Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive316

Slate Star Codex


Questions:


 * Should the author's full name be published?
 * How should a source published under the author's full name be cited, if the first answer is "no"?
 * Should the author's full name be revdel'ed from the article or talk page, if the first answer is "no"?

For context and additional discussion on these points, see June/July discussion and July/August discussion.

Arguments for "yes" to question 1 include: the author's full name was published when one of the author's blog posts was re-published in a book; the author's full name appears in medical articles; and the author's full name has otherwise been used professionally. Arguments for "no" to question 1 include: the author has recently expressed the desire to halt publication of their full name; the author has otherwise consistently requested that their full name not be connected to their blog in published media, to the extent that previous publications that revealed the author's full name were taken down; and the author's full name otherwise fails the WP:BLPPRIVACY check.

Arguments for "full name" to question 2 include: WP:V requires citation information that is as accurate as possible. Arguments for "first name only" to question 2 include: the spirit of WP:V only requires as much information as readers need to easily locate the source, and the first-name-only citation includes adequate information for this purpose.

There has been relatively little discussion on question 3.

Pinging, , , , , , , , , , , , , and.

Enterprisey (talk!) 20:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit: "Subject" changed to "author" per below comment by Zareth. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Probably not / yes / as is. This has been discussed at length on the relevant talk page. BrokenSegue 22:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For question 2, the first name citation does look weird, but why do we need a name at all? It is clear from context who wrote the article because of the quote that the chapter was taken from SSC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because faking reference information is bad practice - it's an RS, the standard for use in Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Omitting something is not the same as faking information. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Bowdlerising it to the point where someone came along and thought it was literally an error - as actually happened - would, I think, count, even if you were to claim it was in a good cause - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with what was actually done (i.e. "Scott" or "Scott S."). I simply think that omitting the name entirely is the right approach, and there is no error there. Not all references have to have authors attached to them. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 20:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "consistently" is a highly questionable claim - for instance, a number of blog sources took down the name at his request when he took the site down in June. His full name has never been a secret, as demonstrated by his academic use of it in connection with the blog name, and I've followed this guy's work since 2010 and his real name has literally never been a secret. His new claims to have kept it a secret are factually incorrect.
 * His name is used in connection with the blog only in a single RS - but it's an RS where he would have put it there himself, as professional academic work. And it's absolutely a solid RS for Wikipedia use, for noteworthiness of the blog, and for the fact that he has acted to publish his real name and its connection to the blog in recent times.
 * Furthermore, I think you've phrased the question badly - the subject's full name was published when one of the subject's blog posts was re-published in a book is in passive voice, as if this is something that was done to him - and not something he did himself.
 * I would say: correctly credit the academic RS, which is important to the blog's notability, as faking RS references is really not a good Wikipedia practice; don't make it prominent in the body of the article.
 * Do not further revdel - given the circumstances, the revdel's to date on article and talk have arguably been abuses of the deletion process. I appreciate BLP considerations erring on the side of caution, but this is getting silly.
 * I've put not a ballot on this discussion, as this is an off-wiki cause celebre - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I encouraged a discussion to be placed here at AN and encouraged Enterprisey, when he contacted me via email, to add an explicit question about revdel. I feel prepared to support whatever consensus the community arrives at. However, David has now said in a couple of places, I stand by the 3 revision deletions I did and would welcome a discussion about whether they were an abuse of the tool at my talk page, ArbCom, on a relevent noticeboard but don't want to derail this forward looking discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were in bad faith; but I am of the opinion they should stop going forward (as I say above) - David Gerard (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just a short rebuttal to a single point above, but you appear to be claiming that Alexander did not try at all to hide his full name until 2020. There is at least existence proof of the opposite from 2018 at . In it Alexander mentions that he did not link to a journal article written by him because he did not want to share his real name. He has certainly not been perfect at maintaining secrecy, but he did at least try. Gbear605 (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Scott's concerns about the public linking of his full name to the blog are otherwise well-documented and uncontroversial. In addition to Gbear605's link, more examples are this 2019 blog post (search for "real name"), this 2017 blog post, and this 2013 discussion. Scott's awareness of the Streisand effect explains the lack of further examples. That aside, to repeat VQuakr from the talk page, the source is unambiguously identified – and can thus be "correctly credited" – even without its authorship information. Third, I stand by my revision deletions and, echoing Barkeep49, welcome further discussion on the subject. Finally, the documentation of not a ballot recommends against preemptive use and I have observed no evidence of external canvassing (besides the IP edit, and yet), but I will leave its applicability to this discussion up to others. Acknowledgement: the examples and Scott's justification come via the research efforts, which I appreciate, of some people in the SSC community. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I said it was an off-wiki cause celebre, and you've just literally said Acknowledgement: the examples and Scott's justification come via the research efforts, which I appreciate, of some people in the SSC community - this is, in fact, a case for such a notice - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 2. Bad question. There is no reason to cite those articles at all. The only reason they were added was to force the issue (to put it charitably). They are only notable as evidence about the spread of his name. 98.114.54.138 (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It helps to establish the blog's notability. Also, it was originally added with no source at all. BrokenSegue 14:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, resume padding may establish the notability of the author, but not the blog. No one notes those articles. When people note the blog, they don't note the existence of reprints. They don't care about such validation. Some people note the profession of the author, but never formal publication. 98.114.54.138 (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's literally the blog's academic credibility, in the article about the blog - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia article makes no explanation of why it cites the article, certainly not credibility. It does give other examples of academics citing the blog, which is a measure of academic credibility, but these are by academics in other fields who probably have no awareness of the republished articles. Since no one connects the articles to the blog, they do not contribute to its credibility. 98.114.54.138 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia article makes no explanation of why it cites the article It literally does - you're now making trivially false claims of fact in support of your position - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For everyone's information, the only thing that the article says is A post from the blog, "No Time Like The Present for AI Safety Work", was reprinted as a chapter in The Technological Singularity: Managing the Journey.. I can see why the anonymous user considered this to not be an explanation while you consider this to be an explanation. Given the three other citations in the paragraph, it's certainly not the only source establishing credibility. Al Gharbi 2018 and Campbell 2018 both provide academic credibility while Chivers 2019 establishes credibility in a non-academic source (a pop-science/philosophy book). Perhaps the article should still be included, but its removal would not change the article to show the blog as significantly less credible. Gbear605 (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The desire for privacy seems reasonable enough. Benjamin (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a disconnect here. If the privacy of the name is of paramount importance, we shouldn't be using a reference that has the full name. If we decide to use the reference anyway, we should follow standard practice and credit the author by their full name as published in the reference, not by first name or pseudonym or "Scoot S" (which is what's in there now). If the aim is to protect the identity of Scott Alexander, we aren't doing a good job and we are also giving people incorrect information about the reference. My position is either use the reference and give the correct information, or don't use the reference. Mo Billings (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If this was removed, would it be the first time a relevant RS was removed from Wikipedia because a BLP subject put their name in it? I mean - you're seriously proposing removing the academic reference in which the author revealed his full name, because he (actively) chose to reveal his full name in it. This strikes me as bizarre - David Gerard (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It strikes me as bizarre that we are pretending to be hiding his name but giving a shortened version of his name and providing a means of getting his full name in a couple of mouse clicks. It's a charade. Mo Billings (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a compromise. Scott himself has said his interest is not in making his name unfindable (that is now impossible) but just harder to find. This is in keeping with that spirit. BrokenSegue 19:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think there is room for compromise with genuine privacy concerns. If this isn't about protecting someone's privacy but about "following the spirit" of making his name "harder to find" then you're changing my opinion towards including the reference with the full author name. Mo Billings (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This looks like trying to put the genie back in the bottle at one remove. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This would, I think, be an accurate characterisation - David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that his academically-published work is central to his notability and significance. I'd imagine the bar for removing it is pretty high. I wouldn't imagine that we should include his name in the main text of the article unless that NYT article actually comes out or something, but I think that removing it from the references list when anyone can find the information by just following the reference is a pretty extraordinary level of deference that would require some pretty extraordinary arguments to justify. Winter&#39;s Tulpa (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The blog is known first for its importance and influence in the rationalist community. The book chapter reprint is comparatively unimportant; the article has other information on the blog's impact in academia, and I'm sure we could find more. The discussion here shows a consensus I agree with those above saying that we either have a full citation or none at all. I think it's perfectly fine to leave it out. For the record, I agree that it would be nice to include all relevant sources, including the blog chapter reprint, if we could. But BLPPRIVACY is clear on the matter: no full name. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC); revised 20:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The academic work is a book from the LessWrong rationalist community, about topics promoted by said rationalist community, and used by said rationalist community to show its importance. If that's what the blog is known for, the reference is direct support for that.
 * You launched this discussion with a question slanted to your preferred outcome, then sought off-wiki backers to support your preferred outcome, then questioned the presence of a notice as to off-wiki attempts to influence the outcome. At this point you're just pushing the subject's line repeatedly - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to me that the LessWrong community has a lot of interest in hyperintelligent AI. It also seems clear to me that Scott has an interest in this topic. However, I found no evidence that the book is influential in the LessWrong community. A search on LessWrong shows almost no mention of it (note that there is another book with a very similar title that gets more mention and that 'Technological Singularity' is a generic term that they regularly use). If there is no evidence that the book is influential or well-known in the LessWrong community, then by extension, the fact that a SSC article was reprinted in the book doesn't show that SSC is known by the LessWrong community for its writing on AI. Note that Gerard's claim goes far beyond what is actually written on the SSC page. I'm in favor of removing the sentence about the book, unless evidence can be provided that the book is notable. Aapjes (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * BLPPrivacy seems to offer only two routes for including the name: where widely reliable sources cover it and where it can be inferred. It can't be inferred, because they specifically want it gone. We do not have have wide enough reliable sources including it to be crystally confident about the first. While the "genie in the bottle" complaints are interesting (and I don't know the level of historic attempts to seek privacy) I don't believe they're so relevant. BLPP doesn't offer a prior exposure route, and, at a minimum, in unclear cases we should default towards providing privacy, that is, remove the full name. I'd say some archiving is probably sufficient and a full OS is not needed, but I'm open to thoughts on that. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like a reasonable BLPPrivacy-compliant solution to omit both the surname and the chapter which uses it. Haukur (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The purpose of citing the reference is for WP:V, and that can be accomplished without including the full last name in the citation (e.g. using Scott Alexander [Redacted] or Scott S. or something similar). We should try to respect Scott's preferred public name for the same reason we should respect whatever people want to be called in a WP:BLP article (preferred name, preferred pronouns, etc). I'm not sure why basic respect for someone is so controversial and it seems too many people are keen to say something like "look, I know this is how he prefers to be addressed in this context BUT OH MY GOD THE |last1= ATTRIBUTE WON'T CONTAIN HIS LAST NAME AS IT APPEARS ON HIS GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO BE JERKS AND INCLUDE IT, SORRY." Forgive me if that sounds like an awful awful excuse and if I have a difficult time understanding the reasoning there, if there is reasoning, because it looks like someone trying really really really hard to find a loophole to include his full legal name in the article. I'm sure we're all good faith editors here and that's not actually anyone's intention, but of I was ten years younger and representing New York's 14th congressional district, I believe the term I would use for that is "not a good look." - Scarpy (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the name sourced to The New York Times? That might change things. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, The New York Times has not published anything as of now. The only sources that I know of for the full name being linked with the blog are original research and an oblique connection in the republished blog post (the book lists Scott [Redacted] as the first author and that it was republished from Slate Star Codex). Gbear605 (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case we should abstain from including the name I would say. Open to changing my view if there is better sourcing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The original question is flawed, since the person we are discussing is not the subject of the article. As far as I can tell, the person we are discussing is not notable enough on his own to have an independent article about him, so the first question I would have to ask myself is: Does using the full name add any value to the reader's understanding? In other words, is it necessary for the reader to know the full name in order to understand the article, or would it read just the same without it? If the answer to former is no and the latter is yes, then I would opt to leave it out.


 * It would be a different matter is he was notable on his own right, but unless his name has been published in a multitude of high quality sources, or unless there is a very good reason for publishing his name as demonstrated by at least one source --making it clear that the name itself is absolutely necessary for understanding the article-- then I would simply leave it out.


 * As for the other questions, I guess that depends on how the source is being used. Arguments here say the source is needed to show the notability of the blog, but if that is really the case, then can the blog really be that notable if it cannot handle the loss of a primary source? That doesn't seem to wash. Is the source being used to support some info --about the blog-- being used in the article, or is it just to show that he wrote a book? If the latter, then I would say omit the source. If the former, then use it cautiously. I'd probably just use the first initials, but the real last name, since that is what is needed for someone to look it up. We may not be able to hide the connection, but that doesn't mean we need to make it obvious.


 * All in all, I would always prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to matters of privacy, and from what I've read here I don't see any overriding public need to know. Zaereth (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Subject" changed to "author", thanks for pointing that out. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * no/no/no. Once we aren't into revealing his name, questions 2 and 3 are moot. The concept of using backdoors to publish information that is not supposed to be published is disingenuous in my view. Not publishing a detail = not publishing it. Not looking for multiple backdoors and shorthands for it. This also implied purging all the histories that infringed on earlier decisions about the above Jazi Zilber (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , question 3 is only relevant if we answer no to question 1. It is what is the correct way to enforce that. A person could definitely be no to q1 and q3 viewing revel as too extreme a remedy but that doesn't seem to be what you are saying. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Late here, but not late enough not to respond. Sometimes I get the impression in this discussion that people have OCD to put in every bit of information they can find and in addition want to spite Scott for demanding something that contradicts their OCD.  Arguments like "there's no room for compromise with genuine privacy concerns" in the context of Scott only wanting to make his name harder to find are absurd.  People aren't efficient robots trying to optimize their every action, so the fact that Scott isn't making his name literally unfindable doesn't mean he can't have privacy concerns.
 * Furthermore, this argument ignores the *way* in which Scott believes his name will harm him; he doesn't want people who only know his name (such as patients, employers, etc.) to connect it to the blog--not people who know about the blog connecting it to his name. The fact that his name appears in an obscure place that is not prominent in Google does not implicate the former problem, so it doesn't show that his privacy concern isn't genuine, nor does it show that leaving the name out won't solve his privacy concerns.
 * I also agree with the point that the article is about the blog, not about Scott, and knowing his real name doesn't help you understand anything about the blog. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * BLPPRIVACY seems pretty clear. The full name should not be published. --Yair rand (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * BLP gives a strong presumption of privacy and prevention of harm. The connection between the name and blog will probably always exist on the internet, but we won't be a part of promoting it. The source is fine without the name in the reference. VQuakr (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 'The Technological Singularity' has zero reviews on Amazon and 2 ratings on Goodreads. It is extremely non-notable. I suggest removing the link altogether. If an article from SSC would be republished on the blog of a not very notable person, that wouldn't be written about either, would it? Above, I see several people claim that this book should be included to prove that SSC has academic credibility or notability, but the very fact that this claim seems to hinge on one book that appears to have very limited popularity suggests that people are claiming more than they have evidence for and are grasping at straws. Aapjes (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to have Wikipedia honor his desire to keep his (semi-private) last name out of the article, as he's not a public figure under that name and wishes to compartmentalize his personal/professional life from his blogging and commentary. On the other hand, Wikipedia is hardly a paragon of consistency in this area; its articles on Jason Scott and Lauren Alaina (two other people who are better known under a first-and-middle-name "pen/stage name" than their full birth name) have the "real" last names in them. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would not say that someone who has deliberately gone out of their way to keep their name private can be compared to people who use alternate names. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because of the WP:BLPNAME concerns, we should not publish Scott Alexander’s full name. There is no Wikipedia policy which states that we must have all citations exactly as published when there is a good reason to change the citation.  SkylabField (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Cidny Bullens
It looks as though someone with a WP:COI may be editing this page. Can an admin look into it? maybe notify the editor who seems to be only contributing to the page? At the very least a COI tag should be placed. Maineartists (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. Your concern should be posted to WP:COIN, or you could just fix the problem yourself. - MrX 🖋 12:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

CN Lester
is a non-binary person, but their article is indexed under "21st-century women singers" as well as their talk page claiming their page to be under the scope of "WikiProject Women in Music" "Unassessed Women in music articles" Unknown-importance Women in music articles" and "WikiProject Women in music articles". This indexing is incorrect and misgenders them and should be removed Meaningfulname (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I’ve removed the category. I’m not sure what procedure to go through for removing their page from the WikiProjects though - does it need to be discussed in those projects? Gbear605 (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I am unsure as to how that would work either, hopefully someone with more wikipedia experience than me will be able to advise!Meaningfulname (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the project. It was just added June 20. Schazjmd   (talk)  13:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

ali bin fetais al Marri
This page on Ali bin Fetais al Marri appears to have been cleaned with your help, now it appears those weak links have reappeared @ WikiDan61.

You are right in saying the case of Ali Al Marri being related to the terrorist is very weak. Having read the links https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/interactives/marri/almarri.html, and https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/qatari-man-once-held-as-enemy-combatant-is-quietly-released-from-supermax-prison/2015/01/20/0ada86ec-a0d0-11e4-9f89-561284a573f8_story.html and https://www.denverpost.com/2010/04/08/qatar-diplomat-was-to-meet-jailed-terrorist/ none these sources disclose any evidence or state the two Ali Al Marri's are related. There is only one quote which is not referenced with any source that say "said to be related". This is very poor referencing.

There are statements made about the wealth or the salary Ali Al Marri receives, again there is no evidence to show (1) the salary he receives (2) his wealth, there are suppositions made about this wealth without any reliable source to back it up.

