Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive319

John Cummings - yes, an unelected candidate, but he measures up to GNG
I just read an article about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez -- AOC, and her Republican opponent. Hers is the most expensive Congressional campaign, even though she is so popular she is a shoe-in. She is so popular she has received $30 million - way more than most candidates receive.

Her opponent, John Cummings, a 60-year-old retired teacher, and retired NYPD Police Officer, has received almost $10 million, which I gather is quite a lot for a Congressional campaign.

I went to read what the wikipedia had to say about him - and found that the wikipedia didn't have an article about him. Nor could I find an AFD that closed as delete about him.

Of course as an unelected candidate an article about him would be sure to trigger assertions he did not measure up to WP:POLITICIAN.

And the counter to that would be that the AOC's intense popularity, and the scrutiny on her, has reflected enough interest on him that he too measures up to GNG.
 * He has raised more money than all but a handful of Republicans. He raised almost $6 million in the last three months, more than all but a handful or Republican incumbents.
 * When he appeared on Fox and Friends, in July 2019, they reported only one other Republican challenger had put their name forward.
 * His campaign has triggered International coverage, practically no unelected candidates excite International coverage.

I anticipate challengers who will aggressively assert he is barred by WP:POLITICIAN, who won't acknowledge he measures up to WP:GNG. So I thought I would request other's opinions, here, over the GNG argument. Geo Swan (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:POLOUTCOMES discusses this issue and says Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates in the 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as 2010 United States Senate election in Nevada. Note that such articles are still subject to the same content policies as any other article, and may not contain any unsourced biographical information that would not be acceptable in a separate article.
 * However, he could still have notability for other reasons. WP:POLITICIAN is a set of sufficient requirements for notability, not necessary ones. He doesn't meet them, but that doesn't bar him from being notable. The base criteria for a person to meet notability guidelines is WP:BASIC. Obviously the amount raised on its own isn't sufficient, but I do see an NYTimes article and a NewsWeek article that are both significant coverage, so that should meet the basic notability guidelines.
 * However, the exclusionary criteria mentioned in WP:BASIC - specifically WP:BLP1E - are more interesting. Aside from his electoral race, Cummings seems to be low profile and is likely to remain so. Given that, and the guideline of WP:POLOUTCOMES, we should probably create a redirect for his name (perhaps John Cummings (candidate)?) that redirects to the election page. Gbear605 (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm concurring with GBear here. The international coverage you point to is covering his campaign, which goes well with covering him on the elections page. We don't tend to lean toward amount of money involved making things notable, and the fact he didn't have a lot of challengers for the Republican nomination is not a particular pointer to his notability, as it doesn't seem likely he scared them away; it seems much more likely that that reflects it as a sure Democrat seat. So yeah, cover him within the campaign article. If he wins, that becomes a different matter. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , WRT the $10 million he raised, and your comment "We don't tend to lean toward amount of money involved making things notable". I don't think you phrased this the right way.  It is not our job to decide whether the amount of funds a candidate raised is or is not notable.  It is not our job because we are not RS.  When multiple highly respected RS think the amount of funds he raised is worthy of considerable coverage then his fund raising efforts are worthy of considerable coverage.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Even the Times article you cite is indicating the the money raised is more a reflection on AOC than on Cummings, but none of that takes it outside the idea that the coverage is about this one campaign, and should land in the election article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nat Gertler, et. al. Until he is known for something other than running against AOC, this is a BLP1E case. Chetsford (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * BLP1E is not an absolute bar to covering an individual known for a single event. BLP1E explicitly states that individuals who are central to the event may merit coverage in a standalone article, after all.
 * Most failed candidates, or first time not yet elected candidates, who don't merit a standalone article, have nothing to distinguish them. Generally their platforms are predictable and undistinguished.  But if they are the first gay candidate, or the first muslim candidate, or the first disabled candidate -- '''and they receive a bunch of RS coverage profiling them for that -- then they may very well merit coverage in a standalone article, after all.  Cummings isn't the first gay, the first muslim, but he did raise an enormous amount of money, and he did receive a prodigious amount of RS coverage, because of that.  IMO enough for him to be one of the un-elected candidates who measures up to GNG.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * He is not central to the event. The event would take place regardless of his participation. If you feel he passes the notability bar, nothing is stopping you from attempting to write an article, just expect it to be nominated for deletion, and deleted like all the others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , gaaaah! You had me up until "shoe-in". It's shoo-in. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * He is not central to the event. The event would take place regardless of his participation. If you feel he passes the notability bar, nothing is stopping you from attempting to write an article, just expect it to be nominated for deletion, and deleted like all the others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , gaaaah! You had me up until "shoe-in". It's shoo-in. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Chris Hardwick
The article contains three large paragraphs about abuse allegations from his ex, almost half of the article's text is about that which is really WP:UNDUE especially for something that was alleged and unproven. Also WP:NOTNP. Not every single event or statement regarding this issue has to be detailed at length. I removed statements from his backers and detractors, made it so we just have the facts and the investigations from his employers as well as statements from Hardwick and Dykstra (his ex). However an editor reverted it. I think that this version is reasonable and uncontroversial. --2607:FEA8:1160:2236:5DAB:4BC1:DE43:3453 (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the detail is excessive, especially character commentary by people not involved in the allegations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The current version is still a bit lengthy but at least it covers valid information without reading like an overdetailed news report. --2607:FEA8:1160:2236:9CBD:EEE9:C56C:F9C5 (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting case. Credible and serious accusations were made. Two different employers conducted investigations and both found no support for the claims. The accuser implies this is because she didn’t participate in the investigations. He has been returned to all of his prior roles and the “case” is closed and never involved a legal investigation. Given this, it seems that the title of the subheading should somehow indicate that the accusations were never confirmed or verified? This section is also quite long considering the outcome and lack of confirmation. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

On politicians
--> move to WP:JIMBOTALK


 * , was this meant for Jimmys talkpage? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , arse. Yes. Too many windows open at once :-( Guy (help! - typo?) 20:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Caster Semenya
A new editor is repeatedly trying to introduce an unsourced description of intersex athlete Caster Semenya's genitals and gender assignment, seems unwilling to engage with WP:BRD. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising this here. I have already reported that user (User:Benc0lins) to AIV for vandalism as their edits seem intentionally disingenuous (misrepresenting sources, marking a major edit as minor, etc) and clearly here to pursue a defamatory grudge against Semenya and generally not here to help. They are now over the 3RR but I'm not sure whether I am justified in reverting them again, as that would put me over the 3RR, although probably allowed by WP:3RRNO #4 and/or #7. If anybody can take a look this it would be very helpful. I think we need an indef on Benc0lins and it might even be worth considering revdelling some or all of their edits and edit summaries to this article.--DanielRigal (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are some diffs of what I am talking about:
 * The worst version (Note the defamatory use of the term "hermaphrodite" and the disgustingly intrusive speculation about the subject's sexual organs.)
 * The most recent version (This is only very slightly less egregious.)
 * Please also note that three different people, one of them an administrator, have reverted these edits and that Benc0lins has received multiple warnings and explanations.
 * I also note that some other users, seemingly in good faith, have been discussing claims about the subject's sexual organs on the talk page. While I don't think that there was any malicious intent there, I do wonder whether that should also be removed?
 * --DanielRigal (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I was advised to take my issue from AIV to ANI. That is here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents --DanielRigal (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Note that I've reverted one edit yesterday for egregious WP:BLP vio. I've now sysop-protected for 24 hours, and have left a message on the talk page to get editors to the table to discuss. I've also rev-del'd some of the more egregious violations related to the subject's genitalia. That kind of unsourced, deeply personal commentary is never okay. Leaving any 3RR sanctions to another admin - A l is o n  ❤ 18:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think this is beyond 3RR and into NOTHERE - the user has also inserted a link to a fundamentalist evangelical statement against social justice. I have blocked for now. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok - your call. I just went through their edits and saw the evangelical link. I think I'd AGF on that one myself, but ok. They can request unblock if needs be, and a third-party admin can decide - A l is o n  ❤ 23:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sukavich Rangsitpol
He is Education Reform.There are many false accusations  in his biography but none of his achievements in Education Reform.He founded education institute for 4.53 Millions poor children in Thailand aged between 3-17 during his position as Minister of Education.

Minister for Education (1995–1997)
Rangsitpol was appointed Minister of Education. His challenge was for Thailand to achieving educational excellence by the year 2007. During his two -year tenure,Rangsitpol launched education reforms between 1995-1997. "The goal of the education reform is to realize the potential of Thai people to develop themselves for a better quality of life and to develop the nation for a peaceful co-existence in the global community."

The Reform Program  of 1996. A sense that major changes are needed in education is reflected in the recently introduced "reform program". It is built around four major improvements:
 * improving the physical state of schools
 * upgrading the quality of teachers
 * reforming learning and teaching methods
 * streamlining administration

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/605431468777588612/text/multi-page.txt

According to UNESCO, Thailand education reform 1996 has led to the following results: 1)Free12 years education for all children provided by the government. This program was added to the 1997 Constitution of Thailand and gave access to all citizens. 2)Since 1996, first grade students have been taught English as a second or foreign language and computer literacy. 3)The educational budget increased from 133 billion baht in 1996 to 163 billion baht in 1997 (22.5% increase) 4)Professional advancement from teacher level 6 to teacher level 7 without having to submit academic work for consideration was approved by the Thai government.

5) Thailand has implemented School-based management (SBM) policy in 1997 to overcoming a profound crisis in the education system.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Decentralisation-And-School-Based-Management-In-Gamage-Sooksomchitra/73d67d185318eaf95a227b8bfb297d2bd6b26750

Establish effective Provincial Education Councils with strong community membership. The purpose of decentralization is to ensure that local education needs are met, there should be a close relationship between community representatives and officials. Thus, decentralization will require a careful balance between the guidance of community selected representatives and government officials. To representing local needs and priorities.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/605431468777588612/text/multi-page.txt

Proposed deletion of biographies of living people
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard?fbclid=IwAR24G4Dq68aeAHwjZxFS--1TOtxmFalxsghiz3tn2PjFE3Zk9oi6MHf0KZA#/editor/17 He brought Education to 4.53 Poor Thai Children his achievements is not in his negative article on political lies.

The editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
1) He won the deformation case it should not be in his biography.

https://www.uzo.net/bnnj/meisai.php?id=4075&fbclid=IwAR12GVFvDrqTSJiEtiydRX5vvaaFjVSYHiC7X-0A0tRUYR7z3k_ije_xLgU

He sue the accusation (Mr.Archom). He was the only person that accused Rangsitpol during no-confidence vote 1997.

Thailand has implemented School-based management (SBM) policy in 1997 to overcoming a profound crisis in the education system.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Decentralisation-And-School-Based-Management-In-Gamage-Sooksomchitra/73d67d185318eaf95a227b8bfb297d2bd6b26750

School based management system allow schools to buy their own supplies. Mr.Archom probably didn’t know about it and told a lie in the parliament. He was sued by Rangsitpol and lost.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukavich_Rangsitpol

2) LGBTS accusation and 100 million bath accusation base on one faked News from one English Newspaper.

While World Bank and UNESCO had the Achievements from Education Reform 1996. He who founded school for 4.53 millions Thai Children in Thailand On 18 June 1997 he found 50 Education Institutes.

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Announcement_of_the_Ministry_of_Education_dated_18_June_1997

I assumed he may not see the Newspaper accusations.He may sue them later on that is why only English literature use it as the reference.

Thai Wikipedia also use English Reference.It is the evidence that it is a political lies and do not exist in reality.2403:6200:89A7:7CAF:9D03:7FFF:F008:C1D (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * If something is covered in reliable sources, we cannot exclude it under the assumption the person doesn't speak English and so isn't aware of the claim and hasn't sued or complained to the reliable source. I had a look at the Worldbank thing and I don't see any relevant mention of Sukavich Rangsitpol. Another of you sources is just an announcement. If we are going to add achievements to the article on Sukavich Rangsitpol, we need sources which specifically tie those achievements to Sukavich Rangsitpol. It's been over 20 years since he was minister so if the the advances in the Thai education system are widely considered to have come in part from the reforms initiated by Sukavich Rangsitpol, this should be noted in sources, frankly both English and Thai ones. About the scandal, if there was a significant scandal that received a lot of attention, we will generally still cover it even if later investigations showed no wrong doing. We would also mention that the person was cleared. Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/605431468777588612/text/multi-page.txt

The 1996 Reforms use to be Sukavich Rangsitpol Reform but not today The document1.


 * The person who accused him in the parliament was sue by the subject of the article and was lost

https://www.uzo.net/bnnj/meisai.php?id=4075&fbclid=IwAR12GVFvDrqTSJiEtiydRX5vvaaFjVSYHiC7X-0A0tRUYR7z3k_ije_xLgU


 * He was minister between 1995-1997 ,the achievements in 1996 is his achievements.I do not know why someone recently changed the information.


 * Sukavich Rangsitpol, launched a series of education reforms in 1995 with the intention of the education reform is to realize the potential of Thai people to develop themselves for a better quality of life and to develop the nation for a peaceful co-existence in the global community.

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jcrdaen/1/1/1_KJ00006742072/_pdf It was the Education Reform Thailand uses until Education Act 19992403:6200:89A7:7CAF:5979:5422:741A:E64B (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

2014
https://books.google.com/books/about/Citizenship_for_the_21st_Century.html?hl=th&id=8Gt9AwAAQBAJ

According to John Cogan (Professor of Education, University of Minnesota, USA) and Derricott, Ray (Director, Centre for Continuing Education, University of Liverpool) · 2014 in Citizenship for the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Education, His Excellency Mr.Sukavich Rangsitpol saw education as "the instrument for human development, creating peace for mankind and national security" 2403:6200:89A7:7CAF:5979:5422:741A:E64B (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Alfred-Maurice de Zayas
This long article is in a pretty poor state and I would appreciate editors with experience of BLPs having a look at it. It has been flagged for multiple issues for several years. I try and make a stab at it every now and again, but my edits are usually reverted by the editor responsible for a large share of the content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Rezo (crosspost)
There is a BLP discussion at Talk:Rezo which could use more input from editors. Please voice your opinions there. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Bill Wackermann
Hi, This is Bill Wackermann. I have no experience editing Wiki pages or my pages for that matter but there appears to be certain individuals whom I worked with at my position as former CEO of Wilhelmina models who are adding untrue, biased and misleading information on my wikipedia page, in attempts to damage my reputation and career. These citations are from either unsourced gossip pages (page 6, NY POST) and reflect opinion rather than relevant fact. I could use your help here.

