Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive328

Kiyan Prince
I removed some material from this article per WP:BLPRS and was instantly summarily reverted. I don't wanna get into an edit war even though I'm following policy. Help? 92.24.246.11 (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Now reliably sourced by Domersr. Thank you for flagging this up. It's alarming that this unsourced content was in the article since July 2007. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you both. It does seem to happen sometimes on articles that aren't BLPs themselves, but contain BLP material. I try and always remove anything I spot. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

gurpal virdi
The dates do not make sense.....

"July 2015, Gurpal was acquitted at Southwark Crown Court on 31 July 2015 of any wrongdoing.[20] During the trial, Mr Virdi accused the Met of bringing the criminal case against him as part of a 17-year campaign to "hound" him out of the force.[21]

The case of Gurpal Virdi was subsequently picked up by Sir Peter Bottomley in 1998, notable as previously Member of Parliament and advocate at the time of the murder of Stephen Lawrence.[22] Bottomley requested that the Home Secretary, at that point Theresa May, review the case.[23] In March 2018 Bottomley submitted an Early Day Motion, calling for a parliamentary debate on the matter.[24]"
 * Corrected it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell
Uninvolved eyes needed to help resolve questions of WP:WEIGHT. I stopped editing the page because of one particular user and his personal flamethrower, and I suspect that other editors who recently stopped editing the page did the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Kelsey Koelzer
Kelsey Koelzer is the first Black female hockey coach in NCAA history Ed Wright, who coached the University of Buffalo in 1970, was the first Black head coach in NCAA hockey history

https://www.nhl.com/news/color-of-hockey-wright-was-ncaa-pioneer-at-buffalo/c-317614338

When I wrote my initial story about Koelzer, the NCCAA stated that she was the first Black head coach. But their database doesn't go back as far as 1970. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgdouglas35 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for the source. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sherman Packard
This article may be being edited by a person close to the source. It's also been subject to a prolonged tiny edit war. Thanks for looking. H0n0r (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Robert Kaplow
Please immediately delete the entire paragraph about The Watcher. It is libelous. It is malicious gossip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.238.31 (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Revdelled and the account responsible indef blocked. Thank you. It was removed but then reinstated and it remained for 8 months. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Basil Hassan
Hi, came across this cause of a search for wikilinks at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - I do not see any verifications in the sources for the accusations being described, the first source does not even mention its name - needs some eyes. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * the first two refs don't mention Basil Hasan,(they have now been removed) although the incidents are covered by the US state department terrorist designation ref. The first 4 lines of the article appear to be a direct copypaste of it. Curdle (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Fiona Graham
Fiona Graham

Wanaka Gym court case

This part does not have anything to do with Fiona Graham's experience as a geisha and it does not fit the page. If it is necessary to use this section, one must record the full story. Here it stops at 2015. In the link I have provided, you can see that the case continues after 2015.

http://theoldgymwanaka.net/other.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by JapanHistoryLady (talk • contribs) 02:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think your chances of getting any changes to the article go down every time you start a new sockpuppet. Especially when you offer nonsense as evidence. We sometimes have problems when there is a new development in a case, but sources don't mention it so I checked out your website to see if that was a problem. But that was a mistake, your own website doesn't show that. There has been no real development since 2015. All your website actually says is that you lost the house, which frankly no one really cares about and claims you are dealing with lawyers for an appeal or new case or something. For BLP reasons I have to temper my response, but I will say good luck, since my it seems like you'll need it. If you appeal succeeds, then we can consider changing the article. Until then bugger off and stop socking. The lame rants on your website about how everyone is evil are as boring as most of your comments on Wikipedia, and not something that would ever result in a change to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This is Fiona Graham. You have been accusing me of being a sock puppet for a decade now! You have no proof at all of me ever doing that so please respond properly to the people who make sensible posts here. The problem with the Wanaka Gym stuff is that someone has failed to include the court cases that I won in 2003 - the Ombudsman's report is there on the website, in 2005, in 2006, against the DBH and in Civil Court and only includes a single court case that I didn't. Since including the entire 20 years of court cases and which are not yet concluded doesn't make any sense, and since only including a court case I lost is unreasonable and unfair and an issue for the Living Person's Notice Board, you shouldn't include it at all. If you want to include it then please include every single case that I won. The real issue here on this board is why you have such an agenda to harm a living person by including only negative content and deleting anything positive.

For BLP editors can someone please help with the fact that a small number of Wikipedia editors remove all positive or recent content from my page, only keeping old or negative content? Any person trying to add positive content is labelled a sock puppet without any proof and the content they add is removed. The most recent article cited on the page is Scott Swann recent television program. Every sentence added from that program is also deleted. Ineffable Bookkeeper is the worst of the recent ones, along with Ravensfire. And the one above. What can I do about constant nonstop accusation of sock puppetry. Surely editors have to actually have some kind of proof before they damage living persons by removing all positive content from their page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:31C5:BDC3:AF2:967F (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot find independent, reliable secondary sources to support Graham's claims - absent such sources the claims cannot be included. The Old Wanaka Gym link in the original post cannot be used per WP:ABOUTSELF since it is self-serving and involves claims about third parties. Maybe we could compromise and include it as an external link? As evidence of my search for sources, I found an unsuccessful complaint about a newspaper relating to this case and a 2010 advert for short-term lets at the property in "backpacker style" accommodation. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Fiona Graham: You cannot possible verify 15 years of court cases and you can possibly put a single piece of that history in there and have it be a fair reflection. So the only fair and correct thing to do is remove it. Whoever wrote the above, by the way, may be a student, but is not a student of mine. Once again, you editors are assuming that anything positive on my page is connected to me, but it is not. My students are learning that Wikipedia, which they assume to reliable, is actually incredibly biassed and unfair, and controlled by people who have the most time to spend on it! This is a very good lesson of them to learn. And it is also a pity. Wikipedia would be a wonderful thing if it wasn't for editors like the ones who constantly remove valid information from my page for no reason.


 * Fiona Graham: I find it very weird that on the one hand someone using your IPv6 64 said they never edit Wikipedia, despite also teaching people how to Wikipedia. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATeahouse&type=revision&diff=1023390511&oldid=1023388851] But then above you say you've been accused of being a sockpuppet for 10 years which is very weird for someone who never edits Wikipedia. We should never, and I'm fairly sure have never, said anything about sockpuppetry on your article, so how does someone who doesn't edit know about that? This is something only someone who edits Wikipedia is likely to know. Checking out talk pages as a non editor once or twice may happen, but checking out talk pages often enough to be aware of such accusations over 10 years is fairly unusual. Further someone using your IPv6 64 made this very self serving edit to the geisha page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geisha&type=revision&diff=906479903&oldid=906351133] which is very weird for someone who does not edit Wikipedia. Anyway while I don't feel comfortable telling you what you should teach your students, I will say that from my experience here, one thing editors do need to understand is how to handle a conflict of interest. Any student of yours has a conflict of interest which means they should refrain from editing any article related to you directly. This is both the Fiona Graham article but also any parts of the geisha article that affect you especially those relating to non Japanese geisha. (Other areas of conflict could arise. E.g. stuff related to the Wānaka council's zoning regulations.) They can propose changes on the article talk page but if they do so, they should declare their conflict of interest. Unfortunately it's clear this has often not happened. It would be a great benefit to everyone if this editing with an undeclared conflict of interest, often direct editing where possible, does not occur every few month.  As I said, I don't feel comfortable telling you what to teach, but this clearly includes it being a great benefit to any student editors if they learnt not to fail so badly in handling a COI. On a more personal level, I only learnt about this maybe 2 years ago. But despite that, I've found any proposals relating to Fiona Graham generally terrible enough that even if a student editor declared their COI and restricted themselves to proposals, I still don't think they are helping anyone.  I can't speak for others but frankly, I can't really be bothered dealing with such crappy proposals made by students of a subject. However, I can understand why subjects themselves may make such terrible suggestions for change. I often still can't help them, but I'm much more willing to look more carefully at what they're saying. In that vein, I will have a look and see if I can find any sources discussion the ombudsman issue.  I do stand by my point above. From your own website, there's been nothing since 2015 that is of interest to our article which was what the editor above mentioned. You are now saying that some of our earlier coverage is lacking, which is a different issue. As Fences & Windows said, it's unlikely we can directly use anything from your website. We also cannot generally directly use trial transcripts or verdicts, nor reports from an ombudsman. If there are reliable secondary sources which mention such details, then we may be able to mention them. unfortunately your website doesn't list any but I'll have a quick look and see if I can find anything.  Nil Einne (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

= Fiona Graham: So many crazy arguments above! Many people edit my page and some of them write to me to tell me that they tried to remove incorrect information or add new validly sourced information but it was removed. Why would you assume my students would have anything to do with adding anything not relating to geisha? They are only adding valid information from reliable sources. The NZ issues cannot possibly be represented fairly unless you include 15 years worth of material and if you are not going to do that you should remove the current information because it is only a tiny piece of it and unfair to include it. It is local news only, it is many years old, it is an ongoing situation that can harm a living person's life and it has nothing to do with the reason I am on Wikipedia, and therefore should be removed.

Murder of Zahid Mubarek
This article is full and I mean FULL of extremely negative information about a named person without appropriate citations. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The content is supported by the existing citations, though they were not cited inline. Robert Stewart was jailed for life for the murder.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Boss Hog
This article Boss Hog may contain one or more mistakes about this post-punk band's first show. It states that Boss Hogg formed in 1989, and that singer Jon Spencer performed all of that first show nude! It also mentions that the band performed an early show as a last minute addition to a high profile show at CBGBs. I am a photographer who took pictures of Boss Hogg playing such a show, opening for Rapeman at CBGBs, in September 1988. Spencer was fully clothed. If this is helpful I can provide the photos and a picture of my contemporary notes on the photos....best, Pat BlashillRoland154 (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks from a quick glance like someone saw a source where he was said to have peformed some shows naked, and thought that meant he performed that show naked. I can't go look through it right now (the source seems to be a podcast/audio interview and I have considerations for those), but I've cut it from the article for now pending further discussion. Vaticidalprophet 08:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC).

Thank you! I have now found another source that claims singer Cristina Martinez played the first show naked! I'm more interested in trying top find out if the date the band formed was sometime in 1989, which would mean the notes I took back then are wrong. I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia, so what sort of source would be considered acceptable? Would it have to be a magazine or newspaper article from back in the day? best, Pat Blashill Roland154
 * You want what's called a Reliable source; it does not have to be a contemporary news article, in fact, a retrospective scholarly paper is generally considered even better - but they're often hard to find on minor pop culture subjects. News articles from mainstream newspapers and magazines are usually acceptable. --GRuban (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Harisharan_Devgan
can u help me with this what should i add and is cite given is fine or should i put more ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyisback11188 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Michelle Gurevich ‎
The IP editor 46.97.170.112 introduces information that is not directly emphasized in the source. This may be a slip of the spot in the publication. I believe that this can be added only after a few repetitions in authoritative sources. 's editing must be canceled. — Alexey Tourbaevsky, chelo Vechek /  talk  02:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that it was a slip of the publication. It's very clear that the publication states and means "she moved to Denmark with her wife and daughter". On Michelle Gurevich's website, she states that she is part of the "Berlin queer scene". On her social media(Instagram), she has pictures with her wife(whose name is Lisa Bregneager, and who likewise says on her social media that she is married to Michelle) and daughter. If Michelle was married to a man instead, I believe there would be no challenge from CheloVechek. Jaguarnik (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR - On her social media(Instagram), she has pictures with her wife... — Alexey Tourbaevsky, chelo Vechek /  talk  08:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's probably fine to mention her moving with her wife, but I removed the LGBT cat. Per WP:BLPCAT, we require self identification for such cats. Her marrying a woman is not self identification, we need a source where she labels herself as LGBT. Possibly the Berlin queer scene comment could be taken as self identification, but IMO we should use a secondary source reporting such a self identification rather than rely on WP:ABOUTSELF. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * An Austrian newspaper, Die Presse, recently called Lisa Bregneager her "partner" ("ihrer Lebenspartnerin Lisa Bregneager"). I can't find self-identification as LGBT/queer, despite identifying as part of the "scene". Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez
This BLP needs attention. There is little info on the work by the subject. I mentioned he has recently published a book incorporating AI in his drug discovery platform. The book was reviewed by Robert Huber, a Nobel laureate expert in structural biology. My edit got reverted with the statement "WP is not Goodreads". This BLP is completely out of balance. It mentions 4 papers challenged over a decade ago. Papers often get challenged in science. That is not notable. I am hesitant to make more changes until there is some feedback.KentQuaker (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a long history of the subject trying to control this BLP. Separately: it's true that "papers often get challenged" -- by subsequent papers.  It's not at all common for published papers to be "challenged" via statements by the journals that published them, which is what has happened here (including a retraction).  In any event, the article here is by no means "completely out of balance". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Related sockpuppet investigation opened here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This sockpuppet business JoJo keeps using is highly dubious, seems just a way to avoid dissent. JoJo and the other folks surely have an ax to grind against Fernandez, but WP is not the right place to do it.KentQuaker (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

isa ali ibrahim
I noticed an editor continues to add unproven allegations to the page of Isa Ali Ibrahim to the extent that the additions seem to defeat the purposes for an autobiography of a living person. This is demonstrated by writing an unproven allegation section as the majority content of the autobiography. The guidelines stipulates that potentially libelous content or fake news be avoided to prevent defamation of character. I have repeatedly edited to provide an objective summary, however there seems to be a false propaganda narrative by User: Watercheetah99 and some other users to drive a propaganda against a living person. I have previously engaged Dewritech and WikiDan61 of whih we agreed an article is a mere highlight of a persons life and not every achievement or controversy the person has ever had in his life. I hereby report that users should be refrained from adding potentially libelous content or unproven allegations that defames the character of a living person and adds no value to readers or the article and or biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullomayo (talk • contribs)
 * It looks like there is a bit of WP:SYNTH from primary sources there, but the vast majority is well sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This user has now broken 3RR on the article, reverting multiple other editors. There is a section opened on the article talk page and the editor's talk page, but they have not responded in either location. Some extra eyes would be appreciated, ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I have said several times, the allegations cannot be libelous if Pantami has admitted to them; it is simply not possible. This is a major national controversy, it is of clear value to the article and we cannot possibly write a piece without addressing it. You have refused to state what is potentially libelous or false; Not to mention how you have not responded to numerous inquiries on your rationale or pointed out the parts you take issue with. Please refrain from this behavior in the future, post-block. Watercheetah99 (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

John McGuirk
The page for John McGuirk, available at John_McGuirk, currently lists him as the editor of a far-right website. There are 3 references given for that, none of those pages call Gript far right. One does call Gript 'alt right' but that source is a pseudoanonymous blog which is not a member of the Irish Press Council nor generally regarded as reputable - mainstream national Irish press, including RTE, the Irish Times, Prime Time, and the Journal.ie have discussed Gript and John McGuirk without classing them as far-right. I have attempted to fix the issue, and class Gript as 'right-wing' instead, which is also arguable but at least, in my view, defensible, but those changes have been repeatedly reverted by the user who added the initial claim. As the description of John McGuirk as the editor of a far-right website appears to be, on the face of it, defamatory, and is currently not backed up by sources, I wanted to flag it here to see if we can resolve the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualgrasp (talk • contribs) 11:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some additional opinions on this would be appreciated, either here or at Talk:John McGuirk. Personally, I don't think BLP is much of a concern because we're calling the publication Gript "far-right", not McGuirk himself. This claim is currently supported by:
 * IrishCentral, which was founded by journalist Niall O'Dowd and is part of the Irish Voice/Irish America media network. IrishCentral calls Gript a far-right publication. It also calls McGuirk a Far-right commentator, but we're not using it to make that claim.
 * The Beacon, an advocacy news outlet focusing on the far right, especially in Ireland. The Beacon calls Gript an alt-right website. The alt-right is part of the far-right, and The Beacon's own subheading is reporting on the far right.
 * DCU Institute of Future Media, Democracy, and Society (FuJo), a media research center with an impressive list of members and an equally impressive advisory board. In the section on "Manipulation tactics", the DCU writes In the US, far-right talking points have been popularised through an eco-system of influencers and partisan media outlets who relay the message in milder terms. In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like Renua and the alternative media outlets Gript and The Burkean...Gript and The Burkean primarily produce opinion pieces while positioning themselves as an alternative to mainstream journalism. It also includes a screenshot of McGuirk tweeting a Gript article using the manipulation tactics that it just discussed. The article itself is titled "How the far-right incite hatred".
 * Thoughts? Woodroar (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sherry Chen (hydrologist)
This biographical article about a living person reads suspiciously like an autobiography intended to court a favorable public opinion in lieu of an actual trial in an actual court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lineardyna (talk • contribs) 20:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Ningmosberger, who edited briefly in March 2019, appears to have been in contact with Chen: one edit summary says it is "per Sherry's request". Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Bruno Bernard (writer)
I semi-protected this page in response to a request at RFPP. IP addresses were removing sourced information about fraud and those sources also indicate that he has used false academic titles. The article survived an AfD in 2018 as no consensus and apparently the deletion on French Wikipedia involved legal threats. I'd like more eyes on this bio and consideration of whether it is viable. Fences &amp;  Windows  23:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a broken section or paragraph after the Works section. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That was fixed. After more fruitless searching, I've nominated it for deletion. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Kevin Coval
There is a single sourced statement: Coval was removed from his position as Executive Director at Young Chicago Authors because of allegations that he had not properly followed up on sexual assaults committed by teaching artists hired by the organization. that seems to be causing a problem with an SPA who is reverting it. The sourcing for the single sentence looks pretty good, and the sentence itself is concise and neutrally worded. I've reached out on the talk page and the editor's talk page with no success. Any extra eyes on this would be appreciated, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is a WP:RSOPINION source. From the article itself, "Columns are opinion content that reflect the views of the writer". If there are no other sources that can support this allegation, it should be removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Further sourcing, ScottishFinnishRadish: https://chicago.suntimes.com/platform/amp/2021/3/5/22315800/cps-schools-inspector-general-young-chicago-authors-sexual-assault-rebecca-hunter-kevin-coval; https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/books/ct-prem-ent-young-chicago-authors-allegations-20210309-fzaavatl4jep5ath6dfp3blayq-story.html Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Roman Protasevich
I have doubts about including a number of contentious claims sourced to something like strana.ua, pravda.com.ua or Morning Star (see Morning Star in Perennial_sources), like in these edits ,. This may be also an issue of due weight. The disagreements were discussed on article talk page, for example here. Some help from uninvolved contributors would be appreciated. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Toshihiro Nagoshi
I've removed content from Toshihiro Nagoshi's page crediting Nagoshi's involvement with various games due to the use of sources that have been established as unreliable in the WP:VG/S. I've also removed other content in the page for similar reasons and detailed the issue in the relevant talk page. Despite it being a clear violation of WP:V and, as far as I understand it, violating WP:BLP, it has been reverted twice - and without adjustments or changes to the disputed sources.

