Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive332

Sophie Labelle
Sophie Labelle is a Canadian cartoonist that, in February 2021, was exposed for doing diaper fetish furry art. She has admitted doing so, proudly in fact, and, in a Facebook post, has described the drama as a "coming out again at 32". I wanted to add this information to her page, but the editors there are too biased (there's no other way for me to put it) and won't allow any mention of this event there, despite none of the claims I wrote being even remottely disputed (therefore, not controversial), and despite she stating that this event is very important to her life. How is it that a "coming out again at 32" of Labelle is not even mentioned in her article? This event has already been refered to by a secondary source, even though most of the information about it is in the form of primary sources and unreliable secondary sources (though I didn't reference those). I ask for any independent editor to read my edits in her article, read the talk page and, hopefully, solve this issue. -- RafaelJC12 (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think this issue is that controversial for an artist that published Dating Tips for Trans and Queer Weirdos. (strikethrough after reading how she crafts the art) French is not my first language, but La Tribune Numerique seems to be a reliable source to demonstrate whether it should be included. Perhaps you can find more coverage of this in French or French Canadian news media? The only English coverage I could find was but I do not know how reliable the site is.  Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I doesn't matter whether the event itself is controversial, there's no doubt it is, what matter is whether the claims I wrote are disputed. They're absolutely not. -- RafaelJC12 (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Morbidthoughts, the issue is that RafaelJC12 is proposing using self-published links (except for that LA Tribune article) to show this event is notable and I'm just not convinced. I'm not sure whether womenarehuman.com is reliable either, but if this issue is as important as the OP is saying, then there should be adequate reliable sources, as has been determined by editors on here, to back that up. That's my thought at least.Historyday01 (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There should not be any primary links unless it is referred to in a secondary reliable source. Whatever is written about this must use a reliable source. I can't tell if the La Tribune Numerique link is a news article or an opinion column. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't tell either, but it might be an opinion column, which would significant lower its reliability. I agree completely with what you are saying about primary sources as well. Historyday01 (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * RafaelJC12, As I said on Labelle's page, if you can find more reliable sources apart from that one LA Tribune article, then is notable to include on the page. All the other sources you include here, specifically a meme website named knowyourmeme.com, two facebook links, and Tumblr link, all of which are self-published sources, don't prove that this event is notable, as it is a social media controversy, and your claims to add it are inherently controversial. Due to the fact that unreliable sources are noted here, the claims are inherently thrown into question. The talk page is a fine place to discuss issues and sources for specific pages. With that, I look forward to hearing what other users have to say here. --Historyday01 (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The article in La Tribune Numerique looks more like an opinion article than a news article, while the Women Are Human website looks like a self-published group blog with volunteer writers. Neither of those seems particularly reliable for a BLP, especially not regarding contentious material. Without being reported in multiple reliable sources, I do not see how that type of personal aspect of someone's life is relevant for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Being true and being encyclopedic are different concerns. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's yet another example of a brief twitter "controversy" which some enemies of the subject briefly tried to make a big deal out of, then everyone (including most of them) promptly forgot about it. The lack of substantive coverage reflects that. The subject of this article is a chronic harassment target as well, and this is barely a blip on that radar... though RafaelJC12 – with his personal attacks ("biased", "lying"), edit-warring, and general incivility – seems intent on changing that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll let any intelligent reader decide whether or not you're proving my point about the bias of the editors. -- RafaelJC12 (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Wallyfromdilbert and JasonAQuest here. It is a Twitter "controversy" which seriously has a lack of substantive coverage. RafaelJC12's actions remind me of what I once said on the Twelve Forever page, sticking to a claim about the show's ending, in what was called a "contentious area" by one editor. I later reassessed, having a discussion on this very forum back in July of this year, and realized that the editors saying that the sources were unreliable were right. I would hope that RafaelJC12 does the same thing, reassesses, and moves on with editing elsewhere, as they have done before coming upon Labelle's page relatively recently, and realizes that editors on here are only trying to approach this rationally and with good faith. Historyday01 (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Shyam Sunder Das
He passed away in 1981. No longer a living person. Also the name of the page is Wrong, canmot change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by EduNence (talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you own the copyright to all of the images that you posted on that page by the way? Some look like screencaps of video and others look like scans of photos. If you do own all of the copyrights, how do you know this person? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Dave Goulson
I am the subject of this page. I note that a recent edition says "Goulson has been criticized as alarmist regarding his predictions of insect population decline and for undisclosed conflicts of interest via his leadership roles with anti-pesticide NGOs.[8]"

Since the recent publication of my book Silent Earth (about the causes of insect declines) I have been targetted by various representatives of the agrochemical industry with attempts to undermine my scientific credibility. This would appear to be part of this. It suggests that I ave undisclosed conflicts of interests (I do not), and provides no reliable evidence to support this. I think this may be libellous. I ask that it be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:7127:DD00:8131:CF94:DBA9:BE32 (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed the claim and citation. Quillette is not a reliable source. Qt.petrovich (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted, in anticipation of further mischief. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding : Please take a look at No legal threats. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see a legal threat here, just an observation that may well be correct. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC).

J. K. Rowling
Comments from editors uninvolved with the topic are needed at Talk:J. K. Rowling. At issue is a proposal to label her as "widely considered transphobic" as well as whether opinion articles are usable for support of this. Crossroads -talk- 03:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The text that Crossroads removed had stated that not Rowling, but her views have been widely criticised as transphobic, sourced to a list of RS-published pieces labeling her views as transphobic. But apparently factual accuracy in a noticeboad post is too much to expect of Crossroads where gender issues are concerned. Either that, or he fails to grasp the difference between labeling published views as transphobic and labeling a person as transphobic. Sigh.
 * Anyway, uninvolved editors' perspectives are most certainly required. Newimpartial (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This same editor engaged in a personal attack against me at the article, and despite the fact I warned them not to, is continuing to do so here. BLP-wise, this is hardly a meaningful distinction, though I probably would have put "views" had I done this over. Since this is no longer a neutral notice with this comment, I'll elaborate: the so-called "RS-published" articles are opinion articles and/or cherry-picked, as I demonstrate there. These same editors are insistent that no reference be made to support Rowling received in the lead - making it seem like it was all negative responses, which is POV.
 * Anyone who wishes to comment should do so there so it can't be ignored. Crossroads -talk- 04:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a neutral notice to begin with; I was merely drawing attention to the fact. As far as the supposed personal attack on Talk:J. K. Rowling, as far as I can tell that is a simple ASPERSION, or even an empty gesture of an ASPERSION. I certainly have no idea what Crossroads is talking about: that he has a POV on gender-related issues is a simple fact, as those reading his Talk contributions can most certainly see for themselves, so that can't be what he means. Newimpartial (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ASPERSIONS are personal attacks, what you mention here isn't what you said at the talk page, and as for saying I (and apparently uniquely I?) have a POV, readers can judge for themselves where the POV issues are. Crossroads -talk- 04:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the one with the empty ASPERSIONS, AFAICT, but readers will indeed judge for themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Off topic for the BLP/N board, but the few comments I see on that talk page by Newimpartial do not seem like personal attacks since they do not touch anything about Crossroads as a person, only their contributions. Perhaps a bit heavy-handed in considering civility. I make no judgement if these comments are right or wrong in context of BLP, just that they are very far cries from being personal attacks. --M asem (t) 04:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * They twice said I was "twisting" policy, even admit to ASPERSIONS here [edit: they were accusing me of aspersions], and have continued to assume bad faith throughout. That is an accusation about me as a person. Repeatedly talking about "my POV", as though they lack one, is also inapprpriate. I'm sure they'll feel quite emboldened now though. Crossroads -talk- 05:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Edited Crossroads -talk- 05:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * They didn't admit to aspersions. You misread the comment. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Accusing another editor of personal attacks, without specifying what you mean or providing evidence, is an ASPERSION. That is what you have done - repeatedly - not what I did. Newimpartial (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I get what you meant now by ASPERSION, but no, it's very clear in each discussion which comments contain the attacks. Whatever. Wikipedia never does a thing about these unless it's an SPA or to nail people who are already disliked for often-unrelated reasons. Crossroads -talk- 05:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get into talk of who is right or who did what. As a piece of advice to all, from a purely tactical sense, personal attacks and aspersions serve one purpose: they distract from the real issue at hand. Mostly, it's a sign that your opponent is right where you want them (in a debate sense) up against the ropes and feeling cornered, with nothing of substance to riposte with. The idea, however unconscious, is that lashing out in such a way will hopefully get you to focus on that and neglect the real issues at hand (or the fact that you are likely winning the debate). It's an extremely effective tactic, albeit a flawed one, because it is an appeal to emotion, and these are some very big, strong emotional-buttons to boot. But it is an extremely flawed argument that only has an effect if you give in and let yourself fall for it. As an example, just look at how many words have been wasted on it in this very section. What happened to the original point? Lost in the pointless fray.


 * The problem with personal attacks is that it is a last-ditch effort that only works when the attackee responds in kind. The best defense against them is to simply ignore them and keep right on point. Then it totally backfires on the attacker and they are the only one looking like an asshole. Don't let them distract you. When it gets to a point of being disgusting, others will stand up for you, and tactically that is to your advantage. If you give in and get all defensive or offensive, you both end up looking just as bad, and the point of it all gets lost. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Julian Assange
Fresh eyes would be helpful at the Julian Assange article -- a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media. There is an RfC here regarding a Yahoo News article relating to Assange. Prior discussion of the issue is found here in a long thread that gives some background on the issue and the preceding edit war]. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not neutrally worded. I think you need to lay of accusations of fandom, implying bias.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the part that needs to be looked at is the venue shopping for this dispute. Talk:Julian_Assange shows that this dispute has been put on a handful of locations for simultaneous discussion and this appears to be WP:TE of the ijustdontlikeit kind. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like SPECIFICO is asking for participation in the RfC not simultaneous discussion in multiple venues. Neutral notification at appropriate locations is not generally considered venue shopping although I'm not sure if there was need for so many. However I do agree with Slatersteven that the notification clearly wasn't neutral which is clearly an issue as it violates WP:CANVASSING. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please. Canvassing relates to soliciting editors with a POV on the question, not to my having stated the circumstance that the talk page is a mess and needs help. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:APPNOTE what you posted here should be neutrally worded. It’s not. It would have been had you omitted “a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media.” Strike it. DeCausa (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would add that canvassing like this harms the stated caused. I don't think I would have participated in that discussion but my chances went down significantly when I saw the canvassing as well. I'm not the only one as plenty of editors detest canvassing. Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I did not state any cause, which I take to mean a position on the content issue. The talk page discusion is about article text and sourcing, not pro- or con- Assange. You may find my words repugnant, and they may have been gratuitous -- my bad -- but this is not what we call "canvassing" and I feel that's an undue characterization of what was at most an overly detailed statement that there is an impossible editing impasse on the page w/o new editors coming to have a look. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please review the text under "Campaigning" link at the canvassing page. Describing editors as "various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media" gives the false implication that these are the editors participating at the RFC you are linking to. You call this an "impossible editing impasse" when it's almost entirely been driven by you. You should accept the feedback here and elsewhere that what you've done is inappropriate and drop the stick. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that new editors may disagree with you whereas your message indicated a very cold response from you to such editors. Your introduction to me at User talk:86.20.127.101 was not exactly what I'd call a welcome to a new editor. Canvassing is supposed to be a call without selection. NadVolum (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple really. Either SPECIFICO's description of contributors given above was written with the intent of influencing the discussion, which is canvassing, or it wasn't, in which case it was an an entirely unmerited personal attack on them, made for no legitimate reason whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Chris Rabb
Whatever one thinks about the person and his policies, adding some negative trivia sourced to primary Instagram and Facebook sources doesn't belong in the article. WP:BRD became WP:BRRRR instead, so it would be nice if someone else interfered here. Fram (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Saint Vincent, California
Anonymous IP has made edits to Saint Vincent, California three times, adding increasingly detailed charges of child abuse/molestation at the school. Last two times, names of the alleged abusers were included. No sources were provided. I've reverted all edits and warned them on their talk page about policies regarding biographies of living persons. Perhaps the article ought to be protected and/or the IP address blocked. Glendoremus (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the recently added material was serious unsourced allegations. Another recent addition, by a different IP, was a copyvio. I have revdel'ed those additions and semi-protected the article for a week. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

David Miller
A newbie User:Ozmulik, with a spare 90 edits since January, hence in violation of ARBPIA3, several days ago posted that Professor David Miller  had made 'multiple antisemitic comments' on the  StandWithUs  talkpage. This is of course not a fact, but a claim that Miller's comments on Zionism are antisemitic. Despite his firing, there is no proof, or court conviction to date, stating he is such, and the investigation's QC external report stated that Miller had broken no British law. I alerted the editor here to remove it as a BLP violation. I gave them a day to do so. Two days have passed. The editor refuses to adhere to policy, of which he has been fully informed. The violation is serious.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * FTR that seems to be . The editor seems to be writing on the talk page which I guess makes it not a violation of active ARBPIA sanctions (ARBPIA3 is, of course, repealed). If a reliable source (or an RSOPINION in a reliable source) has made the claim, then I think it's reasonable enough for someone to make the argument on a talk page, irrelevant of whether the individual has been convicted in a court of law or not (noting also that most instances of hate speech, criminal or civil, do not result in convictions). A skim of thejc link the editor provided suggests the implication was made there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * he is not making an argument about Miller'sd putative anti-Semitism on a talk page. He is asserting that Miller's remark are factually anti-Semitic. I have been have been reading for 1 and a half decades that it is an ironcast rule that an allegation or claim regarding a living person must be presented as such, and not as a fact. OzMulik ignores all sources that state this is an accusation (to present an accusation as a fact is defamatory in law), and posted it as a fact that his controversial statements were antisemitic.


 * As to the other issue, which can be disregarded here. On the talk page the Ozmulik was persisting calling on editors to alter the text according to his suggestions, which is rather like asking qualified editors to be meatpuppets, since he cannot edit there.here here here here herehere and here
 * Comments are one thing. Persistent fishing for someone to edit on their behalf is gaming arbpia's rules about 500 edits/30 days.Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Similar to ProcrastinatingReader's comment, WP:BLPTALK allows leeway in discussion on talk pages related to content choice. OzMulik believes Miller's remarks are antisemitic, which is indeed an OPINION not a fact and provided a citation that supports his OPINION. If his opinion can not be inserted into the article because it's not factual, so be it, but don't try to excise his OPINION from the discussion page by presenting it as a factual assertion when it's not. Ignore it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Strikethrough because I realised after a thorough read of that article talk page that OzMulik is trying to impeach Miller as a biased source because of his previous comments on Zionism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Citing one individual (David Hirsh)'s opinion about another person/colleague as a fact is a fundamental breach of wiki core policies. I'm not worried about the discussion page. That is a distraction. At AE one editor is being hauled over the coals for momentarily  writing that, according to secondary sources, a living person is  suspected of being associated with a blog. WP:BLP violation demanding a sanction. Here we are saying that someone saying a living person is an anti-Semite is okay  because he cited a source with that opinion. Where is the coherence? The only difference I can see is in in this case, with OZmulik he is arguing for a pro-Zionist position, whereas the other editor whose right to edit after an impeccable 16 years is being challenged, happens to  edit also from a pro-Palestinian position. In other words, double standards. Identical case, but okay on one page, reprehensible (even if retracted) on the other.Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think BLPTALK should be enforced more frequently and rigidly, but I don't think this is a case for it. OzMulik's comment was: I think the poor sourcing makes this argument poor, but not a BLP vio. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. That three independent judgments that state it is not contrary to wiki policy to call a living person an anti-Semite, because of his views on Zionism, even if it's only a personal opinion. A decade ago, people were banned for calling me that here, so things have changed. I'm getting old. Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But your wit is as sprightly as ever. I do think calling editors antisemitic, or calling living persons the same in article space, is a more restricted behavior. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But in the AE case, the BLP violation was on a talkpage, just as is the case with Ozmulik's remark about Miller. At AE it is recognized as a violation, and the remark was removed from the talk page. Here the identical behavior is acceptable, and the remark stays on the talk page. The cases are virtually identical. I once translated a treatise on paralogic, so I can feel comfortable with exceptions to the law of the excluded middle in the Aristotelian tradition, but still . . .this looks more like an included muddle :) Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * If it helps (and I don't know that it will), the Arbcom case you cite was an unintelligible mess, with none of the arbs seemingly able to make sense of it, and was eventually closed by the filer. This whole discussion and the one at the talk page seem equally unintelligible. I don't see anything being presented as fact. As the editor's opinion, most certainly, but you can really never call a subjective statement factual. For example, if I say so-and-so actress is ugly, that is my opinion. No one who is a native speaker would take that as a factual statement, even though no qualifier (like "in my opinion") was used. There is just no way to infer a subjective opinion as ever being fact. My best friend over there may think she's the most beautiful woman in the world. It's the same with this, in which case it's a drive-by response by a person with a pronounced bias. That is completely unrelated from the Arbcom case, in which case the revdelled material may have been more egregious (we'll never know), or where any "raking over the coals" were more about the attitude, repetitive behavior, and continually crossing the lines. (Often it's not about what a person did, but how they act that is the deciding factor.) But that's neither here nor there. We don't want to go around trashing people, but to a certain extent we can get away with letting out an opinion once in a while. I wouldn't make an issue of it unless it becomes an ongoing thing, but just move on. Zaereth (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The analogous case against ZScarpia has not been 'closed by the filer' (that happened with the indictment against Selfstudier below it, nothing to do with BLP). It is open. Agreed that it is a total mess, though. I'll clarify. if someone calls me an 'antisemite' on Wikipedia (there are internet attack sites that call me such) they cannot be asked to withdraw the remark. That's what the discussion above is saying. Wikipedia has changed decisively in the last decade. Editors doing that used to be hit with a ton of bricks.Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoa there. If someone calls you an antisemite on here, that violates Wikipedia's separate rules on no personal attacks on other editors. An editor discussing and dismissing the merit of a source because of what they feel is bias or the source's previous "anti-semitic" comments is a separate issue. Not being able to distinguish the difference and complaining about it is WP:POINTy. Drop the WP:STICK. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A humorous essay which, in non policy terms states: 'You lost. Stop beating the dead horse of your buried viewpoint. Shut up.' All this in a few hours of desultory and focused debate as I expressed my perplexities, focused on each occasion, with several interlocutors?Nishidani (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever. The point is, the Arbcom case is just confusing the issue as you are trying to present it. Likewise, your clarification is really not helping. Are you now saying that OzMulik's remark was directed at you personally? Because that would be a different matter entirely? I am more confused than ever. What is this really about?
 * Oh goodness me. You really imagine that the analogy between two cases I draw, and a personal illustration of the difference between how wikipedia acted (in the past) against defamatory charges and what happens now, is motivated by some obscure hidden sense that OzMulik's attack on David Miller is an attack on me? Really. That's reading way between the lines. I have no idea whether Miller is guilty as accused. Ozmulik on a wikipedia talk page attributes anti-Semitism to a living person because some sources make that claim, and that's fine. ZScarpia momentarily linked a living person dedicated to combating anti-Semitism to an anonymous website doing the same on the basis of (poor) sources, and several editors are sufficiently outraged to call for severe sanctions. I see a strong overlap con joined to a marked difference of treatment. No one agrees with me, and I can't see a serious attempt to rebute the analogy. Okay. Stiff shit, Nishidani. I retain my sense, nonetheless, that the application of general rules, very often, on Wikipedia is not coherent, often because editors fail to address the details, but read between the lines of what various disputants argue. Perhaps that's not the case here. I've made my point, and accept that no one can see it. So, back to work.Nishidani (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, if I were to call you ugly, that would be a personal attack, which is something we have rules against. (Of course, that is merely an example, because I don't know what you look like or anything about you.) On the other hand, if we go around banning everyone who has expressed an opinion about Donald Trump we'd lose 90% of Wikipedians. I've been here well over a decade myself, and the changes I've seen have been mostly for the better, including to BLP and policy in general. Zaereth (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd never take being called ugly a personal attack. To be offended at anyone who did so would be to deny them the right to state the obvious. I've just read Al Franken's  Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations,  (1996). The only thing I saw there worth adding to wikipedia, from a huge mass of descriptions of the personal lives of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich et al., most grounded in verifiable incidents or remarks, was this. It's not my perceived role to scour muckraking sources to add derogatory, even if well-founded, attacks on living persons. I take BLP very seriously (and I'm someone who in the past was occasionally careless in this regard on talk pages) as I do the fact that the consensus here is I am wrong. I don't think so, but if this is the consensus, I respect it. Nishidani (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As many sources connect Miller to antisemitism and that he was even fired by Bristol University due as a result (Bristol University sacks professor accused of antisemitic comments in the Guardian and David Miller: Bristol sacks professor accused of antisemitism in Times Higher Education) assailing the use of Miller as a source on Jewish topics appears entirely reasonable for a talk page discussion.PrisonerB (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, talk back accurately, do not shift the goalposts. Nowhere did I say, or imply, that Miller should be used 'as a source for Jewish topics'. And in any case, the critical literature on Israel's human rights record over 74 years of occupation of another people has nothing to do with 'Jewish topics' ((most of its serious and most trenchantly analytical critics are, as one would expect from history, Jews). It has everything to do with human rights principles. To confuse the two, -Jewish ergo Israel, Israel ergo Jews' - something that is now endemic among both anti-Semites and pro-Zionist militants alike, is to foreclose all discussion Finally, note that the Times HES source uses 'accusation'. I state that without wanting to open up a discussion beyond that regarding this specific wiki issue, which, in any case, appears to have a solid consensus that it's fine on wikipedia to accuse any public figure of being an anti-Semite if some commentator can be cited who holds that opinion, and state that opinion as a fact regarding the (in my view, defamed) person.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Confuse the two? U.K. Professor Who Called Jewish Students ‘Pawns’ of Israel Fired Over Comments, in Haaretz and Sun Sentinel. Coverage is overwhelmingly negative, well except the likes of Press TV  which is run by the ayatollah regime.PrisonerB (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We need to wait for things to settle down a bit, the Bristol Uni statement on Miller nowhere says anything about antisemitism, just conduct unbecoming. So Miller is fired (termination of employment) is true, that's reported on by rs but it is also true that Miller has not been found guilty of any crime afaik and he has the right to appeal. As pointed out in the currently running AE case, we need to careful about BLP vios even on talk pages and even about people whose activities might not be seen as top drawer necessarily.Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What follows is not a defense of Miller. One should be wary of walking into strong judgments about anything complex like this, -evaluating what a scholar specializing in the I/P conflict thinks based on two newspaper accounts - without familiarizing oneself with the literature. Miller apparently is referring to what he perceives to be efforts by Israel to influence student opinion. if he subscribes thereby to a Jewish(Zionist) world conspiracy, he's anti-Semitic. If he is stating that huge efforts, financial and otherwise, are poured into influencing Jewish students on diaspora campuses to be more active in defending Israel, he is stating a documented fact. The literature on this is massive. Kenneth S. Stern, The Conflict over the Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate,  University of Toronto Press 2020  ISBN 978-1-487-53610-7 is fundamental. For over a decade, campuses have been the object of a battle, a politicization war, with hasbara groups and Palestinian activists fighting over either the representation of the I/P conflict, or what Jewish students should think about it. I don’t have an opinion about Miller. I simply haven’t read his work or studied his statements in context. But I read newspaper reports of his sacking or antisemitism cum grano salis, because I have over the years  composed a list of over 40 university lecturers who have been accused of antisemitism for their views or teaching about that conflict, and often these are standard smears. Perhaps his case will prove to be the exception.  Stern is a lengthy read. But a glance at Hillel International, StandWithUs, Canary Mission, will give one an inkling of how much Jewish students are being stressed by the conflicting claims on their identity and intellectual loyalties. That concerns me. To have a minimal grasp of the context in which reports of Miller’s remarks are to be assessed, one should read at least 3 of scores ofarticles on the issue of campus ideological battles.


