal which lists all of those charged, including Loveless. This isn't an unkown person getting a traffic citation. Please reconsider your edit. Mo Billings (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Pritzker - question about appropriate family detail & DOB
My initial concern was a DOB without even a source, certainly no indication even one source would meet WP:DOB which says that DOBs for living people must be well known to be included. Then I noticed all the family details under "Early life". Are these really appropriate? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The links to her relatives? If they are notable enough to have articles (which may be questionable, I don't know), I don't see why we wouldn't link them here. I could see removing Ratner (her mother remarried him after Pritzker was very much an adult, and he's questionably notable anyway). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Rikesh Chauhan
This is a page presumably created by the person himself, mainly aimed at self-promotion. The citations are poor, in many cases, blogs and the author's own website. Going by Wikipedia's standards, this page must be removed immediately: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:

is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research); relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see #Using the subject as a self-published source); or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vettipayyan123 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that the issue here is not BLP standards, since the information isn't contentious, but rather simple notability. Of all the sources on the page, none of them are both reliable and contain significant information about Chauhan. Perhaps he is notable, but the current sources do not show it.
 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/events/ezc5d4/acts/a6p9mb only lists RKZ (Chauhan's stage name) as a performer at the event
 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qspy3 says that RKZ performs ‘Superstars’ from his ‘Words of Adrenaline’ Mixtape. and has a link to a clone of the Wikipedia information on Chauhan
 * https://www.stereofox.com/album-reviews/album-review-handbook-x-rkz-x-supreme-sol-triad-ep/ is not reliable and only barely about Chauhan.
 * https://www.thecalmzone.net/donate/ doesn't contain information about Chauhan as of today.
 * http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1989674/ doesn't contain information about Chauhan as of today.
 * And all the other sources are self-published and about him or are tweets, so they can't prove notability.
 * In addition, one editor who has been active since 2011, AlexisBelieve, has contributed more than half of the article and almost all of their edits (158/189) have been to this page. This seems plausibly WP:AUTOBIO.
 * Gbear605 (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Young Dolph
The article on Young Dolph lists 2 different birthdates. Unfortunately I do not know the correct birthdate only noticed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.117.16 (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Both references used to source the birthdate say August 11, so I’ve changed the article to consistently reflect that. Neiltonks (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Laura Loomer
The page is riddled with libel and personal attacks, and the sources cited repeatedly do the same, cleanup is very overdue, but Wikipedia is blocking any but your "trusted" admins from editing it, some of whom appear to be the responsible individulas for using this page as a partisan defamation campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4C04:6290:3524:2B7:A472:1A3C (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest taking your concerns to the article talk page, and proposing concrete changes backed by reliable sources. That usually works best.  And it will definitely help if you drop the term "libel," but of course are free to suggest that things are in violation of WP:BLP.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can give specific statements or sources which are problematic, for example, "In the sentence that says XXXX, that is incorrect because YYYY" and also include in your assessment links to reliable sources that support the changes you want to make, that would be most helpful. Vague statements like the above are not helpful for improving articles.  -- Jayron 32 19:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Margot (activist)
Margot (activist) is a hero. Over at her article, there is ugly deadnaming. Rainbow freedom (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this problem. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is to use the chosen pronouns and name of transgender individuals. However, Wikipedia will mention their deadname when it is the name that they are widely known under. For instance, Wendy Carlos’ page mentions her deadname, since that was the name that she released much of her music under. However, I believe that in this case, mentioning Margot’s deadname is not appropriate, whether or not it is the name on her legal ID, since she is not widely known under any name and English language sources refer to her as some version of her preferred name (Małgorzata or Margot). Gbear605 (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Olivia Arben
This needs some eyes. Seems to be subject to much promotional traffic. I asked for one recent WP:SPA to be blocked, to no avail. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Michelle Lujan Grisham
I am reporting false information in the biography of Michelle Lujan Grisham. She is not the first Hispanic Democrat to be elected as governor of a US State. See these articles Ezequiel Cabeza De Baca elected the Governor of New Mexico on November 7, 1916. Jerry Apodaca and Toney Anaya were also Democrats elected as governor. The information in the article, as worded (as well as the first Democratic Hispanic elected state governor in U.S. history.), is false and is easily corrected by inserting the word female before Democratic Hispanic. I am very new to Wikipedia and as yet not comfortable with making edits on my own.


 * Thanks for your report. Please note the first part of the sentence reads "On November 6, 2018, she became the first Democratic woman elected governor of New Mexico" so that is accurate. With this edit an IP added "woman" to the second part of the sentence so it now reads " as well as the first Democratic Hispanic woman elected state governor in U.S. history." Thus, it looks like everything has been taken care of. Regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Tiffany Alston
Tiffany Alston list the incorrect middle name/initial. The correct middle initial is "T" not "Sheree" The reference to the martindale page for Tiffany Sheree Alston is for a different person and needs to be removed. The correction was attempted but it stills appears incorrect on wikiwand and the google search results for "Tiffany Alston" This is the correct reference. Please help remove this incorrect reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpmefixthis (talk • contribs) 18:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that you've made the changes at Tiffany Alston, so I think that's all we can do from here. Wikiwand and Google search results are not part of Wikimedia. Wikiwand appears to mirror Wikipedia, so hopefully it'll change according to whatever their update schedule is. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * For clarity's sake, I moved this article to Tiffany T. Alston. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Evo Morales
Would editors mind having a look at this edit at Evo Morales please? Is the implication of pedophilia a breach of BLP policy? One of the sources (panampost) is considered unreliable but the other sources are not in English and are unfamiliar to me. Burrobert (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at this and I would, perhaps should under living person wikipedia guidelines, delete it for the time being. It is very newsy and totally unproven as yet. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I haven’t seen any English language mentions of this apart from the Panampost story. On the other hand, it is written in such bad and melodramatic English that readers who see it will probably burst out laughing. So leaving it in may serve some purpose. Burrobert (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * things have moved on since then with new developments which have been covered in the BBC [//www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-53858091] and others [//www.france24.com/en/20200821-bolivia-probes-alleged-morales-affair-with-minor] [//www.thetimes.co.uk/article/exiled-bolivian-ex-president-evo-morales-accused-of-rape-xvmgl6d9d]. IMO it's starting to receive the level of coverage, as perhaps one would expect given that it involves a former head of state that some mention in the article is likely justified although it probably shouldn't be in to much detail. I definitely don't think we should mention paedophilia in any way. But we probably could mention a criminal complaint was filed alleging statutory rape based on evidence allegedly showing a relationship with a 19 year old that begun 5 years ago when she was 14. Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks . Yes, it appears photographs exist of him "in a number of places" with a girl who "was 14 when she began accompanying him on trips". As far as I can tell the girl, who apparently is now 19, has said nothing and neither has Morales. It seems the Bolivian justice ministry has lodged the "complaint". There is no explanation of how the Bolivian justice ministry knows what went on behind closed doors. Definately needs to be in the article - mention the photo's and the Bolivian justice ministry lodging the complaint. By the way there is an election scheduled for 18 October and the MAS party is well ahead. Maybe putting "Pedophilia" in the heading is the way to go. Burrobert (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Stanisław Michalkiewicz
Some inspection is needed for the recent edits of the newly created account to this BLP article -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  23:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's clear issues with some of the sources used - online pdfs, access denied - and, at least in the version which I saw, some of the sources not verifying the content for which they're referenced. - Ryk72 talk 06:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The subject's comments on the Holocaust have garnered some coverage, such as:
 * "15 years ago, Stanisław Michalkiewicz repeated on the air that Jews benefit from the memory of the Holocaust and that 'holocaust business managers' want to extort billions of zlotys from Poland".
 * Also in Google books:, in Robert S. Wistrich: A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad.
 * Then in  Anti-Judaism, Antisemitism, and Delegitimizing Israel, which discusses Michalkiewicz's "provocatively entitled" pamphlet Herrenvolk po zydowsku. The title obviously connects the Jews to the Nazi concept of the "master race".
 * --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Leon Black
Could we have some editors take a look at this BLP where an editor is repeatedly add in a lot of UNDUE innuendo and other disparaging content here. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm torn here. Some of the information (connections between Black and Jeffrey Epstein) seems to me to be due - it's covered extensively in reliable sources including Bloomberg and the New York Times - but the initial information was perhaps overly disparaging., you removed all the information in . Do you believe that all of it is undue and should not be included? , you attempted to re-add the information in , do you think that all of it should be there? Gbear605 (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be there in some form, but I think the way it was done was undue. Thought it would be easier to Blow it up and start over. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The same user has added additional UNDUE innuendo apparently attempting to suggest that Black is implicated in some of Epstein's activities.  SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the content is due and not a smear. The New York Times, a RS, certainly sees a connection between Black and Epstein, as does the attorney general of the Virgin Islands. In addition, some of the previous content is due as well, so I'm re-adding it. Gbear605 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Given that much of Black's coverage in reliable sources is related to his connections to Epstein, the information is certainly due. I've re-added it, but I've removed much of the innuendo and disparaging content, only simply noting the connections. I see no reason to say that it is undue to describe a connection between Epstein and Black, given that it has been reported by Bloomberg, Business Insider, Forbes, and the New York Times. Gbear605 (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a man with a 50 year history in finance and other areas, which is the basis of his notability. It is simply false to claim that "much of his coverage" is over a civil subpoena for documents relating to the recent investigation of a third party. This needs to stay out of the article unless consensus supports including some any of it in some form. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that much of the coverage isn't about this single subpoena, but there are dozens of RS articles discussing controversy around the connection between Black and Epstein. If that isn't significant, I don't know what is. Some significant ones, talking only about the connection, include, , , and . Of course, there is coverage of Black going back throughout his lifetime, but this is a significant amount, making it WP:DUE.
 * I've removed the content from Black's page for now, but I believe that the version I removed in should be re-added, potentially with some changes. Gbear605 (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the content from Black's page for now, but I believe that the version I removed in should be re-added, potentially with some changes. Gbear605 (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I would lean towards exclusion at this point. This seems like a guilt by association and given the relatively short length of the BLP I don't think inclusion is warranted.  Some Epstein connection may be DUE but the length in question and as a complete subsection rather than a criticism included in parent topic looks UNDUE.  Springee (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sara L. Ellis
A user 'Snickers2686' kept deleting my edits while I was in the middle of edits.

