Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive346

2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio
Good morning. Due to the urgency, I am posting this link on this site, as posting sources and URLs at 2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio containing the name of the suspect, who has never been famous nor convicted, seems to defeat the purpose of WP:BLPN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The suspects name is now in the wiki-code in two places, both being urls of sources used in the article. Readers who do not look at the source wikicode will not see the name. I think WP:BLPNAME has been met, as the suspects name has been "widely disseminated". I think continuing to exclude the name from the article is wise, but am not overly concerned about the urls. If someone wants to replace the sources with equally reliable or better ones that do not have the name in the url, go for it! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with FFF, given that a simple google turns up the name instantly we don't need to be policing URLs. BLPNAME here is satisfied by keeping the name out of the article. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We have higher standards than the media here, since search engines will.pick up on WP info better than from media sources. Just because a name may be widely disseminated by some sources, we have to take steps to avoid things like names of non notable minors particularly around BLPCRIME aspects. There are ways to hide names in URL (like via link shortener or using sources that give the same information without including the name in the URL). M asem (t) 20:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we have to take such steps? I don't think we do... For example we wouldn't not use an article as a source because it had the subject's name in the title, that would be absurd and wikipedia is not censored. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We can "[redacted]" a name in an article title should that be necessary. M asem (t) 21:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Has it ever been necessary? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen "[redacted]", but I have certainly changed "[name of person] was also charged with [crime]" to "A third man was also charged with [crime]". Herostratus (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also this is not censoring. We strictly avoid mentioning non-notable, non public figures BLPs particularly when crimes are involved. M asem (t) 21:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not censored" is a mere slogan, like "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit!" This is censorship; we censor BLPs and other things all the time, for legal and ethical reasons. We censor things that go against the best interest of Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

BLPCRIME uses the language "editors must seriously consider not including", so we do have some leeway to use common sense. If a suspect has already been named by just about every reliable source covering the topic, I don't think that we're pushing them further into the spotlight or implying guilt by incidentally mentioning their name in a linked URL. –dlthewave ☎ 13:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think BLPCRIME is the sole issue nor a barrier at this point. I'd only ask if the suspect's name make the victim easier to identify? And if so, is there harm to the victim that would be a reason to keep it out of an article that will exist for the rest of her life? Slywriter (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it does make it easier to identify her. According to the tabloids the suspect is the live-in boyfriend of the victim's mother; I see no reason to suspect they don't have that fact straight. I don't know how we can prevent the name appearing completely, though. Even putting [redacted] into an article title just draws more attention to it. I dislike the idea of disingenuously rendering titles so the change won't be as visible. And once there's a conviction, is it even possible to keep the name out? Valereee (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's ultimately a losing battle, but I struggle with the fact that a 10 year old has an article that will follow them around forever when they did not seek attention. For them, this article is WP:BLP1E, but others have made it a noteworthy topic. For that and WP:DONOHARM, I'd lean toward never including the suspect's name in the article prose(even after conviction), but policing sources may be a bridge too far. Slywriter (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Also, arguments such as "simple google turns up the name instantly" and "If a suspect has already been named by just about every reliable source covering the topic, I don't think that we're pushing them further into the spotlight" and so on are bad, and of the order of "The other kids were beating that homeless beggar to death anyway, so what difference does it make if I joined in?". We can't control what other people do, only what we do. Introducing this kind of thinking into discussions is inimical to what we're trying to do here. Herostratus (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. It's simply a matter of basic human decency. It's a 10 year old child! Just because the newspapers don't show any compassion doesn't mean we have to blindly follow their lead like a bunch of mindless automatons. Newspapers are foremost out to sell their product and make money, and if that means trampling over a small child then that's what they'll do, as disgusting as it is. We're not motivated by a system that puts financial gain over the well being of the victims, and especially children. As an encyclopedia, we're supposed to be better than the news outlets, not the same or worse. Zaereth (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All this is basically the same logic we used on Star Wars Kid until the person themselves opted to state in a very public statement he was SWK as part of his reason to start an anti-bullying group. Prior to that, there were a fair number of sources that gave his name but we kept it out of the article despite the "ease" that it could be found. M asem (t) 13:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah and it's people like the Star Wars Kid and Brian Peppers etc. where BLP is most important. "We are not here to make people feel sad" was one of the guiding reasons we have BLP. A BLP violation on the articles on Barack Obama or Kim Jong-un or Jeff Bezos etc etc is bad ofc, but really we can't harm those people on that level. We're not going to hurt their feelings or damage their reputation or invade their privacy. Bill Gates doesn't care if we slant a sentence against him without an AAA-level ref. Private marginally notable persons, where we usually form their public face to a degree? It's punching down, punching way down, to give them anything but bending-over-backwards extreme consideration for them as people. We are a very big, much read, much linked to, much quoted, and therefore powerful, publication. Marginally notable private persons are helpless against us. I hate punching down. You all should too. Herostratus (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the tabloids the suspect is the live-in boyfriend of the victim's mother we don't mention this in the article? Anyone who's read the sources to the point that they've ascertained that fact, also has probably seen the person's name by that point. All that digging has to be done offwiki though.
 * I don't see how the suspect's name can tell you anything about the victim, based on the info in the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't mention it because it's the tabloids, and even if it weren't the tabloids I'd argue against mentioning it for privacy reasons.
 * The problem isn't that people across the country avidly reading the tabloids will know the name of the accused and connect it to the kid. It's that in her neighborhood, at her school, in her church, everyone will know because the name of the accused has been made public and in every one of those groups, someone knows that person is a close associate of the family, which means they can guess who the victim is. And likely some will judge her for having the abortion, even if at this tender age she really wasn't even sure what an abortion is, and even if they don't judge her many will whisper about her. School life will be unbearable. Valereee (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Don't use the source because it's a junk source -- local news -- so we don't need to use it. I wouldn't say always exclude a source that has a problematic name in the URL, but if the source adds nothing of value to the article, which is the case here IMO, then there is no good reason to use it, and the inclusion of the name in the URL is a good reason not to use it. That they put the name in the URL demonstrates IMO the low quality of their newsroom editorial staff: it's in the URL because they put the name in the headline. Poor journalism ethics there. As far as a general rule about names in URLs go, I would say we should determine that on a case-by-case basis, but this is yet another example of why not to use local news as sources (as a general rule). Levivich (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I love local news for filling in early life details! The subject was a 2006 graduate of Perry High School, where they participated in 4 years of wrestling and musical theater. :D Valereee (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * local news is not a junk source... Buffs (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Curbon7 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well...it can be pretty junky. If we can find better sources for anything that isn't noncontroversial, it's better if we do. As I said above, it's great for a source for the fact the subject graduated in X year from Y high school and was a standout at Z activity. But in this case we're using a local source for information that can be easily found from a much better source who likely won't be putting the suspect's name into the headline and therefore URL. Valereee (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Anything notable is very going to likely have a local news source first. It is an opinion, not policy (and certainly not agreed upon by society at large) that local news sources are somehow inferior despite the fact that they follow the same journalistic standards as national publications. Either a source is reliable or it is not. Such editorial decisions (are we really being so picky as to be debating the choice of a URL?) have nothing to do with any of our pillars for inclusion.
 * Now, I think including the victim's name is absurd and completely unnecessary (especially in the case of a minor), but it is widespread and in media worldwide. It is not a secret and is not something we can possibly exclude nor should we. It's best to give a neutral presentation of the facts. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What news reports include the victim's name? I see plenty that include the doctor's name, but not the victim's. Lobster from Maine   (talk)  16:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's just start with EVERY mass shooting... Buffs (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lobster from Maine, I think Bluffs simply misspoke; as far as I know no news reports are including the victim's name. Valereee (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , respectfully, please let me make my own points rather than assume my intent. My point is not whether names are included or not, but rather what reliable sources state. If they state the name of the victim, we should do so as well. Conversely, if they do not, we should not. It is truly that simple. The same should apply to URLs. While I feel for the girl in question, the responsibility lies with those who broadcast her name, not those who say "_____ broadcasted their name." Buffs (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Buffs, oh, my mistake, I'd made an assumption based on what was likely the policy-based opinion of an experienced editor who was saying something both incorrect and contrary to policy.
 * Incorrect: AFAIK the media is not mentioning her name, which is why I figured you must have misspoken when you said I think including the victim's name is absurd and completely unnecessary (especially in the case of a minor), but it is widespread and in media worldwide. It is not a secret and is not something we can possibly exclude nor should we. It's best to give a neutral presentation of the facts.
 * Contrary to policy: But even if it were appearing in RS, I would never in a million years think we should mention by name a 10-year-old rape victim. Our BLP policies would tell us to be extremely cautious with naming any non-notable living victim of any crime, much less a sex crime, much less a minor, much less one of tender years, much less one who has had an abortion as a result of that crime. I really am very surprised that an experienced editor like yourself would ever believe that was appropriate. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If widespread articles are using either the name of the victim or the alleged perpetrator, it's very hard to see how either name is "non-notable". I stand by my statement. If either's name is NOT widespread in the media, then they should not be included. It's best to give a neutral presentation of the facts. Buffs (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No RS I know of is using the name of the victim. Even if they were, I would argue against repeating it here onwiki until I was blue in the face unless she herself came out in ten years. WTF are you even thinking here? This is a CHILD. Valereee (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've never seen us take extreme measures like link shortening to avoid a name in URL. In past cases I've seen avoidance of the name in article text, but it remaining in URLs, and sometimes the title of sources if applicable too. I think this adheres to the rule, as it's not overtly displaying the person's name. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Shortening a URL is weird. Readers don't go looking through urls in wikipedia articles so that they might find a secret encoded name in them. Why is this an issue? Lobster from Maine (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lobster from Maine, the issue is that the suspect's name is in some headlines and therefore in some URLs, and it is likely people who know the girl will recognize the suspect as someone who lives with the family and therefore can identify the girl as the victim. Which could make her life pretty unbearable. Valereee (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I've trimmed detail and swapped sources so that the suspect's name does not appear in the article wikitext. I wouldn't say this was necessary, but I get this itchy feeling all over whenever I disagree with Valereee. Those that care should probably keep a close eye as the trial starts (scheduled for next week, but may be delayed). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * hahaha Valereee (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