The first editor, who contributed about half of the items of contention, claims other developer pages being similarly lacking in proper citation/sourcing as an excuse for reversion. The second claims that removal of the content is a perversion of BLP guidelines because it 'applies to contentious or controversial material.' and that 'Nagoshi is not going to sue for defamation over Wikipedia stating he worked on some games and joined the board of Sega.' For my part, I don't see other pages failing to meet policy as an excuse. Additionally, I consider the information contentious -both as a result of the back and forth and inherently due to not meeting verifiability- and recognize the WP:BLP policy as being applicable regardless of the tone or potential consequences of the content's inclusion by way of the following portion:

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

I'm not interested in dragging the matter out with a reversion back-and-forth or making an argument out of it, and I would really appreciate an administrator with greater understanding of these sorts of issues to help resolve the matter decisively before it gets to that. If I've misunderstood the policy in my application, I'd appreciate things being set straight, but my current understanding is that this is in fact a violation. Advice and resolution would be valuable, as they'd inform future steps I may take in the pursuit of preventing these issues in the future and clearing up the ones that are present where the pages/project of my interest is concerned.

Thank you very much for your time in advance. Fact Scanner (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Fact Scanner. Thank you for bringing this here. I'll start with BLP policy, and policy in general. There's a common misconception that BLP policy is the only thing that applies to bios, or that the policy is meant to deal with every issue that arises in a bio. Instead, I find it better to think of policy as being one, giant equation, where info must satisfy every part of that equation in order to be included. Verifiability is the first hurdle, then WP:RS, then WP:NPOV (which in itself are a bunch of hurdles), etc... BLP policy trumps all other policies, but it also works in accordance with those policies. They all modify and augment each other, giving them some flexibility to be able to fit different cases.


 * BLP was ultimately created to protect our subjects, or any other living person, from very real harm that we may cause ourselves. It gives us a higher obligation to take all the other policies more seriously, but quite often the discussion should be about the relevant policies and BLP only in as much as it applies to those policies, rather than using BLP as a catch-all. Does that make sense? What you're describing is more of a problem that would be better handled at WP:RSN or even WP:NPOVN, because deep down those are the policies you should be focusing on.


 * That said, the article is terrible. It reads like an autobiography and in many places has a very promotional tone; not like a resume but definitely like puffery. Many source are in Japanese, so I can't check them for reliability or accuracy myself, but it is odd to see things like one source being used a hundred different times throughout the text, and other telltale signs like that. It is definitely not encyclopedic as currently written.


 * If you believe this is more of an editor problem (as in, a problem editor), then that's where you need an admin to get involved, in which case I'd recommend some place like WP:ANI for a quicker response. Admins can block problem users, or issue page protection, or a few other things at their disposal, but that's about the extent of the involvement they can do. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, . I appreciate the response and the time you've taken to detail some valuable fundamentals. I like the way you explain the interconnected relationship of the various portions of policy. I typically default to recommending users refer to WP:RS and WP:V when I find instances of unreliable sourcing or unverifiable information. I acknowledge and recognize verifiability as an essential aspect of ensuring claims and content suit the purpose of Wikipedia, alongside the various other policies and the helpful guidelines that make implementation intuitive and functional.


 * Everything you've said definitely makes sense and is well explained. However, my issue with the implementation of the policies you've so kindly provided are secondary in terms of order priority despite being core and foundational issues in and of themselves. With BLP on top of the hierarchy, my more immediate concern is ensuring that the content that fails to adhere to the critical terms of that policy be removed before getting to the resolution of the policies that sit below it if you understand my thinking. In more conventional circumstances, I'd attach a template requesting more sources and make some edits where possible to make the content acceptable. In this situation, where WP:V and WP:NOR - and potentially WP:NPOV when considering the rest of the text as you've stated- are all effectively violated, it seems evident that ammendation should come after removal due to both the portion of the policy I quoted previously as well as the reinforcement established in WP:BLPRS. The issue is that it's simply being reinstated as it was.


 * WP:RSN is a valuable resource and I appreciate you pointing to it! In this particular circumstance, the relevant sources of contention have actually already undergone scrutiny and have been deemed unreliable on WP:VG/S through various instances of consensus, which is the instigating factor in the removal of this content: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced."


 * I do believe it's a user problem in one case, but I want to see if that user shapes up their disregard for policy before putting them in that kind of spot, frankly. The second reversion however is what prompted me to come here, as that person suggests that my attempt to enforce the BLP represents a perversion of the policy. I don't see it that way, but I don't see that the back and forth that'd result from enforcing my removals will be productive or end decisively in this particular circumstance. That the content was put up was the first strike, that it was reverted was the second, and so on with the most recent one. I already put forth the case and the problems on that end, but these things seem as though they just get ignored, with some editors favoring whim over policy. I thought perhaps if I made a misinterpretation and that my actions were unnecessary due to it, that an administrator would likely be a good means of ensuring that I don't over-step in the matter. I'll definitely considerWP:ANI for these concerns if if comes down to it.


 * Regardless, thank you again. Fact Scanner (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do see your point. The thing is: you're not likely to get much of a reply here unless it is something we can call an egregious BLP violation, or one of those things that are in those very controversial grey areas.


 * I see you've tried discussing on the talk page. Have you tried the editor's talk? At first I thought I was looking at a WP:SPA, but looking further, I think this is an editor that seems highly knowledgeable in the subject matter, but is running afoul of WP:NOR, in that they are editing mostly without sources, and are relying almost totally on their personal expertise. It seems that's been the pattern since 2004, and the lengthy edit summaries give a lot of the clues.


 * So I think this is a case where you have someone who has been flying mostly under the radar, possibly due to their expertise, but probably hasn't given much of a thought to how to do it the right way. The first thing I would try to explain is the concept of WP:BRD. We encourage people to be bold, but when their bold edits get reverted, then it's up to them to discuss it and achieve consensus before reinstating the material. They also need to understand that the WP:BURDEN is on them to demonstrate why the info should be included. If they refuse to talk, or simply keep edit-warring the info in, then a slap on the wrist from an admin may just be the wake-up call they need.


 * Looking at the article, I have to wonder is some conflict of interest is going on. There are things written in there that no one but the subject could possibly know, and other signs that make it read autobiographical. I agree that something needs to be addressed here, yet this editor probably has the potential to be a really good editor, so some care should be taken in handling the situation. This is more Masem's field of expertise, so perhaps he could lend a hand, or maybe even WP:NORN? (There's a noticeboard for nearly every policy.) Zaereth (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * At least with User:Indrian, I know they are very knowable in the early history of video games and so while we may have a problem with the best possible sourcing, the facts are likely right. And yes, most of the sources being removed are weak or poor sources, but there is a facet that if the material is not contentious (which does appear to be the case on a read through here), it is likely better to tag problems than to remove so that better sourcing can be found to replace it (eg: Unreliable source? would work here). Key again: this is not contentious information under BLP so outright removal is not required, but the demand for improved sourcing absolutely is. ---M asem  (t) 22:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I personally hold that the material is clearly contentious on basis of the back and forth, the non-self-evident nature of the claims, and inherently by way of the lack of sufficient sourcing. It is not malicious content, but it doesn't have to be according to this segment of the policy: "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable".


 * Thanks for taking a look either way. I'd like to figure this out in as complete a manner as possible, as I want to pose changes for discussion on the VG project talk page in the future that can fascilitate cutting out the alarming amount of unsourced attributions and claims from developer pages and prevent them from getting to that point moving forward. Fact Scanner (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of how BLP works, "contentious" should not be seen as "contentious because I as an editor disagree with it" (otherwise that opens a lot of bad doors for editors to challenge anything they see as problematic) but what is contentious as it reflects on the rest of the world. For Nagoshi here, that he was a developer on many of the games listed here is far from contentious, but that fact should clearly have better sourcing than MobyGames which is equivalent to IMDB. The article would not make it to a GA with MobyGames, but it can survive fine with a MG ref for credits sourcing until a better one can be located. --M asem (t) 23:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see it as contentious in those regards because, in practical terms, the rest of the world can not hold the specific games he's partaken in and the roles he's involved in as manifest or self-evident. The more objective alternative is recognizing the capacity for said content to be disputed within the constraints of what constitutes a reliable source. On top of this, the language used is explicitly "challenged or likely to be challenged", and it encompasses both questionable and neutral material to boot. I don't think it's just a matter of an editor disagreeing with something either, which is why I'm not arguing specifically or explicitly in terms of the fact that the material has actually been challenged alone.


 * As an aside, it's also surprising to me that a source that's established as unreliable can be left as is until and if a proper source is found. In such a case, the matter may never be resolved and quality of the sources effectively become irrelevant to what information and claims are hosted on the page without consequence. Is there a time limit?Fact Scanner (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I think you're taking a far more deeper read of "contentious" than we usually use for BLP or anywhere else. We're looking at the level of information being stated, how it comes across, and how readily the sourcing (or lack of sourcing) there would be for the type of statement. Acknowledging his roles in various games is nothing that is particularly odd, and something that typically could be identified by the primary work (the game itself), among other sources. If the claim was "Toshihiro Nagoshi is one of Japan's best video game developers." that would be contentious because that would be difficult to source since its a subjective statement, and without a good source, could be removed under BLP without question. The stuff that you removed has a good chance of easily being fixed by simply fixing the sourcing, which is usually a good sign of something that is not contentious. And remember that there is no deadline, so yes, some of these things will remind unfixed for a long time. Thats why on BLP we want contentious stuff removed, but stuff that is well outside contentious isn't that much of an issue in the long term. Look at any random celeb article and I would be you'd find most of their credits unsourced or sourced to IMDB (on average) and there the situation is worse, but we don't have people removing those, until a process like GA, or ITN/RD comes up.--M asem (t) 00:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not necessarily the case. There is no reason to just sit back and do nothing, but there are other policies that deal with this. The point is, it doesn't rise to the level of BLP violation, and is better handled in the context of these other policies, using the standard dispute resolution process. W have problems to deal with here that are potential to cause real harm to people, so we don't really have the time and manpower (or woman-power) to worry about every little issue. Other noticeboards are far better suited to something like this, that's all. There's a certain threshold before a problem becomes one of BLP vio. Zaereth (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Where the editor that's been around since 2004 is concerned, I have no experience with them or knowledge of their implementation of policy prior to this point, so I can't speak about them beyond their singular revert and I don't mean to imply anything of note regarding them outside of the act and the relevant edit summary. It's the other editor who made the initial revert that's the highlight of my secondary concerns. With them, the steps you've suggested have been taken with a message on their talk page earlier today as the most recent manner of engagement. We'll see if that results in anything fruitful.


 * Regarding the tone of the page, a cursory look through the edit history makes it evident that neither has made a contribution to the prose in a notable way: the editor you're referring to has only made removals up until this particular situation and the other editor has only really added a good brunt of the listed content that's being contended.


 * Thanks for referring another editor to take a look as well as the additional suggestion. Fact Scanner (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * And that brings me full circle. "Contentious" in this context means "controversial". So now you have the task of convincing everyone else why it is controversial. There may be something Masem and I are not seeing, but I tend to agree with his very eloquent answer. The mistake I often see people make here, though, is focusing solely on one line or another, and forgetting the bigger policy that it refers to or the spirit in which they were intended. I don't mean to imply that anyone is incompetent, but sometimes all of us occasionally get too deep into our original logic to step back and look at the forest rather than the individual trees. The line you quoted at the top is, at it's very root, is one of verifiability and NOR, which ultimately is one of RS. Does it rise to the level of BLP violation? I don't see how, but that's why I called upon Masem, because this is far my my field of study. Zaereth (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have been here longer than you, and I can guarantee you I know policy at least as well, if not better, than you do too. This carefully hedged personal attack on your part is inappropriate.  Possible single-purpose account or conflict of interest because I reverted what I felt was a misapplication of the BLP policy once on an article I have never substantively contributed to?  Really?  You took the time to scroll to the beginning of my edit history, yet apparently never checked out the edit history of this article to see that I have added exactly zero info to it over the years.  And you also apparently had no interest in checking out my history thoroughly enough to see all the GA reviews I have done, all the FACs I have commented on, and the many, many discussions I have participated in at the Wikipedia Video Game Project (under the radar? uh, right...).  Heck, I just last month took over a FAC nomination from an editor who had to leave that I am working on right now.  And that does not even touch on all the lengthy talk page discussions I have participated in where sourcing and/or various Wikipedia policies were discussed.  Not surprisingly, this inquiry, which I have no problem with seeing as it was well within 's right to make and they approached the matter logically and civilly even if I disagree with their interpretation, came to the same conclusion I did in reverting the removal while applying my years of experience on the project: that while the sourcing could be better, none of the material is controversial and since it does not require removal for BLP reasons its better to tag and improve the sourcing rather than remove the information outright.  And wouldn't you know, we all came to that conclusion without needing a "slap on the wrist from an admin" to serve as a "wake-up call."  That you apparently deliberately referred to me without making reference to my username so that this borderline personal attack would fly under MY radar only makes your actions look even worse. This is all to say, have a care before flinging accusations of maliciousness or even just plain ignorance when discussing your fellow editors. Indrian (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I never intended anything to be taken personally, and I apologize if it came off that way. I never said you were responsible for the article, nor that you are the one with a possible COI. Nor did I say you were an SPA. I said it looked that way at first glance, but that upon closer examination you just appear to have niche interests, like nearly all of us do, and seem quite the expert in your field. I'm sorry if you mistook my respect as disrespect. What I do not understand is why someone with such expertise would even bother with such low quality sources to begin with. Isn't it better just to do a good job to begin with? Seems easier to me, because you have to admit, this doesn't look too good. The simple fact is that not being adequately sourced is reason enough to delete the information, and the simple fix to this is to simply add a decent source, and any expert should have no problem doing just that. Zaereth (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. And I apologize if I attributed some statements as directed at me that were, in fact, not.  The only identifying characteristic you used in your comment was "an editor since 2004," which I believe only applied to me in this instance, but if some of your comments were directed at another, I am sorry that I misinterpreted your statements.  To your substantive point, I am not "bothering" with anything, as none of that material was added by me.  The article is on my watchlist because I have removed material from it in the past, and I therefore noticed the BLP policy being misapplied.  I then took steps to rectify that misapplication.  It is not incumbent on me to improve this particular article, and I have no desire to do so.  However, the appropriate thing for  to do here in my opinion was to tag the material and move on, so that someone else with an interest in improving the article could fix it later.  It's as  said, articles on celebrities are often filled with dubious sources reporting accurate information such as credits, so while we do not want that sourcing to stand long term, we are doing no harm to the project to let it be in the meantime.  Now, if someone has proof of an inaccuracy in any of the material, I will be the first to wipe it off the project, as I have done on many video game articles in the past.  I hope that clarifies my part in this situation. Indrian (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, sometimes it's impossible to prove a negative, but I think we're on the same page now. I didn't dig too deep into the article history (nor yours, but I did more than look at the beginning). That's why it's best when coming to a board like this to be very specific about the problem. My main goal was to explain as nicely as I could why this doesn't rise to the level of BLP vio, but sorry if I threw you under the bus in the process. That wasn't my goal. Zaereth (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The BLP is extremely clear in its opening paragraph that material covered by the BLP means contentious (and no its not 'controversial' for a reason, they are not the same thing) material can be reverted on sight and in order to be reinstated requires either a reliable source, or consensus any existing source is reliable enough for the material. What is the article/s, content/diff that is under dispute & what source's reliability is in question? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Many pages referring to Colombia have inaccurate statements or with little veracity or with biased sources


The articles on Wikipedia, both in Spanish and in English, about Gustavo Petro, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, Iván Duque, the Farc, the m19, the parapolitics and the Wikiproyecto Colombia, all of them LIVING PERSONS or ongoing matters of world or national interest, have abundant false, doubtful, disputed statements or with biased or doubtful sources. For example these:

(Please SEMI-PROTECT them and correct them)

Gustavo Petro

Gustavo Petro

Álvaro Uribe Vélez

Álvaro Uribe

Iván Duque Márquez

Iván Duque

FARC

FARC

M19

M19

Parapolítica

Parapolitics

Protestas en Colombia 2021

2021 Colombian Protests

In summary, and in order not to repeat what some others have already said in the respective discussion pages, in the Wikipedia pages referring to Gustavo Petro and other pages and projects cited above, the pages are significantly biased towards Alvaro Uribe's opponents, even in pages that do not deal with or have nothing to do with Alvaro Uribe (such as Gustavo Petro's), with sources carefully selected to only support such opponents, often very doubtful, unobjective or biased, with phrases such as: "These revelations opened the doors of a strong social sanction to Uribe in Colombia by a sector of public opinion, and placed him in the sights of the ICC with the more than 250 processes in the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation that exist against him, and that, for different reasons, including corruption of the national powers", " Petro revealed that Uribe's presidential campaign in 2002 had received financial support from Enilse López, known such as La Gata, later convicted of ties to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, "etc., etc., etc. (I will not repeat).