She claimed that I needed to add sources, which I was working on. Then she filed a report.

I reviewed her record and it seems she has a history of being sanctioned and writing biased reports on judicial figures. I am writing nothing bad about the judge herself. I am commenting on a case she oversaw which was highly publicized in numerous media outlets.

I believe it is important to include this case in her biography.

She kept deleting my edits while I was still in the middle of the edits and then wrote me a letter. I feel that individuals such as 'Snickers2686' are operating with an agenda and harm the egalitarian principle of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engaged audience1 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , egalitarian principles are not operating rules, in general. Specifically in the case of Wikipedia, "Anyone can edit" does not mean "Anyone can edit anything they want into any article in any way with any sources at any time."  The material you were trying to add violated several policies and  was correct in removing it, no matter what level of completeness you felt you had yet reached.  The Core Content Policies (especially the Undue Weight section of the Neutral Point of View policy) and the Biographies of Living Persons policy (especially the section on use of primary sources) both militate against inclusion of the material you sought to add in that form.  As a side note, you should notify anyone you reference in a dispute you bring to this board as the big blue box at the top of the page instructs.  I suggest that you read the links I've left here before continuing to edit any article.  For that article in particular, I notice that  has already rejected your edit request on the talk page. I want to emphasize that if three experienced editors are saying "no" to your edits that does not mean, "We don't want you in our club."  It means, "Please take some time to read these policies that apply and then try again." I hope that helps clarify the situation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Potentially defamatory content at Jiah Khan
has on three occasions added potentially defamatory content about Indian actor Sooraj Pancholi at Jiah Khan. [self-redacted] After I reverted the first time, I opened a discussion about it, which the other editor didn't respond to immediately. They then resubmitted the content without consensus, I reverted it again, and they restored it again.

Short story: Jiah Khan killed herself and her suicide note attributes her poor relationship with Pancholi as a cause of her despair. Some terms like "rape" and "torture" are used. Quoting from the suicide note: " "After all the pain, the rape, the abuse, the torture I have seen previously I didn't deserve this." That's highly ambiguous phrasing that could be an accusation that Pancholi committed these acts, or it could also be interpreted in other ways, including that Khan experienced these things prior to her relationship with Pancholi. I don't know how anyone can say definitively that she was accusing Pancholi of rape and physical torture. Also, "torture" is vague. People often use the word as hyperbole, or to describe emotional turmoil.

The other source that Abbasquadir used, this, presents a quote, "I loved you and in return, I received abuses, rape, and physical torture" which doesn't even seem to be in the suicide note. And the only discussion about newstracklive.com that I can find on RSN was here, but it's not a source I'm familiar with in Indian articles, and I edit lots of those.

Anyhow, based on that, I think it's egregiously bad to let this poorly-phrased content survive. I'm also concerned about Abbasquadir's defensive behaviour. Refusing to listen to experienced Wikipedians is not a great choice. At Talk:Sooraj Pancholi he pasted the entire suicide note text. I redacted it as a copyright violation, they restored it. And when Hut 8.5 left a warning on Abbasquadir's talk page, they removed it commenting "please discuss on article talkpage". So, they don't seem too receptive to feedback or warnings. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Self-redacted the potential defamatory content per the BLPN rules. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Please see the talk page, I did "ASK" the for a clarification, which the user FAILED to provide. Wonder why is all the exaggeration?
 * What is this IF NOT WP:BULLYING?? Abbasquadir
 * , "What is this if not bullying?" This is a new user failing to understand they have been treated with great forbearance despite attempting to post material that violates US law and this project's policies. "Anyone can edit" does not mean "Anyone can edit at any time in any way they see fit." I advise you stop what you're doing and listen to the explanations you've received. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the content :In her suicide note Jiah mentioned that Sooraj used to physically abuse and torture her everytime. "
 * Curious to understand the issue here. Abbasquadir (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You asked for clarification 7 minutes after you added the content a third time. And what did you need clarification on? I wrote a clear rationale the first time I removed the content. What part of "potentially defamatory" and "highly ambiguous phrasing" was confusing to you? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Question for information only: Is it possible to apply discretionary sanctions to Jiah Khan? Since she died in India after having appeared in Bollywood films, and remains controversial in that country, perhaps her page falls within the purview of discretionary sanctions for edits and pages relating to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, as authorized by WP:ARBCOM. If so, applying those sanctions would impose WP:1RR and require a user to wait 24 hours before reinstating a reverted edit. Such additional precautions would seem appropriate in this case. NedFausa (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , there is no need for squeezing this under ARBIP since BLP are already covered by authorized Discretionary Sanctions. If you need to, you can see the list of all authorized topic areas covered by DS here.  I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What would you recommend here? This seems like a no-brainer to me that this content should be omitted because it is poorly written and interpretive and is potentially defamatory. Is this even considered a standard content dispute? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , a DS alert for Pakistan-india has already been left on 's talk page by . I've left a note under your noticeboard alert to clarify that the same sanctions also cover BLP and the articles on the recently-dead.  If they do anything else after that point that violates BLP (which I think any mention of the text of the notes certainly does) an uninvolved admin can take whatever measures they think necessary. I think they are intending to follow the rules but as a new user they are not yet aware of all the rules in this area. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * #1)Please note that I posted it on article Talkpage AND NOT MAIN article page, as I was not sure if posting it would be right per wiki norms.
 * #1)Please note that I posted it on article Talkpage AND NOT MAIN article page, as I was not sure if posting it would be right per wiki norms.

Sir, your explanation makes sense to me,. exactly what I was talking about, give me a rational, explanation! which FAILED to provide. AND I DO UNDERSTAND what you said,and don't see a problem following it. I understand that rules and regulations of wikipedia because if which the content holds value. Good day.Abbasquadir (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop misrepresenting the facts. There are TWO explanations Talk:Jiah Khan about the unsuitability of the potentially defamatory content you added to the article. TWO of them. Both explain that the content is poor written and potentially defamatory. The first goes into specific detail about how your poor interpretation of the vague wording in Khan's suicide note results in Wikipedia now asserting that Khan accused Pancholi of specific crimes. These were posted before you asked for clarification. I didn't clarify further, because it's obvious you never read either post, and rather than omit the content, as I urged on the talk page should be done, you restored it and now you're playing dumb and shifting the fault to me. Give me a break. This is all on you. Tangentially related: A copyright violation is a copyright violation. It doesn't matter if you post it in the article or on the talk page. If you republish someone's property without a legitimate argument of Fair Use or explicit permission to do so, it's a potential copyright violation. Both of these actions of yours are absolutely ridiculous, as are your responses to them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Terence Yung
There's a potentially defamatory headline that Yung "terrorized" an interviewer stemming from a blog. To be clear, Yung did not plead guilty to terrorism. I consulted his plea agreement and that word is nowhere to be found. I request permission to change that verb to "cyberstalked." Leave the poor kid, alone. He made a mistake, did his time, it's time to move on.

On a separate note, I wonder if cyberstalking should be merged with legal career to conserve space and memory...

LexisNexisWest (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I tried to update Yung's bio to give more context into the legal issues raised, but even sourced changes were repeatedly censored by another editor. In my humble opinion, the "why" of the case is just as important as the other questions of who, what when, and where and ought to be a fair subject of an encyclopedia entry. Many cases are reported in encyclopedias before they are ultimately successfully resolved in the litigants favor. And the matters raised here are not insubstantial or unworthy of mention. I am respectfully requesting that the primary-sourced changes be added back to the article.

LexisNexisWest (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As "another editor" who reverted these changes, I will explain to this audience as I did to you on your user talk page (here and here) as well as on the article talk page (here). The section of the article that was edited was titled "Legal career", which was highly misleading. To clarify, Yung studied law (sources are unclear as to whether he actually ever graduated law school), but his entire "legal career" consists of appearing pro se at his appeal of his cyberstalking conviction. The section consisted largely of Yung's own arguments presented at appeal, which is hardly in keeping with neutrality. The "headline" in question (which uses the word "terrorizing") refers to the title of one of the citations used in describing Yung's cyberstalking conviction. To be clear, the Wikipedia article does not use the word "terrorizing" other than as the title of the cited article. Your opinion about whether the "why" of Yung's case is relevant do not come into play here: Wikipedia does not deal in original research (including judgments about which cases are interesting or notable). If Yung's appeal ends up creating some legal precedent, and getting written up by independent sources, then we can include that information, presented neutrally. Regarding your comment about merging the "Legal career" and "Cyberstalking" sections, let me point out that:
 * Saving memory is not really a consideration at Wikipedia. Since every past version of the page is saved, every edit (whether increasing or decreasing the current size of the page) adds to the total Wikipedia database size. The Wikimedia engineers are quite adept at handling this, so we need not worry about it.
 * There no longer is a "Legal career" section to merge; it has been removed since the "Legal career" section consisted solely to present Yung's defense, which I will reiterate was a violation of neutrality.
 * -- WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Susan McClary
The Susan McClary BLP has large sections of criticism, written in a very WP:ESSAY-like style, that are unsourced, or sourced to unreliable sources (e.g. Holocaust denying publishers). I noted the problem last week and removed some of the most problematic parts, but was reverted by User:Kosboot, despite WP:BLPREMOVE. Looking at the history of the article, I noticed that User:KidAd had a few weeks earlier removed that material and much more, and had been similarly reverted by User:Kosboot and another section reverted by User:Michael Bednarek. I've brought the issue here for review. Jayjg (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, I specifically asked you to review the discussion on the article's talk page where several editors agreed that it should be reinstated. So rather than engage us, you come running over to this page to cry for help. All of the editors of that discussion are well-versed in musicological issues or are musicologists themselves and understand the literature and context of the issue. Either engage us, or move on to something else. - kosboot (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Kosboot, the issue here is primarily of WP:BLP, and secondarily of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:ESSAY. Being "well-versed in musicological issues" does not guarantee that you are well-versed in Wikipedia policy, and the very brief discussion on the article's Talk: page does not address WP:BLP. This board, however, does. Have you read WP:BLPREMOVE? I recommend you do so now, if you have not done so already. Jayjg (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, it was for your benefit that I came to this board. As an alternative, I could have simply blocked you (per WP:BLPREMOVE), and then removed the material. Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Might as well chime in – thanks for the ping Jayjg. In April, I made a fairly bold edit here, which removed broad swaths of content that violated WP:NOTJOURNAL and WP:NOTESSAY. If you look at the diff, you will notice that I removed chunks of unsourced text about McClary's scholarship that was written like a college essay, CV, or university bio. I can see now that the text has been re-inserted. There is a very small discussion on the talk page that references a "substantial cut" (being my edit), but nothing that constitutes consensus. I will not that I was never pinged on the talk page, and therefor never participated in any content-related discussion. I will remind Kosboot that they must gain consensus per WP:ONUS to include the unsourced essay material. I will also restore the "essay-like" template to the page, as the problems have returned. KidAd   talk  19:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Don Colbert
The Don Colbert page says "he is a specialist in faith healing". This is false and offensive to a practicing MD.