For example: "before being fired while on a morale-building Caribbean cruise for Condé Nast sales in November 2015."[5][6][7][8][9]

Additionally, These are a biased narrative that bears no relevance to contains untrue and career damaging misinformation. In mid-2019 five employees left the women's division of Wilhelmina for Supreme, an Elite Model Management company.[27] Wilhelmina sued the five women's division employees over non-compete clauses, which was dismissed by the judge.[28][29] After the "court drama" Wackermann's "number two", VP Taylor Hendrich, and four other employees left the men's division and joined The Society Management, also part of Elite, though this was initially denied by Wackermann.[30]

Linked to these departures, in October 2019 Bill Wackermann's employment contract was not renewed for its two-year term. He resigned as CEO in January 2020.[31][32][33][34][32]

Nor, am I married. Wackermann holds a B.A. in English from Villanova University in 1989[1][4] and has three children with his wife, Regina Toth Wackermann.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.139.178 (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of this was easily solved as the sources were unreliable even if the content were true, that much has all been removed.The other content you wish to remove is sourced adequately enough that it should likely stay unless it’s proved to be false. That you are no longer married for instance, would then be reflected.  Glee anon 02:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Gleeanon409 is incorrect, if I understand them correctly. The content about the "firing" is apparently lifted from the NYPost, but the article does not cite to this, because it is a tabloid, and cites to sources that actually do not support the contested description. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the content about the circumstances of the firing that the article mentioned. The reason I did so is because it was not supported by the provided citations. On Wikipedia, we don't use tabloids, so there is insufficient sourcing to support the material. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor19920, I removed, or thought I did, everything sourced to NY Post/Page Six.  Glee anon 22:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You did, but what's left to support it? I didn't see the remaining sources mentioning the details noted in the Post. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe I had verified that it was true, but I probably overlooked ensuring we had the correct sourcing in place.I added the sourcing when I restored that last round of content.  Glee anon 01:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can other editors read reference [4]? It doesn't show me anything. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The link doesn't work but I found an archived copy at https://web.archive.org/web/20200726225853/https://www1.villanova.edu/content/villanova/unicommunication/publications/magazine/jcr:content/pagecontent/download_16/file.res/VN_Spring2005.pdf. Seems to support the things it's used to reference. Neiltonks (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, very helpful. It does indeed support most of what it is used for, but it doesn't (and can't) support the statement that Regina Toth Wackermann is his current wife, which he (or at least the IP claiming to be him) denies above. So I will change this to "has three children with Regina Toth Wackermann.[4]" for now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's true, an article from 2005 can only attest that he was married at that point, it can't say anything about subsequent events. Neiltonks (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , we are frequently trolled by individuals who claim to be the subject of existing wikipedia articles, or mentioned in wikipedia articles, and then make requests for revisions.  told you the material that concerned you that obviously problematic had been dealt with.


 * I think that is as far as we should go, until you confirm you are the actual real-life Bill Wasserman. We have a procedure for you to do this safely.  We have a committee of individuals entrusted to confirm the real life identity of individuals like you.  Please open a ticket in our confidential OTRS ticket system with an email to


 * I suggest to my fellow contributors here that we ignore all requests from you until OTRS reports back that they have confirmed you are the actual real-life Bill Wasserman. Geo Swan (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

2 pages needs experts in Nigerian to monitor for COI-editor edit requests, Abiola Dosunmu and Erelu Kuti
recently disclosed at Talk:Abiola Dosunmu (permalink) and his user page (permalink) that he has a personal or professional relationship with the subject of the article, HRH Erelu Abiola Dosumu. This was after making several changes to Abiola Dosunmu and Erelu Kuti, some of which were reverted by me due to Wikipedia's practice of saying what reliable sources say about someone, not so much about what they say about themselves. In particular, he is attempting to change the name to something other than what the existing sources use.

Bauba011 seems to be trying to edit in good faith. We need to make sure that no information that harms someone's reputation or hurts them in other ways remains unless it is backed by a reliable source and, probably more importantly in this case, that the sources reflect current usage. A source from years ago that spells a name one way can be set aside in favor of an equally reliable source that uses it another way. Likewise, transliterations can be a matter of judgement if current sources translate the same person's name multiple ways.

I'm asking for interested editors, particularly those with knowledge of the subject or Nigerian culture in general to monitor this page, assist with any requested edit requests, and, as is the case with all paid editors and all editors in general, to help this editor understand that Wikipedia is here to be an encyclopedia for the world, not to serve the needs of him or people he knows.

See also: Talk:Abiola Dosunmu and Talk:Erelu Kuti. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  00:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Michelangelo Canale
An IP complained at WP:RFPP that content was being removed; later, a new user added this content, regarding assault allegations from 2017. The police subsequently dropped the charges, though they said "This in no [sic] ways implies that Mr. Canale's conduct is not of concern." . There is coverage from reliable sources, though not a lot; seems borderline to me. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Gretchen Whitmer
Editors are probably aware of the kidnapping plot against this Michigan governor. I ran across an article on the Covid Pandemic in Michigan and was surprised to see a list of lawsuits, mainly unresolved, against her at COVID-19 pandemic in Michigan. Although Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot is listed at the main article, that article doesn't mention these. Am I alone in seeing a problem here? Doug Weller talk 16:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The lawsuit section isn't under the kidnapping plot section. It's under the "critical responses" section. The lawsuits don't have anything to do with the kidnapping plot. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 18:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, many of those suits are related to the MI gov't as a whole's reaction to COVID, and not to Whitmer directly as a person. The pandemic article is linked from Whitmer's page, so those related lawsuit are listed appropriately on the COVID page as part of the gov't issue, not Whitmer as a person. --M asem (t) 18:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry, I don't know how I got confused about this. I'm still dubious about including lawsuits that have had no outcome, as many of them are inevitably political, eg one by Michigan United for Liberty. It's a good tactic, get lots of publicity through multiple lawsuits. it looks to me as though most of them at least include Whitmer. We don't normally include lawsuits that haven't been settled in court and shouldn't allow ourselves to be used as a political vehicle.  Doug Weller  talk 18:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ongoing civil lawsuits directed at persons for personal reasons should not be included unless they have been widely covered in the news. Civil lawsuits against gov't officials or other types of entities like businesses are generally included if they have been covered by third-party sources. That said, not necessarily all those cases are necessarily going to have relevancy at the end of the day and if they were dismissed early, they should be removed or simply summarized. --M asem (t) 18:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The dodgiest part of describing the kidnapping plot in COVID-19 pandemic in Michigan is seen most clearly in the TOC: the section "Governor Whitmer kipnapping plot" is a subsection of "Protests", which is in turn a subsection of "Critical responses". That's like legitimizing or normalizing it. "If you are feeling critical of your governor, there are several ways of protesting; for example, you could kidnap them." I'm sure that wasn't what meant to say when he added the kidnapping plot section, but, people, please be aware of an article's structure. I think the text in question should be removed. FGS, the kidnapping plot was neither a critical response ("critical"! seriously!) nor a protest. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC).
 * I changed it from a subsection to a section after I saw this thread. I wasn't trying to legitimize their actions. My mistake. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, of course you weren't, TomCat4680, I never meant to suggest it. It's still right now a subsection of "Critical responses", though; you have merely moved it out from being also a sub-sub-section under "Protests". Did you mean to make it its own section, with just the two equals signs? Honestly, though, I can't see that that would work either. The fewer equals signs it has, the less business does it have in an article entitled "COVID-19 pandemic in Michigan". It just doesn't belong there. Or possibly as a "See also: Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot". In my opinion. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC).
 * Well the mastermind of the plot listed her response to the pandemic as a motive in a YouTube video so it's a direct response to her actions. Highly illegal of course but at least worth a mention. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Bishonen. To see the following listing in the contents...
 * 7. Critical responses
 * 7.1 Protests
 * 7.2 Governor Whitmer kidnapping plot
 * 7.3 Lawsuits

...is just bizarre. Oh, so it's just another critical response? I don’t think we can remove all mention of the plot from the article, but we could at least keep it from being a section heading. It’s only two sentences; how about just making it the last paragraph of the “Protests” section? With an in-text wikilink rather than a “main article” tag? I'm inclined go ahead and do that right now, but I'll wait for at least a little feedback. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine to me. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just went ahead and did it myself. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks from me also. Doug Weller  talk 18:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the lawsuits: for non-U.S./non-Law Mutant people, some U.S. states require certain types of legislative challenges and other broad-ranging lawsuits (which I'm pointing out as being the opposite pole of "personal" lawsuits in which Jules Doe slipped and fell in the grocery store owned by Random Roe), to be brought "against" the governor. I haven't looked at Michigan law in this regard, but the way these cases are captioned, it appears that Michigan does this, and a lawsuit "against Gretchen Whitmer" is the effective equivalent of "against Governor Jules Doe", whomever that person is at the time of filing. One of the beautiful annoyances of American federalism is that there are over 50 different ways to do this (because Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.). My point is that the notion that Gov. Whitmer is a named defendant is not necessarily anything more than a statutorily mandated, non-notable placeholder reflecting that somebody sued the state during her gubernatorial administration: i.e., not Wiki-notable vis-a-vis Gov. Whitmer herself. It should go into an article about Michigan history or lawsuits against the state, not about Gov. Whitmer generally. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  19:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Bobby Seale
The article on Bobby Seale alleges that Seale wrote an approving message regarding the murder of fellow Black Panther Fred Bennett. The source cited contains no link, but the text mentions an article titled "One Less Oppressor". Even if Seale held a personal grudge against Bennett, it would be odd form for one Panther to officially denounce another as an 'oppressor' in that fashion, especially post-mortem, so I tried to find confirmation that this actually happened.

As it turns out, the claim on Wikipedia is incorrect. A staff study on the Black Panthers by the Committee on Internal Security in the U.S. House of Representatives identifies the "Bennett" in question as Bernard Bennett, a patrol officer.