The page attacks Ali Al Marri for the laws of Qatar, which he is not directly involved in enacting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIGHTINGBS (talk • contribs) 23:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Marina Medvin
The relevance of this person as to have a biographical entry in Wikipedia is not evident at all. It seems as is the person is trying to use Wikipedia as a publicity stunt. I think this page should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es baez (talk • contribs) 05:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You should read WP:GNG to see if the subject qualifies under the normal terms of "notability" for a Wikipedia article. If you believe that the subject does not qualify, you can request deletion via WP:AFD.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * At least two of the cases Medvin has been involved in have generated significant coverage and quoted Medvin on the issues involved. That is likely enough to be considered passing WP:GNG, . I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Eyes requested on a few talk pages
Indian actor Sushant Singh Rajput died a couple of months back and after Mumbai Police medical examiners evaluated his body, they described his death as a suicide. Since then, there has been a legion of fans, conspiracy theorists, and others who believe in something more nefarious. The subject's family filed some complaints against an actress, Rhea Chakraborty, accusing her of abetting his suicide, and of some other things like fraud. India's Central Bureau of Investigation started investigating these issues, and after receiving public pressure, they are also looking at the details of the subject's death. In the interim, single-purpose-accounts and previously retired accounts keep springing up to complain about the article content, accusing Wikipedia of being biased, etc. And in some cases, these accounts have made potentially libellous statements. So far the content in the articles has been managed appropriately, but more BLP expertise would be helpful in explaining to these new talk page commenters what proper BLP practise is. Relevant articles and talk pages: Sushant Singh Rajput, Death of Sushant Singh Rajput and Rhea Chakraborty. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Megxit
I am seeking opinions about what I believe to be use of a tabloid to source an edit in Megxit about Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. See the discussion at Talk:Megxit. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and deleted that, with a long edit summary explaining why. The source says no such thing. It instead is someone named Angela saying she thinks he should be having regrets by now. That's not the same as him saying it. And even so, the info seems very trivial and tabloidish unless put into some greater context by a RS. However, while I do see this as a BLP violation of improper sourcing, it might be questionable if it's a good enough reason to ignore 3RR, so I'd be careful. Zaereth (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Mike Machat
Hello

This Mike Machat biography segment contains some errors and has a good number of omissions - here are my suggested changes - I realise I am not a professional editor - direct assistance would be greatly appreciated:

My suggested deletions are pre marked by //

My suggested inclusions are marked by **

Sources are:

Airline Ratings Author Mike Machat - https://www.airlineratings.com/author/mike-machat/

AirWingMedia - https://airwingmedia.com/articles/2012/mike-machat-source-aviation-art-information/ AirWingMedia Edwards Mural - https://airwingmedia.com/pilots/2020/edwards-mural-by-mike-machat/ AirWingMedia Santa Monica Museum Of Flying Mural - https://airwingmedia.com/pilots/2014/santa-monica-museum-of-flying-unveils-mike-machat-mural/

The National Aviation Hall of Fame - Mural saluting legendary Douglas Aircraft airliners earns artist the 11th Annual Combs Gates Award Aviation Hall of Fame enshrinees present $20,000 prize to Mike Machat at NBAA Convention - https://www.nationalaviation.org/mural-saluting-legendary-douglas-aircraft-airliners-earns-artist-the-11th-annual-combs-gates-award/

Amazon Author Book Page References: https://www.amazon.com/Mike-Machat/e/B004M6WC8Q%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share

Mike Machat's Art was one of the 50 contributors chosen by the Smithsonian Museum of Flying for this display - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/ten-years-of-flying-high-with-air-and-space-art-17102981/

START of Editing ********************

Michael "Mike" Machat, born in the 1940s, is an American artist, aviator, // and former NSA agent. ** [<<< Latter NOT correct information - Machat worked in the NSA Graphics Department as an illustrator]

He specializes in aviation art and was a frequent collaborator of R.E.G. Davies on Davies book series An Airline and its Airplanes, and has notably drawn airplanes of Pan Am, TWA, Aeroflot, Delta, TransBrasil, Eastern, British Airways, Saudia, El Al and others as part of his book collaborations with Davies and Marvin Goldman (the latter for Goldman's book about El Al, El Al, Star in the Sky). Machat has also participated in books about the Berlin Airlift and several aircraft types. He has published two books, named World's Fastest Four-Engine Piston-Powered Aircraft: Story of the Republic XR-12 Rainbow, and Painting Aviation's Legends: The Art of Mike Machat.

Machat also served as Editor-in-Chief for Wings & Airpower Magazine as well as Acquisitions Editor for Specialty Press Aviation Publications. He is the author of two best-selling books and many magazine and website articles. // [<<<< Not needed - see below paragraph - Delete]


 * [ In 2001, Machat focused on aviation writing, and became the Editor for Wings & Airpower Magazine from 2002 to 2007. He has since written the definitive book on the Republic XR-12 Rainbow, co-authored FROM PROPS TO JETS, and served as Acquisitions Editor for the Specialty Press Aviation Publications.]

One of Machat's drawings hangs on a wall at Bob Hope Airport in Burbank, California. // [<<<< Not needed - see below paragraph - Delete]


 * [Noted for his extensive work in commercial aviation, Mike's paintings are also displayed in many airline corporate headquarters throughout the world including a mural painted in the terminal building of the Bob Hope Airport in Burbank, California. His client list includes Airbus Industrie, McDonnell Douglas, Pan American World Airways, Delta, Continental, Flying Tigers, * [and his paintings have been accepted into the permanent collections of the Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum, National Soaring Museum, and National Museum of Naval Aviation. More recently he created the centerpiece display for the new Air Force Flight Test Center Museum at Edwards Air Force Base, California.]

Another, titled February 17, 1986, is owned by the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. // [<<<< Not needed - see above paragraph - Delete]


 * [Machat served in the U.S. Air Force overseas from 1967-1970, but did not retire after a full service career. Machat served as a Flight-Rated Senior Artist for the U.S. Air Force Documentary Art Program, from 1978 to 2001. member of the Air Force Art Program, contributing 21 original paintings to the National collection. His aviation artwork also won numerous awards in the illustration West, Experimental Aircraft Association, ASAA, Simuflite, and Naval Aviation Foundation art competitions.]


 * [As an aviator, Machat flew in more than 200 different types of aircraft for his research including the A-4, T-38, F-104, F-15, F-16, F-18, and Concorde. He has also flown with NASA, the Blue Angels, and the USAF Test Pilot School, and was the first Air Force Artist to fly in the Rockwell B-1B Lancer and Grumman F-14 Tomcat in a U.S. Navy exchange program.]

Biography

Machat grew up in Long Island, New York. He would visit New York area airports and draw airplanes as a kid. [citation needed]


 * [Aviation artist, author, and historian, Machat dedicated his career to the documentation of 20th Century aviation history. As the nephew of a Republic Aviation Corporation Chief Engineer, he was inspired to aviation at an early age. Mike completed the Foundation Art Program at New York's Pratt Institute. He served in the U.S. Air Force overseas and later with the National Security Agency later working in the Graphics Department, in Washington D.C.]

He was then hired by McDonnell Douglas as a technical illustrator, becoming a Staff Artist and Corporate Representative. // [<<<< Not needed - see below paragraph - Delete]


 * [After relocating to Los Angeles, he earned a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from California State University, Long Beach and was hired by the Douglas Aircraft Company as a technical illustrator. He later became a Staff Artist and Corporate Representative for the McDonnell Douglas Corporation.

In 1984, Mike established his own aviation art studio and was elected first president of the American Society of Aviation Artists. As a senior flight-rated member of the U.S. Air Force Documentary Art Program, Mike contributed 21 works to the collection. He holds an FAA Commercial Pilot Certificate, and has flown in more than 200 different types of aircraft. An avid sailplane pilot, he was also the first Air Force Artist to fly in the Rockwell B-1B Lancer and Grumman F-14 Tomcat in a U.S. Navy exchange program. Mike painted murals at the Bob Hope Airport at Burbank, California, and Air Force Flight Test Center Museum at Edwards AFB.


 * [Education

Machat graduated from Pratt Institute then joined the United States Air Force. Machat relocated to Los Angeles, California, where he attended California State University, Long Beach, Machat soon began working at the Douglas Aircraft Company. [citation needed]

In 1984, Machat established his arts studio and was later elected as president of the American Society of Aviation Artists and was made a member of the Society of Illustrators, both of New York and of Los Angeles. // [<<<< Not needed - see below paragraph - Delete]


 * [In 1984, Machat established an arts studio. He was later elected 'first' president of the American Society of Aviation Artists (ASAA) and was also made a member of the Society of Illustrators, both of New York and of Los Angeles.]

Museum of Flying

Machat hosts a series of shows at the Museum of Flying in Santa Monica, California, which began on June 8, 2019. He also painted a mural there.

Machat also serves as curator at this museum.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Space and Aviation Firsts (talk • contribs) 23:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , please use Talk:Mike Machat to make your suggestions for improving the article, thanks! Schazjmd   (talk)  23:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

United States v. Flynn
United States v. Flynn is a court case, and some of the contents of the page falls under the WP:BLP guidelines. Flynn signed a Statement of the Offense, stating in part “I agree and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct.” Does the Statement of the Offense fall under the WP:BLPSELFPUB exception, since Flynn is attesting to the veracity of the contents, as long as those contents also meet the BLPSELFPUB conditions? Or is the document still excluded because it’s a court record? Does it matter that some news media have reproduced the document in its entirety? FWIW, someone uploaded the entire document to Wikimedia Commons, and it's used on several WP pages. If it's not usable under BLPSELFPUB, should it be removed from Wikimedia Commons, and if so, is there some norm about posting a notice to the talk pages of articles that use it? (I'm still a newish editor and wasn't sure where to look that up.) Thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the perjury thing is particularly important. Many witness testimonials are also under perjury for example, but they are still a BLPPRIMARY issue. Anyway, if these statements really have no affect on other living individuals, I guess you could argue they come under BLPSELFPUB, but I'd still be uncomfortable due to the fact it seems likely Flynn mostly made these for the court case. Given the attention this case has received, I assume he understood they'd be widely read and commented on but still, these aren't general self published statements intended for the general public. Also that point raises another key issue. The Flynn case isn't one of those which received a fair amount of attention and then everyone completely forgot about it where I can understand the temptation to use such primary sources/court records to clarify things that later came out that no one seems to have noticed because they all forgot about the case by that time. While less than before, it's still receiving a lot of attention. I would question the likelihood of there really being something very important yet we can't find a reliable secondary source which covers it. If there really is something, this makes me think it's not actually that significant no matter how some editors may argue it is. Note that if the court document is simply used as an additional supporting source for something which is covered in reliable secondary sources, this is a little different. IMO that can be acceptable especially when the case is extremely high profile. The key part is there is nothing we are saying that is based only on the primary source/court document. P.S. The Commons issue is something which would have to be dealt with there based on their policies and guidelines. I suspect including the document there is not an issue. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That he signed the Statement of the Offense is noted in RSes (beyond the document itself), so that can be mentioned and pointed to without an issue. But what it contains as it pertains to the case should be based on what RSes says it contains specifically, and not the analysis of WP editors due to the BLP aspects. (Eg, an article like would be a starting point) --M asem  (t) 05:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Masem, thanks, but that doesn't answer my question. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. This document is already included as a reference and as a thumbnail in several WP articles, and I'm trying to figure out whether it needs to be removed, or if it can be a supplementary source (e.g., to confirm a quotation, per MOS:QUOTE) for statements already sourced to RSs / if it's OK that the thumbnail is included in the article. I wasn't quoting his signing statement because I want to cite it (it's not quoted in the article, and the fact that he signed the Statement of the Offense is already sourced to a CNBC article, though a different claim is sourced to the NYT article you mention), only because it makes me wonder whether that statement places the document under BLPSELFPUB. In United States v. Flynn, the Statement of the Offense is only cited in combination with other sources. I haven't yet checked how it's used in the other articles where the thumbnail is included. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If we are included quoted text that is in the Statement that is also quoted in an RS that deemed that part of the quote appropriate, I can't see how that is a problem to include both the RS and the Statement alongside each other. Same with a summary (non-quote) from the RS and the Statement in the same manner. It is when the Statement is being used in isolation as a reference in the body in extreme care. But I think this is where common sense has to be placed: as long as we are clear that this is a document and only a document yet(? I believe) proven out that we don't assume any validity to any claims made it in yet nor that Flynn is guilty of any crimes listed in it until a conviction is place (which I know that trial is going back now), and only a key document on public record that has drawn interest and presented that way, it is hard to simply say that our presentation of the document that way is a BLP harm as long as it is fully in context of the frame of being simply that document and not anything else. In other words, I can't go to Flynn's page and use that doc as a primary source to factually state Flynn did any of those crimes. --M asem  (t) 13:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Advanced Sports International and Madeleine Dean
I'm wondering if some others can look at Advanced Sports International and Madeleine Dean. I've removed some recent additions to the articles here and here made to the articles by an editor named, who from this Wikipedia Teahouse question appears to be connected to Kathy Barnette (a political opponent of Dean). Dean is apparently the wife of Patrick Cunnane, who's described as the head of ASI. While I think this could genuinely be a good-faith misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works by someone trying to support their candidate, there's still WP:BLPCOI, WP:ADVOCATE and WP:RGW types of issues with the content that was added in my opinion that requires some proper assessing. Some of the content added to the ASI article might actually be worth re-considering, but I think it should be vetted by editors not connected to any of those involved since it does seem to be an attempt to indirectly tie Dean to some kind of wrongdoing by adding negative content to an article about a company run by her husband, and the primary motive for doing so seems more WP:NOTHERE than WP:HERE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Ehsan Sehgal
Legal threat Ehsan Sehgal likely to sue Wikipedia for deleting his article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Should the arrest of a notable person be in the lead of their BLP -> Steve Bannon
This question relates to the recent arrest of Steve Bannon on charges of defrauding investors donors related to raising money for a boarder wall. []. Given the recent nature of the arrest and the limited information at this time, should this information be in the article lead? Springee (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I trust everyone understands that the fundraising purported to be for a border wall and not a wall inside a boarding house. wbm1058 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * My view is no, this is currently UNDUE for the lead. This is a serious, negative allegation made against a BLP subject while the long term impact on Bannon is unclear.  The charges of defrauding thousands are serious but that doesn't mean they will stick.  Given these are serious, negative allegations I think BLP dictates we should proceed with caution.  Consider a case where the allegations against Bannon are found to be without merit.  If we could foresee that outcome would we agree to include this content in the lead?  If the charges stick I can see adding the conviction to the lead but we aren't there yet.  My concern is that the material is being promoted to the lead not because it would normally merit inclusion but because Bannon is controversial and this is negative information about a disliked BLP subject.  Springee (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not the key fact of his notability (the crime is getting much attention because it's Bannon, rather than the other way around), so it should not be in the opening sentence, but this is apt to be key to discussion of Bannon for a while to come, so it should be in the introduction. (This will change if he is convicted, in which case his criminal activities become a part of his career description.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Springee, there's not limited information. This isn't a plane crash and we are awaiting the results of the NTSB investigation. He was not arrested based on "limited information". The charge relates to the core of his notability above the notabiity of thousands of other ideologue polemecist personalities. Yes it's DUE and amply-sourced for the lead. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The prosecutor hopefully doesn't have limited information. We the editors have limited information.  So how do we reconcile that this content is all but two sentences in the body and the content in the lead is just as long?  Springee (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Three experienced editors have already informed Springee that including this in the lead is appropriate, and now two more. The allegation is not that Bannon defrauded investors; It's that he defrauded donors. - MrX 🖋 16:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a meritless claim. I'm also an experienced editor.  Regardless of donors vs investors (corrected based on your comment), this is a allegation, not proof.  Springee (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what is a meritless claim? I never said that you were not an experienced editor if that's what you're referring to. - MrX 🖋 17:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You used an argumentum ad populum to suggest my POV was wrong. Springee (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On wikipedia we call "ad populum" CONSENSUS.  Volunteer Marek   21:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And what do you call conflating arguments? 3 early editors to the discussion disagreed with me.  So?  Since then it seems we are running a roughly split crowd.  Springee (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The global media attention to this issue makes it suitable for a brief mention in the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Nat Gertler, the information about his arrest definitely belongs in the article lead - I could find you twenty sources talking about it, so it's definitely due - but it doesn't belong in the opening sentence because it isn't what he is most notable for. Obviously Wikipedia shouldn't call him guilty until either the courts rule that way or he pleads guilty, but the charges definitely are an important piece of information about Bannon. Gbear605 (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am no fan of Bannon, but this strikes me as a case of too much, too quick. I certainly think it belongs in the article, but in the lead seems a bit too much like "breaking news" to me.  My opinion (for the little it is worth) is let things settle a bit and then see where we are.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Too much too soon. Too much: there is not enough meat in the article to warrant inclusion (it's undue); too soon: is the ink even dry on the indictment? (NOTNEWS) I do not understand the rush. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, per Drmie's explanation. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two completely different questions being asked: the one in the section title, and the one the OP asks in their first post. The question asked in the title, on the general concept of whether arrests should be mentioned in the lead of an article, is "It depends" and "That's a matter to be determined on a case-by-case basis for every article, because there's too many variables to make any general pronouncement."  On the matter of the Bannon article specifically, I generally agree with Gbear605, Nomoskedasticity, et. al., that the matter has enough to merit a mention in the lead, however I would also think that we need to expand the text about the arrest in the body first.  The proportions in the lead should roughly (not always exactly) match the proportions in the body, and right now theres two lines of text in the whole article about the arrest.  The coverage of the event in the world is such that we should have more coverage in the article about it.  The lead issue is ancillary to our article being insufficient in the first place, in that it barely mentions it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Jayron32, you are right and I probably should have separated by two questions a bit. In cases like this I often want to know if there is a policy/guideline that helps editors decide more than just "well not enough weight".  As for this specific case, yes, lot's of coverage but also very RECENT.  The sources are all saying the same things and repeating the allegations.  We don't know much beyond that.  I agree that the article level coverage should drive what makes it to the lead.  Springee (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * At least it's in the body. The number of times I find something in the lead which isn't mention in the body, often years laters, is sad. Nil Einne (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not in the lead, for now. If he's convicted, it might belong in the lead. If it gets ongoing major coverage, it might belong in the lead. But this is by no means one of the most important things readers need to understand about Steve Bannon. —valereee (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not in the lead (not leade) yet. If there is a conviction, it will likely be lead-worthy. At this point, it's an allegation. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy does not have any such requirement. A federal grand jury indictment is not like being arrested for jaywalking. In other words, it's not "just an allegation". It's a really big deal. - MrX 🖋 17:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no hard policy, but in general, when someone is accused (and only accused without either conviction or acquittal) of a significant crime, whether to mention it at all will depend on a number of factors that relate to BLP, but these are... touchy-feely factors and not written down for the most part. But there definitely would be consideration of weight of who or what the charge is - a federal criminal charge (fraud) is something you can't quite ignore due to WEIGHT, compared to a civil lawsuit that may be claiming sexual harassment, for example, where we'd weight more on the BLP factors. --M asem (t) 17:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Mr. X, if I had argued that there was a policy requirement, then your rebuttal might have been more meaningful. Important or not, it IS an allegation. (BTW, I didn't say "just an allegation". When you add words to the quote, it is no longer a quote). If and when he is convicted, then it will no longer be an allegation. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It depends. Clearly, minor arrests, such as say drunk driving, small drug possession, etc. totally unrelated to the person's career, obviously not. On the other hand, we're talking about Bannon here, where a major portion of why he was notable was involvement with Trump and fund raising here, and the fact that the arrests (or more specifically, charges made against him) are related to that seem inappropriate to bury away from the lede. As long as the wording is careful to simply say that they are charges, not convictions or proof of guilt/etc., it would reasonable to include. But to generalize, this would have to be something significantly related to the person's career or notability. Inclusion should be considered exceptional but not inpermissible to be decided case by case. Also, if it just an arrest without any named charges, that I would be careful about. The importance is the charges, that implies a legal case that will be brought against the person --M asem (t) 17:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not lead worthy at present. We are NOT NEWS and per RECENTISM.--MONGO (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Odd to think the question might not be influenced by the question of whom was arrested. If the person is in the encyclopedia for being a movie star or scientist, being arrested is much less interesting than for someone prominent in politics, such as Bannon or, say, Siarhei Tsikhanouski. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the breadth and tone of coverage, it belongs in the lead, yeah. The key to recentism is that we shouldn't place undue weight on recent events; but we do still give them the weight appropriate to them - we don't discount something that seems clearly significant solely because it is recent.  It is difficult to imagine a sequence of events where this ceases to be an important part of his bio. If it somehow turns out to be nothing we can remove it later, but right now we have to go with what seems to be most likely based on what we know, and that leans overwhelmingly towards this being significant.  (Although it is probably obvious, I will add - since people keep mentioning that he's a BLP - that WP:BLPCRIME does not apply because Bannon is very obviously a public figure, ie. it's difficult to argue that including it here could harm his reputation when it was instantly plastered across the entire worldwide news.  WP:BLP is about avoiding stuff that could harm the article's subject; reporting on the bare existence of an arrest that clearly occurred, is widely-reported, and affects a public figure has no real possibility of harming them.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is an argument for inclusion in the article, not an argument for the lead. Given the size of the article and the size of the section on the arrest, at the moment it makes no sense for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me note that we may be tumbling over some cross definitions here. Some folks seem to be treating the entire introduction as the "lead", but "lead" or "lede" is defined as "the opening sentence or paragraph of a news article, summarizing the most important aspects of the story." Our introductions are often longer than a single paragraph, as is the case with Steve Bannon... where his arrest is currently not in that opening paragraph, but it is in the introduction, as the seventeenth and final sentence. That seems appropriate to me, as it is a piece of information that people will want to have on the subject in summary, even if it's only a few sentences in the body of the article (just as we note in the introduction -- in fact, then generally in the lead -- if someone is dead or retired, even if their death or retirement gets only a single sentence in the rest of the article.) My view would likely be different if the arrest were not related to his source of notability - had it been, say, a DUI charge - but the charge is really of him abusing his position as a conservative cause promoter. It ties closely to his source of notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nat, per WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section the lead is everything above the table of contents, not just the first paragraph. Per MOS, The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph. Springee (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , my opinion is w/re the paragraphs above the TOC —valereee (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the WP:WEIGHT for a lead mention is there. It shouldn't be in the first paragraph, let alone sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear that Bannon's arrest and criminal indictment will be a notable part of his biography in the long term, regardless of the ultimate legal outcome or whether he is acquitted or convicted. (I mean, if he's arrested and then the case falls apart and he's acquitted, that will be at least as notable as if he's convicted, right?). Since the lead is supposed to summarize all relevant aspects of the biography, it is therefore appropriate to mention the arrest in the lead. MastCell Talk 19:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this almost inherently gets longer. The dropping of charges, the conviction, the finding of not-guilty, or the pardon, any of these will add to the material that's there. About the only path to not adding substantially to its length is if he dies of natural charges before any of those occur. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with others that it is not WP:LEAD materiel for this article, at this time. I don't buy that it is summary of his whole life as opposed to gotcha-factoid, which may or may not matter in the long run.  Per BLPSTYLE we are to be cautious and conservative about recent matters and per BLPCRIME, we are suppose to presume innocence -- in around 2 to 5 years should his innocence hold or the court decides it's almost like a traffic ticket, the lead of the article will look absurdly un-cautious if it's there, and so it is today.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What life? This is not Albert Schweiter. Nelson Mandela? Eisenhower? If Ike had run over a cat or even a little old lady with his Jeep, it might not go in the lead. But this arrest goes to the core of Bannon's notability. It's our best unbiased representation of RS weight today that this needs a sentence in the lead telling readers that he was charged. If things change and it turns out it was really parking tickets and not conspiracies to commit money laundering, defraud a hundred thousand donors out of tens of millions of $$, etc. Well, then we'll update the article.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How does this go to the core of his notability? He was notable long before this indictment, before working for Trump etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It would have been more helpful if you'd given me a rebuttal or counterexample. Being a naval officer, a 2-year finance grunt, etc. are commonplace. Being a founding board member of a fringy publication the same. Being the chief driver of Democrat Trump's hard pivot to the alt-right and CEO of his miracle Presidential campaign, top White House advisor -- those are what he is and will be known for. Getting arrested for belying all his deeply held beliefs and anti-immigrant agenda in a scam that turns out to show he's using all this "ideology" to enrich himself and fatten up like a yankee Onassis in the polluted Long Island Sound? That's quite something. It more or less destroys whatever dignity attached to the narrative of his Notability. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The mere fact that the article on Bannon was written in 2013, long before Trump declared candidacy, before he worked for Trump, before this legal issue, is evidence that this issue is not the core to his notability. The notion that guy has an article for 7 years and you claim that this is now what his notability is based on is absurd. Numerous experienced editors, including admins, edited that article, so if his notability had been in question, I'm pretty confident the issue would have been raised.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I try to steer clear of anything political, so I'm going to answer this in the general sense. I think people seem to get too caught up in the notion that one aspect or another is the most important thing, and therefore must be first and most prominent. I try to look at these things as if we were talking about any other article, like a scientific or technical article. It is well sourced that breaking a mirror may cause 7 years of bad luck, at least, that's the legend anyhow. If these things are important to you, then it would likely seem that the first sentence should begin by explaining this incredibly important piece of information. But the first thing a reader needs to know, before they can understand any of that, is what a mirror is. What a mirror is not. What it does. How it works, and what it's used for. In comparison, the mythology associated with them, albeit very interesting and goes back to prehistoric times, well it's really not all that important in the entire scope of things, regardless of our personal feelings or how much coverage it has gotten.