I attempted to update this page with the official bio of Dr. Don Colbert on behalf of the Colbert Family but @Krelnik reverted my changes twice. I have attempted to work with @Krelnik since Friday to have the necessary libelous claims removed, but he has not done so. This content is inaccurate, hurting Dr. Colbert's medical practice, and offensive to the Colbert Family and needs to be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSP0421 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to make an edit on behalf of the subject of the article, your best bet is to use request edit on the article's talk page as per Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. Ensuring Wikipedia's neutrality is really important, and as has said, you'll need to request that a non-associated editor verifies and makes the edit (which is what request edit does). Just as a heads up, you'll also need to provide sources for any claims you make. ItsPugle (please use &#123;&#123;reply|ItsPugle}}) 12:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We did discuss this on my personal talk page where I explained to some of the policies involved, including requesting an edit on an article's talk page. I did make one of their requested changes (removing the word "Pentecostal" which doesn't seem supported by the sources). But I don't understand the distinction about faith healing that is being made. Colbert's website is literally full of references to faith and its relationship to health and healing. See here, here, here and here. I gather there's some subtle distinction here but I'm not getting it. I would suggest that JSP0421, in their requested edit, suggest some replacement verbiage that still retains the fact that Colbert incorporates religion into his practice but removes the supposedly offensive language. --Krelnik (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do RS call him a faith healer?Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any RS about him at all to be honest. The most independent thing I could find is an interview in which the writter calls him a "Healing Minister". The writer of that article/interview is a personal friend of Colbert's ("My friend Dr. Don Colbert is a Spirit-filled medical doctor") though, and the site itself is not reliable (and based off the citations on its article, not notable enough to have its own WP page anyways). ItsPugle (please use &#123;&#123;reply|ItsPugle}}) 13:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

IP editors changing Aphex Twin
Attention, I tell that IP editors persistently changing English to Irish in Aphex Twin nationality so I want to give more attention to this notice. Someone know that IPs persistent changing English to Irish nationality that will impact WP:ENGVAR. I assume it is the violation of MOS:ETHNICITY because if it changed by IPs editors as Irish from English, that article automatically use Irish English instead British English. I note that IPs that change the nationality of the singer are:
 * 109.175.199.72
 * 89.100.208.17, and
 * 2A01:4C8:1440:E7:E1EE:D0B1:393D:7E60

110.137.186.235 (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already requested page protection for this: Requests_for_page_protection
 * I don't think it has ramifications for WP:ENGVAR. Popcornfud (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has ramifications for WP:ENGVAR. Popcornfud (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking at the source used for Twin's nationality, it only calls him "British" not "English." Perhaps he is English and not Irish, but the source used doesn't prove that. Gbear605 (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization of "the" in a stage name
More thoughts and opinions are needed regarding the capitalization of "the" in a solo musician's stage name, particularly The Weeknd's. Some1 (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This issue involves a BLP in regard to their name/stage name. The discussion initially began over at: Talk:The_Weeknd

If a solo musician has “The” with a capital T in their stage name/alias/pseudonym, should the “The” be capitalized, especially in the lead sentence regarding their own stage name?

I’ll use The Weeknd as an example. Abel uses “The Weeknd” (with a capital T) as his stage name. People who are familiar with his music and works know this. If not, this is according to:
 * His main website: https://www.theweeknd.com/news/weeknd-claims-1-spot-billboard-hot-100 ("GRAMMY® Award-winning diamond-certified Toronto R&B / Pop icon The Weeknd captures")
 * His record label: http://www.republicrecords.com/artists/the-weeknd ("through an ambitious widescreen lens, The Weeknd quietly")
 * His YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheWeeknd/about (“Abel adopted the stage name, "The Weeknd," after")
 * His official Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/theweeknd/ (“The official Facebook Page for The Weeknd")
 * Billboard: https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6737514/weeknd-rolling-stone-cover-story-5-things-we-learned (“Abel Tesfaye, aka The Weeknd, told Rolling Stone”)

The Weeknd's article has his stage name as "The Weeknd" with a capital T since 2011 (article was created in 2011). This is the long-standing status quo. Random time periods throughout the years: 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 all correctly capitalize his stage name as “The Weeknd” in the lead sentence.

Now, a couple editors are recently saying that the “the” should be lower-case, both in the stage name and in the body of the article. 


 * Some are citing MOS:THEMUSIC. However, MOS:THEMUSIC includes directions for bands, not solo artists, which caused this recent discussion on its talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music and no clear directions.


 * Another argument is MOS:NICKNAMETHE, which states: “A leading "the" is not capitalized in a nickname, pseudonym, or other alias (except when the alias begins a sentence)” with a link in its sentence to MOS:THECAPS, which states: “however, some idiomatic expressions, including the titles of artistic and academic works, should be quoted exactly according to common usage.” The section lists The Hague and The Open Championship as examples of exceptions.
 * Is The Weeknd an exception, since that's his stage name and is most commonly used with a capital T? Or is MOS:NICKNAMETHE the definitive guideline and MOS:THECAPS does not apply to The Weeknd (or any other solo-musicians)? One editor stated that MOS:THECAPS is guidance for titles of artistic works, but The Open Championship is listed as an example of an exception and I don't believe that that's an artistic work per se.

Abel uses “The Weeknd” with a capital T as his stage name. If Wikipedia decides to start off The Weeknd’s article with “Abel Makkonen Tesfaye (born February 16, 1990), known professionally as 'the Weeknd'” (with a lowercase t), not only is that giving readers inaccurate information, but is basically telling Abel that he doesn’t know the casing of his own stage name.