As it stands, the article on Wikipedia could easily be considered libelous. It also places Seale's writing into a much different context than that in which it was originally written, and distorts the historical record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Mliz11) 03:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The piece where Seale wrote those words was published in The Black Panther Leaders Speak by G. Louis Heath (1976, Scarecrow Press) which I don't have a copy of and Google Books doesn't allow preview, so I can't verify which Bennett the original text referred to. You are correct that a House of Representatives Subcomittee staff said it was a different Bennett, but there is at least one scholarly work that says it was Fred to whom the article referred (Balleck, Barry J, Modern American Extremism and Domestic Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Extremists and Extremist Groups, 2018, ABC-CLIO). Either way, Seale wrote approvingly of some Bennet's murder and it is well-documented that Seale was implicated in Fred's murder so there isn't a real argument for defamation. I think there isn't a BLP grounds for removal, either, since the claim is documented, just not in a source that we can put our digital hands on right this minute. If some-one with access to Heath can tell us which Bennett "One Less Oppressor" actually applies to, then WP:V might apply. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Congressional report, p. 13, says:
 * An article by Bobby Seales entitled "One Less Oppressor" applauds the murder of patrolman Bernard Bennett who was shot and killed at 10:30 p.m. on May 9th at 35th St., and 4th Ave., in Sacramento, Calif.
 * The article stated: "The people have now come to realize that the only way to deal with the oppressor is to deal on our own terms and that was done. Around 10:30 that evening 4 or 5 shots rang out to find their marks lodged in the brain of a pig: color him dead!!!" (The Black Panther, May 31, 1970:2)
 * Unfortunately, CUNY, which has a collection of Panther's magazines, does not have this issue.
 * The other sources I saw only quoted the first sentence. If the quote is accurate, then it could only refer to the patrolman's murder. It is more likely too that Seale would be writing about a patrolman who had allegedly been killed by a Black Panther a few weeks before, than about the Black Panther whose body had been found a year before. Also, it would be unclear why Seale considered Fred Bennett, an official in the Black Panthers, to be an oppressor, while any police officer would be by definition an oppressor.
 * If we had the primary source we could probably determine which interpretation is correct. But without that, it's best to leave it out.
 * TFD (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Balleck, published in 2018, isn't necessarily dispositive because it could simply reflect the state of our article at the time. Balleck references G. Louis Heath's The Black Panther Leaders Speak (Scarecrow Press, 1976) which is not, unfortunately, available online. That might be dispositive, but until we have better sourcing, concur with TFD, it's best to leave it out. - Ryk72 talk 21:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Rebel News and See Also
As explained at the talk page of Rebel News (which isn't a BLP, but obviously is about living people) I believe that a "See also" section should not use any contentious terms (e.g. "Islamophobia", etc...) to suggest that people are connected to those terms. The problem with "See also" is it's just a bare list of links, no context, no explanation, no citations. It implies, without stating, a connection. This should never be done in a BLP (or BLP-related article). If we say somebody is Islamophobic, or whatever, we should provide attribution in the text, and provide a citation. In mentioning such terms, we should say how/why they relate, while closely following what the reliable sources say. Of course, once an article discusses and links to the term in the body, then there's a style guideline that suggests a "see also" link is redundant. I am not disputing any content outside of "see also", or debating if the terms should be used somewhere, in an appropriate manner. --Rob (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See also sections can reasonably include any link not already in the prose that would be in the article if written at a Featured article level.  Glee anon 00:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP trumps that guidance for inherently contentious terms.    --Rob (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Rebel News is not a living person nor a Biography page. The links in the See also do not exist in the body of the article yet the connections are apparent. (ArctcBanana (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC))
 * Byt as you can see at WP:BLP, the policy applies anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So, it seems you've discovered two giant loopholes to BLP! First, if people set up an organization, they lose all BLP protection, because they are no longer living people, but just an organization (in this case a small one).  Second, if you want to label somebody in a certain way, without a citation, you can throw it in the "see also" as a bare internal link, with no citation requirements.  This actually has huge implications in many articles.  Also, as a note, the original version had "neo-fascist" in the mix.  Throwing around these type of words without proper explanation and citations is very problematic.  "See also" was never meant to be a kind of categorization.  It shows related topics.  An organization that is dedicated to fighting islamophobia, or a victim of it, is as "related" to islamophobia as one that allegedly promotes it.  If you want to say an organization is Islamophobic, than say that (with attribution and citation in the body).  It is well established BLP policy that a contentious statement must be cited, and you can't avoid that responsibility by saying it's well known, or covered elsewhere.  It has to be cited where it's used.  So, unless you intend to add citations to words in the "see also" section, it needs to go.  --Rob (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a classic case of missing the forest from the trees. If a link to islamophobia isn't supported by the article body, then the 2 islamophobia cats are a problem. I don't see a reason to make a big deal over the sea also as long as the islamophobia cats are considered justified. Note I make no comment on whether they are, simply that there is reason to treat the see also as some sort of special problem. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably right. A link to Islamophobia isn't supported by the article body, which merely has reference to Rebel News's incorrect story about the Quebec City mosque shooting and an employee's connection to the English Defence League. But, although WP:BLPGROUP arguably applies, the problem is broader (I regard WP:RS and WP:NPOV as being more relevant). The talk page discussion exists for anyone who wants to look at ArctcBanana's recent edits. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * categories and "see also" are totally different. I expect eventually, somebody may add appropriate content and sources to Rebel News to justify all the categories that are there now.  There's lots of discussion needed about what content+sources are needed to justify certain categories.  I'm not looking to get involved in that debate.  "See also" is really simple.  Contentious statements about a BLP are never justifiable in "see also" because the moment the content of the article supports the mention of a term, their use in "see also" is redundant, and should be removed.  "See also" is a list of related links, that haven't yet been discussed in the article.  Hence, I don't even have to read the body of the article to know that such contentious-BLP-related links should be removed.  The editors arguing for inclusion are missing the point, as I'm fine with inclusion of the terms (with citations) in the article.  I just don't want them in "see also".  --Rob (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (I have put this reply above Gleeanon409's although it's out of chronological order since it seemed the best way to avoid confusion from the outdent, as I had not read further parts of the thread when writing this and it was solely a reply to Thivierr's 00:16 post.) actually on the contrary, WP:BLPCAT requires that . There is no allowance for the categories to be supported by future article contents. For any article, if the categories aren't supported by the current article, they need to be supported now, not 1 day from now. Even outside BLPs, Categorisation says that  While there is a template mentioned there Uncited category to add for uncited categories so there is some allowance for keeping the category there while waiting someone adding content and sources, just like fact may be used for keeping info in an article while awaiting sources, at the same time someone removing unsupported categories they come across even in a non-BLP isn't likely to get in trouble. (Maybe mass removing them from a lot of articles may be contentious.) Anyway I'll go back to the BLP point since that's how you approached this. If the categories are not supported by the article body then they need to be removed now when BLP applies. No ifs, no buts. If the categories are there and BLP applies, I can only assume they are supported by the article body and sources. If they are, then I see zero reason to make a big deal over a see also which is also supported by the article body and sources. It would be better to simply mention the explicit word in the article body and so remove the see also since it's evidently supported but that's more of a formatting issue than a BLP ones. Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If the See also links could easily be added with citations then they are perfectly acceptable as links until that happens. See also is a part of the article.  Glee anon 00:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But, WP:BLP requires such contentious claims to be cited *now* (or not be added). You can't just add contentious uncited claims about living people, with a plan to cite them later on.  We wouldn't allow that anywhere else in the article, why would it be allowed in "see also".  It would be a huge step backwards for Wikipedia, if we start allowing uncited contentious BLP claims to be added to articles, because we think somebody will add some sources sometime in the future.  Anybody can say that there are sources out there.  Unless/until a source is provided in the article (as in a citation) for a claim, the claim is deemed unsourced.  And, BLP clearly says "...contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." --Rob (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Oy vey. Simply adding a link does not equate to making a contentious claim. It could, if actually on a BLP, potentially be interpreted that way, but I’m not seeing that issue here.  Glee anon 03:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * your latest reply is even more perplexing. As I said in my followup above posted at the same time as this, if you feel that the categories aren't a problem then you agree that the article body and sources support the islamophobia categories since that's an explicitly requirement per WP:BLPCAT. Therefore the sources and article content is already in the article. They aren't stuff which will be added in the future by your own agreement. You can't in the first instance say the sources and article content is there, and then turn around and say it isn't for the exact same thing. Either the sources and content is already in the article body to support a connection to islamophobia (and hence the categories) or they aren't. You need to make up your mind which and not vacillate between the two in different posts or different parts of the article on the exact same thing. (In case it's unclear, I agree that in BLP cases, "see also"s also need to be already supported by the article body not supported sometime in the future, but again this is no different from categories. Whether BLP should apply to this article, I'm not so sure. The interaction between when accusing an organisation or group of something crosses the BLP line is complex per WP:BLPGROUP, but I'm not convinced an organisation which I assume has at least multiple tens of employees would generally come under BLP although care does need to be taken if it's likely the statements would primarily apply to e.g. the CEO or editor/s.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have to make up my mind between those two mutually exclusive possibilities. I'm saying either way, the "see also" contentious terms must go.  If the term IS covered in the article, then WP:SEEALSO requires the removal from "see also".  If the term is NOT covered in the article WP:BLP requires removal of the term from "see also".  There's two mutually exclusive possibilities, and in *both* cases, the contentious terms must be removed from "see also".  There's no circumstance where contentious terms about a living person can appear in a "see also".  That's totally different from categories, where it's necessary to review the overall content of the article and sources.  As for BLP's relevance, it's quite simple.  This is a small outlet.  Rebel News article lists exactly one current notable contributor (the owner, Levant himself).  There's less then a dozen "journalists" listed on the web site and it's not clear who's part time and full time.  So, this article is basically an extension of the Ezra Levant BLP.  This ain't Fox News.  --Rob (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I was easily able to find reliable sources connecting Rebel News to both islamaphobia, and counter-jihad. That suggests they could easily be added to the article and are appropriate in the See also section until then. Inflated claims that BLP is being violated don’t have merit here.  Glee anon 04:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's so easy, than add it already. --Rob (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a BLP board. When I'm talking here, I don't really give a fuck about formatting issues which aren't BLP issues. If islamophobia is supported by the article content and sources, then there is no BLP issues period. Take that problem to some other board, like WP:MOS/N which doesn't exist since manual of style issues are dumb issues to require a noticeboard discussion. Please demonstrate why there is a BLP problem if you want to continue discussion over that specific article on this board. If there is no BLP problem, then I'll be blunt. Fuck off to somewhere else. This board should focus on BLP problems no other not MOS problems. Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry forgot to sign when I posted, also corrected a minor error in my post. Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (EC) In case it's unclear, the reason why these categories came up is when you come across something that you question, logically the first thing you do is to check if it's actually an issue. It's hardly uncommon for there to be a "see also" when the article body already mentions the word with a wikilink. Sometimes it mentions the word without a wikilink. And sometimes it can be extreme like there is a whole section which deals with the issue with a main article or see also in that section then an see also at the bottom! So first check for a contentious "see also" is check if it's in the article, which I did with a simple search. If I'd found the article mentions islamophobia, I would have removed the see also for being unnecessary and wikilink it with the article if necessary. (I've done this before in several cases mostly non BLP.) And then I'd come here to comment I removed it as an unnecessary but it clearly wasn't a BLP issue since the article already mentioned islamophobia.  Instead I searched and found the article body did not explicitly mention islamophobia. But there were 2 categories for islamophobia. That means as I've explained either those 2 categories are supported by the article body and content and so logically the see also is not a BLP problem since the article supports such a connection even though it doesn't use the actual word.  Or they aren't supported and we have a much clearer example of a problem. For BLPs, there's no question that categories need to be supported by the article body and sources. I don't think there's a real question for "see also" either, but categories are simpler since we already explicitly deal with them as a problem in BLPCAT and indeed regularly deal with them on this board. Personally I feel categories are also a more significant problem since it means the article will be listed in such categories so the problem goes beyond the article although I appreciate use of categories probably isn't very high and people are probably more likely to notice a see also then they are a category.  Nil Einne (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As a probably final comment, I admit I neglected to check what BLP actually says about "see also" until now although now that I have I don't think it's very helpful here . So let's turn this around into a more useful general discussion about whether our policy needs to change. A proposal that BLPs should never have "see also" since they need to be supported by the article content and sources and so the best way to deal with them is to ensure they are properly integrated, is IMO likely to fail, and at this time I'd oppose it. Having List of IBM CEOs as a see also in Louis V. Gerstner Jr. is clearly not a BLP problem regardless whether it's a bad "see also". You can probably come up with better examples where the "see also" is useful and justified awaiting article expansion but not contentious and indeed supported by the article body and sources; yet difficult to integrate without a fair amount of work. Partly why I'm unconvinced a general BLP prohibition on "see also"s gain support. Also since per WP:5P5 & WP:NOTBURO etc people tend to oppose further expansion without good reason and this is likely to be doubly so for BLP given it's importance and strength.  A complete and clearer prohibition on contentious "see also"s, that I may be willing to agree with under the assumption if they are contentious then they need to be supported by the article content and sources and it shouldn't require much work to integrate the specific "see also" and so integrating the "see also" is the simplest way to resolve disputes. Actually I've already practiced this before IIRC even examples with a tenuous or no connection to BLP. I've removed a "see also" because I felt it was questionable and said either on the edit summary or article talk page "integrate it into the article if you want to keep it".  Yet while it may be a good rule of thumb, I can easily see myself as changing my mind if people can come up with examples similar to before where the "see also" is difficult to integrate into the article body yet despite being contentious it's clearly already supported by the article content and sources. (This example comes to mind but frankly I feel that if islamphobia is justified by the article body and sources which it must be to justify the cats if BLP applies, it can't be that hard to simply include the word.)  And in any case, precisely for that reason such a discussion would need to focus on the generalities instead of getting distracted by the specifics of this one article. And yet it would also need to recognise that even if such a policy makes sense, it doesn't mean all contentious "see also"s are a problem.  Clearly a "see also" when the specific word is already used, or heck there is a whole section on the "see also" topic is not a BLP problem. (Well unless the word or section is a BLP problem itself which is a separate issue.) It's just that we've decided the best way to deal with the issue is to remove them so that we don't have to worry about such disputes.  Such a recognition is IMO imperative since even as a BLP-hawk, I'm turned off by any instance that there is a BLP problem when there clearly isn't. I strongly suspect most other editors are likely to be even more turned off and therefore any such proposal will fail if it tries to insist on such untruths.  Also I think editors will need to consider carefully how they propose defining the contentious "see also" that must be removed, considering similar sections like BLPcat etc. If you simply say "contentious" I suspect you'd get objection since people will feel it could easily be used to remove anything, or would just make things worse due to disputes over what's "contentious"  Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, I can't believe I missed WP:BLPSEEALSO. Thanks for pointing to it, as it makes the point much better than I did, and essentially settles things.  --Rob (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Several editors have told you that they do not think the article is not a BLP and that the "see also" entries are appropriate for this article. I think the matter is settled, but you seem unwilling to accept the consensus. Mo Billings (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes BLP applies to the article in question. Yes those are contentious claims that are not clearly sourced in the article. If they are important to the article find sources that tie them to the subject of the article and integrate it in the body. The see also section is not there to bypass normal sourcing requirements. PackMecEng (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course WP:BLP applies here (as everywhere), but the article is not a biography. To say that the topic of Islamophobia is related to Rebel News (as discussed and supported by sources already in the article) is not saying that any individual person is Islamophobic. Mo Billings (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The labels apply to the writers and people in the company. The article itself does not need to be a BLP overall to have BLP implications. PackMecEng (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Conservative Party (UK) has Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party and Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party (2016–present) in its "see also" section. Does that mean that all members of the Conservative Party (UK) are antisemitic and Islamophobic? Mo Billings (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a tricky one, one difference is the article are specifically about the UK Conservative party. Though I do not see much support in the main article for them being in the see also. I paired it down a little but not sure they should be there either if they are not important enough to be mentioned in the main article. PackMecEng (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * An example would be Labour Party (UK) where Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party is linked in the header and supported by text in the article. PackMecEng (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought we were discussing "see also" links? Mo Billings (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, both pages have links to other articles. The Conservative Party (UK) has it in see also with no context and Labour Party (UK) has the link as a further reading in a related subsection. Which is preferable in my mind. PackMecEng (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Chen Quanguo
I'm concerned over recent editing by, who was TBanned from BLPs for three months back in June as an arbitration enforcement action by (see log here), at the article Chen Quanguo. Shortly after their TBan expired, Pasdecomplot arrived at this article and started making a series of edits, focussing on the subject's time as the top Chinese official in Tibet. I'm concerned that the article, a WP:BLP, has essentially become a WP:COATRACK about the Chinese government's treatment of Tibet and its people. I have no interest in whitewashing the profile of a Chinese government official, and I am not necessarily questioning the veracity of the content that has been added; however, I am concerned that this article has effectively been hijacked, and is now a protest page, with more content about the regime in Tibet than there is biographical detail about its subject. I haven't edited it myself, and would like others' views on the best way to proceed. Girth Summit  (blether) 11:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * First series of edits
 * Second series of edits
 * Third series of edits
 * Fourth and final series of edits
 * The section on his time in Tibet, by far the longest in the article, contains very little biographical content, and a great deal about protests (including self-immolation) against the regime.
 * Amongst the sources that have been added are reliable news sources, but there are also various Tibetan campaigning groups; some of these are attributed in-line, but that has not been done rigorously.
 * There are assertions which, while not entirely unrelated to the subject, aren't specific. For example, In Tibet, 156 monks, nuns, and ordinary people self-immolated between 2009 and 2019. I don't doubt that this is true, but Chen was in Tibet from 2011 to 2016 - there's nothing to say how many actually took place within his tenure, or even whether they were protesting specifically against Chen and his policies rather than the regime in general.
 * There is rather POV language, such as self-immolation being widely seen (WP:WEASEL) as an offering by the self-immolators of their bodies to show the world how badly Tibet is suffering.
 * There is language like During Chen's tenure, Tibet's ethnic majority has been swamped... - 'swamped' is a word that I associate with xenophobia and racism - it makes me uncomfortable seeing it used in Wikipedia's voice.
 * This is a tricky one, while Quanguo’s actions in Xinjiang and Tibet have been objectively evil I think theres a fair question about how much to put on the person and how much to put on the larger political structures. This is the same issue we have with Nazi, Soviet, Khmer Rouge, etc officials and we should use our experience dealing with those figures to inform how we treat the CCP and the officials associated with their campaigns of ethnic cleansing, cultural genocide, and acts of genocide. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. WP states a previous ban should not be used to basically create prejudice, which makes this topic's opening slightly problematic: ...who was TBanned from BLPs for three months back in June as an arbitration enforcement.... The BLP topic ban came not from edits on the actual pages, but for trying to build CON on talk, to add RS and info in the Killing of George Floyd (specifically the dragging sequence of his body by police). CON was not achieved, and I received the ban.