 * Coverage is a good measure for determining weight, but placement is something more akin to "assembly order" found in construction or mechanics. You have to crawl before you can walk, and similarly, you have to answer questions of what, where, and when before getting into matters of who, how, and why for it to flow and be coherent. This is just as true for living persons as it is for potential energy, welding, or vergence.


 * In general, for something like this,I would first determine it's weight and placement in the body. Upon determining just how much space to give it, and where it should fit in within the entire scope of the body, then I would go back to the lede, and use the body as a reference to determine the placement and weight given in the lede.


 * The lede, in encyclopedic writing, refers to the short synopsis given at the beginning of the article, and that's really all it should be, just a very brief synopsis of the entire article (I like to think of it as being somewhat of a scale model) --the shorter; the better. If you can whittle it down to a single paragraph, perfect! If it's a complex subject, that may require two or three paragraphs, but I would avoid any more than that. (For very complex subjects, like alloys or fighter maneuvers, I prefer a very short lede written at a sixth grade level, then a longer introduction section (5 to 7 paragraphs) written at a tenth grade level, whereas the intro is really just an expanded lede. But I digress, as that isn't very suitable for biographical articles.)


 * Honey is an example of a well written article and the perfect example of how a good lede should look. I really see no difference in this aspect between these types of article and bios, yes, even including political articles. It may seem very important to want to put someone's crimes or accusations in the lede, and even try to cram it into the very first sentence, but unless that person is like Charles Manson and the crime is all he is known for, it sticks out like a sore thumb and just looks ridiculous and amateurish, especially in political articles, like that child yelling, "Look at me! Mom! Look at me!" while the adults are having a conversation.


 * The point is that, even discussing the lede is pointless until we first determine its weight and placement in the body --it's putting the cart before the horse-- and that there is a certain order of importance that information has, that has to do with coherence and comprehensibility and has nothing to do with our personal feelings about what is most important to us at the time. Zaereth (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Very well put, . In fact, you have been consistent in your position about leads (ledes) and BLPs, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate your thoughtful responses because they align with good practices and ethics in journalism. I was so impressed with your critical thinking skills that I added one of your BLP discussions with in the header of my user TP. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 20:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't use lede's. We use leads. You are making an argument for something our MOS disallows. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And what in your mind is the difference? "Lede" is the spelling people in the writing profession use simply to avoid confusion between the various meaning associated with the word "lead", for example, if working on the article about the metal lead, or electrical leads, plumbing leads, etc. It is simply the Middle English spelling of the word "lead". That's like saying, "We drive automobiles, we don't drive cars"; a distinction without a difference. Zaereth (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should actually read the MOS, especially the part that says "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." This isn't car/automobiles, it's a difference in style. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I might also add that, in all my years at Wikipedia, I'll admit I've never once bothered to read the MOS. I don't recommend that for everyone, but I've read the Chicago Manual of Style and Reuters Manual of Style, and I've been well versed in encyclopedic writing among many others since before there was an internet, let alone a Wikipedia. That made it very easy for me to begin here, starting with the flashtube article, which was in horrendous condition when I found it. An encyclopedia is written in a very formal style and needs to be very coherent and informative across a wide range of ages and backgrounds and intelligence levels, and that's something to always keep in mind, because when you stray from that formality it really stands out. Zaereth (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, since WP doesn't use the Chicago or Reuters MOS (I'm more AP myself), I'm not sure how relevant they are to this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , trust me, you haven't missed anything. Use British-style quotations and sentence case in the headers. That's about it. Lev!vich 23:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No. It should not at this time be in the lede at all: per WP:RECENTISM Maineartists (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What if he dies? Is that RECENTISM too? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not a fair comparison. Death is a finite storyline, whereas this is evolving and fresh off the press. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 19:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Too soon for the Lede, though it will likely be added in time. As Zaereth notes above, adding this to the Lede now is "putting the cart before the horse". In full, the account of Bannon's arrest in the body of his BLP is one sentence:
 * Bannon was arrested by US Postal Inspectors off the coast of Connecticut, on board Guo Wengui's luxury yacht Lady May; later that day, he pleaded not guilty to the charges. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 19:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Feel free to fatten the horse.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are, of course, two paragraphs on the fraud indictment and the charges. Mentioning his arrest in the introduction is not just mentioning the arrest, but the fact that he has been charged with a crime. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, not in the lead per . <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 20:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Include: now a defining characteristic of the subject's biography. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Include. Notable event which has garnered nationwide press coverage.  It's certainly notable enough to be in the lead.  It involves large sums of money, and a host of criminal charges.  The "We Build The Wall" non-profit crowdfunding project has it's own article on Wikipedia, and a ton of notable coverage.  The whitewashing of Steve Bannon's article is not supported by the utter deluge of news articles on the topic, it belongs in the lead, if for no other reason than its historical importance as yet another example of the greed and avarice which underpins the Trump Administration and the people it associates with.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * That depends. There are several criteria for inclusion. The lede should be a summary of the contents, but each inclusion should be WP:DUE - WP:WEIGHT applies. If there is enough material in the body to summarise and if the fact of the arrest will be long-term facet of the reasons for notability of that person, then inclusion is warranted. So - someone arrested for, say, a DUI and no other charges - don't include. A prominent polemicist with connections to the U.S. President, with an arrest for an alleged federal crime, gaining international attention and which will result in a lengthy and prominent trial? Include. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, Bannon was arrested. He's under indictment. He is currently free on $5 million bail (if he weren't rich, he'd be in jail right now) and is awaiting trial on federal criminal charges. If someone reads the lead (which, recall, must stand alone as a complete summary of the article subject and isn't informed of any of that, then we've failed the reader and violated our basic responsibilities in a pretty major way. MastCell Talk 18:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would include the indictment but not the arrest. At the moment it is an important part of his story and will certainly occupy his time for the foreseeable future. Most readers coming to the article today are probably looking to find out more about him because of the accusations. We should therefore mention them. It would probably be best to give details about the case in a separate article if one has not been created already. TFD (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the arrest itself is implicit in the indictment. - MrX 🖋 19:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is what I was trying to get to; the arrest is really not the "thing" but the indictment or the charges named against the person that should be taken relative to the person's overall notability. And in the case of Bannon, that they are federal charges and that this seems very much rather connected to his notability make it prime lede material.
 * A second way to look at it: obviously if he is found guilty, this is still lede material; if he is found innocent, I still would think this becomes part of his notability and thus something in the lede, though maybe not presented as "arrested and charged for..." but "was named by found innocent in fraud charges related to the border wall", once those are figured out. --M asem (t) 19:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

has taken it upon themselves to decide that consensus has been reached and added the material to the lead. I think it would be best if we allowed an independent editor to decide if consensus has been achieved. Else this just opens things up for a back and forth. Springee (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The indictment should be mentioned briefly, late in the lead section. At this point, the vast majority of sourced information we have in the way of understanding the notability and details of the life of Steve Bannon, both in the world and in our article, pertains to events prior to the indictment. Vadder (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It definitely belongs in the lede. There is just no state of the future where this does not remain a significant part of his biography (even if he's acquitted). It's not like people get federally indicted all the time. Well, ok, Trump advisors and campaign managers do, but the standard is notable people in general.  Volunteer Marek   21:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe the recent nature of the arrest and the limited information at this time are irrelevant because his indictment by the SDNY for major federal felonies will never go away with the passage of time. I can't help but wonder if this matter would be debatable for even a moment if it involved, say, Valerie Jarrett. soibangla (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears there's more to this story considering the following from the BBC: That this indictment comes out of the Southern District of New York, the federal prosecutorial office that has handled other high-profile cases involving Trump associates, will stir greater interest in the indictment. The district was itself the source of recent controversy when Attorney General Bill Barr abruptly fired its head, Geoffrey Berman. We need to wait, and see some evidence. It looks to me like SDNY thinks they have a "gotcha" situation because there were promises that the money for the wall would go directly to the construction, but some of those players were covering their expenses with it. I will not take either side at their word - corroborate it first - and I certainly don't trust some of the breaking news based on recent experiences. The big scoop is Kevin Clinesmith and far more important in the grand scheme because it appears the lid is about to blow off that pressure cooker. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 22:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I explained on Talk, we don't need to know at this time what might be going on behind the scenes. We have enough facts to make it leadworthy. If subsequent reports reveal more, we can add it then. And the Clinesmith matter is trivial and relates to a minor player (Page) in the grand scheme of everything that has happened, but I fully understand the political strategy of some to vastly exaggerate its importance to divert attention from the 16-ton pink elephant in the room. It has no bearing on this matter. soibangla (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly right Soibangla. The indictment represents a very significant milestone. Speculation about the prosecution is beside the point. - MrX 🖋 16:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with TFD and Masem. It should be included in the lede. Though unless found guilty, not in the first paragraph.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It probably belongs in the lead, but not in the opening paragraph let along sentence.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be in the lead. An indictment of this sort is not issued without hearing evidence. It's a major enough issue that it seems worthy of being in the lead to me. Fearless lede&#39;r (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC) — Fearless lede&#39;r (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If (for example) it's a young actor who has one too many drinks and gets arrested for fighting a paparazzi, then no. Those kind of events are regular and not worth mentioning in the lede, but should be mentioned elsewhere. If it's somebody whose career is ended/defined by their criminal exploits (Harvey Weinstein et al) then yes, it should be in the lede. GiantSnowman 20:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be in the lead section. The criminal charges against Bannon concern how he has supported himself (the Wikipedia article makes clear that he has no regular business or source of income), and that's fundamental to any biography. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In the lead Neutrality doesn't mean we write a puff piece. Inclusion in lead is essential if we don't want to whitewash the article and illusion our readers. - hako9 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

ronnie brunswijk
Recently I edited a post in regards to Ronnie Brunswijk, the current Vice President of The Republic of Suriname. The articles cited and the framing of the posts were libelous. First, it cites a bank robbery that occurred but failed to mention that the robbery was listed as a "robin hood" tactic to return stolen money to the local population. The next is a section of the article citing that Ronnie Brunswijk was found guilty of drug trafficking, and has an international warrant against him. The interpol website that can be searched for warrants clearly shows no warrant was issued, and the article fails to state that he is appealing the decision. Also the link to the article is decayed. A recent article clearly explains the situation.