So how should this capitalization of "the" in regard to a stage name be handled? Some1 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We have two policies that explicitly say we should lowercase "the" in both band names ( MOS:THEMUSIC) and aliases (MOS:NICKNAMETHE). The exceptions given at MOS:CAPS don't seem at all applicable here - none are people or musical acts - and I think Some1 is stretching to find a get-out clause. Popcornfud (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wanted further community input and clarification from people with fresh eyes who haven't seen the discussion over at The Weeknd's talk page. You were involved in the discussion and the editor who tried to lowercase his stage name in the first place, so I'm not surprised you're against me opening this thread. Anyway, The Weeknd himself capitalizes "The" in his own stage name and we don't want to give readers inaccurate information or tell Abel himself how he should or should not capitalize his own stage name. Thanks for the WP:ASPERSIONS though. Some1 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. I agree with Popcornfud, but there is also a reason for that, so I'll explain it if you like. In most cases it's confusing to the reader, unless the "the" is at the beginning of a sentence. It's like hitting a speed bump in the middle of the text. You, like, hit this snag, and it's like, "What the hell just happened? Did we just start a new sentence?" Then you have to start the sentence all over again to really understand it, and this is a really big problem for non-native speakers of English. And there are certain cases where it's just better to leave it out entirely, for the sole purpose of making it flow more smoothly. The thing is, we don't take rules of style from our subjects. Most all of them use what is known as colloquial speech, which is fine for rather informal publications aimed at certain demographics, like newspapers and magazines, but an encyclopedia uses a very formal style, and these rules exist to make it very easy to read and understand across a wide range of people and demographics. It's all just to keep things very easy to read and understand, and make it flow smoothly. For more info, see the huge battle over the Beatles, listed at the top of the music guideline. Zaereth (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with this argument is that thousands of artists, musicians, bands etc capitalise "the" in their names. This is not unique to t/The Weeknd. If you think we are failing to reflect the correct name by not capitalising "the", then that's also true of countless other acts. In which case: what are you doing here? Clearly your disagreement is with the policies themselves. Popcornfud (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm mainly concerned about the capitalization of his stage name (a solo musician's stage name, not bands) in the lead sentence; the article (The Weeknd) currently has his stage name capitalized in the lead sentence, but lowercase in the body of the article, which I think is an acceptable compromise. Like I stated, his stage name is "The Weeknd" and not "the Weeknd", and certainly not "Weeknd", and we don't want this glaring inaccuracy to be the first thing readers see when they read The Weeknd's article. Some1 (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally don't know many solo-musicians with "The" in their stage name. An editor at the MOS:THEMUSIC talk page mentioned The Alchemist (musician) and from the looks of his article, he also has "The" capitalized. Some1 (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * What do the majority of reliable sources use in their coverage? Ultimately, if "The" is being used as though it is part of the statename (so, for example you would never buy "a The Beatles album" but would go to "a The Weeknd concert") and not an article, and if reliable sources are reflecting that, our policy says to follow those reliable sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * His main website, his record label, YouTube channel, Facebook page, etc. (see the links provided in my original post above), Billboard (also listed above ), the Grammys, Canada's Walk of Fame . Other articles: CBC , Complex , Variety , Toronto to name a few. Some1 (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC) NME , The Verge , BBC , People , Entertainment Tonight , ABC  Some1 (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * has repeatedly dropped the red herring argument of MOS:THECAPS which has no bearing on the question. Stop it. That guideline has nothing to do with musical artists.
 * The two relevant guidelines are MOS:THEMUSIC which says we write the Beatles and not The Beatles in mid-sentence, and MOS:NICKNAMETHE which says we write the Edge is in U2 instead of The Edge is in U2. In both examples we are instructed to use sentence case.
 * Of course there is a large body of literature using both methods. The ginormous discussion we had about the Beatles in 2012 showed a great many sources proving both sides of the argument. Eventually, Wikipedia was forced to choose one of the arguments, and we chose lower case. One of the more persuasive arguments was that everybody drops the "The" when it makes sense, for instance "Lennon and McCartney were the most prolific Beatles" or "ex-Beatle Lennon". Which made the The seem less critically important.
 * For individuals such as the Edge and the Weeknd, and duos such as the Neptunes and the Veronicas, we might want to have a repeat of the big Request for Mediation of 2012, but focused on ones and twos instead of groups. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I already pointed out arguments in my original post regarding MOS:THEMUSIC, MOS:NICKNAMETHE, and MOS:THECAPS so I'm not going to repeat it here again, except briefly state that MOS:THEMUSIC has no guidelines for solo musicians, only bands (hence the talk page discussion on that article). And the relevant MOS:NICKNAMETHE sentence itself ("A leading "the" is not capitalized in a nickname, pseudonym, or other alias (except when the alias begins a sentence[e]):) links to MOS:THECAPS which lists exceptions, which is why I'm asking for clarification since The Open Championship is listed as an exception. And I'm not sure why you're using band name examples to compare to The Weeknd; I already get that we don't capitalize "the" in band names. We're talking about solo musicians here. And please don't ping me again, I'm already watching this page.
 * Keeping "The Weeknd" capitalized in the lead sentence for his stage name (which is the correct way) and lowercase for the body of the article is an acceptable compromise to me (which is the way the current article is now).
 * The only change editors are trying to make now to The Weeknd's article is to lowercase "The" in his stage name in the lead sentence. And lower-casing it would be inaccurate per my original post. Some1 (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting a capitalization style that nobody ever uses: Capitalizing The Weeknd in the first few paragraphs, then using lower case in the article body. There is not a style guide in the world choosing that method, including Wikipedia. Let's not re-invent the wheel here. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Some1 seems to be correct -- just as we would not make it lowercase for The Hague, when the word is consistently capitalized in reliable sources as part of the official name or title, we should not use a different style from reliable sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We cap "The Hague" because everybody caps The Hague. It would be wrong not to, as evidenced by all sources agreeing.  For the Weeknd, however, many sources don't cap "the"; so per MOS:CAPS generally, neither should we. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * His official stage name is "The Weeknd" with a capital T hence why his own website, his record label, YouTube channel, Facebook page, the Grammy's, Canada's Walk of Fame, Billboard (and other reliable sources) use "The Weeknd." The "The" in this case is not a definite article; it is part of his stage name. Capitalizing his stage name in the lead sentence but keeping it lowercase in the body of the article is a compromise. Some1 (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Such a "compromise" would be absurd and inconsistent. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The WP:STATUSQUO of the article was to both capitalize his stage name in the lead sentence and in the body of the article. Some1 (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are asking to stop doing that. Popcornfud (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Dicklyon, that's exactly my question. Because reliable sources consistently use capitalization when it comes to The Hague, we don't have to defer to our normal approach for "the," since our policy makes clear to defer to reliable sources. The same would be the case here -- if a strong majority of reliable secondary sources are treating The as though it is a title and not the article, our policy says to defer to them.
 * What is not in question is that, like The Hague, the official title and primary sources capitalize. So the question is, what is the format reliable secondary sources generally prefer to use?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Ignore all rules is a Wikipedia policy and applies in this case to prevent inaccuracies. Some1 (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * IAR is the last refuge of scoundrels. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also one of the most fundamental concepts in Wikipedia. IAR may be entirely appropriate here. Also, calling other editors "scoundrels" is not particularly civil - let's comment on edits, not editors. ItsPugle (please use &#123;&#123;reply|ItsPugle}}) 07:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Use lower-case the, per MOS:THECAPS, MOS:NICKNAMETHE, MOS:THEMUSIC, which exist for a reason (specifically this one).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How do secondary sources describe the subject when there is already an article before the name? So, for example, you would never say "the band covered a the Beatles song," so it is clear that "the" is simply an article in this case. Would a reliable source more commonly say "there is a Weeknd concert next week" or "there is a The Weeknd concert next week" ? If the latter, it is hard to argue we should be treating "the" like an article -- otherwise, it should be cut out entirely in those cases.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , all of this stuff was debated extensively in the 2012 Beatles debate. The outcome of that discussion was to use lowercase. Let's not rehash that debate here. Popcornfud (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a separate question and a separate case. It's clear that with the Beatles, the is treated like an article. Is it with The Weeknd?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Per the policies. Popcornfud (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, what do reliable source treat it as? If they are more commonly treating The as a title rather than an article, hence my question, then our policy is to use that format. It doesn't matter what our policy says about "the" when it comes to The Hague, because reliable sources are clear in using the official title.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The debate is whether the policies apply in this case, not what the policy says to do in cases when it does apply. As noted in MOS:THECAPS, The capitalized "The" in The Hague is an exception because virtually all reliable sources consistently make this exception, and it is listed in major off-Wikipedia style guides and dictionaries as conventionally spelled this way.
 * Thus, if "virtually all reliable sources consistently" refer to the artist as "The Weeknd" and not "the Weeknd", the policy does not apply. To resolve this, we need to consult the sources. Gbear605 (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do "virtually all reliable sources consistently" uppercase it? The answer is no. Examples: The Guardian, the BBC, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, New York Times. Popcornfud (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , given that, I agree that the MOS:THECAPS applies and we should refer to him as "the Weeknd" throughout the article. Gbear605 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Primary sources - what Abel himself uses:
 * His main website: ("GRAMMY® Award-winning diamond-certified Toronto R&B / Pop icon The Weeknd captures")
 * His record label:  ("through an ambitious widescreen lens, The Weeknd quietly")
 * His YouTube channel: (“Abel adopted the stage name, "The Weeknd," after")
 * His official Facebook page: (“The official Facebook Page for The Weeknd")
 * Reliable secondary sources:
 * Billboard (“Abel Tesfaye, aka The Weeknd, told Rolling Stone”), The Grammys, Canada's Walk of Fame ("Born Abel Tesfaye, The Weeknd..."), CBC ("Toronto's Abel Tesfaye, better known as The Weeknd..."), Complex, Variety, Toronto ("Scarborough native The Weeknd continues...), NME, The Verge ("debauched pop prince The Weeknd (aka Abel Tesfaye)"), BBC ("According to tastemakers, The Weeknd - otherwise known as 22-year-old Toronto-based singer Abel Tesfaye"), People ("...Gomez and The Weeknd (née Abel Tesfaye)"), Entertainment Tonight, ABC - these are all taken from The Weeknd's reference list.
 * Secondary sources aren't consistent with the capitalization though, most likely because people are used to spelling "the" lower-case, especially in prose. But Abel himself uses "The Weeknd" with a capital T as his stage name (not as an article) and secondary sources which I listed do too. Some1 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the guideline in MOS:THECAPS is that it is only an exception if virtually all reliable sources consistently make this exception. They do for The Hague, but they evidently don't for The Weeknd. Are you proposing that the guideline should be changed, do you think that they don't apply at all (but MOS:THECAPS applies to all articles), or do you think that The Weeknd still fits into this exception? Gbear605 (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Open Championship is listed as an exception and says "a specific golf tournament conventionally styled this way." I think The Weeknd is an exception since his stage name is styled that way and conventionally used with a capital T.
 * But this also goes back to accuracy though; The Weeknd himself uses "The Weeknd" with a capital T as his stage name per my sources listed above. Wouldn't it be misleading to readers if Wikipedia starts off the lead sentence of The Weeknd's article and say that he is professionally known as "the Weeknd" with a lowercase T? I think WP:IAR applies in this case. Some1 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, The Open Championship is inconsistently referred to on the page as both "the Open" and "The Open". Gbear605 (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I still think that within the text we should probably use lowercase where applicable, and save the uppercase for the beginning of sentences and such. However, I really don't see a problem, in this case, of capitalizing it in the very first mention, because, being in bold as it is, it doesn't create the same stumbling block as it likely would in other parts of the article. That said, I really don't see what the big deal is. Beyond the readability issue, does it really matter that much if it is lowercase?


 * Beyond that, this noticeboard is not really the best place for this discussion, as this has nothing to do with BLP violations. The best place would likely be the article's talk page, or DRN or RFC, or if you want to change the policy then at the policy's talk page. Zaereth (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Zaereth, the article currently has his stage name in the lead sentence with a capital "T", but with a lowercase "t" in the body of the article. I think it's an acceptable compromise. Would you support this? Some1 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We will never, ever, ever use that style. Why? Because there is no precedent. It's your invention. Stop suggesting it. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a big problem with doing it that way, so I would not object unless someone comes along with a good rationale why we shouldn't ... although I wouldn't call it ideal. I still don't understand why it is so important to you.