 * (1)Dervla Murphy Hasbara in Action Irish Pages Vol. 9, No. 2, Israel, Islam & the West (2015), pp. 181-212
 * (2)Judy Maltz, The Commander Behind the pro-Israel Student Troops on U.S. College Campuses Haaretz 15 March 2016 (Of all the pro-Israel forces active on U.S. college campuses today, none has poured as much energy, resources and sheer audacity into the battle for the hearts and minds of young Americans as StandWithUs).
 * (2)Anshel Pfeffer, Israel Is More Focused on 'Hasbara' Than It Is on Policy Haaretz 2 May 2012 (Two weeks ago, the National Information Directorate in the Prime Minister’s Office held an unofficial gathering of hasbara organizations. “Members of over 30 private organizations came,” said one of those present. “It was incredible, there wasn’t enough room for everyone.” Each of these groups has heavy-weight donors, offices in Israel and abroad, a strong presence on the Internet and social media and a steely determination to conquer the battlefield of ideas — for Israel and the Jewish people.) That last statement is very similar to several remarks by Miller that have been spun as anti-Semitic.
 * As an empiricist, I can have no opinion on the accusation either way. I have only a fairly informed sense of historical context about the general topic, and all this tells me to be very wary of reports that this or that person is anti-Semitic, unless proof is provided that someone goes out of their way to harass Jewish people, as opposed to arguing, even fiercely about human rights in Israel. Most critics of the area have had that thrown their way, and it sticks only if it is carefully and neutrally vetted, in courts, or university tribunals (or indeed at wiki arbitration, in my view. We have identified and rid ourselves of several anti-Semites on very strong evidential grounds here) It can destroy lives just as McCarthyism did (and just as 'Jew-baiting' can grievously harm Jewish people) and caution is required. I'm disappointed with the result here, but, if the consensus goes the way it has, stiff cheddar. Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Sanjeev Sanyal
The complete Views section of Sanjeev Sanyal is sourced from a single article published by The Caravan and reflects author Meera Visvanathan's views about BLP WP:BLPGOSSIP.

The same source is cited multiple times in the section. (Ref - is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research (WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPREMOVE).

Hence, entire "Views" sections of the Sanjeev Sanyal to be deleted as per WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPCOI

LTbharat (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that the editor who added that content has opened a discussion on Talk:Sanjeev Sanyal but you haven't participated in it. None of the editors who've been reverting the content have participated in it. Maybe try discussion on that talk page first? Schazjmd   (talk)  14:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

David Hurles
This is an article about a man involved in the pornography industry. It contains (among other things) his amazon.com shopping list, reproduced in whole; instructions for accessing copyright-violating copies of his pornographic photographs; and unsourced commentary on his alleged sexual encounters. I would really appreciate any help in cleaning it up (and revdelling if you think it necessary). Cheers, gnu 57 22:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A sidenote: does an encyclopedia that some claim has exceptionally high standards as to sourcing, notability (sic!), style &c. (just see the immediately preceding section) really permit entries on random "pornographers"? What makes them notable? I apologize in advance, I don't want to sound rude or anything (this ain't my intention at all), but just wonderin'...Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * We're the encyclopedia run by random volunteers that anyone is allowed to edit. That leads to a lot of crap articles slipping through the cracks. In general, notability is determined by reliable sources. See: WP:General notability guidelines. We deal with each on a case-by-case basis. We don't want articles on every jaywalker or wife beater who ever made the papers. An encyclopedia article should be about a subject large enough to write a decent article about, who people are likely to be interested in. The deciding factor is always how much coverage they got in reliable, secondary sources. One source does not establish that. If this porn guy has received enough coverage, then that means he's notable by Wikipedia's definition of the word, although it may just be another vanity article created by the guy himself. (I don't know, and am not going to look, because I'm at work when I edit.)


 * If you seriously want the article you created to remain, then I think taking it through the WP:AFC process would be a good learning experience for you. Writing a good article is not easy, per Zinsser's Law ("Easy writing makes for hard reading"). But I don't want to clog up this section with comments unrelated to the OP's concerns, so probably best to take it up in the section above. Zaereth (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No position on notability but I have removed the wishlist and book reviews, Amazon.com is not a reliable source nor do I see the relevance to an encyclopedia entry. Slywriter (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Donald McGuire (Jesuit)
New article about a Catholic pedophile. Looks pretty pov to me. Eg the lead " He held an illustrious career as a Jesuit priest, educator and global retreat director[1]. The Catholic church took several precautions and went to great lengths[2] to cover up the horrific crimes throughout the decades. Mother Theresa herself ejaculated in defense of him in 1994." Bit of a problem there about Mother Theresa also. I'm a bit concerned about User:Polska jest Najważniejsza. The Roman Catholic church has a lot to answer for but it needs to be written with solid sources etc. Doug Weller  talk 16:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)]
 * So you're saying CBS Chicago, Meneo Law Group website and the Philadelphia Inquirer are not "solid sources"? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, where is "POV"? Add the relevant tag to the article if you spot issues and point the issues out at talk, we can all fix 'em then. I'm an old user, but it's my first article and methinks the article is not bad. It is long, it is detailed, and it relies on mainstream sources.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * See WP:BLPCRIME - if he was non-notable beyond these allegations, we shouldn't have an article about him. --M asem (t) 17:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Read the guideline yourself. The guideline does no tell us minor scholar who pass the notability guidelines due to notoriety of their crimes but not scholarly input shouldn't have an article. Or did I misread it? I think you are wrong.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s not a BLP, the subject died in 2017. I think the main problem with the article is the unsourced statements about a Church cover-up, particularly the sentence quoted by Doug from the lead. That’s cited to a Philadelphia Inquirer article. But that’s not what the article says. It’s about the Jesuits being sued by a victim on the basis of an allegation that they didn’t move quickly enough to remove him from his posts. They’re not reporting that that’s what happened - only that’s the basis of the law suit. There’s certainly nothing about the Church “going to great lengths” to cover it up - it seems to be about inaction rather cover up. The whole section entitled “Back in America, cover-up, and support by Mother Theresa” has no sources at all. Definitely a case of improper sourcing from Polska jest Najważniejsza. DeCausa (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * no, it's not. It's more like a problem of "article is being edited at this very moment"/"work in progress" (there's even a tag for that but I cannot browse so quickly, as I haven't started new articles before that one): I haven't provided inline sentences yet for each para, but I have provided a general source -, that I heavily relied on. In the light of your and my comments, Dougweller's reaction clearly seems excessive.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can vouch that every single sentence I've written in the entry can be sourced to either of the aources currently provided. Why are people nitpicking on me?Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You “vouching” for anything is not relevant. WP:RS is needed. I’ve edited the article to correct the issues. DeCausa (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. You just erased large swaths of texts 100% of which could have been formally "sourced" by just inserting a reflink to CBS Chicago, that I menioned. Also, you posting a "avoid edit warring" template on my talk whilst performing an unconstructive revert at this very moment yourself is pretty telling. It would have taken me no more than 10 minutes to insert an inline ref to CBS. A pure formality. Now leave the article alone or just nominate it nfror deletion and let us see what folks will tell you.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something, but if it's so easy to insert refs, then why not just do that from the beginning? Otherwise people most certainly have not just the right, but duty to remove the info. It seems to me that complaining about it is a lot more work, if all you needed was 10 minutes. It's best to add your refs at the same time you add any info, and too easy to get into the realm of synthesis when a person writes an article from personal expertise, and then goes out looking for supporting refs afterward. (Not that it's the case here, I don't know, just sayin'.) Zaereth (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not that I'd object to your comment per se (I'm used to writing college papers where rules are different and the cliffs where the ship can get damaged are different, too). You have to consider it was my first ever fully-fledge article, and I'd suggest (when you consider the OP; Dougweller has been too modest to return here) that blindly trusting (a Wikipedia) authorities is not always the safest way. That's why "I don't know" is usually not a very good argument: if anyone had actually read the CBS article that was there at the very beginning, I guess the reasonable editors here would have understood that apart from legalistic complaints and nitpicking, the article was fine as it was, except that the categories had to be removed, because they are red and now I'm quite sure no-one would create them as soon as I expected.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, well, welcome to the School of Hard Knocks. You gotta understand that writing a college paper is a lot different than encyclopedic writing. It's a form of expository writing similar to journalistic style, but a lot briefer and way more formal. If you look at Doug's comment above, you'll notice his concern was that it looked POV-ish. Now, if you examine the sentences he quoted, you may notice what he meant. Phrases like "illustrious career" or "horrific crimes" are editorializing comments. If they came from you, then these descriptors are your opinions. If they came from the CBS article, then it's an opinion/editorial column, and thus not a reliable source. (Yes, every news outlet have their op/ed columns that are not reliable for anything but the author's opinion, even though their actual news articles are reliable.) This kind of thing we call puffing the article, and it makes it read like an op/ed column. Then there is the thing about Mother Teresa, which is just patent nonsense. It makes me think someone didn't bother to look up the definition of the words before using them. It's not hard to see why that would cause some concern. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dough Weller's concern about the sourcing in the article, as well Masem's concerns about notability. There appears to be only two reliable sources cited in the article, CBS Chicago and the Philadelphia Inquirer. A law group's website is definitely not reliable and should be removed along with the other sources, especially as they are being used to cite contentious information. With only two recent news articles about the subject's alleged crimes and no other sources providing any substantial coverage of him, that would not make him notable. 108.48.200.185 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow! The US state and fed courts convicted him several times and this is "alleged crimes"! I mean, Wikipedia is not censored but some decensy is warranted vis-a-vis pedophiles' victims!
 * What is "nonsense" about Mother' Teresa's role? I will try to fix it immediately, it's just 21:32 here.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You don’t seem to be able to use sources properly. The crimes are not alleged, what is alleged is the Jesuits failure in managing him. You need to pay careful attention to what you write and make sure you have a citation which matches what you have written before you click on “publish changes”. Also, the IP above is right - you’ve only used two sources that comply with our WP:RS requirements: the Philadelphia Inquirer and CBS. Law firms websites etc are at best WP:PRIMARY and can’t be used for the purpose you want to use them - I’ve taken them out of the article. DeCausa (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the Wikipedia article as it was written at the time cited sources, a lawsuit alleges that McGuire abused over 1,000 children, but it appears he was only convicted of abusing 3 children. The sources also do not use the term "convicted pedophile", and so I replaced that with "convicted child molester", although changing that into prose (e.g., "a Jesuit who was convicted of...") is probably better as it would provide context in the lead. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. "Ejaculated in defense"? Seriously? That looks like something a first-grade student would write while doing a little vandalism. It's actually quite humorous in that childlike way. "Everyone duck! She's loaded!" But you can't tell me that it has any real meaning, thus patent nonsense. "Words that are assembled with correct grammar and syntax, but together convey no meaning." Zaereth (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Dude, don't get emotional. The antiquated meaning of 'ejaculate' was a pun intended and I fixed it immediately when other concerns were raised. Don't use it as a red herring, discuss the issue. Mother Teresa's role is well-documented and if you want to have it erased you gotta have way more serious objections than complaints over a (clearly humorously meant) antiquated use of a word in lieu of some common expression like "spoke out in defense of [him]". Serious objections, too?Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , you inserting patent nonsense is a serious concern regardless of how you attempt to justify it. Also deeply concerning is that you are plagiarizing material from the sources, which is a clear copyright protection violation. I removed that plagiarized content from one paragraph, but I unfortunately do not have the time to check the rest of the content you had added. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is also deeply problematic that you inserted the sentence "The number of victims of the illustrious Jesuits is reporterd to be at least 1,000." when that is not accurate at all, as the cited source was about the abuse of one person over the period of many years. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't ask questions if you don't want the answer. Encyclopedia's are not the place for puns. I had a free minute so I checked out the CBS source, and it is most definitely an op/ed column. The author is giving his narrative rather than reporting news. I wouldn't use it for the same reason we don't use those Chris Hansen To Catch a Predator episodes. The other source is reliable, but one, or even two, sources do not make for general notability. I'd recommend sending it to AFD unless some good sources can be found. Zaereth (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * feel free to nominate it for deletion, this would be much more constructive than tagging it with notaqbility tags or what not and initiating endless discussions (you didn't even read the sources and didn't believe Mother Teresa had a significant role, hence you bergan nitpicking on a use of ONE antiquated word that no-one, with the possible exception of English scholars or clergy would use). Feel free to nominate it for deletion, but try to give the thread some time before you or anyone else counts the votes or whichever way the outcome is determined. You gotta understand that he is a notable criminal, but just one out of very many. Regrettably... Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn’t the place to right great wrongs. You have to understand that this isn’t about whether there should be an article about this person - it’s about whether you have done a good enough job on this article. And sadly, you’ve done a poor job. I suspect there’s sufficient notability there to justify an article but t’s got to be supported honestly by reliable sourcing. The validity of the article is only about the quality of the editing. DeCausa (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well this is a surprising change of argument, because large swaths of the initial text have by now been erased anyway and I stopped making any major edits to this article 3 hours ago. so if we are now raising the issue that "[t]he validity of the article is only about the quality of the editing" then the current supposedly dire state of affairs that provoked many an editor's "threats" to AfD it, cannot be only due to the author of the initial version? Again, feel free to AfD it, I'd only appreciate some community input as there is no doubt in my head what the outcome would be. I'll leave it as it is (in fact, already did so 3 hours ago). Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PS. The discussion here is futile anyway as the OP (complaint here) was invalid for the mere reason that it doesn't fall under WP:BLP (in Germany it kinda would, ironically, cf. ).Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're twisting our words or simply misunderstanding them, but "you make your own position seem worse than it is when you mischaracterize the position of your opponents". Wikipedia is all about the nitpicking. We're a very formal source, so it's what we do best. (Of course, some may confuse giving advice with nitpicking, and sometimes people take constructive criticism or an offer of help as opposition, but, what can you do.) I agree with DeCausa. There is likely enough info out there to make a decent article. It probably just requires some legwork and decent wordsmithing, and maybe taking things a little more seriously. But my advice is: find out what the words mean before using them. "Ejaculated" is far from an antiquated word. Zaereth (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps times are achangin' in my case, too, then? Sometimes they change with utter celerity. Cf. I'd recommend sending it to AFD unless some good sources can be found. Zaereth (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC) There is likely enough info out there to make a decent article.Zaereth (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that supposed to mean something? Is there some reason you're quoting my words back to me as if I'm too stupid to know what I said, or are you simply taking them out of context to derive a conclusion otherwise not intended? I'll put it this way: if you want to do the work then fine. If not, then it should be deleted until someone comes along who does. In it's current state, it's a poor job. If you do, then I think the best solution would be to move it to draft space, and take it through the AFC process. Zaereth (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * when I looked at the article it said "Donald McGuire is a Jesuit and a convicted pedophile." although at the end it mentioned his death. I'm afraid I didn't read that far and thought that the lead was correct. I wish I had brought this elsewhere now that I'm discovering even more problems, from unsourced material to even more copyvio than User:Wallyfromdilbert mentions, as this editor is having an argument over copyvio with User:Hut 8.5 over more copyvio. I think that your suggestion that it be moved to draft space is a good idea.  Doug Weller  talk 12:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just substantially re-written the article with much more sourcing. Could you take a look at it before doing that. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * - if you move it to Draft, pls. not to my space. I'm done with this article. To some extent it was improved, but to some extent dis-improved by other editors (unexplained erasure of his thesis, for example, then erasing source from the claim that the victim count was >1,000 and claiming later "but this is not sourced!" - of course it was no longer sources after all these erasures. Keep me away from this. Or even better, AfD as some of you "threatened" (as if I, rather than wikipedia), needs more article. As a sidenote, I'm still waiting for Doug Weller's reply to this. An experienced admin presumably knows much more than me about WP:V and CN tags, so i'd appreciate some further input. Thanks.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

((od)) I'm not touching it. As for Polska's question, he added a cn tag to something obviously sourceable, all I did was point him to two articles that had sources, only to be told that articles can't be used as sources and pointed to WP:V and telling me that material needs sourcing. I've replied saying that it's always better to source something and tag it. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your antiquated point. I would actually agree that using the word in the manner you use it is antiquated, which makes your dumb pun even worse. I don't think we should be making puns like that even where the usage is still sometimes recognised and occurs outside of a pun, but it's definitely a bad thing when the usage is now basically unheard of as is the case here since the ejaculation meaning predominates. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. I thought moving to draft space would be a good way for PjN to fix the article issues at their leisure, but at this point I am beginning to think it's less about the article and more about just stirring up crap. So that leads me back to just thinking it should just be deleted. Zaereth (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , you need to stop repeating your false claim about the number of victims. That was a widely false statement that is not supported by any source, and the source you cited for it was never removed from the article, which is another blatantly false statement by you . – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Polska jest Najważniejsza has just misread the source, which says that one victim claimed to be abused 1,000 times, not that there were a 1,000 victims. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Jesuits gives a figure of 28 victims, which is the number I’ve used in the article. DeCausa (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Polska jest Najważniejsza continued repeating their misrepresentation after I corrected them about it above, and they also lied about the edit summary removing the content as well as the fact that the cited source they introduced was still in the article. That is not acting in a honest manner, and it needs to stop. I also changed the article to clarify that McGuire was alleged to have molested 28 children, rather than stating it as fact based on the single encyclopedia source. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, the two convictions covered some of the 28. I’ve re-worded slightly to avoid the problematic impression that those of the 28 that were the subject matter of the convictions were only “allegations”. DeCausa (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Having now worked on the article, I believe it’s now reasonably sourced and clearly notable. DeCausa (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, either way, this conversation seems more about the attention we're giving PjN rather than the real issues, so I don't think there is much left to say here. Zaereth (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Charles W. Mills
I and disagree about the appropriate nationality to use (per WP:CONTEXTBIO) in the lede of Charles W. Mills, a biography of a recently deceased philosopher. Any input is appreciated. Perhaps the best option is simply to omit nationality entirely as sources including this NYT obituary studiously avoid describing him as American, Jamaican, or Caribbean. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be whatever his citizenships are. Did he have Jamaican citizenship through his parents? Did he lose his UK (and possibly Jamaica) citizenship upon becoming an American? The lead can expound on his Caribbean background later if it is important to notability as a philosopher. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He put his Jamaican citizenship in the past tense in 2014, "I was a citizen of a small Third World country, Jamaica...", while he described himself as an American citizen in 2020. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for - hadn't seen that. Based on my WP:OR from British nationality law and Jamaican nationality law, he would be a British citizen by lex soli and a Jamaican citizen by lex sanguinis. He stated in an interview that he acquired US citizenship. So he would have held three citizenships unless he renounced one or more or they ended by operation of law. But, of course, none of this can go in the article without statements in sources. As far as the sources go, following WP:ABOUTSELF, he called himself "Caribbean-American": see this page (page 172), in an essay republished from . And in the interview I mentioned below, he explicitly called himself an American citizen. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole point of Contextbio is to de-emphasize ethnicity or background in favour of actual legal status (nationality or citizenship). It would be nice to learn when he became an American citizen so that we could put it in its proper context later. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If his nationality/nationalities are not an important part of his identity or are more complicated than a one-word country designation(s) in the lead would suggest, then I think it may be appropriate to leave his nationality out of the lead. The additional context in the personal life section seems more helpful to readers. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is my view as well. I think Caribbean-American, perhaps with accompanying efn, is the best fit, since it (1) was Mills's self-description, at least in one publication; and (2) accounts for his childhood in Jamaica and most of his adult life in the US (minus an interlude in Toronto for his PhD). But the matter is complex enough that it's probably just best to leave out. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Abdulrazak Gurnah
A very similar controversy to the one on Charles W. Mills is happening over at Abdulrazak Gurnah, only this time it's Zanzibar, Tanzania, and the UK that we're having trouble settling on. Sources are a bit more explicit this time; Guardian and WBUR (NPR affiliate) say "Zanzibari"; Reuters says "Tanzanian"; CBC has the inelegant but more fulsome "U.K.-based Tanzanian writer". Any thoughts? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Tanzania's nationality law: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5734.html"Every person who, having been born in Mainland Tanzania or in Zanzibar before Union Day, was immediately before Union Day a citizen of the Republic of Tanganyika or of the People's Republic of Zanzibar shall be deemed to have become, on Union Day, and, with effect from Union Day, subject to section 30, to have continued, and after the commencement of this Act shall continue, to be a citizen by birth of the United Republic."


