Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive317

Ray Davies
There's a long term edit war over the subject's reported bisexuality. The single source, which I restored, looks pretty thin after all. I haven't been able to find much better. Either we need something WP:RELIABLE or omit the claim. Can anyone else find sources? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, well, if it is a single thin source according to BLP it would or should not have been replaced until other sources are available. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the Interview Magazine source which includes this exchange:

"Tinkerbelle: Let's talk about women again. Do you like women who wear too much makeup?

Candy: How do you know he even likes women?

Tinkerbelle: I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Candy: You're the one that needs the benefit.

Ray: Why don't you ask me what sort of men I like?

Tinkerbelle: Do you like men too?

Ray: Mmm-hmm.

Candy: If you could be married to any movie star present today - in this room - no I mean who would your ideal date be?

Ray: Charlton Heston.

Candy: That's not bad. I like him." Interview Magazine, 1973

There is also an exchange regarding him having neither a preference for men or women in this Independent Article from 1994 as well. In addition to this he told his first wife that without her, he would "be queer" as referenced in "Indian Resonances in the British Invasion" by Jonathan Bellman as well as the Jon Savage biography on Davies. I think this is enough information to at the very least highlight in some regard. --Nobirdy (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Peter Tufano
Overall comment The ‘controversies’ section makes numerous claims that are unsourced and inaccurate, which is not in keeping with your policy of verifiability The section is written in a malicious tone that is not in keeping with your policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. We note that Wikipedia says biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, that it is not Wikipedia’s job to be sensationalist, and that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who added the material.

Interest declared: I am head of media relations at the School and write on the School’s behalf. Detailed comment Covid-19 response Unsourced claim. The opening sentence makes an unsourced claim: Students at Saïd Business School were unhappy with the Dean's response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Unsourced claim. In the sentence beginning “98% of students believed the quality of education deteriorated” the 98% figure is unsourced. The School has accurate data on student evaluations and it does not substantiate this claim. Unsourced claim. The line about ‘stonewalling demands for compensation’ is inaccurate:  the School’s leadership did not stonewall demands for compensation, students were clearly told there would be no refunds, but their education would continue virtually. Unsourced claim. The line about ‘generally lacking transparency in working with the students’ is an unsourced and vague claim. Inaccuracy. The line about telling the student body to crowdfund online is a distortion: The School created a Service Corps as part of its Covid-19 response and supported students, through its media relations and fundraising team, to raise funds from donors so they could do voluntary work for non-profits. Indeed, recent media stories, profiling this initiative demonstrate this. See https://www.clearadmit.com/2020/09/fridays-from-the-frontline-oxford-mbas-build-back-better/  Also, as noted in one of the articles quoted, the Dean’s Response Fund, which supported this activity, was jump-started with a gift from the Dean. “Cut and paste” Covid-19 course Inaccurate/disputed claim. The entry says: On September 10th 2020, the business school, while under the authority of Peter Tufano was accused of taking advantage of a government scheme during the COVID-19 pandemic. This line is false - the programme in question was running before the pandemic. The School disputes the claim that it was ‘taking advantage’ of the government. There is no source for these claims - the link provided does not substantiate the claims.

Inaccurate claim. Creating a “major project leadership academy in response to Covid-19”. This is inaccurate. The Major Project Leadership Academy has been running since 2012. False/disputed claim. The entry then says “The business school was taking advantage of a dire situation”. Again the School disputes the phrase ‘taking advantage of’. A ‘dire situation’ appears to be a reference to Covid-19, which would make this inaccurate. The title of this part is inaccurate because of its reference to Covid-19.

Ties to violence on African continent Unsourced claim. The entry refers to ‘prominent political figures associated with, or responsible for, violent oppression on the African continent’. The link to the Cherwell article does not provide evidence that substantiates the claims made in the entry, including the serious allegation in relation to Professor Ncube. Unsourced claim. The article says that Ncube has ‘defended and denied’ human rights violations. The link provided does not quote Professor Ncube directly but refers to a claim made by one of his critics.

We note that these claims do not appear on Professor Ncube’s own Wikipedia entry.

As a whole, we question the relevance of the ‘African continent” section to a disinterested article about the subject of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasilemak1973 (talk • contribs) 10:16, September 14, 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have reverted the article to the June 29, 2020 version before most of the material objected to was added. I believe that this is mostly WP:UNDUE emphasis on issues that are about the school and not the individual.  These edits attempted to tie these issues to the article subject when they are really are not -- as the school Dean, any news articles are going to quote him. I have asked that any restoration be preceded by discussion on the article talk page.  If the editors that added this material engage in discussion, it would be appropriate for you as an editor with a declared interest in the article subject to participate there rather than editing it directly.  Thank you for bringing this issue to attention. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The material objected to has now been restored without discussion on the article talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasilemak1973 (talk • contribs) 11:40, September 15, 2020 (UTC)
 * , that material has already been removed again by the administrator and he has also semi-protected the article to prevent anonymous editors from editing it for a time. The restored material was visible for about four hours and the protection should run for a week.  I am watching that page and I will respond in the future if I see similar attempts to restore without discussion. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving this your attention. Nasilemak1973 (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

André Sogliuzzo
I'm not sure what to do here. We have an IP editor adding a bunch of completely unsourced info, followed immediately by the subject of the article correcting it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s a bit odd, I agree. The IP-added material reads like a C.V. and if it wasn’t for the edit from the supposed subject, I’d have thought it had been added by, or on behalf of, the subject! I might revert it all as a good faith but unsourced addition to a BLP. Neiltonks (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Steve Webb (medical physicist)
I recently set up a discussion about the possible deletion of this article, because the subject had requested it. The result of the discussion was a clear vote to keep the article. Prof. Webb is very disappointed and has asked me to find out to whom he can appeal on this matter. Would an administrator be prepared to enter into a correspondence directly with Prof. Webb and, if so, how should he go about getting in touch with that administrator? LynwoodF (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There isn't really another process unless there is something clearly wrong with the article. Wikipedia works by community consensus, so when there is a community decision there are not a lot of channels left other than to try again later (if there were legal issues that would be a different problem, but this does not appear to be the case). However, as I understand it, the issue was that older version was deemed to be more appropriate, and he didn't like the current version. If I can better understand what he would prefer to have included, it might be possible to make those changes. - Bilby (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand how he may feel. Personally, I wouldn't wish a Wikipedia article on my worst enemy. That's way too cruel. Therefore, I tend to be quite a bit more ruthless when it comes to deletion discussions, because my feeling is that, if there is not enough info out there to make a decent article about a person, then it simply doesn't deserve an article of its own. I mean, what is the point of creating an article that will never be anything more than a stub? In my mind, that means we should be able to find multiple sources of very high quality (like 30+), or at least a handful of sources that go into vast detail.


 * However, there are a good number of Wikipedians that believe in striving for quantity over quality when it comes to creating or deleting articles, so getting an article deleted here is very difficult when there are any reliable, secondary sources at all, no matter how few or insignificant.


 * The thing I would keep in mind is that consensus can always change, but it's up to you to convince others of your position to make that happen. My advice is to take some time, watch what goes on at places likeWP:AFD, and try to work out a better argument for deleting this article. Then, when you are ready, give it another shot. (But don't do it too quickly or you'll look desperate, and people may look upon that as you just didn't get the message). Consensus is not the end of the world, it just means it won't be as easy as you'd hoped. Zaereth (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and . I will try again later, when I have got the feel of what might work. At the moment, I don't think restoration of some of the material removed would be enough. LynwoodF (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

John Alite
Moved from WP:ANI

Hello dear

I am writing in  regard to the  Chronic and unruly behavior  of User:Vaselineeeeeeee  on  my  wiki page  by one  user

Here's my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Alite

The problem is with the  word "informant" found  at the introduction section of the page. It reads

John Edward Alite (born September 30, 1962), also known as Johnny Alletto, is an American former Gambino crime family associate, and later informant against the crime family and John A. "Junior" Gotti.

An enemy I have been fighting with for years has continued to engage the editor Vaselineeeeeeee to make sure that word informant is kept on the page.

I signed up on wikipedia.org and verified my account with the user name Johnaliteofficially just to address this issue. I can’t edit my page as it is against the wiki rules. I officially verified my wiki account via  Wikimedia OTRS system to address this issue.

I requested an edit  on my talk page  to address this issue  here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Alite#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_10_September_2020

But user: Vaselineeeeeeee  rejected it despite the fact there are  WP:RS  sources that back up my claims.

Please, I never was an  "informant" for FBI, I  only did testify in 2008 after I was  betrayed.

I was only referred to as a "star government witness" or simply a "witness". Here are WP:RS sources that back this up:

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/chaos-courtroom-junior-gotti-rips-mob-turncoat-alite-break-testimony-article-1.381210

and

https://www.smh.com.au/world/exfriend-testifies-against-gotti-jnr-20090224-8g53.html

I was clearly referred to as "star government witness" or "witness" on both sources not an "informant" as Vaselineeeeeeee claims.

Other wiki editors have tried to address this issue after seeing my plea on the talk page.

Each time an editor changes the word "informant" to "star government witness" or any other word as seen in the  WP:RS sources,  "Vaselineeeeeeee"   will revert it.

He reverted same edits  3  times within a  24 hour  period on 11 September 2020.

Here’s the edit diffs


 * - Ist revert


 * – 2nd revert


 * – 3rd revert

Other editors have tried to reach out to "Vaselineeeeeeee" on my talk page, but he keeps reverting. I believe this is wrong and against wiki policy.

If you look at the history of the page, "Vaselineeeeeeee"  has been reverting every single edit made by others.

This is indeed so worrisome to me. That word "informant" is a very big threat to me and my career. Enemies are using it against me simply because it is on my wikipedia page whereas it's all false.

I was never an informant. There are no WP:RS sources that  called me an informant. The word "start government witness" and "informant" are two different stuff. They mean different things.

I have tried to reach a consensus on my talk page regarding this, but user Vaselineeeeeeee has continued to decline every attempt. He monitors my page and reverts edits as he likes.

I believe that my enemy whom I am fighting with has continued to use "Vaselineeeeeeee" to monitor  the page and revert every single edit others make.

I don't really know how else to handle this. I am therefore reaching out to the wiki admin through this medium to help me deal with this issue.

I want the word "informant" at the intro section of my page changed  to  "star government witness" as seen in those  WP:RS sources.

I'll be very glad to have this issue settled and please help me caution "Vaselineeeeeeee"  to desist from reverting edits on my page arbitrarily.

Thanks

John AliteJohnaliteofficially (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't cite wikis, and YouTube is only usable if the video was made and uploaded by a news agency to its own channel. Buzzfeed is not a particularly good source. See WP:Reliable sources for what we (and by extension, Vaselineeeeeeee) are looking for sourcing-wise. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 22:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This inquiry is an absolute joke. I’ve already brought up the points for why your changes are problematic and am in no violations of any policies here. This is nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT from Mr. Alite who has chronically vandalized the article with no regard for our sourcing policy that he has consistently been pointed to, as well as no regard for WP:CONSENSUS, WP:STATUSQUO or WP:EUPHEMISM. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong disagree - Wikipedia policy seems pretty clear here that "witness" should be the preferred term, since it is most common and WP:BLP says that we should prioritize reducing harm. For more information, see my comment in Talk:John_Alite Gbear605 (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Simply put, Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say. And reliable sources like the Tampa Bay Times, the Philadelpia Enquirer, Newsday, USA Today and The Guardian all call Alite an "informant", so therefore Wikipedia will use that word too. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd say BLP is the overriding policy compared to all those links. And if BLP concerns are raised, like the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment, it should really be removed until there's consensus for inclusion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ProcrastinatingReader, how is stating someone is an "informant" when reliable sources use that term causing the subject harm? We call BLPs sex offenders if they are charged and/or convicted of the offense and reliable sources call them as such. This is the case for Alite when it comes to calling him an informant. Now it is just a matter of preference to change it to "witness" which is not helpful. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 01:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Because this subject hasn't been convicted of being an informant? And we've got many top reliable sources using witness, making it an editorial decision on which term we use. But this is becoming a forked discussion, so I've replied over there more fully. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, you can't be convicted of being an informant—you just are one for the government if you agree to be one, which Alite did. I'm going to try to find sources stating this, hopefully some government ones, but if not I'll concede. Vaselineeeeeeee</b>★★★ 01:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Finding sources saying it, especially government sources, doesn't help the case further. Per my comment there, we have The Times, The New York Times, NBC and Reuters, all top RS, using "witness" (or government witness). The fact that the label can be attributed to such RS, regardless of if other RS use a different label, means the label we choose to use on the article is purely editorial discretion. At that point the discussion isn't about sources but about our other content guidelines which help decide which label to use. I see BLP and the statements of the subject as being overriding, here. But even if that wasn't the case, the fact that top RS use a particular label should really be a guiding factor here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Found several other high quality sources that use "informant". With regards to using editorial discretion for which word to use, I do not buy for a second that this word "harms" the subject other than his own personal views. "Informant" vs "witness" are virtually synonyms and one is not more "offensive" than the other in normal circumstances. See my comment at the talk page for more info. I would argue since there are also many sources that use "informant", which is the stable WP:Status quo, that should be used. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 02:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are citing an essay. I'm citing a core policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * To me, "informant" and "witness" carry very different meanings -- and in fact U.S. Code treats them as distinct entities. "Informant" implies an individual is a) a criminal and b) knowingly obtaining confidential information from the accused on behalf of law enforcement during an investigation. "Witness" is a lot more neutral and implies the person is just providing testimony on events that occurred before they were approached by prosecutors. Since perception of "narcing" and duplicitousness can have very real repercussions on someone's life, and because there are multiple RS using "witness", I would suggest using that term instead. And anyway if they are "virtually synonyms" to User:Vaselineeeeeeee then there shouldn't be an issue with this substitution. JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The two words are definitely not synonyms. An informant is someone who secretly gives information to law enforcement whereas a witness is someone who testifies in a court. The problem I see, without even going to the sources, is that our article describes him as doing the actions of a witness, not the actions of an informant.