 * That aside, what seems most concerning is that this topic was opened by an experienced editor, @, before they read the RS - on a BLP. Perhaps, if that has been done, the somewhat equivocating statements, such as I don't doubt that this is true and There are assertions which, while not entirely unrelated to the subject... and I have no interest in whitewashing the profile of a Chinese government official, and I am not necessarily questioning the veracity of the content that has been added; however... could not have been made.
 * Perhaps, the most important point is that the bio subject, Chen Quanguo, is inseparable from his policies and from the Chinese government and from its regime. This might be what is confusing the editor, as in ...Chen and his policies rather than the regime in general especially since the editor states, I haven't edited it myself.... The subject is Chen's Career in Tibet. A biography includes the subject's work and policies as a reflection of the subject. Chen was the Chinese government's rep and the CPC leader in Tibet, during his tenure. As such, the contributions are focused on Chen's biography in Tibet, and are biographical details based around the info already in the section.
 * To address the equivocating statements and other concerns, I began editing Chen Quanguo by providing 's in the Tibet section - locating, then adding the missing citations for other editors work (a good general practice).
 * After re-reading the page & bio info, I later contributed by filling in notable biographical details - adding RS, text - to existing info on the page: #'s of police sought; details of 'convenience stations'; statement from Chen on his police focus in Tibet; additional RS on self -immolations; RS & balance to the economic report.
 * Also, since the bio text mentions policing, RS and info on policing thru the notable 'double-household management system' was added.
 * The text added is per RS, except for Chen's statement from HRW, noted inline. The ICT source is also noted inline, via RS Outside Magagine. Since ICT report is cited and analyzed (see quotation on page) by Outside, the ref to the report is added as a courtesy. Thus, the editor's concern with consistency isn't clear.
 * The words 'offering their bodies' and 'swamped' are directly from RS - Outside and The Economist, respectively. Again, a previous review of the RS would have dispelled those specific concerns.
 * Other RS and text not yet included in the page would be the highly notable events at Larung Gar and Tibetan political re-education camps, during Chen's tenure. (Background: Chen's recent press coverage is related to a leak on his camps, Xinjiang papers, therefore his earlier bio/work in Tibet is also getting press.)
 * In regards to self-immolation during Chen's years: Multiple RS agrees they increased after he took office; still looking for an RS analysis (lots of others), but the ICT report includes the info on his tenure - the majority of the self-immolations. (Obviously, the concern about citing dates and total numbers of self-immolations is an issue that belongs on the subject's talk page.)
 * The editor's statement 'swamped' is a word that I associate with xenophobia and racism is interesting and curious. The RS found for the economic section are published accounts by very reputable RS whereby racism is indicated as used by Chen/CPC as policy. As tough of a subject as it is, the RS speaks for itself and Wikipedia's voice goes where solid, carefully included RS leads per BLP guidelines, without censure.
 * So, the concern seems to mistake Chen as separate from Chinese policy, and mistake biography as separate from career, via the statement ...this article has effectively been hijacked, and is now a protest page, with more content about the regime in Tibet than there is biographical detail about its subject. To rephrase the issues, Chen was the "Chinese government" "regime" and his biographical details illustrate the "regime", and himself.
 * As a related issue, another editor misrepresented BLP issues earlier then wrongly cited WP:COATTAIL (which doesn't exist), then COATRACK for ONLY the Dalai Lama RS and statement on self-immolation as "cultural genocide". That editor reverted, twice  ; the reverter was directed to stop reverting at related pages, including Self-immolation protests by Tibetans in China, Chen Quanguo, and Ngawa Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture. Two days later, COATRACK is being cited by another editor that hasn't even edited the page...
 * It seems as if this entire topic could have been brought to talk on the BLP page, without argument, where an earlier attempt to talk was unanswered. I suggest the topic be closed on the Noticeboard, and redirected to talk on the page. Thank you for your time and attention. (Was 17:18+/- (UTC), Signed late, no autosign, I guess) Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * you forgot to sign your post. I'm not going to get into a point-to-point rebuttal of your lengthy post, because I want to allow others to give their views rather than have this turn into a discussion between the two of us - I genuinely want to know what others think. Briefly though, there are a few points I'd like to mention:
 * I didn't bring up your recent TBan to stigmatise you, but I do think that it's relevant context given that it expired just a few days prior to your beginning to work on this article.
 * I didn't start a discussion on the article talk page because, as an uninvolved administrator with concerns about this content, I wanted to get the eyes and opinions of people experienced in dealing with BLP issues, which is what this noticeboard is for. I did not want to become involved, in an administrative or editorial sense, on the article.
 * Above, you say that I mistake Chen as separate from Chinese policy - I suspect that gets to the heart of the problem. It is necessary to separate Chen from Chinese policy; that's not to say that we do not mention criticism of Chinese policy anywhere in our article about him, but to turn an article about an individual person into an article about protests against the Chinese regime does our readers a disservice.
 * Also above, you imply that there is something suspicious in my raising WP:COATRACK concerns after someone else you have been in conflict raised them (you even emphasise the point with an ellipsis at the end of your post as a rhetorical flourish). Have you considered whether, rather than being evidence of some malfeasance or collusion on our part, that might simply be because there are good faith concerns there, which two people quite independently share?
 * I'm going to end it there - I would appreciate third opinions on whether my concerns about the page are valid and, if so, what the best way to address them is. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To reply to the additional points by @
 * WP does not give levels of importance to the time lags of days or months after the end of a ban and the beginning of edits to modify policy on prejudice.
 * The instructions on the noticeboard state to not bring topics if they can be resolved without argument; bringing them to talk would be the first step; admins use talk.
 * Chen is a person, but the section deals with his Career while head of CPC in Tibet, which is inseparable from China's government. The opinion that the article has somehow strayed from a biography is curious, while the interpretation that its reputable RS which criticise Chen's CPC policies in Tibet turn the article about an individual person into an article about protests against the Chinese regime does our readers a disservice is not well founded. Readers decide for themselves; They are provided with a range of RS by The Economist, the Jamestown group, NYTimes, BBC, Tibetan Review, Outside, ICT, HWR, many others, which balance and expand the official sanctioned sources of facts about education, political positions and military career, family. The opinion effectually proposes what would necessitate a pre-approved or limited group of sources to create a biography with only certain facts that omit solid RS critical information about his career, which would constitue an authentic disservice. Information is not "protest".
 * Don't know what an ellipsis is, but I responded to a note at user talk predating this notice which was full of all kinds of interesting accusactions, layered with good faith.
 * I look forward to the response. Thanks again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Briefly, my view is that we must separate Chen from the Chinese government in our article about him. That's not to say that we don't mention anything about this stuff, but we should do it succinctly, with links to relevant articles such as Self-immolation protests by Tibetans in China, Human rights in Tibet etc, in such a way as to avoid overwhelming the article about the individual person. Most of what is there now is not about the person, it is about protests against a government that the person was a part of - it's unbalanced. (An ellipsis is the three dots you used above - I interpreted it as an invitation for the reader to draw a conclusion that you don't yourself want to put into words.) Girth Summit  (blether)  09:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to restate that as a Chinese government official, Chen's life is inseparable from the government. Except in rare moments, I would venture to say. The bio is either focused on those rare and unreported moments, or on his life. And, it's a mischaracterization that RS-based text are "protests", those edits which simply describe the details of his life/work as a politician and his policies.
 * As an illustration, the 2008 Tibetan unrest, or uprising, is a page about mass protests which began before Chen's tenure. (Chen's work included averting another uprising.) There, one can read a page on "protests". After comparing the pages, the opinion that Chen's bio is just another protest page appears far-fetched, as does the effort to redefine RS-based text on his work/policies as just protests against a government. And if that were somehow true, only RS-based text on his family life, for example, would meet the requested criteria of a bio "about the person", in this case. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi folks, asked me if I could take a look at this discussion and weigh in (but I think I can be fairly neutral here). To be honest, I think both sides of the discussion have a point. The diffs GirthSummit linked do look like coatracking, but Pasdecomplot is also correct that Chen is intertwined with the government's policy. My preference would be to only mention policies/incidents which RS directly attribute to Chen, but I think an RfC may be in order here to get more outside eyes on this. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the look, but after being accused of WP:CANVAS at RSN, isn't asking a person to comment considered CANVAS, especially if the asker doesn't give notice here? Clarification would be good.
 * WP:COATRACK note: the intention basically is to keep the topic on subject without straying into another subject. Chen's bio states he was the CPC leader in Tibet, and in charge. Thus, all CPC policies during his tenure are on topic, whether or not Chen is noted in RS each time, since he is responsible.
 * Also, care needs to be taken not to apply Western concepts of separation between person and governmental positions to Chinese governmental employees.
 * There's Chen's line of command responsibility, from the police to Chen, and from the army to Chen since he was also made a military commander. As CPC leader, he would adhere to Han Chinese settlement directives and economic policies from Beijing. The recent 'severe religious freedom violations' in Tibet for which Chen is sanctioned as culpable escalated in 2008 during the uprising before his tenure, but they and the mass arrests at Kirti Gompa and at other monastic centers, mass forced evictions at Larung Gar, disappearances of monks and nuns arrested in 2008, re-education programs and camps and torture for monks and nuns continued, and intensified, during his tenure - as CPC policy for which Chen takes full responsibility in a quoted statement on the page. As the leader in Tibet, it's basically impossible to justify COATRACK when listing CPC policies per RS during his tenure. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with GirthSummit and GeneralNotability above; while there are clearly good reasons to include a summary of the situation in Tibet during Chen's tenure in this article, this seems like a lot of excess detail for what is supposed to be a biography of Chen. The content itself is mainly fine (with a few exceptions identified above, along with others such as using phrases like Orwellian social system in Wikipedia's voice without multiple sources, and some clearly irrelevant data on heights, country of origin, and spacing of guard stations). However, I would say most of it belongs in another article dedicated to the issues happening in Tibet. As it stands, fully 70% of the current revision is devoted to these five years of his life. I'd much prefer to convert this to summary style and reduce the detail here, but link to relevant articles elsewhere that go into more detail on the events themselves. I also agree it is important to continue to be accurate and provide proper context in our coverage of Chen, but that can be done without overwhelming the reader with specifics.  C Thomas3   (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've removed a short paragraph Chen Quanguo's preferred method of repression is to divide up agitated regions with a grid system and pit them against each other in the name of counter-terrorism. There have been suspicious incidents in Tibet, pointing towards Quanguo's silencing methods like the blast at a government building in Tibet's Chamdo prefecture. ‘Free Tibet’ fliers were found at the scene. that had been inserted with no source in August, tagged for cn in August, and had a source added by PDC that seems to only support the fact fliers were found at the blast site, nothing about Chen's 'preferred method of suppression' or suspicious incidents pointing toward Chen. I just felt this probably shouldn't stay while we discuss, especially if we're going to have a full RfC, because unsourced it seems beyond the pale. —valereee (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * @ An explanation of what is thought as agreeable would be helpful: Details and COATRACK are very different issues. Girth and General were appearing to push the COATRACK opinion, while your comments seem to speak to the level of detail.
 * It seems @ solid comments also address details plus - will look at related Nazi, Soviet, etc Bio pages for guidance.
 * And, if detail is the concern, there doesn't appear to be a need for an RfC - on detail. But, this is my first experience with the BLPN process.
 * No recent response from @ - have the editor's concerns been alleviated, or the issues resolved?
 * Is deleting text (from another editor btw) while the discussion is here... often done? Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Quick note @ about Bio's on Stalin and Goebbels: Both are full of RS's from academics who've specialized in the subjects posthumously.
 * BLP's on Bolsonaro and Putin aren't too dissimilar in levels of detail, and Putin does include text such as, 'During his administration', or, 'During Putin's admin', together with specific, 'he did', 'he said', info. Their page structure is much better in that definitive topics are grouped - not as in 'Career', but sections, via CON, that could better describe him (and might be entitled as 'Economic policies' and 'Educational reforms' and 'Cultural Cleansing' (with subsections 'Religious persecution' and 'Re-education camps' and 'Arrests and disappearances') and 'Immigration and Sinicization' and 'Employment policies', etc, as examples). While there are Beijing directives, Chen was selected for his demonstrated capabilities. Another option would be to add a 'Controversy' section, but it would be quite lengthy already with Tibet and Xinjiang. And, as of Jun2020 and more recently, the UN is increasingly gravely concerned with what is Chen's work products. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To work within the existing structure, recommended changes would be:
 * Replace 'Career' with 4 sections: 'Henan', 'Hebei', 'Tibet', 'Xinjiang'. (Could be a 'Henan & Hebei' section.)
 * Fold subsections under Tibet and Xinjiang sections, those named 'Counterterrorism and detention camps' and 'Economic development'
 * Subsection 'Counterterrorism' should be retitled (it's a minority/fringe description for current events in Tibet and Xinjiang), and subsections multiplied as needed, ie 'Religious persecution' and 'Deaths, disappearances and arrests' and 'Immigration'
 * Avoid too many details as mentioned, but include notable information. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you asked Is deleting text (from another editor btw) while the discussion is here... often done? about the edit I mentioned above. Deleting unsourced controversial BLP assertions can be done by anyone at any time. That information was added unsourced back in August, before you started editing the article. After you started editing, you added a source for the flyers bit, but the source didn't support the controversial assertions. I looked at it for a while, not wanting to remove while this discussion was live, but when a full RfC was floated I decided it should go. Any other editor is free to revert, but I'd recommend you find a very impartial source for assertions like Quanguo's preferred method of repression is to divide up agitated regions with a grid system and pit them against each other in the name of counter-terrorism and There have been suspicious incidents in Tibet, pointing towards Quanguo's silencing methods. Sourcing to advocacy groups isn't likely to be good enough. —valereee (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While returning to the discussion, here are a couple of RS supporting Subsection 'Counterterrorism' should be retitled (it's a minority/fringe description for current events in Tibet and Xinjiang), from the UN this month . For perspective on Chen's career in Tibet and Xinjiang . European Parliament at UN, its record on Tibet and Xinjiang . Also, European Parliament's Tibet Interest Group's letter , which was reestablished in JAN2020 fyi.
 * In regards to the deleted text, I believe the ref from AFP - not an advocacy group - met the criteria of the comment attached to . Also, the text's point seemed to be false flag ops by Chen, and the ref indicated access to a monastery was blocked - which may or may not have been the objective of the op. The ref was difficult to locate, but was added since no other editors had deleted the text. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , the AFP source was fine for the flyers; I couldn't get to it, but I didn't see anything in your note supporting Quanguo's preferred method of repression is to divide up agitated regions with a grid system and pit them against each other in the name of counter-terrorism or There have been suspicious incidents in Tibet, pointing towards Quanguo's silencing methods, which was why I removed the para the source seemed to be supporting. —valereee (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just so everyone understands, and as an aside to the discussion, the edit wasn't mine. Girth didn't specifically address the edit. I only provided missing refs in passing, months after another's edits. I edited afterwards, then RS and notable on-topic text about a wave of self-immolations during Chen's tenure that cited "cultural genocide" was reverted, then this topic resulted : detail vs COATRACK. It appears we might have moved beyond the COATRACK opinion. But, the ref, which is another topic, since the text belongs to another editor.
 * The ref answering the cn was to a specific statement, and not for the paragraph/statement above, as in There have been suspicious incidents in Tibet, pointing towards Quanguo's silencing methods like the blast at a government building in Tibet's Chamdo prefecture. ‘Free Tibet’ fliers were found at the scene. [the added ref] Tenzin Wangchuk, Agence France-Presse, (27 Octobre 2011),"The Tibetan news portal www.TibetExpress.net also reported the news, saying "Tibet's independence" had been daubed in red on the damaged walls of the office building and "Free Tibet" fliers had been found at the scene. "No one is accused or arrested in this connection so far but the entire road access leading to and from Chamdo had been completely cut off including closure of Karma monastery"[end of added ref][cn comment]:!-- the previous reference does not support the above statements: https://www.iol.co.za/news/world/state-building-bombed-in-tibet-1166469 Quango’s silencing methods)
 * It might seem confusing, but the tq text is all that the ref was addressing. Since more experienced editors didn't delete that statement, I simply tried to be helpful with the ref, while the cn appeared to be addressing the bomb, flyers, "suspicious incidents" and "silencing methods", understood as false flag ops. Maybe we can redirect our efforts to the topic:
 * I'd like to propose we agree to modify the Chen Quanguo 'Career' section into separate, more easily accessible sections as mentioned above.
 * I'm not sure if going through each edit and RS for comments is expected here, or necessary after the responses -please advise. If not, and since it seems as if returning to the page's talk with those stated concerns on detail and on voice would work, I'd also like to propose reediting from there with those ideas. Any thoughts and/or comments on these proposals? Pasdecomplot (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't necessarily have a problem with what you're proposing, provided the information in each section focusses more on Chen himself, and that excessive details about the regime in general be reserved for the relevant articles. We want an article that covers Chen and his direct involvement with this stuff, using sources that mention him by name. As CThomas suggested, using summary style to avoid overwhelming the article would be preferable - there's no problem having well-sourced information elsewhere and linking to it. I do have issues with some of the specific wording - as I said previously, 'swamped' is not a word I am comfortable with using in the context of ethnicities and immigrations - it must be possible to find better wording than that (or indeed to let the figures do the talking). Girth Summit  (blether)  12:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Glad we agree @ with the idea of making more sections for the information.
 * Regarding the economic section, Chen is credited with creating economic profits in Tibet. But, at the loss of Tibetans and countries downstream on the rivers' banks : the cited figures don't include upfront costs (reported confiscated land, reported forced labor camps) and later subsequent costs (reported dispossession, reported ecological damage). "Swamped" is a word from RS, used by other RS as well. Thus, it's a multiple RS word now, and the suggestion to reinterpret multiple RS isn't clear, since RS also indicate Mao began immigration policies that turn local majorities into minorities, and, as RS uses the term, into "2nd class citizens". What is indicated by RS, but stated with more words as in edits, is that ethnicity and immigration are used to create class hierarchies and are used as tools for cultural cleansing in Tibet (and elsewhere). I understand voice issues, but voice comes from RS. Flooded, saturated, other possibilities abound.
 * There's a sticking point with the request for all editing to be based on RS which specifically refers to Chen in the article - it does not follow BLP norms found on other pages, as previously noted. And, to require such would institute an unequal approach to Chen, which would effectively silence information from RS. So, it's a concern.
 * For additional shared familiarity with the subject, Chen's 2013 statement and his use of "we" makes the edits on-topic. Chen does not refer to Beijing, nor to a "regime" : "We have followed the law in striking out and relentlessly pounding at illegal organizations and key figures, and resolutely followed the law in striking at the illegal organizations and key figures who follow the 14th Dalai Lama clique in carrying out separatist, infiltration, and sabotage activities, knocking out the hidden dangers and soil for undermining Tibet’s stability, and effectively safeguarding the state’s utmost interests [and] society’s overall interests."[17] He himself takes the credit for "relentlessly pounding" and "striking" - via arbitrary arrests, disappearances, re-education programs and camps mentioned by RS. But, RS indicate Tibetan monks, nuns and laypeople which revere the Dalai Lama as a spiritual leader aren't illegal organizations, etc, but are treated as such and are relentlessly targeted for being monastics and/or protecting monastic institutions and their profound cultural heritage. So, the RS/text addresses Chen's statement, and the contributions really cannot be justifiably lumped into the category of "protests", especially when RS also use the Dalai Lama's statement on "cultural genocide", which RS indicates is a connecting, underlying and unavoidable topic in Chen's bio on Tibet. Furthermore, RS shows the UN, EU, US, and a majority of people either agree that it's cultural genocide, or condemn or express grave concern about China's persecution of buddhists and their spiritual leaders, and its human rights violations in Tibet, for which Chen is attributed in RS. All of which means the RS/text is on-topic and not about a regime.
 * No mention was made of excessive details about the regime in general. Details about the police stations are mentioned, in response to edits of Chen's focus on "policing" and mention of the "convenience police stations": I agree that noting their height and materials is detailed, but together the information describes what sounds like 150+ battle bunkers spread throughout the capital city, attributed directly to Chen. This is the reason for inclusion, leaving the interpretation to our readers; likewise for the mention of the distance of 15 meters/45 feet between two separate police stations in Lhasa. These stations are also a component of Chen's (attributed) grid policing surveillance system, which needs RS.
 * RS states the self-immolations are a very touchy topic for China. There are 156 self-immolations per RS's citing ICT, which counted 2009-02Dec2019. For use here only: of those, 140 occurred during Chen's tenure, but I haven't found RS which states that specific number and can't include the fact since it would be OR (you can count the ICT Fact Sheet yourself to verify). But, it's only shared here (OR allowed on talk and I'm assuming on BLPN) so as to further understand the BLP subject. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Since there are no further comments, it appears that this topic is at a standstill, and that the points made just previously are not disputed. Thus, unless pinged otherwise, the agreed edits will adhere to BLP standards found on other pages; the career section will be expanded as agreed; and RS's addressing Tibet during Chen's tenure are usable, with a lead such as "During Chen's tenure..." when necessary. Other in-line citations might also be necessary for RS statements that cause voice concerns. Thanks to all. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Tnuza Jamal Hassan
Tnuza Jamal Hassan, a former student at St Catherine University, who had become radicalized, and identified with jihadist groups, set a series of fires on the University's campus, in January 2018. She pled guilty to Federal terrorism charges in August 2020.