 * "Union Day" refers to the date 26 April 1964, when the countries of Tanganyika and Zanzibar were merged to form Tanzania. Abdulrazak Gurnah was born in 1948 as a citizen of the Sultanate of Zanzibar, before it was overthrown in the 1964 Zanzibar Revolution to establish the People's Republic of Zanzibar. If the People's Republic of Zanzibar recognized him as a citizen, then he would be a Tanzanian citizen according to Tanzania's nationality law. However, Tanzania doesn't allow dual-citizenship, and I'm assuming he gained British citizenship after escaping to Britain. Zolarpunk (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

So, what if due to such law he would prefer his birth citizenship and never obtained British citizenship? And all these major news outlets such as the BBC, NYT, the Guardian keep on saying he is Tanzanian. I believe if he only holds British citizenship this fact would have been known. So by default he's Tanzanian - this is how he should be referred until anything to the contrary is known.Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No, and it's a simple matter why. We don't call Perseus or Xerxes Iranian kings, because there was no Iran back in those days. Even most Iranians today refer to themselves as Persian (not Arab!). It's a bad idea to go and try interpreting law too, unless you're a lawyer (which most of us are not). It seems pretty obvious that if you flee the country just before the revolution, then you were never a citizen of the new regime, so it's more appropriate to use the former name (although you could clarify with a parenthetical saying (modern day Tanzania)). Zaereth (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Zaereth, your understanding about how someone's nationality is determined actually baffles me. First, laws are what determine nationality. If it's clear in a country's laws who is a citizen and who isn't, then there is no much argument regarding this. If the Tanzanian constitution states that anyone born in Zanzibar before Union Day (as this applies to our subject of discussion) automatically becomes a Tanzanian citizen when Zanzibar became a part of Tanzania, then what reasonable argument do you really have against this? Second, Someone born in country "X" and lived until their death, and before country "X" merges with country "Y" to form country "Z" will not be listed anywhere as a citizen of country "Z" (the newly formed country), but rather will be known as a citizen of country "X". However, if someone was born in country "X" and lived until the day country "X" merges with "Y" to form country "Z", that person will become an automatic citizen of country "Z". This is a universal truth, and we've seen it in history. Someone born in Istanbul during the Ottoman empire, but didn't live to witness the formation of Turkey, will not be referred to as Turkish, but rather Ottoman. But if someone was born in Istanbul and lived during the formation of Turkey, he will be known as Turkish. An East German who lived during and after the reunification of Germany will be referred to as a "German". But if such an individual didn't live up to reunification, they will be referred to as "East German" and not German. So now apply this to our subject, who was born in Zanzibar and lived up to the day and after Zanzibar united with Tanzania to form the new country known tody as Tanzania. He should therefore be listed as Tanzanian, except there is clear evidence that shows otherwise.Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What matters most for Wikipedia is what reliable sources says. If they frequently conflict or dispute each other, then they should be presented in a way that provides that context. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

'Tanzanian novelist Gurnah wins 2021 Nobel for depicting impact of colonialism, migration', 'Tanzanian novelist Abdulrazak Gurnah wins Nobel Prize in literature', "The Tanzanian writer, the first Black winner since Toni Morrison, was honored for his “uncompromising and compassionate penetration of the effects of colonialism.”" - need I go on? He is in and should be described as such. This is not difficult or controversial. GiantSnowman 21:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'll buy that. It's better than trying to interpret laws, especially laws from other countries. Just go with the sources. Zaereth (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Brad Beyer
Someone has inserted a claim that, the actor that has a Wikipedia article is the one who filed paperwork, running for the US Senate, both in the article itself and in. However, I have a feeling that the person who filed the FEC filing and the actor are two different people; the municipality where the person resides in the filing doesn't match the one in the article either.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 03:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like their source is primary and the content should be removed pending confirmation by a reliable, secondary source. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

David T. Beers
The subject of is trying to get the attention of editors via the article's talk page. He feels that the article grossly misrepresents certain aspects of his life and work, but has not yet made it clear precisely what is wrong. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed a paragraph because of its liberal use of synthesis. The Reuters article verified only Moody's fee structure change in the 70s. The paragraph extended this fee structure to the other companies and its eventual impact to the subprime mortgage crisis. The Reuters article also did not describe how Beers was complicit with this history at Standards and Poors. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth Haigh
On Elizabeth Haigh, there has been persistent adding of allegations of plagiarism in her newest book. Most of the edits have attempted to source to the Facebook or Instagram page of the person making the accusation. As of yet, I have been unable to find any secondary independent source which is not a blog.

An editor has also tried to "source" that the book's link on Bloomsbury going dead as a claim. As I am at my three revert limit on the page, it would be best to have more eyes on the page. Seloloving (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Watched. Hopefully your RPP will be granted soon to reduce the disruption. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Nury Vittachi
Subject of endless additions and removals of unsourced material ranging from seemingly innocuous biographical details to allegations about the subject's journalistic ethics. Can it get more eyes, or does it need long-term protection? William Avery (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Dag Heward-Mills
Recently a huge amount of information has been added to the article as a "Controversies" section. It appears to be referenced but I don't have time right now to pore through it or make sure the references are reliable. Can anyone spare some time to look through it? Notfrompedro (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * So one of the URLs added in the edit appears to be from a website with "gossip" on the name, which certainly doesn't seem like a good start.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 13:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, the article has HUGE copyvio problems as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I trimmed that whole controversy section as copyvio, as well as about 90% of the article, and 95% of the article on his church due to copyvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking into the article and fixing it. Notfrompedro (talk)
 * I'd hardly call it fixing, I just went at it with a hatchet and removed all the copyvio, which was most of it. Thanks, though. I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Tim Wilson (Australian Politician)
My name is Tim Wilson and I am an elected representative in Australia. The Wikipedia page about me seems to be designed to put me in a negative light, especially in the "Political positions and controversies" section. Almost all of this section (and some other portions of the page) rely on citations to opinion/commentary/column content, primary sources, articles that do not even mention me (or just mention me in passing), or in some cases Wikipedia's content has no citation at all. For example, it says "Wilson has received some criticism for applying the principles of freedom of speech inconsistently" with no citation. In other cases, the citation doesn't say what it's cited for.

I have provided a breakdown here that goes through each of the citations I felt may not conform with Wikipedia's policies. I'm not sure anyone has time to go through so many one-by-one, but I do not know of a better way to articulate my concerns.

Please advise if I can be of any further assistance in getting the page to comply with Wikipedia's policies. TimWilsonMP (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, going through your draft there and the page I do see merit to a number of the questions you’ve raised. Thanks for taking the high road with this, TimWilsonMP. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Bajirao Patil
Says he was arrested and charged for murder in 2011 and charges are still pending, but the sources are 2011> I spent 5 minutes searching for the outcome, no luck. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's still ongoing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Negar Mortazavi
The information about the views of Negar Mortazavi has been repeatedly deleted instead of being corrected. When content was corrected through the talk page of this article, it has been removed again to prevent the views to be reflected on the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy Sanchez 1990 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks like you're edit warring against several other editors, so the consensus appears to be against the inclusion. I suggest you work on getting consensus on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Afsar massacre
Came across this article while wikignoming. See several statements that might be libelous if untrue; for example a politician is called a gangster and a police official accused of participating in a massacre. In my utter ignorance of the topic, am concerned enough to flag it. I am calling this my due diligence and am happy no matter what is decided. Elinruby (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Other editors have made some edits, and I trimmed out statements referring to someone as a gangster, which we shouldn't be saying about a living person in wikivoice without REALLY strong RS support. Tagged article for NPOV issues as well. Good catch, . BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

BLPSPS and interviews
What do others think about self-published sources e.g. blogs which contain interviews? My thought is that something being an interview doesn't change our prohibition on using self-published sources for material about a living person so we still can't use such a source. While it may seem strange to some that this means we can't use that interview, but potentially could use some stuff said in that interview if it was directly published by the subject of the interview per WP:ABOUTSELF, this is a reflection of the fact that we need to trust the SPS to accurately report what was said in the interview. While fake interview concerns are significantly lessened where the audio or video is made available or where the publisher has some reputation, still we have to draw the line somewhere. If the interview is republished by the interviewee then I guess we can take it as ABOUTSELF. Only question is whether to take linking, retweeting etc the interview, as re-published. IMO answer would be no. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If they cannot be replaced by a BLP-quality reference, I look for independent, reliable sources that verify most of the article content in question, that demonstrate due weight for the article content, and demonstrate encyclopedic value for the article content. Without such a reference, I remove the self-published source and the corresponding article content. --Hipal (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * e.g.?Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it doesn't change the prohibition on self-published sources, since blogs are themselves directly included in the (non-exhaustive) list. Also, this makes sense since someone running a blog does not make the people on the blog notable; I.e., if it were a hobby blog. Also, about retweeting, it just links back to the original publication without having it hosted elsewhere, so likewise agree there. Nic T R (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Barbara Lewis
Singer Barbara Lewis (who sang the 1963 hit single "Hello Stranger", among others) died on July 22, 2018 at age 77. There are multiple online resources (other than Wikipedia) that will verify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.12.0 (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the sourcing I see even suggests she's dead (as early as Feb of this year). Sources that say she is dead are highly questionable sources. --M asem (t) 22:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In other news, I'm finding one article posted multiple sites on October 13th stating her death but no cause or date, however, stating it was at age 78. I'm also seeing a facebook notice potentially about the initial 2018 death at 77. Neither source is particularly reputable, and neither has the same information. Def. a wait for better confirmation scenario. Nic T R (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Marie Calloway
The alleged real name and birth date of the pseudonymous author who is the subject of this article is unverified in any of the citations or anywhere online. It was removed once, put back, and I removed it again because it seems to violate the policy regarding biographies of living persons. XavierDodo (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)XavierDodo
 * Yeah, that's not so good. The Buzzfeed article doesn't specifically state her supposed real name, though it suggests where it may "possibly" be found.  That's clearly not good enough.  I have rev-deleted the offending diffs and semi-protected the article. Black Kite (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Sexual allegations at Bombargo
I came across the article while correcting cite errors, which I fixed and made some corrections. However as I thought about it I went back and checked the references for a quote in the section. The sources reflected part but not all of the quote, and so I shortened to what appeared in the sources. Could someone with more BLP knowledge cast their eye over the section? Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm really concerned about the amount of detail devoted to an allegation against two members of the band in the production of a video outside the band per WP:PROPORTION. This is not a Thoen brothers article. That section should focus more on the impact to the band rather than every single detail in the news about the allegation.  Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at it. The work you've done covers my concerns as well. I had tried to cut it back and make sure it was properly sourced, but felt uncertain about cutting it back further due to my lack of experience. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC) (formally IP editor)

Geofrey Robinson MP
He resigned as Paymaster General after the Trans Tec became bankrupt. It was later revealed he had lent....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldkingkole (talk • contribs) 03:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Nik & Eva Speakman change required to Career section due to an inaccurate news source
Nik & Eva Speakman change required to Career section due to an inaccurate news source

Specific text to be removed from the Career section: The Speakmans presented a DeLorean car to the former Liberal Member of Parliament for Rochdale, Sir Cyril Smith at his 80th birthday party in 2008.[13]

Reason for the change: This is an inaccurate statement and is referenced to an archived version of an inaccurate newspaper article, the live version of which has been corrected by the author/publisher

References supporting change: The corrected article is https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/9569/sir-cyril-smith-80th-birthday-party This article is now accurate, no reference is made to the Speakmans and the presentation of a car to Mr Smith, hence the request to remove the incorrect statement on the page.

I am a former ICT teacher of one of their children who has asked me to try to correct this page, I don't know if this constitutes a conflict of interest. This is an obvious error and is affecting the family's charity work, I hope that this issue can be resolved.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuryWhite (talk • contribs) 08:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I've removed the sentence, given the issue with sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Michael Asher (explorer)
Please see Talk:Michael Asher (explorer). The short version is that a single established editor has been trying to deal with a stream of WP:COI editing and reliance on self-published material as sources. The article needs additional input from more editors. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Shannon Sharpe: hoax middle name
A lot of IPs are active at many internet sites promoting the idea that Shannon Sharpe has "Goad" as a middle name. It apears to be a Google bombing joke. I asked for confirmation at WT:WikiProject National Football League (permalink). I would like opinions here (is it a hoax?) to help deal with future attacks on the article. The name has been removed from the article here but is still present at simple:Shannon Sharpe and Wikidata. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Shelley Watts
Any changes from 17th October to Shelley Watts appear to be vandalism. Request to change back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.111.71.229 (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That has been done. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Lynn Loriaux. His name is Donald Lynn Loriaux
Lynn Loriaux. His name is Donald Lynn Loriaux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.188.185 (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Source? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Katie Price
There is an intractable dispute going on at the Katie Price article. WP:NOTNEWS states: '''Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.'''. WP:BLPGOSSIP states: '''Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. and WP:PROPORTION states An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.''' Two attempts to trim the personal life section of this BLP to remove laundry lists of gossip and overcoverage of her personal relationships has been stale reverted. The first time by and the second time by User:Okay,okayhshshs, who was not involved in discussions previously and is a borderline SPA. Attempts to discuss on the talk page, ended last week with no further response to me, so today, I began trimming the material in question. began a new discussion, decrying the changes The policies I've cited are pretty clear and loading a BLP down with all of this trivial tabloid gossip seems at best a violation of the spirit of WP:BLP. Discussion has gone nowhere, so here I am, looking for help. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of removal, the easiest way to identify gossip is to look at quality of the sources and remove anything that is reported by questionable sources. Since this person is a celebrity, even high quality sources may report on the most mundane thing but determining correct proportion or appropriateness is best done through discussion rather than unilaterally. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For example, Daily Record (Scotland) is a tabloid and should be excised and The Argus (Brighton) looks somewhat questionable due to the headlines on its front page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram down in massive outage"? Yeah, that looks just totally made up. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, surely it’s the blatant sensationalism of “Slow traffic reported along Old Shoreham Road after collision near Shell station” for which The Brighton Argus is so notorious. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * omg. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Headlines like "Two boys arrested after police investigate burglaries at children's play centre", "Council leader rubbishes claim that an extra bin collection was ordered to his area ahead of strike", "Man hit in the head with hammer during aggravated burglary" do not inspire the greatest of confidence in the weight of its reports beyond ho hum WP:NOTNEWS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored the catalogue of driving issues (whch are all impeccably sourced, and for which she may well end up in prison) whilst removing the extraneous issues. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The driving issues seem relevant to some extent, but the amount of detail in the article seemed pretty excessive. I've tried to trim them down some to remove extraneous details . – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The itemized laundry list of incidents and penalties are excessive and the initial 2010 incidents are sourced to the Daily Record (ref=paparazzi) and Argus. I would not call those impeccable sourcing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Evening Standard citation link (an April 2012 article) does not seem to verify or align with the stated Dec 2010 ban? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , that article is from December 2010 . – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I delved into the archives after posting and updated the link so that there would be no confusion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Summoned here by a surprise ping. Accused of "playing games". Ooh, that's a lot of bold text above. Why should the "dispute" be "intractable"? The article may need trimming. It's the unilateral onslaught method to which I'm objecting. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "lack of any coverage now is why we can omit it now" - I'm pretty sure that's not how things work. What constitutes as "now"?  Are you saying that if something hasn't been published in the last 10 years about something, it should be removed from Wikipedia?  Erased from history because people don't publish about it anymore? -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not what "enduring" means. If, ten years ago, there was several months of coverage of this event, that would be enduring coverage and likely a sign that even now, we'd keep it (but there are other factors too, keeping in mind we don't regularly republish celebrity gossip-type news) But a short term burst of coverage that may be in the news for a day or two and then never covered again is something that is not considered enduring, and thus we would not include it. --M asem (t) 16:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Summoned here by stalking Martinevans123's contributions. I think Black Kite's version is probably the one to go for, it's compliant with BLP, balances the opposed views here and is hopefully a suitable enough compromise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  23:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything on this BLP is sourced, but always happy to see the sources improved. While some of it may seem trivial and personal, I'm afraid that this is the nature of the article subject.  Her notability almost entirely revolves around the events in her personal life. That is "proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."   So I do not see any issue with the article reflecting that.  If there is anything factually questionable in the article then EnPassant should challenge it, and it will of course be removed immediately, rather than taking the approach of removing paragraphs on no other basis that they don't like it, and referencing policy that doesn't apply.
 * I also don't see how information about being bankrupt, or claiming to be raped, could ever be considered of no note or "irrelevant". -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) She filed for bankruptcy, which is not a unique or particularly important event. She is not notable for her financial acumen. Please explain why bankruptcy is relevant in this BLP. 2) In 2009, she claimed to she had been sexually assaulted at some point, but there was no police investigation, the police declined to pursue it, she declined to discuss it further and no chargers were brought. The claim came to nothing. Please explain why it should remain in this BLP, especially in its own section. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Please explain why bankruptcy is relevant in this BLP." - It was part of her life, for which she is notable.
 * "Please explain why it should remain in this BLP, especially in its own section." - Because it would be a very important part of her life, if it happened. And if it didn't, it would be a very important indication of her life.  Are you suggesting that the fact she said she'd been raped should be ignored? -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty much this. Editors have to remember we're writing an encyclopedia, and biographic articles should be covering events about a person that have enduring coverage. So for example, the sexual assault claims never went anywhere, including herself, after they were reported, so that's a clear lack of enduring coverage and thus should not be in the article. Same with the bankruptcy, and I'd argue the same with the drug problems. I'd also be further careful on assuming that just because of having several driving issues that represents a large issue altogether, as that's a bit of SYNTH potentially there. Basically, unless we're talking a situation that involves a major career impact, all these little bits of gossip-y stuff shouldn't be part of our documentation. --M asem (t) 13:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "never went anywhere, including herself" - and you know how she feels about this how?
 * "Same with the bankruptcy" - part of her life and lifestyle for which she is notable.
 * "just because of having several driving issues that represents a large issue altogether" - multiple reliable sources have suggested that this is part of a larger issue. Members of her family are quoted as saying it.  There is no SYNTH here. If anything, the article avoids this. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources sources sources. First point: lack of any coverage now is why we can omit it now. If she still feels it is a major factor in her life, it should be easy to prove out sourcing that shows she still talks about it now. Same with the bankrupcy. As for the driving factors, if there are RSes that frequently talk about these as a whole, these should be leading off this section to avoid the OR potential. --M asem (t) 17:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that without some indication of enduring coverage, it is hard to argue that these personal issues are due. If the only sourcing for a personal life detail is contemporaneous news coverage, then it is probably not something that should be covered in an encyclopedia unless it had a significant impact on their life, which is hard to determine without retrospective coverage. The rape accusation may be a more difficult situation because there are many people who speak out about being survivors of sexual assault who do not want to say who did it and have never gone to police. However, if no sources have discussed it since it was a news topic, then we should probably be guided by them and the fact that they do not consider it a significant part of her life (and vice versa if it has been covered retrospectively). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone has to somehow "justify" a well-covered report of rape by "having it discussed" by the media in the following 12 years? If media have not thought this a good topic for discussion, and/or Price herself has no more to say on it, that's hardly likely to happen. Isn't the fact that it happened at all, and she claimed it was perpetrated by a "famous celebrity", the notable aspect? Or do we not believe her, as she didn't go to the police? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia editors do have to justify their content additions with relevant sources. Also, the question is whether the content is WP:NOTEWORTHY, and not whether it was "notable". It isn't helpful to make unsupported accusations about other editors' beliefs either. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I was asking if the victim somehow needs to justify it in that way. Not a Wikipedia editor. Sorry if that was unclear. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What the victim needs to do is not germane. This is an encyclopedia, not an activism forum. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah right. Let's just call it "inconsequntial gossip". Then we can sweep it under the encyclopaedia carpet. Perhaps it never happened? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If no one talked about it outside a window of a few days or weeks when it was brought up, then in WP's eyes, it absolutely is considered inconsequential gossip. That shows that the media decided it may not have had any corroboration to really follow up, for example. If it was a truly severe issue in her life, I would have expected her to bring it up more and demand more justice, which would have been reflected in sources. But that's not what seemed to happen. --M asem (t) 23:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that rape is necessarily that simple. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't need to be convinced. The reliable sources do, which is part of our core policies. To say otherwise implies non-neutrality. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources need to be convinced that rape is necessarily that simple? Which part of our core policies is that? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Martin, so far your comments here and at the article talk page appear to mostly constitute answering questions with questions or simply be unhelpful snark. I have yet to see you explain why this content must remain when I've repeatedly explained why it should not and based my arguments in core policy. I'm not going to again read the policies back to you. You've been here long enough to have read and understood them, so if you have not or do not, then it's not my responsibility to educate you. WP:BURDEN is pretty clear and the argument was made by Masem and Wallyfromdilbert as to why much of the content in question misses the threshold of the policies I've cited. I get the impression I'm being sealioned here, and I won't be responding to you further until you make a clear case for 1) why the content is important for a BLP AND 2) how it conforms to the policies I've cited. In other words, some sort of substantive argument EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mr N. Pssant, thanks for the scolding. But I was trying to understand what you meant by those words. I still don't know. I'm sorry if you see that as "unhelpful snark" or anything to do with pinnipeds. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * General comment If she had done nothing else but get arrested for drunk driving (and related issues), been hospitalized for an accident, filed bankruptcy and had some surgery would she have a Wikipedia article? The answer to that is no. So then, what is she notable for? EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * She is notable for all these things, and others. Such is the nature of her notability and the coverage she receives in reliable sources. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A person is not notable for anything that is merely covered in a news story. Regardless, the more important question is whether this content is WP:NOTEWORTHY, as not all verifiable information is important enough for inclusion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, as also covered in three policies (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:PROPORTION) I've quoted up at the top. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * These are all great addendums and modifiers of the real policy that covers this, which is NPOV, and in particular, BALANCE and WEIGHT. This is how we normally keep trivia and gossipy info out of celebrity articles. It is more than a bit mundane and ridiculous to write about things like speeding tickets and traffic stops, or even drunk driving charges and the like --unless it can be shown that the incident has had some lasting impact on the subject's life and career, and for any celebrity, politician, or public figure, the coverage of such a life-altering incident would surly be very wide. As a matter of balance and weight, the question I wouldften ask myself is not whether it deserves inclusion, but how much weight (weight meaning space) should we give it? A full section? A single paragraph, or is the weight so small it deserves no more than a sentence? Maybe it deserves no more than a single letter? If the answer is anything less than a sentence, then it doesn't merit any mention.