 * I think it's a fallacious argument to say we must always use the same words as found in sources. What we're supposed to do is read and understand the sources and then rewrite the information in our own words, or else we'd all be guilty of plagiarism. If some sources use one word and some use the other, then we have a duty to look past the words and see the entire meaning, put into the context of all sources, and use the most accurate description we can. In this instance --just from reading our article-- I see nothing that shows him doing the things an informant does. Instead, the actions I see are those of a witness.


 * Now I don't plan to dig too deep into this, so I really don't know if he was an informant or not, but if he was I'd expect our article to demonstrate that, yet it does not. Zaereth (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a fair assessment, thanks for the insight. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 02:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the attempt to create a rigid distinction between informant and witness in this (and similar) cases is a bit misplaced. It is not as if Alite was a bystander who happened to witness some criminal activity and voluntarily agreed to testify in the ensuing trial. He pled guilty to "two murders, four murder conspiracies, at least eight shootings, and two attempted shootings as well as armed home invasions and armed robberies" and admitted to beating about 100 people with a baseball bat, according to his BLP. At some point, he decided to break from the Mafia and testified in exchange for a very lenient sentence for his crimes, because the government came to the conclusion that he would be helpful in trying to convict "bigger fish". Prosecutors would never put a person like that on the stand without months of interviews and debriefings where the witness is expected to provide a vast amount of verifiable details about the ongoing criminal activity before being allowed to testify. A criminal informant is a participant in ongoing criminal activity who decides to provide detailed information to law enforcement agencies and sometimes to the courts. This is an entirely accurate description of John Alite. It is a pejorative only in criminal circles. Alite made the correct and moral choice when he agreed to be an informant and witness against the Gotti crime family. I understand that some unsavory people revile him for flipping to lawful behavior, but Wikipedia should report his role neutrally. In my view, he is both an informant and a star witness, and both are correct and neutral terms to describe him. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  03:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment Cullen. Those are also my thoughts but you articulated them much better. I went ahead and changed informant to government witness, which redirects there anyway, given being largely outnumbered, but if you think there’s still a case for informant, please comment at the talk page or revert me. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 04:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow, I am relieved! I really thank you dear friends, User:ProcrastinatingReader, User:JoelleJay, User:Vaselineeeeeeee and others for this insight and help. Please, User:Vaselineeeeeeee, forgive me for rantings against you. I don't really understand how changes and edits are done on wikipedia. I was only feeling bad because sincerely,  I never was an informant for FBI or Police, I did become a government witness and testify against my ex-friend. Thanks for the change.
 * But it seems another editor by name User:Cullen328 has re-added the word 'Informant" again. Please this is threatening to me. They use this against me. I though, a consensus have been reached to use only "government witness". Please help address this again. Thanks Johnaliteofficially (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did add back the word "informant" because it is used to describe you by many reliable sources such the Tampa Bay Times, the Philadelpia Enquirer, Newsday, USA Today and The Guardian all of which use the word "informant". I do not see any consensus to exclude that word. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this view -- we have ample grounds for using this word. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In this thread I count Estarosmārṭ, Guy, Schazjmd,Gbear605, User:Squared.Circle.Boxing, and ProcrastinatingReader advocating against "informant", and u|Vaselineeeeeeee and u|Cullen328 arguing for. Adding in the participants from this thread, we have myself and u|Zaereth against and A little blue Bori and u|Nomoskedasticity for. Given what Schazjmd said in the first thread, that only 3 out of 16 of the article's sources call him an informant with the rest of them using either "witness" or "testified against"; and given the dictionary and legal differences between the terms; there is actually a strong consensus to use "witness". JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to agree with JoelleJay's reasoning that witness is more neutral and more precise as it's not clear to me if RS established when Alite turned on Gambino while still conducting ongoing criminal activity. The article content focused on his testimony after he had already been convicted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Vazgen Manukyan
So for the last few days, User:Astghik Manukyan has drastically expanded the Vazgen Manukyan article, as well as at least its Armenian and Russian versions. My main issue is that this user has made almost no other edits. I already undid their edits (except for the ones made in the Russian page, which are still pending), but can you review what's going on? Saturdayopen (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: my undo of the Armenian version has been undone. Saturdayopen (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , having few other edits or even being an outright WP:SPA is not, in and of itself, a good reason for reverting. If an SPA is not violating the core content policies or the WP:COI policy, then there is no reason to revert. I suggest discussing any specific issues you may have on the talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the version last saved by User:Astghik Manukyan? Cause I got to be honest, it doesn't look good. Also, I have a strange feeling this person has a personal connection with the subject. Saturdayopen (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Saturdayopen, I am new editor on wiki, I can do mistakes, so need a lot of help. Could you please tell me what I am doing wrong on Vazgen Manukyan's page? All my sources are verified and I am going to add many other sources if needed. I will appreciate your help, since I am planning to edit many pages in wiki as I saw wrong facts about many events that took place in Armenia.

--Astghik Manukyan (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I gotta ask you something: are you related to Vazgen Manukyan? Because everything about this suggests that you are. Saturdayopen (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Saturdayopen Yes I am related. When I see wrong or not sufficient information about a person or events in wiki, and I have solid facts and sources to change or add information what should I do in that case? Astghik Manukyan (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , please see the Conflict of Interest policy. There is also a guide that will help you navigate working on an article about your relative.  I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn Thanks!Astghik Manukyan (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Gianfranco Battisti - translated from the Italian version
Hi everyone, in July I submitted a translated version of the biography about the chief executive officer and general manager of Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane S.p.A. Gianfranco Battisti. Furthermore, I placed an AFC submission template at the top of the page.

Since some time has passed, and this is a translation of an article already approved in Italian, I'd be glad to have your opinion on the biography so that it can possibly be moved into the mainspace. What do you think?

Claudia Frattini (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I noticed that in my previous message a link to the biography is missing. Here is the page: Gianfranco Battisti
 * Claudia Frattini (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Jerry Harris (television personality)
Jerry Harris was just arrested for allegedly soliciting pics and sex, including from minors.

What is appropriate from the lead I’m not sure, but it’s a very short article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Experienced editors invited to WP:Articles for deletion/Carl Haglund (real estate)
The AfD is on the last day of its second relist. The opinions of experienced editors on the question of notability would be helpful. Schazjmd  (talk)  14:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

William Haseltine
This biographyy is lacking in information. William Haseline's credentials are vague and should be more precise. Is William Haseltine a doctor? Did he complete a PhD degree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:4de0:d780:a5c9:b51c:2661:7a4c (talk • contribs) 02:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article says "He received ... a PhD in biophysics from Harvard University in 1973" in the "Early life and education" section. Based on the article, it sounds like he is not a medical doctor, but he has been a research professor and the founder of a number of bio-technical companies. The article says in the lead that he is "an American scientist, businessman, author, and philanthropist," which I think about covers it. Gbear605 (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Stephanie Pollack
This is a spin-out from Sockpuppet investigations/Strala00. Could somebody with more BLP experience than I have please take a look at both Stephanie Pollack and Green Line Extension and see if there's anything that goes beyond properly sourced negative press into BLP-violation land? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, what we really need is for somebody to go through the history to see if there's anything bad enough to justify WP:REVDEL. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Agnivesh - treating the person as a permanent member of an organisation from where he was expelled 44 years ago
On Agnivesh, multiple editors are deliberately spreading misinformation that this recently dead person was a permanent member of an organisation called Arya Samaj even though he was expelled from that organization about 44 years ago. Thus living most of his life without being a member of this organisation. Review these two latest edits:


 * calling him "an Arya Samaj leader" when he was expelled decades ago and attributing the expelling when no attribution is required for this undisputed and self-confessed (by the subject) fact.
 * total censorship of the information from the lead that he was expelled from the organisation by using deceptive wording in the edit summary, just for spreading misinformation that he was part of Arya Samaj for his entire life. 122.170.146.220 (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a fair degree of discussion on the article talk page. If it's undisputed he was expelled I would agree the lead should mention it. The problem seems to be there is some dispute. I don't really know much about Arya Samaj but it sounds like the leadership may be somewhat decentralised and therefore the concept of someone being 'expelled' is not actually that simple. Note that as a general comment, someone being expelled for most of their life doesn't mean there's no mention to merit the organisation in the lead. For example, even if Nigel Farage lives to 120 and never rejoins UKIP, it's likely that our article should mention his leadership role in it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Persistent BLPCRIME violations by Haunted Spy


Previously brought up at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive308. Problems since then, including one outstanding issue from that report.


 * is described as a serial killer, categorised as so, and listed by Haunted Spy at despite not even being convicted. The claim of Found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed for life to Twin Valley Behavioral Health Center added to the latter article is completely contradicted by the reference and Samuel Legg, which say he's unfit to stand trial which is a different thing completely! Apparently new charges are sufficient for the victim total to be updated as fact. His guilt is also described as fact at Dr. No (serial killer), which says law enforcement agencies were able to prove his guilt in four murders in Ohio and Illinois, the first of which he committed at age 20 in 1989
 * is categorised as a serial killer and listed by Haunted Spy at despite only being convicted of one murder.
 * is categorised as a serial killer and numerous other criminal categories, with Deangelo Martin repeatedly stating as fact he committed serious offences, and listed by Haunted Spy at despite currently being on trial. Why Haunted Spy couldn't have simply waited for the trial to end is anyone's guess.

Could someone fix the offending articles please?92.40.189.112 (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First one contains BLP violations per . I don't think it's intentional, the content was translated by the user and wasn't readded by him if it was removed later on. Serial killer / rapist accusations should be removed, but then the article wouldn't really make sense, and "notable for being accused of rape" seems like a violation in itself. He hasn't been convicted of anything but theft, and having an article for petty theft seems eh. So probably just deletion? Thoughts, others?
 * I think the "suspected serial killer" stuff can be removed, since it's a living person not convicted of any others, but not 100% sure how we treat articles on murderers with suspected other murders?
 * Should be deleted. I'll send it to AfD, unless an admin wants to invoke WP:BLPDELETE and delete it sooner than the 7 days. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I remove the cats from 2. Per WP:BLPCAT, the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. I don't think a case is made then the article doesn't say or demonstrate that the person is a serial killer, as opposed to only being suspected of being a serial killer. IMO it may in very rare instances be okay to list a living person as a serial killer even if there was only a conviction of a single killing or no conviction, but this would need to be from sufficient reliable sources which clearly say the person is a serial killer rather than simply being suspected of it.  I have left the list for now since the entry does make clear the other ones are only suspected. It is theoretically possible that we could be renamed to be "list of serial killers and suspected serial killers" or something similar. In that case, I guess there could be merit to adding people only suspected although you'd need to be very carefully with the sourcing. Personally I feel if you try that, it will be thoroughly rejected by the community, still if anyone does want to go down that route, I'm not going to stop them. If no one feels there is merit to that, then yeah it should be removed IMO.  The article still uses the serial killer infobox but that may be fine assuming the sourcing for those other killings is sufficient. (I didn't check, if it's not the infobox is probably only a minor concern anyway.) As for the suspected stuff in general I don't know. Per WP:BLPCRIME mentioning crimes without a conviction is always tricky, and they aren't really a public figure which brings additional concerns. But assuming the subject is notable, it seems to be in part because they of this suspicion so it's a little weird if we don't mention it in any way.  Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Re last sentence, I agree. Seems they’re only notable for the murders. Since not high profile, and not convicted, I don’t think we can edit the article in a way that makes it compliant with BLP policy and still have an article. I think deletion of it is the only option, really (this is for the 1st one). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I was mostly thinking of Rams/2. While his crime may have been horrific, the sourcing in the article suggests to me the subject isn't notable. At most the crime was, even that I'm not sure. The only thing which seems to push it in the direction of notability is the suggestion of looking into other crimes, but that was in 2012 and there doesn't seem to be any development on that front. So I feel it's probably the same. BTW I had a change of heart and removed the 2 living people from the list [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_serial_killers_in_the_United_States&diff=979268325&oldid=979173793], where there's only 1 conviction. I left the ones who aren't living. This was Rams and John Getreu. If someone is able to convince the community to expand the scope to include people only suspected, fine, but they need to do that first. Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This doesn't apply to any of those 3 examples, but some further thinking, the cases when it's may be okay to describe a living person as a serial killer even with only 1 or no convictions, are likely to be where there's a confession generally accepted as accurate but where the /other murders weren't pursued for some reason besides doubt or lack of evidence. I guess a particularly strong case would be where the killer revealed the locations of the bodies, perhaps in exchange for some degree of immunity (probably when they were already imprisoned for life). We will still need sources clearly saying they are a serial killer but these are examples where I could imagine it happening. I guess a more extreme case of 1 could arise, where the person cannot stand trial for mental competence reasons but where it's well accepted they were mentally competent at the time of the killings and that they murderer multiple people. These cases are likely to be very rare. I noticed that the list of article gives 2 different definitions. By the first definition, people with only 2 killings should be removed. The second FBI one would allow them. I think there are 2 living people with only 2, it looked like they had confessions too, partly what got me thinking about this. Nil Einne (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Anurag Kashyap
An actress recently accused Anurag Kashyap of sexual harrassment. So far editors have presented only one side of the issue: the accusation, without sufficient context. Would appreciate more eyes watchlisting this article, please. I've semi-protected it for the time being and removed the content until someone can give it the proper attention it needs. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pío López Obrador
Can some people take a look whether the material I and another editor are edit warring over constitutes a BLP violation or not? This is the edit in question. Fram (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This editor's observation: The redacted implication isn't even guilt by association, it's possible involvement due to endemic corruption in the region. I did not find an edit by the contributor citing of any source even suggesting an accusation, credible or not.  The Reuters link provided by the editor only undermines their case.  Most generous interpretation: WP:SYNTH.  Less generous: unsourced smear and innuendo. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * clearly nobody has re-read the article, which probably began life as a translation. This is part of Operation Car Wash and the Odebrecht scandals, which the OPs clearly haven't read at all. The article creator is a valued contributor to the pages about these scandals and should not be mocked. It is unclear to me why Chiapas was considered this important at the time, but I have added a dozen or so reliable sources about the transaction. These are in English, unlike the previous reliable sources, which were in Spanish and which they are therefore dismissing. This is why your translators keep quitting, Wikipedia.