At Articles for deletion/Tnuza Jamal Hassan several contributors, including, voiced the opinion that Ms Hassan's attempts to burn down the campus of St Catherine University were little more than a campus prank. I think that these contributors are ignoring her intention - as deadly as that of Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 when he shot up Fort Bragg. The reason why her attack didn't have a more serious effect was due to incompetence.

Ms Hassan spent considerable time undergoing a psychological examination. When she was determined to be fit for trial, she was charged with Federal terrorism crimes. She pled guilty in August. 's delete opinion was based in part on her not yet being convicted. Well, she is convicted now.

voiced BLP1E. I think the BLP1E assertion was questionable, because (1) she first fell under FBI scrutiny a year earlier. She had drafted a letter urging others to travel jihadi territory and enlist in a jihadi cause. Her room-mates gave the letter to campus security, who forwarded it to the FBI. (2) She fell under FBI scrutiny a second time when she tried to travel to Afghanistan, to find a jihadist to marry. She made it as far as the UAE, and was deported back to the USA. I think those were separate events.

Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. A vandal who has since been indefinitely blocked suggested "appears to me to be having some form of breakdown". Spending a year in mental health institutions prior to having her court appointed psychologist certify she was then fit to stand trial would seem to confirm that.

Should her mental health issues, if she has any, matter in determining whether and how she should be covered?

I am going to ping individuals who voiced keep decisions too  Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , this post is itself a BLP violation and I suggest you would like to remove it yourself before some-one requests revdel. Mental health allegations and radicalization allegations require supported from impeccable RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Some substantiating references hidden in a box immediatel below. Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)




 * From news articles I've read, it seems that she was found competent to face trial in the federal case and pleaded guilty to attempting to aid al'Qaida . She also faced state charges for arson, but the judge in that case found her incompetent to stand for trial . The guilty plea means that the federal case against her is basically over; there's going to be a sentencing hearing but it's incredibly unlikely that she'll face any other federal charges. I don't know much about what would happen in the state case now, but I would think it's very unlikely to go anywhere at this point, since she's been determined incompetent and she's also probably going to federal prison. I don't think there would be any BLP issues in discussing this in on a talk page, the cases have been discussed in reliable sources. Plus she herself pleaded guilty to attempting to assist al'Qaida, admitted to setting the fires in the arson case, and has been determined by a court to be mentally incompetent to face trial. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think a standalone article on her is appropriate here. Not enough coverage of her in particular. You should consider creating an article at St. Catherine's University Arson Attack as was suggested in the AfD and cover the event in detail there, perhaps with a section on the perpetrator. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 02:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , how many references do you think are required? Geo Swan (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not possible to give a firm number on how many sources are required. WP:GNG is qualitative and not quantitative and sources that cover a subject in detail or secondary sources are obviously weighted more heavily than ones that aren't either of the two. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 03:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so, what is your assertion that there is "not enough coverage of her in particular", based on?   Geo Swan (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I placed a google news alert of Ms Hassan back in early 2018. Since then the google news alert engine sent me 27 emails with links to articles updating her story.  None of the articles google news advised me mentions her in passing.  They were all about her, specifically.
 * I draw your attention to this snopes piece, debunking a misleading social media meme about Ms Hassan A Muslim student set fire to a Christian school in protest of U.S. President Donald Trump. The false meme circulating about Ms Hassan showed her face next to a large four-storeyed mansard-roofed building, firmly ablaze, and said her arson was to "protest Trump".
 * Facebook, twitter, and other social media giants face considerable criticism over the power they give to Russian puppetmasters and kooks to harness memes and false narratives. One of the solutions offered has been for Facebook, Twitter, et al, to counter the misinformation with reliable information from more reliable sites.  Yes, snopes is one of the reliable sites mentioned.  But the first site suggested as the neutral reliable source to counter hysterical falsehoods has always been the wikipedia.
 * Except, in this particular case, the wikipedia was no help at countering the false narrative, because we chose to delete the article about Ms Hassan.
 * Chess, it is not my intention to shame you over this. In recent years I have become aware of something I find extremely alarming.  Even the most experienced wikipedia contributors here often prove completely incapable of competently performing a WP:BEFORE review.  So, if your web search fell short you are in good company.  I am working on an essay on this concern When complying with BEFORE is not straighforward
 * Now here, you have asserted there was "Not enough coverage of her...", when it seems to me there is lots of coverage of her. I think that leaves two possibilities:
 * You found all the same RS I did, but you have a valid policy-based reason to discount all those RS that never occurred to me. If that is the case I really need you to share that valid policy-based reason to discount with me.  If you have a valid policy-based reason to discount the RS I found, I need you to share that with me, so I don't assemble the same kind of RS on other topics, if your analysis shows they aren't valid, after all.
 * Maybe you didn't do as thorough a job in your web search on Ms Hassan as you thought, and you didn't find the RS I found.
 * So, I am still very interested in your answer to my question about the basis of your assertion there is "Not enough coverage of her..." Geo Swan (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's notability policy at WP:BIO1E generally puts a rather high bar for notability for people only covered in relation to a certain event. This is reflected strongly in WP:CRIMINAL which states that "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." This would likely mean that the best place for the information about Ms. Hassan would be in an article on her attacks, not an article on herself.
 * That being said, it's entirely possible I'm wrong on her notability and there's nothing I can do that'll prevent you from going ahead and creating an article on Hassan with all the sources you've provided. You're allowed to do so and the people in the AfD discussion have said it's entirely possible Hassan will be notable in the future. That being said, I don't think there's a very strong chance an article on her will survive a second AfD nomination (it'll be moved to a page on the attack specifically of which there isn't one yet) but you're welcome to go ahead and create an article on her anyways. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 16:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