I edited the article to remove the libelous information until I could research the matter more thoroughly and was threatened by another editor. I am editing it again now, and have sent a message to the other editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugoj23 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Liam Watson (hurler)
Could someone knowledgeable about the topic have a look at Liam Watson (hurler)? I seem to have improved the article by reverting to a 2019 revision and editing it minimally; this isn't ideal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Griffin
First paragraph of this article states that Jennifer Griffin lies... Notation on this article indicates it was last updated/edited on Sept 5, 2020, which was just a couple days after Ms Griffin corroborated negative news reported by others concerning President Trump.

Although I don't know whether Ms. Griffin has lied about anything, that word seems very inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.224.92.144 (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Vandalism on the article survived for nine minutes before it was reverted, and you apparently viewed the article during that time. Home Lander (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Vaughan Jones
The distinguished mathematician Vaughan Jones may have died in Nashville on 7 December, but a good reference is lacking. There is edit warring going on, on the page. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Oneida Baptist Institute
has had an Incidents section added and removed about a suit and allegations. We should not include allegations of so serious a nature. No indication allegations were proven in court. I removed the content here. Oh, yeah. It involves unnamed minors. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 07:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Billy Davis (guitarist)
Could someone take a look at the recent edits by at that article? They appear to be by the article subject, and are changing referenced information - for instance, several sources quote the name that he used in the 1960s, but apparently now wants removed from the record. I haven't reverted their latest set of edits, but I have left notices on the editor's talk page and the article talk page. I'll be unable to edit for most of the next week so will rely on others to take this forward. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandy Hudson
Sandy Hudson Diff link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandy_Hudson&type=revision&diff=977503691&oldid=977502384

I am the subject of the page. I sent a request for repression and I was told by Kevin Li that the page violates the biographies of living persons rule, but it did not rise to a level requiring suppression and to monitor it.

The edit violates your rules about neutrality, verifiability, primary sources, circular reporting, victimization, gossip, and people who are relatively unknown.

The information contained there is both incorrect and part of a campaign by individuals who have been stalking and harassing me for years with racist motivations. The nuisance suit (as described by the judge) was filed in an attempt to stop me from my anti-racism activism work. The allegations were not proven in court, and the University of Toronto Students' Union eventually put out a statement saying that they regretted the proceedings and inflammatory public comments made. It does not rise to the level of "scandal".

I am not permitted to discuss specifics of the suit as a condition of a negotiated settlement. Regardless, I can say the following about the information contained in that section of the page about me:

(1) it references "embezzlement," which never came up in the case and is factually incorrect (2) it states that it was alleged that I destroyed relevant information including the total number of hours I worked during my employment. This is untrue and not provided for in the source. All documentation regarding my hours worked were provided in discovery, and I still have copies of them. (3) it cites a secondary source that is tabloid in nature (a student paper; which I understand is typically trustworthy, but this particular paper at this particular time in the students' union history had personal relationships with the people it would write negative stories about). The original writer of the student source did not disclose that she was in a romantic relationship with one of the students who filed the suit. (4) The tabloid source incorrectly references only one primary source (the complaint-side pleading documents; it does not at all use the response-side pleading documents) (5) the other sources referenced amount to circular reporting (they all reference the one initial student paper source). (6) The section states that I "corrected [my]self and noted that the case was not racially motivated and UTSU had reasonable basis to sue [me]." This is false. The UTSU put out a statement saying that, but I do not engender such feelings. The source is the student press, and they never spoke to me about this case at all. This is an example of a tabloid source (the student press) using a self-published source (the UTSU's statement) as fact.

I am relatively unknown by Wikipedia's standards and it seems strange that there is a section of this page titled "Scandal" for an issue that is no more a part of my life or what I am known for than the several other harassment legal documents filed against me as a result of my anti-racist activism.

I have no intention of monitoring or updating this page, but that this one-sided and incorrect information appears as the largest section on the page, and not, for example, that I was the first Black woman to serve as the President of Canada's oldest students' union, that I was the first Black person to serve as Chair of the Canadian Federation of Students - Ontario, that I was intimately involved with the removal of police from the largest school board in North America, and other such items, seems like the work of someone trying to defame me. I am not arguing that those things should be added, but this section being the largest thing written about me on wikipedia appears to be the work of a long, ongoing defamation campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151D:87F:C854:6313:8D22:BC54 (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It's excessive in terms of length. Some of the language used, the cherry picking of one-sided information and the almost total disregard for accuracy would suggest that it has been written by someone with an axe to grind. Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  11:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "In 2015, University of Toronto Students' Union (UTSU) filed a lawsuit against Sandy (Sandra) for allegedly embezzling $277,508.62 in overtime pay that she was not legally entitled for, weeks before she left her position as a student union executive director at the University of Toronto where she was employed for less than 3 years[26][27]."


 * The above is not accurate. The lawsuit doesn't use the word embezzlement... it does make allegations of theft and fraud. While the overall claim is for $277,508.62, $126809.15 is for overtime and the rest is two years salary. The article also fails to mention that the claim was against Hudson and two other people, with the punitive damages being against the three.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  11:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * An important point is also missing from the article... the UTSU settled, acknowledging that "allegations of fraud and theft against Ms Hudson were not proven."  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  11:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The section in question is from an editor who has evidently created an account purely to place this material on WP... No other edits have been made.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  11:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Samantha Huge
The last six edits beginning on Sept. 8 violate the biographies of living persons policy and wikipedia's NPOV.

03:10, 9 September 2020‎ OrangeGarfield talk contribs‎ 6,801 bytes -122‎ Reverted 1 edit by 2600:1015:B02B:59D2:293E:1D0D:6AA4:E6E1 (talk): Unconstructive undo Tags: Undo Twinkle 03:09, 9 September 2020‎ 2600:1015:b02b:59d2:293e:1d0d:6aa4:e6e1 talk‎ 6,923 bytes +122‎ added content about recent events undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit 18:47, 8 September 2020‎ Brandenburg123 talk contribs‎ 6,801 bytes -17‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Manual revert 18:25, 8 September 2020‎ AHUGEproblem talk contribs‎ 6,818 bytes +17‎ Added essential info undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit 18:22, 8 September 2020‎ AHUGEproblem talk contribs‎ 6,801 bytes +66‎ Missing info undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit 17:01, 8 September 2020‎ 2601:647:5c80:44a0:65b2:fb86:e15c:df9f talk‎ 6,735 bytes +1,755‎ Updated bio to include latest events of William & Mary Athletics program undo Tags: Visual edit possible unreferenced addition to BLP

The correct information that can be added is ...

In September of 2020, she was part of the decision to discontinue seven varsity sports at William & Mary, including men's indoor and outdoor track and field, men's and women's swimming, men's and women's gymnastics and volleyball.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:3b01:df00:c5be:f0c3:73b1:2ee8 (talk) 17:14, 09 September 2020 (UTC)

Gordon Rausser
This article appears to be extremely poorly sourced as well as written with significant bias. This is also the first Wikipedia article I've ever read with "important" aspects written in bold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:1:6CE0:6838:79C0:37D8:D2B1 (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I've added a couple tags and made a note on the talk page. Most of the bias is from three consecutive edits by an account that has no other edits. I'm presuming that this account is either Rausser himself or someone connected to him. I'm not sure whether to just revert the changes or to try to find sources and remove the bias while keeping the notable information, since the additions are informative, if very biased. Gbear605 (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Christian Tybring-Gjedde
Vandal: Egulbrandsen. Multiple violations of BLP on Christian Tybring-Gjedde (living person) page; have asked to seek consensus; they have gotten aggressive in talk, insulting, very rude. I have given 5 warnings on their personal talk and in the wiki page.2601:681:4A00:4FE0:14F8:E172:1C68:7C7A (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This was filed by in retalitation for me reporting them earlier. They have edit-warred against multiple editors by blanking large parts of an article on a far-right politician (currently in the news for "nominating" Trump for the Nobel peace prize and otherwise known for anti-immigration views), and was warned here. They seem to object particularly to the inclusion of the descriptor far-right, sourced to The New York Times, The Guardian, a scholarly monograph by a Norwegian expert and a ton of other sources. Most of the material they removed was simply a summary of the far-right politician's own public utterances, all meticulously sourced. While supporters of politicians like Tybring-Gjedde or for example AfD's Björn Höcke in Germany obviously don't agree with how they are portrayed, far-right is the term that has been used most widely by reliable sources to describe Tybring-Gjedde and it is not a requirement that 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:14F8:E172:1C68:7C7A agrees with it.
 * Most recently their edits were reverted here and here, and before that by myself a couple of times, and they have simply continued to edit-war against numerous editors by blanking the entire lead section and remove all critical (sourced) material. --Egulbrandsen (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I can confirm. This IP editor doesn't seem to understand WP:BLP. They left a message on my talk page that demonstrated that they do not understand the policy. When I asked them to clarify why they thought the article in question was a WP:BLP violation, they did not respond. The IP editor violated the policy themself when they referred to Christian Tybring-Gjedde as a "civil servant" without sources. It appears that I misinterpreted what the IP editor wrote in the lead. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute, and there seems to be no vandalism. I would argue there seems to be no BLP violation either although the leade should be really be summarising what's in the later article content rather than introducing details such as quotes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strange. I did not realize that the article was substantially revised yesterday. I could have sworn that I carefully looked through the revision section as I always do. Personally, I believe that the lead section was pretty aggressively worded and inappropriately put together. However, I do not agree with the IP editor who responded by simply blanking the content. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed assertions of facts cited to a news commentary per WP:RSOPINION and also removed the translated quotes since they are not actual quotes of his presumably Norwegian writings. There is too much danger of mistranslation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I honestly like this version a lot better. I was not aware of that policy. Scorpions13256 (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Edward H Milligan
I wish I had not got involved in this, but I had already seen an accurate notice of Ted Milligan's death, posted by someone else, removed after less than 48 hours. It seemed absurd after he had been dead for more than a month to show that he was still alive, when there was absolutely no doubt that he had departed this mortal coil.

After I had entered the correct date of his death accurately from the death certificate, it was subsequently removed several times. Wikipedia cannot be considered accurate if it fails to acknowledge facts already known by thousands of people.. I do not want to be a Wikipedia editor because it is too complicated for my aged brain, but I would like to know how corrections can be made without breaking the rules (I have tried and failed to understand all that is required).

As for the reference to biographies of living persons, I can put you in touch with at least 100 people with direct knowledge that Ted Milligan is no longer among the living, so that needs to be changed, otherwise it just looks absurd.

I do not know who is the major contributor to this article who appears to have a close connection with its subject, but if it refers to me, I would like to know who better than someone among Ted's close friends to contribute to the article?

This is starting to occupy too much of my time, but I would still like the entry to be shown correctly, and I would appreciate some simple guidance for a simple-minded person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EasonsGreen (talk • contribs) 10:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a very unusual case. In almost every other circumstances where a death has been disputed, an obituary has appeared in the local newspaper. If his death has not been commented on by any newspaper, even locally, that makes me somewhat suspicious we should have an article on him, full stop, if it can't be reliably maintaned. That said, the COI tag on your user page was silly and irresponsible; as I've said before, the tag is designed more for people who've been of one season of American Idol and want to write their own Wikipedia biography so they can "become famous". It was never designed to punish subject experts. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for the loss of your close friend, but Template:uw-coi and Conflict of interest were designed to be pretty simple to follow.  — Jeff G. ツ 13:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Jeff, you'd be surprised, our policies aren't as friendly as active Wikipedians who have adjusted to them may like to think. I sympathise with EasonsGreen's view that Wikipedia is difficult to penetrate, overwhelming even. As far as COI tag goes, I've removed the tag on the article, per instructions at COI. For notability, I think this is a marginal pass of WP:AUTHOR., I'm also sorry to hear about the loss of your friend. Regarding his death, has it been reported in a local newspaper, or some Quakers newspaper, or anything not a "primary source" (like a death certificate)? Even a sentence in some independent source would be an improvement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Jaya Ahsan - sources conflicting on birthdate
CNN News18 has her celebrating her 47th birthday in 2019 (making the year of birth 1972). . Daily Bangladesh has published two similar articles that conflict each other:
 * Published July 2019, by Entertainment Correspondent, says she is 47
 * Published December 2019 by Entertainment Desk, says she is 37

I was unable to find any Facebook posts with the quotes that both articles attribute to her. I'm inclined to remove the date entirely, unless someone feels like one of these sources is strong enough to be considered authoritative.OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Times of India updated her profile with the birthday year along with Book my Show & Stars Unfolded
 * Year of birth 1983
 * This states that it has been verified by Govt.ID

Soumyajit sc (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Killing of Daniel Prude
Killing of Daniel Prude

User has repeatedly added uncited and controversial information about this recently deceased man. Detailed uncited autopsy reports. User has been given 4 warnings.
 * I blocked in response to a post at WP:AN. Need more information there, please. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 18:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Now partial blocked. The center of the dispute is an autopsy report sourced to imgur. User has been asked to discuss on the article talk page. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Richard Brody

 * Richard Brody

Online trolls upset at Brody for praising the Netflix film "Cuties" inserted the term into the lead. I'd suggest wiping that entry from the History and more eyes on the page while this fuss is going on. 100.34.241.73 (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I semi protected the page, but given my slathering-at-the-mouth approach to negative BLP, someone more neutral should decide about revdeling -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done that, without the slathering part. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Drew Pavlou
An editor is repeatedly adding a four-letter-expletive starting with "C" to this article as a quote from the subject. The supporting reference does not actually state that they said this. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is here. The text you are objecting to is

"Counter-allegations have also been raised by a number of students, claiming Pavlou called UQ business and finance students "cunts", and that they held no views beyond that of wealthy parents."


 * and the source given says

"The penalty was based on claims contained in a 186-page dossier of complaint, which included 11 allegations that mostly referenced Mr Pavlou's anti-Chinese government protests and clashes with Mr Hoj.

Some of the allegations include discriminatory, bullying and harassing behaviour by using the 'c-word' to describe business and finance students, alleging they had no views beyond those of their wealthy parents.

Mr Pavlou's defence alleged the charge was a "beat up", as it was posted on his personal Facebook page and did not identify any specific student."


 * One could argue about the exact paraphrasing used (and the grammar isn't quite right in the last phrase), but it would seem more sensible to suggest an alternative text rather than just deleting this sentence. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think FOARP's concern is that we are quoting "cunts" but the source just says c-word. While I don't think there is any question of what word was used, I think it is problematic when the source doesn't actually use the word. For example, if you want to nitpick, did he actually say "cunts"? Or did he just say "cunt"? The context of the quote and the subject's explanation that they didn't identify any particular student suggest it's probably plural but this is very WP:ORish. Nil Einne (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. FOARP (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Then you should edit the text to use the more precise phrasing rather than just repeatedly deleting it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I also want to take a second to point out that that ABC article is the only source I could find that mentions that he's alleged to have said that specific word, and it's been over a week since the article was published. There's an argument to be made that we should just get rid of it and wait to see if more details (and more sources) come out with regards to what exactly he's accused of having said.