 * It is possible that the article should be merged into some other article, but the sources are there, these editors just don't like them, and they are trying to speedy delete because they don't know anything about this extremely documented set of scandals to understand the notability. These editors need someone to explain to them the Things May Be Notable About Which They Know Nothing.


 * Please ping me if there are questions. I am not following the page.
 * Also, these guys may be edit-warring. I am not edit warring and I have declined to edit war. I reverted a deletion of a completely factual comment and declined to revert his second removal of my attempt to explain this scandal to him. Elinruby (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * BLP removals are exempt from the edit warring rules. You were stating at the AfD that the person involved and their article shouldn't be deleted because of various scandals, "not to mention cartels". The sources in the article at the time didn't mention these scandals or cartels, and neither did you provide anything to support these connections. The sources you have added to the article, like this and this, again don't mention anything about cartels. You have now largely expanded the article, but the text you added shows clearly that there is no link alleged between the BLP subject and the cartels. You are adding WP:OR / WP:SYNTH by adding to the article a source about the cartels which doesn't even mention the BLP subject. Making such connections is not allowed in general on enwiki, and making such connections when related to crime and a BLP is definitely not allowed. Oh, and no one is trying to "speedy delete" anything, there is an AfD which takes some time and allows discussion and expansion of the article, within our policies. Fram (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is ridiculous that you were ranting about righting great wrongs etc etc on a topic about which you clearly knew nothing. It isn't libel if it's true. When videos exist and are widely reported in mainstream media, it is not a BLP issue to say that video exists. It isn't unsourced if it has reliable sources. If cartels are part of the context then cartels are part of the context. The article should never have been listed for AfD. You, yes you, should not revert people who are trying to explain the reliable reporting to you. I am more troubled by your utter refusal to consider reliable Spanish-language sources than I am about this specific article. If you don't want to read or evaluate sources in Spanish don't list articles about South American politics for AfD. Don't revert people who are trying to explain things to you and don't assume the context is derogatory for God's sake. Don't start noticeboard topics claiming that people are edit warring when you don't get your own way. I am busy but may yet take this to ANI, where you are apparently no stranger. I had absolutely no stake in this article when I first encountered it in the uncategorized queue and told you not to delete it, and this should not have been met with derision. Things, even important things, may indeed exist of which you know nothing. I have since recognized the original poster as an important contributor to Operation Car Wash. I hope he will not be discouraged from further translations by your ridiculous ethnocentrism. This sort of behaviour is a persistent and apparently systemic problem for Wikipedia translators; a translation from another wiki does not always meet the standards of en.wiki in the first thirty seconds of its existence, and the new article queue is plagued by the wilfully ignorant. Do not delete this article. That is all. Elinruby (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

for the click-impaired: the statement so over-zealously objected to was that the article should be evaluated in the light of Operation Car Wash and the Odebrecht and cartel scandals. This statement is now thoroughly substantiated. The material about fuel theft should also be incorporated into the PEMEX article but is important context here. The article as currently written reflects an important context: The former head of PEMEX (Mexican oil) was arrested and will testify. The head of a cartel diverting oil from PEMEX was also arrested. The president alleged his predecessors were corrupt, and released a video. Two days later video emerges of his brother receiving a bundle of money. The video appears to be retaliation (although I do not have the article saying that) and also appears to genuine. This is highly notable. Elinruby (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Can some other editors here perhaps check the history of the AfD and then educate Elinruby about our WP:NPA policy. I have the impression that this doesn't really match what really happened (I didn't mention "righting great wrongs", I didn't revert anyone "trying to explain the reliable reporting to me" but someone adding unsourced allegations or implications, I have no idea where one reads my "utter refusal to consider reliable Spanish-language sources", "Don't start noticeboard topics claiming that people are edit warring when you don't get your own way." is actually completely wrong: starting a noticeboard discussion in case of an edit war is encouraged, to bring in outside perspective; "I first encountered it in the uncategorized queue and told you not to delete it, and this should not have been met with derision."??? "ridiculous ethnocentrism"???). Fram (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Starting a case on the drama boards is understandable (I may yet start one over your abusive editing practices). Saying that someone is edit warring because they object to an AfD listing is not. It is in fact itself a personal attack. I am done here. You do not have consensus to delete the article. You should either educate yourself on Latin American politics or avoid the topic. Elinruby (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You add comments, I ask you to remove them, you don't, so I remove them, you readd them, and I remove them again. So I stated here that we were edit warring (please reread what I wrote, I did include myself). No personal attack was involved. You are obviously free to raise this at some drama board, but I don't think you'll have any success with this angle. Fram (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself. *You* are edit-warring. I objected, as an uninvolved editor at that time, to your bizarre assumptions, in the proper place to do so. This is not a minor allegation by any measure, I have nothing against the dude, who appears to have been sandbagged, but the video is widely reported and and appears to be genuine. It is notable no matter what. A translation from another language ALWAYS has sources in that language, because it is a translation. Sources in another language may nonetheless be reliable, and it scares me that you do not know this. We add in the English language sources based on the translation. Good god. Elinruby (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

All I can say is, wow. That article is terrible. It is certainly not a biography about a specific person. In fact, very little of the text is about this person at all. Instead, this article is about a current event under the guise of a biography. The whole thing reeks of synthesis, like someone has taken all these bits and pieces and assembled them into a collage of information to imply a conclusion not directly stated. I strongly support deleting it. I would say it's too newspaperish, but it's worse than that; it reads more like Unsolved Mysteries (ie: "Look, here are a bunch of unrelated events. Coincidence? I think not?) And that's just from reading the article. I haven't even gotten as far as the sources.

As for the edit in question, I think Fram was justified in deleting that. BLP policy is very strict, and applies to all spaces, including talk pages, user pages, and even deletion discussions. You either have to 1.) provide very good sources that say this outright (not one that merely imply it), or 2.) be very, very careful in how you phrase such statements.

A personal attack is when someone attacks another's person or their character. People use this phrase way too often to deflect what is often in reality justified criticism. It is not a personal attack to comment on someone's actions or point out flaws in the logic of their arguments. It is not a personal attack to point out edit warring, misbehavior, bad attitudes (although there is a fine line with that one), misunderstanding, competence, or other such matters that are related to their actions. Personal attacks themselves are just a method of deflection; a distraction from the real issues, and more often than not calling something a personal attack when it isn't is used for the exact same purpose.

All in all, I think this is a terrible article, and per BLPCRIME I don't think we should wait for the results of AFD before fixing this situation. I'd recommend speedying it as soon as possible, or at the very least doing a major gutting. Zaereth (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You *should* get to the sources, because they are impeccable, even though I got tired and left some as barebones urls.. This is not some random conspiracy flight of fancy, dude. It is established fact and the sources do in fact frame this as an attack on his brother, the president of Mexico. Try it with the sources, buddy, and let's all take a deep breath. We *could* remove all mentions of the scandals and the cartels, sure, but *that* would potentially be libelous, because the cartels and the scandals are why the video was dug up, and covering the video without that context might be seen as an endorsement of the people who dug it up as a bit of political theater. You guys. The point of BLP is to avoid libel cases. The material Fram removed was me *defending* Pío, lol. I strongly suggest that you look at those sources that you are so sanctimoniously lecturing me about, and preferably also the wikilinks. This is part of a multinational corruption scandal and it should not be whitewashed.Elinruby (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry not sorry that I seem a bit incensed but this is, let's see, maybe the sixth or seventh time someone has said we should gut it because you can't say that without sources, which is a very fine position to take when the current and previous presidents of Mexico are accusing one another of corruption. Except. There are fifteen or so references, which include the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Forbes, Voice of America, the Financial Times and a few Mexican newspapers. The video itself is on the Latinus YouTube channel. We are this many steps into this whole little hissy fit and I am nonetheless having to say that, because people are not freaking reading the links or the documentation. I have linked it to the appropriate section of the Car Wash developments pages. It would be good to look at these pages, ctwhich have a cast of hundreds, many of whom are politically connected figures like López. He is at this point famous as a figure in the Odebrecht proffer of evidence, but I have no objection if someone wants to add some more bio. In fact I would love to know what he was doing in Chiapas fifteen years ago with Moreno political contributions. But any referenced bio information would be fine. Elinruby (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Zaereth. Any admins or uninvolved editors willing to take on the "speedying it as soon as possible, or at the very least doing a major gutting" Zaereth suggests? Fram (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * admitted he had not looked at the sourcing when he said that. Good goolamooga, cartels do exist and will continue to exist if we aren't allowed to mention them even as something people are opposing, according to Fram, even though this particular cartel actually has its own wiki article, so how does that make sense? In any event. I will be very busy outside of Wikipedia for the next few days. If Wikipedia chooses to lose its mind, I will be frying other fish. But. The fact remains that this guy is a bit player in a huge scandal, who is being used to retaliate against his brother. This will be true regardless of what Wikipedia does about it, and deleting mentions of anything but kittens and unicorns is only going to make it easier for those people to use him. Seriously, if you delete it, someone will have to recreate it when the PEMEX guy testifies. This is, in my opinion, both an irrational and a wilfully ignorant proposal. Elinruby (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Wilfried Zaha
New IP user posted a vulgar and defamatory accusation  against the BLP subject. It was duly reverted, but I request WP:REVDEL. NedFausa (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , see WP:REVDELREQUEST to request! Happy editing!  Heart  Glow (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ellen DeGeneres
The Ellen DeGeneres article has gotten out of hand. More eyes needed. The controversies section has outgrown the rest of the article. You would think she was only known for controversy. I have no problem with including controversies in articles, but separating into its own section and expanding it to such a level is a bit much. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not keen on controversy sections either but looking at it the section doesn't appear to be dominating the bio, also, considering the widespread coverage of the issues I don't think the npov section template is really warranted either. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The Moors Murderers
I request that any references to Topper Headon's name and references to him or the band, the Clash are removed from this article. The anonymous editor, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Unknown_Unknowns‎ considers removing Topper's name or references to the band, the Clash, vandalism. I and others have tried to edit the article several times to no avail.

Here is a comparison between an edit I suggested and the editor reverting to the previous version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Moors_Murderers&type=revision&diff=966507868&oldid=966308839

This happened several times.

I believe that the editor's actions violate Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons because the editor is using an unreliable source, namely a self published blog post to associate Topper Headon/The Clash with this band: http://www.punk77.co.uk/groups/moors_murderers_the%20band.htm The editor repeats hearsay/gossip based on false statements possibly made by Tex Exile, aka Anthony Doughty according to the Punk77 blog post.

Topper Headon himself categorically denies his involvement in this band. The allegations are contentious and potentially defamatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.39.132 (talk) 06:28, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
 * (Pinging since mentioned in discussion.) ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

82.71.39.132 (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The sourcing on that page is terrible: the whole things is sourced to two blogs and a dead link. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The Guardian and The Scotsman both state that Topper Headon was involved with this band. Both these newspapers are regarded as reliable sources by Wikipedia.  Repeating information that already is in the public domain does not constitute defamation.  Unknown Unknowns (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So rewrite the article to use these sources rather than just edit warring material back in without adequate sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Under the heading of "Barack Obama," you state that he was our "first Afro American president," but that's far from the the truth! His mother was white, which makes him our first bi-racial president. There is absolutely no evidence that the black gene is dominant, and even if it was, by labeling him the "first Afro American president," it is very inaccurate and does a disservice to any fully black candidate! If you can, please remedy it; thank you!
 * No. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Jessica Yaniv
An AFD may make this moot, but there is a problem of a user adding and re-adding sources that are deemed unreliable in order to make contentious claims. I have explained some concerns on the talk page. --Rob (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes it is moot Trivierr. Let's discuss your concerns on the talk page rather than you making threats prior to discussion. AFDs and made after resolution fails, not beforehand.CatCafe (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , please read WP:BLP, which says "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.". --Rob (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about the correct use of BLPN