"Alleged" rape?
Another open question on this article entails whether the alleged rape is "alleged" or not alleged at all. It seems that editors are claiming that they can objectively say in wikivoice that the child was raped even without benefit of a trial or conviction. This seems to be WP:OR, and WP:POV. It seems we should extend "innocent until proven guilty" as the law of justice in these United States, to any incident, no matter how heinous or how "obvious" a crime may be. Elizium23 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We're not stating that the suspect is guilty. We're following the sources, all of which label it a rape. 9 year olds can not legally consent to sex, so any such relationship is rape. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Until proven out by a court of law, we cannot make that assumption, per BLPCRIME. There's likely little wiggle room for anything but a rape charge, but until the court finds on this, we have to assume innocence. M asem (t) 03:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Any sex with someone under 13 in Ohio is rape, so regardless of someone being found guilty, she was raped. If a politician was shot in the head in front of a crowd we wouldn't say "the alleged assassination." The suspect is alleged to have done something, but the rape itself is a fact. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Until the court makes the determination (which is very likely to be that way), we have to assume that events are only assumed to have happened, not that they have happened. Absolutely we can say that this woudl be assumed rape (we're not questioning the girl's age and thus how it falls under Ohio state law) but there's still validity in court that needs to be worked out. M asem (t) 03:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, in order to call someone a rapist there needs to be a court finding. In order to say someone was raped we do not. Just as we can say someone was murdered without a court finding. Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered, yet no one was ever convicted. Does that make it not a murder? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For Heavens' sake. Sex with a nine-year-old is not "alleged" rape. It is rape. Hell, I think it borders on a WP:CHILDPROTECT violation to suggest otherwise. In some states one could maybe get pedantic and say it's not, as a matter of law, automatically rape, because of one exemption or another, but it appears that the only exemption that applies in Ohio would be marriage, and there are no sources indicating that the victim was married to the alleged perpetrator or anyone else. BLPCRIME does not prevent us from calling a rape a rape, because BLPCRIME is only about how we describe people, not acts . How we describe acts is determined by WP:V and WP:NPOV. Are there any reliable sources that dispute that this was a rape? Any at all? The only original research happening here is the outrageous attempt to stick weasel words in front of what everyone on Earth, except a handful of Wikipedia editors apparently, agrees was a rape (whether it was perpetrated by the accused or someone else). This has to be the worst hill I've ever seen anyone choose to die on. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 04:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is alleged rape as what the actual events are yet to be confirmed by trial. it doesn't matter what RSes claim, we are following legal principles here to not make statements of facts that have yet to be determined by the court of law. M asem (t) 04:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What legal principle says that you can only call something a rape if it has resulted in a conviction? Could you please cite a textbook or journal article that explains this principle? I'm no lawyer, but in years of following legal matters and writing articles on the law, I've never heard of it. If such a principle does exist, my next question would be what Wikipedia policy or guideline says that we should defer to that legal principle? It's nowhere in BLPCRIME, which is about how we describe the accused. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 04:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * BLPCRIME says "Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." which is the base principle here. Maybe it is about the accused, but like in this case, if we state in wikivoice it was rape, you've already accused the suspect of your guilt here. And from the law/media standpoint, this is what is known as "prejudging" which is something that is seen as unethical and can result in libel suits. M asem (t) 05:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Us saying she was raped is not the same as us saying that the accused raped her. Like, obviously. The only way we would be libeling him is if there were some way to have sex with a nine-year-old without it being rape, which there isn't. It's not the same thing as, say, calling a homicide a murder, where there's any number of reasons it might not be ruled that. Since you've acknowledged that BLPCRIME is about the accused, not the crime, I'll return to my earlier question: Do any reliable sources dispute that this was a rape? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 05:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * She could have undergone artificial insemination, in or out of a clinical setting. It's telling that you are here assuming she had sex when you should know that is not necessary to become pregnant. So you're making several leaps of logic and you're assuming events you aren't privy to.
 * Now it's unfortunate that the evidence of the crime has been destroyed and left in another state. I hope law enforcement held on to some DNA samples; moreover, I hope her child's baby's remains get a dignified burial and some human respect. Elizium23 (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I... You're joking, right? You're coming to BLPN, to a thread about BLPCRIME, to accuse a different living person (or people) of a crime? That's so outrageous that it almost makes me forget you started this comment by suggesting that a fucking nine-year-old underwent artificial insemination. Given your blatant political advocacy in this comment, and, again, outright BLP violation against one or more people involved, I think you may need to accept that you are not able to participate constructively on this topic. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 06:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What a truly bizarre argument, but oh well:
 * BLPCRIME keeps us from calling the accused a rapist until there's a conviction.
 * COMMONNAME is how we refer to the crime itself, absent consensus for something else. I don't believe I've seen any RS calling this anything but rape. So -- again absent consensus to call it something else -- we call it what RS call it: rape. Valereee (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I very much agree. The act leading to impregnation was a rape, and there is no source that suggests otherwise. BD2412  T 14:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * (EC) Especially with the trial due to start soon according to comments below, I feel there's no point trying to get this changed this but I'd note there have been plenty of times when we ignore RS calling something a murder etc until a conviction has been secured when the alleged preparator is still alive and IMO there is a good reason it's something we nearly always do no matter how damning the facts of the case may seem. We've long debates about this e.g. Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive318 but also the RfC Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 58 which resulted in this supplement Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Assassination given as an example is a fairly different case since it's not something that generally carrier a clear legal meaning. Indeed in the case of Talk:Assassination of Shinzo Abe/Archive 1 there seemed to be a clear albeit brief consensus that murder was not appropriate but assassination was fine. There are also cases where many sources may continue to call something a murder even though a conviction of the sole perpetrator has been secured for a lesser crime e.g. Killing of Rachel Nickell and Killing of Natalie Connolly (warning details may be distressing) and we have IMO correctly ignored these sources. While it may be true that the limited consideration of a perpetrator's state of mind means there's a difference between how rapes and murders are decided based on the facts of the case, IMO there's still enough doubt that we should take the same care. And actually I have vague memory we've done the same for rapes too where the facts seem fairly damning e.g. the victim suffered brutal injuries or it was recorded on camera although interesting enough with the case of Killing of Ee Lee we only dealt with the murder aspect and still simply say rape. I don't think Elizium23 is helping matters my giving unnecessarily complex scenarios although I'd note that it seems clear Elizium23 recognises artificial insemination of a 9 year old would almost definitely be at a minimum a form of sexual assault. The fact that a 9 year old cannot consent doesn't mean that any sexual intercourse is rape, for example for IMO good reason in many countries a 11 year old cannot be charged with rape. While the pregnancy makes this unlikely in this case, it's one of the reasons why we do not make assumptions based on flawed understandings of how the law operates and why. In many jurisdictions, again IMO for good reason, someone with a significant intellectual disability also cannot convicted of rape, even if physically they are capable of impregnating the victim. And I'd note that besides the weird artificial insemination scenario, it's possible even if very unlikely for pregnancy to result from sexual assault that doesn't fall into the definitions of rape that apply in jurisdictions a specific crime occurred in. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * exactly, and as we cannot use our own expertise ("all situations under Ohio law would call this rape"), we can't state it as fact until the court agrees that the factual basis of a conviction. That's why it is important that until the court passes this decision, we have to assert that the rape is alledged. M asem (t) 16:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But we can use our own expertise to assert that the rape is alleged? Why would we ever be allowed to do that sort of WP:OR? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 Valereee (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Writing at a middle-ground/conservative stance (something was alleged to have happened) is absolutely should be our basis when including contentious or controversial information, as per WP:YESPOV. There's no OR involved in that, that's the writing style that a neutral encyclopedia must take, even if all the major sources - who are not legal experts here - claim must be true. Its the reason MEDRS (and to an extent, SCIRS) exist, to point out that there are only certain soruces that can make authorative claims. Of course, if the media was reporting on the findings that were given out of appropriate labs, and reiterating their statements, that would be different. M asem (t) 20:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Yes, ma'am, I understand you are saying you've been raped. We can't call it rape until someone has been convicted of rape. Oh, that 'rape kit'? Uh..." Valereee (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, if anyone wanted evidence that the judicial system indeed uses the word "rape" to describe incidents that did not result in a conviction, a lawyer friend pointed me to Wright v. City of Ozark, 715 F.2d 1513 (11th Cir. 1983) (plaintiff "was raped by an unknown assailant"), as an arbitrary example. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 23:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Was it uncontested by the city that she was raped? Maine   🦞  06:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Masem, can you explain to me the factual circumstances by which it would be inappropriate or false to say the child at issue had been raped? Dumuzid (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What about "rape" violates WP:NPOV? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WTAF are you arguing Elizium23 ... ?!?! Nonconsensual insemination of a child is still rape! Children cannot enter contracts or consent. Parents can consent on behalf of children when it is in their best interest. (unnecessary and dangerous medical procedures???? not!!) Any sexual conduct (see: insertion without privilege) with a minor less than age 13 in Ohio is rape. Not even the doctor in that disgusting hypothetical has medical privilege of insertion!!!! 2600:387:15:1C11:0:0:0:B (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it contested, whatsoever, that some sort of sexual act by the specific person being tried for it actually occurred? Of course any sort of sexual relationship between a pedophile and a child is rape. Maine   🦞  05:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Adult and child. Not just pedos. 2600:387:15:1C11:0:0:0:B (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with those editors above who are saying that, per WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, we call it "rape" and not "alleged rape" because the WP:RSes call it "rape" and not "alleged rape". For example:
 * NYT not "allegedly raped"
 * WaPo and  not "alleged rape victim"
 * WaPo2 not "alleged rape victim" and  not "for the alleged rape"
 * NPR not "an alleged rape" and  not "an allegedly raped 10-year-old".
 * Aside from Wikipedia policy, this also comports with common sense: if a child is pregnant it's because she was raped, because she cannot consent and thus any pregnancy would be the result of statutory rape. The fact that a rape occurred is indisputable because a child is pregnant. It's just like if someone is stabbed many times, we (the world, the RSes, and thus Wikipedia) all call it a "murder" even if no one is ever convicted for the "murder", as has been pointed out above.
 * The bottom line is this: sometimes, a crime has occurred, and RS state that a crime has occurred, even if no one is convicted of that crime. In such cases, we can also state that a crime has occurred (although of course we cannot state that a particular person committed it). We do not have to state that a crime has allegedly occurred just because no one has been convicted of that crime. That's not what our policies, or common sense, require. Levivich (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That statement "that comports with common sense" is a legal analysis beyond the abilities of WP Editors to make, and thus not a valid step. And we have to stay away from saying things that maybe all RSes claim is true but do not have the authority to do so - here we need the legal evaluation from the court decision, the only agency that can make the evaluation. Even in the case of a person that appears to have died from multiple stab wounds, we cannot call that murder under a court of law makes that statement (that's why there's a specific set of rules of how we name "Killing of..."-type articles. M asem (t) 16:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We say JFK was assassinated even though no one was convicted of the assassination. And WP:DEATHS says that you follow the common name even if there is no conviction, which is why we say JFK was assassinated and Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered, even though there were no convictions. So no, saying that a rape occurred is not legal analysis any moreso than saying that a murder or assassination occurred... those may be crimes, but they're not legal concepts, they're words that describe actions, they're not legal terms-of-art. And our policies do not say that we can't call something unless there's been a conviction. This has been explained multiple times above, but you're still repeating the same talking points. Levivich (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Those specific rules are for when there both
 * Is no commonname
 * Is no consensus for something else
 * In this case we have a commonname:rape is what RS are calling it. And we don't have consensus for calling it anything else, including "alleged rape". If you really believe you can get consensus for calling this an "alleged rape", start an RfC. Valereee (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Masem, you are dead wrong here, and youre missing the obvious. We cannot say an individual is guilty of a crime until that is adjudicated. We absolutely can, and should, say that a crime occured when sources report that as a fact. WP:BLPCRIME is about calling some LP something that has not been established. Ie a rapist. It is not about the existence of a crime itself. You are taking the naming on killing vs murder to extreme lengths here, and you are wrong in how you are doing so. We can say a robbery occurred. We can say a rape occurred. We can say all sorts of things because they arent labeling a living person as guilty of that crime. There is no requirement that somebody be found guilty of a crime to say that said crime even occurred. The requirement is that they be found guilty before we say they themselves committed said crime. There is an alleged rapist, not an alleged rape.  nableezy  - 17:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Nope, this is a critical factor. The media themselves are not legal experts in any capacity so we can't their own conclusions as whether a specific crime occurred or not as fact. Further, let's take a less orenous example: Mrs. Smith is found dead from a stab wound; obviously we can state she was killed. The police likely will assume she was murdered after a preliminary investigation, and they may take in Mr. Smith as a suspect despite his pleas he didn't. In that scenario, even if the press asserted "Mrs. Smith was murdered" (prior to a conclusion from the courts) and "Mr. Smith is a suspect", that is implicitly says Mr Smith murdered her. It is why in those cases, the media actually very carefully says "Mr. Smith is a suspect in the alleged murder of Mrs. Smith", which is valid, and for us, why her page would remain at "Killing of Mrs. Smith" (if that iwas how it was to be handled) until the conviction happened.  What if the real case was that Mrs. Smith committed suicide after all was said and done? That's why we need the careful language.
 * Same thing applies to other crimes - they all may be the named crimes, but they aren't actually those crimes until a conviction is secures against those that do it. It significantly affects any person that is tied as a possible suspect to the crime, and thus must be treated in an "innocent until proven guilty" manner. There are other things that are factual - "the victim was stabbed multiple times", "the store was overturned and the safe looted of all funds" that suggest a crime, but there are slim outside changes that there are other things going on that we should not take any absolutes of judicial truth until the actual courts make the assessment. M asem (t) 18:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Masem has apparently never heard of the concept of "unsolved crimes". In Masem's world, a crime without a conviction isn't a crime at all.  In the preferred approach of overstretched police forces all over the world, the way to reduce the crime rate is then to make it difficult for people to report crimes.