 * Here's the thing. These conventions are not just something Wikipedia came up with, but they really go back to the proto languages that all make up English today. You find the same conventions in German and French and Swedish, and to some degree Latin (although Latin relies more on suffixes to do the job of things like articles and prepositions in English). For example, see Max von Stephanitz (Max of Stephanitz), who is referred to as von Stephanitz unless his name begins a sentence. There's a reason we never capitalize the small words, a reason that goes way back to the beginning. Zaereth (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not ideal, but it's a compromise I guess. And it's important because we don't want to give readers inaccurate information regarding a BLP's stage name. I'll start an RfC on The Weeknd's talk page with definite Yes/No type questions, that way the RfC can settle this dispute and we can all move on. Some1 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well you keep saying that, but what does it mean? How are we giving inaccurate information? What am I missing here? There are good reasons for not doing it that way, but what is the reason we should? That's the thing I'm missing to tip the scales your way, and frankly I'm leaning the other way right now. As far as I can tell, the information is just the same either way, so it seems like much ado about nothing. I would suggest before you begin and RFC that you really take some time to think it through and give us a good reason why we should. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Use lowercase per the MOS. I was on the losing side of the Beatles debate, but since then I've realized I was wrong. It doesn't really matter how the artist himself styles his name on Instagram etc. -- Calidum  18:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Cress Williams - Biography - Racist Comments Displayed
Just above Mr. William's Filmography is the following sentence;

".....on series Hart of Dixie has face often reminds me of a gorilla. (Not choosing to be unkind),"

This article has been hacked.

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:280:1070:1927:3B73:2FBE:C9B3 (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed. - Ryk72 talk 01:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism in my Page - J Gopikrishnan
Hi, I am J Gopikrishnan, a Journalist working 'The Pioneer' newspaper's Delhi Bureau, India. I am also a donor to Wikipedia There is a Wikipedia page about me : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Gopikrishnan.

On August 21, 2020 - multiple attempts of vandalism were done on my Wikipage and deleted many contents. Earlier on August 13 to August 15 many abusive contents were posted and after my alert you have rectified it on August 15. Now on August 21 lot of attempts from an anonymous handle deleted lot of contents. WikiPage History shows the multiple attacks by the handle.

Please maintain the statusquo as on March 12, 2020 Edited by your Editors. You may lock Editing in WikiPage for sometime by maintaining the March 12, 2020 statusquo.

Please do the needful.

warm regards

J Gopikrishnan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopikrishnan70 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey! Just having a look at your page, it looks like the edits made on the 21st are copyedit changes - they're procedural, non-editorial changes like removing vandalism, clarifying phrases or formatting citations. The version from 12 March would need a complete rewrite anyways, so I don't see much benefit in reverting to that version. There doesn't seem to be any significant issues with the edits since though - is there anything specific in the article which you think should be reviewed?
 * Also, I'm not sure if you've already seen, but you may want to read Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy - there are certain limitations on how you should contribute to articles that you have a relationship to (such as articles about yourself or your work). You'll should also disclose your conflict of interest on your user page by adding  to it. I've just added a disclosure on the article's talk page so other editors know you have an external relationship. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

[Chicks on the Right]
Why was the article taken down?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:900A:190B:D600:9818:F9AF:99C5:DF77 (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It was the result of this discussion: Articles for deletion/Chicks on the Right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Aziz Ansari
We need some BLP eyes on Aziz Ansari, where editors are repeatedly promoting UNDUE derogatory article text related to a brief internet/media controversy sparked by a woman who had a bad experience on a date with him in early 2018 and got her story published on a now-defunct website for adolescent and young adult women. SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Added to my watchlist. - MrX 🖋 15:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, editors are repeatedly removing well-sourced longstanding text based only on opinion.  Ansari has never denied coercing her for sex. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have other concerns about content on User/Article talk pages about the accuser of the subject, of sexual assault and/or misconduct (sources have used both words). One editor,, has made comments about the (unnamed) accuser on public talk pages that I found concerning:


 * You are repeating yourself. Yes, the upshot is that she mischaracterizes the incident as assault. That is what the sources say. Diff.
 * The noteworthy incident was not the date -- which is like hundreds of thousands of such regrettable and regretted misunderstandings every week around the world. What garnered the brief attention in the blogosphere and a few press articles was the tenuous use of #MeToo narratives to describe the woman's having failed to extricate herself from an unwelcome situation before she got to tears. None of the commentary concludes that this woman impacted or damaged Ansari's "public profile". Nothing much happened. The noteworthy event was the woman's having held up her personal reactions to public scrutiny on the expectation that people would find them somehow similar to incidents of sexual misconduct. The public reaction was only that "bad conduct" is not "misconduct" and both she and Ansari were viewed as having bungled a rather innocuous interaction that left them both temporarily upset at having handled it poorly. Diff.

I found two opinion commentators defending Aziz: an op-ed by the resigned NYT columnist Bari Weiss, here, and a transcript of an interview here. Both opinion commentators seem to suggest Ansari is not guilty of any wrongdoing. Per WP:RSO, neither of these are reliable sources for any information about the incident. They are strictly reliable for the opinion of the authors, period. The above user is rehashing these opinions as if they are fact, without attribution, and in their own words. I do not see any reliable sources suggesting the woman "bungled" the encounter or that what occurred was "innocuous." I explained this to the editor, and was dismissed.

I believe these are BLP vios for the accuser and that the comments should be struck. In my opinion, we as a community should not be casting doubt on public forums on the accounting of events of a sexual assault accuser (or the accused, for that matter) based on opinion pieces with no first-hand knowledge of the events, no involvement in any formal investigation, and who have not spoken to any of the persons involved. I'd appreciate some input here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is also badly misrepresenting what's going on here. He suggests the allegations are sourced to a "now-defunct website." They were originally published in a defunct website, and subsequently covered by NPR Vice NBC USA Today The New York Times and The Washington Post and many others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I share the same concerns about SPECIFICO's public comments:


 * I have been editing [Aziz Ansari] since January 2018, when the woman first promoted this dubious, trivial internet controversy.Diff. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO is clearly coming here to forum shop with their own opinions on the situation influencing their judgement. The characterisation of a woman who had a bad experience on a date is hardly the full picture. See the quotes Wikieditor19920 provides of SPECIFICO engaging in damaging and disregarding words towards a woman who has accused a man of non-consensual sexual activity. In any case, an event by itself is neither intrinsically significant nor intrinsically insignificant; it is the reliable source coverage of the event that makes it so. In this case the literature on this incident is very detailed relative to coverage of other aspects of Ansari's career. — Bilorv ( talk ) 07:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that SPECIFICO's comments about the accuser deserve more immediate attention and should be struck. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Would an administrator please help to enforce WP:ONUS to prevent an edit war? The Ansari sexual misconduct allegation is "one of the most polarised cases of the "Me Too" moment" (as illustrated on Saturday Night Live!), and many edits have been made after editors have repeatedly expressed that ONUS should be respected. This is the stable version. Virtually every word of this section is disputed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Álvaro Uribe
This article is about a living person and public figure (BLP), and clearly violates Wikipedia's policies regarding living persons:

The article was writeen by an opponent of the subject and is not objective nor impartial. Has NON-NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW, DEFAMATORY, unbalanced tone mostly CRIMINALIZING (impliying the person is a "MASS MURDERER"); the article is about a "person ACCUSED OF A CRIME", has poor Verifiability, uses attack pages, misuse of primary sources, replicates PARTISAN gossips published in local media, uses contentious sources and content, relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards, ONLY TELLS THE SIDE OF THE PEOPLE WHO CALL HIM A "MASS MURDERER" WHILE OMITTING MOST OF THE SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENTS OR POSITIVE SOURCES given that pejorative sources are at best controversial, uses VICTIMIZATION of the article's subject without definitive sources or proofs (implying he's a "MASS MURDERER"), LACK OF MULTIPLE RELIABLE THIRD PARTY SOURCES for the contentious material.

Rarely uses the words ALLEGED, ALLEGEDLY but implies the facts of which he is claimed to be "guilty" in fact happened; The article clearly perpetuates political, legal, social and personal DISPUTES harmful to the subject. Mostly presents the arguments of the opponents and as facts and mostly omits the arguments of the defense, forgets that everyone is presumed innocent until convicted and after having exhausted all legal appeals; uses VANDALISM, relatively well-sourced material mixed with poorly or not sourced contentious material, LACK OF SUFFICIENT EXPLANATORY INFORMATION about the ALLEGED crimes of which the subject is supposedly accused, so far all the judiciary proceedings against him have either been sentenced in his favor or are just beginning, CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

The article cannot stand as is and should be deleted.

The following are examples of some of the paragraphs and sentences in this article where Wikipedia's policies have been violated in several or all of the above:

Paragraph 2: "However, his role in the conflict was accompanied by large-scale alleged exactions: thousands of civilians were killed by the Colombian army (see "False positives" scandal) with almost total impunity, being investigated by the United Nations.[3] and millions of people have been victims of forced displacement". This violates all of the above of Wikipedia's policies, clearly states that Uribe and the Army killed thousands of civilians and that it is only their fault that millions of civilians were displaced, making no mention of the victims of the guerrillas (hundreds of thousands), and implies Uribe was a member of the paramilitary groups, with little or no proof but gossips in opposition local media.

Paragraph 2: "he was discharged of his function in February 1983, five months after his appointment, by Président Betancur for his alleged collaboration with drug traffickers" and cites as source an article in french from a person who does not have any first-hand, direct knowledge of the situation. Local media documents he resigned, not that he was discharged.

Paragraph 3: "On 4 August 2020, Uribe was placed under house arrest by Colombia's Supreme Court while it decides whether he should stand trial for bribery and witness tampering as part of ongoing judicial investigations". Makes no mention of the ongoing controversy and public scandal the Court's decision caused in Colombia, or of the pronouncements by different Heads of State and governments about the alleged irregularities in the proceedings or of the alleged violation of Uribe's rights. Fails to present both sides of the story.

Title "Internal Conflict", paragraph 1: "And by the end of his first term in office the AUC had other right-wing militias agree to disarm and go to jail under special sentences of seven years". Makes no mention that most of the sentences were extended, that most leaders are still in jail in 2020, and that some of the paramilitaries were extradited to the United States, much less cites reliable sources of this, giving the impression that Uribe favored the paramilitaries' impunity.

Title "Internal Conflcit", paragraph 8: "Credible reports indicate that some of the territories from which the military has ejected the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolutionarias de Colombia, FARC) are now under the control of paramilitary groups, which continue to carry out indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population." The link to the source, https://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2005/01/13/colomb9847.htm, is dead, and, in any case, the original source does not say what the article's author claims.