Getting to the point of almost calling Uribe a "murderer", "genocidal", "terrorist", "corrupt", "paramilitary", "drug trafficker", "narco-paramilitary", BOTH ON THE PAGES IN ENGLISH AND IN SPANISH, even though sometimes not using those words, as he is presented as directly related to “human rights abuses” and he is also presented as solely responsible for the violence, corruption and deaths that occurred throughout the Colombian Armed Conflict.

Forgetting or omitting that: 1) Up to now none of the investigations that the Prosecutor's Office has made or is doing, has found any evidence that he has been personally involved and has not gone to criminal trial, except for that of these days of "manipulation of witnesses ”, which is ongoing without sentencing yet, 2) He did not have any public office or had anything to do with the Armed Conflict in the first two decades until 1981, and 3) They omit the massive human rights violations, deaths, drug trafficking, kidnappings and torture committed by guerrilla groups outside the law that, although pardoned, were admitted by such groups in the 1989 and 2016 Peace Accords.

President Ivan Duque is presented as if he were Alvaro Uribe's “puppet” and he is also held directly and personally responsible for all the human rights violations and violence that are taking place in Colombia.

Even in the pages on Alvaro Uribe it is mentioned that he has about 28 proceedings against in the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, taking as a source a journalistic note, but when the public database of the judicial branch of Colombia is accessed, on Consultation of processes, no such processes are observed. (In the Colombian journalistic media, false news is very frequent, towards or against all the parties involved)

More or less the same happens in the Wikipedia pages that make some reference to the 2021 PROTESTS in Colombia, very biased towards the opposition, BOTH ON THE PAGES IN ENGLISH AND IN SPANISH, where the state, the police and the army are presented as the ONLY human rights violators (when the objective reality is that more than ten policemen and military have already died in the protests, and tens of thousands of small merchants or shopkeepers have lost everything due to vandalism), echoing, or taking sources that echo, what seems to be a massive campaign of fake news and misinformation referring not only to the STRIKE but to previous times of the Armed Conflict and the presidency of Alvaro Uribe and Ivan Duque, and where many of these fake news and false videos (even from Amnesty International !!!, or Cnn or Dw, who would believe it) were actually taken in Venezuela but they are presented as if they had taken place in Colombia during the 2021 PROTESTS. This massive campaign of false news and videos and disinformation, is evidenced in serious sources such as:

This video is not of the Esmad breaking Windows during the 2021 protests, it is from Venezuela in 2017

The Fake News generated during the National Protests

The fake pictures, videos and news about the 2021 strikes

Fake News during the Strikes

Popular protest in Colombia: a war of false images on social networks or imagined reality on the streets

Ministry of Defense warns about digital terrorism because of the widespread distribution of fake news during the national protests

At least 23 fake news have been detected during the protests

Fake News in Colombia

Victor Muñoz DAPRE’s Director, denies decree ordering state of emergency

These iconic buildings in the world were not lit in support of Colombia during the protests

The explosion of unverified information circulating on the media during the protests

National Protests live: the ongoing protests on May 5th

Colombia Check independent verification site

False, Young man was not burned by Esmad in Floridablanca, Santander

Duque didn’t twit that if misinformation persists he’ll cancel Facebook

Video of Young man assaulted by the police in Floridablanca is real but he was not murdered

New video of policemen inhaling a presumed drug is not in Colombia but in Chile

The one in the picture is not the Esmad’s policeman reported for taking part in an assault

Police’s Ad offering reward for presumed vandals of the sacks of April 28th is false

Video of clashes between police and army is not of April 28th protests nor in Colombia

Colombia is not the only country to propose Tax Reform amidst the outbreak

Maria Fernanda Cabal did not say coffee is not to have breakfast or dinner but for visitors

Note that in Colombia it is very risky to take journalistic notes as a source, sometimes even from supposedly "serious" or "respectable" entities such as El Tiempo or Semana, and much less opinion notes, since, as can be seen in Colombia for more than ten years, impressive amounts of fake news have been circulating. However, those are most of the sources given for the Wikipedia pages mentioned at the beginning, even on the Wikipedia Pages in English.

If little of what is written in Colombia, with direct knowledge of the situation, is serious or objective, much less what is written on foreign media, including Amnesty International, CNN or DW. Not one news magazine has been left uncriticized for this in decades. Note also that credible or objective sources are so rare and occasional in Colombia, even in the supposedly “academic” sphere, that if strict criteria are used, almost nothing could be written about Colombia!

No, I am neither an uribista nor a leftist, I am a responsible and conscientious citizen who is trapped, as you surely know, in a country where everyone’s spirits are so heated and violence has been happening for so long, that it is no exaggeration to say that "half of Colombia wants to kill and hang the other half of Colombia." And that is clearly observed in the 2021 PROTESTS, where it can be said that “everyone hates everyone”.

It is assumed that Wikipedia, AND MORE IN ENGLISH, is a serious and ENCYCLOPEDIC website, for which it has no presentation that in such articles on Petro, Uribe, Duque, guerrillas, parapolitics or the Colombia Wikiproject, in Spanish and in ENGLISH, many statements are made, risky and controversial at best, implying that Uribe and Duque or the police and the army would be "murderers", "genocidal", "terrorists", "paramilitaries", "abusers of human rights ”,“ corrupt ”,“ corruption in the branches of power ”, etc., etc., etc.

Most people do not verify the facts or if what is said is true or not, and simply believe what Wikipedia says, and more being an encyclopedia.

Please, Librarians and Wikipedia editors:

Every time on one of your pages, whether in Spanish or in English, these types of statements are sneaked in, not very truthful and that could be seen as an incitement to hatred and violence, indeed half of Colombia wants to kill the other half, there are people dying!!

It is not an exaggeration to say that when a single one of these statements creeps in, or echoes a possibly false journalistic note, at least one person dies in Colombia!

Please, I beg you:

Semi-protect all those pages referring to Colombia, have the maximum possible responsibility with the wording and all statements and sources, and please proceed to correct all those pages urgently.

Thank you. Carlosverano92 (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Slow down.  First of all your post is too large and contains too many different things that it is impossible to address any of them.  If you could condense this down into a small number of actionable problems (i.e. which article text is incorrect, why is it incorrect, and what would you like to see the text changed to) would be much more helpful than a wall of text with vague accusations of problems.  Also, many of your diffs and links are to articles at es.wikipedia.  Different Wikipedias are independent projects, and en.wikipedia has no authority there; you're going to have to raise issues with es.wikipedia articles at es.wikipedia.  -- Jayron 32 17:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Owen Benjamin
recently added this content to the Owen Benjamin article about a property dispute between the article subject and his neighbors. One of the sources cited is a self-published website by Mike Weland ("Kootenai Valley Times" about page), which does not seem reliable under WP:BLPSPS. The other source (link) does not mention a "cult" or "'Aryan Style' compound" allegation, and appears to address the issue as a zoning dispute between neighbors. I thought this looked clearly like a BLP violation, but disagreed with my opinion (see User talk:Drmies), and I wanted to bring it here for additional opinions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The website touts itself as a local "newspaper" but I have concerns that there is no editorial board nor credited authors. I would not necessarily consider it a self-published website; just that there is not enough information to gauge its reliability. You can check with the experts at RSN to confirm this. As for the cult or compound issue, the article says "Ruby Ridge" compound so to derive cult or aryan is original research. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed that "Ruby Ridge" is sufficient and the sourcing isn't sufficient to use other labels. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I posted the source reliability issue to RSN as Morbidthoughts suggested (WP:RSN). Also, I wanted to note that the article about Benjamin on the "Kootenai Valley Times" site is one of the only posts on the site with an author byline, and the author is Mike Weland, who also owns and manages the site (link). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Morbidthoughts, User:Fences and windows, in the text as we have it it says "supposed", but it's clear to me that one of the problems here is the actual writing, which could be much better. "Aryan Nations style" comes from a comment in the KVT article, and could be used if properly ascribed. But what I sense from both of you is that this is not a matter of BLP life and death. wallyfromdilbert, how many forums are we working on at the same time? There's my talk page, the article talk page, here, and now also RSN. I'm getting a bit tired of it, and here AGAIN you are going with "self-published website", which is purely pejorative. You have been pointed in the right direction already by me, by, and by Morbidthoughts. Let it go: it's prejudicial, and it practically forces me to follow you around and correct you. I guess I'm off to RSN now. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I posted here because you suggested it in your comment to me, just like Morbidthoughts suggested I bring the source reliability issue to RSN. If you had not made that suggestion, I would not have brought the issue here. However, regarding the use of the term "self-published website", the website appears to have one writer (Mike Weland) who is also the owner, editor, and manager. I'm not sure how else to describe that situation. If you look at Identifying and using self-published works, it says that a source is "self-published" if the author and publisher are the same person. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Drmies, WP:BLPSTYLE says "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." Using a single local newspaper article written by the owner of the site is not good enough sourcing for "Aryan", "Aryan Nation style" or "cult" and those terms should be removed. We should write biographies conservatively, even those of controversial alt-right figures. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Fences and windows, the "Aryan" bit is about the outdoor camping project, the compound, or whatever it is. If someone claimed "the dude's a Nazi", that's an entirely different thing. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's about his compound and is in his bio and so BLPSTYLE applies - this isn't a faceless corporation. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is bending that section past the breaking point. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would add that Benjamin has been (repeatedly) kicked from social mediate cites for making racist comments, and this fact is thoroughly sourced. A vague implication of racism is hardly a contentious statement.
 * That being said, I think the bit needs to be re-written. It should be more clear that the "aryan style" comment came from locals upset with his acts, and that this is the reason why the otherwise-unremarkable incident of having a complaint filed with the zoning department became newsworthy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I made a bold edit yesterday based on a comment by Cullen328 at RSN, who noted that the Ruby Ridge incident occurred in the same county. Given that additional context, I think it could be appropriate to include this content in some way on Benjamin's biography, along with directly mention the Ruby Ridge incident as is done in the more reliable source. I changed the sentence in the article to say: "In 2021, residents of Boundary County filed a complaint with the county commissioners over allegations that Benjamin had violated zoning provisions and was forming a "Ruby Ridge style" compound on his property in the neighborhood." I would certainly feel more comfortable on a BLP if the issue was more than neighbors filing a complaint to the county (such as the county actually finding a zoning violation), but I think given the context about Benjamin as well as Boundary County, that this more neutrally-worded sentence would be appropriate. Based on this discussion and the one at RSN, it seems like there is a mixed consensus forming about whether the other source is self-published or reliable enough to use for a contentious label like "cult", but the new content is also supported entirely by the stronger source. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , That looks like a good edit.
 * I still content that kvt.news is a reliable source, but if it's not needed to say the same thing more clearly, then it's not needed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Drmies, it's not a stretch to apply BLP policy and MOS:LABEL also applies as wallyfromdilbert notes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, reliability isn't binary and more good sources are necessary for such labels. The suggested wording is fine: the reference to Ruby Ridge is better supported and gets the point across. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Um, I just said "That looks like a good edit". Not sure why you seem to be disagreeing with me about it. I haven't expressed any preference for the "aryan nations" descriptor over the "ruby ridge" descriptor.
 * Over at RSN, I'll note that several WP:USEBYOTHERS examples were provided wrt kvt.news. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the reliability of the sources (but that they are only local otherwise), this is more an issue about rumormonger which which should be avoiding. While there's a potential story here that he is developing a compound, we're going off a story based on neighbor complaint, not actual reliable sources that have reviewed the site to make that determination. That's not really what we should be including on any BLP. Now if RSes directly call to that, that would be different. This is the type of problem we get with these articles - just because its some we can document and aligns with what RSes say in general, its not always appropriate to include. --M asem (t) 17:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , While there's a potential story here that he is developing a compound, we're going off a story based on neighbor complaint, not actual reliable sources that have reviewed the site to make that determination. Not sure if I have you right, but there's no doubt that Benjamin is building a compound, only doubt as to his purpose in doing so and the nature of that compound. For what it's worth, there are a lot of dogwhistle terms on the website Benjamin is soliciting donations on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally, using the sources given - which are only documenting what the back-and-forth are between Benjamin and his neighbors and the council, for all purposes - this could be read as a BLPSPS in that we are documenting the neighbor's complains which are self-published in the local records (and only repeated for purposes of documenting the conflict). It's not a clear BLPSPS but it is in that realm of what we have to be careful of. It would be different if the council or one of the RSes made their own individual evaluation of what was going on on the property and came to a similar assessment that he was building a compound that called to Ruby Ridge or similar past incidents. But that's not the case. They are simply documenting a dispute between him and neighbors and not an assessment in the RS's view of what's actually on the site. That's sorta where we should not yet be covering things, unless that became, say, a major legal matter. We need to look at bigger picture things here; there are much larger factors related to Benjamin that make more sense to be the focus of the article at this point than a point that can only be documented as squabble between he and his neighbors by the RSes at this point. --M asem  (t) 17:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is the focus of the article. It's only the focus of this discussion.
 * However, what I'm getting from your response here is the notion that we should remove that whole mention per WP:NOTNEWS until it's resolved, at which point we can re-evaluate whether it's WP:DUE. While I reject arguments that one (or both) of the sources are unreliable, there remains an argument to be made that 2 small town papers in the same county don't establish enough weight to include. I'm not saying that's how I feel about it at the moment (In fact, I think it is due), just that I could see a compelling argument being made for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning the reliability of the RSes - I am working on the assumption they are fine, only that they are local and not the highest tier RSes. Even if these were stories published by NYTimes and WaPost, if they were the same level of coverage, simply discussing at the level "neighbors said this, Benjamin said this, council said this, but we didn't do any further investigation of the actual property to make our own assessment", then that leaves it at a level of a local spat that is far too soon/limited for inclusion. Now, if this were the NYTimes, which is a higher calibre RS, they likely would have investigated further to get more of a story, and go (possibly) "Oh, yeah, it's an Aryan compound he's building" and that would make for a better reason for inclusion. --M asem (t) 18:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , That makes sense to me. I'm still not 100% convinced this is undue, because I believe that WP:PARITY is a principle we can and should use with respect to low-notability topics, not just fringe topics.
 * It seems to me that, for making statements about someone as out-of-the-public-view as Benjamin, local sources are sufficient, because they permit us to improve the article, whereas holding that article to the same standards we would hold a BLP on a more notable figure, like Adam Sandler would not permit us to improve the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If someone, once in the public view but since has retreated from whatever spotlight that was (as my read of Benjamin's article appears to indicate), I do agree that local sourcing is fine to cover that person after that fact. But that should be for encyclopedically relevant information, and I wold not call a local spat with neighbors, yet confirmed by the eyes of a reliable source (even if local) to be encyclopedically relevant. Its why its similar to BLPSPS even though it doesn't fit the definition. It certainly may be a story later if the spat continues - whether it becomes a legal matter, or whether it draws interest back to Benjamin in terms of his alt-right views - but we definitely should wait to see on that. It's reliable sourcing, it meets WP:V, but its just on the cusp of what's appropriate for BLP. --M asem (t) 18:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think we're in agreement on the facts, their implications, and how policy works, and the only thing we disagree on is our predictions for the future of this land use disagreement.
 * I believe that it's quite likely this will develop further. I've said elsewhere that, given my familiarity with the area, I'd be surprised if someone doesn't at least get threatened with shooting or an ass-whooping over this dispute. I think there's going to be more to be said about this before it's over, and for that reason, I think it's due. It gives us a starting point to expound upon.
 * You seem to me to be a bit more agnostic on the outcome, so you'd rather take it slow, and not include anything until we have more to say. I can respect that view, even if I disagree. I hope some of the other participants will take the time to read our exchange here, as I feel it's likely to sway any open minds, one way or the other. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty much yes, and only because while this is not as glaring a problem here, it is a part of the systematic problem with how we tend to cover anyone on that side of the spectrum (pointing to the recent AE thread on the AP2 area as reference). We're an encyclopedia working from a distance view and looking to what is enduring information, and while this certainly may come back to be a very real story and we have sources to include where it started, we should use care around BLP to avoid until we actually can say so. --M asem (t) 20:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * pointing to the recent AE thread on the AP2 area as reference Not for nothing, but "recent AE thread on the AP2 area" is more of a category than a single thread.
 * I'm fairly certain I know the one you're talking about though, as it's the only one we both commented in.
 * I'm not convinced that's the root of the problem, though. More of a symptom. I've written about this, though I'm waiting for AP3 to share my thoughts, as they're (as is usual for my thoughts) somewhat controversial. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeffrey Tucker
Reposting. The subsection contains controversial claims supported with three weak citations. One (from reason.com) is a third-hand repetition of statements from an anonymous blog. Another, from economist.com, quotes someone telling office gossip that he heard about another organization. The third from spectator.org, cites a comment box. Am I right in thinking that these are all not RS? If this material does not belong in the article, can the article be protected to stop repeated attempts to add it, and can the claims be removed from edit history? This sourcing dispute has run for years. Bistropha (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's nothing about Tucker in Ron Paul newsletters, which raises the question of whether his involvement is that central. One source used doesn't mention Tucker, so I've removed it. I've merged the sub-section into the existing mention and removed the lead discussion, which was totally undue. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I hope an admin can also settle the sourcing issues. (1) The Economist  and Reason  both cited a blog by Wendy McElroy, which cited the anonymous site Rightwatch. This can't be RS since it involves user-generated content and an anonymous source. (2) They both also cite Timothy Virkkala either directly or through his blog , in which he says what a co-worker told him at the office regarding the Ron Paul newsletters. This involves material "heard through the grapevine". (WP:SOAP, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPGOSSIP) Neither McElroy nor Virkkala make any claim that Tucker was responsible for the offensive content in the newsletters, but the effect of putting these statements in Tucker's WP article is to insinuate it. If this is all inappropriate material, can an administrator protect the page once that material is removed? Bistropha (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am an admin and I'll be happy to remove the content and protect the page under BLP if we reach consensus to do so. Zaereth and Nil Einne, you're regulars here and I think your input would be helpful. We've already cut down a discussion of Ron Paul's controversial newsletters in Jeffrey Tucker's bio. Is the sourcing reliable enough to mention it at all? See the thread above. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I most certainly wouldn't rely on blogs for info of this nature. I wasn't able to look up the Reason article. The servers on my work computer find it to be a threat, for whatever reason. I had a similar problem with The Economist, in that they want my email address and I don't want to give it to them. For me, though, this looks like a whole lot of speculation without any real evidence to speak of, and I would want to see some very good sourcing before including any of this. I'm not sure if that was any help. Zaereth (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Under WP:NEWSBLOG, The Economist's blogs are probably reliable. The sources are at https://web.archive.org/web/20180921112025/https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2008/01/11/the-rockwell-files and https://web.archive.org/web/20190510180617/https://reason.com/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter/ Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Zaereth and Fences  &amp;  Windows  for digging into this case.  Normally, material published in The Economist or Reason has a presumption of RS. In this case, the sources they cite seem problematic for the reasons I indicated above. (1) There are claims that trace back to an anonymous website. Do they become RS because an intermediate blog repeated them?  That doesn't seem likely. (2) There are claims from a person who attributes his information to office co-workers.  This seems like gossip or "grapevine" communication.  Also, (3) pointing out that Tucker had a student job working on the newsletters seems to be guilt-by-association, given that nobody claims he had any responsibility for the offensive content. Is that UNDUE? Bistropha (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently in the article this claim is attributed to two sources: Timothy Virkkala and "numerous" anonymous sources the Economist spoke to, so the sources weren't just uncritically parroting a blog. It's not guilt-by-association because the claim is that he directly worked on the newsletters. I've reduced the word count so 55 words of 734 of those total article prose (7.5%) are dedicated to this issue, to avoid undue attention. If this isn't sufficient, maybe an RfC would be useful? Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you check that point, please? It appears that Reason spoke with Virkkala, but the Economist piece doesn't say that they interviewed him or "numerous veterans of the libertarian movement". Instead, The Economist piece  cites Virkkala's blog and Wendy McElroy's blog respectively.  Bistropha (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Fences&Windows for the links. With these ones, I had no problem reading the Reason article, and that appears to be a very reliable source. However, it only gives a very short mention of Tucker's involvement, and the only thing we know for sure is that he admitted to being an editor. The Economist link didn't work for me. I could read it for about 5 seconds and then it disappeared and was replaced with a 404 error. The first thing I would look for is if it is a good piece of true journalism or an op/ed column. Reliable sources are allowed to cite and discuss blogs, especially if those blogs are from involved parties, and we can give the source's interpretation and analysis of those blogs, but that all depends on context and I can't make any determination until I can read it. I do think weight was a huge problem, given the level of coverage (most of it is about Rockwell that I've seen so far), and F&W was right to trim it down greatly. Zaereth (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A problem with the page has been the recurrent attempts to expand on this topic into a whole section, put it into the lede, etc. Can this be prevented? Bistropha (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Excerpt from The Economist: "And according to numerous veterans of the libertarian movement, it was an open secret during the late-80s and early-90s who was ghostwriting the portions of Mr Paul's newsletters not penned by the congressman himself: Lew Rockwell, founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and members of his staff, among them Jeffrey Tucker, now editorial vice president of the Institute". Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it says that. It doesn't say that The Economist interviewed those veterans of the libertarian movement. Economist cites the blogs of those veterans. Isn't that right? Bistropha (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks F&W, that was helpful, but I'd still like to see it in context. I'm assuming you all have checked and determined that this source is an actual work of journalism rather than an op/ed column, right? All news outlets have their opinion and editorial columns, which are not generally reliable for anything but the author's opinion, in addition to their actual news articles which are reliable. That's the first thing I would look for.