Thrashunreality (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Jim White (journalist)
My photo and my books are used with wrong bio. I'm an author but the article says I'm a journalist and has information about a different person, but shows my photo and work: https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk00DGG-t0f5jk5l7gTMHYLWGqpGIGQ:1599774257918&q=Jim+White+(journalist)&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgecR4gpFb4OWPe8JS-xgnrTl5jXE7IxdXcEZ-uWteSWZJpZAGFxuUJcfFJ8Wln6tvYGQab5RRrMEgxcOFxBdS5eIMSs1JLElNCckXkuDilmIHSWZXZgNVcnLBOEoRRj67Lk07x-YmyAAENf8CHaQ0tYS42D2LffKTE3PAon_-v7fXEubiCEmsyM_Lz60ECzIwfLBX4uME0g7uB6fY24JEtBia9q04xMbCwSjAwLOIVcwrM1chPCOzJFVBIyu_tCgvMSezuEQTAOGf1_TnAAAA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOo_TCx9_rAhXpkOAKHXL7BeIQ6RMwD3oECBQQAg&biw=1920&bih=921

Here's my website and correct information about me: https://authorjimwhite.com/jim-l-white/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilnixon (talk • contribs) 21:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * this appears to be an issue with Google, not Wikipedia. Google has a "Claim this knowledge panel" screen.  Consider using it.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Only the journalist or his official representative can claim that particular knowledge panel. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Google also has a "feedback" button you can use to report problems with the knowledge panel. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl
This is about a pair of subjects that recently died in a protected protest related shooting. In this edit I removed news reference to witness accounts with the reasoning that encyclopedia is not the right place to include still-developing. Quoting unconfirmed first hand story whether officers gave warning or not (actions relating to living people/recently deceased) like this seems like a rumor mill to me. If it's in the newspaper, is it appropriate to include things as long as it's attributed "witnesses say..." ? Graywalls (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of witness statements in that article. Why did you decide to only remove that particular one (twice)? Mo Billings (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconding, why are you not removing other witness statements? We have one witness saying that police gave no warning to Reinoehl before shooting him, and he was holding a cellphone. We have other witnesses who said Reinoehl had something in his hand that might have been a gun. And then we have a pair of witnesses say that Reinoehl fired dozens of rounds with an assault rifle (which is unlikely, since even police state he didn't have one of those). Why are you deleting only the witness statement that places Reinoehl in the most favorable light, but leaving all the others? -Darouet (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Oof that's a bad article title. Arkon (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't pick one over the other. I removed this one, because this is what I happened to notice. This article is changing rapidly and I couldn't notice everything happening on it. If the general consensus is that they should be kept/removed, I agree they should both have been kept/removed. Should all accounts of "witnesses says".. thing be removed? It's bloating up even more with inconsistent accounts. Graywalls (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We really really should be cautious on these types of articles where the facts of what happened, claimed to imperfect eyewitnesses, cell phone videos, etc. and where we're really only getting one part of the story. There are parts that we have to document where they lead to the larger events, such as back at the actual George Floyd event (in the immediate aftermath) that because it looked like he was choked to death by the kneeling based on the eyewitness video, that led to the initial rioting, so that's hard not to mention. But if we can be vague about what eyewitnesses are saying because of conflicting reports, even though the media are talking about them, as they have no immediate relevancy at the time, that's probably better. It is better to wait for more official determination of what events took place and work from that for our articles, as to minimize any possible BLP issues. --M asem  (t) 22:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's very problematic to say we can't have witness statements in an article about a notable homicide just because it might be a BLP violation against the accused murderers, especially when the people we would be waiting on to make some "official determination" are essentially the accused murderers themselves. -- Kendrick7talk 13:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * BLP applies to all living persons, as well as the recently deceased. It does not matter what editor's personal feelings about the people are. If editors aren't able to comply with the requirements of BLP due to their strong personal feelings, they should editor other articles. Indeed this article seems to be a good example of that since the fault of the different parties for 2 different killings is dispute. In other words, if blame the police and don't think we should care about BLP, well then do you feel the came for the 2nd subject? And vice versa. Of course by the same token, we have to recognise that claims in either direction have BLP implications so have to take due care. While excluding information can have BLP implications, in general erring on the side of caution and excluding information while we wait, is the best solution when there are valid concerns, especially in a developing story. Also, as always, we don't rely only on "official determination"s. Instead we report on relevant points of view, in proportion to their prominence in reliable secondary sources. Pure witness reports are always problematic, they are often contradictory. However if some view of what happened, based on analysis of this evidence comes to be widely accepted as demonstrated by coverage in reliable secondary sources, we should include it. It doesn't matter if it's official. "Official determinations" also tend to get a lot of coverage such it's likely it will be included too, but by no means does it have to be the only thing we include, and it may not even be the first. Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree, with the caveat that WP:YESPOV means we can't just exclude certain POVs we disagree with based on some nebulous concept of "acceptance"; the topic here isn't the hard sciences, after all. -- Kendrick7talk 16:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is what I mean, I have not followed this specific case, but in general, the first few days of newsstories from an event like this, and generally the more local stories, are just going to gather eyewitness statements without context, and we here on WP should try to avoid trying to put those into context. Better media sources, like NYTimes, CNN, etc, in the days or so after, may have a better way to present those after they have reviewed all eyewitness statements in bulk, so they can say what the "average" of those represent and that works far better for us as they are less problematic from a BLP, NOT#NEWS, and several other policy-based factors. We should not be trying to analyzing the news. --M asem (t) 17:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I have a problem with the way this is being presented at the article (where I am INVOLVED). We are discussing it now on the article talk page. Here is my problem: with most of the witnesses we do just as you suggest - mention that witness descriptions conflict, lump the witness statements and summarize them per sources, and eliminate a few that seem impossible or out of line with what is known. But this new witness testimony is being handled differently in the article, being given a whole paragraph of its own. It is different from the other eyewitness descriptions in that it is not anonymous and was released a week after the incident by the person's lawyer - released very selectively to just a few news outlets (the Oregonian and the Washington Post), and apparently not as a written statement but via the lawyer's description. I have succeeded in getting about half the excess detail trimmed from our paragraph, but it is still a whole paragraph, and I dislike the fact that it is being treated as somehow more important or more credible than the other witness descriptions. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Statements by lawyers of a WP:SUSPECT : assertions or arguments?
I noticed the following in the article on the Kenosha protests shooting, but it potentially occurs in any BLPCRIME public enough that a defense lawyer would speak to the press.

The question is: when a defense lawyer makes public statements on behalf of the client that are similar to arguments they might make in a trial (e.g., the client acted in self-defense, or was unaware of wrongdoing) is it fair or correct to write that the lawyer "argues" those things rather than "states" or "asserts" them?

I think it is not, as it departs from a position of neutrality by implicitly putting the accused in a position of "arguing", or having to argue, or being construed as arguing, their innocence outside the court, somehow conceding the legitimacy of the charges and then having to debate them, which reverses the burden of proof. Also, the lawyers generally state these claims as facts, they do not provide evidence or arguments before trial. For both reasons the Wikivoice for this should always be that the lawyer "stated" or "asserted" the claims. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd wait until the trial during which the defendant's attorneys will argue an affirmative defense. Then, legally speaking, the defendant will have admitted to the prohibited acts. We can then say "he shot them". An interview with the defendant where he says it could also suffice. Until then, we use alleged.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Things stated at trial are correctly described as "argument" or "testimony". That's part of the reason I think those words should be avoided before the trial.  Using them blurs the distinction between the trial and the public commentary.    In the current Kenosha case, the article already contains the statement that both the prosecution and defense say such-and-such, as a substitute for making factual claims that such-and-such is true (and I think "he shot them" is part of the such-and-such that both sides agree on).  For the things that are said only by one side, there is still the question of how to describe the public statements by the defense.  They are often notable enough that excluding them from an article until trial is not a likely course of action.


 * "Allege" in this context is typically used for accusations (such as prosecutorial misconduct), not merely statements unaccompanied by evidence. To describe the lawyer's statement as alleged or claimed has the same problem as using "argued": it frames the out-of-court events as a pseudo trial where the defendant is obligated to credit the charges and defend against them, and casts doubt on the statements made by the defense, when the very imminence of a trial makes it impossible for the defendant to provide any proof beforehand, even if they possess it. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * One thing at play is that from a MOS standpoint, we try to avoid flavoring language in writing in describing how people talk. We try to avoid saying anything but "a person said" or "a person stated", and do avoid things like "a person expressed" or "a person stressed". Now, when it comes to anything that is claimed, we should be clear it is a claim, and there we can use "a person claimed/asserted" but I would tend to agree that in that while "argue" could be taken to be the legal courtroom version, writing "their lawyer argued that..." could be taken as an emotional stance, and should be reworded. Alternatively, if the context was clearer; "Their lawyer said they had argued their case before the judge but could not get bail..." that's different, but that doesn't seem to be possible here. So I think the same rational sense here for avoiding the legal terms make sense as we'd avoid the emotional term for "argue" and just go with a factual "claimed" or "asserted" term at this time. --M asem  (t) 14:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, but "claim" should also be avoided. Like "argue", it is a legal or quasilegal term, therefore potentially confusing or misleading, and it is also on the same spectrum of doubt-casting phrases like "allege", "argue" and "assert without evidence". All of them are technically true descriptions of things the defense tends to say before a trial, but they artificially place the defense and their statements in a position of being dubious or questioned or otherwise on trial outside of the actual trial. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

To summarize, since discussion seems to have ended: "said", "stated" and "asserted" are indisputably acceptable, Masem's comment suggests that MOS recommends only such terms, and for all other terms (like "alleged", "claimed", "argued", "stated without evidence", etc) it is either agreed on, or argued (so far without contradiction) that they have problems. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Ian Lipkin
Ian Lipkin is a well known epidemiologist at Columbia University who has studied West Nile Virus, SARS, MERS and SARS-CoV-2. The latter has now made him a target. Over the past few months, there have been attempts to add a massive amount of material about SARS-CoV-2 and gain-of-function experiments to his article (recent diff). This material is poorly sourced (most of it is sourced to the audio of a podcast and to a YouTube video of an interview on Dr. Oz' show), and heavily synthesized. Various sources that do not mention Prof. Lipkin are juxtaposed with Lipkin's statements in order to try to prove that Lipkin was wrong, or worse, lying. Here is a typical example of one such passage:

Another passage in this massive addition advances conspiracy theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2:

I find these additions highly concerning from a WP:BLP perspective, and would appreciate more eyes on the article Ian Lipkin. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411 wrote: "This material is poorly sourced (most of it is sourced to the audio of a podcast and to a YouTube video of an interview on Dr. Oz' show), and heavily synthesized." That is simply not true. The material contains references from over 80 different sources. The interviews with Lipkin cited above account for two of these. The facts are, many of the sources, such as those relating to the Proximal Origins paper (co-authored by Lipkin), are from published academic writings such as Differences in Receptor Usage, a Nature article, a Science article, a Journal of Virology paper, comments from Prof. |Richard Ebright of Rutgers University’s Waksman Institute of Microbiology, and a paper titled Unique Features concerning the proximal origins of SARS-CoV-2. As for the offending podcast, it's a public broadcast interview with Lipkin providing a detailed account of his fact-finding mission to China and his controversial views on Chinese transparency, face masks, and Covid in general, to fellow Columbia professor, Vincent Racanellio. Direct quotes are used to avoid accusations of biased paraphrasing and present a 'straight-from-the-horses-mouth' account of the subject's views. I am happy to discuss specific points and work to condense certain sections and reach a compromise solution, but Thucydides411's unsubstantiated name-calling, wiping of referenced material, then refusal to answer specific questions as to why he wiped it, makes me question his motives here. Before the BangBefore the Bang (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reverted a further attempt to restore this material. "Before the Bang"'s response fails to address the issue of synthesis.  There's no way we're going to have so much material supported only by primary sources, especially when other editors perceive synthesis.  3RR warning issued.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Please remove Lalji Tandon as grandparent off Kushal Tandon’s page
I am the admin of Kushal Tandon page and he has requested for Lalji Tandon to be removed off his page as they are not related. This is false information and should urgently be removed. Please look a into this, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy299 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by admin of the page. If you are referring to the page here, do understand pages here have no admins. If you mean the admin of a page somewhere else like on Facebook, you may want to read WP:COI. Anyway as far as I can tell, it was removed from our article nearly a month ago [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kushal_Tandon&type=revision&diff=973626145&oldid=973097194], so I'm not sure why you're still asking. (If it was ever in the Lalji Tandon page, it doesn't seem to have been recent. I even checked both Wikidata:Q6447877 and Wikidata:Q6480433 for good measure.) If you found the information on somewhere else like on the Google Knowledge Graph (when you search on Google), that's not something can do anything about. You should try contacting whoever is in charge of that page e.g. Google. As a final point although I'm not going to challenge the removal, a tweet from some third party is not a great source. And I'd note this source [//web.archive.org/web/20190406050841/https://www.indiawest.com/entertainment/television/why-did-gauahar-khan-and-kushal-tandon-break-up/article_22942d6a-58a5-11e4-bb30-3faf3730ef1a.html] claims that Kushal Tandon told a journalist that Lalji was his grandfather. (The claim has also spread elsewhere e.g. [//www.india.com/entertainment/whoa-kushal-tandon-is-majorly-crushing-on-gauahar-khans-latest-picture-1836010/].) If this is untrue and Kushal never told a journalist this, it may be best if he asks the media involved to issue a retraction of this false story. If Kushal did tell a journalist that Lalji is his grandfather but he's now acknowledging it's untrue, it would probably help if he spoke to the media explaining why he told an untrue claim and try and convince them to issue a correction. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes I meant admin of his social media pages like twitter etc.

When you google his Wikipedia page it shows up on there before you click on the Wikipedia link also Kushal claims this has been quoted by Wiki only and not anywhere else regarding Lalji Tandon. What is the solution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy299 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, there is nothing whatsoever we can do about any other site other than make sure our information is correct. If you have a problem with what Google is showing on the Knowledge panel, you will need to contact Google. (Our article content can influence Google, but as always, it's a bit of a dark art, and we have no idea how Google decide's what information to show.) There are some suggestions above in this discussion especially if Kushnal himself wants to get involved. But ultimately the main point is there's no point commenting here.  Also again, putting this aside, India West and India.com and probably other sources have specifically claimed that Kushal told a journalist that Lalji Tandon is his grandfather. You can check out the links yourself [//web.archive.org/web/20190406050841/https://www.indiawest.com/entertainment/television/why-did-gauahar-khan-and-kushal-tandon-break-up/article_22942d6a-58a5-11e4-bb30-3faf3730ef1a.html] [//www.india.com/entertainment/whoa-kushal-tandon-is-majorly-crushing-on-gauahar-khans-latest-picture-1836010/]. Feel free to forward them to Kushal Tandon if you have direct contact. If this is a made up story, IMO Kushal would do well to demand a retraction. It's one thing to get stuff wrong, a lot of entertainment news has very poor fact checking, it's another to make stuff up. On our side, we will generally stop using sources known to make stuff up, but it's hard for us to know when this is happening if it isn't publicised that it happened so if India West acknowledges this happens it will likely help as decide to avoid it's use.  There are a lot of other poor sources which simply make claim he's the grandfather [//www.bollywoodlife.com/news-gossip/kushal-tandons-family-lit-up-his-diwali-view-pics-824602/] [//www.asianage.com/entertainment/tv/291216/till-breakups-do-us-apart.html] especially when Lalji was sick and then passed away [//www.timesnowhindi.com/entertainment/television/article/kushal-tandon-lalji-tandon-relation-tv-actor-facts-and-debut-with-nia-sharma-from-ek-hazaaron-mein-meri-behna-hai/304026] [//news.abplive.com/entertainment/television/tv-actor-kushal-tandon-mourns-the-death-of-his-late-grandfather-lalji-tandon-1291680] [//www.tellychakkar.com/tv/tv-news/kushal-tandon-s-grandfather-and-madhya-pradesh-s-governor-lalji-tandon-passes-away-200721] which are I guess the more normal case of poor fact checking. Indeed AFAICT, the info was first added to our article in 2019, and a number of the sources predate that so while we may have had some role in spreading the misinformation, it seems our role was for once, probably somewhat limited.  Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hendrik Lenstra
I wrote the problems i saw to the talk page of the article, i hope this was not a mistake. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Gbear605 found out that this is no Wikipedia issue, but a google issue. IMHO this may end this ("my") notice talk. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Daniel J. Bernstein
There has been a slow-moving edit war on Daniel J. Bernstein concerning whether to mention that Jacob Appelbaum studies under him. I removed some clear-cut WP:SYNTH violations, but I think the mention of Appelbaum should be removed entirely; the only source for it is an offhand reference in an article about Appelbaum, not Bernstein. In any case, I would like someone to put it on their watchlist so the editor does not restore the obvious WP:SYNTH violations in a couple months once I forget about it. 76.11.103.158 (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a single user battling against all attempts to remove. Including the Appelbaum material is particularly egregious because the supposed reason for keeping it was that (notwithstanding NOR and SYNTH) it tells us something about Bernstein, but professors are usually not involved in decisions on whether or not to disenroll students who are accused of outside wrongdoing.  It's smearing Bernstein for decisions made by his employer.


 * Conceivably Appelbaum belongs in the infobox under "students" if he is notable enough, but nothing else about him should be in the article. To the extent (which is probably zero) that there is a notable matter of Appelbaums continued enrollment it belongs on the Wikipedia page of the university, not Bernstein. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The choice of graduate students is a major part of a professor's academic career, and for graduate students it's entirely up to the professor. The text in the page does not SYNTH a judgement or conclusion, but simply states that Appelbaum (who is notable enough to have a page) is a high-profile student of theirs, and mentions the timeline relating to what makes Appelbaum particularly notable (as explained in Appelbaum's page). There is even a "Notable students" section in the Infobox. The page should always elaborate on information in the Infobox.


 * There is not just a single user reverting the removals: Dreamyshade, KMeyer, and me systematically reverted and kept asking for a Talk page discussion that never materialized. Rather, the removal keep coming from anonymous editors with limited contribution histories. Slartibartfast89 (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Only one of the cited sources even mentions Bernstein, and it's a minor point in an article about Appelbaum. This is an extremely clear violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. If the connection was worthy of note in Bernstein's article, you would be able to find at least one reliable source about Bernstein (not Appelbaum) that mentioned it. There are none.
 * Also, Slartibartfast89 is, at best, a single-purpose account dedicated to pushing this particular issue. 76.11.103.158 (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 76.11 is correct. If the sources don't mention Bernstein at all, then they shouldn't be used in Bernstein's biography. Woodroar (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't find anywhere in WP:BLP that says if a source does not mention the name of the subject of the BLP, that source cannot be used in that BLP. The most relevant part of WP:BLP is "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."


 * Reviewing the sourcing for quality, the article from The Verge is a sufficient secondary source that clearly supports the associated part of the removed statement "Appelbaum's work continued there after several allegations of sexual abuse against Appelbaum in 2016." (The Verge says "Appelbaum’s presence in the public sphere has been severely curtailed but his career in information security continues — he is currently pursuing a Ph.D at the Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands, under Tanja Lange and celebrated cryptographer Daniel Bernstein.")


 * The second part of the removed statement ("and after many other organizations ended their association with Appelbaum") has weaker sourcing. It combines primary sources (Freedom of the Press Foundation and Noisebridge statements) with secondary sources about other organizations/events and summarizes them all together, which is reaching toward WP:SYNTH. It should be removed unless somebody rewrites it to be more precisely based on secondary sourcing while still being relevant to the article.