John Dickson Stufflebeem (crosspost)
There have been some interesting developments at John Dickson Stufflebeem wanted to get some more eyes on the page please. Specific discussion about the "issues" are at. Your input there would be appreciated, at the very least to double-check that I haven't missed anything terribly obvious (and if I have, to correct it). Thanks. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Wendy Carlos
An Rfc concerning the article Wendy Carlos is under discussion at Talk:Wendy Carlos. Your feedback would be appreciated.  Glee anon 21:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Is being right-wing a BLP vio?
See discussion at Talk:Amendment_to_the_Act_on_the_Institute_of_National_Remembrance Another user is arguing that calling a historian right-wing based on a reliable source, is a BLP vio. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No but i'm not sure it's needed there either. The OKO.press source does camp call him right-wing, but the source itself seems to have a strong political slant.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I replied there (I am the "another user" who objected to this description) but I will also reply here, because I think it is an important issue overall that goes beyond this particular diff/subject.
 * First, I am not sure how reliable is OKO.press. At the very least, it is pretty niche (a new Polish news portal launched in 2016). It seems to be about as reliable as the PiS-associated (and right-wing-ish) media like NaTemat and so on that it is in clear opposition too. Given that the portal is rather anti-right wing and as such not very neutral, I wouldn't use it for adjectives like right-wing, just like I wouldn't treat NaTemat and like as reliable or neutral if they'd describe someone as left-wing etc. (I will note that the author, pl:Adam Leszczyński, is reliable, but I don't see why is he more reliable than Piotr Gontarczyk. One professor described another as right wing, this at the very least should be clearly attributed. And what if Gontarczyk describes Leszczyński as 'left-wing'? :) ).
 * Second, this is cherry-picking - given that the subject's article doesn't describe him as a right-wing, I don't think he is described as such. Some people certainly are cleary right or left wing, and we can say so if the majority of the sources usually mention this when discussing the subject. In this case, I do not see this - a few sources do describe him as such, but this seems to be not a very common description of him; in other words, he is not universally seen as a 'right-winger'. It is not his defining quality and should not be used in a passing attribution or mention of him.
 * Third, terms like right or left wing can be seen as pejorative in some contexts and yes, per BLP we have to be careful with such descriptors. See for example Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_82, and I'll quote User:Blueboar, who's closing comment said: "In a BLP, it is fine to note who says what about the subject... we can say that “X considers Y to be a LABEL” (assuming X is noteworthy enough for their opinion to be included in the first place). What we should NOT do is present the label as fact, in WP’s voice (as in “Y is a LABEL”). ALL labels should be attributed (in text) to those that use them". I think this is best practice. In the article about the subject we could add an attributed source saying that "such and such in an oko.press article described him as right-wing". But here it is an undue, non-neutral and pejorative adjective that can prejudice some readers against the subject. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Diffs would have been extremely helpful here. I looked at Talk:Amendment_to_the_Act_on_the_Institute_of_National_Remembrance...  I don't see any diffs there either.


 * When I started working on the wikipedia, 15 years ago, there was an excellent guideline that used Adolf Hitler as an example, when explaining the importance of proper attribution in maintaining the neutral point of view. I am going to paraphrase my memory of that excellent advise, and probably not do it justice.


 * The advice recommended that, even with a guy as notorious for evil as Hitler, our articles shouldn't baldly state, in the wikipedia's voice, "Hitler was evil". Rather it recommended something like (again paraphrasing from memory)  "According to Hannah Arendt, author of The banality of evil, Hitler was evil, because..."


 * So, in this particular case, even if everyone working on that article thinks the Institute is "right wing", the article should only describe the Institute as "right wing" when attributing that opinion to one or more RS.
 * I repeat my request that, in discussions like this, please use diff, so the third parties you ask for advice don't have to examine the article's revision history for themselves to figure out what the argument is really about. Geo Swan (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a BLP issue because it's a contentious label. Contentious does not mean bad; Wiktionary defines contentious as "marked by heated arguments or controversy." Saying that calling someone "right-wing" is a BLP issue is not making a value judgement over the whether or not being "right-wing" is bad; it's saying that such labels are controversial. It's like if I wrote on John Doe's Wikipedia page that he's a homosexual. Being a homosexual is not bad, but it is a very contentious label. It's the same sort of idea here. Despite WP:BLP usually being applied to negative contentious information, there are many sitautions where BLP applies to neutral and even positive contentious information. In my opinion political affiliation is one of them. Calling someone "right-wing" or "left-wing" is contentious and needs to be supported by a reliable source.
 * In this case, I don't know enough about OKO.press to say whether or not it's a reliable source, but it's not as clear-cut as you might claim. Additionally, even if it is a reliable source, if the article being used to support the claim that this person is a right-wing historian is an opinion piece (likely is) that is something that needs to be attributed. e.g. Doe from OKO.press characterized him as a right wing historian. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 19:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * There is usually no BLP violation in calling someone right-wing if that term is used in reliable sources to describe them. If there were, then presumably the reliable sources would not have used the description.
 * In this case the term is used to describe an historian who has expressed an opinion. Using the description right-wing implies that they are expressing a right-wing interpretation as opposed to a consensus view.

TFD (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Diffs needed and sourcing to get an accurate answer. It can be, if the statement is not accurately sourced, to a reliable source for controversial BLP claims. Further, there's a big difference between a person being right-wing, and sources describing one of their views as right-wing. It may well be a BLP vio depending on the sourcing and context. Again, can't really give anything more than a generic answer without diffs and sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Greg Simon article. The BLP subject has an issue with the article.
Minutes ago, when using WP:Huggle, I saw significant unsoured changes to the Greg Simon article and reverted. The person I reverted claims to be Greg Simon.

Eyes are needed on this matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I tend to try to give people the benefit of the doubt when they come claiming to be the subject. Of course, they may not be, so I don't take them at their word for it, but in many cases they do come here with valid concerns, regardless of who they really are.


 * In this case, I do think the editor in question may have some. Of course, their way of going about fixing it was all wrong, and replacing everything with a quick resume didn't help matters, but what I quickly noticed is just how many sources do not even mention his name even once. In fact, the entire second-half of the article, sources 10--21 do not even mention his name, save source 11, which (I don't know why that's there) is a primary source that only mentions his name and position in the company.


 * The first half doesn't look too bad, for a newly created article, but that second half of the Career section smacks of synthesis (even if unintentional synth). I don't know that any of those sources, or the info they support, are relevant to this subject, and what he said in his edit summary may just be correct. I would highly recommend removing all of that stuff as unverifiable and possibly irrelevant ... at least, until sources can be found that actually name him and somehow demonstrate how he's tied to these events. Zaereth (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and deleted anything that wasn't about the subject. The rest seems fairly well sourced. Zaereth (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for handling this, Zaereth. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Justin Bieber having Lyme disease
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Justin Bieber. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Rod Dreher

 * Added Adakiko (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately we seem to have an edit war going with this page. In 2020 America charges are racism and fascism are loaded words and should be use with restraint in biographies of living persons Other editors are continually reverting this contribution:

In May of 2017, the New Yorker wrote “Because Dreher is at once spiritually and intellectually restless, his blog has become a destination for the ideologically bi-curious.” Seki1949 (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What is special about this quote that would satisfy WP:UNDUE? Have independent reliable sources noted this quote? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It would appear to be you who is edit warring. Please avoid adding a wall-of-text to the talk page? As requested several times on your talk page and talk:Rod Dreher, get consensus before restoring this content. Adakiko (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I request discussion on the edit page and none occurs. How am I to get consensus when the other editors (two, I believe) refuse to discuss the issues? I understand your point about the wall-of-text; I am just trying to be polite. I believe the previous sentence on alleged racism is WP:UNDUE.  There is a large section in the main body that discusses that. My quote from the same article used in a previous citation is for balance. If my quote is not allowed to stand, then I believe that the previous sentence should not be allowed to stand under WP:UNDUE. The issue can be discussed in a later section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seki1949 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your insistence that a vague, context-free, and highly flattering quote you chose be included in the lead sure seems like an ultimatum. Grayfell (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

A quick note on this discussion. WP:UNDUE states that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." MOS:LEDE states that "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." The reason for the significant number of citations in the article, which Seki1949 questions, is precisely to demonstrate the prominence of the topic of Dreher's views on race in reliable, published sources, and therefore to demonstrate both the dueness of the significant coverage of this topic in the article and its inclusion in the lede. Robert12345678901 (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Kristy Holtfreter
Please delete this page. It was created without my permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splishsplashsplosh (talk • contribs) 16:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't require your permission to create an article about you I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * True, but we do require reliable, secondary sources. In this article, I see only primary sources. Now I'm not familiar with the notability requirements as they specifically relate to academics, but it does seem to me we should need more than university profiles and inside newsletters for that.


 * My suggestion for you is to take this to WP:Articles for deletion. Follow the instructions on the page, and explain exactly why the article should be deleted. You can reference this discussion if you like. Policy gives a little extra boost in the case of relatively unknown people where the subject themselves requests deletion. Zaereth (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Notability (academics), Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details.. I deemed her notable per Google Scholar and being the Editor-In-Chief of a major journal. I am willing to go through AfD. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Like I say, I'm not familiar with the specifics of notability in academia. That's a problem for another board. I know that such primary sources are fine for confirming certain kinds of information, but are they good enough for conferring notability? I saw no independent sources listed in the article, but maybe I missed something. Anyhow, not a discussion for this board.


 * Although I have no way of confirming the true identity of the original poster, merely for the purposes of making this discussion easier, I will just assume that she is who she says. In this case, she still has the option to formally request deletion, so I thought she should be aware of that. Maybe it works and maybe it doesn't, but that's the proper place to decide this issue. Zaereth (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A quick Google Scholar search here shows ample coverage suggesting WP:GNG is easily met so it’s unlikely the article will be deleted even if presently poorly sourced.  Glee anon 21:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about that. The subject's notability is not that overwhelming here. If it is confirmed at OTRS that it is the subject of the article who is requesting deletion, and if she provides a convincing explanation why she wants the article deleted, it seems possible to me that the AfD participants could be persuaded by that. Nsk92 (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kristy Holtfreter --Rob (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a way a user can confirm their true identity on Wikipedia? If so, it would be nice to tell the user here and/or on their talk page.  At the moment, the only information given to  are "vandalism" warnings, which I think is an unfortunate response, to what should be assumed to be a good faith request (whether it can be fulfilled, or not). --Rob (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Refer them to WP:OTRS.  Glee anon 04:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Avery Bradley


A number of editors are trying to attribute the 2020 NBA Championship to the subject, but there's no reputable source that confirms this.

Is he actually considered a champion? I don't believe this to be the case since he was not part of the roster at when the Lakers won the championship (he opted out of the season).

I brought up these points here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avery_Bradley#No_2020_Championship, but my attempt at discussion has been ignored.

The most recent editor added a comment to his revision: "Stop deleting his NBA Championship as an accomplishment. He is still an active member of the roster and will get a ring as well." 1. "active member of the roster" according to whom? How is it possible that is he was active if his roster spot was filled by someone else? 2. "will get a ring" this is not equivalent to a championship as discussed on the talk page.

Specifically, Basketball Reference is arguably the foremost source for stats/awards information (and literally linked to on the awards section of the article). They do not consider Bradley a champion and do not award it to him on their end.

The page was semi-protected in an attempt to mitigate this, but editors are still adding this unsourced claim without addressing the above comments.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:641:381:7810:A913:1A5F:185:EB53 (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In most team sports, a person is considered a champion of that season if they were on the team's roster for some significant period but details should be hashed out at the talk page, which is where this is most appropriate. Since such discussion is already taking place, there really isn't anything to do here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Marcus M. Key
Need help or instructions regarding removal of living person restrictions. https://www.curriefuneralhome.net/memorials/Key-+Dr.+Marcus/4378481/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geneolo (talk • contribs) 17:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , BLP restrictions do not expire the second the person does, see WP:BDP: . The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. There is no explicit removal process. After some time period, the details of which are usually discussed at the appropriate talkpage, they simply self-expire. Even after that time, the Core Content Policies still apply. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Martine Barrat
"Two competing versions" within the article's talk page explains all, I think. With hindsight, I might have found some way of reducing the brusqueness of my description of what I'd reverted from. Still, I'm sure that the shorter, older version is superior to the longer, newer one. Tell me that I'm wrong (or even that I'm right) -- but perhaps on the article's talk page rather than here. Hoary (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse material in the Matis Weinberg article
Thoughts are needed on including this material. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking in the article's edit history, I apparently brought this matter to this noticeboard before. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, this is the previous BLP discussion: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive199. Cullen328 and Nomoskedasticity weighed in. Right now, the article is up for AfD. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sexuality of Cavetown (musician)
Question about this section: Cavetown (musician)

Does the material about their sexuality meet the requirements of WP:WEIGHT? I am not able to find any mainstream sources that discuss it, just publications like Gay News and Pink News that pretty much exist for the purpose of labeling people as gay or as homophobic. Are there any mainstream sources that talk about Cavetown's sexual identity or sexual preferences?

I found where they self identified as being transgender here: (you have to watch nine two minute videos) It was in the context of saying that certain posts had been racist an antisemetic but denying that their comments were transphobic. It appears that gaytimes.co.uk decided to turn a claim that they had not been transphobic into apologizing for being transphobic.

Full disclosure: I am biased on this topic. I was heavily involved in the political campaign to defeat 2008 California Proposition 8. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I call WP:UNDUE on the entire "personal life" section. Leave this to the gossip sites. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Both coming out as non-heterosexual, and as transgender, are fairly big deals. Characterizing then as merely gossip is unhelpful. I’ll see if this is reliable sourced.  Glee anon 20:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Cavetown (musician)‎ and Administrators' noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * {sigh}, your second link is incredibly misleading trying to connect two completely separate issues where none exists. That is patently false. From their edits it looks like the only thing Re1ny.Dev tried to add was “transphobic” which is not in the proposal at all, and never was.  Glee anon 04:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Les Otten
The page was apparently maliciously edited yesterday to include the phrase "because he is a shill." This, after Les Otten announced that he was voting for Biden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.46.19.58 (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The "shill" comment has already been removed from Les Otten by another IP editor. Iffy★Chat -- 12:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Kali Muscle
The abstract and "early years" sections of this article contain no sources and are written in unprofessional language.