 * To Bistropha, while we are not allowed to use things like tweets and blogs (under most circumstances) on their own merits, reliable, secondary sources most certainly can. A really reliable source will reveal where it got such info, unless it somehow violates a primary source's confidence. Does the article say it came from blogs? How do you know the reporter did not interview anyone? (Nearly all news stories involve interviewing people, yet most interviews are not the kind you quote verbatim, but rather are for gathering info to summarize.) It's questions like these I need context for. Context is everything.


 * For the purposes of this discussion, I'll just assume the source is reliable and the info, as you say, came from reading these veteran's blogs. While we can't use those blogs directly, once a reliable source cites info from them, that makes that info fair game. We should not use it misleadingly, not state the info as fact in wikivoice, but rather attribute it to "numerous verterans" just as the source does. I mean, once an RS opens the door, then we can use what the RS says about it. That's how this all works.


 * But we're not done there, because now you have to think of WP:NPOV, in particular WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT. Provided all other criteria of reliable sourcing and everything else is met, how much space does it deserve in proportion to the size of the article? In other words, if you weigh all the sources out there on this guy, and then weigh them against the sources on this info, how do you apportion it? Does it deserve a full section in the body, a single paragraph, a single sentence, or would even that be too much? Does it deserve no space at all? These are all questions you should be thinking about when examining this source. If I could give my own analysis of it I would, but it's a lot more complicated than just worrying about the fact that blogs were involved. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I took a few screenshots of the Economist piece (in its in-house political blog 'Democracy in America'), so you can read the text here . Of course my screenshots do not show their links. In the past the links in the piece could be seen, so I posted the URLs above in this thread. The words "open secret" were linked to Wendy McElroy's blog which cited the anonymous "Rightwatch" site; and Wirkman Virkkala's name was linked to his blog, which named a co-worker as the source. --- If this combination of debatable sourcing ("grapevine" material, anonymous material, user-generated sites) becomes acceptable because it appears in a generally RS publication, then I am somewhat surprised, but thank you for the explanations.
 * Thanks also for raising the points about NPOV, BALANCE, and WEIGHT. Those certainly are concerns, given the way the material has been expanded and given prominence by various editors over the past few years. Bistropha (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Gustavo Petro - The article is biased and has a number of dubious or disputed statements or unreliable sources


I know the person who bothered to correct the original article devoted a lot of time and effort to it, but I kindly note that it still has issues.

The article has a number of dubious or disputed statements and several unreliable sources, none of them scholar or academic. ENCYCLOPEDIC articles must meet a minimum of requirements as well as their sources.

Here the detail:

(SEMI-PROTECT page, correct it)

1) A part of the article is a translation of the one in spanish, or based on it, with somewhat similarly unreliable sources or biased statements, generally in favor of the subject. It is important to say that the article in spanish at Gustavo Petro with discussion at Talk:Gustavo Petro has been discussed to favor a certain public image for the subject, or part of it even written by himself under a presumed anonymous account, which, if proven, would violate Wikipedia’s policies and rules.

2) In summary, the article in English at Gustavo Petro, besides biased in favor of the subject and against former president Uribe, uses sources that limit themselves to repeating, quoting or misquoting other secondary sources, most of them in turn doing exactly that or merely echoing rumors, political campaigns or advertising, with almost none of them based on serious journalistic work with real proof nor performing a verification, particularly in the sections Lead, “early life”, “m19 militancy”, “education” and “early political career”.

3) The Lead section and the sections “early life”, “m19 militancy”, “education” and “early political career”, give very few sources for each statement, typically none or just one, perhaps two each, all of them either foreign newsmagazines that lack first-hand knowledge on Colombia, or local sources that are clearly praising the subject and are his sympathizers, like:

a) RCN, which is known as opposition media that praises Petro against the government, except “La Silla Vacía”, which is more or less reliable.

b) Bloomberg’s source, though “Bloomberg”, lacks direct knowledge of anything colombian, limiting itself to compiling or repeating unverified third party versions.

c) Semana’s source ( Gustavo Petro progressist does not do any kind of first-hand verification or research, limiting itself to repeating what others say, so do the Rosario University source Profile of the new mayor, whose link is now dead (Petro never studied at the Rosario University), and Moloka’s source ( Gustavo Petro’s Resume ), which is but the Resume submitted by the own subject when he ran for mayor of Bogota.

d) The source City Mayors – Mayors of the Month is a foreign one, lacking first-hand knowledge (or verification) on Colombia, compiling secondary sources without citing them, in a tone clearly biased towards the subject, praising him, favoring left-wings mayors as “the best” or “greener”, calling his recall a “sack” by the Inspector General, and Colombia’s democratically-elected government “undemocratic” simply because it is not left-wing and because it is pro-US.

e) Those sections “lead”, “early life”, “m19 militancy”, “education” and “early political career”, have no notary sources or academic or reliable source of such statements. The sources cited for those sections in the article in spanish are even worse: newspapers or websites of doubtful reputation, or known in Colombia for fake news or paid political advertising by many different political parties opposing each other; even El Espectador does not have a lot of reputation or credibility.

4) Those unreliable sources claim he has a variety of Masters’ and PhD degrees, but in fact, as this source shows Petro’s fake titles, Petro was alleged (and partially shown) not to have at least one or two of those degrees. The subject himself replied here Petro answers reservations about his academic degrees with his PARTIAL grade certificates, until a CERTAIN DATE, not until the end date, or certificates saying that he studied and passed the subjects but say nothing about the thesis work nor dissertation nor graduation. The subject claimed “that was everything showing his studies”, failing to show any DEGREE DIPLOMA that effectively shows he indeed graduated, including Master’s or PhD’s Diplomas in Economics, which leaves only his word, political advertising and rumors about his Master’s and PhD’s. In that last article, written by himself, the subject admitted to not having finished his PhD as well as not having graduated as Master’s in Economics from the Pontifical Xaverian University. He even admits not knowing about or not caring about Econometrics, a key part of today’s scientific Economics. At the end of the article, he himself admits to having started those studies and to not having finished them.

5) The Lead section says “Petro served as a senator as a member of the Alternative Democratic Pole party following the 2006 legislative elections with the second largest vote in the country”, using a source which is deleted on Wikinoticias, and the article in spanish claims it was the third largest vote, but actually Gustavo Petro was just FIFTH, as shown in Senadores Electos 2006 Colombia and Conformation of the Senate of the Republic.

6) In the sections “Early Life” and “m19 militancy”, the source Colombia Politics is an unreliable one, widely known as an opposition non-government organization that criticizes Alvaro Uribe in favor of his opponents (like the subject Gustavo Petro), with no direct or first-hand knowledge of the situation in Colombia, with biased or unfounded statements, which, on their webpage, show tendentious or belligerent tone about the 2021 Colombian protests, calling the police and the army, basically, “violent” “murderers”. [http://www.colombia-politics.com/aboutus/ Colombia Politics – About As)

7) Most of the sources used are sympathetic or biased towards the subject (Gustavo Petro), except a few things like Bogotá’s waste collection scandal or the recall, there are few sources critical to the subject.

8) Sympathetic towards the subject, the article makes no mention of the over 78 trials and judiciary processes where he has been denounced or sued (including criminal, supreme court, council of state, civil, human rights, etc.), which can be seen on the public database of Colombia’s Judiciary Branch at Historical Query of Trials and Processes – Colombia’s Judiciary Branch, writing “Gustavo Petro Urrego” in the name field, choosing “Todos los procesos” and leaving the other fields blank. There it can be seen that most of those trials have happened recently or are ongoing right now (much later than his m19 militancy) and are related to presumed corruption, damages caused by his repeated incitements to violent protests and strikes, calumny & libel & false accusations, his role or presumed incompetence as mayor of Bogota, the damages of his waste collection scandal, etc., etc., etc.

9) The section “Opposition to the Uribe government” says: “During a two-hour speech he [Petro] revealed a variety of documents demonstrating the relationship between members of the Colombian military, the current political leadership, narcotraffickers and paramilitary groups. Petro also criticized the actions of Álvaro Uribe as Governor of Antioquia Department during the CONVIVIR years, and presented an old photograph of Álvaro Uribe's brother, Santiago, alongside Colombian drug trafficker Fabio Ochoa Vázquez”. Such statements are INACCURATE and TENDENTIOUS: Petro intended to directly blame Uribe for everything, but he could never show a direct nor personal involvement of president Uribe (“the current political leadership”) with narcotrafficking or paramilitary groups or the Convivir, only involvement of other politicians (some even in opposition to Uribe), or that of his brother, never Uribe himself.

10) This is supported by A) Uribe didn’t undergo any impeachment process for these allegations, B) Colombia’s Nations’s General Attorney Office (which by law is quite independent from the Executive) investigated all those claims and evidence, during and after Uribe’s tenure, and shelved the matters, finding no merit to go to a criminal trial, as can be seen in the public databases of the General Attorney Office and the Judiciary Branch at Query of Complaints and Ex Officio Reports – Nation’s General Attorney Office and Historical query of trials and processes – Colombia’s Judiciary Branch. The quoted sentences need to be reworded and the word “demonstrating” has to be changed for “alleging”.