 * The thing about weight and balance is that they are dimensionless numbers, being a proportion of both sources and the size of the article. Not all reliable sources carry the same weight, so it's not simply a matter of sheer volume either. What I would suggest would be: the proper way to handle this, per BLP, is to not include until consensus is achieved to include, and then work this out on the talk page to achieve consensus one way or the other. At the end of the day, we don't want info that makes us read like a tabloid or gossip column, which is why these policies exist. It what we do. Zaereth (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you really think edits like this one are most helpful? Do you really doubt any of the items in that list? Some people might look for sources, or even ask on the Talk page, rather than just delete the entire section? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that wiping out things like filmographies - which are non-contentious aspects even for a BLP - is not an appropriate step since that is more a matter of going out and verifying the sources (as an WP:ITN/C this is a constant problem we urge people to do for recently deceased). This info is far different compared to any of the above issues which do involve contentious info. --M asem (t) 23:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The section was tagged as unsourced since July. The template says unsourced material may be challenged and removed. WP:BURDEN says "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Do you feel that comments like these  are most helpful? EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I found the front page of The Argus very amusing and the comments from other editors moreso. You'd have to ask them if they were helpful. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The thing about Wikipedia policies is that they all not only work with each other, but modify and augment each other, making them flexible to account for different situations. You could say BLP is the highest policy, but it too works with, augments, and is augmented by all the other policies such as NPOV. If this were a case of, say ... someone using court documents to support a claim of speeding, then it would be a slam-dunk BPL case. But it's not. I find it best not to nitpick at different parts of policy, but try to think of it a one giant equation, where to include something it must satisfy every single part of that equation. If it fails any one of these hurdles, then we shouldn't include it.


 * But one part of this policy is that we shouldn't delete material that is self-evident simply because it doesn't have a source. We might want a source verifying that water is wet, but that water is indeed wet is easily self evident. (Better is to explain why it is wet, but that's another issue.) There's a point when it is simply better to tag it as needing a source, but otherwise there is no need to remove it unless some evidence exists to show that water is not wet, or whatever the case may be. For one thing, it helps attract new editors when they read it and realize, hey, they have a source right there.


 * But then again, there are other instances where it most certainly is better to remove unsourced info until consensus is reached for inclusion, such as info that may be harmful to a living person. It's important to know the difference, and that why there is danger in viewing policy in the same way a lawyer would argue law. I agree with you on many of your deletions, but not so much on this particular one. At some point, either way, it needs to come down to consensus, and consensus itself can be difficult to judge. It's not a matter of counting votes but weighing arguments. Zaereth (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. Herein lies the problem: It was tagged as "unsourced" by someone else in July. Tags should not remain indefinitely and it's not necessarily incorrect to tag that part as unsourced. If I remove the tag (and I mention this because similar instances have happened to me several times in the past), whomever placed it will inevitably revert me because the "issue is not resolved". Then I can either spend days arguing with them over whether a stupid template should be left in for a list of uncontroversial guest appearances, or simply give up and move on. Guess which one I usually choose now. There are articles here with templates like that which have languished for over 10 years in some cases. This is a Wikipedia process that simply does not work correctly. And on the other hand, don't even get me started on the cynical snark and stonewalling I get when trying to enforce core policies. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd also add, to clarify for those who may not know, an encyclopedia's purpose is to provide a summary of all knowledge, not all knowledge. Just the nitty gritty. This by definition means trimming out all the fluff and getting down to the bones, and is what separates us from other types of sources. It's not censorship or anything like that. It's summarizing. It's all a part of the NPOV part of it. It's just what we do, and consensus is how we do it. Zaereth (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I do think there are some BLP issues here. For example, the extensive details on her son, who is a private person and a child, seems to have minimal relevance to the BLP of Katie Price. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Price gave birth to her first child, son Harvey, in Brighton in May 2002." So he's now 19 years old? There's one paragraph, of four short sentences, about him. He's a central part of Price's life and a TV documentary Katie Price: Harvey and Me has just been aired about him? I don't see that as "minimal relevance", more like "minimal coverage". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * (outdent) So is the consensus that the current version conforms to the policies I quoted at the top of this discussion? EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It beggars belief that anyone seriously even considered this latest crash, given all the gory and shameful details, somehow fell under any sensible definition of gossip, trivia or harmful. What would she have to do for it to merit a mention in Wikipedia? Kill someone? Because who is to say given the facts as established by the highly trustworthy BBC that it was anything but luck that she didn't? She drove drunk and on coke at speed down a dark country lane and lost control so badly due to perhaps nothing but her own intoxication, that she somehow put her large and heavy vehicle on its side. It brings shame and embarrassment on Wikipedia that the person who tried to whitewash this article is still trying to suggest he is in the right, and that somehow it is other people who don't quite get what he is saying. I do, and I am offended by it. Basic common sense should tell anyone there is no plausible scenario where Katie Price having to go to rehab after nearly killing someone won't ever somehow be forgotten in any future summation of her life. Unless of course, it becomes a footnote to her actually killing someone. Not least because she's more than likely going to want to exploit it for her own personal gain down the line, her future books and TV shows being all about her noble struggle with drink and drugs and mental health issues, and not, more's the pity, any attempt to persuade young girls that hers is not the life they need to emulate. Cameron Dev (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC) — Cameron Dev (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Ignoring WP:NOTFORUM concerns, that seems like a pretty disingenuous comment, considering that the article says, "In September 2021, Price was taken to hospital after a car crash near Partridge Green, which is located close to her home in Horsham. Later that month, Price pleaded guilty to driving drunk without insurance and while disqualified." It also seems bizarre to argue that content is not gossip by appealing to "all the gory and shameful details". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem with that line of reasoning is that it is based upon your own beliefs and system of values of what constitutes trivial information. Everybody has a different value system. Me, I couldn't care less about any of this, as it's not related to any science, physics, or technical info. But Wikipedia doesn't care about our individual ideals. We determine what is trivia or not by a preponderance of reliable sources. It's not, "Do I care?" In the case of celebrities and the like, it's, "Do enough people out there care to publish about it a lot, and for an extended amount of time?" Is it widely reported in RSs, and does the story have any staying power, like the case of Charles Manson did? (Note: Manson's story mainly blew up because it happened in Beverly Hills.) Or are people just going to lose interest and move on to the next shiny object? Who really knows why some stories bloom and some just fade away, but that's how we differentiate the gossip and trivia from the really important things. It's what balance and weight are all about, and why articles on people like Kim Kardashian are well-read and not just bloated messes. The best way to determine balance and weight is to discuss the sourcing on the article's talk page. Zaereth (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I recommend an RfC for the very worst of it and work from there. The article is a huge BLP and NOT violation as it is. Sanctions apply, and disputed content should not be restored until there is consensus to do so. --Hipal (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to point out that User:Cameron Dev has openly stated he is here because of "discussions" on an "external site" . Sounds a bit like WP:CANVASS to me? At the least it makes this brand new account a WP:SPA. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I added SPA tags to their posts given that all four of their edits have been on talk pages about Katie Price. should also review the policy WP:NPA given their comments have repeatedly attacked EnPassant. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, they've made a total of four edits. None of them to the article. You don't think your tags conflict with WP:BITE? Regarding WP:NPA, it looked to me that EnPassant was equally uncivil here. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , the SPA tag is meant to allow other editors to be informed that the account has made few edits, especially in a situation like this where a new account has only participated in talk page comments to express a strong personal viewpoint (see WP:SPA). They have also declared that they have a professional interest in this article subject. If you think the template conflicts with WP:BITE, then feel free to nominate it for deletion. Regarding personal attacks, I do not think the diff you linked is "equally uncivil" at all. I'm not sure what you think the problem is with saying that a brand new account who has made only one edit should learn the policies on Wikipedia before calling a more experienced editor "absurd" and claiming that the editor "just want[s] to waste people's time with absolute nonsense". That seems like a pretty strong false balance to claim the comments were "equally uncivil". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't be nominating WP:SPA for deletion, thanks. You think that's a sensible option? My point is that nearly every new editor will start by making three or four edits to the same article or Talk page, and I don't really see how branding them as a "single purpose account" does any good. Regarding personal attacks, I don't see that a comment such as "Take a moment to learn the policies of this place before sharing your opinions on what is absurd because otherwise you sound clueless" is particularly helpful to a new editor. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should claim that an unhelpful comment is as "equally uncivil" as repeated personal attacks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it really encourages dialogue. It looks more to me like WP:BATTLEGROUND. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * How can we possibly know, without asking, that "discussions on an external site" amounts to WP:CANVASS? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Although I have no way of judging Cameron's good faith or not, I'd just point out myself that we have no control over what is discussed off site, and just because such a discussion may attract people here, it doesn't necessarily mean they're acting in bad faith. I'll admit I haven't checked their history yet, but at this point all I see is someone new and perhaps a bit confused on how this all works, which is understandable because it's a lot to digest all at once. The thing I think a lot of people don't understand is that an encyclopedia biography is a summary of a biography. Imagine writing a huge, 500 page bio on this person, based on everything ever printed about them, and then having to whittle that down to a page or two (three is pushing it). What we cut and what we keep have to be based upon some standard of importance, and in Wikipedia's case that is usually measured by how much coverage each thing got. Not always, as there are good reasons for not publishing certain types of information, but mostly that's how we determine what is fair. It's a relative rather than an absolute scale, but the idea is to proportion the info the same way the sources do. Zaereth (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please specifically indicate what violates BLP? As I have pointed out before, coverage of her personal life is what makes her notable.  It reflects the overwhelming majority of the coverage she receives from reliable sources and is what she has traded in for decades.  If we were to remove this, just because some consider it trivia or gossip, it would leave the reader a completely erroneous impression of her notability.
 * I don't think there is anything in the article that is factually incorrect. Naturally, the article could always be improved and some the unimportant detail could go.  However, input so far has consisted of wholesale removal, followed by the imprecise brandishing of policies at other editors.  Could those who wish to change the article please suggest something constructive?
 * I'd also suggest that entering a discussion by templating the talk pages of everyone you disagree with is not a 'courtesy', and rather rude. Unfortunately the approach of some editors here has been needlessly combative and not in the least bit collaborative. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * If coverage of her personal live is what makes her notable (and by WP's terms per WP:N, we talking what sources go in-depth about in their coverage, not just what they superficially cover as part of day-to-day news coverage), then there should be sources, not necessarily recent but well beyond these events, that reiterate these events as part of her notability. But outside her problems with driving, none of those seem to resurface. They were news flashes, and did not appear to have any long-term impact on her notability or career.
 * What I see as an issue is that editors like Escape Orbit may be seeing the day-to-day coverage as "important" but from both WP's standpoint as well as BLP, we are looking at what is enduring in coverage. We should be writing articles to summarize a BLP's life as if we were doing it well after their death, and thus gloss over the type of day-to-day reporting that is common around celebrities like Price here. That's why when we talk about this type of stuff being gossip or trivia, it is because it is stuff that is covered as superficial to anything that really affects her in the long-term that we can document. That she has penalties relate to driving, we can. That she has been separated from her son due to those penalties (as I understand the situation), yes. But even then, we don't need every single driving infraction listed, just that she was known to have a history, including this most recent DUI one, and having her license suspending. That is definitely enduring coverage relating to her, compared to anything about her bankruptcy or her sexual assault claim. It's thinking on this broader scope, how one would be writing the article if we were not doing it in real time, what details would be summarized and what would be tossed. --M asem (t) 14:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a danger in an article about someone who has seemingly built a "career" on "gossip and trivia" that some of the material may look like... well, "gossip and trivia". We don't have this problem at e.g. Albert Einstein. But I'm still not sure why anyone would ever expect "enduring coverage" of a bankruptcy or the mail of a rape. Surely these are likely to have been very significant evets in her life? In anyone's life? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but if there were actual life or career-impacting changes as a result, beyond just the news coverage, that may be a reason to include. As an example, Neil deGrasse Tyson faced accusations of sexual harassment a few years ago. Widely covered, and as a result, a few projects he was on were put on hold pending review. The reviews found nothing wrong, and the projects were put back on track and was affirmed to not affect his career. To that end, there is a brief section on this, coveraging the accusations, what was held up, and the results. I would expect something of an equivalent sort for inclusion on the cases related to Price for the sexual assault claim and the bankruptcy, beyond just the initial reporting, but that's absent here. And when dealing with celebrities that are hounded by gossip pages (the RSes that are covering Price cite far too many of the Brit tabloids for my tastes here) we have to be aware of them being under this type of microscope that WP doesn't deal with on BLPs. --M asem (t) 14:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To add, I looked at the sources on the sexual assault stuff, and that is even trivial : Price made a comment about a potential issue while on that reality show, but specific said she wasn't filing anything formal, only the police decided to launch some investigation and found nothing actionable. That's about as far from a "serious" accusation of any type of rape or the like that we should be including on a bio article. The fact she herself wasn't planning on filing any charges suggests she herself was treating it like something to ignore. --M asem (t) 14:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * e/c "Katie Price ‘could face jail time’ if she doesn’t attend upcoming bankruptcy hearing" The threat of prison sounds quite notable? But she herself then said it was the "‘best thing to ever happen’ to her". Direct comparisons with Neil deGrasse Tyson might be difficult to sustain. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Could" but obviously not "did". Plenty of articles that involve people getting into civil and/or criminal charges typically explain the possible penalties, but that's WP:NOT to assume those will actually happen (per BLPCRIME). That said, her comments in that Metro article actually do help to reasonably keep the bankruptcy aspect in the article, but remember that Metro UK is considered a Brit tabloid and an unusable source for BLP. You'd need to find another RS that gives that, but that is the type of life-changing aspect that helps to justify inclusion here. --M asem (t) 15:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you made the same point about "not planning on filing any charges" before, I think. I tried to suggest earlier that whether charges were filed or not (and that's a question for the police), doesn't necessarily explain the significance to Price herself. I wouldn't be prepared to just dismiss it as "trivial gossip". But I see your point. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The BBC article about the sexual assault issue gives me the strong impression from Price's POV that she knew it happened but didn't want to proceed with it any further and thus wasn't going to say who it was or file any formal charge. That, and the fact nothing has come of it since, tells me it had very little significance to Price herself. And this is proven out by the lack of sourcing, we cannot presume anything more than what we can verify. --M asem (t) 15:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what utter rubbish. The BBC report makes it quite clear that in Price's view, it was significant enough to her to devote precious inches in the column SHE WRITES in a national magazine to make this extremely serious claim. I presume nobody asked her to do it, much less pressed her to. The lack of any further coverage is consistent with a theory that she probably made the whole thing up to boost her profile, as she transitioned from being famous for being a model to being famous for being Katie Price who would need to give people reasons to care about her life more than they would to anyone else. And the reason she declined to name this allege sex attacker when it all suddenly got real and the police understandably contacted her for further information, is because they don't exist. Other explanations are possible too, but none of which fit with any suggestion she perhaps just thought she was relaying to the world a trivial aspect of her amazing life. But the simple existence of the BBC report is proof enough that Katie Price making a claim she was raped and then declining to name who it was, is a significant event, because the BBC aren't in the business of considering everything she puts in her column to be of interest to people who don't read it. You will note that the BBC weren't remotely interested in including in their report whatever Price may have said in that column which may or may not explain why she chose to make this allegation and chose not to name her alleged attacker. The lack of any coverage since is consistent with there beign nothing else to say unless or until Price chooses to say it, and the BBC choosing to respect her wishes. But if we are to assume it really happened, in this day and age it would of course be quite silly if not utterly tone deaf to even remotely suggest that somehow shows it was insigificant to her. Cameron Dev (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC) — Cameron Dev (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Random break
Katie Price committed a serious offence, one she could go go prison for. She could have quite easily killed someone, perhaps a family with a small child in their reasonably priced compact car, which would probably not have survived a collision with her no doubt fully specced luxury SUV. We are not in the realms of fantasy here, much less personal opinion, we are in the realms of what a judge would think, what a journalist would think, and what a biographer would think. Reasonable deduction based on the evidence as reported by reliable sources. It is part of a pattern of offending that clearly has roots in her troubled personal life and her extensively documented failures as a business woman.

When sources as high brow and responsible as the BBC and Telegraph are writing stories of the form Where Did It All Go Wrong for X, off the back of X going bankrupt or into rehab after a serious car crash, with those stories recapping all the other things she is known for, her tits, her marriages (all of them), her media and publishing, and her anti-bullying campaign, you don't need to wait to figure out if this stuff is worthy of mentioning in Wikipedia. It is self evident.

Although being a model is why she became famous, it is her personal life, specifically her surgeries, love life, family life, business life, and legal issues, for which she is famous now. She makes money from it, and so do others. If there is no personal angle, there's nothing to write about. She is not a noted fashion designer or author, beyond that which can be attached from her brand, which is her name and personal life. It is the nature of celebrity, at this end of the spectrum anyway. She is no Kardashian, but she'ls certainly no Joanna Lumley, even though in her own mind given the downsides of being her kind of celebrity, she might prefer to be seen that way. To pretend otherwise, is delusional.

Half of what EnPassant tried to remove, has already been mentioned extensively and recapped by high brow sources. He hasn't once given a rational or even coherent argument why it would now suddenly be classified as gossip, trivia or harmful if documented by Wikipedia. He frankly should not even be here, let alone forcing people to entertain his ridiculous ideas, and it should not be me who is being lectured on the proper way to write a biography. I am a journalist and I work for an award winning top selling national newspaper. I know my profession, and I know the difference between a newspaper and an encyclopedia, and an autobiography and a biography for that matter.