 * In the real world, fortunately, we can simply rely on reliable sources to know (and report) what has happened in this instance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't WP:MEDRS, and you are seriously misinterpreting the difference between calling a person a rapist and calling a crime a rape. Someone ping me if there's an RfC. Until then, I do not think we have consensus for adding "alleged rape" to the article. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In Ohio, state statute for 1st degree rape has strict liability for "sexual conduct" (defined here) with anyone "less than thirteen years of age". The girl is a victim of rape in the eyes of Ohio law. There does not need to be a trial and finding of guilty of a perpetrator for a victim to be victim of a crime. For example, the Uniform Crime Report (now NIBRS) does not even require an arrest for a crime to be labeled as such. Unlike homicide, we do not need a medicolegal ruling to determine that a pregnant 10-year-old had "sexual conduct" (WP:BLUE).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats nonsense pure and simple. Theres a reason not to say murder over killing, because that is an issue of intent and you can kill somebody without having murdered them. That simply does not exist here or in most other crimes. And beyond that, the real reason we need such a guideline is that because Wikipedians as a body are incapable of exercising discretion and understanding nuance, and it leads to some very fucked up anomalies. Like, in a topic I edit in, an Israeli soldier is almost never going to be found guilty of murder, regardless of the circumstances. So an unarmed autistic man shot in the back of the head is killed and not murdered, because the local jurisdiction will never charge much less find the perpetrators guilty of murder. But fine, we as a body need bolded lines to deal with edge cases, so we end up making this convoluted flow diagram specifically for when to use the word murder. But that simply does not apply here. And, as per WP:WEIGHT, the balance of reliable sources are emphatic that a rape occurred. We couch our wording for the living person accused of a crime. A crime occurs even if nobody is ever charged, even if nobody is ever convicted. And it does not require a court of law to say that some specific person is guilty of a crime to say that a crime even occurred.  nableezy  - 18:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Having a real hard time following your argument here Masem... It looks like you jumped the shark a long time ago and are now defending an undefendable position against overwhelming odds. You're wrong in both spirit and letter, drop the stick. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is just...a bad argument. A really dumb, bad argument. The fact that you can't understand how claiming a rape didn't occur until someone is found guilty for it is the most ridiculous BS reasoning ever is just...bizarre. And a real WP:COMPETENCE concern for this topic area. Silver  seren C 20:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Now now, Masem is undoubtedly giving his view in good faith, and I dont think dropping a competence link is appropriate. I do think he is taking WP:DEATHS to extreme, and absurd, lengths here, and there is literally nothing BLP related in saying a crime occurred absent a conviction. There is in saying somebody committed a crime prior to a conviction, but thats not whats at issue here.  nableezy  - 20:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * eh, not sure competence is an absurd question. This isn't a one-off, there's been doubling down. It's actually pretty puzzling. Valereee (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant the BLPCRIME claim is absurd, not the competence link. Though I do think it is misguided. Some people have very myopic views when the letters BLP come even on the fringes of the picture. I obviously disagree with Masem on this thread, but Ive also agreed with him plenty of othee times, so cmon lets accept that reasonable can disagree on what our articles should say without lacking the competence to edit.  nableezy  - 02:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Masem I don't think it's appropriate to apply the logic behind the WP:DEATHS guidance to a clear-cut case of statutory rape. When it comes to the killing of a person or persons there are considerations; was it a lawful or unlawful killing? Was it manslaughter or murder? Was it premeditated or a crime of passion? The answers to those questions have implications, not only on the potential sentencing of the perpetrator(s), but also how we describe both the perpetrator(s) and the victim(s). To use your Mr/Mrs Smith example, while in all cases Mrs Smith is dead, how we describe her death and anyone accused of it is variant on the circumstances that caused it.
 * However in the case of statutory rape, such as the one that lead to this discussion, we have only a single way to describe the victim; that they were raped. Whether or not there is a known perpetrator, and whether or not that perpetrator receives a conviction, it does not change the fact that this child was raped. However that only applies to the victim. When it comes to a known perpetrator, BLPCRIME would naturally apply to that person, such that we (and the media) would describe them as an "alleged rapist", "suspect", or other similar terms. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In America, this is not statutory rape. It's rape. U.S. Code Title 10 § 920b Ohio Revised Code Section 2907.02 2600:387:15:1C18:0:0:0:B (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * to the contrary. A rape occured. Whether or not this person is found guilty or not of the alleged crime, it happened. If someone was shot down in a hail of indiscriminate gunfire, we would say the people killed were "murdered" regardless of whether a person is found guilty or not. Buffs (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll say this. The fact that we even have an article about this is just sick. Sick. That we would take the trauma of a 10 year-old child and use it to forward some political agenda is absolutely disgusting. Zaereth (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Reply -
 * This is an encyclopedia.
 * Articles for deletion/Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022.
 * --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Absolutely fucking disgusting. Zaereth (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, why don't you renominate it for deletion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * disgusting or not, it happened. I see nothing furthering a political agenda here...it's a matter of how it should be described Buffs (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Have you read the article? The rape is disgusting, yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. The only thing more disgusting than raping a child is using it for political gain. Now don't get me worng, because I am 100% pro-choice, and think the supreme court ruling is utter garbage. But this? This is a horrible way to go about trying to make that point. Typical mob-mentality, where an entire group of people suddenly begin to behave as a single sociopath. "The news agencies did it, so why shouldn't we." Hey, tell yourself whatever helps you sleep at night. Zaereth (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Reply - "Why don't you renominate it for deletion"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is where my issue is. I am sure, buried within the sources, is confirmation from an appropriate police official or medical official with authority on this case that they are going to call it rape. That's fine if that source exists (and I'm sure it does) but the bulk of editors above are saying, instead, "all these RSes call it rape, so should we." We would never do that if someone made a claim of a cure for cancer without an authoratative source (MEDRS), or cold fusion (SCIRS), as this is 100% in the world of legal elements, which newspapers and other major media sources are not. Implicitly, there exists an equivalent "LAWRS" - that in terms of matters of legal aspects, there are only some bodies of authoritative nature (like police and courts) that would allow us to say "X is convicted of Y" or the like. Even in a case like this, where we know under OH law that young girls cannot consent and thus any sexual activity likely would be deemed rape, there are potential mitigating circumstances that may change that, and we should be working solely on what the police/medical examiner have determined, and not this non-authorative voice of the masses. (I don't believe there's anything else this specific case can be called, though, but it would be far better not to flat out say the girl was raped, but instead "According to officials for X, the girl was raped." or similar language)
 * Which goes back to Zaereth's point, is that this is another example of the media using accountability journalism to create empathic works that are designed to draw in readers and rile them up against abortion laws, rather than simply reporting what happened. Abortion laws like Ohio's are bad, but we have to write neutrally and dispassionately, regardless of how much attention that thet media may give this story, and my take (having written a considerable part of the Dobbs case article) is that the situation around this girl is something that is far more comprehensive within the context of the Ohio abortion law (to understand its timing and implications better) than as a separate article. But because editors want to create articles about every little news event which the media covers, we get situations like this. And that's why we have so much nonsense around BLP, because of the mob mentality "the RSes say this, it must be right!" We're an encyclopedia, we required to summarize RSes to build up articles, but we are not bound to mirror them exactly, particularly when other core content policies are at state. M asem (t) 13:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Masem, in general I would agree with you about coverage of news events, but I would respectfully suggest that whether there should be an article at all is something of a separate discussion. You say there are potential mitigating circumstances that may change a finding of rape.  What are those? Dumuzid (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On "may be potential mitigating circumstances", i do not know the full extent if Ohio law or how it is prosecuted, so there may be, however exceptional and near impossible it may be, there may be a chance that an underage girl got pregnant may not be called a rape. I don't claim to be the expert here and thus I would expect to be told the answer by the police and other officials investigating the case, those that have the expertise and authority to.make that call. Definitely not the mass media in.isolation.
 * And it should be recognized that having the separate article is. As Zarathustra points out, harmful to the unnamed girl. Clearly the story around her cannot be avoided within the context of the OH state law, but the creation of a separate article while she is still an unnamed minor can be seen as degrading. Maybe once she reached adult age she will pound the ground as a pro choice activist and make sure her name is well known, ar which point we don't have to worry about her privacy. But until then the more we cover about the story, the more problematic this can become, and BLP's essence is to do no harm, hence why the separate article is a problem. M asem (t) 14:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, with due respect, your "potential mitigating circumstances" boil down to an argument from ignorance. As David Hume pointed out long ago, we could apply the same sort of skepticism to the proposition that the sun will rise tomorrow.  What we are left with, by my lights, is a situation in which the reporting in reliable sources agrees with a seemingly conclusive logical predicate, and you are asking us to be cautious based on the fact that you can imagine an unarticulated chance that things may not be as they seem.  I hope you can understand why that is unpersuasive.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose a mitigating circumstance could be that the accused was an unwilling participant in the rape, for example that he was forced to rape the girl at gunpoint. But mitigating doesn't mean absolving, and in the very, very unlikely event (it has not been mentioned in any RS as a possibility) that this was the case, it doesn't change the fact that under Ohio law a rape occurred (because any penetrative sexual act by an adult on a 10-year-old is rape in Ohio). But since we are not saying that the accused in this case is the guilty party in the rape that undoubtedly occurred, there are no WP:BLP violations - which after all is the point of this board. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a major difference between saying "all the RSes are reporting that the police have identified it as rape" and "all the RSes call it rape". Again, I would assume that in the early sourcing of this story in the Juke-ish time frame, we have reports from RSes that state the police or similar body of authority are treating this as rape, which is what should be used. If we only had the speculation of newspapers, even with the e Tremblay slim possibility of the situation being anything other than rape, we are still dealing with alegal and possible BLP situation if we jumped to the same conclusion that the media made. This slavish following of mass media in areas they are not authoritative is where problems can arise for BLP and other areas. Here, there's likely no other scenario possible, but it creates a slippery slope to other situations. We need to be more cautionary here. M asem  (t) 15:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I will just say in closing that this strikes me as stretching the principle to an inapposite degree, but reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The RS are reporting what the police and prosecuting authorities are saying, which is that a girl who was 9 at time got pregnant. Under Ohio law, that can only happen as a result of rape, because any penetrative sexual act by an adult on a minor under 13 is classified as rape in that State. Unless you are claiming immaculate conception, a rape occurred. It really is as simple as that. Who is responsible for that rape has not been determined, so we would call anyone charged "the alleged rapist" until there is a conviction (to satisfy WP:BLP); but it's not an alleged rape, because of the age of the victim. It really is that simple and you need to stop flogging this dead horse. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If Ohio state law says pregnancy can only happen as a result of penetrative sex that's against medical science since as I mentioned above it's possible even if incredibly unlikely for it to happen without. I don't think a flawed law, even a flawed law where the actions happened is particularly germane to anything especially since I'm not even sure why Ohio defines rape without considering perpetrator/s. Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A 9-y-o cannot consent to sex, ergo the victim in this case - described in multiple reliable sources as a rape case - was raped. WP:SKYISBLUE and WP:COMMONNAME.'s comments above are reprehensible. And this would not be the first time that has got completely the wrong end of the stick about a legal case, yet has continued commenting. (Assuming somebody was being charged with being 'Soldier F' rather than grasping that Soldier F is undergoing trial for their actions). Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment on the content, not the contributor. I asked a few questions and still didn't a full crystal clear answer for that Soldier F but still worked what I thought was how BLP should best be applied there. M asem  (t) 13:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying (on your Talk page) that your questions were answered. I dispute that the situation was/is in any way complicated. Indeed, every other person who commented in the RFC was well able to grasp that Soldier F is being charged with murder; it was only you who persisted in stating that the upcoming trial is to determine if "Dave" is "Soldier F", as if there is a crime of being "Soldier F" that one can be charged with. I would respectfully suggest, given that issue and also your comments above, that you give consideration to staying out of discussions around legal areas. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not an "alleged rape", it is a rape by definition, so we should not mislead our readers that it is not a rape. Here, we most certainly do have a rape, but also an "alleged suspect" (not "alleged rape") to that rape. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not an "alleged suspect". There are not mere allegations that a particular person is a suspect. There is a person who is suspected of raping the girl. Maine   🦞  17:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The girl was raped. There is a suspect. The suspect is alleged to have committed the rape. Any use of "alleged" should be restricted to describing the charge against the suspect, not the fact of the rape itself. BD2412  T 18:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Maine   🦞  19:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, to answer your prior comment, that's what I said, the person is alleged to have committed the rape, thus, in short, an alleged suspect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Refusal at WP:CR to close this discussion
Someone at WP:CR has refused to close this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Generally we don't need a formal close unless a lengthy period has elapsed and the participants in the discussion can't agree what consensus is. For me it looks like there's consensus not to use the term "alleged rape". Very few participants in this discussion are arguing it should be called an alleged rape. It also looks to me like there is no consensus to include the name of the suspect, and no consensus against removing URLs/headlines that contain the suspect's name. Anyone disagree? Valereee (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say there's weak consensus to keep the suspect's name out of URLs/headlines for now. I didn't get a chance to say it earlier, but use of url shorteners is a no go; they're blacklisted. As long as it's possible to sub in sources that do not use the name in those spots, or trim info and refs that are unneeded, I'm happy to keep juggling. It might get harder as the trial begins, and more eyes on the article would be nice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * FFF, so in addition to 'no consensus to include' you think we can go with 'weak consensus to exclude'?
 * Oh, itneresting on URL shorteners. I didn't know that, but obviously it makes sense. Valereee (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously I'm not wearing my "uninvolved consensus assessor" hat, and I'm heavily weighing the "very sensitive BLP" arguments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's okay, we don't have to be completely uninvolved to close a discussion. We just have to do our best and not have anyone challenge the close. :D If someone believes a close has been affected by involvement of the closer, they'll challenge it. But if we try to be very fair, we may not need a formal uninvolved closer. Valereee (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:LPNAME & WP:CHILDPROTECT. To protect victim we should not include the suspect name. He can be used to identify victim. 2600:387:15:1C17:0:0:0:C (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that. We should use the best source possible, even if that source contains the name of the alleged rapist. Maine   🦞  19:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, "equally reliable or better". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Maine Lobster, when you find a better source that contains the name of the suspect in the headline/url, just bring it up, and we can discuss. Valereee (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * (redacted until discussion closes)
 * But is there any information in either of those that isn't included in sources that don't use the suspect's name in the URL? Valereee (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Maine   🦞  19:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you specify what information is included in those that isn't included in other sources? Valereee (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * (redacted until discussion closes)
 * It doesn't look like confusion about the suspect's name is included in the article, though? Is this literally not covered anywhere else, in the nearly three months since? Valereee (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to have perfect knowledge, but I don't see it anywhere else. Local reporters are often more detailed on local issues than national ones, such as here. Maine   🦞  19:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Maine Lobster, and if there's something here that should be included in the WP article, that's an argument for including that source. But if literally no one else is even mentioning it, maybe it's just trivia, or never panned out. If the only information in this source that isn't included in other sources also isn't in the WP article, why would we use this source when it provides information that could identify the victim within her local community and possibly put her at risk? Valereee (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The hypothetical concern that the community does not somehow know and cannot find the name of the alleged rapist, despite the name being reported by CNN and by a major newspaper in the state, is odd. It probably should not be included in the article because of the lack of a conviction, but I don't see why we should ban it from being discussed on talk pages or linking to sources that mention it. Those sources are no less reliable than sources that don't include (redacted) full name.  Maine   🦞  03:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