"To improve its results in the fight against guerilla warfare, the Colombian army carried out mass executions of civilians transformed into false positives. If exactions of this kind already existed, the phenomenon became widespread from 2002, encouraged by the bonuses paid to the soldiers and by quasi-absolute impunity". Makes definitive statements of things, at best, controversial. Again, the sources are articles in french from people who had no direct knowledge of what happened in Colombia, with clear accusations against Uribe, not founded on real, judicial evidence. Uribe was probed several times by the Colombian Courts and General Attorney Office, even during his period as president, and none found sound evidence of his personal involvement in the "False Positives" scandal. The article fails to present reality in a neutral manner.

"According to the CODHES human rights NGO, forced displacement during Uribe's term affected over 2.4 million Colombian nationals by the end of 2009". Based on partisan or unrealiable sources, the article directly blames Uribe for the displacements, and fails to mention the involvement of the guerrillas. This violates all of the above of Wikipedia's policies, clearly states that Uribe and the Army killed thousands of civilians and that it is only their fault that millions of civilians were displaced, making no mention of the victims of the guerrillas, and implies Uribe was a member of the paramilitary groups, with little or no proof but gossips in opposition local media.

Title "Wiretapping scandal", paragraph 4: "The magazine reported that information gathered by the DAS has been allegedly forwarded to paramilitaries, narcotraffickers and guerrillas". The source does not say that, does not point to Revista Semana, nor that Revista Semana says that, it is merely a list of opinion articles published in opposition media attacking Uribe, where his opponents depict him like a criminal. This statement violates all of the above of Wikipedia's policies.

Title "Wiretapping scandal", paragraph 6: "According to Reporters Without Borders, Colombia was demoted from 114th to 145th place between 2002 and 2010 on freedom of the press". The article cites no reliable source to make such a contentious claim. This statement depicts Uribe as a dictator and violates all of the above of Wikipedia's policies.

Title "socio-economic policy", paragraph 4: "Most direct critics have considered Uribe's administration neoliberal, and argued that it has not addressed the root causes of poverty and unemployment, because continued application of traditional trade and tax policies tend to benefit private and foreign investors over small owners and workers. Union and labor claim that many of the privatizations and liquidations have been done to please the IMF, the World Bank and multinational companies, and will hurt several national industries in the long run". The alleged source is a dead link and, in any case, does not say what the article claims. The article only presents the side of the detractors. The article violates all of the above of Wikipedia's policies.

Title "post-presidency and controversy", paragraph 2: the incident at Georgetown University. The article only cites the opponents side, and omits the positive comments from the advocates' side and even from the University, which clearly appear in the source at https://www.newsweek.com/appointment-colombian-ex-president-sparks-controversy-georgetown-74165

Title "post-presidency and controversy", paragraph 3: "In November 2010, while at the Georgetown campus, Uribe was served a criminal subpoena in the case Claudia Balcero Giraldo v. Drummond, regarding hundreds of civilians murdered by paramilitary forces loyal to Uribe". Fails to mention that Uribe was acquited and therefore was innocent of the alleged charges.

Title "Awards", paragraph 1: (election as El Gran Colombiano) "This decision was widely rejected and criticized by many academics, historians and journalists, even pointing out to possible influence peddling related to the result". The first source is a partisan one that only mentions a handful of academics and two or three jet-set people, only from the opposition side, leaving the claim that "many" academics and historians rejected the election, unsubstantiated. The second source at https://razonpublica.com/el-gran-colombiano-uribe-y-la-histeria-nacional/, is an unreliable, partisan source that even calls Uribe "chuzador" (wiretapper). The tone of this paragraph is clearly biased against Uribe and violates Wikipedia´s policies. Neither of the two poor sources mentions any "fraud" in the election.

Title "Senator of Colombia", paragraph 1: "Some of the legislation later drew criticism, in particular that which reduced the state's responsibility for social security". Citation needed, clearly shows the author's bias against Uribe.

Title "2002 presidential election": no sources whatsoever, much less trustworthy.

Title "Internal conflict", paragraph 11: no sources whatsoever, much less trustworthy.

And many other violations which would be too lengthy to describe in detail.

The article violates many or all of Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality, living persons, victimization, defamation, etc., cannot stand as is and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Critic1234567 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have done what I can, but I don't have enough knowledge or interest about the subject to help much. My best advice to you is WP:SOFIXIT and use the article talk page to engage other editors. - MrX 🖋 19:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * as an additional point, WP:dead links aren't as big a deal as you seem to think. They are a problem that needs to be dealt with but in general, the link being dead doesn't automatically invalidate the citation. Even for the case of BLPs, you should not generally automatically remove material just because the link is dead. In the event you cannot obtain access to a source preferably after making some reasonable effort and have good reasons to doubt that the source claims what we say it does, or to believe the source is not reliable, then it may be acceptable to remove it and the sourced material while awaiting confirmation from someone with access to the source. But this isn't different from other sources you cannot easily access, for example, obscure books; and to be clear you should generally be asking around for help finding the source rather than just silently removing it and the sourced material. If you don't have sufficient reason to doubt the citation supports the text it's used for or that the source isn't reliable, the most you should normally do is try to repair it and tag it dead link if you fail. You can ask around in other places for help if you want to obtain access to verify the material but weren't able to yourself. Quite often links can be repaired simply by looking at archives sites. Other times, the source may still exist but have been moved somewhere else on the site. For anything published in physical newspapers and for sources like reports from HRW, the link itself isn't actually needed it just for convenience, you just need enough info in the citation so that someone can work out how to obtain access.  Somewhat proving the point, from your comments, it sounds like you have obtained access to at least 2 of the dead links since you mention that they don't support what our article says which is a concern but not because of the dead link. If what our article says is really not supported by the source which you have read, it would be acceptable to remove it for this reason but not because the link is dead. I'd note however that a source being onesided or biased, or only presenting the side of detractors doesn't necessarily completely invalidate it as an RS even for BLPs.  In rare cases if significant efforts has been made to fix the link, and no one has been able to and it's not believed you can obtain the source via other means, IMO it may be acceptable to remove it along with the cited content in BLPs. But you should talk to other editors first.  Nil Einne (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Peter Gwargis


I am having a dispute with new editor who I feel has a nationalistic/POV agenda. On this article there is a source being used to cite his family background, which states (and I quote) "the teenager with the Iraqi-lineage" and his "parents are from Iraq’s Assyrian community". Coolguy however is repeatedly removing reference to Iraq. I believe it should stay in. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 09:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It might be worth engaging with Coolguy2525 on the article's talk page before we end up with a fully-fledged edit war? Also, the core element here I think is using the sources: if the sources explicitly say "Gwargis is Iraqi-Assyrian" then a case could be made for including it, but if we're claiming he's Iraqi in terms of nationality (Coolguy2525 is right in saying that Iraq is a diverse place of different cultures) we can't just base it off his parents - that'd be original research. ItsPugle (please use &#123;&#123;reply|ItsPugle}}) 10:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * - I have posted TWICE on their talk page, with no response, just reverts. The source clearly mentions Iraq twice, and our article (does and should) reflect that. GiantSnowman 10:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think trying to hash this out on the article's talk page (and ping-ing them) is probably going to be the best course right now. At least other editors can give their inputs there and we can work towards an agreement. Just having a look at the SBS source though, it looks like the most we could say is that he is of Iraqi-lineage, but anything beyond that would be pushing it with original research again. ItsPugle (please use &#123;&#123;reply|ItsPugle}}) 10:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is now the most appropriate place, it will get wider input then the article talk page. As I said in the original post, the source says "the teenager with the Iraqi-lineage" and his "parents are from Iraq’s Assyrian community", so saying "His family Assyrians from Iraq" is accurate and supported by the source. Why are you seemingly OK with Coolguy's removal of the mention of Iraq? GiantSnowman 10:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "His family Assyrians from Iraq" is incorrect sentence structure (note the missing "are" between family and Assyrians). Content in the article should focus on Gwargis himself, not his family, so the sentence could read - that is perfectly fine. My interpretation of what you were saying is that you wanted to say or imply that Gwargis himself is Iraqi ( etc), which isn't stated in the source. ItsPugle (please use &#123;&#123;reply|ItsPugle}}) 10:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The 'are' missing was obviously a typo. I wasn't trying to imply that he was Iraqi, and I have tweaked slightly to "his parents are Assyrians from Iraq". GiantSnowman 11:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

unsurprisingly has returned and again removed references to Iraq... GiantSnowman 15:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just left an edit warring warning on their talk page with a note to have a look here. Hopefully they follow the link and discuss their perspective on the changes if it's coming from a second haer6. For what it's worth, it might be best if you stop reverting their changes too; I'm just aware of the three revert rule and I would hate for you to get blocked. If they keep removing all references to his parents over the next couple of days though, if might be the sort of thing an administrator may need to get involved in. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * and he has reverted again, and this time also added in the Assyrian element to the lede, in violation of WP:MOSETHNICITY. I am not touching the article. He needs to be blocked as he clearly doesn't get it. GiantSnowman 16:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree that he should be blocked - he seems to mainly just be ignorant of Wikipedia policies and Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. I agree that the lead needs to abide by WP:MOSETHNICITY, but there's no reason the article shouldn't say elsewhere that he's Assyrian. His parents being Assyrian means that he is Assyrian, and we don't need to cite that because it's obviously true. Gbear605 (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * please can you actually review the version I wished to restore? Nowhere have I wanted to remove the 'Assyrian', I simply wanted to restore the (sourced!) Iraq element. Coolguy wanted to remove Iraq and emphasise Assyrian... GiantSnowman 18:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , my comments about keeping in "Assyrian" were in response to 's comment earlier. I agree with how you want the article. Gbear605 (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you'd be kind enough to restore that version? GiantSnowman 21:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Josh Hill (Footballer)
Wonder how people think this should be dealt with. Josh's current and former partner gave birth five days apart. Someone vandalized his page about this which alerted the media to the story. Daily Mail first covered it and then in turn, other outlets covered it. Josh is quoted in the articles. How do people think this should be reflected on his page, if at all? MaskedSinger (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Josh Hill (footballer) not John Hill? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I do. My apologies. Corrected. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be any doubt about the truth of the situation as Josh has confirmed it. I had a look at how we have treated similar situations elsewhere.
 * This is what we have written on the Boris Becker page: "Barbara left for Florida after being contacted by a woman claiming to be pregnant with Becker's child. In his autobiography, Becker stated that he admitted to his wife that he had a one-night stand with another woman while Barbara was pregnant with their second child". Also: "In February 2001, Becker acknowledged paternity of a daughter, Anna, with Russian waitress Angela Ermakova, after media reported that he had a child as a result of a sexual encounter in 1999. The episode allegedly took place at London's Nobu restaurant. He had allegedly been drinking following his loss to Pat Rafter in the fourth round of the 1999 Wimbledon Championships".
 * On the other hand the unconfirmed "golden showers" allegation about Donald Trump is not mentioned at all on his page. It has been shipped off to the page about the Steele Dossier.
 * The Evo Morales page contains this about a situation that is not confirmed: "On August 21, 2020, a new complaint, not involved with the previous one, was filed against Morales in another case of pedophilia and rape presumably committed by the former president in 2015". Notice the use of the word "presumably" rather than "allegedly".