This is the topic of external conversation for precisely the reason I gave - my colleagues and I frankly cannot believe this is what happens here, under the auspices of editorial oversight, even after we have accounted for the fact that the role of "Wikipedia editor" is something anyone is allowed to do. I.e. with no training or experience, and of course, certainly no professional standards. If I told my boss that people go bankrupt all the time so let's not write about it when it happens to Katie Price, I would be fired for being an incompetent. If he told me I was clueless for saying this crash is likely to be of importance and I really need to go away and study up on how this whole industry works before I open my mouth again, I could get him fired for incompetence. I am quite confident that holds true even if we were employed at a publisher of book volumes, not newspapers/magazines.

Wikipedia is what it is, precisely because you won't ever persuade someone like me to participate, if the price of entry is having to entertain the idea that it's people like EnPassant who are the experienced and knowledgeable people here, and I'm the dummy. Well, it's time you faced facts and reised he's the one who stripped out important biographical details on obviously spurious reasoning, and Wikipedia in its wisdom wants people like me to have to bide my time and spend a week or two writing about trains or some nonsense, before we can trusted to use our professional skills and experience to rectify an obvious misstep, and indeed perhaps even make a few improvements while we are here.

I find it offensive. But that's just me. I get paid do a good job, I am expected to be professional, and I am proud of the work that and my colleagues are able to produce as a result. We are not traders of gossip or trivia or any kind of gutter trash that I think perhaps some of you think you are preventing from being added to pages like this. People like me started our careers at papers like the Argus, and if you're not careful, we might get a bit ticked off at how little respect you seem to have for the work we do.

There is a reason you could add a million and one things to Katie Price's Wikipedia page from the assorted celebrity coverage she gets and quite often creates herself. There is also a reason she is written about quite often by the high brow sources. The two are not unconnected. Our job, for better or worse, is to at least sometimes acknowledge the existence of that mountain of material and reflect that, for good or bad, people must be paying for it for some reason. The BBC covered her crash for a reason. The BBC covered her bankruptcy for a reason. Do not make the mistake many of you seem to want to make, and just blindly assume their reason is the same as that used by OK or Hello, or that this isn't exaclty where a biographer would start when attempting to summarise her life.

I am already regretting spending this much time on something I am not actually being paid to care about and have no real interest in outside of my professional life, and I note with some dismay that what little I have said or done is apparently enough for some here to feel no embarrassment in suggesting I might be being paid or otherwise closely connected to Price, or indeed that I am doing something underhand or deceptive for some other reason.

How about instead of looking at me with suspicion, you turn your attention to the person expending quite considerable time and effort to whitewash her page? Because it would ironically make more sense and reflect less badly on Wikipedia in some respects, if EnPassant was doing it because he had been paid to do it. Cameron Dev (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC) — Cameron Dev (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Trains are a perfectly reasonable topic on which to edit. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. But I fail to see why doing so would reassure anyone that I know how to write a biography in a way that complies with Wikipedia policy, as was being suggested. Unless of course I chose to write about Thomas I guess. I would imagine that you can get away with adding any old crap to a train article here, since ironically due to the habit of clueless or malicious Wikipedia editors with no professional training and thus who have no problem hoovering up the hard work of specialist writers without giving credit or even rewording it, much of the useful information on niche topics like trains is still necessarily made available only in print form. They publish news online, of course, which is hilarious, because I imagine that gets stuffed into Wikipedia as fast as it appears, presumably without anyone jumping up and down about the differences between a news site and an encyclopedia. Cameron Dev (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC) — Cameron Dev (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Cameron Dev you could just copy the "SPA" template and add it at the end of all your posts here - it would save EnPassant the trouble? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling me, Martin. It's disruptive and becoming incredibly tiresome. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My comment was addressed to Cameron Dev. Where have I "trolled" you, En? I disagree with you and I think your approach is wrong. But I think you already know that. I think your ripping out entire sections from the Katie Price article, without pausing for any discussion, was "disruptive and incredibly tiresome." And how about that sockpuppet suggestion? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * In answer to your first question: (1) Wikipedia regulars are very used to people turning up with a particular point of view, or cause to advance, and the giveaway for this type of motivation is that they only edit articles on that particular topic. They are viewed with particular suspicion because their motivation is thought to be antithetical to the key WP:NPOV policy. Editing a wide variety of topics, such as Katie Price + trains +++, goes to removing that suspicion. In fact, it’s known that meat-puppetry ringleaders advise doing just that to disguise themselves. (2) I note that earlier you say you’re a professional journalist. I can well see see how you would think it ludicrous a Wikipedia amateur telling you about how to use sources and write bios. However, for good or ill, Wikipedia has its own cultural norms on how do these things which is only partially documented in the written policies, which, in themselves, are not that accessible. That’s another reason to edit articles on trains - pick up on what these norms and policies mean in practice. It’s not straightforward and it takes time. As a rule of thumb I always think it takes a minimum of approx. 10k edits (dependant on the nature of the editing) to make any headway on that. Just to say, I broadly agree with you (and what Martinevans and Escape Orbit) have said on this topic. Just one further point: after 11 years here I actually think it’s impossible to make any generalisations about Wikipedia editors. It’s a mistake to do that. DeCausa (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (Cameron Dev if you do start editing train articles I, for one, will not suspect you of being a meat-puppetry ringleader. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC))
 * Although I might now change my mind on that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

What Katie Price is known for
It's ironic that it was the exactly BBC report of her bankruptcy, or rather, the part of that report that necessarily branched out into the matter of "The life and times of Katie Price", that so handily summed up what Katie Price is known for, long term, long after it has stopped being mere news, good and bad....

"found fame in the 1990s as a glamour model"

"once said to be worth more than £40m."

"famed for her breast enlargement surgery"

"stood as an MP, offering free breast implants on the NHS"

"branched out into publishing"

"dabbled in fashion"

"appeared in TV shows such as Footballers' Wives and starred in the 2004 series of I'm A Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here!.......crowned the winner of Celebrity Big Brother in 2015"

Her marriages (all of them!): "It was on the ITV jungle show that she met her future husband, the pop star Peter Andre. After they split, she went on to marry Alex Reid in 2010, and then Kieran Hayler in 2013. She and Hayler are reported to be planning to divorce."

"praised for her work as an anti-bullying campaigner"

"But it has been a difficult couple of years for the star."

You will note that even before she flipped her SUV while drunk and on drugs and banned from driving, her recent history of substance abuse, drunk driving, her troubled love life, false marketing, is all being brought up and recollected a significant time after it was merely "news".

The BBC clearly know what is newsworthy and also know what is relevant background. Her bankruptcy stemmed from her marital history and questionable acumen as a business woman, and her most recent crash stemmed from her substance abuse and history of showing scant regard for the laws that keep us all safe on the roads.

I would submit that the BBC is the gold standard as far as knowing what should be in a biography and at how much detail it should go to, and I submit therefore that EnPassant has absolutely no defence to the charge he is absolutely wasting people's time and making absurd claims, and he has a real cheek suggesting someone like me might be able to find something in Wikipedia policy that backs his view that some of that stuff is merely gossip or entirely insignificant or would somehow harm Price if Wikipedia reflected it as her neutral, unbiased, life story.

A section on bankruptcy, a section on driving offences, a section on marital issues, a section on miscellaneous legal issues, and a section on being a bullying campaigner, would seem to be a fair and equitable way to sum up her second act.

The bankruptcy and this latest crash will be present in any future "Life and Times" run down of her life, assuming she somehow inexplicably manages to remain famous, and anyone who suggests otherwise, really needs to properly explain why I somehow don't know my bottom from my elbow for suggesting this is a dead certainty.

If someone can do that, I will pass their thoughts on to the people I know at the BBC, and we will probably have a good laugh about it, and remember it. Cameron Dev (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC) — Cameron Dev (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This irrelevant rant continues to show you don't know what you're talking about regarding Wikipedia policies. This project is under no obligation to satisfy your whims, regardless of your WP:ASPERSIONS and whether you go have a laugh with your pals at the BBC. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s not irrelevant. It’s unclear to me why you are so resistant to material so well covered in RS such as the BBC and The Telegraph. Your substantive point is that this is material from tabloid gossip columns. There’s enough RS that gives substantial coverage that indicates that’s simply untrue. the argument that it’s WP:UNDUE is incredibly weak given the RS coverage entirely focuses on these topics. DeCausa (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, Cameron Dev was . That’s a blast from the past. I was involved in the ArbCom case that got him banned a decade ago. He must have been gutted to get support from me. DeCausa (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Remember that we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We're looking for what is going to be important to discuss about a person (in the case of bios) years after they died, while a newspaper is worried about what is happening to that person currently. Those are often inconsistent approaches to how to write about a topic, as we are far less worried on short term bursts of news, even if that short term burst has wide coverage in top level RSes. Its why, to Cameron Dev's point, that trying to use the BBC as a "gold standard" of how to write a bio is wrong, because they are still in the business of news reporting, filling out 24/7 coverage across their various forms of media, whereas we have no such desire, we want to be practical and correct on what we report, and, per BLP, respective of the person discussed. We have higher ethical standards to this end to how we report about BLP, even public figures. --M asem (t) 19:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s to misunderstand Katie Price’s notability. It’s not that she’s notable for other things and that there’s this short-term “add on”. These types of stories are why she’s notable. Now that may put in question why we have an article about her at all – I have more sympathy with that argument – but we can’t pick and choose like that. The aggregation of these types of topic is why we have a Katie Price article. DeCausa (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If Price had done nothing else but drive drunk, do some coke and encounter related legal issues, would she have a Wikipedia article? EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you think “these types of stories” can only mean those from your list? DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question because you know the answer is "no". EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course the answer is no! But so what? The point of my reply is that the question was irrelevant. Do I really need to spell that out? DeCausa (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact you AGREE the answer is no proves my point that she isn't notable for this personal life garbage. Yet, people insist it be covered in extensive detail in her article. It's very confusing for you to support two completely opposed viewpoints like that. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I wholly agree with you, DeCausa. You've made a very important point very clearly. Martinevans123 (talk)
 * Agreed. The irony that Katie Price might well have killed herself in this crash, is apparently lost on Masem and EnPassant. It's been a difficult couple of years for Price as she battled drink and drugs, driving offences and other legal issues, and now bankruptcy, are the words of a journalist looking to write context copy. [nothing of significance happened in this part of her life] is not the encyclopaedic equivalent. She was a model, author and campaigner and then she died, is frankly not even what she herself would want her autobiography sleeve to say. Cameron Dev (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have to say, as much as I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and listen to your arguments, but after skimming through the last few tirades have given me no reason to go on. It always amazes me that when people go off on these kind of rants, obviously not knowing a thing about who they are ranting against, it's always themselves they seem to be unconsciously describing. Either way, it becomes hard to take anyone too seriously when they do that. As my grandpa would say, "You're letting everybody know..." I mean, when you say that nobody can get you to participate, you've pretty much ended the conversation, right?


 * But, just to be nice and try to point out what I mean, your using a lot of appeal to emotion, argument from authority, argument from ignorance, proof by assertion, appeal to consequences, appeal to ridicule, and circular reasoning, to name but a few. This is why your arguments fail to convince, and ultimately will get you nowhere. Oh, and as reliable sources go, news agencies are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Not all RSs are equal or carry the same weight, so give me a good book on trains any day, published by high quality, reputable publisher.


 * To everyone else, we can probably stop with the SPA tags. No need to point out the obvious. Being an SPA in and of itself is not always a bad thing. When I first started, I picked an article on a topic I really loathe, politics (yuck!). For me, I used it as a learning experience; a sort of a stepping stone, and made tons of talkpage comments but never really edited the article itself. But I stuck with that one article until I felt comfortable spreading my wings and getting out there into articles I have some first-hand knowledge about. Likewise, another central figure in that article, who I came to admire very much, was another SPA whose sole reason for being there was to familiarize himself with wikis in general, but was always very thoughtful and made very good arguments. All kinds of people would check in just to see what Fcreid had to say. So, it's not always a bad thing, and the rest of us I think can see what's really going on, so no need to keep pointing it out. Zaereth (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, if we're being nice, I'll not say that up until now your comments on sourcing and weighting et al, have all been in the abstract, and you have studiously avoided the critical matter of what might be available out there to be distilled, be that once, twice or thrice, such that a truly quality product might result for Wikipedia in this specific instance. Someone above asked a pertinent question that I would certainly love to see you answer. Why does Wikipedia, an encyclopedia not a newspaper, even have a biography on Katie Price, given that, well, as a matter of absolute necessity I would have thought, the vast majority of its sources are ..... newspapers. Feel free to find a better source even for a basic summary statement like Katie Price found fame as a glamour model in the 1990s, if the BBC looks too much like the bottom of the barrel for you. I'll check the Oxford University Press, you head up to the National Railway Museum. Cameron Dev (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure she appears in the latest Who's Who, or even Debrett's. I must check my Gibbon. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, if I had my way, we wouldn't have an article on this person or thousands of others. But then again, I've been dealing with encyclopedic writing since long before Wikipedia, or the internet, even existed, so perhaps I just have unreasonably high standards. But, I've no time to monitor AFD discussions, and I find most people who do prefer the quantity over quality approach. It's sort of a "save the articles at all cost" mentality sometimes, which we simply call inclusionism. And yes, I don't care to get into the meat and potatoes of this too deeply. I often just give advice and in this case maybe a little nudging toward the article's talkpage, which is where discussions like this should be held. This page is really for BLP vios and for asking BLP-related questions, and I don't see really any of either. This kind of spillover just breaks up the discussion and detracts from those who come here with real BLP issues. Zaereth (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Goodness me. The article Talk page. I seem to remember things actually started over there. But, last time I looked, I was instructed to come here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But it seems we have to say goodbye to our friend Cameron. For a while, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. I was once told to stand in line B at the Department of Motor Vehicles, only to find out I really needed to be in line D. Am I missing something? That's easy to do when discussions become this messy, full of bad discourse and interstitial comments/discussions dispersed throughout (that I have no patience to go back and scour for; if you want people to follow along then chronological order is king). If there's an actual BLP violation, or a BLP policy-related question, then I'm most interested to hear it. Otherwise, this looks like a normal content dispute which should go through the normal dispute-resolution process. The talk page is a good place to start. If that yields no results, a RFC can always helpful get outside input. There's WP:DRN, for some mediation, or at the very extreme is arbitration (but I would try to avoid the last at all cost if at all possible). Either way, it's a bad idea to treat these talks like the comments section on most other websites. If the goal is to actually get somewhere, then no matter which side you're on, as cliché as this may sound, you will catch more flies with honey rather than all this animosity. It's rarely your opponent you need to convince, and even trying is more often than not a Sisyphean task. It's everyone else, like me, who has no real stake in any of this. Zaereth (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, and "when the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea" etc. There's no flies on Cameron. Honey or no honey. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can see the point flew right overhead. Oh well, sad to hear, because otherwise you both may have convinced me. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of you? Convinced you of what? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I thought that was obvious. Let me ask you this: what are you here for? Is it just to argue back and forth with each other? Or are you trying to convince others (besides your opponent) that your position is correct? Cameron is not the "fly" I was referring to. Me, and all the other hundreds of people watching this page, we're the flies buzzing around. If you want to attract other people, uninvolved people who have no dog in this fight, to join with your position, then my suggestion is that being nicer and staying on point will go a long way toward helping you. On the other hand, if you all just want to complain about Wikipedia, toss around insults, turn your nose up and act like you're better than everyone else, and bicker back and forth, then you're just wasting your time here. As Judge Judy would say, "I'll dismiss your case and you can go back home and work it out amongst yourselves". Now, I've tried to give advice to all about which policies you need to focus on if you want to win this debate. Among my advice is also some constructive criticism, and if you can't handle constructive criticism then writing is not for you. (See: User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the amateur writer) That's all I'm inclined to do. You can take it or leave it, but in case you can't see it, the way you and Cameron --and even your opponents-- are going on is just a turn off to others, and that is not helping your cause in any way. In fact, it's only hurting it. I'm on the fence and could go either way, but the animosity and snootiness is keeping me from joining with either side. No one wants to jump in the middle of a cat fight. Zaereth (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry too. Even my opponents, eh? Thanks for the constructive criticism. But more scolding, it seems. When did I ever "complain about Wikipedia"?? I certainly don't think I'm better than anyone else. Cameron Dev isn't "going on" any more, is he. And all his contributions have been stuck (so now we have half conversations across this entire thread). I don't condone his personalised insults and ranting, I don't condone any edits from someone who turns out to be a serial sockpuppeteer. So please don't lump me together as "both", like some kind of "team". But I can't deny he still made some points that were perfectly valid. What am I here for? I'm here because I disagree with EnPassat's removing entire sections of the article, and because I was told to come here rather than discuss at Talk:Katie Price. I don't see why you need to set yourself up as Judge Judy on this talk page. I'm well aware of "which policies I need to focus on", thanks, but I'm not interested in "winning" anything, except an improved article. Oh, and I'm very sorry there about your problems at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Assuming that all the indentation is correct, then I'm pretty sure all contributions in the sub- threads here are in correct chronological order. Even if many of them have now been struck out. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of you have made some good points. So has EnPassat. Unfortunately, these get lost in all the other stuff that is not helpful. If you look back, you may notice I started off by giving my advice to Cameron when you decided to lump yourself in. Believe it or not, you are in a debate about it with EnPasset, and in debate class they teach us that there are winners and losers. Is your position correct, or is their's? Or is there some middle ground between the two? All of the rest of us who are not involved, like it or not, we're all the judges of this debate. For me, I grow weary of this, so unless you're going to give me a reason to take my own position, then I think this is just a waste of time, and is clogging up this page. Time that would be better spent on real BLP issues. I don't know who told you to come here, but from my perspective, unless I'm missing something, they were wrong. This page isn't for content disputes. That's what RFCs are for, but even those are for getting outside input, so the same things apply. I'm sorry if metaphorical speech is confusing to you. I have better things to do than this tit-for-tat. Zaereth (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Zaereth, I'm not in "debate class". You think the whole topic here is a waste of time, or just my contributions? If the former, kindly take it up with the OP. I was happy to discuss at the article talk page. I think I may have mentioned that. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, nothing really to do with your contributions. Let's see, as I recall, I was explaining to Cameron, or whatever their name, where they were going wrong and why their argument wasn't going to work, and the next thing I know I'm trying to explain to you where they went wrong and why their argument wasn't going to work. I don't remember where the transition came in or how you got involved, I guess it seemed like you were defending their actions perhaps, but at the time this started I thought I was talking to a newbie with a bit of a chip on their shoulder, who just needed some guidance. If I implied anything about you then I sincerely apologize. I tend to be very blunt (life's too short to beat around the bush). In a lot of my comments, they're meant as universal, for everybody reading them. Like I said, it's very rarely the person we're arguing with that we need to, or will be able to convince; it's everybody else. How we come off to others will always play a huge role in that. Zaereth (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your apology. I don't really count myself as a newbie any more. I try to be as polite as I can manage (life's too short to offend people by mistake). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I know you're not. I've seen you around. But you're not who I started out with. I try to be polite too, but I find people can be offended by anything, and that usually says more about them than anything else. It's hard to offend a person who is comfortable with themselves. But I'm not Dr. Phil, as I lean more toward Gordon Ramsay's approach, and if an article is crap or an argument won't hold water, I'll let a person know if I think there is some chance it will help. Zaereth (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You may have seen me around since January 2007. Ah yes, dear Gordon. A paragon of tact and diplomacy. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * (outdent) I have struck the comments posted by a sockpuppet of a globally locked sockmaster. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposals
So we can attempt to move forward with something: The version currently at the article edited down by Black Kite and Wallyfromdilbert is much better than it was before, but it still has a way to go to conform to WP:PROPORTION, WP:BLPGOSSIP, etc.
 * The section on Drug use needs to go. Someone using drugs once (as described by the one sentence mentioning it) is unimportant, and it certainly doesn't merit its own subheading.
 * The bankruptcy section needs to go. Someone filing bankruptcy is unimportant. Millions of Many people file bankruptcy every day and she is not a financial expert or notable for her financial acumen, or even especially wealthy for a celebrity.
 * Her relationship with her special-needs adult son is well documented and she's been a public advocate for special needs, so that seems fine.
 * There is excessive detail about her relationship with her third husband and this needs to be trimmed down.
 * The stuff about the rape claim needs to go for the reasons explained in this thread. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * One issue that I think would help is that, given that I think we can consider her a socialite that the tabloid media is drawn to and as a result, more respectable sources end up still covering those types of details (we have those same types of people here in the US with Paris Hilton), that sectioning each of those things is absolutely unnecessary, and instead a section talking about her media coverage in broad terms would be more reasonable. Calling out each aspect as a separate section is part of what leads to the UNDUE appearance here, but I would reasonable argue in a "forest through the tree" standpoint that saying she is frequently covered by the tabloid media that have reveals details of her personal life at a high level would be appropriate, to the degree suggested above. --M asem (t) 17:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Also want to note the sources noted by Morbidthoughts as tabloids should be removed and either better sources found or the related content removed. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, clearly there's far far more hits that come from brit tabloids about Price in basic google searches compared to reputable publications, hence why I think we have to understand this media skew here and how we need to recognize that in terms of handling that under RSes and BLP. --M asem (t) 17:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No objections, Masem. A good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t agree with omitting the bankruptcy although it doesn’t need a section. Millions of people do not file bankruptcy everyday either in the UK or elsewhere. In 2019 she was one of 16,702 bankruptcy orders in England and Wales. In the UK, at least, bankruptcy is not considered an every day event. Katie Price’s bankruptcy is clearly notable because, as said in this BBC article entirely devoted to it she went from being worth £40m to an IVA and then to bankruptcy. How on earth is that unimportant in the telling of person’s (any persons) biography? I’d challenge you to find any UK BLP in WP where the subject has become bankrupt and it’s missing (intentionally) from their article. DeCausa (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. Shall we have 16,702 articles on the people who filed bankruptcy in 2019? She isn't notable (and hasn't received coverage over a sustained period of time) for being wealthy or noted for her financial acumen. Bankruptcies of people like Donald Trump are pertinent because he's most famous for his financial success and has received mainstream media coverage of it for many years. Price isn't notable for this. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your mixing up WP:GNG and WP:DUE. That isn’t the test, and never has been, of what gets into an article. Where have you got that idea from? We’re not talking about whether we should have an article about her because she was made bankrupt. Therefore saying sarcastically that there should be 16,702 articles on the people who filed bankruptcy both comes across as uncivil and lacking a knowledge of policy. Your other point that not being known for wealth is wrong. I’ll explain it again she went from £40m to insolvency. That is a significant and material fact in a biography. DeCausa (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not the one confused. She hasn't been noted for her financial acumen over a sustained time period, so her bankruptcy doesn't matter to her BLP. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If her wealth is such an important part of her biography, why isn't it covered more in the article? Why are there only two articles apparently covering it (and only in the context of her filing bankruptcy)?EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When it come to things like bankruptcy, that is something that tends to have a very big impact on a persons life and career, and those are the types of things an encyclopedia should touch on. Other things like minor traffic stops by comparison are relatively inconsequential. But bankruptcy is a pretty big deal. All in all, though, it comes down to coverage in RSs. DId the bankruptcy generate enough interest that the sources decided to give it very wide coverage, or did it just get a smattering of coverage and was then forgotten? These are the questions you should answer. Zaereth (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem, the bankruptcy should certainly be kept. "16,702 articles on the people who filed bankruptcy in 2019" is a strawman argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC) p.s. still not sure why we are discussing this here and not at Talk:Katie Price
 * And Zaereth is exactly right. The bankruptcy is one of the (few) times Katie Price “breaks into” coverage in the “proper” British RS: BBC, Telegraph etc. DeCausa (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see why her drug use "needs to go". Again the source is BBC News. I'm sure there are are plenty of other reliable sources available. A six-month addiction is not "someone using drugs once". Hospitalisation at The Priory is not something most addicts ever enjoy (or can afford). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Under my suggestion, it doesn't need to go, but it should not be given the weight of a whole section. Drug use issues are not an uncommon theme with socialites and similar celebrities, and hers doesn't seem to be anything unusual compared to others as to give it a major callout, but ignoring it would be iffy-ily problematic. But as part of a broad paragraph describing problems in her personal life - her bankrupcy, her drug problems, etc. which have been shown to be aspects the BBC have covered - would feel more correct without making any of those stand out. --M asem (t) 19:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds like the right approach. DeCausa (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, as reported here, it's not something that's in any way "over", as she tested positive for cocaine after the latest car crash: ".. chair of the bench, Julie Hutton, agreed to defer sentencing to 15 December, as long as Price works with probation and attends rehab. Hutton told the 43-year-old she must undertake treatment at The Priory before her next court appearance and not commit any further offences. Price, who was already banned from driving, was once again slapped with a driving ban." (emphasis added) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly the most recent crash is still going to likely add more, but I would urge keeping in mind WP:RECENTISM and the like that one does not need to included every published bullet point related to the crash and its aftermath to be included on the bio. There is a skill of art to knowing what material published in the day-to-day press is stuff that would likely be part of an enduring biography. All that said, I would agree that in discussion of the latest crash (which I think has to be covered), that mentioning she had tested positive for drugs and was ordered to undergo rehab as part of her penalty, would be absolutely okay.
 * The issues on BLPs like Price is when we focus on the "bullet points" of how their life is covered in news, and that's just a caution to avoid as more stories roll in related to this crash. --M asem (t) 13:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Masem. If the consensus is really to keep most of what's there currently, the subheadings should be removed and her personal life integrated into a single section. And we should avoid piling on more and more as the media writes the latest about whatever incident she's been involved in. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "There is excessive detail about her relationship with her third husband and this needs to be trimmed down." What needs to be trimmed? It looks like a chronological list of events. The divorce became final on 12 July 2021 as reported by The Mirror here, leaving her free to marry her latest partner Carl Woods. Perhaps a better source can be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ... or perhaps someone will just go and change it unilaterally, entirely discounting any discussion here, and before any action has been agreed by consensus? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the current version change it back. I wash my hands of you, go ahead and do what you like. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to sing "If You're Happy and You Know It" while you wash. I had assumed the discussion here, even if it really belonged at the article talk, was to discuss content before it was changed. Not sure what all the other participants here had assumed. I'd suggest that the latest divorce, on 12 July this year, is at last as notable as the previous two. And we've yet to discuss the rape claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Vanessa Coello
The BLP article has a section that says it is about something people said on social media. The sources are all in Spanish and I do not recognize the titles. The essence of the section is that this is a closeted trans person. It looks dubious for a Wikipedia article, but I wanted to see if someone else can assess. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed it because it definitely violates WP:BLPGOSSIP and the kind of sources that would grossly speculate on a person's gender is tabloid trash. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * While I'm not fluent in Spanish, it's not too different from English because much of the etymology is the same. I have to say, the first source from El Farandi was very well written and mainly focuses on her denial, although I'm not sure of their reliability overall. I'm guessing they're something like the English magazine El. The other source, Ronda, looked far more like a gossip magazine. One thing I have to say is that her social media response that they reprinted was extremely well written, and I have to agree with her completely, especially the first few sentences about how social media is creating a society with antisocial disorder. I may have to make that my favorite quote of the day on my user page.