For example " He managed to turn his life around from the past he had. He's now on a mission of sorts to talk to young people about his time in prison and the lesson he has learned about violence and crime." What is meant by a "mission of sorts"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndhefele (talk • contribs) 14:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is pretty rubbish as it stands. I'm not at all convinced he's notable enough for an article so I seriously wonder whether the best approach might be to nominate this article for deletion. The sourcing is pretty light and includes some definitely non-reliable ones like IMDB. Neiltonks (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Nadia Oleszczuk
Nie ency. Osoba bez wykształcena i osiągnięć — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.11.225.41 (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the English language encyclopedia. Please try to communicate in English, if it is at all possible.  I ran your request through Google translate and you apparently believe that Nadia Oleszczuk does not "deserve" an article based on education and attainment.  That is not the standard we use, notability is.  If a person is covered in significant detail by independent, reliable sources, they are considered notable for inclusion.  I hope that helps. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 19:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Peter William Humphrey
Neutrality is disputed. Content is libelous. Sources are unreliable: Chinese state-sponsored.

There seems to be an edit war going on with this - numerous attempts to amend the article had been reverted. Given that the article in its current form amounts to slander, I am hoping it is possible to have it deleted completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.55.247 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BATHWATER You will need to point out what parts need to be addressed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

There are numerous problems, perhaps most obvious of which is the complete absence of the widely accredited allegations of Mr Humphrey's confessions having been obtained by force, both for public broadcast and for the courts. In fact, his activism on the subject may well lead to CGCN losing their license in the UK as Ofcom considers what penalties to impose on the broadcaster. It also fails to mention that all of the allegations against him are widely considered by experts to have been falsified by the Chinese government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.55.247 (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You will need to provide links to reliable sources like newspapers or the BBC reporting on these expert analyses that the Chinese government falsified these allegations so that they can properly be included in the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I assume these should be provided here given they will almost certainly be swiftly rolled back in the article itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.55.247 (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You can if you like. We'd be happy to take a look to see if they conform to policy. As long as everything does there should be no reason to remove it from the article. Please take some time to review WP:Reliable sources and the WP:BLP policy first, to save everyone some time. Oh, and please sign your comments, so people will know who is saying what. It's easy. Just type four tildes (that little squiggly mark at the top, lefthand corner of your keyboard) like so ~ . That will automatically sign it for you. Thanks. Zaereth (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

A subject's sexual orientation being relevant to their public life
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Daniel S. Loeb
Editor attention needed at Daniel S. Loeb where an editor has reinstated article text about an incident that may be UNDUE and a BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury
Not a notable personality. Recent edits intended to promote and give undue weight. Some references mostly self-promotions. I do think that this meets ANYBIO.--Debabratapaul (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:ANYBIO is simply a list that says "if the person meets this standards then they are almost definitely notable". The general criteria for a living person is WP:BASIC. Based on those criteria, I would say that Chowdhury is notable even if a quack doctor (see WP:FRINGE) - the requirement is that there are reliable sources talking about him, which there are (for example, and  which are in large part about him), not that he's a reputable person. The article about him should be mainly about those criticisms, which it currently is. 's edits do seem to be disruptive however, and those should be kept off of the page.
 * The article might be appropriate for an WP:AfD discussion however. Gbear605 (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Points taken. Thanks. Deletion request was made mainly because the page has been subject to vandalism particularly by who has been making wholesale changes and adding contents  that the poorly sourced, highly biased and mainly aimed to promote the subject with unambiguous advertising and withheld the correct information. Admin review requested to protect the page.Debabratapaul (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Kodiyeri Balakrishnan
Hello! I am confused by seeing multiple styles and need clarification. In this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._A._Haris#Controversies, the controversy related to the son of the politician was listed with citations. However, here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kodiyeri_Balakrishnan&diff=986680541&oldid=986622119 the controversy section is being completely deleted. What is the correct style? Thanks Vikram Vincent 11:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , in that case, the section under N. A. Haris should be removed as well. WP:BLPCRIME is pretty clear about this, none of the accused in the case of Kodigeri Balakrishnan are public figures themselves and should not be named or identified, there are always implications of accusations. Moreover it would violate WP:NPOV to add allegations against relatives in the biographies of people just on the virtue of them being relatives. It should not be added unless an explicit connection between the accusation or case and the subject of the article is made by secondary sources. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 13:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that section to me. I did read it a few times and this is my doubt: the son of the notable person is not notable but by the very fact that there are numerous publicly available news reports would in itself now make them notable. It may not merit a separate article though.  Having said that, the section WP:BLPCRIME says "editors must seriously consider not including material".  The word "consider" does not mean "don't do it".  Therein lies the issue. Another popular public figure in the news is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y._S._Jaganmohan_Reddy#2012_disproportionate_assets_case with a lot of allegation against him which would amount to "controversies" and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Swamy who became notable because of his arrest.  Vikram Vincent  13:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , that doesn't mean that everything that crops up in the media needs to be included. I did a quick search and you are right that there is a lot of recent media reporting around one of his sons at least, the drug case might merit inclusion because he and his party have apparently taken a stance on it. But I would still be against including it before the rest of his article has been developed at least otherwise it gives undue weightage to a certain aspect which at best is only indirectly associated with him. WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE might be relevant here.
 * On the other hand, Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy himself is a public figure now and the subject of the case (although the section certainly needs citations), while as you say Stan Swamy's arrest and the surrounding context makes him notable so these are not equivalent comparisons. From what I've seen at least, WP:BLPCRIME is usually adhered to unless there is an exceptional circumstances like in the case with Stan Swamy. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * so we come back to the first question I raised of "What is the correct style?", in the absence of a rule rather than a guidance. Vikram Vincent  14:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest that in light that you yourself have highlighted the ambiguity it might be better to restore the controversy section in Kodiyeri Balakrishnan. We can discuss about the ambiguity of WP:BLPCRIME in its own page, which is the source of the confusion. Thanks! Vikram Vincent  14:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion on the ambiguity of WP:BLPCRIME here. I hope it is the correct place.  Vikram Vincent  14:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I personally don't think WP:BLPCRIME is ambigious, although I do think that the wording could be improved. There is enough context under the WP:BLP policy to determine how and when it is applicable. For instance, for this case it explicitly states the following, "beware of claims that rely on guilt by association"
 * By the way, you did not address any of the points I brought about with regards to neutrality. So, no we should not restore contentious material to a BLP article because a section under the policy may be ambigious, as it goes against the spirit of the policy itself. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 15:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The first noted section, under N._A._Haris, should be removed too. Explicitly, notability is not inherited, so the relative of a notable person should not be considered to be notable. Thus just because there are many news reports about that relative, doesn't mean we should document them. BLPCRIME would absolutely apply there. Further, there are types of crimes that we simply don't document - speeding tickets, disrupting the public, etc. - stuff that may come with fines and short jail times (as the crime in Haris' page); that some papers document that heavily, we ignore that. It may be the case that a person who IS a public figure becomes known for routinely getting into such small demeanors, and that we would document in summary (not the individual crimes). I have removed the section from Haris' article as a BLP violation. --M asem (t) 15:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if deleting a whole section is substantiated by you claims of it lacking neutrality. In my opinion, the controversy section in Kodiyeri Balakrishnan was neutral and you could have just added the neutrality aspect rather than deleting the entire section. Considering the number of pages that conflict with each other in terms of WP:BLPCRIME and not related to only the few articles quoted, I think the problem arises there. Vikram Vincent  16:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think you got my point, the entirity of the section itself was a neutrality violation even if we forgot about BLP. Everything that is reported in the media need not be included in an article. I do know that there are problems with a lot of articles but that doesn't mean there is carte blanche for ignoring policies, in fact it's the opposite.
 * Regarding other articles, the violation on N. A. Haris has been removed. I can certainly see issues with the presentation of the case in the Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy article. If you know of other articles which might have BLP violations, I would recommend making a new section here and listing the articles, and also linking the section to the noticeboard for India-related topics. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 16:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think you got my point, the entirity of the section itself was a neutrality violation even if we forgot about BLP. Everything that is reported in the media need not be included in an article. I do know that there are problems with a lot of articles but that doesn't mean there is carte blanche for ignoring policies, in fact it's the opposite.
 * Regarding other articles, the violation on N. A. Haris has been removed. I can certainly see issues with the presentation of the case in the Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy article. If you know of other articles which might have BLP violations, I would recommend making a new section here and listing the articles, and also linking the section to the noticeboard for India-related topics. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 16:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding other articles, the violation on N. A. Haris has been removed. I can certainly see issues with the presentation of the case in the Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy article. If you know of other articles which might have BLP violations, I would recommend making a new section here and listing the articles, and also linking the section to the noticeboard for India-related topics. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 16:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

How do we get more feedback on a discussion? Vikram Vincent 13:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Rebecca Goldstein
Please WP:REVDEL the serious BLP violations shown by the this diff. NedFausa (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is not the right place to request it. WP:REVDELREQUEST shows how to. However, I went ahead and requested it and it has been done. Gbear605 (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are 65 administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. How would I choose which one to approach? NedFausa (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You would go through the list of administrators and find one that has had recent edits. However, I followed the IRC instructions (copied below), which was simpler but should not be used for all requests. For a less sensitive request than this one, you could also have posted on the administrators' noticeboard incidents page.
 * You can also request revision deletion on IRC using . Only use this for requests that are urgent and should not be handled publicly (RD2, RD3, and RD4). In this channel, only administrators will be able to see your request.
 * Gbear605 (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Going through a list of 65 admins to find one that has had recent edits is a daunting process. If this is the best system Wikipedia can come up with, it doesn't say much for the project. NedFausa (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * what I do,, is open Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests and the recently active admins list. I go down the active list until I find a match with an admin in that category, then send them email. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Going through a list of 65 admins to find one that has had recent edits is a daunting process. If this is the best system Wikipedia can come up with, it doesn't say much for the project. NedFausa (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * what I do,, is open Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests and the recently active admins list. I go down the active list until I find a match with an admin in that category, then send them email. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Steve Pieczenik
You said: Pieczenik educational history has been disputed by journalists, who claim that he falsely inflated or misled his credentials.[6] I say: 1. the reference #6 does not dispute his educational history, nor is by journalists. 2. Educational history can be verified. 3. Throughout the bio you state "He claimed" which does not appear on other bios on your site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.30.44 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Nagma
Alleged underworld ties? Initially I restored the section, thinking the deletion was a whitewash. But the story is fifteen years old, and I'm not finding anything online to update the allegations. Without further confirmation, this looks like a WP:BLP violation. More eyes welcome. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Allen Tannenbaum
Our article Allen Tannenbaum has a "controversies" section with a published news source alleging financial improprieties. Someone claiming to be Tannenbaum has been repeatedly removing the section, claiming on the basis of supposed personal knowledge that an investigation cleared Tannenbaum of any wrongdoing (but see WP:MANDY). Should this section remain in the article? Can its resolution be documented by reliable sources? Or can we treat it as a criminal accusation (which it isn't, really) and remove it on the basis that it's only an accusation and not a conviction? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Or now "had" a controversies section after its removal for the fourth time in quick succession. See the article history for what it contained. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There were two news stories about this controversy at the time in the local news media . (The history log version of the article only cited one of them). There doesn't seem to be anything else. The two professors resigned, they repaid Georgia Tech some amount (at least 80K, based on what the source says), and that appears to have been the end of it. I think this justifies having some information about the episode in the article, either as a section, or as a paragraph in the main body of the article. If some editor(s) insist on edit warring and simply removing the section that was there, the controversy info probably needs to be restored and the article protected, until the matter can be resolved. Nsk92 (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

N. K. Jemisin


I would like community guidance concerning this edit by, made with the edit summary "Replaced infobox picture with much better picture." It seems to me this proposed image was not just mistaken but abusive. I would appreciate community feedback on this.

After reverting the change, I used the Talk page to point to MOS:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works."

Daveburstein replied "The current picture is awful. I will look for something less dramatic but still livelier." I feel that an editor with such poor judgment should not be changing the image of this biography. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that Daveburstein's reply began with "Apologies. I've done a lot of editing but never before an infobox picture and didn't know that requirement." and ended with "But I see the rules do not support irreverence." Which to me indicates that they recognize how their suggested photo doesn't comply with MOS:LEADIMAGE. As they're not trying to argue their photo in to the article but accepting that it's inappropriate by wp-standards that they weren't aware of, I don't think there's anything more that needs to be done unless their future edits show that they did not learn from this.  Schazjmd   (talk)  15:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Using the image may also be a copyvio and has been nominated for deletion at the Commons Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * From an entire YouTube video showing Jemisin receiving an important award, selected an image and declared it his own work, going to considerable trouble to replace the lead image of an article about a notable Black woman with an image to make her look ridiculous. I do not agree with  that this is an innocent misunderstanding of MOS:LEADIMAGE, and I request a topic ban for Daveburstein to prevent future disruption of this article. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. They are a relatively inexperienced editor; they did not dispute your removal of their image or argue about it; they accepted your warning, read the related guidance, agreed that the photo was inappropriate, and apologized. Let it go. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Randy Love
HELP!!!!!RANDY LOVE NFL (WRONG PICTURE ON ARTICLE; PICTURE IS OF A DECEASED RANDY LOVE (7-17-2016)

PLEASE REMOVE THE PICTURE OF DECEASED RANDY LESLIE LOVE.