 * So there are precedents for including this type of information on a page. If it were to be included it should be done tastefully. Mentioning all children in a biography is standard but it doesn't seem necessary to highlight the sensational aspect of the story. Burrobert (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sooraj Pancholi
Please WP:REVDEL this defamatory edit by IP user 103.252.171.67. NedFausa (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Stephen Wiggins
This biography of a living person is being repeatedly edited to add material against policy. BLP policy: "include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability" This edit introduces a violation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Wiggins&diff=971497311&oldid=971022196 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16b8:68b4:de00:c181:fc35:ad3b:4d3a (talk • contribs) 13:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Morgan Poi
I need to give a heads up about Morgan Poi, and also ask for a review on this board. I believe it's a violation of WP:DOB to add the full date of birth for this player - whilst his DOB is referenced in one source, I cannot see how it adds anything concrete to the article. I can actually see that his year of birth is important, given Rugby Union players have generally shorter careers, but I cannot see why it is germaine to the understanding of the player to the ordinary reader. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ian Sloan (politician)
I don't believe that noting this politician's DOB serves the reader of the article in any way, and removed it per WP:DOB and WP:ONUS. Could we please have someone review? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This user has a truly bizarre interpretation of WP:DOB. In this case (and in a number of other cases the user has been involved in), the date of birth is clearly available in a source directly linked to the subject, which explicitly means WP:DOB is not violated. A date of birth is a standard piece of biographical information when it is available, so it is nonsense to require WP:ONUS for every time someone wants to include one that is freely available. Extremely odd. Frickeg (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the consensus on this board is that I am wrong, I am happy to concede the point. However, I would like to ask what it is about someone's date of birth that is essential to articles about these particular biographies. It appears to me to be a sole appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I haven't yet seen any arguments aside from the fact that other articles have the DOB. Could it be that these articles are in the same boat and also shouldn't have the politician's full DOB? I don't know, and I'm not going specifically looking for violations, I only change articles as I read them. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. If a DOB is easily linked it should be added here. I think Chris seems to be editing a few other BLP articles in a similar way, which is a bit of a concern imo. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. The BLP rule is that the material is widely published by a number of reliable sources (plural). "Easily linked" is a terrible reason to include sensitive information. My concern is that we minimize any potential harm to the subjects we write about. I am genuinely curious about these cases, however. What is it about their DOB that is essential to the reader of their biography? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry if I came across as not agf I felt I was. I also only support a exact dob if there is a good strong already publuished dob out there. I was just noting that the same is happening at multiple articles and that if there are objections then perhaps a requuest for comment is a good idea to see community interpretion of the policy is a good idea. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * First, the BLP rule is that the material is "widely published" or is published "by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". The ones you have been changing recently clearly satisfy this second requirement. But a DOB is a standard inclusion in biographies, not just on Wikipedia but generally. It is a basic biographical fact about a person. You might as well ask why a birthplace is important, or a person's marital status, or their maiden name. Where this is publicly available (an important point - it would never be appropriate to add this information if it was not reliably sourced), especially in a source directly linked to the subject, then this is appropriate information to include, as is explicitly stated in WP:DOB. Frickeg (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, so it is "sources", plural. Not in "a source". And as the DOB is one of the pieces of information that is used to verify someone's identity, I would consider this to be especially sensitive information. I refer to the DOB as this is singled out by the policy. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not believe WP:DOB is intended to be read as requiring multiple sources that satisfy this second criterion. Where our guidelines and policies require multiple sources, they explicitly state as much. You would not write "is published by a source linked to the subject ..." See, for example, WP:GNG. I do not see why we would need multiple sources in this second case. Frickeg (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the policy was very carefully worded, so I don't think we should second-guess it. When it comes to sensitive information, my rule is to apply WP:ONUS to ensure that the personal information is essential for the reader to understand the subject. I still haven't heard any reasonable arguments as to why the full date of birth is essential for any of these articles, aside from an argument that other articles have the information... which doesn't in any way explain why it is important to this article and just opens the question to "why do those articles need the full DOB?". - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the statement is not carefully worded, is a bit ambiguous, and is subject to interpretation. It says "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources". "Reliable sources" is plural because "full names and dates of birth" are plural—it is referring to multiple subjects, and not all birth dates on Wikipedia come from a single source. --Canley (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. I think an important policy like this shouldn't be ambiguous! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No issue at all with inclusion of the DOB in this case: the subject (Sloan) has clearly provided such detail for a profile to his party to be widely published on their website. In general, date and place of birth are standard pieces of biographical information, which are frequently (but not always if the subject requests it be withheld) included in biographical dictionaries like Who's Who [in Australia], parliamentary profiles, and media articles—if this info doesn't "serve the reader" here, why do they include and publish it? The goal of minimising harm and protecting privacy of BLPs is admirable, but I think that focus and effort should be put on detecting, questioning and if necessary removing more borderline cases, such as birthday wishes on social media accounts. I think Chris's assertion that a single reference is not enough is wrong—my interpretation of the BLP rules is that they don't require multiple sources, just that those used be reliable. If it's such a broad-reaching concern that showing birth dates is unnecessary and harmful, then this is a much wider issue than Sloan or politicians in general and the consensus needs to be for a blanket site-wide ban on such details, and clearly that is not the case, nor is it likely to be. --Canley (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup. is good enough for including Sloanes DOB in his BLP. Article sourcing is crappy, but I guess it would be kept per WP:NPOL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Louis S. Bagger, harpsichordist and musicologist
Louis Sabin Bagger, born 10 Dec. 1926 (Detroit, Michigan, USA), is a distinguished harpsichordist and musicologist. He earned a BA from Yale University, with honors in Italian, and was a Fulbright scholar, University of Rome, in 1949. He earned an MFA from Princeton University. His undergraduate teachers included the composer Paul Hindemith. He studied harpsichord with Ralph Kirkpatrick and Gustav Leonhardt; organ with Weinrich, Noss, Vignanelli; piano with Loesser and Steurermann. He was on the music faculty of Brandeis University, 1966-1975; Artist in Residence, University of California at Davis, Spring, 1976; faculty member at the Manhattan School of Music, New York City, from 1976 (Music History & Musicology); solo recitalist, chamber music concerts & radio broadcasts, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Canada, US. Recordings: Vox, Musical Heritage (CPE Bach: Concerto in E flat; Concerto in C Minor), Monitor & Titanic. Notable recordings include Bach's Art of Fugue (Titanic) and Frescobaldi: Works for Harpsichord (2001, Titanic). As a scholar of C.P.E. Bach, he contributed editorial work as well as recordings. FlynnAW (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What is your point? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC).

Dennis Spiegel
I am trying to include my official bio on my Wikipedia page. Someone is repeatedly removing my bio and reducing it to four lines. My thirty-year career is more than four lines.

I would like your assistance in rectifying this situation.

Thank you kindly, Dennis Spiegel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Spiegel (talk • contribs) 00:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am not an administrator, however I will discuss the issues with your edits. Firstly, it is not your page, Wikipedia is not a social media platform and it is not for promoting yourself. Secondly, your edits are completeley unsourced and since you are editing your own page and clearly promoting yourself, you are also violating WP:COI, this is only acceptable if reverting clear vandalism. You are also edit warring, you should have stopped adding your proposed content after it being reverted. You seem to have been reported at WP:AIV as well. Dylsss (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