 * That said, unless this blows up and has some impact on her life and career, say, if this were found to somehow violate some rules of the contest and it becomes a huge story in the mainstream media (which according to the first source it wouldn't), then I agree it is highly inappropriate to speculate. Zaereth (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay. I explain Vanessa's case. Due to the characteristics and features of her face, she has received signs of hatred and disrespect towards her person. Adducing that she could be a trans woman, even some considering it in a possibly serious way, but the vast majority by way of mockery and ridicule in all the beauty pageants that she has participated in.
 * At the end of the section, it is explained that she has already clarified that she is not a trans woman, and that rather she has taken advantage of these recurring circumstances to make calls for attention to the public so that they become aware of her words and avoid having to discriminate and stereotype a person because of how they look, and at the same time avoid discrimination against trans people. That is to say, they are events that have occurred, based on speculation, but that have largely been part of their passage through beauty pageants.


 * I do not consider that it should be considered simply as gossip or triviality. It helps to contextualize the characteristics and particularities that the person has gone through.


 * I must also say that many media outlets made considerable filming of this situation in a very serious way. --Mauriziok (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You see, that could be a good reason to include it, but that's not how the sources framed it, nor was that how it was presented in the article. Either way, what we want to see is a big impact on her, either in her life or career. Sources are how we do that, and maybe in this case it's just too soon to tell. (See: WP:RECENTISM) What I would want to see are more and better sources covering this in depth and at length, and making the same kind of conclusions you just did. Zaereth (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think there are probably any circumstances where it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to include baseless and false speculation about a person's gender identity based on their facial features, even if the article subject's efforts to speak out against discrimination are noteworthy enough to be included. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. If it were to become her platform, that is, most beauty pageant winners have some platform, or cause they stand themselves up for, then it would become something we would have to cover. But to give more context, it'd really help to read her social media response, which is really what generated the magazine interest. She comes off as very smart and well-articulated, and spends a lot of time giving a really good message speaking out against intolerance, and if intolerance becomes her platform then it should be included. Not the gossip or speculation or crap about "facial features" (which none of the sources mentioned). But her platform would be something we should include, which is what I think Mauriziok was trying to say this was. Of course, neither the sources nor the article ever came close to making that connection, so I think it was a nice try, but more than a stretch on Mauriziok's part. It's probably way too soon to tell what her platform will be. Zaereth (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Lisa Wilkinson
I was looking at Lisa Wilkinson page and see that the last 3 edits are all removal of a line and reversion of said edit. It is curious why editors are so interested in removing/restoring the line, and it has me wondering about what is/isn't ok across the board as a source. Given this, should I put this on a different noticeboard or it relevant to BLP? Anyhow, the line is about her hosting some business awards and using the said same business awards site as the source. Is this a violation of WP:RSSELF or is it fine? And if it is fine, it's because in this instance it's objective and factual? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can understand, editors removed the mention because the citation doesn't directly verify the line. However, it is also not clear why the mention of the hosting is WP:DUE without independent reliable sources reporting on this; which is why I removed it again. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough Morbidthoughts - I don't have any skin in the game so aren't fussed either way. Just so I know for the future, is this the right noticeboard to bring up such issues? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The entry in question was removed by three different IPs, for each their only Wikipedia edit, with the edit summaries: 1. "removing material that is unsourced. the reference has nothing to do with the statement."; 2. "Where is the valid source>"; 3. none. I restored that entry with a valid reference from the institution in question, although due to their weird HTML structure, inspection of the source requires additional navigation on their website, and that's why I provided a verbatim quote. How a single sentence can be seen as UNDUE stretches the intent of WP:UNDUE improperly. Further, WP:RSSELF does not preclude using the organizer of an event reporting on the identity of their host as a source. I suggest User:Morbidthoughts revert their removal (which also introduced 2 unrelated errors). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Users cannot verify the quote without the direct link. I still can't figure out how to navigate to it. I read UNDUE in a strict BLP manner to mean that if there is no independent reliable coverage of this 4X hosting, there shouldn't be any mention of it even if the hosting did happen. RSSELF also states "Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people". Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is how I cited the source for the event:
 * The title of the citation explains how to find the relevant text. A reader can verify the quote by clicking on the timeline at the top of the page until it scrolls to "2005" and "The 2005 Ethnic Business Awards" appears. The text containing the quote is then visible. WP:V makes allowances for sources that are difficult to access. The invocation of RSSELF is misguided because it isn't Wilkinson publishing, but the organizer; extending RSSELF in this way would prevent e.g. using the AMPAS or Nobel Committee websites as a source. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You originally cited RSSELF. I'm pointing out what it says on its face. Just because others cite directly to the Academy or Nobel site when there is ample secondary RS that covers the award does not mean it can be done here, especially when there is a lack of secondary RS here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't cite RSSELF, User:MaskedSinger did. I rejected its applicability, as I do for the mostly misused OTHERSTUFF. RSSELF applies to material published by the subject. Your reading makes it apply to everything published, because everything is published by some self. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your "subject" argument conflates RSSELF with WP:SELFSOURCE. Reliable sources are independent published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. "The more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." (WP:RSCONTEXT) EBA is not a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to be assigning any weight to what it publishes on its site about living people. If that is more of a WP:QUESTIONED argument, so be it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:MaskedSinger argued that using the organization's website as a source violates WP:RSSELF. That section of the guideline ("Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. ...") does not apply to an organization reporting on its events. E.g. the list of nominations and winners at the AMPAS website is authoritative. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Michael Bednarek to be exact, I didn't argue anything. I was simply asking a question. If you could please stick to the facts. As I've written below, everything about the Ethnic Business Awards being on Wikipedia is suspicious and this is a far bigger issue than RSSELF and who hosted the awards. A SPI should be opened to look into it further. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * After bringing this up and following the discussion, I was curious to see, who actually added the Awards hosting to her page in the first place? It was Dbmn12345 a user whose only edits pertain to Ethnic Business Awards.Looking at the edit history of the Awards page, I see a number of editors who also edited Joseph Assaf the founder of these said same awards. Both pages were created by Crazedmongoose Could all these editors editing both pages be sock puppets? Possibly. Is this ‎the wrong place to bring this up? Most likely. But given we already have thread, I felt I'd start here. Morbidthoughts what are your thoughts? What do you suggest we do with this information? It is worth acting on? If so, where is the best board to post about this? MaskedSinger (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're shifting the goalposts. This has nothing to do with the original misguided concern about WP:RSSELF or indeed Wilkinson. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right this has nothing to do with BLP, but it began as such - with my curiosity as to why there is so much passion to include mention of hosting an awards night that no one has ever heard of. Everything to do with the Ethnic Business Awards page and its presence on Wikipedia is suspicious. It is not notable and putting everything to do with the specific case here to the side, you should share my concerns. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the content does not seem due without independent sourcing. Wikipedia is not the place to post every activity as if the article is a resume or CV. The primary source also doesn't provide any additional context about what the "hosting" was or if it was a significant or noteworthy part of the ceremonies, and I also have concerns about using self-published sources for BLPs. However, it looks like most of the concerns expressed here would probably be better addressed at the article's talk page or at WP:COIN if there continues to be a concern about edits made in the future. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the content does not seem due without independent sourcing. Wikipedia is not the place to post every activity as if the article is a resume or CV. The primary source also doesn't provide any additional context about what the "hosting" was or if it was a significant or noteworthy part of the ceremonies, and I also have concerns about using self-published sources for BLPs. However, it looks like most of the concerns expressed here would probably be better addressed at the article's talk page or at WP:COIN if there continues to be a concern about edits made in the future. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

TVRI
Please see the discussion at User talk:DanishtD. I've pretty much exhausted my assets and have not convinced the other editor. It's possible that's because I'm wrong. Also could be cultural thing. Either way I'm requesting more eyes and help with the communication. Thanks.  Tide  rolls  14:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've commented there. You're right that the claim wasn't sufficiently supported by that source, but, in fairness, is correct that the person was actually arrested (and convicted) - I've found a better source for that, adding it to the article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, BubbaJoe123456.  Tide  rolls  14:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Susan Athey
This piece gives her birthdate as 11/29/1970 and states that she “attended Duke University beginning at the age of 16 in 1991”. I don’t see how both can be true.

Paul Wolfson Research Fellow, Tuck School of Business

paulw AT dartmouth.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.238.235 (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Sean Chu
The issue is whether we can say in "wikivoice" whether this person committed sexual assault without the word "alleged". I feel we must use the word "alleged", as they were never convicted (or even) charged with any crime. But, the opposing view, seems to be, that given the definition of the crime, and the available facts, we can come to that conclusion. There's been multiple attempts to make similar statements by IPs, which stopped with semi-protection, but then there has been another such edit by an established editor. So, I would like some broader input, to avoid edit warring. I know "alleged" seems like a weasel word, but it is sometimes necessary, given the available sources. -Rob (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Dorian Abbot
There is currently significant dispute over the content and balance of article on BLP Dorian Abbot. More attention from BLP-experienced editors would be appreciated. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Daphne Guinness
I stumbled into this as a result of a report at WP:UAA and don't really have the time to keep babysitting it, but there is ongoing problematic editing and probable socking as well. Could use more eyes. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the problem is. Her claim to notability is that she is rich and fashionable, and the sources support that. The only issue I can see is the amount of bloat in the BLP which could comfortably be pruned by 75% or more. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC).

Lena Raine
Someone is attempting to use the wrong pronouns for Raine, with their attempts to revert my edit correcting their vandalism being their only recent contributions to the wiki. Furthermore they do not even have an account, being an IP account.

diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lena_Raine&diff=next&oldid=1051940912

- Hopolapopola (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I've requested page protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Sarah Kennedy
I refer back to the now archived conversation on Sarah Kennedy from March 2021 at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive326. The now banned editor User:WelshDragon18 has returned under the name User:Susan1621. The editing habits are almost identical – same type of articles edited (including unsourced edits to Sarah Kennedy's page), with a subtle mix of semi-constructive minor edits laced with hugely disruptive/vandal edits. In the most recent case, I have had a relative of the art director Clifford Pember contact me via my talk page to express their frustration that this user keeps blanking the page in order to rewrite it about a totally different and non-notable Welsh World War II veteran. There have been other recent examples, where I have pulled this user up on disruptive editing, including using stand-alone original research of birth records for a 1928 year on the Bernie Clifton page (a BLP), despite reliable sources existing, and all supporting his 1936 DOB. Looking through their edit history, I can see more patterns of this. I tried to reach out to Susan1621 on their talk page a while back requesting civility after the user took a very aggressive tone with me, but I'm once again fed up of their disruptive editing and no doubt this pattern will continue. The Pember case – where an entire bio has been wiped so that they can write a vanity page for a non-notable individual (perhaps someone from their family or community) – is blatant vandalism. Also tagging in, , and  who were part of the previous discussion. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again, . Thanks for the ping. I've been scanning this person's edits and I'm inclined to agree with you. Perhaps this is the 14-year old daughter who compromised the old account and got a good telling off, ha! There is a WP:DUCK test at WP:SPI and I reckon this does act, look and sound like a Welsh Dragon. Probably best to go to WP:SPI and request a checkuser test. Please let me know if I can help with that or any of the impacted articles. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree this is likely, but should be confirmed via SPI. GiantSnowman 20:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. I have opened an SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/WelshDragon18. Never done this before so may not be up to standard in the evidence section, but it's at least a start. Thanks again --Jkaharper (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * SPI case closed already. Susan1621 was indeed WelshDragon18. The sockpuppet account has now been banned. Thank you both for your contributions and advice. --Jkaharper (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Our Lady of Medjugorje
I apologize for the length but it is all necessary to be able to see the problem. Disputed reference Ogledalo pravde [Mirror of Justice] (in Croatian) published by Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar translated by Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar. (see the full details on the talk page []) This source is not a reliable source and is a POV primary source on a controversial page. Using this as one of the guidelines WP:BLPPUBLIC: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

(1) Not Independent from the subject - Dražen Kutleša is the editor who prepared the book for Bishop Peric who oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions.(See the last paragraph on this page beginning with Drazen Kutlesa) Here is the pdf [] Google translated from title page: MIRROR JUSTICE, Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar, about alleged apparitions and messages, in Medjugorje, Prepared by Don Drazen, Mostar, 2001.

(2) Not the author but the editorDrazen Kuktlesa wrote WORD OF THE EDITOR on page 9 and the beginning paragraph google translated: "By order of the local bishop, Msgr. Ratko Perić I collect and computer-prepare various statements, announcements, comments and studies related to the Medjugorje phenomena, which is signed by any officer of the Ordinariate in the past period."

(3) Both Bishop Zanic and Bishop Peric both oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions and had negative WP:POV's on the subject see link [] from 1993 until his retirement in 2020. He took over from Bishop Pavao Zanic who oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions from the beginning in 1981 to his retirement in 1993. Both Bishop Zanic and Bishop Peric are not independent but were directly involved in the controversy of Medjugorje and had POV's about the subject.

(4) Bishop Peric wrote the forward (page 11) and conclusion (page 313-314) to this pdf.

(5) Self published - the publishing is directly under Bishop Peric's direction. It was printed by Izdavač: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar translated to Publisher: Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar directly under Bishop Peric. "The Bishop of Mostar-Duvno is the head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, who is responsible for looking after its spiritual and administrative needs".List_of_Roman_Catholic_bishops_of_Mostar-Duvno

(6) Collection of primary sources WP:PSTS It is a compilation of interviews and statements including from the previous Bishop Zanic. That makes it a collection of primary sources as per WP:PSTS.See in the pdf on page 3 the list of names []

(7) This unreliable, primary source is on six other pages that are related to Our Lady of Medjugorje and at least three are still living: Our Lady of Medjugorje, Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, Pavol Hnilica, Pavao Žanić.

(8) There are many living persons within this article: The visionaries: Ivan Dragićević, Ivanka Ivanković, Jakov Čolo, Marija Pavlović, Mirjana Dragićević, Vicka Ivanković and Jelena Vasilj. The clergy: Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbaric, Tomislav Vlasic, Fr. Ivan Prusina, Fr. Ivan Prusina, Fr. Ivica Vego. And etc...