11) As these sources Petro has to rectify accusations against Uribe and Petro must retract say, Uribe filed a tutelary action against Petro, and won, for violation of the rights to honor and good name, dignity and presumption of innocence, with the Third Criminal Court of the Circuit dismissing all the “evidence” presented by Petro during the two-hour speech, and ordering Petro to rectify all his accusations within 48 hours, and also ordering: “en futuras entrevistas, o en comentarios que realice a través de redes sociales se abstenga de usar afirmaciones categóricas de comportamientos delictivos en contra del accionante " (that translates as “in future interviews, o social network comments, to abstain from making categorical statements about criminal behavior against the plaintiff”)

12) "Senator Petro alleged that the AUC financially contributed to the presidential campaign of Álvaro Uribe in 2002. Uribe refuted these statements by Petro but, during his presidential reelection campaign in 2006, admitted to having received financial support from Enilse López": the article’s subject (Gustavo Petro) stated that, but the wording is wrong, INACCURATE and TENDENTIOUS, since it implies that Uribe himself received the money for his own benefit, and:

a) As the article’s only source for this statement Gata encerrada ) stated, it was his CAMPAIGN who received a DONATION, and political campaigns have LEGAL STATUS (as a LEGAL ENTITY) separate from those of the candidates as private, natural citizens, just like a company is legally different and separate from each of its owners throughout the world. The source also states that there was no BAD FAITH implied, it was a common donation for a political campaign, like any other, and neither La Gata nor president Uribe demanded anything in return for giving or receiving the money.

b) In principle, there is no legal issue with campaigns receiving donations from questioned persons, since all Constitutions in the world guarantee PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE until proven guilty, and no investigation or prosecution had yet been done against La Gata in 2002. President Uribe never made any attempt to interfere or influence the investigations the Prosecutor’s Office was doing against La Gata and such office is by law quite independent from the Executive branch.

c) The multiple investigations by the Nation’s General Attorney Office to Uribe when president and after leaving office, found no proof that the money was ever something more than a usual, simple donation to a political campaign. THE ARTICLE HAS TO CLARIFY THAT, since it is, on the contrary, implying that Uribe himself received money from a drug dealer and paramilitary, in BAD FAITH and for personal benefit, in exchange for favors. Historical trial query – Colombia’s Judicial Branch ; Query of Criminal Complaints and Reports – Colombia’s Nation’s General Attorney Office ).

13) Contrary to Petro’s accusations, it was president Uribe who authored the Ley de Justicia y Paz in 2005 bringing paramilitary groups to justice and jail ( Ley de Justicia y Paz ), who asked for the capture of the remaining paramilitary groups ( Uribe demands capture of remaining paramilitaries, Uribe demands capture of remaining paramilitaries ), and who created a new Search Block to capture them ( Nine ex-paramilitaries captured.

14) This article is so sympathetic towards the subject (Gustavo Petro) that it doesn’t mention the different accusations of murder, assassination and kidnapping that were made against the subject during his m19 militancy (it only mentions rebellion, conspiracy and carrying of arms), though pardoned in the 1989 and 2016 Peace Agreements, neither does it mention anything of his role in the planning of Palace of Justice Siege as one of the foremost leaders of m19, for which he was being investigated by the General Attorney Office at the moment of the 1989 Peace Accord, as can be seen at Query of Complaints and Ex Officio Reports – Nation’s General Attorney Office. “Pardoned” does not mean those didn’t happen, only that they were not punished.

15) The article does not mention either the repeated, irresponsible, incendiary and often unfounded accusations the subject (Gustavo Petro) has been making for years towards traditional politicians almost indiscriminately, claiming to have “proofs”, as a political and publicitary strategy to gain sympathies and followers, as seen not only in his:

a) (dismissed) attacks to president Uribe, but also in:

b) accusing the prosecution of paramilitary infiltration when he learned that he was being investigated for trying to infiltrate it ( Fiscal dice que el infiltrado es Petro ),

c) as seen in inciting protests in Bogotá when he was recalled claiming a COUP D’ETAT ( Petro, Coup, Protests ),

d) as seen in him pressing the Prosecutor’s office to prosecute those who recalled him in retaliation ( Petro, Basuras ),

e) as seen in repeated claims to have been threatened to death by presumptly extinct paramilitary group AGUILAS NEGRAS (, Petro’s claims before CIDH ), who have been considered by the Colombian Authorities to be extinct and rather replaced by low-level criminal groups, as shown in ( Neoparamilitarism?, Petro and Cepeda denounce threats, Planflets named after Black Eagles ).

f) as seen in claiming that the two officers asked their IDs more or less near his mother’s house ( Militarymen were performing verification activities: army ) were actually threatening his family or himself to death,

g) as seen in his claims during the 2010 presidential campaign that his aim was to “remove organized crime from power”, calling president Uribe “organized crime”, despite Petro himself being seen as a “murderer” by a segment of the population and despite the Third Court of the Circuit in 2007 ordering him to abstain from public criminal accusations against president Uribe, in Petro has to rectify accusations against Uribe and Petro must retract,

h) or as seen in his inciting of the 2021, and 2019-2020 massive street riots in Colombia ( What happens in the Protests is Petro’s responsibility, Petro calls Football fans to be part of the protests ),

i) or as seen in his repeated but unproven claims that Ivan Duque won the 2018 presidential elections by means of FRAUD ( Petro denies Ivan Duque as president,

j) or in his claims that he is going to criminally report his supporter, mayor of Bogota Claudia Lopez ( Petro threatens to file criminal trial against Claudia Lopez ),

k) or as seen in his claims, again, of COUP D’ETAT when the National Electoral Council, following the law, revoked the legal status of his political movement Colombia Humana because of extremely low vote in the 2018 Legislative Elections ( CNE denies legal status to Colombia Humana ), which does not prevent him from running for president in 2022…

(my God that guy Petro sounds like Trump!) (everything that does not favor him is a coup d’etat or a conspiracy)

16) The two officers Petro claimed were “spying on him” or “trying to kill his family”, were not captured nor detained, only asked their IDs, neither were they too close to his family’s home, and the army officially answered that they were investigating another, unrelated matter of intelligence (verification), as the source ( Militarymen were performing verification activities: army ) says.

17) Most of those “death threats” Petro talks about, have been investigated by the Nation’s General Attorney Office (which is quite independent from the Executive branch), so far having found no proof or evidence, or not being directly targeted at Petro, and hence shelving them and not going to criminal trial, despite death threats being a criminal offense in Colombia, as can be seen both in the public databases of the General Attorney Office and the Judiciary Branch at Query of Complaints and Ex Officio Reports – Nation’s General Attorney Office and Historical query of trials and processes – Colombia’s Judiciary Branch.

18) Furthermore, the BLACK EAGLES are considered by the Colombian Authorities to be extinct by the dates Petro claimed to have been threatened, and rather replaced by low-level criminal groups, as shown in ( Neoparamilitarism?, Petro and Cepeda denounce threats, Planflets named after Black Eagles ).

19) When asked about Petro’s death threats, Colonel Jimmy Perez Baena, commander in charge of the police, answered that such AGUILAS NEGRAS no longer exist, that it is other criminal bands who have taken their name, devoted to drug trafficking and in coalition with remnants of FARC, and that a number of people had been captured and made available to the Prosecution, engaged in selective homicides, who were found weapons, ammunition and pamphlets alluding to both social cleansing groups and the FARC (another guerrilla group supposed to be sympathetic to Petro), detracting from the possibility that the colombian right-wing is somehow involved in the threats, as shown in ( Neoparamilitarism?, Petro and Cepeda denounce threats, Planflets named after Black Eagles ).

20) “A lawsuit has been filed by citizens against Duque alleging bribery and fraud. The News chain Wradio made public the law suit July 11, which was presented to the CNE (Consejo Nacional Electoral, National Electoral Council, by its acronym in Spanish).[36] The state of the law suit will be defined by the Magistrado Alberto Yepes”, with the source Elections sued, but it was not presented to the CNE but to the Consejo de Estado, and the wording is INACCURATE and TENDENTIOUS: that source and the lawsuit do not mention “bribery” nor “fraud”, instead focusing on the fact that the Consejo Nacional Electoral did not allow the inscription of the party “Integración Nacionalista Radical Internacional”, and also on an alleged double-militancy incurred in by elected Vice-president Martha Lucia Ramirez.

21) Based on those allegations, that lawsuit took place and the highest instance, the Consejo de Estado, sentenced in favor of current president Ivan Duque Marquez and current Vice-president Martha Lucia Ramirez, as can be seen in: ( Pretensions rejected, double militancy denied ), where Petro and the citizens demanded “Que mediante sentencia sea declarada la nulidad del acto de elección popular efectuado  el  17  de  junio  de  2018,  en  desarrollo  de  la  segunda vuelta de la elección presidencial de nuestro país”, “En  consecuencia,  que  se  disponga  la  cancelación  de  las  credenciales  de Presidente y Vicepresidente que se hubiesen otorgado a los Doctores Iván Duque Márquez y Martha Lucía Ramírez Blanco” (“that by means of a sentence nullity of the act of popular election performed on June 17th, 2018, during the run-off of the presidential elections, be declared”, “Consequently, order the cancellation of the credentials of President and Vice President that had been granted to Doctors Iván Duque Márquez and Martha Lucía Ramírez Blanco”), where the sentence says: “Deniéganse  las  pretensiones  de  la  demanda  de  conformidad  con  lo expuesto en la parte motiva de esta providencia” (“The pretensions of the lawsuit are denied according to what is stated in the motive part of this ruling”).

Please, proceed to correct all those above-mentioned 21 points.

The correction is urgent, critical and necessary, given the heated environment in Colombia right now, where hatred floods everything and where Wikipedia is taken as the referent to claim former president Uribe is “a murderer” and “a drug dealer”, which is the apparent implication of the article as it is right now.

Thank you, critic1234567 Critic1234567 (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You've written a lot, and it's unlikely anyone is going to look into every point. I suggest you concentrate on the urgent issues. From a very very quick skim through what you wrote, there are some obvious problems with your proposal. For 8, 10, maybe 12, 14 and 21, your source is some .gov.co site. An official government website is generally fairly useless for anything but very basic information (like when someone was elected to office) with a controversial political figure. Secondary sources like Bloomberg are required. This is especially the case if you are linking to a court document or a official government press release. We cannot mention any legal cases or outcomes which have not been covered in reliable secondary sources.  For 15 since I don't understand Spanish, I would not be able to look into these examples, but I wonder if your sources support your claim. For example for 15 c, I looked at a machine translation of the BBC source and do not see any evidence of "as seen in inciting protests in Bogotá when he was recalled". I do see he called it a coup, but I don't even see any evidence that his description was a particular controversial or notable part of the dispute. Especially not that it was part of "repeated, irresponsible, incendiary and often unfounded accusations". Your personal belief it was such is not sufficient, we need sources discussing how he regularly makes such statements. To be clear, this means sources which simply mentions a statement which you find " irresponsible, incendiary and ..... unfounded". The source needs to actually describe it as such if we are going to describe his statements as such in the article. If we don't have that, we could mention some of his statements without describing them negatively, but we would still need some evidence from sources that those statements of his were particularly significant since most politicians say a lot of things all the time and we're never going to cover all of them.  Finally the choice of Colombian sources vs non Colombian sources is complicated. While lacking reporters on the ground in Colombia can be limiting, we expect quality reliable sources to be able to partly make up for it by assessing and reporting what other sources they have vetted and trust have told them. The state of press freedom in Colombia is fairly low, so we also have to take care when relying on Colombian sources, as User:Carlosverano92 mentioned above. On the whole, while we sometimes may rely on Colombian sources, in other cases quality non Colombian sources may actually be a better idea especially with extremely contentious subjects. Note I'm not saying this necessarily applies to Bloomberg.  Nil Einne (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Family dictatorship
These aren't very nice people, but starting someone's entry with "There have been rumours"? Doug Weller talk 08:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Which entry are you finding lacks the necessary reliable sourcing? -- Jayron 32 14:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the objection is to the word "rumor" used for the entries for Belarus, Venezuela, Guinea, and North Korea. It looks like most of that is just elegant variation, as we have real sources not just rumor. We can change most of those for which our sources don't use the word. --GRuban (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added some comments to the talk page. Is this really a useful subject? JHowardGibson (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Reading festival line-up 1976
The band Stallion mentioned on the 1976 line-up page is not the american Stallion. Stallion who played at the festival were from Hastings E.Sussex England and were the winners of the MelodyMaker rock contest of that year with part of the prize for winning was to play at Reading festival. I tried to change the link but the text went to the wrong place! Surely the Reading festival archives should have the correct information somewhere or MelodyMaker can prove that Stallion (from Hastings) played that gig? No disrespect to the american Stallion but it is wrong to claim that they played that gig at Reading. Could someone please chack this out. Thank you, Digger Stallion (Hastings) roadie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.200 (talk • contribs)


 * Done: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reading_and_Leeds_Festivals_line-ups&type=revision&diff=1025675944&oldid=1023414490 Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ramani Durvasula
An IP claiming to be the subject needs help from somebody who can be nice, tactful, encouraging and helpful without going flame-thrower. ... and who knows how to handle this. thanks. -Roxy . wooF 20:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Roxy the dog, the content wasn't well sourced - it was cited to a primary source so per WP:BLPNAME removal is appropriate. We could better source it, but in the context of someone claiming to be the subject and receiving threats the removal seems OK to me. I've left them a welcome message. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox professional wrestler
The underlying issue came to my attention at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The issue was the birthplace and the height of a former professional wrestler. The birthplace issue was resolved and my concern is with the associated height (and weight) issues, which apply to many professional wrestler BLPs. Discussion of this issue is ongoing at Talk:Dave Bautista and at User talk:InedibleHulk and User talk: Cullen328. It seems that this template allows display of "Billed height" and "Billed weight" parameters, which are routinely cited to web pages controlled by the WWE or other professional wrestling businesses, which are pretty much the opposite of reliable sources, since they routinely exaggerate height, weight and every other fact about their performers. So, living people have false heights and weights cited to sources known to lie constantly. Professional wrestling is an entertainment subculture built around the concept of kayfabe, which means that people who make their living from professional wrestling are expected to lie constantly and consistently about personalities, backgrounds, rivalries, heights and weights. That's an interesting sociological phenomenon but it cannot possibly be acceptable to present this type of "in universe" content in a neutral encyclopedia, cited to sources that all sane people know are unreliable. When were unreliable sources ever acceptable in a BLP? Well, back in the Wild West days of fourteen plus years ago when the BLP policy hadn't yet been written, and this policy violating template was created. The problem emerged only when the representative of a living person called the matter to our attention. I think that we need firm consensus that professional wrestling articles are not exempt from Wikipedia's core content policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, and that all unreliable sources and any content cited to unreliable sources should be removed promptly from professional wrestling articles. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In short, I just maintain that these are the correct billed heights and weights, per a reliable primary source for such fiction, regardless of whether they're inaccurate elsewise (or "out of universe", if you will). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing,, that Wikipedia ought to present false information cited to unreliable sources in BLPs because the template adds the weasel word "billed"? Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * More that "billed" is not a weasel word. It's a helpful qualifier. Like how it suggests Dick the Bruiser wasn't really The Crusher's cousin. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:KAYFABE is not a policy. WP:BLP is. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant as ever, STOP PINGING ME WITH YOUR FARFETCHED STORYLINES. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Those links are an interesting read, but unfortunately don't clear up for sure the bit of most interest to me here, which is "does the subject, talking through his representative, want those heights in the article?". It's an interesting conundrum, as it's explicitly a work of fiction but interacts a bit with BLP policy. Because it's explicitly marked as fiction and as an in-universe situation, I'm inclined to concur that it's abstractly appropriate, but some of the linked conversations imply the subject has requested it'd be removed. In that case, I'd be inclined to comply with that as well treating it as any other BLP issue, but I can't tell for sure. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 06:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , these are not articles about fictional characters that we are talking about, who are forever and ever controlled by professional wrestling. Instead, these are biographies of living people who had lives before pro wrestling and after pro wrestling. It is well known thst many pro wrestlers also have careers in other professional sports, or as actors and or even politicians. What other type of actor has fictitious personal information from their fictional roles inserted into infoboxes of their biographies? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  06:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To its credit, the PW infobox makes pretty clear it's only providing bullshit particular to the life during wrestling, often featuring handy debut and retirement years. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am a non-fan of wrestlingdon't hate it, just into other stuffbut I know enough to be aware of the fiction involved. However, I would never have assumed that the height and weight info presented in an encyclopedia article was fictional, especially in the infobox (where I generally look for uncontroversial basic facts). "Billed" to me does not signify that the information being presented is known, or highly suspected to be, completely fabricated. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not completely fabricated, typically within three inches and fifty pounds of the unhidable truth, and always higher, unless it's Little Spike Dudley. Anyway, yes. Any time you see "billed" and it's not about money or birds, be very suspicious, all of you outsiders! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell there is no actual problem here. They appear to be clearly labels as billed height, weight, and from. Perhaps we could put some clarification in there on what billed means? But that sounds like a sky is blue situation. PackMecEng (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cullen, what you call "lying", the rest of us call "acting". I'm all for not using kayfabe or other in-universe sourcing, but suggestion that wrestlers are immoral (lying) because they're portraying characters for entertainment purposes is a bit "get off my lawn"-ish. Billed height and weight is a routine statistic for a pro wrestler, just like any other athlete. Not listing a billed height/weight because it's not the person's actually height/weight is like not listing a stage name because it's not the person's real name. Identify it for what it is, but don't omit it. And lay off hating on pro wrestling; it's just another form of entertainment. There are far more liars in Washington than the WWE. Levivich harass/hound 19:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Staley, Hendrix, Cobain, Cornell and Vedder don't have a single straightforward lyric between them, and The Space Needle was always anything but, but they still give the people what they want. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * it took me a day but I found a single straightforward lyric between them: "Mary". Each one of them sang a song about her (popular lady). (Ok, Chris called her "Maria" but same difference.) Levivich harass/hound 14:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In the wholly original words of Joey Styles, oh my God! I guess "grunge" wasn't an illusion. One of these days, you'll make sergeant for stuff like this! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am a little bit surprised and very disappointed that you think that is OK to use unreliable sources to add false information to BLPs. As is well known, Paul David Hewson's stage name is Bono and that is explained clearly in the first sentence of the article, and in countless reliable sources. But Dave Bautista is not 6'-6" tall, and I fail to see how throwing "billed" into the mix makes it OK when the underlying source is unreliable. As for other athletes, is there any other sport that churns out obvious falsehoods about its athletes? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - it's only false when we claim that it is the real height. We don't. We state that it's an advertised height. It's true that WWE advertises Batista to be 6'6".  starship .paint  (exalt) 11:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nailed it. oknazevad (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If anyone was wondering if Batista and WWE are still actively in cahoots, zombies just this Sunday night replaced lumberjacks in a lumberjack match, sacrificing all the dignity this great sport had left to cross-promote somebody's latest vanity project. Yes folks, zombies. Congratulations Dave, Zack Snyder and NBC, you've forced this longtime loyal loser to leave town. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