 * Trivierr, please resolve your concerns on the talkpage, stop leaving "rude comments" (your words) on my talk page, and desist from creating "moot" (your word) AFDs prior to ANY discussion about your concerns.  CatCafe (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * if you have other problems with Rob, you should take that somewhere else. Rob did not say anything about rude comments, and nothing they said here can reasonably be considered rude. Rob also did not say anything about any AFD being moot here, let alone open a moot AFD here (which makes no sense). They simply pointed out that the issues here could become moot depending on the outcome of the AFD. This makes sense since if the AfD is closed as delete or merge/redirect, concern over the article content would be addressed. However Rob is also correct that as long as the article exists, we cannot allow BLP violations in it. This will include any information sources solely to sources which aren't reliable or which can't be used for BLPs per WP:RSPS. Any editor who persists in adding info sourced solely to such sources when a living person is involved is liable to be blocked. Note that the only AFD that seems relevant to this discussion is Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv. It looks like that was opened by User:Black Kite. This discussion is not an AfD. WP:AfD or "Articles for deletion" has a specific meaning here on Wikipedia and it most definitely does not cover this discussion, not even close. I suggest editors confused by what an AfD is may want to read the Wikipedia page. Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're getting it the wrong way around. If Trivierr has a problem with me they should have taken it somewhere else (i.e the pages talk page) not here. And for you're info this is the edit with Trivierr stating they had to delete after stating they were "being rude" here. And now I will say it to you, if you have a problem with me, then take it somewhere else (i.e the pages talk page). Move on. Thanks in advance. CatCafe (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * your comments were made here so it was appropriate to address them here to prevent confusion, especially as a lot of editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia use this board. And it is also entirely appropriate to bring any edits which violate BLP here, indeed it's a core part of this board. And that seems to have been what Rob was trying to do, and was all this thread was about until you started bring up offtopic stuff. I did not look into detail into your edits since you seem to have self reverted. But if you did re-add info sourced entirely to unreliable sources or sources unsuitable for BLPs, then that was inappropriate and liable to lead to a block if continued, and bringing the matter to the attention of this noticeboard was, and I'm getting sick of saying this, entirely appropriate. I don't really give a flying flip what Rob did on your talk page, let me repeat for the last time it has zero to do with the noticeboard. I don't really give a flying flip what you do provided you don't violate BLP, and don't misuse this board to address problems you have that are unrelated to this board, AFAIK, I have no significant interaction with you before. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * are you ok? As I requested 'Move on' and let's close this storm in a teacup Trivierr created by overreacting 3 places at once. Thanks in advance. CatCafe (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat one final time, adding or re-adding information that is not reliably sourced to a BLP, especially on contentious issues is not a storm in a teacup. It's a serious issue and editor's should not treat it lightly or think it's okay to do. Concerns over such issues are not an overreaction. Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * (EC) BTW, it is rarely appropriate to discuss editor's behaviour on on "pages talk page" but which I assume you mean the talk page of a page or article. Such talk pages are intended for discussions over how to improve the page and so they should focus on the content not the behaviour. If you have problems with an editor's behaviour that generally belongs on the editor's talk page. If it's enough of a problem to warrant sanction, then it can be brought to an appropriate noticeboard i.e. the ANs, or maybe the arbcom ones. Even noticeboards like this often aren't well suited for discussion over an editor's behaviour (there are some exceptions like COIN and the copyvio board), often it's best if that is deferred to the editor talk page and the discussion here focuses on the content issues. As I said, the main reason I mentioned it despite that was to avoid confusion for new editors, so they wouldn't get the idea this is a suitable place to discuss such issues. Nil Einne (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * are you ok? If, as you say, this is not a place to discuss editors behaviour then maybe you can refrain from discussing editors behaviour here. And as you're "getting sick of saying this", then maybe you should stop saying it. Move on. CatCafe (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately when editor's make inaccurate claims on noticeboards it is sometimes necessary to correct them, especially on noticeboards frequented by people unfamiliar with the norms of Wikipedia. I am fine with collapsing this entire discussion starting with and including your comment at 07:11, but otherwise I see no other choice but to ensure any confusion is corrected. This is especially the case for any suggestion that BLPN is not an appropriate place to bring up concerns over edits surrounding living persons, and even more so for any suggestion that BLP violations are a "storm in a teacup". Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Move on. CatCafe (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you don't agree (I assume) to my suggestion to collapse this whole thing, I've made this into a separate sub thread so any concerns over the article itself don't get bogged down in this detail. Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Message received, Move on. CatCafe (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you moved your comment after 2 days. Nor do I know why you misleadingly changed the indentation while preserving my indentation even though I had explicitly indented my replies in line with your one. I have reverted it. If you wish to dispute my change which I explicitly noted at the time and which you then replied with "message received" which would reasonably be taken as not opposing the change, then so be it. Remove the subsection heading. But please do not change your indentation without changing the indentation of all replies that follow. If you wish to do so, you don't need to notify me provided you change the indentation of all replies that follow. Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. I see I didn't explicitly note I had included your comment in my final reply. I had already made the change so I thought it was easy to see what I was referring to, and I'd also been explicit in my earlier reply that my proposal included your first reply (since it was the first one which was more of a meta-discussion than on topic) so I further felt it would be clear. Still if my reply at 19:10 did cause confusion that I included your reply, I apologise for this confusion. I have also striked my claim it was explicit, since it wasn't as clear as I initially believed. Nil Einne (talk)
 * BTW, there's also the fact that you just delete any attempts to address issues with you directly, so the actual correct place for discussions over user behaviour is out the window anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Message received, Move on. CatCafe (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Harassment Complaints
I won't make a whole new thread here, but can some other editors weigh in on the harassment by Yaniv section? The accusations are pretty serious (sexually harassing underage kids), and I'm concerned it may be WP:UNDUE to the point of being a BLP violation. Talk page discussion here. Nblund talk 02:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:American white supremacist politicians
Category:American white supremacist politicians