 * I've been editing a wide variety of articles for many years, and I believe it's important to evaluate comments and edits on their reasoning and basis in policy and guidelines, whether they're from anonymous editors, new editors, or editors who want to work on a particular subject. WP:SPA is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're correct that The Verge mentions Bernstein. But it does so only once, and not in a way that's critical of Bernstein or Lange. It's textbook synthesis to shoehorn content about Appelbaum into an article about Bernstein (or Lange), and it's misleading to make guilt-by-association insinuations that the sources don't actually make. With one mention in one source, it's arguable whether even once sentence is significant in the biographies of Bernstein or Lange, let alone multiple sentences. And that's even if we consider The Verge to be a reliable source for these claims. WP:RSP says The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles and we're discussing claims about academic programs and sexual predators.
 * If we're going to connect Appelbaum with Bernstein or Lange—and, by extension, criticize them—then we should really have multiple reliable sources that clearly and directly make those claims. Woodroar (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * If we trim the removed content to the first part as I recommended, it's sourced to a specific statement relevant to Bernstein in the source article. It's not combining material from multiple sources or interpreting sources to create a new conclusion (which is what WP:SYNTH is about) -- instead, it's including a relevant piece of information about Bernstein from a reasonable secondary source. The content I recommend is not more or less critical of Bernstein than the source itself. The Verge is a reasonable source for articles related to technology, and this article is related to technology: Bernstein's and Appelbaum's work is technology work. The behavior of people in this field is part of the field, not separate from it. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "relevant to Bernstein" is SYNTH, and the contortions (i.e., pushing every positive indicator and ignoring the obvious negative ones) that you and the other editor are going to in order to include it are POV. The one sentence from The Verge talks about several different entities (Appelbaum, infosec community, Bernstein/Lange, Eindhoven) but you choose to read it as "about" Bernstein the person, in some journalistic or biographic sense as though he were the target of the article or the sentence, or some narrative about him were being published. If there were sources unambiguously talking about Bernstein that mention this, it would be different.


 * Dwelling on Appelbaum beyond maybe a listing in the infobox as a student, is pushing a narrative that doesn't (at this time) appear in any RS, and could be false for any number of reasons. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Verge is a reasonable source for articles related to technology, and this article is related to technology. They are not RS for matters of academic governance, which is what they are being cited for.  Nor did they seek comment from Bernstein, Lange or the university as they would have if they were suggesting this is notable or scandalous in relation to those three. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Your view of RSes on a BLP seems strange, contrived and basically wrong - David Gerard (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * David Gerard, can you explain a bit? I agree with this, but it'd be very helpful to have more of a third perspective here. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * But we can't say "as of 2017..." in one sentence and then "Appelbaum's work continued..." in the next, because that implies he's still there today—or at least after 2017—which the source doesn't say. And Appelbaum's work continued there after several allegations of sexual abuse against Appelbaum in 2016 creates a series of events that implies knowledge or approval from Bernstein and/or Lange, which the source also doesn't say. The sentence currently in the article (As of 2017, Jacob Appelbaum was pursuing a Ph.D. under Bernstein and Tanja Lange at the Eindhoven University of Technology) is neutral, although I still think it's UNDUE. Anything more is making one connection in one sentence in one source do a lot of work, which is not only UNDUE but misrepresenting what the source actually says. Woodroar (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "The choice of graduate students is a major part of a professor's academic career, and for graduate students it's entirely up to the professor" is speculation, SYNTH, and is misleading. Appelbaum was already "chosen" and enrolled as Bernstein's graduate student when the accusations went public, so any decisions would have been not a matter of choosing an advisee but of disenrolling or "dis-advising" him, a completely different kettle of fish that may or may not be a professor's prerogative based solely on accusations about prior outside conduct.  It isn't clear at all that Bernstein could or should have done anything based on those accusations, that doing or not doing says anything in particular about Bernstein, or that if he did want to take action and had the administrative power to do so, that he hasn't done so by now.  Absolutely none of those things are in any RS that currently exists and there is no reason to operate as though any of them are true when editing the article.  This is a very clear cut case of SYNTH, NOR, and NPOV violation and all the Appelbaum stuff should simply be removed until and unless the necessary RS materialize. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Another indication of how off-topic the Appelbaum material is in the article, is that all the different sentences debated for inclusion have someone or something other than Bernstein as the grammatical subject. It's an article about Bernstein and we can't even write the material in a form where it's literally about Bernstein without unnatural contortions. That's because the material in the (lone) source isn't particularly about Bernstein. The current content is just bizarre, a sentence about Appelbaum tacked onto an article about Bernstein where it sticks out and does not fit. There is no good way to rewrite it that focuses on Bernstein, other than to give the basic information "he had Appelbaum as a student", which might as well be limited to infobox-only if it is even notable enough to appear there. Infobox would avoid the problem that we have no source for Appelbaum's enrollment since 2016-17, whether he graduated and what degree he earned. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Lars Monsen


Article says that his Canadian expedition was a thru-hike, which is was not. He took breaks to wait for appropriate weather for his kind of trip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.213.58.149 (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To the extent that thru-hiking is a well-defined term at all (and even our article on the subject uses a loose definition), stops and breaks are not obvious departures. Nothing in the Lars Monsen article suggests this is an erroneous description. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Tony Schumacher
Tony has not been married to Cara Schumacher in some years. He is currently engaged to Summer Penland and proposed to her on live tv at Indy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:D1C3:BC00:50D0:58E4:4DDC:76DE (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Our article makes no mention of his marital status. If you want to add this engagement, you are free to do so if you have a reliable source.  (Note: "I saw the broadcast" is not a RS.) I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion related to Jessica Yaniv
There is an ongoing deletion discussion regarding the Jessica Yaniv that may be of interest to Wikipedia editors who watch the BLP noticeboard. Nblund talk 00:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Peter Vickery
The article "2006 Massachusetts Governor's Council Election" states that Peter Vickery lost the District 8 primary, which is correct. However, it links to the wrong Peter Vickery. The Peter Vickery who lost the primary is an Attorney in Amherst, Massachusetts, not a justice on the Supreme Court of Victoria. Asher Emrik (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Asher Emrik, September 13, 2020
 * Thanks, fixed. In passing I doubt the article needs all these redlinks - very unlikely that all of these people would meet the notability criteria justifying separate articles. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

José António Falcão
Please have a look at Talk:José António Falcão, where has voiced concerns about the neutrality and verifiability of the biography. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Suella Braverman
A few more eyes on Suella Braverman would be appreciated: an IP is being over enthusiastic in adding lurid allegations, but I might be being over enthusiastic in removing them. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to the fun, the IP is now vandalising other articles in apparent retaliation. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks to for dealing with the vandalism, but I would still appreciate third eyes on the original problem. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The material as written is obviously inappropriate, and there is too much reliance on opinion sources. But the issues are real and the article definitely suffers from omission.  Obviously having taken that view I should make efforts to remedy the situation, and over the next few days I hope to do that.  Perhaps others will want to contribute along these lines.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I blocked the IP and protected the page. Needs discussion before it is added back. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 22:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux
The article about Stefan Molyneux is an evident libel. Locking the article after accusing a living person of such a terrible thing as being a racist and supernacist without any proof other than links to op-ed articles (proving opinion/commentary and not reporting on news) is just horrible.

THe bias of this article makes me question the veracity and authenticity of other "facts" on wikipedia.

When did you go down this political spirall? Such a waste. I can't believe that I financially supported you in the past. What a waste of my money and time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.105.44 (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just having a quick look at the article in question and the sources for the claims of white supremacy and nationalism, it looks like they're supported by reliable sources. Only one of the eleven sources is an opinion piece, and even then, it's attributed in-text per our in-text attribution guidelines. They're extraordinary claims, but they're absolutely appropriate, referenced, and justified. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course there's no way OP could be the one politically spiraling, surely it's everyone else. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Should we be oversimplifying him? If he said "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority" why wouldn't that warrant inclusion in the article? The conclusion here seems to be in opposition to even allowing Molyneux to speak in his own voice in his own article articulating that "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority". Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Stefan Molyneux is notable for being a far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, former YouTuber and podcaster who promotes conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and white supremacist views. That's not "oversimplifying him", that's saying why he is notable. Maybe he once built a 1/720 scale model of Oz out of balsa wood and makes delightful pettifors. That's not what he's notable for. Heck, maybe Meryl Streep was once a remarkably bad wine steward. She's still an American actress, particularly known for her versatility and accents. That's not an oversimplification of Streep. It's a standard part of the lede in a biography, answering the question: "Why is this person notable?" Molyneux is notable for far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and white supremacist views. We've been through this with you repeatedly. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * —the source says Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." I have never suggested placement of this in "the lede". The question is: should this be included in the body of the article? Bus stop (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Establishing why a person is notable in their lede is important, but BLP further requires a neutral and dispassionate tone and impartiality first and foremost, and this may mean that what someone is notable for may not be in that first sentence or the first phrase of the first sentence of the lede if that doesn't provide a neutral and impartial start to the article, which is a problem for Molyneux, as identified last time he was brought up. In addition to all those being subjective labels and those requiring some type of distancing from factual terms in wikivoice (save for perhaps "white nationalist" which was identified as a term he self-identified as). Our article remains in violation of core BLP and NPOV policy at this point because it fails to start with an impartial tone. Once once that first step of introducing the person impartially and factually (eg NO LABELS), the rest is fair game as long as standard BLP practices are followed. It should lead "Steven Molyneux is a Canadian writer, YouTuber, and podcaster who is widely considered to hold far-right, white nationalist and supremacist views and known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, and eugenics." Nothing is lost in terms of his notability, but it is worded in a far more neutral and impartial manner. (obviously leave the sourcing where it is).
 * It needs to be stressed, again, while we as a general group of editors may loathe the far right and the people there, and agree with the media that they are far from bastions of any reasonable good, we are still writing them neutrally in an encyclopedia and cannot let that "right great wrongs" philosophy take over here. We clearly need to capture the widely-shared views across multiple media sources when they label people like this far-right/etc., per UNDUE/WEIGHT, but we need to avoid cherry-picking which should be reviewed (one or two sourced do not justify the use of a label even if we feel it must be applied, for example). We need to look at the larger picture and not find every fault that can be included. For example, what is the point of Molyneux interviewing Damore? And I just saw a Twitter source used here, which is inpermissible per BLPSPS. I mean, I'm sure most of the rest of the article can be cleaned up and reads what I would say is indicative of Molyneux, no question; the OP claim that this is libel is absolutely nonsensical as it reflects pretty well what is out there in the media's representation of him which we are going to follow -- BUT we have to be better and more neutral and impartial than the media in how we work with that media and that requires just a bit more care. It doesn't mean to whitewash the article of the "negative" stuff, but again, make sure that if labels are being used they are widely used and use appropriate inline attribution or wording to take out of wikivoice, summarize rather than document every point and look for themes, and try to put personal distrust and loathing of such people aside when working on these articles. A good quality article for Molyneux will still come out making him appear like a person that society frowns upon, but our write up will at least start as impartial as possible to that point and let the reader make that decision, if done right.
 * And to Bus Stop's point, the fact we're ignoring any statements from Molyneux published in reliable sources is also not-neutral. 'HOWEVER This is not meant to say that you remove the media stance, as that's far too UNDUE to not include. You need to put his words in their somewhere to make it neutral. That is, just because Molyneux says he is not X does not mean we don't mention that most of the media says he is X, that would be against UNDUE. Instead we'd say something akin to "Molyneux is widely considered to be X by most journalists due to this-and-that. Molyneux said he is not X because of this-other-thing." (likely in the body, doubt that would be lede material). --M asem  (t) 06:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't suggest "remov[ing] the media stance". His opinion on "racial superiority/inferiority" is worthy of inclusion. The reader should be apprised of Molyneux's stated opinion on "racial superiority/inferiority". We don't have to come up with a reason why this is worthy of inclusion. It is intrinsically interesting and relevant to the article as a whole because "racial superiority/inferiority" is a subject addressed by those commentators who have opinions on Molyneux. Bus stop (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Molyneux denying what he is notable for doesn't really matter. Mark Dice similarly complains that he's not a conspiracy theorist and all cranks insist that they're the real scientists.  If they want to turn those labels into "former," then they need to specifically refute their ideas that have lead reliable sources to conclude Molyneux is a white nationalist and Dice is a conspiracy theorist.  And as has been discussed before, Molyneux looked at white nationalism in Poland and said that it works and he's no longer skeptical of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Its not about changing those labels but following NPOV, inserting what the person has said about themselves, with due WEIGHT, to counter what the media has said about them, keeping in mind that labels are subjective terms. If we know there are reliable sources that outline a person's own stance and we're failing to include even a sentence as a minimum, that's a problem. Now Molyneux, it sounds like he's waived a bit, I wouldn't know exactly where one would begin since I have seen in the last discussion a self-claim of support of white nationalism, but then you have this Guardian article as well. We shouldn't be ignoring these, but figuring out how to incorporate these in the body as necessary NPOV counterpoints. --M asem (t) 13:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * —why wouldn't we include that Molyneux says he is not a racist? Because it is not on topic? You are arguing that racism is "what he is notable for". So, material related to his very reason for notability should be omitted—do I understand you correctly? Wouldn't that fall under the heading of selective omission? Bus stop (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on the Molyneux article but I want to support what Masem is saying here. A Wikipedia article shouldn't read like the intent was to persuade a reader who had never heard of the subject that the subject is good/bad/nice/mean.  Also, I think Masem's lead sentence structure of "objective facts" followed by "subjective labels, assessments etc" is something that should be damn near required for subjects like this.  Also, once again support for including the subject's self published replies/responses to negative (or positive) claims about them/things they have said/done.  When there are two sides to a story we need to make sure it's clear there were two sides.  That sometimes means we need to give a bit of space for a explanation along with the refutation. So if X is accused on publishing a racist idea we can say X refutes the accusation because Y and Z..  Springee (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * —you say "So if X is accused on publishing a racist idea we can say X refutes the accusation because Y and Z". What if there is no "Y and Z" available? Molyneux has simply said "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority". And is arguing " If they want to turn those labels into 'former,' then they need to specifically refute their ideas that have lead reliable sources to conclude Molyneux is a white nationalist". I would argue that specific refutation is not required. That is a concocted criterion. The main criteria for inclusion are relevancy and sourcing. The statement "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority" is clearly relevant. Everyone agrees the subject is noted for being a racist. And the material is reliably sourced, to The Guardian. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar enough with the details of the Molyneux story to say what should be done in this case. However, in a general case I was trying to emphasize that when "Y and Z" are available we include them.  A while back I was involved with this [] where ExxonMobil published a report that refuted an LA Times article.  The question was should we just say EM refuted the accusations or should we include some of EM's specific counter claims/evidence?  It doesn't always mean much when we read a simple denial.  It's a bit like the kid with paint on his hands standing next to the fresh graffiti saying "didn't do it".  Anyway, if we don't have "Y and Z" then I guess you should still include the denial as it was clearly a response to the accusation.  Springee (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not a bit like the kid with paint on his hands standing next to the fresh graffiti saying "didn't do it". It is valuable information. Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that absent additional information the statement of denial should still be included. Springee (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, because we are not only concerned with whether he is a racist or not. Preternatural focus on that question represents a simplification of the article. We are addressing all aspects of the subject of the article. We are not preternaturally focussed on whether he is a racist or not. Bus stop (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly say he is a white supremacist. That you have extracted one sentence from his sourced statements is trivial. Pick any American President from the past 20 years and you can dig out one sentence that makes it sound like the predicted the current pandemic or believe it is caused by reptilian aliens. Your insistence that you have found the key sentence about the subject -- and every independent reliable source has chosen to ignore it -- does not push it past WP:WEIGHT.
 * Proportionate to the coverage it has received in independent reliable sources, your single sentence in one source -- despite it supporting your POV -- is trivial. If you would like to start pulling out individual quotes from him to add to the article, let's add "I don’t view humanity as a single species", "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the f--- up", "blacks are collectively less intelligent", "You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people", and a whole bunch more. Why wouldn't they warrant inclusion in the article (other than not fitting your theory that the notably white supremacist Molyneux isn't a white supremacist)? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how many independent reliable sources say X is a label, the use of a label is still a subjective assessment that cannot be treated as fact (only that lots of sources use it) and has to be treated subjectively. And that given that is a direct statement against the person, not including any sourced statement that person has made in their defense when that label has been applied to them is inappropriate per NPOV. This doesn't mean we have to dwell in any depth into any details of his philosophy at all, unless that itself was the subject of sourced discussion; without sources, that would be UNDUE. Nor do we need to given equal coverage of their defense, but there needs to be at least something when Molyneux has specifically spoken in defense to what critics have said about him. That part is the key driver, as to avoid picking out when we would otherwise pull random statements Molyneux has otherwise said of himself. --M asem  (t) 19:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I love this logic. Adolf Hitler said once that he loved Jews, so we need to dedicate equal weight to that, and have to be very careful about calling him an anti-semite. Jorm (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing evidence that Godwin's law hasn't been repealed. But I'm not sure how BLP applies to someone who died ~75 years ago.  Also, it ignores the meat of Masem's argument sandwich.  But score one for following the law.  Springee (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Quoting Molyneux in one sentence is not providing "equal weight", . Additionally, there is only one "self". Molyneux's opinion of "himself" is unlike any other person or organization's opinion of Molyneux. Molyneux's opinion of himself is quintessentially unique. It can't be compared to anyone else's opinion on the nature of Molyneux. It is hard to find a reason to omit Molyneux's opinion on what virtually all in a discussion such as this or in a discussion on the article Talk page agree is Molyneux's reason for notability—namely that he is a racist. So let's recapitulate—the argument for omitting this material is that it is entirely on-topic and unique. That doesn't sound like a very strong argument for omitting this material, but it sounds like an excellent argument for including the quote from Molyneux saying "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." Bus stop (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If Hitler actually once said that he loved Jews, that absolutely seems like something which belongs in his article. It already mentions an associate from his Vienna years who claims he was not an anti-Semite at this time. As for the "anti-Semite" label, did Hitler ever deny that he was an anti-Semite? If so I would include that too. It would be very interesting and relevant information for understanding how the Holocaust happened.--Clevera (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * —I would just add to what you said the following. You say "It would be very interesting and relevant information for understanding how the Holocaust happened". I would add that it would also be interesting and relevant information for understanding the subject of the biography. What is being lost in the shuffle is that the Molyneux article is a biography. We want to understand Stefan Molyneux. The aim of a biography is the development of an understanding of the human being that is the subject of the biography. Here is Molyneux interviewing Tommy Sotomayor. Would any reasonable person derive from this interview that Molyneux is an unalloyed racist? This interview took place after the deaths of Rayshard Brooks and George Floyd. This interview was on YouTube before YouTube banned Molyneux. (Now this interview is on BitChute.) In my opinion this is an entirely constructive interview. I don't think anyone would derive from this interview that Molyneux is racist. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we do not aim to "understand" Molyneux. Wikipedia aims to summarize what independent reliable sources say about him. They unanimously say he is a white supremacist. They do not discuss the ONE SENTENCE you want to include. It is one sentence from a primary source. Your desire to cast doubt on Molyneux being a white supremacist -- the unambiguous, unanimous assessment of all of the independent reliable sources -- does not create WP:WEIGHT for its inclusion. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The media - the court of public opinion - is not an objective determination of someone's ideological, religious, political, or other belief system. Period. The only person that can make that assessment is the person themselves. The only thing the media can do is assess what the person says and does and make the assertion - often as fact in their words - that the person is such-and-such an value-laden label. Or a superlative in their field, or similar positive or negative assessments. We can accept that a majority if near unaminity of sources do this, but we are still neutral and impartial and have to write these statements with the usual caution and attribution, and recognizing that absolutely ignoring any statement a living person has made directly in their defense is not neutral presentation of this. This is in no way equal weight (that would be asking for the same volume of coverage), but simply stating as appropriate for UNDUE with respect to BLP and NPOV. We absolutely are not free to ignore a BLP's statements in counterpoint to criticisms against them just because the volume of the media far outweigh him, because that immediately takes the side of the court of public opinion. Remember, we don't know if that side is right or not, which is part of the problem here: media and labels doesn't mean they are correct. They may be morally considered correct, but keep in mind, we know that this is a liberal bias and not necessary representative of the world's overall POV. (I mean, I will agree with their assess on people like Molyneux, BUT first and foremost, we are not here to repeat that bias) It's the "loudest" and thus the one we have to cover with the most depth but we have to make sure it is clear who is speaking that because it is not at all an point of objectivity.
 * Again, consider any other person that is well beloved, well disliked, or the like where there is a clear matter of subjectivity in that assessment - excluding the new "far right" ppl (and the Godwin test has already been brought up so that's fair game), select these at random, and you're hardly find a case where they are written in a manner that puts the subjective assessment in a factual voice, but instead will always put it in some type of attribution. It is really really hard to find cases of vetted articles that are as poorly written in terms of wikivoice treatment towards subjectively labels as BLPs like Molyneux and other new far-right figures. Again, I have zero love for these people but we also have a responsibility to be objective first and foremost to them like we have for ever more hatred figures in our past. --M asem (t) 22:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * —did Adolf Hitler ever say that he "loved Jews"? You say "I love this logic. Adolf Hitler said once that he loved Jews, so we need to dedicate equal weight to that, and have to be very careful about calling him an anti-semite." The question being addressed here is not whether we can call someone something. We are not discussing for instance whether we can call Molyneux racist. That is already in the article in abundance and it is not being considered for removal. What we are discussing is whether or not we can include the quote from Molyneux saying "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." If you are going to weigh in please try to address the specific question. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are still discussing whether or not to ignore WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLPPRIMARY to include the one sentence that none of the sources discuss in any way. As I said, there are a dozen other quotes mentioned but not discussed in sources that I think are of similar importance in understanding the white supremacist we are discussing. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * —I am suggesting including this Molyneux quote: "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." You refer to "a dozen other quotes". You have not suggested any other quotes. The article Talk page is littered with you insisting that Molyneux's notability rests primarily on his being a racist. The quote that I am suggesting for inclusion is relevant, as it addresses Molyneux's view on "racial superiority/inferiority". You mistakenly reference [my] desire to cast doubt on Molyneux being a white supremacist when my main interest is in writing a well-rounded biography. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * What in WP:WEIGHT makes you think this quote should not be included? This page Verifiability says that Molyneux's statement is acceptable as a source.  Your weight article says "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents".  Surely Molyneux counts as a prominent adherent of this view?  Should Wikipedia really be the sort of place where reliable sources which say bad things about someone are cited, but the person isn't allowed a word in their own defense because that would give "undue weight"?  This practice would appear to violate NPOV in a BLP.--Clevera (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to add that Bus stop's quote is not just any quote of Molyneux's. If you go to Molyneux's website, the very most prominent link on the homepage is labeled: “What I Believe” Find out the truth!  And under the "Race" section he clearly states: I do not believe that any race is “superior” or “inferior.”  So this is not some statement that he made offhand.  This is his very official, very public position statement.  Earlier you mentioned a few other individual quotes from Molyneux which form the basis of the statements made about him in reliable sources.  Molyneux has a page on his website explaining how he feels he was misrepresented in some of these quotes:   I started watching one of the videos, and it does seem as though he was unfairly (and egregiously!) misrepresented in at least one instance.  Notably, this "I don't view humanity as a single species" quote was not Molyneux's official/public position statement on race, but rather an offhand remark he made in one of his many podcasts which appears to have been taken out of context (was originally made in the context of discussing crimes for which Molyneux feels there is no restitution, a discussion that didn't touch on race at all!)--Clevera (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Something to be cautious about that comes with this: We do want to avoid including BLPSPS statements that are self-serving. We know the press has called out Molyneux's views on race, but no one had ever reported on his counter statement (such as the Guardian piece). Now including what Molyneux has written on his website which doesn't necessary appear to be in challenge to any specific piece of criticism about his view on race would be appropriate as that can be seen as self-serving. If it were the case that he wrote "Many have written that I am a white supremacist, but really I think ... " then that's a bit more valid to include because now at least that's in response to the criticism he's getting and cannot be argued as self-serving. But we prefer what we see by the Guardian here when we have an independent third-party that's actually gone to source a quote directly from the person (not pulled from existing writings) as in response, and thus that can't be seen as a self-serving facet. We absolutely need to concern this "Self-serving" facet when considering NPOV and creating a false balance and that is a line that could be overstepped here for Molyneux, absolutely, but I don't see the addition of one sentence sourced to the Guardian being anything close to that. --M asem (t) 18:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Molyneux is an intelligent person who refuses to abide by the conventions of identity politics. That is not necessarily racist. Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You have made your opinion of Molyneux very clear. The article, however, is meant to summarize what independent reliable sources say about him. They all say -- all of them -- that he is a white supremacist. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