CR response

 * For the record; I declined to close this discussion (singular!) Noticeboard where the topic is about removing the URLs containing the subjects name and had concluded naturally. Quite honestly, I didn't realise that this entirely separate conversation was part of the same discussion you wanted closing.  This new section about whether or not to use 'Alleged',in my opinion, should be happening on the article talk page, not here. But here it is, and it's ongoing so not appropriate to close anyway Jeff UK  19:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is the name of the suspect listed in the discussion above?
If the goal is to remove the name of the suspect from Wikipedia, why is it listed on the discussion above at "19:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've redacted. Up to an admin to go further. But it was added by a new editor. Slywriter (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've undid your edit to my edit. I don't think there's anything like a consensus to ban mentioning the name of (redact) in internal discussions, even if we have good reasons not to include it in the article. Maine   🦞  03:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Because in order to have legitimate discussions about the use of sources and content we have to provide and discuss sources. We're past the point where providing a link to a source containing the name in a url should be forbidden. It's commonly discussed in sources, and project discussions and talk page discussions have different thresholds for BLP than articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, then why is "(redact)" now in that statement above? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jax 0677 Because Slywriter edited my comment without my permission. Maine   🦞  03:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think BLP applies no matter where you are. From WP:BLP: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." 2600:387:15:1C1B:0:0:0:9 (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP does not require that a suspect not be named, it requires serious consideration be given to not naming a suspect prior to a convention. That serious consideration is what is happening. And enforcing a blanket ban short-circuits that.  nableezy  - 03:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Name serves no purpose to discussion and I will redact again per BLP Policy. Anyone taking issue can head to ANI as the name is now being willfully and intentionally repeated. This is a high profile page. Anyone can provide the source if editors need it to assess. That does not mean the name needs to be on wiki until consensus is reached. Slywriter (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * TALKO is also policy, and you know that. An amdin (@ScottishFinnishRadish) and others have said that this is not required. Please stop editing my comments for the sake of Censorship. Maine   🦞  03:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Slywriter, why did you delete my comment that WP:TALKO is a policy? How is that comment possibly a "BLP violation"? Maine   🦞  04:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Was wrong edit reverted. I have reinstated redact as the name is a BLP violation and this a 10 year old girls life that we are discussing, so let consensus decide if the name should be on wiki. Slywriter (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are deleting the name of an alleged rapist from a talk page discussing whether or not we should have that name in an article. Stop editing my comments in violation of policy. Maine   🦞  04:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Maine Lobster But you acknowledge that can redact or, if necessary, remove outright your comments if the violate WP:BLP? This includes, but is not limited to, mentioning the name of the alleged rapist. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The alleged rapist has been mentioned in major newspapers in connection with the assault. To choose to not include the name in the article itself is fine, but to censor it from discussion pages is absurd. To paraphrase Ian Hislop "If that's a BLP vio, then I'm a banana". Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, edits that violate the BLP policy can be redacted. But these edits don't, and multiple people (including an admin) have said this. Just because an editor claims something violates the BLP policy does not make it so, and there is nowhere near a consensus that the comments do. Maine   🦞  04:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No I will not. It's a BLP violation of the privacy of a 10 yo girl. If the community decides otherwise it can be written on-wiki but until then it serves no purpose in the discussion. As I've said in edit summary, any admin can directly and unequivocally tell me it is not a BLP violation. Slywriter (talk)
 * You need to read WP:BLPTALK. It's not a blank check to remove anything negative about anyone you want whenever you please. It's very narrowly-defined, stating that Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Note that your removal here fails on almost every clause. First, the suspect's identity is not contentious, nor is it unsourced or poorly-sourced; it is widely-referenced and treated as uncontroversial in high-quality sources, eg. (redacted a whole big list of perfectly good sources - BK); likewise, discussing the name is clearly related to content choices (it is difficult to mention or search for sources without mentioning it.) The threshold for removing things from talk is higher than it is for removing them from articles, otherwise we wouldn't be able to meaningfully discuss whether to include things like this. --Aquillion (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ding. It is not potentially libelous to say that some named person has been charged with rape and is facing a trial for the rape of a minor. That is verifiable fact. And the argument that you are protecting the child by not naming her accused rapist is one that still does not register for me. Especially given how widely reported that name is already.  nableezy  - 16:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When did WP stop going by the sources? Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If I was citing WP:BLPCRIME, your argument would be correct. I am not. I am operating under WP:DONOHARM and WP: BLPPRIVACY for the 10 year old victim who did not choose to be a public figure, who would fail WP:BLP1E, and the only reason she is stuck with an article about a deeply private matter is the poor choices of adult politicians, activists, and doctors to make her a political football in the US abortion debate.
 * The fact the issue does not register with you makes clear that a larger community discussion needs to occur about the privacy of minors especially victims as it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia to risk harm to a minor because editors feels well the newspapers and politicians are already doing harm so we can join in. Slywriter (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Slywriter on this point. Naming the suspect in the article or in discussions basically draws a map to the ten-year-old victim, and is of de minimus benefit to our mission as an encyclopedia. BD2412  T 16:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, too, of course, we can have a meaningful discussion: "name of suspect" and the like, is just as meaningful for our purposes. And BLPTALK says to be circumspect in what you write outside the article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I cannot seriously believe that it is harmful to the victim to name the person who is publicly charged with the crime. The idea that we are risking harm to the child and basically drawing a map to them is asinine. Otherwise all the reliable sources that have already named the suspect would be doing just that. You think CNN is putting a 10 year old rape victim in harm here? Should let them know that.  nableezy  - 19:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't run CNN, or any of the other outlets, all of which operate on a for-profit basis and are trying to draw eyes to their articles so they can sell advertising. More pointedly, as a matter of policy, we are WP:NOTNEWS. BD2412  T 19:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we are a tertiary source that summarizes reliable secondary sources, like CNN and every other outlet that this article is relying on already. This argument about protecting the child makes zero sense. And I dont even give a shit about naming the victim in the article, but this virtue signaling redacting all mention of what is widely reported is stupid.  nableezy  - 19:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, I do actually think it can harm the child further, even though media has already done that. A Wikipedia article follows someone around for a very long time. So I don't see this as an absurd discussion. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think it's worth discussing. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How? Every source of any repute will decline to name rape victims. But they will always name somebody when they are publicly charged for the crime. I am unaware of a single serious source that will decline to name somebody charged with a crime with the supposed justification that it somehow protects the victim. I dont even get the logical basis for the argument. The we are drawing a map to the child bit makes zero sense to me at all. Even Reuters has that he, by name, has been charged. USA Today, the Independent, ABC News, and on and on and on. I dont see how youre going to have an article on the crime and not cover the arrest, trial, and verdict and potential sentencing. And youre going to twist yourself in knots trying to redact any article with the name in the headline, much less not name him in our article. I would take the child protection angle more seriously if there was literally any support for such a stance in other sources. But none of them view that as a potential issue, and probably all of them have policies on protecting victims, especially rape victims, especially minor rape victims. But none of them see any issue at all with naming the person who has been publicly charged and will be publicly tried for the crime.  nableezy  - 19:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because a Wikipedia article lasts a really long time. The other stuff might be less easily searchable over time. Valereee (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Suspect name now listed in links above and at Edit Warring Noticeboard
The suspect name is now listed in the links above [19:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)], as well as here. I have added a request at WP:AN to permanently delete such edits. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is absurd. This goes beyond anything we've ever done with regards to BLP before. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * HEB, I think it may not be absurd considering the specific circumstances. We have a child of tender years who has been raped and had an abortion, and she is quite likely identifiable within her own community because of the name of the accused. We can't put the lid back on the box, but I think it's worth at minimum discussing before we decide whether it's okay to have the suspect named in discussions. It doesn't really help anything, so why not just avoid using it at all? Valereee (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We are required to edit in a detached manner, if the specific circumstances are overwhelming for a given editor then they need to find a different topic space to edit. The key point is that if we can't use the URLs can we actually have a discussion? If I can't post a link to a CNN article because someone is going to come through and redact it how do we ever get to WP:NPOV? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not overwhelmed in the least. I'm just pointing out that this is an unusual case and it's not absurd to discuss before we decide whether it's okay to use the accused's name in discussions. I'm not saying your point isn't well taken, but the argument has been made (and I think it's reasonable) that unless a source that uses the accused's name in the headline (and therefore URL) is telling us something other RS aren't telling us, can't we just use a source that doesn't iclude the name? And if the source is saying something no other source is saying, maybe we don't need it? It's just a discussion, HEB. Valereee (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How can we evaluate whether or not that source is saying something different if evaluating the source is forbidden in the first place? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you've got a good enough reason, go for it. Like the NYT or WSJ is using a URL with the suspect's name, and literally NO OTHER RS is giving us the same information...
 * Is that what's happening that you're worried about? Because I haven't actually seen that happen very often. But if it does, yeah, I'd totally support you coming in here and giving us that URL that is so crucial. Valereee (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't put the lid back on the box That's the crux, we go by sources. If the sources write things we don't like (irritating habit of theirs, I know), it's not up to WP editors to make moral judgements in compensation. Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We might come to consensus to avoid sources that use the accused's name in the URL, or at least as much as we can. That's what's being discussed. Valereee (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean a consensus to exclude entirely on pain of rev-del? "Avoid" is not what is being proposed or done. Lets talk about reality, and in reality people are redacting URLs. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The reality is that people have presented good reasons for why we should omit this information. And since this is a BLP, until people can come up with better reasons (and consensus) as to why it should be included it stays out.  Enforced by redaction if need be. BLP is built on the presumption of don't do unnecessary harm.  If we can work around these URL's then we should.  --Kyohyi (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the proposed workaround? I must have missed it. It seems that the proposal is simply not to acknowledge their existence in any way, which clearly not a workaround. Also welcome back from wikibreak! Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For the name, the descrption "the accused" appears to be being used in this discussion without issue. For URL's it would depend on if the source is providing new content or not.  And people could suggest content text and a note that the source includes the name of the accused in it's header.  If a source isn't providing new content, why use the source, and if it is, is the content of sufficient encyclopedic value to include it. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But how can we know if the if the source is providing new content or not if we're prohibited from posting links to it? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * People can propose content on the talk page. Note they have a source and the source has the accused's name in the link so they are not currently linking it. And editors can determine if the proposed content is worth including enough to actually post the link on the talk page or in the article.  Heck we could even do a description of the link as in published by and date of publishing for people who may want to look it up themselves.  --Kyohyi (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How can editors determine whether the proposed content actually reflects the source without reading the source itself? If they can't determine whether the proposed content accurately reflects the source its not possible for them to determine whether the proposed content is worth including. Also note that you can't just say you have a source if the discussion is BLP, you are required to provide a link to the source. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If editors feel the content is worthy for inclusion if true, they could post the link to make sure that the content accurately represents the source. Note, content need only be sourced if it is actually challenged or likely to be challenged.  So prior to challenging whether the content fairly represents the source you would have to see if the content itself is of sufficient encyclopedic value to include.  So, as a process, first propose content and possibly some clues as to where it is sourced.  If it's possibly acceptable to include, then post the link to verify that the content is an accurate representation.  Assuming that meets scrutiny then the content can be added to the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * BLP content always needs to be sourced, even just to discuss it on the talk page. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Contentious material always needs to be sourced. And again, we can include description as to where the content is sourced to even without including a link.  --Kyohyi (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * BLP material always needs to be sourced, whether or not it is contentious. If it is both BLP and likely to be challenged then an inline citation is required. You are currently arguing that we are prohibited from using such an inline citation. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * BLP material always needs to be verifiable. Inline citation (aka sourcing) is only required if challenged or likely to be challenged. And again we can include a description of the source to see if it's good enough to use for a citation.  Creating limits is not the same as prohibition.  --Kyohyi (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How does one create an inline citation without the title or url of the source? As you said the inline citation is *required* in that context, so how can BLP both require the inline citation and limit the ability to create that citation? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We already limit the ability to create citations. If sources aren't up to par we don't include content and thus don't include the citation.  This can include talk page discussions. If you want to include something that is being limited you can provide a description of what you want, and a description of the source, and note it includes the name in the link as to why you aren't currently linking it.  --Kyohyi (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If the source is RS, it shouldn't be limited at all. Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What is, and is not a RS is always contextual. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct, and why deciding upfront that every RS is contextually inappropriate is complete bs. Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But it isn't deciding up front. If it were, no source would ever be appropriate period.  It's only sourcing that names the accuser which has to go through this process.  --Kyohyi (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Google it. I see both sides of the argument on this. But fundamentally it's just not that important to an encyclopedia to name the suspect at this stage. This is all rather overblown. DeCausa (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is much support for naming the suspect in the article, the issue is more about not naming them in discussions, or using URLs that contain the name. I'm fairly certain that anyone interested enough in the case to read the Wikipedia BLPN thread about it doesn't need our help to find the name in the media. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The crime is not notable and would fail WP:BLP1E. The notability comes from the actions of third parties unrelated to the victim. This is not a biography about her. This is not an article about the crime. If those points were not true, I'd be far more sympathetic to the NPOV position being staked out here. The notability stems from the denial of an abortion in one state and the subsequent politicizing of events by others. Slywriter (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If the crime is not notable then nominate the article about the crime for deletion.  nableezy  - 19:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is the use of the child as a political pawn has made the initial denial of her abortion notable. Though I am looking at options within our policies to minimize mention and focus of the crime, which has been sort of coat-racked into the article and may be undue. Slywriter (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The use of the child as a pawn? Im sorry, what?  nableezy  - 22:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're going to need to supply a source for that claim. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This is quite likely identifiable within her own community because of the name of the accused bit is what makes no sense to me. The local news has reported the name. The national news has reported the name. You think the Wikipedia article not including it somehow alleviates any potential harm that may come to the victim? You think that the multiple unsupported premises that underlines all of this argument actually holds water? That a. the local community does not know who the suspect is, b. the local community does not know who the victim is, c. the local community gets their local news from Wikipedia and not the local news media or the national news media, both of which have included the suspects name. The possibility that all three of those are true is astonishingly small.  nableezy  - 19:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think it alleviates it, no. It might make it slightly less searchable ten years from now. But I'm not actually arguing that we can never use any of these sources. I'm saying while we're discussing it, let's not. Valereee (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about minor local news coverage here... we're not even talking about national coverage. The guy's name and photo is everywhere... This is an international event. I've seen his name in all the national newspapers here and I live 6,000 km away from Ohio... I'm talking about newspapers that are absolutely considered reliable sources, not tabloids.
 * This will absolutely be something that is talked about for decades to come, that books are written about, that TV documentaries are made about. The horse has long since bolted and the stable door is nowhere to be seen. By all means oversight the hell out of the article (I'd rather it didn't exist), but let's not pretend there is anything we can do for the benefit of the child and let's not pretend that mentioning the suspect's name in a talk page in any way violates BLP criteria.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  20:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP has much higher standards on the protection on BLP than the mass media. Just because they suspects name can be found "everywhere", we still must consider the BLP issues of the people involved who at the time are definitely non public figures. M asem (t) 20:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody is suggesting naming the victim, and BLP is satisfied with respect to the suspect with the high quality sources that can be cited listing him as being charged with rape.  nableezy  - 22:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would encourage editors to look at Category:Rapes_in_the_United_States and note there are only two pre-teen rapes listed(I skipped any murder of... article). One with suspect and victim named,Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard, as they have gone public and one where none are named, 2010 gang rapes in Cleveland, Texas where neither the convicted or victim are named. News reports will fade with time, Wikipedia is forever and readily available. Slywriter (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As a comment, in the Durand case, that started as a missing child case, and when she was found they identified her rape and other abuse she received. The child's name is nearly always given in abduction cases to help find them, and in such a situation, it.becomes hard to avoid naming. In this case and the Cleveland case, there was no apparent abduction, so there was no reason to broadcast the name far and wide. M asem (t) 22:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont think anybody is suggesting we name the victim. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ummm... Its not our job to help find missing people. There is no reason to broadcast the name far and wide on wikipedia in either situation. The exact same protections apply. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Robert Raich
There's been a couple of questionable edits lately involving a court case and the most recent edit inserted primary sources to the court documents (I reverted it). Maybe more eyes on the article is all this needs, but maybe something more a la protection? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like there was an effort to add similar material when the article in question came out in late 2018, appears those edits were revdel'd. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The notability of this BLP should be critically assessed. While Raich's name often appears briefly in cannabis-related articles for quotes he's given, quotes aren't signifiant coverage, and he's most notable for his involvement in two court cases, and any salient biographical details could be provided in those (e.g. he was the husband of the defendant in Gonzales v. Raich). The books cited that mention Raich predominantly describe him in relation to these cases, and often very briefly. Merely being in the newspapers doesn't guarantee an encyclopedia article. The fact that a person is involved in more than 2 events does not mandate a separate biography: Wherever he is mentioned on Wikipedia, he could be simply identified in text as "prominent cannabis attorney Robert Raich" without the need to wikilink to a devoted permanent stub that says little more than "Robert Raich is a prominent cannabis attorney". We don't create articles on most firefighters or police detectives merely because they regularly comment on or are involved in notable events. I think Robert Raich should either be turned into a redirect to the article for which is most widely associated, or better yet simply deleted altogether, with little disruption to Wikipedia or the ability of readers to comprehend the subject. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources in the article appear to be mostly passing mentions, so he may not meet WP:GNG. I'll add a notability template to it Tristario (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Ruben Vardanyan (businessman)
Are the following sources good for use in the article about this person, and also in 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh? I haven't used them in the article about the person so far, but some users objected to their inclusion into the article about the blockade, saying that they are libelous. However, this is the information that comes from international sources that are generally considered very reliable, such as The Financial Times, Time magazine, Der Spiegel, Eurasianet. The sources point to the fact that the arrival of this person to the region added to escalating tensions, or was one of the possible factors that led to the crisis. In addition, he is also widely viewed in Armenia, Azerbaijan and elswere as Russia's agent of influence sent to the region to advance Russia's interests, due to his close connections with Russia's elites. Please see below sources:

The Financial Times: ''The arrival of a Russian oligarch in the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh has added to escalating tensions in a volatile region where Moscow is struggling to maintain its influence. ... The oligarch was appointed as Nagorno-Karabakh's first minister by its president Arayik Harutyunyan last October. But analysts see his arrival as part of Moscow's attempt to reboot its regional leadership. ... Russian-Armenian Billionaire Ruben Vardanyan was appointed last autumn as first minister in the South Caucasus enclave, which is claimed by both Armenia and Azerbaijan, but his longstanding ties with the Moscow elite have aroused suspicions in both Yerevan and Baku''.

Time magazine: ''Man from Moscow? But the standoff between the two sides has only worsened in recent weeks after an enigmatic Russian-Armenian oligarch, Ruben Vardanyan, announced he was moving to Nagorno-Karabakh in September. The Yerevan-born billionaire was initially coy about seeking political office but, two months later, was suddenly appointed State Minister of the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh, making him effectively the most powerful man in Stepanakert overnight. Since then, talks with Azerbaijan have broken down, with Aliyev accusing Vardanyan of having been “sent from Moscow with a very clear agenda.” Officials in Baku point to the fact that he has been sanctioned by Ukraine as proof of his close ties to the Russian state. Kyiv says his business interests “undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine.”''

Laurence Broers, one of top experts on South Caucasus, for Der Spiegel: ''The fact that this blockade is taking place now might have to do with the leadership change in Nagorno-Karabakh itself, in particular with Ruben Vardanyan taking office as minister of state of the de-facto republic in November. This Russian-Armenian businessman appears to be close to the power elite in Russia. In the fall, Vardanjan made a surprise announcement that he was giving up his Russian citizenship and moving to Nagorno-Karabakh. Many in Azerbaijan see him as a Russian puppet, someone who intends to advance the transformation of Nagorno-Karabakh into a Russian protectorate along the lines of South Ossetia and, in the longer term, possibly also challenge the current leadership in Armenia.''

Eurasianet, like the Financial Times, dedicated a whole article to Vardanyan and his appearance in Karabakh.

''And suspicions about Vardanyan’s agenda are fueled by the fact that he doesn’t have a natural political constituency in Armenia or Karabakh, Giragosian said. “Vardanyan has been out of Armenia since 1985, with no local power base and marginal political standing or status,” he said. “Despite his impressive philanthropy in Armenia, Vardanyan is still a product of Moscow, as the source of his wealth and as the center of his influence. And even his record as a Russian businessman is seriously tainted by his involvement in a criminal money laundering enterprise on behalf of Putin-affiliated interests and individuals.”''