What should the criteria be for inclusion in this category? I am thinking multiple reliable sources that specifically call the politician a white supremacist? Otherwise it becomes a magnet for original research. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The existence of this category is a violation of WP:BLPCAT. Value-ladened labels cannot be used to categorized living persons because you cannot source them properly nor objectively. --M asem  (t) 05:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To point out some relevant CFDs here Deletion of "far-right politicians" in 2006, and discussion of diffuse-only "Far-right politicians by nationality" in 2018 based on direct political party affiliation. I know we're talking "white supremacy" here which is not the same as "far right" for the purpose but keep in mind the discusses all are considered about the use of subjective labeling in cats, which even if its based on "this is all what the media says" we should not be using for categorization, versus more objective "they are part of said party, and said party is considered X" is at least fair; eg in this case, those that are known members of the KKK and that are politician would likely belong, but only via sub-categories and not directly under that category.
 * Or in other words: Category:White supremacist politicians should really be at Category:White supremacist politicians by nationality, with subcats like Category:White supremacist politicians in the United States, Category:White supremacist politicians in the United Kingdom, etc. and then you would have, say in the US subcat, Category:Dixiecrats, and Category:National States' Rights Party politicians and so on (following the model set in the 2018 CFD) (on the presumption these groups are widely recognized as white supremacist, I haven't checked exactly but my recollection is that they are). But no bare person should be in the "Category:White supremacist politicians in (country)" category level as these are to be diffuse only due to the label issue. --M asem (t) 06:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I say we need a Category:People who accuse others of racism. Smile.png (Except that it would be overpopulated.) Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * An objective standard can be defined through actions supporting or defending explicit policies of white supremacy. You can also include a few avowed white nationalists (like a certain Congresscritter). For notable living American politicians, there are a few fringe state legislators. Aside from neo-Nazis and clear-cut cases like David Duke, is the category useful and defining? For 20th-century and earlier politicians, the category can net many people. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why its fair to put people in the category indirectly through their voluntary political affiliation like KKK politicians. And as the question was also asked at WT:CAT, one can also say that for activists, what they are objectively stated to activist-ize for is categorizable (like anti-abortion activists or pro-slavery activists); whether there are any "white supremacy activists" I'm not sure. But I do stress that I think it is far that while need to avoid placing people into value-laden label categories, placing them indirectly through groups that they have voluntarily included themselves in, and which the groups are either self-described or widely (read: not cherry-picked sources like one SPLC reference and that's it) recognized for the label is reasonably fair. KKK being about white supremacy and thus David Duke being effectively under the white supremacist politicians, check. Random GOP member, not so much. --M asem  (t) 22:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , not necessarily - some politicians are openly white supremacist. But I agree that it's really hard to defend. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Even with self-assertions that can be readily supporting in referencing in articles, its difficult to use that in Categorization. That's why we have to be more careful there. (The issue over climate change denial categorizes does provide useful guidance there in that self-assertions isn't even sufficient). We can always direct to sourcable list if necessary from a cat page if appropriate. (eg "List of self-identified American white supremacist politicans"). --M asem (t) 15:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I get that's your view, but that also is not what the community consensus has been on how to apply this in at least the last 5 years. While you may be right that historically we allowed for these NPOV violations to take place, consensus has changed and we correctly do not treat white supremacists, alt-right, far-right, etc. any different than we would treat any other extremist politician in this regards anymore. If someone is a revolutionary Marxist unaffiliated with any political party but sources agree that's what they are, we call them that in Wikipedia's voice, as we should. We're not going to make an exception to our policies for white supremacists.If the consensus of reliable sources view them as such NPOV requires that we characterize them is such a way. If you want to change that, you'll need to start an RfC to change WP:DUE, which states: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. 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. We don't not call someone a white supremacist because fringe groups object to being characterized as fringe. We don't also make the consensus of reliable sources look like only one viewpoint. That's not in line with policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Kill it, Salt it I agree with the concerns regarding how do you draw the line?  If someone is a member of a group that openly declares they are white supremacists, sure.  In any other case this is very problematic.  Labels like "racist", "white supremacists" etc get thrown around for political gain all the time.  People (Group A) can be for the same thing as a "bad group" without sympathizing with that group.  Someone on the other side says "A is with bad group" thus A=bad group.  This is just way too problematic.  Springee (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. Should we also kill Category:American white supremacist governors? How about Category:Alt-right politicians in the United States? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm quite frankly shocked that there are objections to this. If a politician has been deemed to be a white supremacist by multiple independent reliable sources, we can call them such and we can categorize them as such. This is absolutely not a BLP violation if sourced correctly and we should not be white-washing people's actions by making it more difficult for people who are interested to find a listing. Yes, it can be abused, but so can just labeling someone a white supremacist. I'll probably make a note on AN about this so it can get wider participation. Note, I wouldn't mind having it higher up in the category tree like in Masem's examples, but there's nothing inherently wrong with this. There's also the complication that some politicians that reliable sources might consistently report as being white supremacist might not belong to a white supremacist political party. It's an important category for our readers, but is also sensitive. I don't think the solution is to get rid of it all together, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Inherently wrong, no, but when you've got someone seemingly adding the category to every white politician (and yes, that's hyperbole) it makes me a bit concerned. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's an issue. They should be approached about it and if they don't stop, be blocked. We don't get rid of a category that has a lot of use for researching a popular topic because of the potential for abuse. We monitor it and address as needed at an article and editor level. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1002. How about this: in addition to the discussion here about what to do with the cat, an admin asks Hmains to go back and remove the cat from every page that does not have a sourced statement that specifically says that the person is a white supremacist? I would be willing to spot check 20 or 30 of the ones that remain to make sure he did it. Maybe having to spent hours doing such a boring task will make him think twice before causing someone else to spend hours doing such a boring task. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've asked them to read this discussion and reply as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to run afoul of WP:BLPCAT & WP:OPINIONCAT, though I will note BLP does not apply to many on that list. The other issue with cats like this is you cannot put sources by them, so it is hard for a user to find the supporting material for such a contentious label. There were similar issues with cats like Category:Climate change denial. The best bet is probably to just get rid of the cat as it is controversial and of questionable value. PackMecEng (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * BLPCAT doesn't actually say anything along the lines of what people here seem to be thinking its saying. It absolutely allows for this type of label so long as the sourcing in the article clearly identifies an individual as their negative label and it is significant to their notability, which it would be for many of the people here. We do not need references in a category. If there is a BLP issue, it can be addressed at the individual article level like for every BLP issue. We should not, however, be throwing out a useful category for our readers who might want to research white supremacism in the United States, either historically or presently.Like I said, there's a simple solution: deal with it rigorously at the article level. That is what BLPCAT actually suggests. Not getting rid of a tool many readers would likely find useful. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is this useful category you speak of? Also I think you are misunderstanding peoples concerns with these types of categories, it is sounding more like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, that is not what Wikipedia is for. PackMecEng (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a high school student who is wanting to write a report on historical white supremacism in the United States and have been assigned by my teacher to write a paper profiling one of the post-Reconstruction era Southern politicians of my choice. I go to this category and I'm given a list of people I can select from and also should have a list of sources to begin my research. That's not writing great wrongs, it is just a basic research tool. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The comment about rightgreatwrongs was in relation to the baseless accusation of white-washing. Also yeah, not a good use case. PackMecEng (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Use to identify topics to write on for students is one of the main uses of categories in the real world. Additional use is to find connected topics for further research. Research on historical American white supremacism is a popular topic now, so both of these uses are in fact quite relevant to the real world.There doesn't have to be intent for white-washing to occur. If we were to remove it from Nathan Larson, we'd be making it easier for him or others to not be identified by researchers in a way that reliable sources have identified him. That might not be intetional, but it does have the affect of benefiting him in a way that he'd prefer that also really isn't justified. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The question is indeed very similar to that at Category:Climate change denial, which eventually concluded that BLPs should be entirely excluded. During that debate I suggested a bright-line rule for inclusion of BLPs to minimise sourcing concerns: the equivalent here would be that someone should only be placed in the category if they are explicitly called a white supremacist in Wikipedia's own voice in the lead. But my proposal did not find much favour with either side of the debate. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Shall we get rid of Category:Nazis as well? Obviously not.  Some might think, oh dear, can't label people as Nazis, it's too "negative".  But Nazis don't think it's "negative" to be a Nazi.  If you think it's negative, maybe that's your problem.  Or, maybe there's something else going on here, a motivation no-one would admit to...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There were/are people that openly are part of a Nazi political party, which is fine to categorize by. There were also people part of the WWII-era Nazi gov't by other means (eg military). There's also more modern day neo-Nazi groups. But what is key here is that in all these cases, the membership is objective. (I'm not seeing obvious cases of people being slotted here of subjectively being called a "literal Nazi" type label).. That said, this probably should be a diffuse-only category, since there are different "types" of contotations of what a Nazi might be, with people in there only through group membership - separately the political party from the military from the neo-Nazi, etc. For example, seeing Walter Kopp listed bare at the top level, when there is probably a category (which I don't know enough here to identify) for Nazi military officers. --M asem (t) 15:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per arguments by TonyBallioni. Abuse is not an argument that justifies ignoring normal BLP content inclusion criteria. They also apply to categories, not just to articles. If an article contains the necessary multiple RS (as required by WP:PUBLICFIGURE) to justify inclusion of the label in the article, then it also justifies mention in a category. Yes, it's obviously sensitive, but let's follow policy. (I had this in mind when I just cleaned up the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article, where BLP-violating categories and content existed labeling her as a Socialist. Too many people are ignorant of the fact that an accusation does not create fact. Socialists and Democratic Socialists (DS) generally hate each other (in Europe this has led to bloodshed.). DS think Socialism is a step too far, too extreme. FDR was not a Socialist, but essentially a Social Democrat. Accusing a Democratic Socialist (or Social Democrat like myself) of being a Socialist is just as offensive as calling a Republican a Nazi. -- Valjean (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Democratic socialists are socialists. PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, they are Democrats who favor similar social policies to those favored by Socialists. We don't define people by the most extreme form of their left- or right-wing groups. We don't say that Republicans are Nazis, even though they are both right-wing. -- Valjean (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken, take a look at the link I gave above or the article for Democratic Socialists of America which she is a member of. PackMecEng (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this discussion at her talk page. -- Valjean (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that is kind of the issue I mention above. This is not even a contentious label and we cannot agree what it means. PackMecEng (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, BLPCAT and OPINIONCAT is very clear that value-laden label-based categories, since they cannot be sourced directly on the category page, cannot be used to directly with BLPs (or BIOs). --M asem (t) 17:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * They say nothing resembling that: BLPCAT says to make sure the negative category is sourced in the article. I’m not really sure being a white supremacist politician who advocates for such policies is an opinion. It’s much closer to being an activist, which OPINIONCAT explicitly allows. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, labeling anyone as "white supremacist" is a value-laden label, no matter the volume of sourcing to mainstream media, is a subjective label requiring inline attribution of some type (even if it is "X is widely considered to be..." with a couple sources, which simply can't be done in categories, period. But we can say a person is part of a political party or group, by choice, of which that group is known to be related to white supremacy. So by inference we can say that person belongs to that party, and that party is a white supremacist group, but we just can't flat out call that person a white supremacist via the cat system. You can still generate such a list using meta tools. --M asem (t) 18:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The characterization is used for political purposes and there are no guidelines or objective metrics for the characterization. This is highly subjective and routinely abused to dismiss ideas with which one does not agree. Categorizing by racist tendencies in the current climate should not be done. Is is extremely common to dismiss someone espousing a view with which one disagrees as as "stupid" or "ignorant". Should we categorize by Category:American stupid politicians or Category:American ignorant politicians? Bus stop (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We already have Category:American politicians. Category:American stupid politicians or Category:American politicians who are lying sacks of shit would have the same list of names. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Smile.png Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing at all in our policies or guidelines supports that stance. If the consensus of reliable sources calls someone a white supremacist, we call them that in our voice. We report what the sources say and don’t hedge with attribution if hedging would violate WP:NPOV. Saying that David Duke is a white supremacist politician according to [SOURCE] would be a false NPOV and not giving proper weight to sources. David Duke is a white supremacist. This is said in Wikipedia’s voice because that is the consensus of reliable sources say so. We don’t hedge that. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet again, the issue is that "white supremacist" is a subjective label. Some people can objectively be put into that because of their selected political affiliation, like the KKK, which as a group is well established as a white supremacist group, so yes, we can say Duke is white supremacist politican due to that. But there are others that do not have a specific affilation like that (probably several people that are just GOP members) but have expressed views that the media - who are only a court of public opinion and must be considered subjective when talking any value-laden term, positive or negative - take as "white supremacist", putting them into the same class is a problem if we're doing it via categories. We simply cannot do that. It comes down to going to the fact that this statement in NPOV is clear that wikivoice is necessary on controversial information even when it is uncontested (Value-laded labels - positive or negative - are "controversial" by definition.) --M asem  (t) 19:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If the consensus of high quality reliable sources says someone is a white supremacist, we say that in Wikipedia’s voice. Our job is not to make these subjective judgements ourselves, but to summarize what the high quality reliable sources report. That is what NPOV and V require. What you’re suggesting has the potential to introduce NPOV violations into BLPs by playing down negative content via attribution, which has the possibility of underplaying the actual consensus of sources in violation of WP:DUE. The BLP policy does not require us to treat white supremacists with kid gloves. If there’s substantial high quality sourcing that states this we call them it, regardless of political affiliation. I also reject the premise that calling someone who openly advocates for “benevolent white supremacy” a white supremacist is controversial. This is an extreme example, but there are many other uses of this term that would not be controversial at all. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The media is not the same as academic sources in what we're looking here. The media is a court of current public opinion for all purposes, even though they are high-quality sources for near-term reporting. They don't have the requirement to be neutral and impartial that Wikipedia has, particularly for living persons, whereas academics will have more of that eye to consider people after they've been through the ringer of history. We do the same on the flip side of the coin: we do not call universally-praised or beloved people like actors or writers or scientists in factual wikivoice. We don't categorize these people in the same manner though there are objective means to put them into categorizes that recognize that praise (like awards). Universal praise may seen uncontested but that's still should be treated as controversial as it is subjective. This has to apply across the board. --M asem (t) 20:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s your judgement on this, but I don’t think it’s one that has support in the community or in our policies. We assess the reliability of sources for a given claim on an article-by-article level, but if the NYT, Washington Post, The Times, Globe and Mail, and other major papers of record in the English-speaking world classify someone as a white supremacist, there’s an extremely good chance we will call them that in Wikipedia’s voice. Our mandate is not to report truth, but to report verifiable facts. How this applies in relation to controversial claims is done case-by-case, but if there’s a consensus in papers of record on this fact, it’s more than enough for us to repeat it in most cases. There might be exceptions, and there are likely other cases where it would be okay as well, but we’re not suddenly going to make the main sources reporting on politicians not reliable for reporting on politicians because they’re not academics. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Its actually been a major problem on WP since pre-2016 election and the rise of the far- and alt-right as movements, with Wikipedia and the media, generally as liberal-biased bodies, are generally going to take an opposite stance against. It may be seemingly obvious that sure, if all news sources call someone a valud-added label, that we could too in Wikivoice, but again, you turn that around to any other type of value-added term or subjectively label where there's near universal agreement and that simply doesn't happen, period. Godwin's law is already evoked here, so I can point to the fact we don't label Hilter in wikivoice as evil or a number of other extremely value-added terms, nor numerous other historical figures that would be on that line, so there's zero reason for use to be doing it to BLPs, just because the press has decided to make them targets. We have to consider the press not an impartial judge when it comes to politics anymore compared to maybe 20-30 years ago, but we must be impartial as Wikipedia. And that's why its necessary to be absolutely careful with labels in all aspects, including categorization, even if there's seemingly universal agreement. Again, we have past categorization CFDs that support this as well (far right, climate change denial, so the same applies here). --M asem  (t) 21:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What you’re arguing runs directly counter to WP:V and WP:NPOV and has no basis in any policy or guideline. We do not decide what is true. We present what the consensus of reliable sources say in our own voice. If we attempt to qualify that, it gives undue weight to fringe positions outside the mainstream by making the consensus position of reliable sources seem like “only one opinion” rather than the agreed upon assessment of the top sources. That’s contrary to just about every content policy we have. You’re essentially saying that because you don’t trust sources the community has held up as the gold standard to be fair, editors have to qualify them in their writing on this topic. That’s inserting a POV into an article, and isn’t appropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this is what's been standards for WP:V and NPOV until only recently with editors carelessly (not necessarily purposely) slipping into presuming that a majority of media voice equates to facts, which is not what NPOV states. We have to remember that "reliable sources" are not equal to the whole of the voices on the planet, and don't necessarily even represent the majority of views of people in the world. That doesn't mean don't "trust" them. They are reliable for when they are reporting factual, objective data. But they opine much much more nowadays (well documented) to draw in readers, and less about objectivity (not fully like the Daily Mail), so we should be wary when they speak in their own voice "factually" using value-laden terms. We just have to recognize this exists and remember that the world view does not end at the bound of what the RSes cover, but we are limited by what we say from what the RSes cover. Perhaps a person is a champion to 4 billion people in the world - but only sourced by unusable RSes, by the RSes that we use paint them as, say, a sociopath. If we only spoke exactly to the RSes, in wikivoice, "X is a sociopath.", that would be belying to what half the world thinks, but "X is widely considered a sociopath" is staying true to the RSes without introducing what we know we cant source. Might be an extreme and impossible case, but this is what is happening by presuming that "majority of RS say this is the case, so we report as true in wikivoice." That's how NPOV used to work until we had media and then editors deciding to railroad this on the far and alt-right rights since ~2013-2014. Please note this is note saying we have to give any type of false balance or equivalent or the like to their views, or whitewash those articles, but simply avoid certain apply factual statements in wikivoice to value-laden labels that can never be factual when applied to a person unless self-asserted. --M asem (t) 01:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * DUE/WEIGHT has nothing do to with this, because we're not talking about incorporating content from outside sources. In fact, applying the DUE/WEIGHT argument here is how to perputate "but there's clearly no contest to this label because no RS publish any contesting views about it!" We (WPians) are not blind to what's beyond the borders of the scope of RSes and should be fully aware that there's a whole rest of the world out there that most of our RSes are not representing when they write subjectively. WP should automatically assume that any type of subjective term - a value-laden label, a superlatative expression ("the greatest actor...", "a savant", "a tyrant", etc.) are terms to be used with attribution and out of wikivoice no matter how many sources use them, simply because we don't know if that is the 100% universal truth of every being in the world about that person. Making the assumption that only what the RS state is what we treat as the truth to this end is the stereotyping problem that Zareth problem. ("When you assume, you make... ") What DUE/WEIGHT does make clear is that all we can do at that end is simply make sure that the claim of a subjective term is taken out of wikivoice, but if there is any actual contesting of that, it better be from RSes and more than just fringe, otherwise, we simply let it be, eg, "X is widely considered to be racist." (generally followed by statements to support that claim) and leave the counterarguments against unspoken off the table. Same approach for the positive labeling too, "X is widely considered to be the greatest actor of all time." followed by the evidence claims, and if there's no DUE counterpoint, we don't force one in there.
 * This has been policy but its has been trying to fight the increasing us in the last several years on articles of BLP and cases like categorization in the last several years, because as humans, our editors tend to like to focus on negative reporting (gossip is popular for that reason), and with the media increasingly (and righlyfully so) concerned about the growing alt/far-right movements in the world, it has carried over to our articles to paint these people in negative light, quickly adopting the same language the press does and unfortunately bringing that style to wikivoice, creating the mass problem for at least 5 years now. We can still make sure these articles are properly in WEIGHT of the media's negative light and still make sure we're staying impartial and neutral in wikivoice as required by NPOV and BLP, and making sure our categorization is following proper BLP requirements by not placing people directly into value-laden categories as proven though prior CFDs. --M asem (t) 16:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What you’re arguing would be for the mass introduction of NPOV violations by equating the NYT/WaPo/The Times/Globe and Mail/other papers of record to being “only one source”. There might be instances where that is appropriate, but when the consensus of these sources is one thing, you’d need a consensus to limit it, not to put it in Wikivoice. By default we report the consensus of reliable sources in our voice. If we depart from that, there are serious NPOV concerns and a discussion is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No more than the claim that we should simply state "the consensus of reliable sources in our voice". Reliable sources only tell what can go into an article, but not how to think about what goes into an article, and we should not be acting like this is an ivory tower here.
 * Elsewhere, I've argued the point that many times, labels are being introduced from cherry-picking sources, which can cause problem. Editors should instead be doing "surveys" of sources looking at a reasonable selection (100+ artcles) from RSes that involve that person, from non op-eds, to see how many times the label is used in association with that person compared to the articles without the label. When you start to get to a percent of say around 25%, that's pretty much, to me, that the label is widely associated with that person by the media, at which point you 1) document that survey to the talk page, and 2) can now source a statement like "X is widely considered a racist" using just two or three of the best sources from that survey, ideally the ones that cover the reasons for the label holistically in depth from high quality RS, and not just throw it in passing. This was all to avoid having 20-some lists of sources to support a contentious point as long as it is backed in main space AND talk page review, which had started to be problems on some heated articles in the past. (In contrast, if that percent is only 5%, now you have to probably consider that's not a consensus of sources, and use in-line attribution, such as "X is considered a racist by A, B, and C."; if that percent is less than 5%, that's possibly now in the cherry-picking and there should be an alternate compelling reason to include it; this might be where say the SPLC has characterized someone against popular opinion). Further, in a well-written neutral article, the statement "X is widely considered a racist" will be followed by two or three additional statements if not paragraphs that explain why X is considered such - did X speak about white nationalism and against black people? did X vote against bills that would have supported underpresented education? etc. So not only do we have some sourcing on the first statement but we'd get additional sourcing from these additional clauses, to further back that statement up. So yet again, this has nothing to do with narrowing down the media to a single voice, and certainly no different from putting the media's consensus in wikivoice. We don't do that in any other areas, we should not be doing it here at, either. There is no derivation of NPOV here, its staying right on path NPOV recommends. --M asem (t) 16:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Limit temporally. Only those exhibiting the characteristic of racism prior to the end of the Civil rights movement (1954–1968) can be included in Category:American white supremacist politicians. It is no secret that nowadays every other person is called a racist. says "We should not, however, be throwing out a useful category for our readers who might want to research white supremacism in the United States, either historically or presently." Totally agree about the "historically" part, totally disagree about the "presently" part. It is the abuse that we should want to curtail. The usefulness should be retained. Thus any reliably sourced instance of racism (white supremacism) after 1968 should not be considered to warrant inclusion. Calling people racists and white supremacists is ubiquitous. The term is therefore problematic. This is like categorizing people as "sweet" or "nice". Almost everybody is said to be "sweet" or "nice", therefore you don't have categories like Category:American sweet politicians or Category:American nice politicians. Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m less concerned about mainstream politicians, where I agree the invective can be over the top. People like Nathan Larson who I mentioned above, however, I think should be fair game. Some of the people on the extreme fringes here in my opinion should be retained. I’m not talking about Trump or even some of the more extreme members of Congress, where people throw around the term too loosely. but there are a lot of white supremacists who are perpetual also rans that are notable. Allowing people to easily do research on that I think is a plus. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think right now the category is doing a lot more harm than good. With the current extreme polarization of U.S. politics, it is far too easy to find enough of what we usually consider reliable sources characterizing Trump and half the members of Congress as white supremacists. Adding them to the category would just produce a lot of battleground heat and make Wikipedia look even less credible in covering current politics than it already does. Setting the standard of inclusion higher, to something like "there exists broad consensus among mainstream reliable sources that so and so is a white supremacist politician" might work, but I still think we'd be better off without this category right now. It's not just the current political figures either. I see, for example, that Woodrow Wilson is listed in the category right now. That seems to me rather a stretch, even by the ever stretching modern day standards. Nsk92 (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. Terminology of racism is highly problematic in the present environment. It is irresponsible of us to pretend that accusations of racism are meaningful. Bus stop (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What about the situations where these terms are "meaningful" (i.e., true)? Shall we simply obscure things for our readers?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m OK with this cat, so long as the term is used in the article’s lead – and has been for a week. I think this will actually exclude the vast majority of folks who are white supremacist, but concentrate more on those who are overt by word or deed. To me, Bus Stop’s suggestion that: Only those exhibiting the characteristic of racism prior to the end of the Civil rights movement be included is a bit backwards. I’m not sure that including most of the founding fathers in the category is useful, as most everyone was at that time and it wasn’t a defining characteristic. I could be convinced otherwise. (I’d have no problem with Andrew Jackson’s inclusion.) O3000 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I’d support this standard. I think it’s in line with what our policies call for both in terms of NPOV (which means presenting negative info when needed) and protecting people. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Objective3000—you say "I’m not sure that including most of the founding fathers in the category is useful, as most everyone was at that time and it wasn’t a defining characteristic" but, by way of extreme contrast, racism is widely frowned upon in recent decades. This would be my general response to Nomoskedasticity as well. They say What about the situations where these terms are "meaningful" (i.e., true)? Shall we simply obscure things for our readers? Rare. It is rare. Nowadays, if someone is called racist, it is likely to be more hyperbole than a meaningful characterization. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sez who? I'd suggest we leave this judgement to reliable sources, in the usual way.  I really don't care what "Bus stop" thinks about it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say racism is rampant. But, our opinions don't matter. O3000 (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Only accusations of racism are rampant, Objective3000, with little actual evidence. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I really hate these discussions. I'll say only this, and, please, I encourage anyone who wishes to verify to look it up in any RS on the subject. The very root of all racism is categorization. Categorization leads to stereotyping, which leads to prejudice. In our zeal to defeat the enemy, we should take great care not to become them. Zaereth (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly phrased edit. But, We are here suggesting a categorization based upon word and deed – not birth. O3000 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Word and deed is absolutely the last thing we should be characterizing on, since that requires an assessment by someone else to judge and pigeonhole, for all purposes. --M asem (t) 01:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh you must know what I mean. As per RS. We aren't racist when we use RS to cat racists. As I thought I made clear, we wouldn't allow this cat unless there was consensus to use it in the lead of an article. O3000 (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Categorization pertaining to racism in the present day and age is as much about avoiding "word and deed" as categorizing by "word and deed". We just saw this in the Molyneux discussion. The argument was that we could not include his words denying any racial motive, and the fact that he spent several hours on YouTube, from which he was subsequently banned, interviewing black men—after the George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks incidents—counted for nought. I am pointing out that words and deeds are clearly overlooked (avoided) to promote a narrative centered around racism. It is a problem of the age we live in. Wikipedia should not turn a blind eye to a well-established idea—the notion that everyone is a racist in the current milieu; this is the cherry-picking of information to categorize people as racists. Had we instead paid attention to a different piece of information we would have concluded that they were not racists. Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The concept by some that "everyone is a racist" should not stop us from pointing out actual, serious racism. O3000 (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I need to clarify. I may not have been clear. There is no explicitly stated notion that everyone is racist. I'm using hyperbole. But the word racist is tossed about casually. And instances of what could be called racism are not balanced against instances in which there is no sign of racism. In fact there could be instances that are decidedly in favor of something that might be called racial healing. I have to get back to the Molyneux case. After the deaths of George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks, Molyneux spent about 3 hours divided between 2 YouTube videos talking with 2 black men, one of whom was an ex-cop, discussing policing in America as well as race relations in general in America. Are you kidding—you've got to be realistic about these sorts of things—the person being categorized as a white supremacist in those few hours of video is engaged in the most constructive dialogue imaginable vis-à-vis race relations in America. Once the label of racist, or white supremacist, gets attached to a person, by means of categorization or assertion in Wikipedia's voice, it is not an overstatement to say that it cannot be removed—no matter what the subject of the article does in their subsequent life. I'm not an especially big fan of WP:BLP. But the labeling of people as racists in the present milieu is like giving a loaded gun to a toddler—it shouldn't be done. Pre-the-Civil rights movement these words had real meaning. Nowadays every-other-person (hyperbole) is called a racist. Bus stop (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal
Allow the category to exist, but restrict entries to articles where the categorization exists in the lead for a consecutive period of time. (Let’s say two weeks, not counting drive-by edits – but other suggestions welcome.) That is, leave the labeling up to consensus on each individual article; which can be discussed therein as per guidelines. This may bring wider attention to possible mislabeling, for better or worse. O3000 (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - the category should obviously exist, since there are some clear cut cases and it is a helpful category for users. This labeling method leaves it up to the individual articles, which allows decision on a case-by-base basis. Gbear605 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose This would still encourage "drive-by" categorization. Precedence has shown these categorizes must be kept diffuse-only (no direct inclusion, only sub-cats). --M asem (t) 01:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Too easy to game the system in the case of politicians that don't get a lot of attention. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Richard Uihlein
There is repeated insertion of a one-sided defamatory sentence in this BLP.