—why should we not include the quote from Molyneux in which he says the following: "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority"? YouTube banned Molyneux after this interview (with Tommy Sotomayor) and this interview. Molyneux interviews black men in those two interviews for hours. Both interviews take place after the deaths of George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks. The discussions are about race relations in the USA and about policing in the USA. These are not just good interviews, these are great interviews, in my opinion of course. Needless to say Black Lives Matter is also discussed. Why might YouTube ban Molyneux after these two interviews? Could it be that Molyneux is not in the least bit racist? Molyneux, in interviews with police and black people is, in my opinion again, fostering good relations between black people and white people. Good relations would be the opposite of "racist", wouldn't it? Again, why wouldn't you want the article to contain the quote from Molyneux: "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority"? By the way, it is sourced to The Guardian. Do you not think that is a good source? Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am familiar with your opinion of Molyneux: that all of the independent reliable sources which regularly and repeatedly say Molyneux is a white supremacist who promotes white nationalism with racist pseudoscience, well, they're all wrong in your opinion. Molyneux, however is verifiably a white supremacist who promotes white nationalism with racist pseudoscience. That you found one sentence from a primary source (the subject of the article) that is not discussed by any sources puts that one sentence in the same boat as hundreds of other sentences. Why should we not include the one where he says he believes the different races are not the same species? How about where he confidnently tells us that Blacks are naturually more criminal and less intelligent? Other than your wanting to present the white supremacist Molyneux in a better light, why should we not include those?
 * I am sorry, but independent reliable sources do not say what you want them to say. All of them regularly and repeatedly define Molyneux as being not only a white supremacist, but being notable because he is a white supremacist, spreads racist pseudoscience and promotes white nationalism. None of the sources discuss this as even a reasonable question. There is absolutely no discussion in sources that show any doubt. None of the sources discuss your one sentence. As far as sourced information go, the possibility that Molyneux is not a white supremacist is limited to ONE person: Molyneux (and that's only by interpreting that one isolated sentence in the most favorable way possible. Per WP:WEIGHT "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all... For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." There are a hell of a lot of flat Earthers in independent reliable sources. Molyneux is a minority of ONE. His self-serving view of himself is the very definition of "the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No,, of course I didn't say "all of the independent reliable sources which regularly and repeatedly say Molyneux is a white supremacist who promotes white nationalism with racist pseudoscience, well, they're all wrong". You said that; I did not say that. Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Can an admin please close this thread? The original BLP question has now repeatedly devolved into Bus stop openly promoting (banned) white supremacist videos and race realist talking points in an effort to argue that Stefan Molyneux is not a racist. At best this discussion now belongs on the article talk page. JoelleJay (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * —you are merely conceding that there is not any reason that the Molyneux article should not include the reliably sourced quote from the subject of the article saying "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." I can only conclude that if you had a reason that this should be omitted from the article you would have presented that reason by now. Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Break (Stefan Molyneux)
—sad to say the Molyneux article is a terrible hatchet job. The quote I'm trying to put in the article should be no big deal. Any fair-minded editor should be saying sure, no big deal—how could it matter one way or the other if it is a reliably sourced quote from the subject of the article? But Molyneux is a figure who dares to mention Blacks and Jews in a tone of voice that doesn't march in lockstep with prevailing norms. To me that smacks of intolerance—not on the part of Molyneux but on the part of those who would abuse Wikipedia to express their displeasures. This is a 2020 interview with Tommy Sotomayor. Molyneux is a racist? Here we have a 2020 interview with 2 retired cops, one of whom is Black. As I have argued on the article Talk page, our article is an oversimplification of Molyneux. A biography should be especially sensitive to include those points that do not support prevailing narratives—especially on subjective matters. 99% of sources support that Molyneux is a racist. That makes it all the more imperative that we include a source implying that he might not be a racist. In this particular instance it happens to be his own denial, but the same principles apply. We should want to include countervailing views on subjective matters, which is what racism is. Racism is very often just a highly subjective opinion. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But Molyneux is a figure who dares to mention Blacks and Jews in a tone of voice that doesn't march in lockstep with prevailing norms. Are you fucking serious? JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." From WP:CIVIL.--Clevera (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to guess what I said wrong, . You might be making a valid point but you would have to clarify. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Given the context of the article and this thread, where Molyneux's notability as a racist white supremacist is utterly unquestioned even by you, do you really not see what the problems are with But Molyneux is a figure who dares to mention Blacks and Jews in a tone of voice that doesn't march in lockstep with prevailing norms. and Molyneux is an intelligent person who refuses to abide by the conventions of identity politics. That is not necessarily racist.? Those statements are wholly irrelevant to whatever argument you have with v2.0|SummerPhD,, and about whether to include an off-hand denial Molyneux made once; you are just explicitly defending his racist views here. JoelleJay (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Molyneux is a figure who dares to mention Blacks and Jews in a tone of voice that doesn't march in lockstep with prevailing norms -- And there's an explanation for that that you've been rejecting. Molyneux is an intelligent person who refuses to abide by the conventions of identity politics -- Describing him as rejecting identity politics when he says that white nationalism works in Poland would rather suggest that he rejects the legitimacy of the non-white identity politics.  Again, there's an explanation for that.  These arguments are pretty parallel to "look, he likes the freedom of swinging axes around (can't the gun control nuts respect anyone's right to defend themselves?) and stupid people just have a habit of getting in his way, but he's not an axe-murderer." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , —the purpose of a biography on Wikipedia is not to compartmentalize, dismiss, and demonize. As aptly says "I started watching one of the videos, and it does seem as though he was unfairly (and egregiously!) misrepresented in at least one instance." That has been my experience as well. I find it interesting that many black people (Tommy Sotomayor) agree with Molyneux on many points. It is not necessarily racist for instance to opine that black people in the United States may not be disproportionately targeted by police. Unlike charges of racism, statistics on actions, such as shootings, taken by police against various ethnicities, can actually be objectively analyzed. It is also not at all inconceivable that Molyneux has evolved over time. We all do. The question is why would we not include the quote that "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority"? Bus stop (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you're eliding the key issue here. We know that citogenesis is a thing.  Having watched that video on Molyneux's website, it appears to me that he's been egregiously misrepresented in at least one instance ("I don't view humanity as a single species") in both this discussion and his Wikipedia page.  (Will you please watch the first video on this page and tell me if it seems like a misrepresentation to you?)  It seems plausible to me that this is a case of circular reporting/citogenesis: His Wikipedia article has this quote of his which was clearly taken out of context, journalists read his Wikipedia article and go "Oh, a white nationalist", and now we've got sources 2-5 in the article referring to him as a white nationalist/white supremacist on the basis of almost no supporting evidence in terms of specific things he has said (if you look at sources 2 through 5, they don't offer any quotes of Molyneux's that are especially damning).
 * He's "notable" on the basis of being a white nationalist/white supremacist in the sense that there are widely read articles which describe him that way. That doesn't mean it is a fair characterization.  I'm not familiar with Molyneux's work and frankly I'm not all that interested in becoming familiar with it.  Given my limited knowledge of its specifics, I have a high level of uncertainty about his ideology, ranging all the way from "he wants to exterminate people who don't look like him" to "he's a politically incorrect egalitarian who has been repeatedly taken out of context".  If the latter, I certainly wouldn't want his Wikipedia page to treat him as the former, because that gives the real bad guys a bigger forest to hide in / a larger supply of useful idiots who have officially been identified with them in the public eye.
 * But this is all besides the point in a sense. The question we're examining is whether it's appropriate to note the fact that he denies these allegations on his Wikipedia page.  I'm unsure whether the citogenesis question affects my answer to this--even if there was no doubt in my mind that he was a thoroughly despicable individual, it still seems appropriate to note that "Molyneux officially denies despicableness" on his Wikipedia page.  After all, this seems to be the entire reason he is notable, it seems like an obvious omission to neglect his official denial.--Clevera (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Masem here, 100%. As usual, I find their reasoning very logical and astute, and in this case I agree. Now I don't know the first thing about the subject, although I find that the way the terms "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" are used, it often comes off more as racial slurs than any well-defined term that one can objectively label a person as (I'm not even sure they have real meanings), but that's beside the point. A person's own statements in defense of themselves is extremely important in any event. Of course it's not necessary to go into some big diatribe in their defense, but a brief quote or short summary is very relevant and made due by the addition of the allegations, crimes, labels, or whatever. It is necessary to maintain balance and neutrality, and just by including the info on ... whatever, it opens the door.