I addition, he was questioned on BBC HARDtalk by Stephen Sackur about his connections to the Russian governments, etc. Here's transcript:, video: , BBC news report:

I would like to ask the wider Wikipedia community for an advice if the above sources could be considered libelous, if they could be used in aforementioned Wikipedia articles, and in which form? Thanks. Grand master  20:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I feel like some context is missing here. This isn't about Vardanyan's wiki article, the discussion on 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh talk page happened after a particular edit. Point being, among majority RS, Vardanyan is not the reason for the blockade neither he's a significant contributing factor for the occurrence of the blockade (in fact, majority RS don't even mention Vardanyan in the context of blockade), and to add/edit/suggest that he is would be a violation WP:undue and WP:libel.
 * What overwhelming majority of RS report is Nagorno-Karabakh dispute and Azerbaijan's desire to speed up the resolution of the Karabakh conflict and other contentious issues in its favor as the reasons for 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (just a couple of RS, more in the article: [97 ], [98 ], [99). ] Additional details can be found on talk discussion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This was removed on claims of libel: Therefore I would like to ask the community to look into whether the sources that I cited above are libelous. Also, I would appreciate opinions on whether the information about Vardanyan's possible role in the crisis is undue.  Grand  master  23:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that the larger issue of adding Vardanyan as a "reason/factor" in the blockade article when he isn't even mentioned in context of blockade among overwhelming majority RS would indeed be violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:LIBEL. Even the so-called "activists" claimed (and highly doubted) version is allegations of "illegal" gold mining . ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @ZaniGiovanni This is a BLP discussion board, and the question for the larger Wikipedia community is whether information about Vardanyan supported by a number of credible sources is libelous or not. Please refrain from writing anything unrelated to the BLP here. A b r v a g l (<b style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#d43134">PingMe</b>) 04:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This issue is complex and requires some background, which I have provided in my comment below. You can't expect people to discuss this BLP issue without understanding what is actually happening here. @Grandmaster didn't even explain what the overarching article is about before writing his lengthy comments about the "Arrival of Ruben Vardanyan" subsection. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm stating the obvious here but providing context is important if not essential, and the article discussion revolved mostly around WP:UNDUE to begin with: I wrote what are the more precise issues firstly per article talk discussion, I (and others on talk) did state that violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:LIBEL are the larger concerns in this case. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * For those unacquainted, here is what is happening:
 * (1) In the South Caucasus region, part of the former USSR, there is a territorial conflict between two countries, Armenia and Azerbaijan, over a territory called "Nagorno-Karabakh" or "Artsakh". Artsakh is an ethnic Armenian enclave inside of Azerbaijan. In circa 1990, as the USSR was breaking apart, the Republic of Artsakh unilaterally declared independence and successfully broke away with Armenian support, taking not only the Nagorno-Karabakh region but also surrounding Azerbaijani districts. The conflict became frozen for the next ~30 years.
 * (2) In 2020, Azerbaijan successfully launched an invasion of Artsakh, taking back perhaps a third of Artsakh-controlled territory in the south, including a large portion of the Nagorno-Karabakh region itself. Following a Russian-brokered peace treaty, Artsakh ceded all of the remaining occupied Azerbaijani districts to Azerbaijan, leaving only the remainder of Nagorno-Karabakh under Artsakh's control. Russian-peacekeepers were deployed to the region.
 * (3) In the next two years, Azerbaijan economically developed the territories that it had recaptured, and it also formulated plans to take back the remainder of Artsakh. Additionally, Azerbaijan had demands from Armenia to allow a passage through the Syunik Province (which Azerbaijan calls "West Zangezur") in order to access the Azerbaijani exclave of Nakhchivan, which is geographically separated from Azerbaijan by Armenia. Azerbaijan launched attacks against Armenia at the internationally recognized border in order to put pressure on the Armenian government during this period.
 * (4) In December 2022, Azerbaijan launched a blockade of Artsakh, specifically by blocking off a single road that is critical to international travel/transport in and out of Artsakh called the "Lachin corridor" (which is patrolled by Russian peacekeepers), by employing the usage of fake "environmental eco-activists". The alleged environmentalists are apparently protesting the "illegal mining of gold" in the Artsakh region. For some reason, several days ago, the user @Grandmaster began writing a large subsection within the background section of the article about the blockade called "Arrival of Ruben Vardanyan" in which he accused this person of being the leading figure and the primary cause of the crisis, alleging that Vardanyan "might be a Russian puppet". Vardanyan currently serves as one of the highest-ranking politicians in Artsakh, having only acquired this job recently.
 * (5) Some editors initially opposed the subsection due to its UNDUE nature. Eventually, I decided to delete the entire section due to it being potentially libelous against Vardanyan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As a disclaimer, I myself am foreign to the region. I'm an Australian. Most of the other editors involved are either of Armenian origin or Azerbaijani origin, from what I can tell. (So, obviously, they will be editing in favour of their own side.) Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German
Several users have tried to add the name of a suspect arrested in October of last year to the article Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German, and all edits have been removed almost immediately and told to discuss it on the talk page since it involves a living person.

Several arguments have been made as to why the suspect name should be included, but it keeps being removed, without counter arguments other than it is about a living person and consensus needs to be met before it can be included, as well as how outside countries handle the privacy of their suspects or people arrested.

When a suspect is arrested in a high profile unsolved murder, can editors include their name if it is also noted that they have pled not guilty, and their trial is ongoing, thus stating a neutral point of view and trying to include all relevant facts regarding the article without implying guilt on the suspects part?

Awshort (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Awshort Quoting from WP:BLPCRIME: "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Quoting further from WP:BLPNAME: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." Combining those two portions of the BLP policy, the name should be left out, unless there is 1) a compelling reason to include it and 2) consensus among editors that it is necessary to include. —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am completely aware of BLPCRIME. The accused's name has been widely disseminated. On the talk page, I also made mention of only three examples where BLPCRIME was not followed - Nikolas Cruz, the Stoneman Douglas shooter, Killing of Walter Scott, & Charleston church shooting all of their names were added the day of the crimes occured. Grahaml35 (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As I was involved on the original discussion on the talk page a couple months ago, I should not comment on it here and am rescinding my comment. Grahaml35 (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like the inclusion of the suspect's name is based on local consensus. 2023 Half Moon Bay shootings lists the suspect's name. 2022 University of Idaho killings and Death of Tyre Nichols list the suspects' names, even in the lead paragraphs. If editors think the suspect's name should be included in the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German‎‎ article, I recommend they start an RfC on that article's talk page. Some1 (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Roger Chamberlain
The information in the article about Roger Chamberlain probably needs to be updated. An editor claiming to be the article subject has challenged material by removing it, and a part of the removal appears to be reasonable if, for example, https://www.mnsenaterepublicans.com/chamberlain-thank-you/ is not a fake website. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * wow what a great and totally balanced encyclopedia article about i'm guessing a politician? Its probably crappy journalism when liking a tweet is newsworthy, and Wikipedia just loves amplifying crap. Am I to believe that there is no reliable coverage of his political career, just gossipy controversies? BLPs must not give disproportionatecoverage to scandals or recent events. WP:PROPORTION and WP:BLPBALANCE must be followed at all times for BLPs meaning Wikipedians need to actually do a goodfaith search for sources spanning the whole career of the subject, not just tack on the first juicy scandals on page 1 of Google. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did a quick search and he's received coverage for plenty of other things. So the article does need to be balanced out with more content to comply with WP:WEIGHT Tristario (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Jenna Haze
There is an ongoing request for comment at Talk:Jenna Haze. Interested editors are welcome to join the discussion there. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Ross Gillespie
This is was brought up by an IP editor at WP:VPM. The date of death in the article currently is the 29th, while the reference we have (posted 31st) says he died on Tuesday, which would be today the 31st. The article was changed (31st -> 29th) by an editor quoting a facebook post. It would at least appear that the correct date is the 29th, but I can't find any reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Just to update the reference used in the article (from stuff) now say that his death was announced on Tuesday, rather than he died on Tuesday. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For clarity which ref says he died on Tuesday? The only reliable source for his death I see is [//www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/131107235/new-zealand-olympic-hockey-gold-medallists-mourn-highly-respected-coach-ross-gillespie] and the current version of that doesn't mention any date of his death. It only mentions comments on Tuesday. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW I've returned the article to the earlier state which didn't give an exact date of death. Nil Einne (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The article previously stated that he had died on Tuesday, it's since been updated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Dean Preston
I have tried to put some balance on this page but I am at a loss. People keep reinserting contentious claims with bad sources or things that the sources simply do not say. Can we get more editors eyes on this? --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Tagging @Daniel Case --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The wholesale reversion immediately after the protection expired also removed huge amount of reliably cited content I added. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I am not sure how this works, but I think an SPI is warranted here. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Andy Ogles
There is ongoing conversations about the Andy_Ogles article/editorializing an opinion of the Member of Congress by describing them as "far right." This is a subjective standard and is not applied unilaterally to other members of Congress, and is at best, editorializing. For example, if you go to Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez she is not described as "far left." If we want Wiki to be objective, you've got to apply an even standard across both sides of the aisle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Only Objective Truth (talk • contribs) 21:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * , do reliable sources call Ogles "far right"? Do reliable sources call AOC "far left"? That's the even standard that should be followed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia biographies should summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. The article currently includes references to four reliable sources that categorize Ogles as far right. A quick Google search shows that several other sources also call him far right. Cullen328 (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You can have a "reliable source" that is right leaning that would call someone a Conservative while a "reliable source" that is left leaning might use another. Why choose one or the other when you can be objective? To say CBS et al doesn't have an inherent bias doesn't make sense. Only Objective Truth (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not every source uses "far-right", but this is Wikipedia, so of course shoehorners gonna shoehorn and cherrypickers gonna cherrypick. Gotta get the reader primed in that first sentence! --Animalparty! (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that every source call him far right. One of those sources calls him hard right, which is synonymous. Cullen328 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * AOC is, notably, not described by a large number of reliable sources as being on the far-left. We've had this discussion enough times as is. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait. There's a far-left? I thought all left was far-left, isn't it? Zaereth (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * At least two of the currently referenced sources are passing mentions; which should be removed or replaced. Of those, one doesn't describe the article subject as far-right. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 23:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nashville radio station WPLN calls him far right too. Cullen328 (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a much better source; in so far as it's primarily about the article subject. Potentially, hairs will be split as to whether "far-right conservative" is congruent to "far-right"; or whether there is a place where "conservative" ends & "far-right" (solo; not as a qualifier of conservative) begins. But substituting this source for the ABC News & NYT sources currently used, would be a good start. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 23:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between finding sources that say "far-right" and even mentioning far-right in the article, and shoehorning "far-right" into the very first sentence of the lead, before any other adjective besides nationality. Conservatives seem more likely to be 'marked' or 'othered' in the first sentence compared to more liberal or progressive counterparts who get neutral introductions (e.g. "Democrat X is an American politician..." vs. "Republican Y is a far-right conservative politician...", as if liberal is normal and conservative the aberrant condition). Note how none of the politicians in "The Squad", some of the most progressive and left-wing members of Congress, get "progressive" or "left-wing" shoehorned into their introductory sentences,  Fuzzy political labels like far-left or far-right are often better contextualized, rather than shoehorned, such as "X is a politician from Ohio.  She is among the most progressive members of their Congressional caucus." Note also Jim Jordan, founding chairman of the conservative Freedom Caucus, is not immediately and bluntly labeled. Similarly, we can say Chuck Schumer, Eric Cantor and Jon Ossoff are Jewish politicians in their articles, but we need not introduce them first and foremost as "is a Jewish politician".  --Animalparty! (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a big world of difference between describing a politician's political ideology in the lead sentence (exceptionally relevant) and describing a politician's Judaism in the lead (irrelevant and objectionable Jew tagging). I have no problem with adding more details to the Ogles biography to provide additional information about his ideology. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like a better alternative would be a follow up sentence that reads something like "his views have been widely characterized as far right or hard right" (if sources do indeed support the latter). Bneu2013 (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this is along the lines of a much better solution. People often have this misconception that every point needs to be made in the first sentence, but that's "flat-Earth" thinking, meaning that it only seems that way to the untrained eye.


 * Journalism 101: start with the most important info first and work your way to the broader explanations later. This is pretty standard for most expository writing, but how do we define "most important"? Since all info can be categorized by the questions they answer, the most important info is by far the what, followed by where, when, who, how, and why, in that order. In journalism, this really arose during the US Civil War, when telegraph lines were slow and unreliable, and constantly being cut or blown up, etc. Encyclopedic writing is not journalism by any means, but it is still important to define the what right off the bat --as quickly as possible-- even though that initial sentence will be rather vague on the details. It's just a point of context for further information. Details are what further sentences are for.


 * Writing 101: Nobody ever remembers the first sentence. It's a vague little starting point on a road to the main point of the paragraph or section, which is located at the end. People always remember the last sentence, because that's what the entire section or paragraph, or article, was leading up to. That's where the main point is located, and readers all understand this instinctively even if they don't realize it consciously. Not to mention, it's the last thing on their mind, which is what sticks, because working memory can only hold so much info at a time.