The New York Times source, on the other hand, includes all 3 views: 1. the author’s opinion/judgement (anti-gay), 2. the facts (battle over transgender in girls’ locker rooms), and 3. the subject’s defense (“we value diversity..”)

It is essential to include all points of view that are expressed in the reference (author judgement/facts/subject official position). “Neutrality” is repeatedly blocking users who bring Neutral Point of View and balance to the BLP. Here is my proposed fix (which he/she undid). My addition was the part in italics:

According to The NY Times, Uihlein has often supported efforts in opposition to gay and transgender rights, ''citing an example of Uihlein supporting a school board candidate who fought a move allowing transgender students in girls’ locker rooms. Uihlein denied this characterization, stating in the same article “We value diversity in our community and at Uline.”''[4] 2605:E000:1316:C889:5C35:948B:1B3F:540D (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This entry on BLP Noticeboard should not be hidden/collapsed, especially not by same person Neutrality who is directly involved in the content dispute. There is a valid NPOV problem which needs oversight here. Addressing NPOV is not "cleanse/whitewash" -- the proposed solution posted here on the noticeboard keeps the contentious content anyway, but just adds the other points of view: 99.7.151.39 (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * All - note that the IP address has previously been blocked for sockpuppetry. Neutralitytalk 22:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with 99.7.151.39. It is clear that the recent additions conflict with WP:BLPBALANCE WP:NPOV WP:BLPREMOVE WP:PUS. Furthermore, the new addition of Reference #8 doesn't belong; is an unreliable source:
 * WP:PUS Forbes.com is a paid contributor content farm and "must never be used as third-party citations on statements relating to living persons."

For the record I am not a sockpuppet. Why is the consensus process censored?CaveWriting (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The source was written by a Forbes staff member, not a contributor. See WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON. Woodroar (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is the Forbes journalist use of the term "far right" linked to a WP page where the lead section of "far right" is a description of Alt-Right extremists? Subject is not Alt-Right. See reference 7 and 8 in the linked Far right. There are words in the linked definition I don't even want to repeat here. Reading the entire Forbes article, the author means "staunch conservative" by that wording and not what is in the linked WP definition.

The original post to this noticeboard:

See WP:BLPBALANCE WP:NPOV WP:BLPREMOVE. CaveWriting (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a rather ridiculous characterization of The New York Times source, which makes me question if you've read the entire article. It is thoroughly and acutely critical of Uihlein. The authors did include a standard PR response from the Uihleins but it's clear that they give it no weight. As for the Forbes article, that uses the term "far-right" twice and the link to far-right politics is based on reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

What’s going on here is a perfect example of Wikipedia not following its own rules on NPOV and immediate removal of contentious content that violates NPOV. The statements (smears) are out of context and Wikipedia admins are refusing to add/allow more information that would make the page context match the source (it’s about transsexuals in girls locker rooms). If anyone is looking for an example of systematic bias at the top of Wikipedia — blatant selective rule enforcement — here you go. 2605:E000:1316:C889:6C:341C:217D:5569 (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This attack on Richard Uihlein's biography was started by user Snooganssnoogans. This person was previously under investigation by the arbitration committee, where the complaint included "The problem is that this editor is singularly interested in adding negative information to conservative BLPs and conservative articles. Often ignoring WP:UNDUE in the process which results in a slanted article.":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=781683524&oldid=781681722#Snooganssnoogans

This resulted in the enforcement action:
 * "Snooganssnoogans is banned from mass editing in the area of American Politics post-1932 for an indefinite period of time. This means adding (more or less) the same material to more than two articles. He is free to use the talk page of any article to request edits if he feels more." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2017

Note that in this arbitration committee incident, administrator Neutrality came to a vigorous defense of user Snooganssnoogans. This is the same administrator who is automatically labeling everyone as sockpuppets and even going so far as to try to hide the original comment on this noticeboard. There is a coordinated effort between these two to tag-team with malicious intent to slant the biographies of conservatives, ignoring NPOV. 99.7.151.39 (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The information hidden by ValarianB above is relevant because the same user Snooganssnoogans was sanctioned by the arbitration committee for the exact same behavior that is taking place on this BLP. While this is not a User Conduct Noticeboard, the fact that this controversy involves Snooganssnoogans along with the person who came to his defense during the committee investigation (admin named Neutrality), shows likely malicious intent in preventing community NPOV on this BLP. 99.7.151.39 (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans involvement and prior sanction (click on [show]) is very interesting. How can this not be part of the discussion. Reputation of WP neutral stance is important IMHO. 47.180.80.230 (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And what’s the deal with the double standard on this Noticeboard: the first part of this page is collapsed because “poster is a Sockpuppet” (user conduct) and the entry about Snooganssnoogans mass-edit slanting the pages of conservatives including this BLP is collapsed because “BLP Noticeboard is not User Conduct Noticeboard.” So which way is it?  Can’t have it both ways. 2605:E000:1316:C889:9D1C:4B00:40A3:C205 (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Is editor conduct a not one of the issues merely because your admins want to protect Snooganssnoogans from getting sanctioned again?
 * If editor conduct is a valid issue, then enforce both sockpuppets rules and Snooganssnoogans repeating bad conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:1316:c889:4876:f438:70e6:5576 (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * note: preceding message was left by an IP that then went to Talk:Uline and left a vague legal threat. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Andrés Manuel López Obrador
Assistance is requested at the above article, which is currently pretty impenetrable. I am currently reading it for background and am wikifying along the way, but there are some issues of tone, as well. I am fixing some language awkwardnesses, but a review by a Spanish speaker would likely be beneficial as well. Elinruby (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You forgot to include the article links.
 * GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Imelda Marcos
Hi, this article suffers from POV pushing, WP:RGW, and promotional-ism. Generally editors pushing that the article subject is very rich (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos) or that the wealth she has obtained she did so "illegally" (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos). The lede is currently saying "illegally" in WIKIVOICE. Three separate sections on her wealth alone on the talk page right now. Also the article suffers from WP:TOOMUCH generally anchored by overuse of sources (sometimes books without page numbers or links to google books), for example overuse of biographies by Ellison, Poloton, and Pedrosa. Last the article has some reliance on old Harvard style citations (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos) that needs migration and I dont know how to do it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow. Where to begin? "POV pushing": Imelda's excesses have been extensively documented in various forms of media and literature over the past several decades; the article generally already reflects this. "WP:RGW": this guidelines does not apply here. Avoiding RGW is about not using Wikipedia as a platform to start a crusade, but the crusade against Imelda has already been ongoing for several decades now and also documented; the article is simply reflecting that ongoing crusade and so WP:RGW does not apply. "links to google books": there is no Wikipedia requirement that books should be available in Google Books; please see the WP:SOURCEACCESS section of WP:V" . "reliance on old Harvard style citations": this complaint is not at all relevant to this noticeboard. "overuse of biographies": this is a biographic article: how else are we going to write it if not by referencing existing biographies?! And overuse is only really a problem if the article is overly reliant on a single or few sources, but the article currently has 264 separate citations! —seav (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Alright, this has gone far enough. The editor seems to believe that BLP just means the page should not say anything negative about Imelda Marcos. In apparent pursuit of this belief, the said editor has consistently:
 * Deleted citations without consensus, branding any source which says anything negative about Imelda Marcos as “biased” and removing them without consensus, and without bothering to check if s/he has broken citations elsewhere in the article. S/he has in fact deleted so many references in such quick succession, without even the benefit of a “failed verification” tag, that it is now virtually impossible to verify which sources he deleted were in fact relevant.
 * In an extreme case, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Proposed_revisions_in_the_lede where he has called Philippine courts, including the Supreme Court of the Philippines “likely a politically motivated court.” Do note that this wasn’t a case of WP:Primary; the sources in question included multiple major news outlet, both Philippine and international.
 * He has apparently joined the assault against Philippine News Website Rappler, despite existing wiki consensus that it is generally reliable, with some exceptions.
 * In another humorous example, he maligned the Philippine Star, one of the country’s most respected broadsheets, as a mere "Lifestyle Publication"
 * Refused, despite persistent requests from other editors, to explain said deletions. Providing, instead, pejoratives such as “junk,” “dribble,” or “nonsense,” or vague dismissals like “not needed.” (A review of the talk page and of his edit descriptions will show this.)
 * Campaigned for the outright noninclusion of topics such as the court-established “ill-gotten wealth” (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Ill-gotten_wealth), despite other editors warning that this would create WP:FALSEBALANCE
 * Treats other editors with disdain, using language that is snarky, judgemental, scornful in violation of WP:Civility (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos where he ignored the fact he has been called out for violating one of the five pillars of wikipedia), crying wp:bludgeon when he is called out, and refusing to use less offensive langauge.


 * I find myself close to concluding that the editor evidently believes that the only acceptable consensus is his personal - wp:false balance! - interpretation of BLP!
 * POV pushing himself, but now accusing multiple other editors of doing the same!
 * Granted, the page needs work. It needs a more systematic discussion of the 40+ civil and 30+ criminal cases against Imelda in the Philippines, plus the ones overseas. (Only 7 of which resulted in convictions); and in some cases there’s probably still some fancruft left despite efforts to find a more neutral tone.


 * But let me address his points, just as user:seav has done.
 * The illegality of those actions have been determined by the Swiss Federal Court, the Philippine Anti-graft court, and the Philippine Supreme court, all of whose decisions were covered by international and Philippine press, as cited.
 * What "three sections on wealth"? Aside from a mention in the lead, there's only the mention of "Ill-Gotten Wealth" (which is Philippine courts' way of indirectly saying "plunder"). This despite the fact that it would be helpful to have a small separate section on her current net worth, which is a completely different topic.
 * Do note that the Pedrosa and Polotan references are mostly used as reference for biographical details. I agree that they were once overused.  But I've made an effort to reduce their use, and I do not think this is currently the case. Since I do not have no access to Ellison's text and have only read it once, I am unable to comment.
 * It seems to me that Harvard style citations are still the norm for certain wiki articles, and they have some advantages, including the ability to provide specific quotations as needed for verification? But I don't use them myself so I do not have strong feelings about this, other than irritation at having to talk about it ad nauseum as if it were some sort of offense.