How do I include actual, not self-promoting, but actual bio material on a page that is about me? I don't understand your processes but would be pleased to adhere to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Spiegel (talk • contribs) 01:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you are the person in the article, don't, if there is something you would like to add which would benefit the article, and there is a WP:RELIABLESOURCE to reference, then it would be a better idea to propose the change in the article talk page and have someone else review it. However, most of the content in your edit simply does not belong in an encyclopedia and is promotional in tone. If there is no reliable source to cite, then it should not be added at all. Dylsss (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Jacob Wohl
Original research and opinion being done by some editors labeling Jacob Wohl as a “fraudster” in both the introduction of the article and as an occupation. Jacob Wohl has not yet been convicted by any court (he has pled not guilty). Second, no source calls Jacob Wohl a “fraudster”. Material related to Jacob Wohl’s civil and criminal charges of course is reliable, but unsourced original research by Wikipedia editors directly labeling Jacob Wohl as a fraudster detracts from the article quality and sounds like some editors are utilizing Wikipedia as a political battleground by inserting blatant POV opinions that violate BLP (fraudster is not even an article on Wikipedia and some editors are redirecting fraudster to the Fraud article). 2604:2000:1483:C1E7:19F8:D4D5:8ECE:4C80 (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a compromise solution published. 2604:2000:1483:C1E7:6568:A6B3:85EB:26AC (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is active discussion at Talk:Jacob Wohl that I'd invite anyone here to join, however 2604* is misrepresenting the fact that this is a well-sourced descriptor from multiple high-quality RSes. Furthermore the claim that their preferred version is a "compromise" is misleading, given there was no discussion between them and anyone else agreeing to it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Opinion does not count as reliable sources and does not override long standing policy at Wikipedia that says you cannot label someone as a criminal who has not been convicted. This is a major BLP violation against a Jewish-American. 2604:2000:1483:C1E7:911F:4017:FB86:6A4 (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't established that any of the sources cited are opinion. You can try to do so on the article talk page. Wohl has not been labeled a "criminal". - MrX 🖋 00:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Who says "fraudster" requires it to be criminal? Civil cases are not, and Wohl is involved in at least one resolved civil case for securities fraud, and pending another. Meanwhile whether he is "Jewish-American" or not is pretty much irrelevant for this argument unless you are suggesting he is being targeted for being "Jewish-American"? Which would require a reliable source in any case. Koncorde (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To wit:
 * Newsweek says "They also said they have seen little evidence that Wohl, a fraudster who conned investors out of money they put into his failed hedge fund, is responsible for their Twitter ban",
 * HuffPo says "Jacob Wohl ― the 21-year-old securities fraudster behind an attempt to smear Robert Mueller last year"
 * HuffPo links to USA Today profile that says "USA Today’s piece is particularly egregious because it acknowledges who Wohl is ― a self-described liar made famous in 2017 for having defrauded investors in Arizona as a teenager"
 * Daily Beast says (for context of who the NFA are) "Wohl was investigated by the National Futures Association, a government-authorized financial regulator that looks for fraud and responds to investor complaints. NFA started looking into Wohl after they reviewed promotional material for his fledgling hedge fund, NeX Capital Management. A series of NeX videos were “unbalanced in their presentation of profit potential and risk of loss” for investors, the NFA claimed in a 2016 filing before its internal Business Conduct Committee, which rules on disciplinary issues (PDF). The NFA added that Wohl claimed to have acted as a fund manager before he or NeX were registered to do so."
 * MarketWatch (unknown reliability) "Jacob Wohl — right-wing conspiracy theorist, Trump enthusiast, securities fraudster — reportedly tried to raise $1 million this spring by pitching investors on an idea for profiting from the manipulation of political betting websites."
 * GQ says (links to DB article) "Now, several months removed from that hilarious failure and flush with a fresh infusion of walking-around cash from God knows where, the teenage hedge-fund fraudster turned professional Islamophobe has embarked on a new and exciting grift: making poorly produced Internet pseudo-documentaries about Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar."
 * Vox says "Enter a grifter like Wohl, a failed teen hedge fund manager who faced investigation in several states and was eventually banned for life by the National Futures Association for fraud in 2017."
 * Yahoo finance breaks down the 2017 case and action taken that pretty much everyone else is referring to.
 * Salon just goes for broke with the headline "Notorious right-wing fraudster Jacob Wohl charged with felony" (Earlier article covering it here.
 * Insider says "In 2017, The National Futures Association banned Wohl from membership for life. A few months later, the Arizona Corporation Committee ordered him and a business partner, Matthew Johnson, to pay a $5,000 penalty for committing securities fraud "in connection with two hedge funds and a house-flipping venture." The committee also ordered Wohl to pay $32,918 in restitution." Koncorde (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, they are not opinion sources, as I have said in the conversation on the talk page (which you have still yet to reply to, despite continuing to edit war). I'm also not sure why you're edit warring "Jewish-American" in—Wohl is Jewish, yes, but I haven't seen sources describing him as "Jewish-American" nor is his religion prominently mentioned in any sourcing (besides The Forward, which mentions he's Jewish, and is itself a Jewish publication). GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hussain Haidry
1. This article or wiki page is Self promoting. Hussain Haidry is not a prominent person in India or anywhere. His presence is in twitter (has 21K followers) where he tweets against Hindus, RSS, BJP (Political party in power in India). 2. He promotes violence against Hindus and asking Muslims to murder them. Please see all his tweets and his twitter handle is @hussainhaidry. Hussain Haidry tweeted to incite violence by urging people to ‘show courage’ and ‘beat up’ the ‘upper caste’ Hindus, who according to him, are ruining the country. He had asked his people to go to each and every household in their respective colonies and hit all those voting for the BJP with chappals (slippers). 4. He wrote a poem asking for another 09/11 of killing people in India, by hijacking aeroplanes and hitting them against high rise buildings. He also tweeted about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankargb (talk • contribs) 00:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree that the article is self promoting and needs to be cleaned up, and I just removed several primary source citations. However, he seems to be notable, as shown by the mention in The Guardian, and the articles in the Hindustan Times and The Hindu. There are a number of other sources that seem to also prove notability, but I don't know how reliable they are, since I'm not familiar with Indian news sites.
 * As for the other information, that isn't relevant for whether he should have an article. There are many people out there who have done horrible things who still have Wikipedia pages. If you think that information should be included, and you have reliable sources (not social media), then feel free to include it in the article!
 * -Gbear605 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * -Gbear605 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I am quoting Hussain Haidry's own words, speeches, poems, tweets inciting violence. Are they (his own words and his own tweets) not credible evidence, though not published in newspapers? The Guardian, The Hindustan Times and The Hindu are all managed by Leftists, Communists, etc. who want to spread fake narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankargb (talk • contribs) 03:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We do require reliable secondary sources such as the Guardian, the Hindustan Times, the Hindu, regardless of whether they are "all managed by Leftists, Communists, etc. who want to spread fake narrative". If you cannot find such reliable secondary source coverage then whatever it is can't be significant. Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed that you are refusing to accept primary sources of evidences of Hussain Haidry's words of inciting violence. No wonder most people are losing faith in the neutrality of Wikipedia.My contention is that the article or wiki page is self promoting of Hussain Haidry and it does not deserve to be there.If Tom, Dick and Harry start creating Wikipedia pages in their names, then there will be 7 billion Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankargb (talk • contribs) 08:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * our policy is the same whether the person is someone Hindu nationalists hate or love, so it's unclear how it makes us non-neutral. If you believe reliable secondary sources are not neutral, that's a problem with the world not with Wikipedia. We are here to create an encyclopaedia, not to right great wrongs with the world. We do indeed have problems with people who have a WP:COI trying to create articles on themselves directly or indirectly and it is true the creation of the Hussain Haidry article is interesting since it was by an editor who only ever did that Special:Contributions/Vinodkhare. While we have policies in place to try and stop this, it's not an easy area to deal with given our strong privacy policy and other factors. Often the most we can do is ensure all articles meet out WP:notability requirements and WP:NPOV policy etc. While I only had a quick look, there seem to be several sources in that article covering the subject including several after the apparent viral hit in 2017 (somewhat assuaging WP:BIO1E concerns) like the [//www.asianage.com/entertainment/in-other-news/051217/the-indian-muslim-storyteller.html Asian Age one]. And while [//www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/turning-political-poems-into-film-songs/article22451570.ece The Hindu one] is an interview, it is in a source generally considered a newspaper of record. All this makes me think it probably passed WP:GNG. Still if you understand our RS and notability guidelines and you've done the necessary work, you're welcome to nominate it for deletion if you disagree and let the community decide. IMO it would probably be better to try an improve the article e.g. fixing issues of tone. And if you can find any reliable secondary source coverage of these alleged controversies it's possible something could be added. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you meant from "Hindu nationalist" but I think you have a point with that I should better use WP:AFD for discussing the legibility of this subject and I will be analyzing sources whether they are good for notability or not. Thanks for your time. Shankargb (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * you said "I am disappointed that you are refusing to accept primary sources of evidences of Hussain Haidry's words of inciting violence. No wonder most people are losing faith in the neutrality of Wikipedia." However no explanation of why our refusal to accept primary sources makes us non neutral. Our refusal to accept primary sources in this fashion is universal. It doesn't matter if it's Hussain Haidry's alleged words inciting violence; or anything that someone e.g. from the BJP, tweets inciting violence against Muslims. There's nothing non neutral about it, it affects all parties equally. You may disagree whether it's a good policy, but that's a different point from claiming it's somehow non neutral. Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Sidharth Shukla
This is a low-level issue, but some more eyes at Sidharth Shukla would be appreciated. I feel that it's been heavily edited by fans, and as such there is a strong emphasis on all his accomplishments and apparently nothing other than that. One issue that's been sticking in my craw for a while, is that he's said to have won the "World's Best Model" title at the Gladrags Manhunt Contest, but I can't find evidence that any other person has ever won this. So does that mean it's super-prestigious, or that it's just a random one-off award? Unfortunately I'm not aware of any clear guidelines on what sort of awards are permissible in biographies, and we have a major problem with award mills in Indian articles. Anyhow, more strong eyes would be helpful. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think there are two different competitions. Going on the article, its claimed Runner up for the Gladrags Manhunt Contest, (picture gallery from Times of India from 2008 and mentions of a winner from 1999 and possibly something for a junior version? in 2015 ) and actual winner of the "Best Model in the World Contest" in Turkey, for which I found a website ...his name seems to be up there for 2004 winner. No idea how important either of them are, but according to it's website Best Model has been going since 1988, and does seem to have international contestants... Curdle (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding this! I do notice the glaring lack of "Gladrags" anywhere on the site. And now I wonder if the award itself is notable. Before it seemed to have earned notability from being attached to Gladrags, but if it's not a Gladrags award is it its own entity? I notice Best Model of Turkey has a link to this site, but I don't see Sidharth Shukla's name on the page. Anyway, I feel a little more comfortable that it's at least been around for a while, so thanks for that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you scroll right down to the bottom of the page, the Turkish Best Model has a list of previous winners - There is a Siddhart Ashlok Shukla listed for 2005. Most of the website is in Turkish, but there is a bit of English. hmm..long list of organisers and people "raised to the limelight" by the competition, none of whom seem familiar..we have articles for at least one though [Deniz Akkaya]. Curdle (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, poor phrasing on my part. I meant that I didn't see Shukla's name on the Best Model of Turkey page. Oh well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)