(9) '''It should not be used on this page or any other page related to Medjugorje which is a controversial subject.[]

(10) Governor Sheng has already placed Ogledalo pravde on RSN with no response []

(11) Governor Sheng also placed the reference for this article on the RSN. "An article on Tomislav Vlašić and the reliability of the sources used. [] The expert editor Slp1 that was working with us on the Our Lady Of Medjugorje page answered the request and here it is: "As you know, Governor Sheng, I have taken a stricter line with some of these on Our Lady of Medjugorje because not only are they not independent, but some '''are basically self published AND directly involved in the controversies surrounding Medjugorje.(e.g Peric, Bulat, Dražen Kutleša, Laurentin ). For a WP:BLP, you should use the highest quality independent sources available,''' and there are lots and lots available for this man. There is little need for some of these, which basically boil down to being primary sources in the events of this man's life." Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2021 Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC) Signing - forgot to sign.
 * You seem to be suggesting that there are sourcing problems in regard to an article on purported visions of the Virgin Mary. There may very well be, but I'm having difficulty understanding where WP:BLP policy comes into this. Could you clarify which specific content (or proposed content) in the article you think violates the policy, and why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - but they are all through the page. Were you able to read my whole statement? I list all the living persons affected. Let's start with one or two to begin. The references in the two paragraphs I am going to direct you to, both authors are not independent from the apparitions. I mention Kutlesa in detail in my presentation and Zovko was a member of the commission that reviewed the apparitions created by the Bishop. Both are coming from a POV place. Please go to this section [] and then go to the paragraphs On 15 January 1982 and On 21 June 1983. It is all written from these two sources. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then go to this section [] As you scroll down and check the references you will see Kutlesa, Zovko and Zanic. Zanic was not independent and was the Bishop when the visions first began and for a number of years. (1) Controversial statements are made throughout (2) and there are no secondary or third party sources to back them up.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * These references are used through the page by these sources that are not independent, Bishop Peric (Kutlesa editor for Peric) of Medjugorje, Bishop Zanic of Medjugorje and both Zovko and Bulat who were on the Church commission regarding whether the visions are real. They are all primary sources that have POV regarding the seers.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Does this help? Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really. Please quote the exact text in the article that you think has WP:BLP issues, and explain why you think so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is so much to report on this page but we can go through the whole page if you wish. Here is one paragraph with two primary sources as the only references on a controversial subject. Ivan is a livingn person and being accused here. "On 21 June 1983, one of the seers, Ivan Dragičević, sent a threatening message allegedly from the Madonna to the bishop, in which she requests the bishop's conversion regarding her apparitions, otherwise, he would be "judged by me and my son Jesus.” On 6 February 1985, Ivan Dragičević sent somewhat more tolerant message from the Madonna, with her stating that if he doesn't believe in her apparitions, at least he shouldn't persecute her priests who believe in her messages and promote them.”
 * Another one dealing with a controversy but only using primary sources with no secondary or third party references to back it up. Kutlesa was the editor for Bishop Perics book and Zovkic was part of the commission that is against the visions. It could have been made up: "On 15 January 1982, the bishop invited the alleged seers to his residence to ask them if there were any messages from the Madonna on the issue, and they replied that there were not. However, on 3 April 1982, the seers came to the bishop to tell him that the Madonna scolded them for not telling the truth and that she requested that the two friars remain in Mostar and continue to celebrate mass and hear confessions. The Madonna allegedly told Vicka that Fr. Ivan Prusina and Fr. Ivica Vego "are not guilty of anything" in the matter. Tomislav Vlašić took responsibility for the lies of the seers telling the bishop he instructed them not to tell the truth because the bishop might dispute the authenticity of the apparitions.
 * And more - the editor is using primary sources to accuse Archbishop Franic, visionary Vicka & Ivan (both living) of wrong doing again without a secondary source to back it up - "The Archbishop of Split-Makarska Frane Franić, who supported the alleged apparitions from the beginning, tried to persuade Vicka to retract the messages about the two friars, so the authenticity of the apparitions could be defended more easily. However, both Vicka and Ivan continued to claim that the messages regarding the two friars were from the Madonna."


 * "The messages included the accusations against Bishop Pavao Žanić and encouragement for the two friars not to leave the parish. It was then when Bishop Pavao took his final negative stance on the alleged apparitions."


 * "The whole of that time, the Bishop remained cautious towards the apparitions, without any final conclusion. He became skeptical towards the apparitions after the apparition accused him of the disorder in Herzegovina that existed between the Franciscans and the diocesan clergy and defended the two Franciscans who refused to leave their parishes as requested by the Papal decree Romanis Pontificibus."

Is this all helping you to understand? Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't see any notification on the article talk page that this discussion is taking place here. There should be, since others involved in the dispute are clearly entitled to offer their input too. Not least because if there are problems with the independence of the sources you cite, the same can be said about many of the other sources too. I can certainly see some logic in your suggestions that because for instance Kutleša and Zovkić were involved in the debate over the credibility of the claims by the 'seers', they aren't independent sources, but I'd have to also suggest that since the entire affair depends on statements made by the people involved, starting with the 'visions', there really wouldn't be much of an article left if such material were to be excluded. Which might possibly be a good thing, given how bloated the article currently is. From a look at the talk page, there seems to be an ongoing faction-fight over content, and I don't think that it is likely to be resolved by crying 'WP:BLP' over a couple of citations, without looking into the more general issues raised. As for the specific material quoted above, maybe the answer is to include at least some of it, but with clear attribution: "According to Dražen Kutleša, in June June 1983, one of the seers, Ivan Dragičević, sent a threatening message allegedly from the Madonna to the bishop...", and so on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the page is bloated and we had an expert editor help us trim it waaay down and she took out all the sources that were primary in the process including some I proposed. It is on her sandbox page right now but then she quit saying it was too much for her to continue on. I feel it is important to protect the living people on this page and all related pages and they are not right now! I only gave you a couple of paragraphs but these primary sources are peppered all over this controversial page. Just take a look at the footnote section at zanic, kutlesa, bulat and peric. I don't think it is a good idea to have primary sources, without secondary sources backing it up, used on a controversial page at all let alone with living people. I believe that is what Wikipedia guidelines are saying. Is that true? How would you like to be discussed on a Wikipedia page where the editors are using primary sources of people who are against you? I am losing faith in Wikipedia that there is no way to protect these people!!Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As I see this, it's a problem with referencing article, which is not a BLP but rather a religious phenomenon, with proper mainstream neutral sources. This issue should be opened at reliable sources noticeboard, or even better, somewhere between Neutral point of view noticeboard and No original research noticeboard (maybe even Fringe theories noticeboard)!?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input but there are numerous living persons discussed on this page including the 6 visionaries and the clergy involved. It is definitely falls under LP guidelines.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But what? The article is very, very difficult to read through. I'd equate it to reading an academic paper from the nuclear-physics department, where a person needs a lot of background information in order to follow along through all the jargon. Parts of it seem like they were translated by google (for example, what is a "security apparatus"? Sounds like some kind of menacing robot). Mostly, however, it's way too much detail; basically telling this in a story format in a very "timeline of events" way. What it needs is to be a summary of the events and of the expert analyses thereafter. That's the big difference between encyclopedic and academic writing.


 * Likewise, and I mean no offense by this, your complaint here is very difficult to read through to try and parse together what the problem is. I'm guessing this all has to do with one source, and whether that source constitutes a primary source or not. If it's the PFD you linked, then it becomes a problem, because I can't read Croatian and google doesn't seem to be able to translate it either. I'm not sure what horrible thing in the article it's supposed to support, and the article's history gives no enlightenment except there's been a long-standing edit war going on there over many things for quite some time. But here's where you need someone fluent in both languages to make an assessment of the source in question. That may be a good question for RSN to answer, because that's what they specialize in over there, but for it to be a BLP violation we'd need to know just what the violating thing is, and for that I'm having trouble connecting the dots.


 * One thing that might help is: try summarizing the problem, as you see it, here again. Imagine you have a 100 word limit (or whatever), and just give us the gist. What is the offending text? The offending source? And how does it constitute a BLP violation? Zaereth (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

ben olson
Ben Olson, former BYU quarterback and UCLA transfer is listed in his wikipedia article as having "the tightest buns in UCLA history". The citation makes no mention of this odd acheivement. Is this someone messing with his profile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.148.37 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * That vandalism was added here, and I've reverted it. The IP also changed the spelling of his name to a more common spelling. I don't know if that is correct, so I'm leaving that as-is for now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Lexi Ainsworth
In the personal life section, it states she is dating a female costar. She is not a lesbian or bisexual. This cannot be verified either. It should be removed.


 * I removed it as it was completely uncited; feel free to do this next time on your own. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Michael Chan (Canadian politician)
It appears that there is an attempt to whitewash Michael Chan by section-blanking of WP:RS. Would be great to have more eyes on this page. - Amigao (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Dethan Punalur
No References/Cites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.131.49 (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Submitted to AfD. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Axos Financial
My name is Greg and I work for Axos Bank, a subsidiary of Axos Financial. In compliance with WP:COI, I have proposed various changes to the Axos page on Talk. I am posting at this noticeboard regarding a subset of those changes that involve BLP issues with uncited or imbalanced criticisms of the CEO. The areas I believe are BLP issues are as follows:


 * The following italicized sentence infers the CEO was responsible for the failure of his prior employer. There is no citation and the relevance to Axos is unclear:
 * "In October 2007, the company named Gregory Garrabrants as CEO, who was head of corporate development at IndyMac Bancorp at the time.[7] IndyMac failed the next year as the "fourth largest bank failure in the United States."


 * Wikipedia's content focuses on inferring the CEO's compensation is excessive or unjustified, but the source material focuses mostly on his high compensation being earned through a performance-based compensation structure. I suggest adding something like the bolded sentence below to better balance this content:


 * "In April 2019, it was reported that the Axos CEO, Greg Garrabrants, earned $34.5 million, making him the highest paid bank CEO of 2018, despite Axos being 250x smaller than banks such as JPMorgan. The CEO's compensation structure was tied to growth in Axos' share price, which grew 72% that year and 1,657% since Garrabrants became CEO. "


 * The italicized content below is not supported by the citation, which just says "no comment" on whether the CEO's computer was exempted:
 * "In March 2020, the Axos CEO, Greg Garrabrants, emailed employees to let them know he had instructed his IT team to install spying software on everyone's computer (excluding his own)"

Thank you in advance for your time and energy reviewing my points. Best regards. Gfrostaxos (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure you're reading those first two the same way I did, and perhaps the author wasn't trying to be offending. I mean, if a company folded just shortly after he left, it tells me he was a driving force that was holding it together. But I guess it's all in how you look at it. Either way, it was unsourced and irrelevant commentary so I went ahead and deleted it. Same with the second and third request. I don't think the added commentary you suggested, about why he got paid so much, is of anymore use than comparing company sizes. This article is not about him.


 * That said, the article is terrible. It's basically just what I'd call a timeline of events, which are very boring to read. (ie: At 7:30 I awoke and shut off my alarm. At 7:32 I brushed my teeth. At 7:35 I took a shower...") And there seems to be a weird thing where we just call it "the company" in every single sentence, as if we're talking in code for the CIA. I'm guessing someone came along and tried to simply cover up all traces of the old name, Bolf, or whatever it was, which we shouldn't. It comes off as a bit on the promotional side, and needs a lot of work to make it read like an encyclopedia article. Work which I don't have time to do myself. Zaereth (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Richard Stanley (director)
A new editor has begun editing the article in order to add updated content regarding sourced controversies outlined in the article that have resulted in Stanley's project being dropped from production (also sourced). The content isn't being removed altogether, but the initial edits removed the allegation and fallout while adding the denial, which won't make any sense to the reader. The header continues to be modified to a less neutral version as well; the apparent POV nature of these edits give all appearances of CHARLESLESORCIER777 having a conflict of interest with this topic.

I'm hoping some editors here could review the material with an eye to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and decide how the controversy and consequences of such should be addressed in the article, if at all.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Addendum - talk page consensus from March appears to lean towards inclusion of the material.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of work on it, and added it to my watchlist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate some more eyes on it still, as a bit more npov editing has popped up. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Addendum 2: While I'm not new at writing, I am new to the wiki format. I didn't mean to erase the entire section on Richard Stanley's wikipedia entry. But wiki's interface was fighting with me. And suddenly the whole page was a mess because of one badly entered tag. Sorry, my bad. But that doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest. I think I've now succeeded in removing the part that wasn't referenced. And since someone else has gone in to made the section more wiki-compliant Also, if a person's name isn't to be mentioned in a section title, I understand that. But when I started editing that, there already was a name in there. The article I referenced made clear that name was an alias. I merely wanted to make the title factual and accurate. I had no bad intent. Hope all is good now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHARLESLESORCIER777 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, keep in mind that if your edits are reverted you should discuss on the talk page. It's easy to escalate a situation when reverting and communicating through edit summaries. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -ClS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHARLESLESORCIER777 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Jim Jordan (American politician)
Jim Jordan (American politician)

Editors of the page, upon review of their profile and political views as a result, are introducing unnecessary and personal political biases into the nature and context of the article, affecting how it reads, therefore violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afchlam (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , the page can be edited by people with any personal political beliefs. Do you have any specific examples to indicate where the article fails WP:NPOV? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I second that we need specifics.--67.70.100.169 (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Eben Alexander (author)
I appeal to fellow Wikipedians in an effort to clarify erroneous information on the page about me. Reference to the talk page covers the main issues in detail. The following falsehoods should be corrected:

"His book Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife (2012) describes his near-death experience that happened in 2008 under medically-induced coma when treated for meningitis. He asserts that the coma resulted in brain death, that consciousness is not only a product of the brain and that this permits access to an afterlife." is false, and should read:

"His book Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife (2012) describes his near-death experience that happened in 2008 during a coma due to bacterial meningoencephalitis. "His medical records suggest that his coma was not drug- induced, as his brain function and level of consciousness were clearly impaired and on a downward trajectory before sedation and started to improve before sedation was discontinued".

Another irrelevant addition that should simply be deleted (Alexander was never found guilty of malpractice, thus these distractional statements do not contribute to understanding the nuances of Alexander's medical case): "While practicing medicine in Lynchburg at the Lynchburg General Hospital, Alexander was reprimanded by the Virginia Board of Medicine for performing surgery at an incorrect surgical site, two times over the course of a month. In one instance, Alexander altered his operative report because he believed the surgery had diminished the patient's symptoms. He was sued by the patient for damages totaling $3 million in August 2008, but the case was dismissed by the plaintiff in 2009. As a result of the mishaps, Alexander lost his privileges at the hospital and was forced to pay a $3,500 fine to the Virginia Board of Medicine and complete ethics and professionalism training to maintain an unrestricted medical license in the state.[5] Following the release of his 2012 book Proof of Heaven, Esquire magazine reported that Alexander had been terminated or suspended from multiple hospital positions, and had been the subject of several malpractice lawsuits and that he settled five malpractice suits in Virginia within a period of ten years."

This allegation of Alexander's termination from multiple hospital positions is also false. There was never any termination "for cause". Please delete this libelous statement.

The extreme scrutiny involved in cases of alleged malpractice suggests that the absence of finding Alexander guilty in several attempts implies there was no malpractice. This red herring of missed attempts at proving malpractice was introduced in the defamatory arcticle by Luke Dittrich in Esquire in 2013, which should be deleted as a reference. It has been thoroughly debunked by researcher Robert Mays who found in his peer-reviewed report that:

"To me,  the  Dittrich  article  is  shoddy  and  irresponsible  journalism —  shoddy because  of  Dittrich’s  and  his  Esquire  editors’  evident  failures: •  to consider alternate explanations (rainbow), •  to check with the cited witnesses (Holley, Phyllis, and Betty Alexander and Sylvia White), •  to verify information with additional witnesses (Holley Alexander, Michael Sullivan, and others), •  to check with medical experts (on the likely cause of coma), •  to check again on crucial testimony of the sole cited witness (Laura Potter), •  to read the book carefully (Scott Wade’s statement about Alexander’s coma), •  to exercise care in asserting erroneous “facts” (use of drugs was not mentioned in the book), •  to exercise care in quoting and interpreting recorded remarks (Dalai Lama), •  to exercise common sense in interpreting the meaning of statements (Dalai Lama), and •  to respond when serious questions of accuracy were raised (interview request by Alex Tsakiris about Potter’s statement). And Dittrich’s article was irresponsible because of the impact— the real harm—  that the resulting distortions have caused."

The following current statement should be modified to reflect a critique of one of its sources (Sam Harris's blog posting it references): "The book was a commercial success but also was the subject of scientific criticism in relation to misconceptions about neurology, such as conflating medically induced coma with brain death"

The relevant insightful commentary calling out Harris's errors are found in Bernardo Kastrup postings directly addressing the Harris statements:

"The more unfortunate aspect of Harris' criticism, which I personally believe is beneath him, is a subtle attempt to discredit Alexander's capacity to judge whether his NDE could be explained by traditional neuroscience. This is embedded in a quote Harris adds to his post; a quote from his UCLA thesis advisor. Here is the relevant part: Neurosurgeons, however, are rarely well-trained in brain function. Dr. Alexander cuts brains; he does not appear to study them. "Now pause for a moment and read this quote again. The notion here is that Alexander, a practicing neurosurgeon and Professor at Harvard Medical School (here is his resume and here his extensive list of academic papers ), does not understand what part of the brain does what while he is hacking at people's brains every day."

Thank you in advance for trying to bring some factual balance to this article. Ealexander3 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * See previous discussions at BLPN 1,BLPN 2, BLPN 3BLPN 4. This is all reliably sourced content, and we can't use self published blogs or other unreliable and involved sources such as the Journal of Near-Death Studies article to undercut the sources we have. - MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

moyal-sharrock
This is a faulty entry about me. Kindly delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletion12 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the Daniele Moyal-Sharrock article? If so, see Deletion policy. Wikipedia doesn't automatically delete biographical content on request, but it may take such a request into consideration - this will require verification that the request is coming from the individual concerned. Meanwhile, if the article is 'faulty', it would help considerably if you could give some indication as to why, given that it appears to cite appropriate sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Terminfo
Hi. The article Terminfo refers in a number of places the original author, Mary Horton. We are having a difficulty that a user (and it seems to be one user) insists on repeatedly violating MOS:DEADNAME. The page history shows a long history of changes to reinsert the deadname, sometimes spuriously justified with reference to WP:RS. Other editors come along and fix it, and this one person puts it back.

I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia's processes to know how best to resolve this. Please would someone help? Thanks.

Ijackson (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that this has been going this way for so long. However while you're right it seems to have been only one editor reverting all this time, it also seems to be the first time the relevant parts of our guidelines have been highlighted to the editor. In fact although their reply on the talk page suggests they still don't really understand the guideline, they haven't reverted since then (although it hasn't been that long). I've further highlighted the relevant portions of the MOS to them which hopefully will be enough to clear up any confusion and stop further reversions. Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Various American Celbrities
User:50.110.94.196 is causing issues by going around and adding "death" information where it is either complete and utter WP:BOLLOCKS or just downright misleading. They also edit existing refs to make their edits seem sourced, such as replacing one persons name with another in the URL []. They are good enough at it that they seem to be able to go unnoticed for a while. This IP needs an extended block, all they are doing so far is to waste everyone's time going back and reverting their changes, definitely WP:NOTHERE.The Alternate Mako (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , if this is still an ongoing issue, the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents is a better place to get attention to behavior such as described. I hope that helps. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 15:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can this be closed off? I'll shift it to the correct venue. The Alternate Mako (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Corruption in Mauritius
The VRT team have been asked to look into this article for potentially arbitrary inclusion criteria on the list. Given that the majority of the cases listed involve individuals who are still alive, I figured this was the best place to ask for assistance in looking into whether there are sections to be trimmed or guidelines to be created. If it is not, feel free to move this entire thread wholesale to the best location. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The majority of the text there was added by and, both of whom are apparently still active editors. I do not see any indication of what they consider criteria for inclusion and there are WP:BLPCRIME concerns because most of the incidents listed are only of arrests or other initial coverage. Also, the format of the article is a bit strange. Instead of discussing corruption generally and the responses, mechanisms, attempts to address, etc. that most other "Corruption in [X]" articles do, it just lists potential incidents. I was tempted to remove any listed incident without a resolution but since there are cites I'd like to hear from those two authors first.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 12:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I simply copy edited the article in response to a GOCE request. I have nothing to do with the content, which should be clear from the article's edit summary. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Minion
In this article on author Joseph Minion some outlandish claims (allegations, really) of plagiarism have found its way into the text, and they are based on the following sources, which I find extremely inadequate: so, these sources and their introduction on very controversial claims put forth in this article are all really concerning, and needs to be addressed before any repeated revert happened again - there was some reverting taking place in the last two to three days.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) unsigned article on Gawker, website generally deemed unreliable in our project;
 * 2) Andrew Hearst on his blog starts his polemics with: "(t)he bare details have been mentioned online, but only in passing, and as far as I know the scandal has never been officially reported anywhere";
 * 3) self-published website spool.net, with article signed by Peter Sobczynski who base (and links) his mention on allegations put forward by Andrew Hearst at his blog, mostly recycling hearsay, as A.Hearst himself admittedly explains at the beginning of his own text in a manner we can read in bold quote from above;
 * 4) Salon article does not say anything on the case;
 * 5) book "Lost Souls of Horror and the Gothic: Fifty-Four Neglected Authors, Actors, Artists and Others.", chapter: "Joseph Minion", by Toles, George (2016). (ed. McCarthy, Elizabeth); McFarland. pp. 151–154; is refed with page range that encompasses entire chapter titled "Joseph Minion" and does not point to a specific claims, which can't be found in the chapter anyway;
 * Some additional notes for BLP reviewers:
 * The Salon article mentions the situation only obliquely: "Frank was ultimately paid handsomely by producers of a Hollywood film (which he won't name) that plagiarized his dialogue"
 * The Lost Souls book says (p. 153): "details of the After Hours narrative "set up" were borrowed, without authorization, from an NPR Playhouse monologue by Joe Frank entitled "Lies"."
 * A Slate article says "In a twist worthy of a Frank radio drama, the only feature film based on his work was made without his permission: Frank got some settlement money after the screenwriter Joseph Minion seemed to draw from his monologue “Lies” for Martin Scorsese’s After Hours."
 * A New York Times article says "The script, by a Columbia student, Joseph Minion, apparently borrowed elements of a 1982 monologue about a hookup gone awry by the radio storyteller Joe Frank"
 * HTH, 66.31.23.79 (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing of cited articles (Slate, Salon) can be used under strict BLP guidelines. Google Book preview, page 153, conveniently is unreachable after several IP changes, but even if someone could reach it for confirmation, it is still unusable for these claims, in all three related articles - Joseph Minion, Joe Frank, After Hours (film) - because those it is a hearsay, mentioned here and there as a sort of literary-cinema legend, and only in passing at best, never "officially reported anywhere", just like Hearst himself admittedly wrote in his blog.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  12:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, it's important to point that that one sentence in mentioned Slate article - the only sentence which mention this episode - is actually based and linked/referenced to a above mentioned Gawker unsigned short entry, which itself is based and linked/referenced on both Andrew Hearst blog piece and on our own Joseph Minion article. Talking about WP:CIRC & WP:SELFPUB!-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think 66.31.23.79's sources are reliable, as are the original sources in the article. The fact that Santa99 even rejects the evidence of a book he hasn't read (I like the "conveniently", BTW--does he think I took down Google Books so that he couldn't check my reference?) shows that nothing would really convince him that these facts belong in the article.