As an editor who primarily focuses on professional wrestling articles, I have some insight to provide. As you all know, professional wrestling is a strange universe and performing art form. Unlike other forms of entertainment such as cinema and novels, the line is frequently blurred between characters, fiction, and reality due to the nature of kayfabe interacting frequently with the real world. The infobox we speak of is not necessarily the main biographical information infobox, but rather a sub infobox entitled "professional wrestling information", which states quick facts both kayfabe (billed from/billed height) and actual information (trained by, debut, retired, etc). For instance, a wrestler may be born in one city (listed in primary infobox) but might be billed as being from another city or even a fictional place (such as "Wherever he damn well pleases" or "From the bottom of the sea" or "From Gotham") as part of his persona. Such information is considered to be important identifying characteristics of their character relevant for professional wrestling coverage on Wikipedia, and tends to be included because of the promotion saying so (whether online or during ring announcements during a wrestler's entrance). The heights might be accurate or they might be exaggerated as a part of a character as dictated by a professional wrestling company such as WWE in order to make their character appear to be more credible of a threat. It is long acknowledged that the heights stated by the company might be exaggerated, and therefore statements of actual heights and weights are likely from unreliable sources, and in such a case, listing the exaggerated height from a reliable primary source is acceptable due to the nature of kayfabe listing "professional wrestling information" and the way kayfabe interacts with reality. For instance, Adam Cole is billed as being 6'0, but is widely and infamously rumored in the wrestling community to be much shorter due to things like pictures taken with fans who are shorter than 6'0 being of comparable height to Cole. Additionally, I can compare this to a phenomenon seen in actual sports competition. Until the NBA banned this practice, coaches, players, and basketball player development executives in the NBA are known to bump up (or even down) players listed heights by a few inches in order to justify marketing them to play a certain position normally played by taller or shorter players. For instance, Kobe Bryant was listed as 6'6 despite being 6'4 to better justify him being a shooting guard and Kevin Durant listed himself as 6'9 despite being 6'10 (or alternatively 7'0 in shoes) in order for him to play small forward rather than as center. In sports, height is important to list for various reasons, and teams sometimes state a wrong height for their personal benefit. However, it still is sourced as accurate for purposes of biography, as it comes from authoritative bodies. In regards to wrestling, it does not constitute a violation of BLP due to the height never implying to be accurate, and professional wrestling articles look at kayfabe from an outside point of view, such as when explaining storylines and listing billed height. In sports it's listed height, in professional wrestling it's billed height. Slightly different terms but same concept, for slightly different reasons but for very similar purposes intended to benefit the involved parties. Maybe I'd recommend making it more clear that the height is of the character and not of the actual person somehow? Because clearly it doesn't intend to deceive. It strives to accurately reflect the wrestling character as it is presented. Due to the nature of kayfabe these billed heights of the characters that the wrestling promotions promote sometimes gets misconstrued as promoting false information regarding the actual persons itself. DrewieStewie (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC) As others have said above, I see no issue with us including "in-universe" billed height. There is no claim on our part that these are meant to be realistic, and I certainly don't agree with the idea that the use of the word "billed" qualifies as WP:WEASEL. Now, if OP wanted to add an "actual height" field I don't think I'd oppose it, but I certainly don't think that kayfabe billed heights and weights are in any way a BLP violation. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 12:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * has it right. Billed height is not real height. Billed weight is not real weight. We are not claiming these are their real height and weights, we clearly say it's billed. WWE is reliable for billed heights, not real heights.  starship .paint  (exalt) 11:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, all sports have stats issues like this, eg . Pro wrestling is sports entertainment like Harlem Globetrotters, though, so their billed stats aren't deceptive, unlike basketball and baseball players, whose stats are supposed to be real. But that's why it's "billed height" for pro wrestling, and "listed height" for other athletes, as opposed to just "height". Hence why "billed" and "listed" aren't weasel words, they're key qualifiers. Levivich harass/hound 15:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, just wait until this noticeboard discovers that one wrestler has Allegedly well over 400 lb as his billed weight... — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 12:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with those above that at no pin to are we claiming these billed heights and weights are the living person's actual figures, and that's made plainly clear by the "billed" being included on the parameter. Gotta remember, these articles are as much about the kayfabe character (or succession thereof for those who have had long careers) as the real-world person. oknazevad (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't know why we even have a weight and height section within infoboxes. These are rarely defining characteristics; even people known for their size (Rey Mysterio vs Andre the Giant for example) make it very clear within their articles how big they are. Andre's fluctuating weight is very clear, and the "wrestling numbers" debate is always pretty much made up to emphasise things. It should be something in the professional wrestling persona section in the prose if it is important. Weights are more important for boxers who have weight classes. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would argue that billed height and weight are key stats for a pro wrestler (also for other athletes). For example, Andre's 7'4" 520lbs billed height and weight are a prominent part of Shepard Fairey's Andre the Giant Has a Posse (even though it's not actual height and weight). Levivich harass/hound 13:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree that as long as it is clear that we're talking "billed" or other delineation as to state that this is not what "reality" is saying but what the wrestling promotional material is saying, that's fine. (I'd preferably like to see a color bar above that information as to break where everything below it is the "billed" personality and everything above it is from the infobox person proper, but the proper labels help to avoid that as a necessity). --M asem (t) 15:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's already like that, see Dave Bautista. Levivich harass/hound 15:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Its not colored, its just a centered label so it could be a bit lost in the noise, but you still rightfully have labels to indicated billed parts. --M asem (t) 16:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not really a wresting fan, though I'm familiar with the tropes and jargon. My initial impression is that the billed height and weight are the sorts of information many people might come to WP looking for, and as such, we have at least some interest in providing that information.
 * I think the concern over presenting false information is valid (I'm not quite sure what I think of the concerns over the BLP's consent for this info), and as such, I think a good question is whether or not the word "billed" is sufficient to convey clearly that the presented information is fictional. I lean towards "no", and would suggest appending the word "Character's" to make it more clear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem with the Billed weight/height, since it's an important aspect for a pro wrestler and billed means "in-universe". Reading the template, I tought there was a "real weight/height", parameter. Maybe, we can 1, change billed to a better word. 2, include a real weight/height parameter. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Mjolnerpants for the most part, except that "billed" alone may not be enough to convey that the info is from the fictional universe. I see a lot of arguments that "billed" is somehow specific to pro-wrestling, and that people will just automatically know the difference, but I disagree on that point. We should write it so that it's clear to the total outsider that this info may be fictional. (I say may, because I've seen some of these guys up close, like the Undertaker, and that guy is huge!) For example, if I look up "billed" in the dictionary, the only definition I find that fits is: "to declare or describe officially; proclaim". While I know that "officially" in this context means from the fiction world, I think we could do a better job of making that known in an article that is supposed to be about the actor rather than the character, especiall if putting in an infobox. Zaereth (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe advertised or promoted height and weight could work.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Think billed as. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Now, the infobox for Dave Bautista is in the ridiculous state of having two heights listed. There is his actual height of 6'-4" cited to an actual reliable source, Sports Illustrated, and then there is "billed height" of 6'-6", cited to this unreliable piece of garbage. When did it become acceptable to use glaringly unreliable sources in multiple BLPs under any circumstances? I simply do not understand the reasoning of other editors here. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like everyone is largely in agreement here that it is acceptable and even that the WWE site is a RS for billed information about a wrestler. There is some talk about possibly calling it something other than billed, but not really any disagreement on the concept. PackMecEng (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we'd definitely have to go with something other than billed, as it clearly causes confusion. In the bruhaha that started this, it was a journalist doing an interview who got the height from Wikipedia which brought the issue to the attention of the article subject. It also still seems odd, since we're putting the information of a character someone plays in their infobox as fact. We don't add Billed species Cat to Beverley Knight's article just because she's been billed as a character that is a cat. It's especially an issue for cross-over stars, like Bautista as they probably have many more people looking for information regarding them based on their film roles rather than their wrestling role. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Cullen 328 seems to be confused about the word "unreliable". Nobody is claiming that the information is accurate. But billed height, weight, and hometown are defining characteristics of wrestlers--just watch the introduction to absolutely every match. For what it's worth, McFarland's Biographical Dictionary of Professional Wrestling states that he is 6'6" and 325 pounds. Anyhow, I don't see the problem here. There is an actual height in the infobox and a billed height below. If a reliable source could be given for actual weight, I'm sure that could be added as well. 13:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It should also be mentioned that aside from exceptions related to other professions I listed below responding to Jim, not every wrestling biography is affected by this, as aside from the most recently deceased, deceased wrestlers aren't covered by BLP and as such, the professional wrestling billed heights would still take precedent regardless with less concerns than those raised about living subjects. Still though, for the reasons I've stated elsewhere on this thread, this doesn't violate BLP, and almost everybodu agrees. DrewieStewie (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Proposal - change "billed height/weight/from" to "character's height/weight/hometown"

Per - it is not apparent that "billed" sufficiently conveys the fictional aspect of height / weight / hometown being advertised by the pro-wrestling company. As such, I would like to formally propose ' idea that we edit Template:Infobox professional wrestler's display, changing (1) "Billed height" to "Character's height", changing (2) "Billed weight" to "Character's weight", and changing "Billed from" to "Character's hometown". This will better inform readers that this is not the actual height / weight / hometown of these professional wrestlers.  starship .paint  (exalt) 02:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Notified WT:PW. Ping, other participants of above discussion.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 02:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sold Some wrestlers happen to be the same size as their characters, advertising isn't always working us. I'd rather outsiders wise up to the idea of promotion, billing and stagecraft. But better than outright obliviation. This could get seriously confusing for wrestlers with a variety of characters, of course. Especially the rare cases where one is taller. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Unneeded. As noted above, "billed" is clearly in the sense of "billed as", and is sufficiently clear. I think Cullen is letting his personal disdain cloud his judgement, to be honest. Refering to the promotion's website as "unreliable garbage" when its being cited for the figure they use as their billed height is utterly wrongheaded and misguided. Of course the primary source for a statement of fact like that is reliable. oknazevad (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay with whatever happens with height and weight. "Billed from" is fine though. DrewieStewie (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This parameter is an invitation to use spectacularly unreliable sources in BLPs, and on principle, I must insist that WP:BLP must be followed, and that policy says, " Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (emphasis added) Please, please, fellow editors,  take a long, hard look at this source now actually used in a BLP, and ask yourself if it meets that policy standard. It is crystal clear to me that this is not a reliable source and that this source and any like it should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone in a BLP. Many editors are arguing, much to my bewilderment, that this type of garbage source is OK in a BLP, because everyone knows that professional wrestling is built on a culture of kayfabe lying. I reject that. We cannot allow that type of thinking to infect this encyclopedia. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  03:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not unreliable. WWE owns the character Batista, Dave Bautista portrays said character. Reliable information about their character. Doesn't violate BLP as the information is accurate about their own character. Their article provides information about the real person and the character as is standard for professional wrestling articles. It is important to make that disambiguation. These wrestlers characters are what they are notable for, so information about the character is going to be the predominant focus of the article. Therefore not BLP violation. Their real height can be displayed too if sufficiently noted by a reliable sources and is otherwise relevant and notable. Usually these billed heights reflect those stated in the last wrestling promotion they have worked for. Batista's real height is also notable for his acting career, his one MMA match, and for his fitness enthusiasm, so it is worthy of mention as well. Inaccurate heights that belong to the character are expected in pro wrestler biographies due to the nature of the business and the fact that they are playing characters with such attributes. Their kayfabe height doesn't stick with them if they embark on another trade. For instance, wrestlers who might also dabble in bodybuilding (Lex Luger), basketball (Dennis Rodman), football (Pat McAfee), and MMA/other martial arts/boxing (Bobby Lashley) might have their real heights on their articles too as part of their other professions. (for reference though, Batista still has ties with WWE, as he is supposed to be inducted in the WWE Hall of Fame whenever the next chance arises.)DrewieStewie (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's a character that someone else owns that a performer has just played then why is it in their infobox? We don't take Douglas Rain's infobox and add the in-universe information about HAL 9000 to their personal article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's because the area is especially grey due to a wrestling character interacting far more closely with reality than other forms of entertainment. The separation between actor and character is far more ambiguous. Usually for a film, both the character and person are separate, notable entities. However, many wrestling characters are exclusively known for their characters with their person being almost entirely synonymous with their wrestling fame and little separation between the two, unlike film and TV characters. Batista is in a smaller but somewhat significant minority in the industry where due to his acting career and MMA match, his person is much more clearly notable and separable from his wrestling character. DrewieStewie (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support, but unconvinced of the need. I essentially concur with Oknazevad on the situation here, and I have high respect for Cullen and am unhappy to be against him. Still, it's a fairly simple fix that can clarify the relationship between the character and the actor. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 03:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , so you are going on the record in support of using stunningly, shockingly, glaringly unreliable sources in BLPs? Interesting. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't a question of reliability, it's a question of due weight - and it seems like in this case it is due weight to include these loosely-reality-based statistics. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have BLPN watchlisted -- there's no need to ping me here, especially as I work on multiple projects and a ping may distract me from significant work on another. This conversation really troubles and dismays me, and I strongly considered just not !voting except that I feel it might be the only way to possibly meet a compromise between your position and all the other positions discussed here. I'm deeply upset that I'm being accused of, essentially, being evil, for trying to fit a compromise solution between that of someone I have high respect for and that of every single other participant here. I respect your position, I agree with a lot of your position, I hold you in high esteem as one of the single best editors on the site, I feel absolutely awful and dismayed and upset that you're considering me such a horrible person, and I want to find a solution that both you and the consensus can agree with. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 05:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I will not ping you again, Vaticidalprophet. I like being pinged when people respond to my points, but now I know that you don't like to be pinged. I do not think that you or any other editor who disagrees with me are "evil" or "horrible" but rather I consider your current position incorrect on this specific BLP policy issue. I hope to win you over. I have read many thoughtful responses to my position, but as I see it, none have addressed the fundamental issue of why it is OK to use unreliable sources in pro wrestler BLPs. I put forward a specific WWE source about Dave Bautista that I asked other editors to analyze for reliability and so far I have been ignored. I consider that source a steaming pile of tripe, consisting of lie after lie after lie. Read the Sports Illustrated souce for his actual height to see the impact that these lies have on people's careers after trying to leave the WWE. If an encyclopedia put forward a reference as a reliable source that called you heinous and claimed that three homicides had occurred on your parent's front lawn, how would you feel? Would you respond that it is OK because that crap is actually a highly reliable  source? Are people bound to WWE lies for life? I would like to hear a sentence by sentence analysis explaining why that WWE bio is instead actually an example of the "high quality sources" that BLP policy demands, even for pro wrestler biographies. Or are wrestlers exempt? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  07:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that you feel a lot of distress about this, but it would probably be a better use of your time to discuss it with the people opposing this as "the current parameters are completely fine", because I honestly find this a stressful enough conversation to consider unwatching the noticeboard, and there are a lot more parties here who both disagree with you and don't think a compromise position is necessary than my "try to make both sides happy" stance. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 07:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cullen, I think you might be slightly over-reacting to this. These aren't "lies", any more than saying "Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father" is a lie. The "weight/height/hometown" parameters don't claim to factually represent the real life person: the template itself even explicitly calls it kayfabe. However, as I said elsewhere, if you wanted to argue that an "actual weight" parameter is added in addition to the billed weight, I think that'd be reasonable. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 07:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the problem with the "it's no different than saying X about character Y" is that these articles combine the real person and the wrestling persona, and are generally written with an in-universe slant. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is why it's made clear by the use of the word "billed", as McPhail says a couple of comments below. And as I say, the template also explicitly calls it kayfabe just to make it more certain. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 11:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Only the word "billed" is not clear, which is what started this whole thing. Also how many readers will check the template page? In the past 20 days the high is 19 page views. The lowest for Bautista's page in the same time frame is 5927. Clearly no one is actually looking at the template, nor should we expect them to look at the template to find out the information is make-believe. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't agree, I think it is very clear -- this is what they're billed as. Literally, it's saying "this is the weight that WWE/AEW/NJPW/whoever say they are. I don't think there's an implication here that this is meant to be real. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 12:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User talk:Jmmeisner shows that it's clearly not as cut and dry as that. People are taking that information and republishing it as fact because "billed" doesn't mean "a faked number specific to pro wrestling" anywhere except for on a Wikipedia template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "billed" doesn't mean "a faked number specific to pro wrestling" anywhere except for on a Wikipedia template is not correct. Search Google Scholar or Google Books for "billed height". It's the term used by RS. Levivich harass/hound 17:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - professional wrestlers don't play characters - the technical word is "gimmick". I don't really see what we gain from changing to character, other than annoy a lot of people. Still not sold it is required info for the infobox, rather than just prose. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not convinced by the need to change this at all. It's pretty self explanatory what we mean by this, and the template page even explicitly calls it kayfabe. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 06:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:AINT. People know that "billed" means its not their actual height/weight.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. "Billed" in this context means exactly what it says: the height/weight by which the performer is "advertise{d} by a bill or public notice". We aren't saying Batista etc *is* a certain height, we are saying he is *billed* as being that height. Ipso facto, the entity carrying out the advertising/billing is a reliable source for this information. Note we used to also include "real" heights and weights in Infoboxes which is a terrible idea given how difficult this is to source accurately. Note further that the information in question sits safely in the "Professional wrestling career" section of the infobox. McPhail (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As usual, we have an admin busying themselves by taking an absolutely minor occurrence and making a really big deal out of it. As was the case with that RFC several years ago, no meaningful (only cosmetic) changes will result and long-standing problems with our coverage of professional wrestling will remain in place.  I wish I could explain in more detail, but it's necessary to get ready for work.  The proposal as it's developing borders on WP:CREEP. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  09:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note - this proposal was not instigated by an administrator. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nor did this proposal's instigator take "an absolutely minor occurrence" and make "a really big deal out of it". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No need for clunky rephrasing of a common and widely understood term. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think as long as the section of a BLP's infobox that is devoted to their wrestling persona is clearly distinguished and separated from all the other facts that otherwise apply to the BLP, as well as given secondary weight to the facts, as the current infobox does, and that the labelling is clear that this is a billing and not meant to be read as "real-world factual" then no change is needed. If anything, perhaps a tooltip atop the "billed" labels to indicate something "this may not reflect their real height/weight" for those that are unsure. (Arguably, the way the infobox is all set up, I think there's some need of WP:CIR to be considered that the templates goes out of its way to be clear that those aren't to be read as the factual heights or weights). --M asem (t) 14:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the others above. "Billed" is a term of art used by RSes, and we're an encyclopedia, we should follow them. It's the correct term. Not opposed to an explanatory tooltip tho. Levivich harass/hound 16:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: change "billed height/weight/from" to "Kayfabe height/weight/hometown"
I see that the information is something that readers may want, but I also see that it's easy for readers, and editors, to have no idea that "billed" means "make believe" in the context of the height and weight. I propose that we change it to Kayfabe weight, Kayfabe height, and Kayfabe hometown. Kayfabe is a strange enough word where if you don't know what it means you'll at least hover over the wikilink and see In professional wrestling, kayfabe /ˈkeɪfeɪb/ (also called work or worked), as a noun, is the portrayal of staged events within the industry as "real" or "true". It is far less likely than "billed" to be mistaken for real life and we can wikilink directly to the article that explains the concept to non-wrestling fans who may be looking at these articles.