 * At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, look at the Adolph Hitler article. I'm not comparing anyone to Hitler here, so it's not a Godwinian reference, per se. I'm just saying this is a really good example of what an encyclopedic article should look like. We don't start off by saying what an evil person he was. We save that for the end. The beginning just tells us, plain and simply, what he was, factually. The point is, labels like "far right" have no clear definition; it varies considerably from person to person/region to region. It's subjective, like the term "evil" is, and in the first sentence these things look very out of place, and makes the article look amateurish. Whatever the goal, the first sentence is the worst possible place to put anything of that nature, contrary to popular belief. Zaereth (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree this is a better solution. The current opening sentence isn't ok.  First it fails as we haven't established that he is largely viewed by most sources as "far-right" per the definition provided by the Wikipedia blue link.  To decide this is a common descriptor we need to show that a significant percentage of news sources would call him that, not just that a key word searched set of sources. More importantly the article body needs to show this label is valid via his actions.  Also we need to be careful with how sources define "far-right".  Wikipedia says it's associated with things like racism, nationalism etc.  What if the sources really mean "hard right" as in uncompromising on say more gun control or other areas viewed as political right (killing a popular bill to avoid giving a mm on an issue important to the right). A hard "no new taxes" stance can be hard right without fitting our definition of far right. Regardless, if the sources for the claim don't support the label with reason then we shouldn't include it.  We should show, not tell such things.  Springee (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Why do only hot-button terms like "right-wing" merit shoehorning above and before anything else? Are the political ideologies of Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren not worthy of mentioning in the very first sentence, such that the poor reader knows immediately how they should should frame the subject? (this is rhetorical: their current intros are neither whitewashed nor overstuffed). Note that even extreme-right, capital-F fascists like Mussolini and Francisco Franco manage to be adequately and fairly described without "far-right" being tacked into the first sentence. I agree with Zaereth's good comments above. Anything more I could say about this BLP I've probably already said, in greater detail, at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive341. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , Journalism 101 is fine for entry level journalism students, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a journalistic venture like an endangered medium sized city daily paper largely supported by the advertising dollars of local department stores, plumbers, hairdressers, banks, insurance companies and major local employers. I am all in favor of better writing. I am not in favor of writing for the purpose of making extremists look mainstream. Cullen328 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I know you're responding to AnimalParty, Cullen. I just want to clarify that I agree with your point. It's just my observation that people usually go about doing it all bass-ackwards. Instead of getting the result they want, they ironically end up getting just the opposite of what they intended. In the Aristotelian world, things were just as they seemed. It turns out that Aristotle was wrong about most everything and the world is very different than it appears. Humans have a very funny way of looking at things completely backwards, and putting such major emphasis on this idea of the all-important first sentence is one of them. If you want the information to stick in the reader's mind, then the end is the best place for it. That's where the why goes, which is what the readers all want to know most, but to really understand the why, they first need all of the context so that it will have its full impact. Starting the story with the ending is not only anticlimactic, but it comes off as desperate and amateurish and gives the opposite effect that people usually intend. Zaereth (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:CONTENTIOUS is a relevant guideline here, which recommends for contentious labels the sourcing needs to be very strong, and then you typically want to attribute it in some manner.
 * I personally think a sentence like "Ogles has been widely characterized as far-right due to his views on X, Y, and Z" would both be more natural and more informative. The rest of the lede should follow WP:LEDE too, in that it should summarize the rest of the article in a balanced manner. Tristario (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You are not “making extremists look mainstream”, you are alienating readers by making it appear that Wikipedia has an agenda. We should be doing our best to make such bios as neutral as possible in their lead to avoid this. Thriley (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The only readers that we are alienating are those who have already rejected Wikipedia's core content policies, and have immersed themselves in the disinformation media economy. Folks like this have decided to refuse to accept the notion of well-referenced factual content. Yes, Wikipedia does have an agenda, which is legitimate and stated quite clearly: We strive to accurately summarize the significant coverage that independent, reliable sources devote to various topics. Discussing anything other than that in a discussion like this is a diversion from our core mission. Cullen328 (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Cullen328, what is this "disinformation media economy" you refer to? Even those who have "immersed themselves" in something you find so clearly uh deplorable DO learn from neutral, factual content. Well, they might if (as Thriley suggested) they don't get blind-sided in the very first sentence of an article by a description like 'far-right' or 'far-left' as both imply that Wikipedia has an agenda. As Bneu2013 and Zaereth have suggested, that adjective can be in the second sentence of a BLP.  Secondly, it doesn't matter who you personally consider to be an "extremist", when you say, "I am not in favor of making extremists look mainstream".  Many western European and UK readers of Wikipedia would likely consider Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer to be center right or even right-wing. This is English Wikipedia not American Wikipedia, so we write for them too, i.e. it is part of our core mission that you mentioned.  I am in agreement with what most everyone else has stated, about how to approach this.  P.S. I apologize if this went in the wrong place. I tried using that new "Reply" button, which I won't do again.-- FeralOink (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * These sorts of labels self-evidently make Wikipedia appear like it has an agenda. But some editors seem very convinced that their concept of the political "extreme" is objective and empirical, and, for various reasons, some of which are in good faith, are very attached to the idea of using these labels in Wikivoice. Everyone here might be interested in this, which was an attempt on my part to delve deeper into this issue. aaPhilomathes2357 (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That's where the irony comes in. It's all one-in-the-same goal! If we want people to believe our articles, then we have to start by writing good, professional articles from a totally objective point of view. We cannot possibly say --in the objective-- that so-and-so is evil or that someone-or-another is far-right. That's a judgment call or a conclusion. It requires an "operation of the mind". Now, there are certainly people who are actually extremists, and it would not be neutral to create some false balance by trying to give all viewpoints equal weight if clearly in the real world the sources do not weigh out so equally. Facts are inherently neutral, but we have to apportion all the viewpoints (judgments, conclusions, etc.) accordingly to remain in anyway neutral. But whatever the personal feelings or goals of the editors here, all of them benefit by making the best articles we can rather than trying to cram everything we think is important right in the front. As Einstein said, "Time exists because everything cannot all be read at once". (Or something like that.) Zaereth (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, we as Wikipedia editors are not some type of idealistic "objective journalists" from some mid 20th century Hollywood newsroom drama. That sentimental notion is the exact opposite of our role. We are writing a 21st century encyclopedia which also happens to be the greatest compendium of free educational content in human history. We accurately summarize what published reliable sources say. No more and no less. We can always do better, but at the fundamental level, we have nothing to apologize for. Our consistent approach is precisely what has made Wikipedia great and exceptionally widely read, and we should never waver from our exemplary goal. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're still editorializing and cherry picking sources. Doesn't make sense to immediately frame someone because some random writer fits your exact narrative. Only Objective Truth (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * For the record, I am generally not in favor of using "Example Example (born whatever) is a (nationality) far-right politician..." in the first sentence of the lede; I find it jarring and not inline with our other articles, as it is almost always used in reference to currently serving American politicians. I think a much more tact method is to mention it in its own sentence, usually the following or 3rd one, so it can be expanded upon in a way that isn't cheap (part of the issue also comes from the gray line between right-wing and far-right, whereas there are pretty clear lines on the left end). However, I think Ogles may be one of the exceptions, as he is covered in a plethora of RS as being not just a hard conservative but an actual active proponent of actual far-right politics. Curbon7 (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any links to these far-right policies he's a proponent of (as opposed to run of the mill Conservative policies)? https://andyogles.com/issues/ If you go to his campaign site, none of the points on accountability, immigration, education, or any other issues seem outside the scope of what a normal "conservative" politician thinks/believes. Wouldn't that primary source being the issues he ran on give a better perspective than an opinion piece written by a journalist? Only Objective Truth (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, because we don't engage in analysis of primary sources to reach our own conclusions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, a reliable secondary source is better here. Please see WP:PST. Editors attempting to determine whether he's far-right based upon analysis of his policy positions would be WP:OR. JaggedHamster (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes sense to cherry pick two sources that fit a narrative if you want the article to be objective. I also don't understand why you'd instantly frame someone like that as fact instead of doing a separate section on "Accusations or categorization of far right" later on to imply it's an opinion. Only Objective Truth (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the below summary of sources that are listed that refer to him just as a Conservative are indicative of cherry picking and agenda setting. I propose consensus around not shoehorning a title in, but allowing people to explain with other sources down below in a way that doesn't attempt to steer the lede off the bat. Only Objective Truth (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's much better to show than simply tell using imprecise labels. The mere fact that some sources use the term "far-right" does not mean that Wikipedia should unquestioningly regurgitate it (let alone shoehorn it into the lead). Labels without clarity do a disservice to readers. What exactly makes him "far-right" cf far-right politics? Is he a Fascist? A neo-Nazi? Is he radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and/or authoritarian? If he is any of those things, it's better to be specific rather just boilerplate stamp "far-right". Or is he "far-right" because he is simply further right than some other members of his party, he opposes abortion and gay marriage, supports Trump, and suggested voter fraud took place in the presidential 2020 election? While of course some sources use "far-right" (some of which are reprints of AP reporting, e.g.  ), for the record, here's an incomplete short list of independent sources that do NOT describe Ogles as "far-right" (although the term may be found in some articles):                 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalparty (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I maintain that the first sentence is in this case not an appropriate place to shoehorn "far-right politician", even though some sources use this term, for the same reason we typically don't immediately tag people with verifiable labels like "female politician", "moderate politician", "experienced politician", "controversial politician", "Christian politician", "Asian-American politician", etc. Even though these may be verifiable, important traits, they can be typically be described in subsequent sentences (e.g. Barack Obama was importantly the first African-American president, but his intro sentence does not other him as "an African-American politician"). Treating a subset of politicians substantially differently in their first sentence creates an othering effect (see Othering), implying that politicians come only in 2 classes: default and conservative, or default and female, or default and atheist, or default and non-white. Labels like "Far right" or "far left" are even more problematic to front-load into the introductory sentence, as they are often imprecise, ambiguous, and subjective terms that can differ regionally and over time. And, as I have demonstrated above, the term "far-right" is far from unanimous in describing this person, thus shoehorning it into the first sentence is cherry-picking, giving undue favoritism to a select subset of sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this makes the most sense @Animalparty and am fine with you going ahead and declaring consensus/making the edit. Only Objective Truth (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the argument presented below by sums up how we should proceed on this matter.
 * "Lead sections, which are a summary of the body, do not usually need direct in-line citations, if the information the lead is summarizing is well cited in the body of the article. So, for example, if there is well-referenced text in the body of the article that establishes that Bundy has participated in anti-government activism (and even if the body doesn't use those exact words, if there are events which Bundy has participated in that could reasonably be called such), then it's fine to summarize that in the lead.  The lead is a summary, and summaries don't need to exactly quote every word or sentence that they summaries (else they wouldn't be summaries).  If there is clear, well-cited information in the rest of the article that makes it clear that Bundy has done something, then the lead can summarize that he has done that thing without needing a separate citation in the lead.  This is fairly standard practice.  Of course, if the body of the article does not contain any information about any such activities, then the lead shouldn't mention it.  I don't know which situation applies here, but the basic principle is that the lead section should only summarize what the rest of the article says, no more and no less." - User:Jayron32
 * Since there are no reliable articles to support Andy Ogles being far-right, other than a label that is slapped on by MSM news outlets, there is no substantive reason why it should be included in the lede. It probably shouldn't even be included in the body until there are reliable secondary sources that explains how Andy Ogles and his policies are far-right. If the article needs citation in the lede, it probably shouldn't belong there. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is mainstream. Mainstream means "reliable sources".  I'm sorry that reality is not supportive of your ideology.  Reality is not going to change.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a question of reliability but of weight and tone. Do an unbiased search for the subject. Currently only a minority of reliable sources (all rather recent) appear to use "far-right", and the term is not clearly defined, so why should we dismiss all the reliable sources who don't use it and apply a label that evokes fascism, authoritarianism and neonazism? Too often the existence of any reliable sources  get cherrypicked and shoehorned into the lead (never to be mentioned in body), to massage a narrative. And even uncontentious adjectives like "woman" or "white" or "gay" generally don't belong in the first sentence. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur. You expressed that very well. I could probably dig around in WP:MOS to support your finessed point here. FeralOink (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. Go ahead and make the edit! Only Objective Truth (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The protection should be removed, and the page restored without this lede. There is no consensus on the talk page for Mr. Ogles or here, and there are several Wiki policies that clearly state how a lede should be formed, and that is, without bias, without undo weight, and supported by the body. If the body of the article can't support a strong statement in the lede it doesn't belong. This issue has been discussed ad naseum on multiple right-wing politicians page, and the fact we have an extended lock on a freshman House members page just shows how desperate people are to falsely label and misrepresent this guy. Even Matt Gaetz doesn't have this false characterization in his lede, despite leading the caucus that kicked off this entire edit war. One has argued that even the characterization of him as far-right is cherry-picked, as most news outlets simply label politicians instead of explaining the nuance of their policies and how those are reflective of the socially stimatized labels. This goes for both the left and the right. Kcmastrpc (talk) Kcmastrpc (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not going to happen. Perfectly good sources identify him this way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So whats the next step here? Continue discussing this indefinitely? Will there ever be consensus? Kcmastrpc (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I have proposed that the matter be closed on the Closure_requests closure request board. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should neutrally reflect what is published in reliable sources. The current wording is supported by reliable sources. Everything else is unimportant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The current wording is not consistently supported. It's been explained above through many other sources that it isn't reflective or an accurate description. 2 of the four cited were opinion pieces and the others provided no actual substance. The current wording should not stand. It is shoehorning someone's opinion into a lede. Only Objective Truth (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've read the article, and the sources, and the talk page, and the discussion here, sorry I still beleive this is reliably sourced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to note closure requests are meant to be neutral, not a way to suggest that it should be closed in your favour. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've updated the closure board. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Paul Bernardo
This article, which I came across through reviewing pending changes, is about a serial killer. In the state I found it large sections of lurid detail about some of the murders Bernardo committed were entirely unsourced, as was a long list of rape victims. I've hacked out big chunks of the most serious BLP violations, but the article is still woefully undersourced and needs a lot of work. I suspect that much of what I removed could be sourced, but I really don't have the stomach for researching serious violent crime, frankly, so I am bringing it here in the hope that somebody is willing to take it on. Wham2001 (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