 * Here's another reference which I would have added to the article had I known about it before: Joe Frank repeats the allegation in his forum.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  23:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * One more thing: I know we can't include anything about this because of the OR rules, but if anyone who's seen Afterhours is curious to hear the Frank show, it's here. It should demonstrate that the allegations are true, at any rate.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  23:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually adore Joe and have never took particular notice or interest in Minion's career (barely knew who he is, in case some start coming to a certain conclusion), but that's not the point, we are not a forum nor place for hearsay allegations - references we put in article can't be used in manner that goes against guidelines in WP:Original research and Synth, while WP:BLP is even more strict in regard of what constitute RS. I never implied anything of that sort with regard of that book, I was pretty clear what I meant, which is exactly what I wrote.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  10:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * To summarize after a commenting pause, there's a couple of us who think at least some of the sources are sufficiently reliable. Perhaps we could avoid the legal situation and include the relationship of the "Lies" and After Hours material, which are clearly derived, as the NYT and Lost Souls references state (by the way, Scorsese on Scorsese is a RS for the original title of the After Hours screenplay being "Lies" - p. 97.) Perhaps we could include a simple statement quoting the NYT with attribution rather than using WikiVoice, since even if there is an "official report" of this situation, it would be an ineligible primary source. Is there some way to request a BLP-specialist admin to weigh in? 66.31.23.79 (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Tynan Power
There are a couple of inaccuracies on a page that is about me: Tynan Power. Mainly these are things that were accurate when first published but are no longer true (like removing a past employer who is named as a current employer). I did not create the entry, but I've made some edits to the entry in the past, mainly to add sources and fix some awkward language. However, the entry now has a notice that says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." In light of that, I'd really prefer not to make content changes, myself, to avoid making it seem like the information is not neutral.

There are a total of six small content changes to make, and I can provide sources for all of them. I'm happy to spell them out for anyone interested.

I'm also interested in advice/help removing that warning re: contributor having a close connection. I completely understand why it's there, but believe that past edits were within the allowed parameters and didn't impact the neutrality of the entry. Again, I don't want to wade into murky ethical space by trying to remove it myself, but would appreciate suggestions on what to do about it. Tynan Power (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your article is currently written like a resume and should be rewritten to focus on what independent academic sources and news organizations have written about you rather than what you or organizations you are affiliated have written. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the content also appears to be unsourced or not supported from the citations provided. I removed a lot of that content, and tried to locate sources for other parts, but finding many sources has been difficult. For the article subject, you should try to provide on the article's talk page some links or descriptions of independent sources that discuss you and your life. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Julio_Licinio
Seems like puffery and there’s no mention of more recent like this: https://www.syracuse.com/schools/2019/09/upstate-abruptly-ousts-medical-school-dean.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatsRegrettable (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sean Howard
"In 1992 he sold his publications business to Australian Consolidated Press but retained Microtex. Microtex then became Oz-E-Mail.[3]" Not true. Microtex was sold to Telecom Australia (now Telstra) as stated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtex_666. 180.150.37.108 (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Akinwale Arobieke
Akinwale Arobieke - I came across this page while patrolling recent pages changes. I think it's written with too negative a slant - the first sentence of the lead describes the subject as a convicted criminal, and there's stuff about what the Daily Mirror (an unreliable tabloid) has to say about him. It's quite a lengthy article though - does anyone have time to take a look? Best Girth Summit  (blether)  14:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a quick glance, but the BBC appears to have well-covered him, so nearly anything sourced to British tabloids can be nixed in favor of the BBC, but otherwise a quick read would appear to be correct to treat him primarily as a convicted criminal. --M asem (t) 14:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Amended post above - it was recent changes, not pages. I agree that there are workable sources there. My slight concern is that our lead is focusing too heavily on the 'convicted criminal' thing, and not enough on the 'had stuff overturned on appeal' aspect. BLPs aren't my usual bag, wanted to have more eyes on it. Girth Summit  (blether)  22:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Jamie Guy
Just a heads up that following discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football I have commented out a "Personal life" section here, which consisted of nothing but three paragraphs of detail on convictions and allegations against the subject. It was all sourced, but my concern is that such material represents a lack of WP:BLPBALANCE, given that the guy is notable as a footballer and not as a criminal, and the "Personal life" section contained literally nothing else apart from three paragraphs of detail on violence and convictions. His convictions are irrelevant to his encyclopedic notability. Note that the subject himself had shown an interest in removing this content too, although obviously I'm unaffiliated with him in any way, so not endorsing his possible edits of his own article.

If anyone with experience in BLP matters thinks I've got the wrong end of the stick here, then please let me know. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not a BLP violation to mention criminal convictions that are discussed in reliable sources, especially not for a public figure. Repeatedly pleading guilty to domestic violence charges that have been covered in reliable sources over a period of years is almost certainly appropriate to include. Whether some of the other convictions or allegations are due would depend on the type of coverage they received and whether they are significant to understanding the article subject based on how the sources discuss them. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is that it's not just "mentioning" them, it's dedicating an entire section to the subject, dressed up as a "personal life" section. If this material was in proportion to the other things usually found in such sections, like family, partners, other careers etc, then it wouldn't be so stark. It's unclear to me what the encyclopedic interest is in including all this, based on what isn't a huge volume of RS coverage. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Two of the sources that you have hidden in the article from the Daily Gazette/Essex County Standard say that the article subject has "a history of violence against women", and all of the other convictions discussed are also for violent or threatening behavior. How is that not relevant to an encyclopedic biography? If that is the most common aspect of his personal life that is discussed in reliable sources, then that is how it should be presented on Wikipedia. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * improve the wording/re-arrange the article, rather than just deleting completely. GiantSnowman 19:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You've got the wrong end of the stick. The section can be shortened and renamed but should not be excised. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Leslyn Lewis
On October 23 Canadian MP Leslyn Lewis made a tweet that included the words "... sit in the back of the bus." Ahunt on October 30 inserted that she compared herself to Rosa Parks, citing a local newspaper and not her tweet. I reverted, Ahunt re-inserted, I brought it to the talk page, nobody else joined in. My main argument is that she didn't mention Rosa Parks, so it can't be verified and in context a newspaper, when deciding what she meant, is opining rather than being a reliable source for a fact. So I claim that Ahunt has gone against WP:V, WP:RS/QUOTE, WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:BLPSOURCE, WP:BLPUNDEL. (It might be too early to add WP:DUE.) Who agrees or disagrees? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This is kind of ridiculous to bring here, since it has already been adequately addressed on the article talk page. The information in the article is all sourced to a WP:RS and completely complies with both WP:V and WP:BLP. The source cited, a PostMedia chain newspaper and also carried in The Toronto Star, directly quoted, says: Lewis also likened herself to civil rights activist Rosa Parks for objecting to the recently announced mandatory vaccination policy for MPs. “The media and the power structure expect me to sit in the back of the bus. I won’t!” Lewis tweeted on Saturday. The media source was quite right to draw the line between Lewis' comment and her reference to Parks, as clearly that was what Lewis intended. Norfolk County Councillor Kim Huffman also drew that same conclusion in the article's quote: “You are no Rosa Parks,” tweeted Norfolk County Councillor Kim Huffman, who told The Spectator Lewis’s choice of language was “both inflammatory and completely reckless.” “The truth is out there in terms of vaccination and the research into vaccinations,” Huffman said, adding she was “very dismayed” to see Lewis casting aspersions on the vaccine. “We’ve spent a lot of time in getting people to be vaccinated, and to have someone tweet something so careless … it’s very disappointing,” said Huffman, who sits on the local board of health. We don't need to rely on WP:PRIMARY like Twitter and in fact do not rely on primary sources, when we have WP:RS. There is nothing to debate here, it is all properly sourced to reliable, independent, third party sources. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A single local news article about a tweet is probably not going to be WP:DUE. If it is, then the solution would be to simply include the actual phrase used in the tweet "expect me to sit in the back of the bus", rather than the interpretation of that tweet in a single article, given that the tweet did not make a direct comparison to any individual and we do in fact rely on primary sources for this type of context (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). The claim that the article subject "was criticized for her stand against vaccines in October 2021" also seems misleading, as the cited article only mentions the criticism of a county councillor, while claiming that Lewis is "raising eyebrows at home and on Twitter by using her online platform to question the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree that this is not yet WP:DUE, but I confess I am a bit puzzled by the reference to WP:BLPPRIMARY. That policy says that "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source...."  So, to my reading, if we're not using the secondary source, the primary source shouldn't come in.  It is, however, entirely possible I am missing something or otherwise uninformed.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , my reference to that guideline was for if the content was found to be due. However, I agree with you that the content does appear to be due, at least not yet given the current sourcing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A single local news article about a tweet is probably not going to be WP:DUE. That is not the case. This story has been run in a number of media outlets including:
 * Simcoe Reformer
 * The Toronto Star
 * Sarnia Observer
 * Norfolk and Tillsonburg News.
 * How many news outlets are required for WP:BLP? - Ahunt (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All of those are merely reprints of the same local article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the fact that it was picked up in The Star is, for me anyway, pretty impactful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Globe and Mail also mentions her opinions if that affects people's attitude about dueness, but it avoids speculation so cannot be useful to support Ahunt's editing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that was my point, the story has received widespread coverage, including in the Toronto Star, which is national media level. We can cite all of those refs if that would show the national-level coverage of the story. - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the Globe and Mail ref shows the national scope of the story. - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Being reported outside local news is helpful in determining whether content is due, but that does not necessarily make content due, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree again! I just want to note that on first glance, this seemed an easy call as not WP:DUE.  The inclusion of The Star among the sources makes this a much closer decision for me.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahunt, after I made my "The Globe And Mail" comment you interpolated your own comment before it and changed the indentation level of my comment making it appear I was replying to you. This is against WP:TALKO and misleads other editors, so I restored my comment's position and ask you not to interfere with my edits again. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Being a national story in a single outlet dos not in and of itself mean it's worthy of inclusion. What we want to see is something that has a lot of public interest, and some staying power. To call ourselves an encyclopedia we have to set much higher standards than the sources we use. That's why you find encyclopedias in the reference section of the library. See WP:RECENTISM for a broader description. As an example, imagine what any presidential candidates article would look like if we included every trivial thing someone made a fuss over. (Not to mention, I don't see what's wrong with wanting to emulate someone who did something great. People berated Rosa Parks at the time too.)


 * Here's the thing. This is all political spin. "It's good and righteous if our side does it, and horrible and evil if theirs does the exact same thing." When weighing sources, it's tricky business, because not all sources carry the same weight. A news article is a poor source for anatomy, but Greys Anatomy is probably one of the best you can get. You also can't really count sources that are all regurgitating the same story as separate from one another. When sources start independently reporting on it, then it shows some staying power. This is how we keep trivial nonsense out of articles on people, and especially people like celebrities and politicians. It's all a part of NPOV, and without it no one could ever take us seriously. Zaereth (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, the problem with that is manifold, so I will go through the two major ones. First, it is certainly a problem of due weight. The lede is merely a summary of the body, and it needs to be put into the proper proportion with in the scope of the body to be able to determine how much space (if any) it deserves in the lede. It's a rather short news article, and I doubt it alone carries a significant amount of weight in comparison to all the other sources, especially when put into proportion with the size of our article (it's a very short article with 35 sources).

Second, you're right. She never said it outright, and the author of the news article was taking a bit of liberty and connecting the dots. A newspaper can often get away with that, but it's poor writing and somewhat insulting to the reader's intelligence (and a good newspaper editor should have caught it). By "poor writing", I mean it's telling me, not showing me. By "insulting", I mean it's a glaringly obvious connection, and people find it condescending to be told the obvious. And if there is any ambiguity, it's cleared up in the next sentence or two, where someone from the medical industry is quoted as saying "You're not Rosa Parks", so it's redundant to boot. As an encyclopedia, we're a lot more formal than the sources we use. (As an analogy, it's like telling a child's joke like this: This is about a man named Bob. What do you call a man with no arm or legs floating in the water? Bob.)

So, the first thing I would do is determine space it deserves in the body --if any-- by weighing the sources against each other. Not just the sources in the article, but all sources out there. If it's like 25% this and 75% everything else, then the article should reflect that. If, on the other hand, it's more like 1% this and 99% everything else, then it probably doesn't deserve any space, given the small size of our article. It's all about putting everything into proportion, and in summarizing it's necessary to cut out the finer details.

When it comes to the lede, it's sort of the same thing. The lede is merely a summary of the body (a summary of a summary), and again we have to maintain the proper proportion, and decide what details to keep and which can be saved for later. These things should be worked out on the talk page before ever posting it on mainspace. Zaereth (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You can note that it was recently moved to the main body of the article, before it was once again removed. - Ahunt (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Perfect. That's just what I said. It should be deleted and moved to the talk page until it all gets works out and hammered into shape. Zaereth (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issues mentioning this as part of her position on vaccines since several of her political positions have also been mentioned. It's no less due and widely published even if the original was syndicated. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is where I land as well; as a proportion of the coverage of her herself, it strikes me as significant. And while the matter of syndication can certainly be taken into account, I would agree it's not enough to disregard the coverage.  So I believe a mention is probably appropriate. Then again, I am often wrong.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * But that's not what this conversation is about. It's about her comparing herself to Rosa Parks and portraying that in a "how dare you" way. In this discussion, the link to vaccinations, and in this case forced vaccination, has been absent. Her positions are definitely something we should cover, but not the political spin on her tweets. Either way, this is not NPOVN and discussions of what's due should take place at the talk page. Zaereth (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my imprecision, but that's what I mean--I think the "Rosa Parks" moment is probably worthy of inclusion, though I would attribute it to The Star, I think. By my lights, that would not violate WP:BLP, but reasonable minds may certainly differ.  A happy Tuesday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a BLP issue only to the extent that it's an NPOV issue, which is what DUE is a part of. The thing about due weight is that it needs to be discussed among all the parties involved who have both access to and the inclination to go out and find all the sources, and do the extensive weighing needed to determine just how much space in the article it deserves. The best place to do that is on the talk page of the article, where all the involved editors are. It's best not to think of it in terms of whether it's worthy of inclusion (we've satisfied RS thus satisfying V; those were the easy parts of the equation) but rather, how much space should we allot for it? Given the small size of the article, does it deserve an entire section, a whole paragraph, or just a single sentence? Or maybe it only deserves a word or two. In such cases, the only way I would say do not include is if it deserves less than a sentence. Given the small size of the article and it's large number of sources, I'd say that gives a lot to talk about. Of course, a person could always make room by expanding the rest of the article, but that's a double-edged sword, because expanding the article will mean adding more sources. Zaereth (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually there's only one source, J.P.Antonacci, a Local Journalism Initiative reporter funded by the Canadian government. Maybe you could be more specific about what wording you'd favour? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - is it really a piece of enduring coverage related to Lewis? This is really the type of problem endemic of why BLPs today are in such bad shape overall. Editors focus on these bursts of news but not on the big picture. If this fits into a broader section about Lewis and her COVID-19 stance (of which I would expect more about before this incident from 3rd party sources), that would make sense to integrate into that. But instead, this idea "oh, this got a burst of coverage, let's include" is why many BLPs are in poor shape because they focus on day-to-day and not career-spanning coverage. Omission until we know if it has a enduring factor on her career is the right solution, even if the sourcing to include is impeccable. --M asem (t) 15:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's nice to know my opinions are responsible for the terrible state of Wikipedia. I had no idea of the power I wield!  Dumuzid (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not specifically blaming you, just that this statement is so very common what I've seen from editors when they rush to include information that was covered from a burst of news but without thinking of the big picture. Your statement just encapsulated the problem in this specific case pretty well. --M asem (t) 16:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well then, good to know I have been decreed incorrect. Have a wonderful day, and if you could interact with me as little as possible, that would be swell.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dude. No need to get all bent out of shape. Masem made some good points, and it was clear to the rest of us that aren't emotionally involved that he wasn't speaking about you specifically. You make some very good points as well, and you participation here is always welcome. In this case, Masem simply said what I was thinking, but rather was trying to show how it should work in a policy sense. The problem with relying on news outlets so much is that, on any given day, anywhere from 50 to 90% of it is just filler. They have space to fill --everyday-- and if they can't cram it with ads or real news, they just find whatever they can and try to put a spin on it that will stir people's emotions or make it seem interesting. Even that one sentence, the thing that started this all, as I described above that was just filler within filler, to take up space. We need to do better than that, and cut out all the filler and get down to the nitty gritty. That's all. Zaereth (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think many people who frequently comment on this noticeboard have a concern with news-style content that is added to BLPs without any enduring coverage to show it is significant. Situations where content is not sourced to reliable sources or has other clear BLP violations are easier to handle, while issues over what is due in a BLP are a lot harder. Without taking into account some type of guidelines for what information is important enough to include, these discussions would become almost impossible. A single issue in one article is usually not going to be terrible, but it is part of an attitude that allows many less significant news topics to take up a lot of space in articles, especially articles on politicians. Without taking into consideration enduring coverage, many politicians could have dozens or even hundreds of one-line policy positions. Significance could also be shown by enduring coverage of similar aspects of the same issue, such as the suggestion of whether the article subject's previous stances on COVID-19 or involvement in the issue had been covered in sources. However, only having a few sources discuss a politician's opinion on a topic is related to political policies would be a very broad inclusion criteria. I don't think anyone means any offense by expressing that. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well said. I don't mean to bash on news outlets, although I often do. (Ok. Maybe a little, but journalism today is not what it was when I was trained in it.) When evaluating any source, I think it's important to have a good understand of how they operate and how they make their money. Take Wikipedia, for instance. We'd lose massive credibility if we started selling ad space. News outlets make money by stirring emotion. Happy stories don't sell papers, and if they can put a racial spin on it, then they can sell even more. News outlets can be very reliable sources, but most of the time that only shows in hindsight. They are only focused on the news of the day --or sometimes up to the minute-- and tomorrow that news could change entirely 180 degrees. An encyclopedia shouldn't focus on day to day things, but focus on the long-term and historical perspective, as if what we write today will still be valid and important to people 10, 50, 100 years from now. The only way to do that with newspapers is to wait a spell and see what sticks. Zaereth (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I intend to put on the article's talk page "Rosa Parks" thread that "Most participants in the WP:BLPN discussion did not favour adding this to the article at this time". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Ricardo Duchesne
This article is troubled. There's a couple of pro-subject IPs there, the 47 IPs I think, and the IPv6 seems to be critical of the subject. The article needs impartial editors to reach some sort of neutrality. Note that I already blocked one nest of socks. Your help is appreciated--I cannot sift through these edits at this time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Kathleen Stock RfC
Input is requested at an RfC at Kathleen Stock about how to word a matter in the lead of the article. The RfC is at Talk:Kathleen Stock Crossroads -talk- 04:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting this here, User:Crossroads. Ha, it doesn't take much to become a darling of the alt-right--even feminist women can make the cut. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)