 * Support as proposer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Weak oppose per WP:AINT: there seems to be the belief that people are getting confused by "billed" and believing it to be literal, but I don't think there's any indication this is the case. As McPhail said above: "Billed" in this context means exactly what it says: the height/weight by which the performer is "advertise{d} by a bill or public notice". We aren't saying Batista etc *is* a certain height, we are saying he is *billed* as being that height. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 12:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , that kind of confusion is specifically what caused this discussion to happen. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think Cullen was ever under the impression that "billed height" was supposed to be literal. He even acknowledges the kayfabe nature of it in his opening post: Professional wrestling is an entertainment subculture built around the concept of kayfabe, which means that people who make their living from professional wrestling are expected to lie constantly and consistently about personalities, backgrounds, rivalries, heights and weights. That's an interesting sociological phenomenon but it cannot possibly be acceptable to present this type of "in universe" content in a neutral encyclopedia, cited to sources that all sane people know are unreliable. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think his issue is with the existence of kayfabe parameters in the infobox and how we source them -- not a confusion about whether or not they're real. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 12:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , my problem is with the use of glaringly unreliable and overtly promotional sources in biographies of living people. I hope that's clear now. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But they are reliable when we're talking about kayfabe weights. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 06:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the source is packed with lies, tells a lie about his height, does not admit that it is a lie, and you call that a reliable source worthy of use on Wikipedia. Kayfabe is lying. Astonishing. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's no more lying than presenting any other fictional information. The source just demonstrates what a character's height is, not the actor portraying the character. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 16:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , when describing fictional characters, Wikipedia articles ought to use reliable, independent, third party sources, not lying "in universe" promotional crap written to make more money for the WWE. And a BLP of a performer should be about the performer, and should not be a fake biography of their most famous role. Would we fill up Hal Holbrook with myths and legends about Mark Twain? Of course not. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , no, Dave Bautista's manager was under the impression that it was literal. here and here. There was also some discussion on the talk page of the article that got mangled. The information is being republished, and mistaken even for people involved in professional wrestling. This is because "billed" doesn't mean "make believe numbers" anywhere but on that single template on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I see; apologies, I misinterpreted your point. Still, I think re-assessing the naming convention because of one manager's misinterpretation (someone who, honestly, should know better) is a tad unwarranted -- I do think "billed" is pretty self-explanatory when one considers that we're talking about a scripted form of entertainment. That said, I do acknowledge that this is an element of confusion that could be repeated: as such I've changed my vote from oppose to weak oppose. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 13:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They also pointed out that the incorrect height was being republished, so clearly journalists also don't know what is meant by the term "billed height." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Did he ever say he was Dave's manager, shoot or work? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here and I would greatly appreciate some guidance in this process. I acknowledged from the beginning of my edit request that I work with Dave Bautista. In addition to that, I am his oldest childhood friend and am simply trying to correct an error in his birthplace. I'm not sure how doing that could raise any conflict of interest, but I would like to certify here that I am not being paid directly or indirectly to try to correct this error. on COIN. Without doing any outing, the combination of those and access to the internet should clarify. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The IMDb page he offered seems to confirm he's an assistant and producer. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Check his Amazon Studios press writeup, has a bit more detail. This is also assuming good faith that this wasn't all an elaborate ruse to get Bautista's correct height in his wikipedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Or an elaborate ruse to get us buzzing about zombies and the men who pretend to "kill" them. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, Amazon is clear, talent manager since '99. So during Batista's six and a half foot run. Probably why he admitted this height was "properly represented" in the article, as opposed to the false birthplace he mainly cared about fixing. Anyone can ping him instead of guessing, by the way. He's registered here. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Same vote as above proposal DrewieStewie (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I should mention that weight and where you're from, regardless of real and fictional, are more subjective, can fluctuate, and aren't set in stone. Circumstances such as weight gain/loss and relocation are factors that can change that. In regards to billed weight, that can be an important characteristic in wrestling to determine whether a wrestler is eligible to compete in a cruiserweight, light heavyweight, or junior heavyweight division. DrewieStewie (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems odd that you say on the one hand they are important characteristics in determining eligibility, but then on the other hand agree that they can be fictional numbers. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , that can be either storyline or legitimate in such a case. DrewieStewie (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - No need for clunky rephrasing of a common and widely understood term. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above as compromise solution, although it's unclear exactly how much appetite there is here for a compromise considering the apparent intractibility. While 'billed' is clear English to me, someone with absolutely no interest in wrestling, there's no harm and apparently some gain in going more specific. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 13:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - we’re here to educate readers. Clearly some of us don’t understand the precious term. That’s fine. We’ll make it clearer to them in this way.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Billed" is a common term, "kayfabe" is needlessly obscure. I can't see anyone having trouble with the phrase "[Wrestler] is billed as being seven foot tall". McPhail (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above; billed is the term, it's not called "kayfabe height", that term would be an OR invention of ours. One person complaining about this (Bautista's representative) is not cause to change the template. The specific concern raised about this article have already been addressed (Bautista's infobox now lists both his actual and billed height). Levivich harass/hound 16:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose "billed" is common English. "Kayfabe" is fairly obscure industry WP:JARGON. oknazevad (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Billed height is already WP:JARGON since it's only used in professional wrestling. At least using kayfabe will make it clear its not discussing normal weight or height. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Billed height" is not only used in wrestling. Search Google Books for "billed height" -wrestling and you'll find books using the term in other contexts. Levivich harass/hound 17:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * After applying a -WWE as well I started to see some results, less than 30,000. The fourth result is "What is the meaning of billed height?" A lot of these links are still wrestling related too, i.e. this absolute unit. It just doesn't seem to be that common a term. I will say that "kayfabe height" only gets 2000 results to "billed height"'s 47000, but that just shows that neither term is actually common.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, the term "billed" is very common outside of wrestling. "The Mars rover mission was billed as a success." "Wayne Gretzky was billed as the top hockey player of all time." It comes from the Latin bulla, meaning "an official decree" or "a sealed document". It's where terms like "billboard" come from, or "the actor got top billing in the play". The problem, as I see it, is that while this is the official wrestling weight/height/etc., it's only as official as the WWE itself is. Within the made-up universe, the stats are correct. As an example, if somewhere in Star Wars they gave Darth Vader's height as 6' 2", then that is the correct height regardless of the actor's true height. The problem, as I see it, is simply a one of distinguishing between the character in the made-up universe and the actor out in the real one. That said, it all seems like trivial, statistical data to me, but I know these things are important in sports as well. This isn't a real sport. Zaereth (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with your analysis, Zaereth, is that Gretzky is commonly described by many independent hockey experts as the best player in that sport, and several Mars rover missions were actually successful according to independent analysts of space exploration, whereas Bautista is not actually 6'-6" and is really 6'-4", according to actual reliable sources. Someone who learned the meaning of the word through examples such as yours would conclude that the billed height is accurate although it isn't. Another problem is that the cited source does not use the word "billed". It just straight up says that he is 6'-6", which emphasizes the inherent unreliability of the source for use in a BLP. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cullen. That not the problem, but exactly the point I was trying to make. Look, the fictional source is the only reliable source for stats on the fictional character, wouldn't you agree? Anything less would be rank speculation. The thing is, we're not dealing with fictional characters here, however this is a case where the lines between the two are purposely blurred, like so-called reality TV. (That's why "kayfabe" is just sort of tongue-in-cheek Pig Latin for "be fake", but I would never recommend using Pig Latin as a heading.) We have the job of trying to sort that out. I don't know the best way to do that, but unless we come up with a way this will be an ongoing problem, because as long as the info exists people will invariably try to insert it into the article. Perhaps it is simply too much to put in an infobox, and needs to be explained in text. Perhaps, as is my opinion, it's just trivia that is not really encyclopedic in nature to begin with, but I'm not to hopeful of that position gaining any traction. What I do know is that we have the job of reporting on the fictional elements as well as the real life ones, and the bigger task of separating the two so that even a child can tell the difference at first glance. So what is the best way to accomplish that? I'll leave it all to you to decide, but I do agree that we can't make it even remotely seem like these numbers should be taken seriously. Zaereth (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I would not agree, . Wikipedia has plenty of articles about fictional characters ranging from Prince Hamlet to Darth Vader to Paul Bunyan, and maybe those articles could be improved, but none of them rely on flagrantly unreliable, promotional sources that never should be used on Wikipedia. If the lying concept of "billed height" and "billed weight" has any place on Wikipedia, it should be because actually reliable sources independent of WWE choose to cover it. Otherwise, relegate it to fan blogs and the like. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A search of Google Books yields Sisterhood of the Squared Circle (ECW Press), Historical Dictionary of Wrestling (Scarecrow Press), Biographical Dictionary of Professional Wrestling, 2d Ed. (McFarland & Company), and Legends of Pro Wrestling (Skyhorse Publishing), among others. Levivich harass/hound 04:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To add to that: "Billed as" means "advertised as". The verb "to bill" meaning "to advertise" is in the dictionaries: . MacMillan has an entry for bill as: "(be billed as something) to advertise or describe someone or something in a particular way, especially in order to make them sound interesting or important. Electric cars are being billed as the automobiles of the future." Similarly, Bautista was billed as 6'6", Andre the Giant was billed as 520lbs, etc. Levivich harass/hound 18:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So here's the question: keeping in mind that we are talking about an article about the actor, not the character per se, how do we distinguish within the infobox that this is the character's billed stats? Could we put it in a section with the header "Character stats" or something of that nature? Maybe just write "WWE billed..." Perhaps we should just leave it out altogether, since it doesn't really add anything of importance? Should we simply have separate articles on the actors and characters? I don't diddle around with infoboxes much, and haven't watched wrestling since Hulk Hogan and the Undertaker were big names (I almost said King Kong Bundy or Leroy Brown, but I'm not that old), so I'm asking sincerely. What is the best way to include these terms yet still make it known to the total outsider or foreign reader that these are not necessarily real? Zaereth (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder, there's a whole world of wrestlers out there who were billed but never WWE-billed, and Bundy came back in 1994 after Hogan left (as did '60s star Nikolai Volkoff, everybody's got a price). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , It's currently under "Professional Wrestling Career" and says "Billed Height" or billed whatever else. The problem is some readers won't know that "Billed Height" means "Made up height for wrestling promotion." Another issue is services that re-use Wikipedia's information. Google the undertaker height and marvel at how it feeds back incorrect information sourced to Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To me, that makes it sound more like something from the real world, whereas "character statistics" would be much more clear. But, like I said, this really isn't my forte. Even when I watched wrestling, is was only when there was nothing else on. For me, I always try to think about the newcomer, who knows nothing about these subjects. A big problem on Wikipedia is that we often write articles that are meant for others that have our same level of expertise, rather than writing them for the newcomer. It's a huge problem on scientific and technical articles. How do we distinguish in a single article between the general and the scientific meaning of glass, or phosphorescence? How do you separate the reality from the legends of Japanese swordsmithing. What do we do about all the confusion between moose and elk, or the confusing metallurgical terms used in tempering? The best way for newcomer is to simply explain it, use the terms as they are commonly understood by anyone with a dictionary and don't start trying to alter definitions, and immediately explain jargon that is not readily available outside of specific fields. How we do that all in an infobox is beyond me at this point, so I'm open to ideas. And that leads me back to my previous question. I think if you all put your heads together you ca come up with something. If it was easy to write, it wouldn't be easy to read. Zaereth (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggested using the word Kayfabe. It stands out as unusual to someone who doesn't already know what it means, and a simple click or hover-over explains to those not familiar with professional wrestling that it's all an act. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, to me that's an example of jargon that should be given a short, parenthetical explanation immediately after using it. One of my pet peeves is using wikilinks to explain a subject. It's incredibly frustrating to not be able to finish an article without bouncing around between a thousand other articles that don't adequately explain their subjects either. For the most part, though, this has the opposite effect as intended, in that people tend to gloss right over things they don't recognize or understand. In most cases it's like you don't even see it. The mind is funny like that. (See: User:Zaereth for more). For example, when Europeans first arrived in America, they met the Natives on the shore, but the Natives had no idea where they came from. The ships were right out there in the water, but the Natives never even noticed them even though looking right at them, until it was pointed out to them, because they simply had no context for what they were seeing. So, the point is, that unless jargon like this is explained right there, in mid-sentence, then it will be meaningless to most readers, who likely won't even see it, let alone click on a link. Zaereth (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The word "Kayfabe" will be meaningless to most readers - anyone who isn't into the minutiae of American professional wrestling, or who doesn't spend far too much time hanging about noticeboards on Wikipedia reading about people arguing about American wrestling. Infoboxes in particular should be easy to understand without inside baseball (or inside WWE) knowledge.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But we can wikilink Kayfabe and readers will understand that the height is just the made up number used for wrestling. Right now unless someone is familiar enough with wrestling, and to a lesser extent boxing and MMA, they'll have no idea that billed height is inherently unreliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Billed is misleading because it does not mean fake or staged to the average reader, but it is used in that way currently. It should be replaced with a word that correctly describes the listed trait, whether Kayfabe as suggested, or something else liked staged that makes it very clear that it is not the trait of the actor, but of the character. These articles are about real people as well, not just the fictional character they play, so having fictional traits that are not very clearly labelled as such is misleading. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Married at First Sight (American TV series)
I was alerted to this article through this article talking about biographic changes in our article on the show. Looking over the content, it seems to me that all the tracking of the contestants' lives is a major BLP problem for people who aren't really public figures, even if they volunteered to be temporarily in the spotlight on this sort of show. I don't imagine that we can reach a consensus to eliminate all the details about the participants, but it seems to me that it ought to be considerably reduced. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not seeing where significant details of their post-show lives are improperly included. There are some short mentions taken from People and the like but those are for the few contestants that remained in the public eye at least somewhat.  The rest are only indications of the success or failure of the marriages arranged via the show. Normally, talking about the marital status of a random private person would be a BLP concern but in this article it is definitely related to the article. To that extent, I think it's OK as long as it doesn't include speculation on why the marriages that ended in divorce failed or other personal details. Is that what you were looking for?  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 15:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * this sort of thing seems clearly inappropriate [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Married_at_First_Sight_(American_TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1024097603]. Although it's from before the person appeared on the show, the occupation field should probably be how they were described on the show and definitely not what some random tabloid said about them. As for the other stuff. I can see mentioning marriage details. I'm less convinced we should talk about struggles with fertility etc. We definitely should not be mentioning children's names so I removed them [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Married_at_First_Sight_(American_TV_series)&diff=1026004472&oldid=1025540612] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Married_at_First_Sight_(American_TV_series)&diff=1026004975&oldid=1026004472]. Note that one of these children appeared in a spin-off show. I left the name in the spinoff show section but IMO it's still best to leave it out of the section on the earlier show. Nil Einne (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I am less inclined to keep the details for each couple's relationships, though I would not be adverse to overall statistics. Mangoe (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I should clarify I was mostly thinking of marriage details of the couples shown on the show. I'm less sure about mentioning them marrying other non notable people especially when the names, occupations and dates of these marriages are given. When they marry notable people then meh if the sources are good enough to cover it in the article of the notable person and since we are already naming the person in the MAFS article, whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Matthew Garrett
The editor User_talk:71.65.65.144 has been repeatedly adding unfounded claims that the subject is part of a "smear campaign". Upon request for citation, the editor added some links to non-neutral sources and a news article that doesn't back up the claims. The editor has been warned multiple times on their talk page and has recently deleted the last warning. I believe the editor to be obviously vandalizing Wikipedia. Roper Klacks (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've partially blocked them from editing that article for three months and rolled back their edits. Blatant BLP violations. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Katherine Maher
Reads like an advertisement complete with twitter link. Not a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:8808:2C00:D97A:224:D9CF:CD16 (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a joke, right? You're 60 days late for April Fools. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 15:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