As an example, recently someone at Mary Kay Latourneau insisted on adding her defense that she didn't know sex with a child was illegal. Now that's an idiotic statement if I ever heard one, and some would argue that it doesn't deserve any mention in the article. But it does tell us something about the subject (either she's lying or stupid beyond belief), and it very much should be mentioned in the article. What does Molyneau's statement tell us? Well, that's up to the reader to decide, but everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves, and that is very much relevant to an article about them, and necessary to maintain balance and neutrality. Zaereth (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That any editor feels the universal assessment of independent reliable sources is "against" the subject is immaterial. NPOV demands that we objectively report what independent reliable sources say, not that we present positives/neutrals to offset negatives when absolutely no independent reliable sources provide those supposed positives. All of the independent reliable sources say Molyneux is notable as a white supremacist. ZERO independent reliable sources cast ANY doubt on that assessment. The question here is whether Wikipedia should attempt to contradict the universal assessment of reliable sources by fishing ONE UNDISCUSSED SENTENCE from the subject out of hundreds of pages of his statements based on some of our assessments that "Sources say Molyneux is a white supremecist[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12], but Wikipedia editor 'Bus stop' found this one sentence that they believe might mean he isn't.[13]"
 * This is a primary source. IF the one isolated sentence means what you believe it means, it is the very definition of a minority viewpoint: one person's single sentence. See WP:WEIGHT. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly, no one is asking for that type of statement, and you're making an illogical step here. And the Guardian by no means is a primary source here.
 * Again to stress the most fundamental point: Wikipedia cannot say anyone or any group is a label in wikivoice, period. A label is a subjective term, Wikipedia cannot speak to that as fact, no matter how many sources back that up. Doesn't matter if there are hundreds of RSs that use the label on a person or group, it is still a label and by definition a term we cannot use in wikvoice as fact when covering the media. But we can capture the fact that numerous sources consider a person or a group as a label, and there's ways to do that being clear it is widely used and without have to have a bazillion sources after the statement, which are beyond the scope of what to discuss here. Even when we have self-identification of a label, we should make it clear it is self-identified.
 * Now, on that point, because we know it is subjective and that's how the media views him, and that it is a very negative view of him, if we know he has commented in response to that criticism (particularly if it is in RSes), it is absolutely necessary to briefly mention this per NPOV. Again, this is because a label cannot be treated as a fact as the argument above starts. It would be far different if this were some "dietician" offering a crazy diet that every medical expert said didn't work per MEDRS (something actually factual rather than subjective) while this dietician continued to insist it was true. That's where FRINGE would coming into play. But when we are talking labels, there is no firm objective basis for when they apply, and thus it is fair game for those being labeled to be able to deny those labels, and if we can source that, we should. We don't have to go any further than that, and we certainly don't need to go into "unsolicited" defenses either.
 * This is at no point contradiction at all. This simply adding one sentence or so after presenting the rational from the bulk of the other sources so that its understood where the arguments sit and the reader then can decide for themselves. A paragraph in the body of an BLP may go like "Molyneux is widely considered a white nationalist by numerous publications. <two or three sentences with source quotes here to explain why from these RSes consider Molyneux a white supremacist.> Molyneux denies he is a white supremacist because ." Written like this, are we denying the media assessment? Absolutely not. It clearly gives it more weight compared to Molyneux's stance. So no, there is absolutely no attempt to contradict the sources. --M asem  (t) 05:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This:
 * "Wikipedia cannot say anyone or any group is a label in wikivoice, period. A label is a subjective term, Wikipedia cannot speak to that as fact, no matter how many sources back that up. Doesn't matter if there are hundreds of RSs that use the label on a person or group, it is still a label and by definition a term we cannot use in wikvoice as fact when covering the media."
 * is utterly wrong.
 * The word "doctor" is a label. Does that mean we can never call anyone a "doctor" in wikivoice? The word "swimmer" is a label. Does that mean we can never call anyone a "swimmer" in wikivoice? This is absurd.
 * The objection here is to "labels with a negative connotation". But there's absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy which says we cannot use "labels with negative connotation" to refer to people if these "labels" are well sourced.
 * If a label is non-controversial, as reflected by reliable, mainstream, sources, we can most certainly state it in Wikivoice. Show me where a policy says otherwise.  Volunteer Marek   06:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Uh, no. That's not what anyone is saying, but a good example of false equivalence. The difference is between a subjective label and an objective one. "Doctor" and "swimmer" are objective labels. Schizophrenic or obsessive compulsive are objective labels, when given by a qualified psychiatrist. Labels with either negative or positive connotations are subjective. The very concept of what is "good" or "bad" is subjective, as it's all in the eyes of the beholder. No one here, as far as I can tell, said "don't use those labels", rather just attribute them to someone other than Wikipedia, and if the subject says otherwise, include their denial. I don't see what is so difficult about that. (Not to mention it actually makes the labels a million times more believable that way, and much less believable the other way. It's really very simple; tell people I'm an asshole and it's like, "yeah, whatever...", but show them that I'm an asshole in RSs, and it's like, "wow, I guess he really is an asshole". It's called "giving credence", so I'm not sure why the fierce stance against it unless people are either hoping making him look better than he really is, or Wikipedia look newspaperish, or are simply too narrow in focus to realize stating it in wikivoice will have the opposite effect as intended.) Zaereth (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. "Swimmer" is as much of an "subjective" label as "white supremacist". Labels with negative or positive connotations are not inherently subjective. "Murderer" being one example. The concept of what is good and bad is... yeah that's getting too philosophical and anyway, irrelevant. Anyway, there's absolutely no Wikipedia policy which says we cannot use a "label" in Wikivoice, and there's absolutely no Wikipedia policy which states that we must take a subject's word as gospel truth (white supremacists claim they're not white supremacist for PR reasons all the time), especially in cases where they're contradicted by reliable sources.  Volunteer Marek   07:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And btw, Masem didn't even distinguish between "subjective" and "objective" labels, so um, yeah, that's exactly what "someone" was saying and there is no false equivalence here.  Volunteer Marek   07:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Then let's use exactly what WP:LABEL calls them: "value-laden labels". While I would argue that something like "swimmer" would be a profession or career (something very objective and easily proven out), and something like "murderer" would be applied only in the case of a conviction in a trial but otherwise still objective once that was determined, most of the others, like "racist", etc.  are still based on subjective assessment of what a person does to understand their values. It is something impossible to prove unless self-stated by the person itself, and because these are value-based, the exact definition also depends who you talk to, making them double edged swords. For all purposes, when I have said "labels" above, assume I'm talking the specific value-laden labels that LABEL cautions about.  (I have spoken on distinguishing between things like profession and labels in the past, this is not new). --M asem  (t) 13:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * A white supremacist is (objectively) "a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races." A racist is a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.. If reputable sources refer to a subject as a "white supremacist", then it is because they have concluded that based on their investigation of the subject's public remarks, comments, writing, speeches, and actions. That's what journalists do. If a person is a white supremacist, then they are obviously also a racist, by definition. It is not our role to moderate reputable sources. WP:YESPOV provides the necessary guidance. Folks should sop obsessing over WP:LABEL which is simply style advice so that editors don't inappropriately use value-laden labels. - MrX 🖋 12:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Because they have concluded" is still not an objective answer here to dealing with value-added labels, especially with today's form of journalism. Just because there dictionary definitions doesn't mean every journalist and analysis is using the same exact level of when someone's values flip from "white nationalist" to "white supremacist", because that's a massive grey line. This is why these are still subjective labels, that they are contentious by their nature, even if they are not contested in the media when used on people like Molyneux, and Wikipedia cannot go around repeating them as fact. That's exactly what YESPOV says. The only way we (the world) can judge a person as a white supremacist (or most of these other labels) factually is well-after their death in context of the rest of the world at that time, from an academic view that no longer is wavering or changing from that period, and even then that can still be subject to new ideas. Basically, any use of a contentious term, label or not, always needs to be presented outside of wikivoice, with some type of attribution, and can't be stated as fact. --M asem  (t) 13:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources have to be evaluated in context and on their individual merits. I'm not sure I know what "subjective label" is, but it seems to imply that it's impossible for reasoning people to evaluate a subjects's views against a standard of what those views commonly represent. I don't consider that a valid position. It is debatable whether "white supremacist" is even a value-laden label. (Maybe they prefer to be called "differently equal based on color"?) If a descriptor like "white supremacist" is seriously contested among reliable sources, then of course we can't use in in Wikipedia's voice, but there is no inherent prohibition simply because the descriptor is associated with repugnant values. Among other things, WP:NOTCENSORED comes to mind. I also disagree that somebody has to be long dead to finally be recognized as a white supremacist or racist. We are an online encyclopedia after all. - MrX 🖋 17:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The definition above from M-W is likely a nice "core" area of what white supremacy is, I agree with that. And there are certainly actions and statements that assessed objectively to be equated to white supremacy (eg being a KKK member for example). But the exact bounds of a person themselves a white supremacist is, today, is very much unclear because it requires knowing what they actually believe (which you cannot know at all unless you are that person), and that the bounds change depending on who you area (eg the SPLC tends to play a bit faster and looser than perhaps the NYTimes). The only thing the press can do is say that the total sum of the actions and behavior of a person likely makes them a white supremacist in their stance, so they will call them that. Until we can read people's minds and know if they consider themselves, objectively, to be a white supremacist, this is always going to be a subjective evaluation based on observation and not something that is done in a more "scientific" manner one can do in the area of fringe/pseudoscience.
 * And just because there is "no contest" to a label in reliable sources doesn't make it a contentious label (these are two different facets). This not only applies to negative value-laden ones but to positive ones, and we'd take the same steps to avoid wikivoice there as well. Tom Hanks may be considered one of the greatest actors in the world with no contest against that point, but we aren't going to say "Hanks is the greatest actor" in wikivoice, we'd say it as "Hanks is considered one of the greatest actors." Any value-laden label that is subject must be presumed to be contentious, positive or negative, in terms of applying YESPOV. Just because that contentious isn't found in sources doesn't mean we ignore it. And if we specifically want to question "white supremacy" as a label, it should be obvious that people try to deny being one as a fact that it is a contentious label. (Maybe not Molyneux here).  This is not hard.
 * And there's no censorship here. Not one thing said here is saying to omit any information that is coming from the sources, but simply to write it outside of wikivoice and give better attribution. We still can say "Molyneux is widely considered to be a white supremacist." rather than "Molyneux is a white supremacist", tagging that statement with just a few high quality RSes that make that stance (I'm assuming a NYTimes, BBC, and others can be used here), followed by key reasons why the media say that he is, and further followed by his counterclaim that Bus Stop has point out. That's it, all the same information, simply presented out of wikivoice fact. Its not that hard, its not denying anything the media has said, it still lays thick on the fact that Molyneux is not liked at all by the press for his views, stuff that we definitely cannot ignore per UNDUE, but all stated with the impartial and neutral nature that policy requires.
 * (I am precluding that behind all these, a source analysis has been done to see how many times labels like "white supremacy", "far right" etc have been used when speaking of Molyneux in general, and that they come up more than a few times (~20% or more, given the nature of reporting), such that these are not cherry-picked terms. My own 2 minutes in GNews suggests they aren't cherry picked, that is, they DO apply here, but I mean, this really should be documented on the talk page in the first point. Just grabbing two or three sources to show that in the article is not good in the long term, it should be affirmed in talk page and then set in the article, so that you can always point to the talk page analysis of why that's the case if the argument ever came up again.) --M asem (t) 17:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * —you say "but Wikipedia editor 'Bus stop' found this one sentence that they believe might mean he isn't". Both points are incorrect. Let's start with the second point. I don't "believe might mean he isn't". Have you ever heard of "nuance"? Have you ever heard of "contradiction"? Have you ever heard the term "multi-faceted"? We are not trying to write a cogent story. That would be creative writing. This, by contrast, is an encyclopedia. All the pieces do not have to fit together. We are compiling information on a human being. The criteria for doing so include "relevance" and "reliable sourcing". I am not particularly concerned with whether Molyneux is or isn't "racist". In fact, it is a stupid question. "Racist" is an "abstract concept". It is like "beauty", which famously is "in the eye of the beholder", or as has famously said, is in the eye of the beer holder. Some may call Molyneux racist and some may not. You also say "'Bus stop' found this one sentence". No, I didn't. The section is initiated by someone called . That can be seen in the section called Is "The Guardian" OK?, the first sentence of which  reads: I found this in "The Guardian" [1]: "Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: 'I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority.'" Will this be acceptable to insert into the article? Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your intent, as you have made very clear is to cast doubt on the universal assessment of the independent reliable sources: Molyneux is a white supremacist. The source does not say that. You believe that and intend to add the material to add that "nuance". Yes, Molyneux's statement about himself is a primary source. Yes, one sentence from the subject that supports your "nuance" is well below the WP:WEIGHT line. Yes, we have hundreds of similarly sourced statements from the subject that we could add to support the "nuance" that Molyneux wants an all-white country because he feels other "races" are not human beings. Molyneux is verifiably a white supremacist who uses pseudo-scientific racist nonsense to support his desires for an all-white country, supported by his white supremacist magazine, published by his white supremacist publisher, funded by his white nationalist foundation. That you feel he isn't a white supremacist, supported by your interpretation of ONE SENTENCE from a primary source is not a significant opinion. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article in question:, in which it appears that Molyneux was specifically asked by the Guardian to comment on a statement made by Naomi Seibt, his reply, reported by the Guardian, is not a primary source. If he said that on his blog or Twitter, yes, it would be. But not as processed through the Guardian, because the Guardian has framed how this quote came about and the nature of Molyneux's stance - aka the transformative element of a secondary source. Even if they didn't do that, the Guardian is an independent source, removing it from being a self-serving SPS use of Molyneux's own words, which would be a problem. So this is a bogus argument against this inclusion. The Guardian article is nearly a perfect setup for why we'd want to include his explainaition against the numerous sources and reasons already there (including the SPLC's) of why he is considered a white supremacist. And its one of the higher quality RSes by WP's eyes, so again, failing to include this seems really non-sensical and trying to hide something. --M asem (t) 18:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * See, here is what I don't get. Your position, while it is clearly obvious you are very passionate about, how on Earth do you think his statement actually helps him look better? Trust me, it doesn't. Just like Letourneau's statement I referenced above only makes her look worse, the same is true for Molyneux's statement. It tells us actually quite a lot about the subject, because if you really want to understand someone, it's necessary to gage not only their actions, but also their reactions, which tells so much more. Pay close attention to what they say and twice as much to what they're not saying. That's why your position makes absolutely no sense to me, because it seems to contradict your goals, so perhaps you could please explain? Zaereth (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * My "intent" has never been to "cast doubt on the universal assessment of the independent reliable sources [that] Molyneux is a white supremacist". (You are saying "Your intent, as you have made very clear is to cast doubt on the universal assessment of the independent reliable sources: Molyneux is a white supremacist.") You don't seem to understand,, that this is a biography. It is not solely focussed on the question you insist on addressing. A biography explores all aspects of a human subject. We are not focussed on answering the question of whether Molyneux really is a racist or not. 100 out of a 100 sources external to Molyneux himself could assert that Molyneux is a racist and we still would insert in the article "Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: 'I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority.'" We are committed to fleshing out the human subject at the heart of the biography. If this person says that they "have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority" then we include that in the article in the interests of the readers who might want to know the sort of person that is the subject of this biography. The main criteria we have to be concerned with are "relevancy" and "reliable sourcing" and I think those 2 criteria are both met. Bus stop (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your intent is to include ONE SENTENCE because you feel there is some "nuance" in it. That nuance, you now insist, is not about whether or not Molyneux is a racist. (You insist on calling it "racism". ALL of the sources say he is a white nationalist, which some racists feel is an important distinction.) Whatever. We are also missing the "nuances" embodied in his well-sourced statements that not all of "humanity" is the same species, "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the f--- up!" (Which species? He didn't specify...), "blacks are collectively less intelligent", "You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people", "the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia", "collectively ethnicities tend to act differently,...they tend to have different rates of criminality", "the American blacks and blacks around the world have truly shockingly high levels of criminality", "dysfunctional early childhood experiences, which are all run by women", "if I lived in a society of [only] white people then the giant fly swatter of ‘shut up whitey, you’re racist’ could never be used against me", etc. I'm guessing you will want to include all of these, to make sure we touch on all of the "nuanced" aspects of Molyneux: his beliefs that some races are not human beings, women are the cause of all childhood trauma, the defensive aspects of the Nazi's Final Solution, etc. These are all similar in origin to your one sentence and are certainly relevant, given this whole question of whether or not the far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and white supremacist views is a ... gulp ... racist. That is nuance we need to include, right? Hell no. Wikipedia does NOT pick ONE individual sentence from ONE source quoting the subject to include in the article. If we did, articles on Donald Trump, Barak Obama, etc. would be in even worse shape then they are now. Which ONE sentence from ONE source (without discussion of the sentence) would YOU include about any given politician? And the idiot troll on the other side of the political divide: what sentence would THEY include? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely not what Bus Stop (nor myself) is saying. Have you read the Guardian article? They actually set out a strong argument around Molyneux being called a white supremacist, and his counterclaim within that frame. It's far more than one random quote from a random source. It is no way nuanced, and instead, I'd argue the rational to not include it is nuanced at this point. Yes, you can throw every piece of evidence to show that there's a preponderance of facts that suggest Molyneux is a white supremacist. We have sources that point this out, we have that in the article already, that's not going anywhere. To add that Molyneux refutes this, even though we've listed all this evidence, is no way a nuanced thing nor does it refute all that prior evidence. It just will leave the reader going "huh, there's all this, but he says he isn't, huh what am I to believe?" That we don't include it knowing it exists and present in a reliable source is the problem as that's purposely being not neutral on a BLP.
 * Seriously, one needs to step back, strip away their emotional and ideological take here, and remember we're writing a neutral encyclopedia. We are not writing a hit piece on people that the media have decided are "bad", which is nearly always the problem with discussions around these articles, in that editors want to start "But this is a bad person, the media has shown this is a bad person, so we have to write them as a bad person". (not singling out SummerPhD here, this has happened way too many times in the past) We don't even write on convicted criminals or hated figures in history that way. We are an impartial encyclopedia and while we have to make sure our article properly reflects the weight of the media opinion of a person, it does not mean all the neutrality and impartiality coverage goes out the window. If you want to write that way, then maybe Wikipedia isn't the right place for writing here. Again, I'm not speaking at all of burying anything coverage the media has made, but just writing it with the proper use of attribution and wikivoice, and making sure we're staying impartial and neutral, and not like we're starting with "this is a bad person". Done right, the article will still show that Molyneux is a figure very much distrusted by the media and should absolutely be known to be considered to be racist and a white supremacist, because that is why he's notable, but the tone will be far less confrontation in wikivoice, and will make sure, where appropriate Molyneux's side is given, which at this point is literally one sentence based on the Guardian article. --M asem (t) 21:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying of that Guardian article They actually set out a strong argument around Molyneux being called a white supremacist is literally false. The article doesn't do any such thing - it just quotes Molyneux talking about himself.
 * You don't appear to be able to assess sources very well - perhaps consider if If you want to write that way, then maybe Wikipedia isn't the right place for writing here - David Gerard (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a handful of paragraphs before and after that one line that establish context (eg why his name comes up this article that is actually about Naobi Seibt as she name-drops him, what the SPLC says of him and then gives his counterpoint.) To quote specifically: It is perhaps not the most in depth analysis but that is explains why his is called a white supremacist by the SPLC, his counterpoint to the Guardian, and a previous statement he made. Those were picked by the Guardian, not him, so that's selected press picks which avoids self-promotion or self-serving aspects, which would be a concern if we were pulling from a SPS blog. So, no, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the first short sentence quote ("I have always...") as one additional sentence to provide the necessary counterpoint on the article. --M asem  (t) 00:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * —the Guardian article repeatedly refers to Molyneux as a "white nationalist". I think simply typed "white supremacist" when they should have typed "white nationalist". Bus stop (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * If you are trying to claim that "white nationalist" versus "white supremacist" is a difference of substance rather than dissembling hair-splitting from exactly the same bunch of people, then you're not arguing in good faith - David Gerard (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * —I think you make a fairly valid point. I would tend to agree that there is a degree of similarity between the sentiments embodied in the terms "white nationalism" and "white supremacism". Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)