72.191.253.84 (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Our article does not have a picture. You probably saw this on google or some other search engine. They try to make google "smart", so it can anticipate your wishes, but doing that actually makes it stupid and less versatile. In cases like this, where there is no picture on Wikipedia, google just searches for any picture that even remotely matches your search parameters. We can't do anything about it, because we have no control over what google does, so you'd have to take this up with them. Zaereth (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Randy Love (Picture of deceased fireman Randy Love shows on page for NFL Player Randy Love)

Please remove the deceased Fireman Randy Love)2603:8080:B20C:1500:894D:EFD4:AB4F:8FFB (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no photo in the Wikipedia article for Randy Love. Apparently you're talking about what's displayed in the Google search results for Randy Love. That's automatically generated by Google, and Wikipedia has no control over it. -  DoubleCross  ( ‡ ) 18:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I say give them one more strike, and if they don't listen to the answer next time, start deleting these posts on sight. [message unsigned]


 * I sent a message to google to let them know they fucked it up. With that we've gone above and beyond wikipedia's responsibility in this matter. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Sérgio Nascimento de Camargo
This biography of a right-wing Brazilian journalist and politician seems to have been written with defamatory intent. I've removed some sections from the article which were clearly editorializing and need to be completely rewritten. Much negative information remains, and although it appears to be reliably sourced, the sources are all in Portuguese and I'm not confident relying on machine translation for this sort of material. Can an editor (preferably someone who can read Portuguese) please have a look? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Russell M. Nelson
Editor User:Epachamo continues to ignore consensus and attempt to place libelous and defamatory content into the bio for Russell Nelson. The disputed content is a dismissed lawsuit which accused Nelson of participating in Satanic rituals, devil worship, and alleged that Nelson also covered up child sexual abuse which supposedly occurred during these satanic rituals. The lawsuit was dismissed by a Court without issuing any factual findings that Nelson participated or was guilty of any of these allegations. Nelson was also not listed as a defendant in the lawsuit, the lawsuit was directed to one of his children. The Court found there was no evidence whatsoever that Nelson or his children participated in these events. The statements in the lawsuit were found to be materially false statements, and as such quoting them in an article appear to be defacto libel as they are false statements which damage Nelson's reputation and are therefore barred under Libel, WP:BLP, and WP:UNDUE. Nelson is the President of the LDS Church and there exists a standing policy not to include insignificant lawsuits in articles related to church leaders unless the lawsuits are in some way notable. In this situation, we have a dismissed lawsuit which mentioned Nelson in some of the pleadings but which did not implicate him in any meaningful way. User:Epachamo continues to ignore consensus of other editors on the talk page. The current discussion is at Talk:Russell_M._Nelson. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Nelson who the article is on is not a subject of the lawsuit. To the extend the law suit alleged any involvement by Nelson they deliberately lied and contacted the clear record of the actual investigation of the false accusations, which was carried out by the police and other authorities with no outside intervention. the law suit was malicious and false on its face.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Consensus has NOT been established. I am NOT in favor of putting libelous or defamatory content into the bio for Russell M. Nelson. There is NOT a "standing policy not to include insignificant lawsuits in articles related to church leaders". Whether the lawsuit was dismissed and why are not in question.  The content is well documented, receiving sustained coverage in a variety of independent reliable secondary sources, none of which are tabloids. It should be included in a NPOV way.


 * {| class="wikitable"

! Source Name !! Date !! Title of Article
 * + Some Sources That Discuss the Disputed Content
 * Deseret News|| October 3, 2018|| "Decades-old Bountiful case alleges church connection to abuse allegations"
 * KUTV|| October 3, 2018 || "Daughter of LDS Church president at center of decades-old sex abuse cover-up allegations"
 * Salt Lake Tribune || October 4, 2018 || A lawsuit accuses relatives of Mormon church president of sexually abusing children
 * KUTV || January 16, 2019 ||Judge denies early depositions in sex abuse case involving LDS Church president's family
 * Salt Lake Tribune || July 24, 2020|| "Lawsuit accusing relatives of LDS Church president of sexually abusing children dismissed"
 * Fox 13 News || July 24, 2020 || Abuse lawsuit against Latter-day Saint church president's family is dismissed
 * }
 * KUTV || January 16, 2019 ||Judge denies early depositions in sex abuse case involving LDS Church president's family
 * Salt Lake Tribune || July 24, 2020|| "Lawsuit accusing relatives of LDS Church president of sexually abusing children dismissed"
 * Fox 13 News || July 24, 2020 || Abuse lawsuit against Latter-day Saint church president's family is dismissed
 * }
 * Fox 13 News || July 24, 2020 || Abuse lawsuit against Latter-day Saint church president's family is dismissed
 * }


 * WP:DUE is a sub-section in the wikipedia policy WP:NPOVHOW. The very first paragraph of WP:ACHIEVE NPOV says, "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.". WP:DUE does NOT deal with whether the content should be there in the first place, but which viewpoints surrounding the issue should be represented. There is a minority view that Satanic Ritualistic Abuse is real, but because of the WP:DUE policy, that viewpoint would not be given space in this article (see the analogy to the flat earth used in the policy). Epachamo (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your pet theories and synthesis concerning Satanic ritual abuse (SRA) and the fact that Nelson was somehow a participant are clearly WP:OR. If you wish to add content about the lawsuit to a Wikipedia article on SRA then it may belong in those articles.  It does not belong in a biography, especially since the statements have been ruled by a court to be materially false.  That makes the statements libel per se.  Libel is defined as false statements which damage a persons reputation.  It does not matter how many tabloid style sensationalist news articles are written about it.  Nelson was not found to have participated or even have knowledge of these events.  That lawsuit found that there was NO Satanic Ritual Abuse whatsoever.  Since these statements are clear libel, they are not permitted in a bio as per Libel and WP:BLP.  They are also WP:UNDUE and previous lawsuits against President Monson were also found to be WP:UNDUE for much the same reasons.  Quoting from a dismissed lawsuit which did not issue any findings of fact related to its subject matter can be libel if the statements are false.  In this case they are false. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Attack the issues, not me. I am not, nor have I ever made any such claim that Nelson participated in Satanic Ritualistic Abuse. I am not advocating that SRA is even real (the opposite in fact). BUT, the lawsuit did NOT find that there was no SRA. There were no findings at all!  It went all the way to the Utah Supreme Court, and became a precedent setting lawsuit, dismissed due to the statute of limitations, never even seeing a courtroom. It is not libel per WP:BLPREMOVE if it is written properly. The other frivolous lawsuit you refer to in the President Monson article was not against him personally but against the President of the Church, and it was determined that the content still could reside in Wikipedia, just not in the Monson article. This is not the same thing.  This particular lawsuit dealt with Russell M. Nelson personally, and his position within the Church.  Epachamo (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The lawsuit was dismissed as having no factual or evidentiary basis whatsoever. As per WP:BLPCRIME, unsubstantiated allegations don't belong in Nelson's bio. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not why it was dismissed, and that's not what WP:BLPCRIME says. Epachamo (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow, this takes me back to the 1980s, when people used to accuse rock bands like Iron Maiden and Ozzy Osbourne of being devil worshippers. It was all a bunch of hooey of course, like most all satanic nonsense turns out to be. Funny, because most of the English conceptualization of the devil (and for that matter, God, angels, Christ, etc...) are not found in the Bible at all, but are leftover remnants of the old religions of the Vikings/Germans, the Romans, and the Britons. For example, see Cernunnos, who was a benevolent god to the Celts, but became the English vision of the devil when the Catholics took over. (Halloween is a Celtic holiday if I've ever seen one, and even Christmas, the way it is traditionally celebrated in Britain and America, is a totally Viking holiday filled with Viking traditions, such as exchanging gifts, singing carols, drinking nog by the Yule log, and getting up early to look for presents left by "elves".) The religions never really change, only the names become different. (A good example is Santeria).

But, I digress. It is looking to me like this falls under WP:BLPCRIME, which says we do not even hint that someone committed a crime unless a conviction has been secured in a court of law. Even if it's just a civil suit, we're still talking about criminal acts, and that needs a conviction, or else we leave it out. Zaereth (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am admittedly a new editor, and have little experience especially with the policies around biographies of living people. I can't find a policy where it talks about there needing to be a conviction or else be left out. A couple people have brought up WP:BLPCRIME, but I feel like I'm missing something. With WP:BLPCRIME there is a difference between public and private figures. If Nelson were a private figure, I would agree with you 100%, but Nelson is a public figure, and WP:BLPCRIME links to WP:BLPPUBLIC which uses an example that I find relevant: "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred." This article should NOT state or imply in any way that Nelson actually was involved in Satanic Ritualistic Abuse. Epachamo (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * One point I'll make is that Russell M. Nelson may be a public figure but are his daughter and son-in-law? They aren't even named in the dispute section, which makes me think they aren't. He evidently has a lot of of daughters, 9, but still small enough to raise BLP concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a great point, the answer is no, I would not consider his daughter or son-in-law public figures. Even though they are mentioned by name in the articles, I would argue that WP:BLPCRIME applies to them. If it does become accepted to put the information about Nelson in the page, it should be written in a way to protect the privacy of his daughter and son-in-law. Epachamo (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Van Hammer article
There is an issue going on there. See what an IP us arguing. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Fixed. It looks like the IP was correct, and radio stations all over the country likely made a mistake today. From what I can tell, it looks like an honest mistake; just a lack of considering a source's publish date when doing the math, but the IP was going about fixing it all wrong. I hope that helps.Zaereth (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Tejashwi Yadav
I tried to add some serious allegations against the subject, for instance, of "eve-teasing". However, some editors repeatedly performed disruptive rollback, which were ostentatiously motivated edits. I request editors to comment on the issue and help improve the article with neutrality that it deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OptimisticNihilist (talk • contribs) 11:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a rules regarding the deletion of statements and sections that are controversial if they are not proved. I myself had initiated one discussion regarding Kodiyeri_Balakrishnan which you may read above and understand the logic that was presented.  Yes, it is a lot of work and it is a learning experience when we find ourself wrong.
 * The statement about Tejashwi could be broken into several component pieces: One about his alias and the other about the allegation and neither of them are proven and hence would violate rules on BLP. Hope that helps. Best Vikram Vincent 12:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Vikram Vincent, this article by the Telegraph India without mentioning alias confirms the incident. This looks reliable. https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/lalu-sons-thrashed-in-brawl-with-tease-twist/cid/628542 OptimisticNihilist (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not meant to simply collate news reports. It is an encyclopedia and such resources have a particular approach. I would encourage you to read up further what Wikipedia is and is not. Thanks for your contributions. Hope you keep contributing. Best Vikram Vincent 06:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Vikram Vincent, the issue has been resolved. OptimisticNihilist (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

nikema williams
Nikema Williams is Georgia's new Congresswoman elect for the fifth district. I am one of her staffers and trying to update her page's photo to the correct one. I am not an authorized editor so this has proven difficult. I am in need of help, or someone that will make this edit for me. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivyreynoldss (talk • contribs) 16:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You have a conflict of interest with this article, since you are closely associated with the subject. As a member of government, that term should not need any explaining.


 * That doesn't mean that you can't help out, but it means you should not edit the article directly. Instead, make your requests on the talk page of the article. You'll find a link that says "talk" near the top of the page. Just click it and ask away.


 * What you should do first is upload the picture you want at Wikimedia Commons. That's the first step. Make sure that you either own the copyright to the pic, or you have written permission from the person or entity who does. Then just go to Commons and upload the picture. It's fairly self-explanatory. Just click the link I provided you above and follow the bouncing ball.


 * Then, go to the talk page of the article and request that someone replace the current photo with the new pic. EZPZ. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

DJ Dom Giovanni
DJ Dom Giovanni (Dom Giovanni) is a mainstream American DJ of Italian and German decent. Born Eric Haber, he grew up in Chicago and family moved to Detroit where he was friends with the one and only Marshall Mathers aka. Eminem. As time went on, he graduated from Michigan State in Business Law and worked for a few fortune 100 companies. He has worked with Jay-Z and Roc Nation as a beat maker and project manager since 2017. In 2020, he started his own label “Giovanni Worldwide Media” where his very first Artist single “Fire” was a techno song that was called “oddly awesome” by Source Music and appeared on the Billboard pop 200 in November 2020. He followed that up with a Christmas or Holiday single “Another Christmas Day” which reached reached number 4# on the Billboard Charts. Even though streaming was not as hot for him for lack of popularity as being new to celebrity stardom, he got 5 stars for every project he has ever worked on and that has made him a wanted commodity. He continues to write, produce, sing, and mix songs and it looks like he will be one of the hottest DJ’s in the next decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4002:76D0:31D7:1C07:D644:3A85 (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 Kerala gold smuggling case
There has been no court case yet, no convictions, but a number of people are discussed in the article with various allegations made against them. Articles such as this one are very vulnerable to pov editing, and without naming names "Who wrote this" wasn't reassuring. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Miguel Romero
Concerning the San Juan Mayoral Race on the page for Miguel Romero, which has not yet finished as they keep finding votesand have not finished counting the older votes for the mayor and the current ones do not match up, someone keeps deleting this information and multiple sources to falsely claim that Miguel Romero has already won with no evidence or sources. this has been deleted twice and replaced by stating Miguel romero has won. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.239.2 (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

David Perdue
Persistent attempts lately to spin insider trading controversy. Needs more eyes for NPOV, and maybe page protection. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

David Guetta
I posted this at No original research/Noticeboard. Seeing that that noticeboard is less active than others, I'm moving this here as this involves a living person.

"An IP editor from the Netherlands has been constantly adding that David Guetta is "French-Moroccan", getting the conclusion from the link www.youthvillage.co.za/2014/02/15-things-dont-know-david-guetta/amp/, as his father (Pierre Guetta) was born in a Moroccan Jewish family. The editor is sourcing that he is Moroccan from 2, which never mentions Guetta as being French-Moroccan. This is a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS (A. David Guetta's father was Moroccan; B. citing what Moroccan law says; Conclusion C. David Guetta is French-Moroccan).

What is worst in this case is that the page is pending protected and User:Helpthepeople9 has now accepted thrice these arguments."

What should be done? (CC) Tb hotch ™ 18:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be removed as synthesis as none of the sources directly verifies he is Moroccan in terms of citizenship per WP:ETHNICITY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * At best we could report him to be of Moroccan descent (perhaps under Category:French people of Moroccan-Jewish descent) rather than saying he is Moroccan himself. But that would have to be done in a balanced way; the same source also reports him to be of Belgian descent and we shouldn't include one without the other. In any case I am not convinced we have a reliable source for this information, so unless/until we find one I agree with removal. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I recommend getting the right nationality info from reliable sources. Most often people publish any stuff they want online. Let's beware of this. BLP policy recommends having the right info and being fair to living persons' pages. Maltuguom (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)