vm brasseur
Not a notable person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VM_Brasseur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:8808:2C00:D97A:224:D9CF:CD16 (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It would have been helpful if you indicated why you thought a person with significant positions and awards fails WP:ANYBIO. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 15:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Mark E. Curry
This person is a notorious person who keeps editing his profile. There are several articles written about his exploitative nature. https://theintercept.com/2021/05/31/payday-lender-native-american-tribe-american-web-loan/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawman01 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed some the promotional language from the article that was sourced to the article subject or organizations he created. There seems to be a decent amount of information about his businesses available in news articles that is not included in the article, mostly negative material about his business practices. I added a few of those sources, and if I get the chance, I will try to add some of the information from those sources into the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Samira Efendi
There's an edit war going on. Controversial info about a living person is getting included, with a sole source being a website called popmatters.com. I don't think that this tabloid type source is sufficiently reliable for such controversial info in a BLP article. I removed all BLP violations at the moment, but protection might be needed. Grand master  16:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that PopMatters could be a reliable source in certain circumstances, but I agree with Grandmaster's opinion that it does not seem sufficient on its own for this type of controversial information in a BLP. The additions have also been repeatedly plagiarized directly from the PopMatters source article, such as the most recent one that was removed . I cannot find any additional articles about this based on a quick Google search. I also started a discussion on the talk page since there has been significant back-and-forth in edit summaries adding and removing the content, but no discussion on the article's talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've extended confirmed protected this bio for two weeks. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest is the appropriate article for this information. If it at all should be added anywhere.BabbaQ (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Kaleena Kiff
What should happen with this BLP? The only references that I can see are either broken or trivial ("Producers are John G. Lenic and Kaleena Kiff through their Trinity Works Entertainment banner"). I clicked many of the blue links in the Filmography section and found that "Kiff" is mentioned in less than a quarter of them. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe delete it? She is mostly known for the Beaver revival role and it wasn't a major one.VikingDrummer (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The difficulty with deleting it is that Kiff appeared on a cover of TV Guide Magazine with her Love, Sidney television parents, and she won a Young Artist Award for the Beaver revival. Susan Grace Bellerby (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Britt Ekland and Sammy Davis Jr.
The article hasn't credited the time Britt Ekland dated Sammy Davis Jr., the fact which was fully reported by world celebrities media in early 1960s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.33.141.132 (talk • contribs)
 * Neither or those articles are protected so if you have good quality sources supporting this you are able to add this yourself.--65.93.194.250 (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe 177.33.141.132 has mixed up Britt Ekland with Sammy Davis Jr.'s former wife May Britt. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Pessin
Someone keeps repeatedly adding false, misleading, and defamatory material about Andrew Pessin, maliciously charging him as "well known for Islamophobia" based on distortion from various sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miranda6391 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The content was not appropriate as stated, but this was a major controversy covered widely by reliable sources and so should be included. I'll add a balanced summary tomorrow. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Ed Henry
"alleged affairs" are not well sourced entries and they are being used as defamatory on this person (Ed Henry).

Entries in his career area were pejorative misrepresentations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zxbailey15:35, 5 June 2021 (talk • contribs)
 * The 2016 affair does not appear to be "alleged" and is mentioned in numerous major publications as the reason why he was suspended from Fox News for 4 months, such as      . I added back the content about his 4-month suspension with some of these sources, as it seems particularly relevant that it was reported on by multiple outlets in 2016 and is now being reported on again in the context of the latest allegations against him. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, the sourcing here is appropriate and significant.VikingDrummer (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Dakta Green
It appears there are several frivolous claims on this article with no citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.50.16 (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Courtesy links:
 * The offending material appears to have already been removed by . Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Jahrein
Jahrein a few weeks ago made a statement during his Twitch stream on Israel and Palestine conflict. His statements were edited by unreliable pro-government sources. Now a misleading text is added to the relevant article by User:Adigabrek. Although I had removed problematic text, he reverted my edits. This is a violation of WP:BLP. Not exactly for these websites but there is a there is a noticeboard discussion that states Turkish news sites are generally unreliable.

The sources used in the article: --V. E. (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A Haber: An unreliable, non-independent pro-goverment news site on Turkey.
 * Habervakti: Another unreliable source.
 * No sides are taken by the article, nor am I biased towards an anti-Jahrein view (infact I watch Jahrein), it is mentioned that his alleged statements raised controversy, and that he reejcted these allegations. It did raise controversy, so what is the problem here? ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~ Contact  17:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is you are using non-independent, unreliable sources.--V. E. (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Does Wikipedia define A Haber as unreliable anywhere? I also saw you just added "non-independent" to your previous comment. It is not blocked like Sputnik is. What is the criteria for "unreliable" aside from your POV? Englighten me please. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~ Contact  17:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally,, I couldn't see in WP:RSPSOURCES, the sources mentioned by . -- Victor Trevor  ( talk ) 18:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For a source to be unreliable, it does not have to be in that list. Please google the word "Perennial". If you really believe these government-linked sources are reliable just ask about them on noticeboard. No major news outlet in Turkey other than A Haber published an article about this topic. If the statement is true, what are they waiting for? If not this is just a manipulative article that is only published by one major source.--V. E. (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

and, I have removed the "Hostility with Gaga Bulut" and "Jerusalem controversy" sections because all the sources use "allegedly" which is not acceptable for controversial claims per BLP standards. That said, the very brief discussion at RSN linked above cannot be considered to stand for a proposition that the sites quoted are considered unreliable by a broad consensus. Please discuss these reliability and BLP issues on the article talk instead of engaging an edit war. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Reverting once is not an edit war. Nevertheless thanks for removing that section.--V. E. (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That was more of a request than an admonishment, . Thanks for that, though. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 18:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't see the word "allegedly" or similar words used in the sources when translating them with Google Translate, but I think it was appropriate to remove the content as it does not seem WP:DUE given the low quality sourcing about a few statements during livestreaming with the conclusions being merely that "these statements received criticism" or "were not received well". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Crazy Legs (dancer)
This article could do with some eyes. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There seem to be several news articles about the allegations, and so I restored the material with sourcing to AllHipHop, HipHopDX , and Okayplayer . – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have some concerns about the quality/reliability of those sources to satisfy WP:WELLKNOWN as they seem like mostly clickbait. For example, allhiphop has a section devoted to rumors while hiphopdx has tabloid articles like these  Okayplayer seems like the strongest source although I question how much weight it should be given compared to news sources that have written about him like CNN and CBC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * AllHipHop and HipHopDX appear to be reliable sources for information about hip hop and music, and I do not see issues with the particular articles about Colon on those sites. I think this is one of those situations where an individual is not likely to get mentioned outside of smaller publications and so it is harder to determine what is due given some of the less reliable aspects of those smaller publications, especially when they include a focus on celebrity culture. CNN and CBC have only ever mentioned Colon once each, and that was during a brief period in December when breakdancing was named an Olympic sport, which is what spurred the anonymous petition. Outside of that, Colon appears to rarely be covered in major sources beyond a passing mention, and I cannot find him mentioned in any major publications since the allegations. I also cannot find any information on if he is still involved with the Olympic committee. I think there is a concern with the fact that the petition was anonymous, but Colon appears to have admitted to having the conversations but denied that they were abusive or harassing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the point. Major publications aren't covering the allegations, and we probably shouldn't be. Colon has been written about extensively by NPR, The New York Times , and New York Post, and New York Daily News. Even though the Post and Daily News are considered unreliable by RSP, I consider them much more reputable than those previous hip hop sources. He's also been covered by much more reputable hip hop publications like Source and Vibe. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for those sources. I had not noticed that your prior link had limited news sources to the past year, and so I had missed those. I think this is a situation where larger publications stop reporting on an individual after allegations of misconduct, which is why smaller sources can be appropriate. In this situation, the accusations were not alleging criminal conduct, the article subject admitted to engaging in the conduct but disputed that the conduct was inappropriate, and the three smaller sources that have reported on it appear reliable in the area of hip hop news. On the balance, I think the content would be appropriate to include but not strongly enough if others object. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Additionally, you edited my comment here so that it no longer makes any reference to... well, anything. You trimmed it down to "eyes needed". Don't do that again. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 92.24.246.11: No one has edited your comment other than by adding the topic links template at the top (which is a common part of BLPN and considered acceptable) as can be seen by looking at the original [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1026564793] and the current. Do note the section heading is not considered part of your signed comment and so can be edited as necessary to comply with page norms etc (see WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN) without the restrictions that come from editing someone's signed comment. You should never say something only in the section heading since besides editing, it's also very easy to miss such details as a lot of us have the tendency to ignore section heading as unimportant if we're already decided to check out the topic. Always make sure your signed comment is self contained and does not rely on the section heading. More generally BLP applies to everywhere on Wikipedia. Always bear that in mind when editing, and in particular, if you believe some detail is too poorly sourced to be included, consider carefully whether you can raise the problem without repeating the allegations you feel shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, but it would have been immensely helpful if wally could have tried communicating that with an edit summary, instead of silently deleting it with the effect of recontextualising without explanation. Thanks for doing that for them. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 92.24.246.11, I meant to mention the section header change in my edit summary, but you could have easily put the content back into your comment if you felt it was important, which you did not do. In the future, please keep section headers short and neutral, rather than including your personal comments in them. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, I couldn't have. It is dishonest to edit my comment after it has been replied to, which is what you are suggesting. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There are honest ways of doing so. For example, by using tags, as recommended at WP:TALK Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC) ;underlined text inserted at 20:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really; remember, it was deleted without explanation, so readding it seemed likely to meet the same fate. If somebody had suggested placing it elsewhere I may have done so. But when it is silently removed I'm not really willing to return it just to watch it silently disappear again. In the end a different user has had to step in and hazard a rough guess as to the explanation; reading their comment and link, it seems likely, but the silence was deafening. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 92.24.246.11, that's a pretty disingenuous comment, and your contributions suggest that you should know that, as well as the talk page guidelines. It's time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK unless you have a comment to make about the article content. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're looking at my contributions you'd know that I have, in fact, tried to restore an edit removed with no explanation and it went badly. I'm not sure what's disingenuous about it: The situation seems identical to me, and I'm doing what I was advised to following that, which is to discuss it directly with you. I'm also surprised by the claim that I must, in the space of the few weeks I've been active lately (the first time in years, mind) have memorised every last policy and guideline. I know a lot of them but I have many, many more to learn. (By far my favourite page I've stumbled upon it that time is WP:SQUIRREL which neatly encapsulates my scattergun approach to not just the Wikipedia but to reading up on pretty much anything.)
 * With that said, I do agree that trying to talk to you about it seems to be going nowhere: Even still, another user is the only one to provide any explanation. So this will be my last comment here as it seems clear there is no benefit to it. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Massimine
I stumbled across this by accident as I've never heard of the subject. The article is poorly written in a number of respects, but there are now many new users who are fighting over certain material, and the present state of the article with respect to BLP violations is awful. As I attempt to follow it, there are at least two main disputes, whether Massimine was an associate producer of the Broadway play American Idiot, and whether he in fact did work for clients as an independent producer. As a result, we have such wonderful language in the article as:

"Massimine claims to have earned a Tony Award nomination for his work as a producer on American Idiot (musical) (although this has not been independently verified), produced concerts for major label artists, and claims to have developed high-impact promotional campaigns in recorded music, retail, and video gaming, yet many of the people he has named as past clients have denied knowing Massimine and insist that he did no work on their behalf." (footnotes omitted)

There is also one more issue at the end of the article:

"On October 16, 2019, a press release announced he was selected by the "NPAA" as Humanitarian of the Year. According to multiple news reports in June of 2021, there is no evidence of the existence of an organization known as the "NPAA" outside of the self-published press release announcing the award." (footnotes omitted)

There has been some discussion on the article Talk page about these issues, most of it by the newly created accounts.

There is also a disturbing statement on the userpage of one of the newly created accounts, :

"I used to publish/edit under the name Atomicskier, but recently took a renewed interest in Wikipedia after discovering that someone was using it as one of his many online vehicles to defraud employers. It has now become my personal mission to make sure this abuse of Wikipedia and its mission is rectified."

To date, Sophistrate has edited only the Massimine article. Indeed, this all started with the user's first edit attempting clumsily to have the article speedy deleted. The article before that point had nothing negative in it; in fact, it was a bit of a puff piece.

Hopefully, some more BLP-experienced users will address these issues. I'm not necessarily saying that some - or even all - of the negative aspects of the article are untrue, but we have to have strong, reliable sources to back them up, and we have to express them very differently from the way they are expressed now.

And then there's the MOS issues and that dreadful infobox ...--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked two of them (Glenroy20 and Fawlkner18) for socking. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 14:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @, Thanks for taking a look at this article. I agree, it's a total disaster. It was a disaster before the exposé brought him into the public spotlight and it's even worse now. I also agree that I'm not the best person to correct the errors because I'm not a highly experienced editor, and because I have a personal bias against the subject. However, I hope that experienced editors like yourself will continue to scrutinize this article.


 * In my opinion, it qualifies for deletion because there are numerous factual errors, irrelevant or dead citations, and it does not fit the encyclopedic standards of a BLP. I am certain that it was published by the subject himself. The article was published by and if you look at this user's history you'll see that all of this author's contributions, without exception, lend to the aggrandizement of Christopher Massimine. Following the negative press, this user began using the handle  to suppress any dissenting information, and was justifiably blocked by.


 * You may wonder why I have such a strong bias against Christopher Massimine. I have no connection to him other than I live in his community and it angers me that he has shamelessly exploited Wikipedia and other online media as a vehicle for his fraudulent self-aggrandizement. He has used these unchecked claims to weasel his way into a high-paying job that is in part supported by my tax dollars. In acknowledging my bias, I will refrain from any further edits to his page now that I'm confident it's going to be scrutinized by competent, neutral editors. --Sophistrate (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I went through the article to clean it up, and I removed most of the contentious or disputed content, along with a lot of the poorly sourced promotional content. I mentioned the recent news reports in relation to his investigation by his employer, the University of Utah, but I don't know how much else would be relevant to include. If material is only supported by sources coming from article subject, then it should probably just be removed, especially if there is a question about its accuracy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)