 * I do not know what the next steps are for addressing the utterly boorish behavior. But I do believe it provides necessary context for this BLP discussion. - Chieharumachi (talk)


 * I would like to add that Jtbobwaysf has been slowly and creepingly deleting citations from the article for no valid reason, labeling them as "dribble" "nonsense", "junk", etc, possibly to the point of slow whitewashing of the subject by removing citation evidence of the article subject's actions from Wikipedia. Instead of fixing citation formats (harvard citations), he has chosen to just delete them wholesale, breaking and orphaning various citations across on multiple instances, and despite concerns being voiced on the talk page about his behavior on breaking citations, he has continued to do so until his last few edits. He has been disruptively editing the article for the past few months and has also been engaging in edit warring with several editors. -Object404 (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also not certain yet as Jtbobwaysf has been avoiding answering my question on whether he actually read 3 extremely rare books used as citations on the article before deleting their citations by labeling them as "failed verifcation". If he had not read the books and deleted the citations, this is extremely dishonest and disruptive behavior on his part worse than vandalism, and I believe said user should be sanctioned. -Object404 (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good the discussion has been moved here, rather than on the talk page where it gets less attention. I dont have any particular interest or affinity to this article subject, other than that I have noticed it is subject to POV pushing. You have admitted the books are "extremely rare" and thus they would not be RS for this promo content, given we have good sources saying the article subject has a net worth of ~$20M. Why are you pushing inclusion of this promotional content? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would a relatively rare book due to its age not be RS? So you do admit not reading the sources before tagging them as "failed verification" and deleting them? If so, this is bad faith on your part and disruptive editing. Also, Chieharumachi re-checked 2 of the sources and they verified what was in the key phrase you deleted. I also just found out that one of the 3 books has a new printing as is readily available again. As user:seav has outlined, the edits at the article are not POV-pushing, but rather documentation of the prevailing coverage of the subject by RS. Also, your source for the ~$20m figure did not pass muster as the Telegraph article had a caveat that Imelda Marcos had likely stolen billions. So answer the question - did you or did you not read the sources and verify that they did not support the statement on the article subject before you deleted the statement and the citation sources? -Object404 (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As per Verifiability - "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." -Object404 (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * In this edit you admit her current wealth is $22M, yet you are simultaneously pushing the billion dollar net worth in the lede and justifying it with old sources. This is WP:TE. Lede summarizes, not introduces new or controversial content. Most of these sources refer to the Marcos family and cronies likely having stolen billions. However, most sources do not say that Imelda herself stole billions, and doing some WP:SYNTH to say that since her and her friends maybe stole billions, that by definition she is a billionaire today is against wikipedia policy, as much as you might dislike the subject of the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The lede qualifies that it is in 1986 and is supported by RS. How is that TE? I did not say that her wealth is 22m, I put in there that the Telegraph stated the estimate, but the Telegraph qualifies that she likely stole billions. Edit: FYI, found the source of the $22m figure. It is merely the amount Imelda Marcos delcared in 2012, not her actual net worth. -Object404 (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Now answer the question: Did you delete content and citations saying "Failed verification" when you did not even read the citations? -Object404 (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah this sounds like a serious problem. If you feel the article gives too much preference to what is a minority POV, there could be merit to change it. But you should not do so by claiming something failed verification when you didn't actually check the source. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just FYI that there's a parallel discussion happening at the Administrators' Noticeboard: Incidents about the editor's edit history on the Imelda Marcos, at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, since some of the matters brought up here go beyond just BLP issues.  That said, this hopefully allows our discussion on this page to focus on what the BLP issues are, and how they should be addressed, in a manner that upholds WP:Civil. - Chieharumachi (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm curious, have you ever heard of Imelda Marcos? Guy (help! - typo?) 14:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, why? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , you know she was run out of town by a mob, then, because she and her husband were running a kleptocracy? Guy (help! - typo?) 09:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, yes I am aware of the kleptocracy and the shoes. I wasn't aware they were run out by a mob. I think we all agree this is a less than desirable family. I also edit other undesirable's BLPs such as Harvey Weinstein, Alan Derschowitz, OJ Simpson, etc. I know you also uphold the WP values. We are not in a position here to speculate that she has x wealth, or did y things. If you carefully look at the pushing above (not by you) you will see promotional-ism (this lady is important) and RGW (that she must be punished here at wikipedia for the shoes, etc). The pushing is so bad that we have people begging to use out of print rare books to state she is billionaire (when their are current RS saying maybe millions). Next editors synth that since the Marcos family and cronies (as the sources put it) may have stolen billions, that this lady is therefore a billionaire. You know that is the definition of SYNTH, and even poorly done SYNTH ;-) I could care less frankly about the article's subject, and am just pushing back on the article's claims out of principle. Its one of those articles I check in on every half a year or so as it tends to wander off into absurdity. Would appreciate if a few other experienced editors would add it to their patrol. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Again with the net worth thing. No reading of that sentence as far as I can tell insists that she is still worth Billions today. (After all the compromise deals, the property sequestrations, and lost cases.) Billions refers the ill-gotten wealth, as of 1986. (how many times must this point be belaboured??!) The "rare" references were what was left because you kept deleting perfectly legit, non-rare sources "because they're not about net worth." Of course they don't provide citations for net worth - even Imelda declines to give a definitive estimate of that.  Nobody has tried to put net worth in the lead because there simply aren't any consistent reliable sources.  "Billions." refers. to. the. ill-gotten. wealth. as. of. its. revelation. in. 1986. Says. Fischer. The Guardian. Salonga. The Philippine Supreme Court. The World Bank. The Philippine Government. All of which at one point or the other you unilaterally edited out as what you called "dribble." At one point you called the Philippine Supreme Court biased! You keep asking for a number. That's clearly explained in the body of the article: an estimated USD 5 to 10 Billion, and the basis for what goes in the summary that is the lead.- Chieharumachi (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And because I know you're going to pivot, let me get to the next point: there's no way a "summary" of Imelda Marcos as a topic which does not contain a mention of ill-gotten wealth is reflective of the existing literature. Said another way, there's no way a "summary" of Imelda Marcos as a topic which does not contain a mention of ill-gotten wealth is "balanced." Look at the literature about Imelda Marcos and the two defining themes are that she (a) was a powerful first lady of the Philippines for 21 years as the wife of Ferdinand Marcos; and (b) as  mentioned, she and Ferdinand were ousted from power through the People Power Revolution because they ran the government as a kleptocracy. (i.e. they plundered, they gathered wealth illegally, they gathered ill-gotten wealth, they stole from the country, etc.) The literature about her on other matters still tends to revolve around one of those two facts. (i.e. her return to power is only really notable because she was first lady for 21 years and was ousted; her fashion statements were only scandalous because they were conspicuously flaunted ill gotten wealth; her childhood is only notable because of who she later became, etc etc.) Those two facts (21 years in power, and ill-gotten wealth) are what make her notable. And yet you unilaterally remove mentions of ill-gotten wealth from this article again and again and again. Because of your opinion, which clearly goes against broader consensus, that "balance" means downplaying the ill-gotten wealth.- Chieharumachi (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "out of print rare books" -> Manapat (2020) and Warf (2018) are not out of print. "I wasn't aware they were run out by a mob." -> I'm sorry, but Wow. Your ignorance of the article subject that you have been heavily editing and sanitizing is astounding. -Object404 (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just leaving notice that I have reverted the removal of the Presidential Commission on Good Government external link here, pending further discussion, since I can find no prohibition for the content, which is a "site that contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to... amount of detail." I am bringing this up here because an editor claims that the neutrality of the government site is in dispute. So it might be good to discuss. I have thus brought this up on the talk page, I have brought this up at talk page and at the ongoingANI discussion. Thanks. - Chieharumachi (talk)

Parallel and past discussions
I'm starting a subsection to provide more visibility on related discussions on this and other noticeboards. —seav (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Jtbobwaysf had initiated a BLP/N discussion back in 2018 for pretty much the same concerns ("unsourced or poorly sourced", "excessive lede", "excessive negativity and detail"). This earlier discussion did not really lead to any conclusion.
 * As already linked to above, User:Chieharumachi has initiated a AN/I discussion against Jtbobwaysf. The discussion is still ongoing as of this posting.

Elisabeth Murdoch
Elisabeth Murdoch I work with Elisabeth Murdoch. We note that her youngest child, Samson Murdoch Freud, born 2007, has been removed from the Personal Details section of her page.

Samson is the second of the two children she had with Matthew Freud. The bio says she only has one by Freud. There are multiple references to their two children in the media including https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/06/matthew-freud-elisabeth-murdoch-divorce

The mistake is clear from the overview on her page where it says she has 4 children but only 3 are included in the body of the personal details.

Please can this be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliceMac72 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

✅ at Elisabeth Murdoch (businesswoman). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Li-Meng_Yan
Afternoon, we have a roving IP repeatedly making allegations against Angela Rasmussen and Ian Lipkin. I have already asked them to stop as it was clear what they were inferring, and to provide reliable sources, but their most recent reply has made the assertion clear and blatant. I would request redaction please. The IP's general concern about Rasmussen and Lipkin being influenced by links to China invalidating their use as a source I also ask for a third opinion. On scientific debate, particularly around a conspiracy theory like this, there is going to be widespread criticism and it is likely to come from those in the position best placed to comment. Koncorde (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Nikolai Lukashenko
This isn't necessarily vandalism per se but I'm concerned the tone of the edits in question, and the specific claims made, are inclined along an incendiary and defamatory direction towards the BLP and would appreciate feedback on the suitability of this for immediate removal.<Br/> In this case, original photographic analysis by an editor of images appearing in WP:RS (in other words the subject is not identified by name by the RS, rather, the editor has identified the subject of the photograph using their familiarity with the subject's physical appearance and then crafted their own description of the activity in which they believe the subject appears to be engaged in the photograph) is used in tandem with Telegram text messages to describe this subject's actions and whereabouts. I am not of the opinion that either original visual analysis of photographs, or the use of text messages, is compliant with our BLP policies. I previously WP:BOLD removed the content in question as violating BLP due to lack of acceptable sourcing, however, Cordyceps-Zombie objected. I have, since then, opened an RfC, however, I believe this content merits removal prior to RfC closure in a month. Chetsford (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that the Independent source doesn't mention Nikolai. It does mention his 15-year-old son Kolya. I don't read Russian so can't confirm what is in the other source. If you have described the situation accurately it goes against the WP:BRD cycle and is also WP:OR so the content should be removed. Burrobert (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Kolya is Nikolai's nickname - it's the diminutive - and is the way that Nikolai is most commonly referred to in English language sources from what I've seen. Gbear605 (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. I was not aware of that. Well that seems to remove some of the issue with original research. We still can't use the two photos to substantiate the text that was added. The text that was added to the article still seems to go a lot further than what was said in The Independent article. Based on The Independent article all we can say is that Nikolai was reported to be beside his father when his father addressed riot police. There may be more info in the mediazona article which I can't read. Burrobert (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Bimal Patel
Hi. I think a disambiguation page is needed for Bimal Patel th Indian architect, Bimal Patel (attorney) a former assistant secretary of the Treasury Department and Bimal N. Patel an Indian government official. I am a former work colleague of Bimal Patel {attorney) and would like an independent editor to assess the situation and implement the suggestion if accepted, as per COI policy. Thank you. Capecodcontributor (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. With three people with essentially the same name and no obvious primary topic, a DAB page would be appropriate.  I'll have a go at doing it. Neiltonks (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * and ✅ Neiltonks (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Shirley Meng
Please see article. One of the contributors named with IP address of 116.14.236.79 is repeatedly adding contentious material in the "Personal Life" section which is unsourced and non-constructive to this article. According the BLP policies, this content should be removed or oversighted. Please help with resolving this reoccurring issues, thanks. FreeStanding L (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP, since they showed no signs of slowing down or abiding by policy, and I've deleted the revisions (please double-check the page history as I'm not perfect). Some changes during this period remain, such as the Chinese/Singapore issue, which I'm not going to get involved with, and I'll be removing the date of birth since it's unsourced. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:ETHNICITY is relevant here for the specific change for saying "Chinese" versus "Singaporean" - it looks she was born in China but has lived in the US and Singapore. It seems that she's currently a resident of the US, and might have a Singaporean citizenship, so the article should describe her as either Singaporean or American, but definitely shouldn't describe her as Chinese. Gbear605 (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed her purported nationalities since they are not properly cited. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Seemed that that user changed to another IP address and added the same content again. I just undid all the changes from the new IP. But is there a better way to deal with this in case he/she keeps changing more IPs?FreeStanding L (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , if it continues happening, the right thing to do is a request for page protection (RPP), which will get the page temporarily blocked for editing from IP addresses. There's no need to do this if it just happens a couple times though. If you start having to do it more though, you should stop manually reverting it and get an RPP.
 * Also, I see that the only edits that you've made on Wikipedia have been to Meng's page. I suggest looking over WP:COI, to make sure that you're not in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Gbear605 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion and reminder! Sorry just a big fan of Dr. Shirley Meng and this page was the first one I edited so just want to keep this one in good shape. FreeStanding L (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , in addition to the COI policy mentioned by, please also review WP:NPOV. It is difficult for any of us who are big fans of a subject to be neutral when we regard articles on that person. It may also be helpful to read this essay. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , in addition to the COI policy mentioned by, please also review WP:NPOV. It is difficult for any of us who are big fans of a subject to be neutral when we regard articles on that person. It may also be helpful to read this essay. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

David Richardson (Australian journalist)
David Richardson (Australian journalist)

Hi Guys

Just wanted to have a review of - David Richardson (Australian journalist) if possible current wording and coverage seems to be unfairly focused. Trying to include these events:

Thankyou

Noted Career Moments[edit source] Merits and Awards[edit source]
 * 2003 Team Leader/Reporter for Iraq War
 * 2003 Reporter for Today Tonight (and 22 Radio stations) Gulf War II
 * 2002 Reporter for Today Tonight World Trade Centre Anniversary
 * 2002 Reporter for Today Tonight Bali Terrorist Attack
 * 2001 Reporter for Today Tonight September 11 World Trade Centre Attacks
 * 2000 Reporter Sydney Olympics Coverage
 * 1999-2000 Four tours of East Timor with INTERFET forces
 * 1998 Today Tonight Presenter for Nagano Winter Olympics
 * 1997 Two Network 10 Documentary Specials sold overseas
 * 1996 World Environment Day Documentary “A Friend in Need” Marketed and sold by Village-Roadshow
 * 1996 Christopher Skase Pursuit Controversy
 * 1991 Reporter for HINCH Gulf War I
 * Graduated from the Journalism school at the University of South Australia with a Bachelor of Journalism (Major in Politics, Law and History)
 * Winner of Cliff Neville Award for Outstanding Team Leadership/ Mentoring NSW Kennedy Awards for Excellence in Journalism 2018
 * Recipient of Pater Award for "Professional Excellence in Radio Arts and Sciences"
 * Recipient of Thorn Award for "Best Current Affairs Report" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmorourke (talk • contribs) 23:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLP this material shouldn't be added without a reliable source. I'm going to remove it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez
The BLP Ariel Fernandez does not seem to portray the subject in a neutral light. Fernandez held a chaired professorship at Rice University and published well over 300 articles, books, patents, etc. He surely has done a bit more than being engaged by a predatory publisher. Four of his papers, dating back 10-15 years, seem to have been challenged almost a decade ago. Those four papers were never retracted. All that is hardly newsworthy, yet its mentioning takes up more space than the description of his lifetime work. Last week, editor JoJoAnthrax removed documented information from the page and added negative content. Another editor, DMacks, acts as gatekeeper. This person decides what goes or does not go, reverting edits as he sees fit. For instance, Fernandez’s NIH grants (fiercely competitive NIGMS R01’s with funding at 5-6%) were deemed “widespread”, not worthy of appearing in the BLP. Patents and research articles were regarded as not worthy either. I would propose to include information to convey a neutral view and volunteer to help as needed. BillSullivan (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * User:BillSullivan blocked as a sock of User:Arifer (self-identified as Ariel Fernandez here). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the predatory publications accusations since the cited sources do not mention Fernandez at all. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I re-added it using the archived copy of his own CV, as I had previously mentioned in an edit-summary. Subject has since expunged those details from his website. He exactly states he is editor (and links to his bio-sketch on their website that agrees) and it's widely known (and cited) that the publisher is predatory. DMacks (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Connecting the articles to his CV is prohibited synthesis and WP:UNDUE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Being an editor of a journal is a valid and neutral biographical claim for an academic. It's not synth to say he has been an editor of a journal if he has said he was an editor of a journal and journal-publisher's website (follow the link from the CV; omics is a blacklisted site) contemporaneously also identified him as an editor at that same time. DMacks (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First, CVs themselves shouldn't be considered reliable sources for accomplishments. Second, using that CV to connect him to that publisher implies to the reader that he is the editor of predatory journals when he is not mentioned in those articles and it's not clear if those journals are specifically mentioned in them either. This is completely inappropriate for a BLP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * is a completely independent ref specifically identifying one of the journals he claimed to be editor of as being scammy, specifically using a tactic that other refs in the publisher's article mention is not limited to this one journal of theirs. DMacks (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article states that the named editor-in-chief of this specific journal purportedly was not aware that he was its editor-in-chief. What does that have to do with Fernandez? WP:OR:"To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it OR/SYNTH to say he was editor at all? That does not seem like any connecting of dots because he and they both say it directly. Maybe your actual concern is only the annotation about the reputation of the publisher of several of the journals and one of the specific journals of which he was editor? That is, is just this edit the claimed SYNTH? DMacks (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * whose edit that was. DMacks (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Fernandez has been listed as an editor for multiple journals published by OMICS Publishing Group, a predatory publisher of open access academic journals." This is original research linking his previous CV to news articles that do not mention him. It is a "synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." ~ the implication that he is the editor of several predatory journals or engages in predatory publishing. I also believe it is UNDUE to highlight items that he removed from his CV. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Being on a journal editorial board is explicitly noted in WP:ACADEMIC as a factor that helps support notability, therefore I think it is not UNDUE to mention that neutral fact. Editorship isn't a lifelong tenure, he might not think it's a major position, or whatever other reason he doesn't list it in his brief-form CV at this later time. It's not our role to mirror the subject's currently-desired public image. The original addition by User:Bueller 007 seems quite neutral, focusing solely on what is directly related to the article-subject, and cited without looking at what is/isn't in any particular version of his CV. DMacks (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

That both the journals and Fernandez himself independently reported his role as an editor not only makes it notable and neutral, but to me eliminates concerns about WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDUE. Retaining that brief passage is appropriate. Describing it as an "accusation," however, as Morbidthoughts did above, is not. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you have met the WP:ONUS of readding this information that has strong negative connotations, given the OR, SYNTH, and undue concerns. Consensus to readd should be established through this discussion or an RFC with the participation of uninvolved editors. Morbidthoughts (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I also need to comment that relying on primary sources, his CV and the predatory publisher themselves does not determine its notability for inclusion under UNDUE as they are both not RS. Further to answer DMacks, notability criteria 8 for academics involves being the editor of "major well-established academic journal". These journals do not fit that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The note for criteria 1 says "service on editorial boards of scholarly publications". As I said, it's not enough for notability alone, but is explicitly within the scope of a supporting detail. This is not a case of criteria 8 at all (that one is "head or chief editor", not just an editor on the editorial board), so the further #8 requirement of the journal's impact is irrelevant. (criteria 8 is "head or chief editor", not just an editor on the editorial board). But the note for #8 does clearly identify a journal itself as a RS for claims of editorship. DMacks (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know how being an editor of predatory journals contributes to criteria one from its plain language, that their research has had significant impact to their field. This is a stretch argument. The more appropriate analysis is indeed looking at criteria 8, and it doesn't even meet that as you pointed out. Are you arguing that the predatory journal or publisher itself is RS to use? This is an Ouroboros argument. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, I thought the fact that the journals were from a predatory publisher was a disallowed SYNTH analysis? But now you're saying that we should discard the neutral fact of his being an editor based on that analysis of the value of his editorship? This is not the place to decide to overturn WP:ACADEMIC. DMacks (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The disputed sentence is both OR/SYNTH and UNDUE as I have stated previously. You made the argument this SYNTH was DUE to publish in article space since it contributes to WP:ACADEMIC. I refuted that argument specifically. The use of synth to analyse the source's reliability or reputation is not barred in discussion space. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And I do not believe you have made a compelling case that the passage is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or WP:UNDUE. Your insinuation of WP:COATRACK below is also unconvincing. Lastly, that you interpret an independently reported fact as "accusations" is troubling. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * By relying only on primary sources to link the subject to a predatory journal we deprive him of any way to rebut or defend himself. If a newspaper had reported the connection, they would have presumably given him an opportunity to comment and explain the connection, and we could report something resembling a NPOV. But by relying entirely on primary sources and making the connection ourselves, the only way he can respond is directly on Wikipedia or by posting to, e.g. a blog, thus creating more primary sources for us to interpret. Unless a reliable secondary source can be found, the connection to predatory journals shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. pburka (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What sort of rebuttal would be envisioned here? Would we somehow imagine that Fernandez would claim that he wasn't an editor at these journals?  That's not exactly plausible...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hypothetically, what if he did claim that? In what forum could he say that so it could be appropriately included on Wikipedia? And who would evaluate the plausibility of his denial? pburka (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is that it's not plausible -- his role with these journals is entirely factual, obviously true. We don't worry about the notion that someone might deny other types of obviously true information; we might just as well ask, what if he denied that he got a PhD from Yale? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I would approach this from the viewpoint that his being an editor of a predatory journal is not notable enough to mention. It might be reasonable to include the editorship itself in the article (as a blue-link to the journal/publisher, without further comment), but it's SYNTH to stick in the details about its predatoriness since the sources for that don't make a connection to him specifically. JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Even then it takes an additional analysis step of pointing out their common publisher. This is all too coatracky to me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur, this is a coatrack article. As per ORCID, Fernandez authored and published 400+ articles. The third paragraph Career is another red herring. The four challenged articles flagged by the journals a decade ago have not been retracted. That means Fernandez's work is still upheld by the journals.174.250.179.249 (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Holmes
In this diff, adds what I believe is a WP:BLP violation to Elizabeth Holmes. The citation does not directly support the terminology and Holmes has not been convicted at this time. However, unlike the first introduction of this terminology, there is a citation here, meaning I'm less convinced I could revert this on policy grounds; this may be a content dispute. Bigtrick questioned my original reversion over on my talk page (User talk:Yamla) and I responded explaining that I believed terminology of this nature is not permitted by WP:BLP but that the page could be updated if she was convicted. --Yamla (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that this change was reverted by here with the edit summary, "remove per BLP". --Yamla (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello all - I'm the one that added the change. I've gone ahead and added four citations to back up that specific phrasing. Cheers everyone! Bigtrick (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

has reverted my edit. Please check out the revision history if you wish to see the four citations that I added. Cheers.Bigtrick (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term "con artist" is not directly supported by the citations offered and should not be used at this time. It can easily be inferred that a person who does the things that Holmes is documented by those articles as having been accused of is a con artist but an inference of an accusation is not the direct support BLP requires per WP:OR. All direct uses of the term "con artist" in the cites offered are attributed ones, e.g.: "Fuisz has a dim view of her business and technical skills and views her as a con artist." (Forbes article) Stating that she is a con artist in wiki-voice in the lede is not justified by this type of cource. Holmes will not go to trial until Marsh, 2021 at the earliest and has maintained her innocence. Even if convicted, the preferred term would probably be "convicted fraudster" to better comport with the actual charges. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As Holmes is a high profile figure she is partially exempt from the protections offered by WP:BLPCRIME, I believe. If RS are willing to label her with their weight then I do not think it's a BLP violation for us to use such a label, despite lack of conviction. I speak generally; I haven't checked the sources so I don't know what (or if any) label is appropriate in this case, just making the point re. conviction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Jon Tester
There's been a bit of back and forth going on over Jon Tester a US Senator from Montana's page. The page, without sources, says that he has created controversy caused by receiving campaign contributions. Not one of the sources listed accuse him of ethics issues. Rather there are just sources that list campaign contributions ie: he gave a speech at a law firm, some of those who donated to him later were reimbursed by the law firm. The article in effect makes the argument that he has created controversy through receiving campaign contributions, then throws every piece of dirt at him that it can hoping that some sticks to make the persuasive argument that he is somehow for sale. This seems the very definition of WP:TABLOID, and WP:BLP and yet the wipes of the WP:BLP material keep getting reverted. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would add WP:OR if there's no reliable source calling such actions "controversial." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I was one of two people who reverted the removal of this material. I now agree that it should be wiped, after reading the sources and their (mis-)representation in the article more thoroughly. Bmf 051 (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why revert the removal if you hadn't checked the sources before? Material removed with a summary claiming BLP violations shouldn't be restored just because an IP removed it, without actually verifying the reliability of their claims. This has happened several times when IPs were trying to remove BLP violations, including at Naomi Ishisaka. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with Dumuzid that this is a BLP violation unless a reliable source indicates it's controversial or improper. Politico seems to be reporting it from an angle of 'partisan politics grasping for an edge' rather than from an angle of impropriety. 18:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl: antifa versus "Patriot Prayer"
In the past week, this article has been rewritten to look like it was authored by Patriot Prayer, characterized by the SPLC as a hate group.

Both Michael Reinoehl and Aaron Danielson are recently deceased. Reinoehl was a far-left activist and antifa supporter. Danielson was a far-right activist and member of Patriot Prayer. After recent and extensive editing to the article describing their deaths, every past encounter between Reinoehl and police has been added with great detail. At the same time, references to the far-right politics of the group Danielson belonged to - Patriot Prayer - have been removed. The article now contains multiple descriptions either from Danielson's family, or members of Patriot Prayer, or friends, that Danielson was not a racist. The overall effect has been to paint Reinoehl in the most negative light possible, and Danielson in a positive manner. More eyes here would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Kellison
Daniel Kellison has an unfounded negative statement about the subject. It was added within the past week and I've tried removing but it keeps getting reverted. Most recent diff: Special:Diff/977650794/977712016. The reference link is to an article about the skits but the subject is not mentioned in the article at all. The statement seems irrelevant to the subject's bio without something verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushboy (talk • contribs) 18:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Jules and Gédéon Naudet
Hello,

My name is Gedeon Naudet. I am one of the brother mentioned on this wikipedia page. I would like to add my wife name in the 'Personal life' category. The exact phrase to add would be the following: "Gedeon Naudet is married to Aude Coquatrix, with two children." Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much for all your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gedeonny (talk • contribs) 14:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Chris Wallace
Check sourcing of "middle name", apply clue. --136.25.157.83 (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sturla Snær Snorrason
This article is very poorly sourced. The only reference provided is a link that doesn't work. Furthermore, Unusual Articles lists that this person hasn't finished a single race, of which I couldn't find a single source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.152.179.116 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

tania lacy
his article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay. This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitbhatia (talk • contribs) 11:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * That's not a good WP:BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

moez kassam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moez_Kassam

The sources are not legitimate websites. Source 13 links to a website about genital piercings when the title claims it is about Young Presidents Organization. Almost none of the citations are real websites or say anything in support of the sentence they are tied to.
 * For those confused about this, it wasn't some weird attempt to misrepresent the subject with fake sources, but simply a domain that had been taken over by a spammer. In particular, this source [//web.archive.org/web/20150303061356/http://www.toprestaurantsincanada.com/page/judges-top-restaurants-in-canada] if you go to the live page is now some dodgy spam page. I don't know what vacay.ca is but it doesn't sound to me like it was ever an RS especially for BLPs so the removal appears to have been proper. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)