For the interested
TikTok User Claims He Uploads the Worst Photos Ever Taken of Celebrities to Their Wikipedias

Could potentially be counter to the spirit of BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, this guy isn't actually uploading them to Wikipedia and may or may not even be an editor. Rather, he's the owner of this flickr profile where he takes pictures of himself with celebrities. Most of the images featured in his TikTok video are from this flickr page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This TikToker appears to be full of baloney. None of the photos shown in the clip mentioned appear to be uploaded by the same user at Commons. Perhaps he has tried to enter existing photos in infoboxes. Or he may be ironically or "meta" commenting on the existence of terrible photos of celebrities, which do exist on Commons, and too often find themselves in Infoboxes under the misguided idea that any available picture of someone, no matter how blurry or unrepresentative, is better than no picture at all (as if Googling someone was impossible and Wikipedia is the only resource on Earth!). That is a BLP issue that has been discussed before. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Zealkeyz
Zealkeyz (Eustace Chinaza Ekeh) Born Dec 22 1995,is a Nigerian talented Afro Beat/Hip hop Singer,Stage performer and Music Composer,from Imo State Nigeria,he has many hits to his credit, The multi talented Iceboy Zealkeyz is also the C.E.O of Dash-Out Music Entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zealkeyz iceboy (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is for dealing with possible violations of WP:BLP not for proposing BLP articles. Please refer to WP:NMUSIC for information on that. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Nithyananda
Can we receive some guidance regarding edits to the Nithyananda page

I am referring to the following edits by @Kashmiri :


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nithyananda&oldid=1137092052
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nithyananda&oldid=1137092133
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nithyananda&oldid=1137092554  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofoolie (talk • contribs) 00:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I think they look good. It's a good idea to start out with what makes the person notable before covering allegations of crime. Per WP:BLPCRIME we should be careful not to treat people in a manner as if they are guilty if we don't have a conviction, and I think that indicates we shouldn't introduce people as if allegations of crime are one of the primary things they are notable for (especially if that isn't the case) if there isn't a conviction. I also think their edits mean the biography follows MOS:FIRSTBIO better Tristario (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Sarah Leah Whitson
Sarah Leah Whitson is a former Human Rights Watch director for the Middle East/North Africa region as well as the present Executive Director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), a human rights organisation that will be familiar to Signpost readers from the recent reports on the two Wikipedians serving long jail sentences in Saudi Arabia (see Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/Special_report) – an issue that DAWN were the first to draw our attention to.

I would be grateful if editors could have a look at her biography. It seems overlong, repetitive and lopsided (there is a 2,500-word section just on Whitson's views about Israel and criticism of her views on Israel). Thanks, --Andreas JN 466 18:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's way too much use of primary source material to describe her criticism of countries rather than secondary sources reporting on them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

D. Whitfield
Was considering proposing an article, D. Whitfield for speedy deletion as I can find zero evidence this person ever existed (I tried Google, Google Books, and Newspapers.com, even social media platforms). I believe this article is one of two things – either it's completely made up (one of the sources links to an old Instagram profile with someone calling themselves "Danger Whitfield" – OR it is a historical figure who is so obscure that he simply does not merit a page. Can any other users find anything on this subject online? Thanks Jkaharper (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The case that this article is a hoax is compelling, probably another one to add to the WP:HOAXLIST. Creator is a SPA who only created and edited this article back on 5 June 2015 and nothing else. I'd support a speedy hoax deletion nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks hoaxy to me based on incorrect reference details. Can go into more specifics if needed. I love that this is at BLPN. Technically allowable! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Now at AfD, see Articles for deletion/D. Whitfield. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I posted my newspapers.com sleuthing over there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Malcolm London
I'm on a phone and don't have time to deal with it right now but that article *desperately* needs dispassionate eyes from experienced editors. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you give us a hint at what material your concern is about?--Malerooster (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I looked at the history and this seems to have been addressed now? --Malerooster (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Laurent de Gourcuff
This is not a report of a violation (although there may be past revisions eligible for revision deletion), but a request for advice, particularly from editors with both BLP experience/expertise and able to read French well.

Laurent de Gourcuff was created on April 12, 2022 by (who has not edited since May 2022). It was draftified on July 21, 2022 by and has since been twice rejected at AfC, by  on August 22 and by  on November 1, whose edit summary at the time included the following rationale: BLP contains unsourced, possibly defamatory claims (AGF and wait for sources), and in the rejection template itself they wrote: This is practically an attack page.. I have since extensively rewritten it, starting on January 17 using primarily the best sources among those that were already cited, and twice more after further searches for sources. (I've also asked to cast an eye over my work—I consider my French good, but theirs is excellent—and they've pointed out / fixed a couple of things, but I take complete responsibility for the draft as it is now.) I consider the subject to easily pass GNG: there are multiple articles about him over the years, including the likes of Le Monde and Le Figaro. At this point I would normally re-mainspace the article.

However, I was alerted to its existence by an item in the January 16 Signpost, "Paris court orders Wikimedia Foundation to hand over user's data" (written by and ), which was flagged the same day at the Wikipediocracy forum. Wikipediocracy has further treated the situation in its latest blog post, dated January 26: "Pardon My French (Court Case)". The WMF has lost a court case in France over the French version of the article, and has been ordered to submit personally identifying information about Sulpyensid, who used the same name to create that article on October 12, 2021. The English article was essentially a rough translation of that French article. The Wikipediocracy forum thread includes scathing remarks by "Midsize Jake" about it; my initial edit was because I considered it a BLP emergency, even in draft. On French Wikipedia, a previous article was deleted on notability grounds on July 28, 2011; on French Wikipedia, Sulpyensid is indefinitely blocked as a suspected sockpuppet; on French Wikipedia, the article has been little changed (SashiRolls drew my attention to a brave cutting-back that was reverted in early January), is festooned with tags, and there is a warning on the talk page advising extreme caution in view of the court case. So my question is, what should be done about our draft here on English Wikipedia, in view of the court case? In my opinion, the subject merits an article. Should the rewritten version be returned to mainspace? Yngvadottir (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a redlink, so it would seem someone already took the initiative of dealing with it. Speaking of Mr. Midsize, he also mentions another borderline attack page at Cyrille Eldin from the same author, which I have draftified (although it should probably be deleted as well). jp×g 10:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be worth looking through that user's list of created articles, if indeed they were banned from the French Wikipedia for creating attack pages. jp×g 10:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for draftifying the Eldin article; I had it on my list to look for sources to improve it. But our article on de Gourcuff is very much still around, in draft. My question is whether it should be re-mainspaced following my rewrite (and possible further changes). (And as I say at the outset, early versions may merit revision-deletion, as an attack page.) Yngvadottir (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not until its independent reviewed.   scope_creep Talk  11:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, these are (very bad) translations of articles on the French Wikipedia (Cyrille_Eldin and Laurent_de_Gourcuff) although the latter is flagged as problematic. Not necessarily attack pages. That said, an editor with the same username has been blocked on French Wikipedia since last March. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The user unmistakably relies on machine translations, and fails to edit them to an acceptable standard. Further, according to frWiki, it appears that User:Sulpyensid, User:Qatarina, User:MRCLD are the same as frWiki's "Albion~frwiki", who is the same as enWiki's User:AlexLevyOne (banned for... socking, 14 years ago). There's a long-term pattern, and I believe this needs to go to both CUs and ANI (though I have little experience with either). There are potentially dozens of socks that have been blocked on frWiki, that we haven't blocked, whose contributions we need to check. Just found another article: René Schérer (now cleaned up, needs revdel). DFlhb (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC) ; merged two of my replies 16:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Some révision-deletion is likely also warranted on Élisabeth Lévy. The entry on Raymond de Geouffre de la Pradelle (who died in 2002) is also if not an attack page at least written as uncharitably as possible.  The loaded prose I removed from Allary Éditions, Cyrille Eldrin, and Géraud de Geouffre de La Pradelle may not need rev-delling imo. It's worth being aware that Suplyensid / Albion's most recent socks have been blocked on fr.wp, but not here (as of yesterday).  See Round and Rounder's comments on the Signpost story. The problem of course is not only the page creations... --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 11:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @SashiRolls@JPxG I had hoped that The Signpost would follow up on this, given that there seems to be some new information. Maybe no one wants to touch this because of the lawsuit? Round and rounder (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just so nobody wastes time re-compiling the diffs, etc., I've filed an SPI as suggested doing above (§). --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 00:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I have begun clean-up of Pierre Lellouche but cannot continue as it would likely lead to petty harassment. If anyone has some time, the work is started. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 14:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The draft looks perfectly ready for mainspace to me, . I am very confused and have no idea what 's comment left there is supposed to mean, as there are multiple full length articles about the subject that are not interviews. Just because quotes from a person are included doesn't automatically make the source an interview.  Silver  seren C 02:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Silver seren. As I stated, I consider he easily passes GNG. I brought the issue here because he's successfully sued the WMF over the French article and so there's an extra requirement for delicacy / careful consideration before we again have an article on him in mainspace here on en. A rough consensus of editors here regarding the article from that perspective would seem advisable, although I have done my best to represent the sources in a balanced and fair way. (Perhaps I should note that while I've included as many English-language sources as possible, per good practice and for readers' benefit, those taken in isolation don't well represent either the depth or the breadth of the coverage on him. Also, I considered whether the article topic should be his company, instead, but most of the coverage is about him.) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the subject is clearly notable and that the entry as currently written is fine.  I also agree that it would do no harm to hide the previous attack page version of the entry. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 08:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Rafał Gaweł
There seem to be semi-regular, once in 1-6 months or so, attempts to emphasize negative information about the anti-racism organiser Rafał Gaweł, focusing on the Polish authorities' claim, which is denied by the human rights organisation that was supposedly frauded by Gaweł, rather than presenting the interpretation of persecution (accepted by Norwegian authorities and Gaweł's lawyer) as well supported by the sources as another POV. of this type. Maybe indefinite semi-protection against IP users is needed? Some edits tend to be reverted quickly, others within a day. Are these fast enough to satisfy WP:BLP? The rule of law in Poland does currently have some flaws, so the Polish authorities' POV is far from being the only validly sourced POV. Boud (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Chris Akomas
One Reading Beans is publish a defamatory and libelous material against a government official for the intent of Blackmail. So the defamatory paragraph needs to removed of page removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martzix (talk • contribs) 16:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks properly supported to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It does appear to be supported, although I included an "allegedly" per WP:BLPCRIME since I don't think anyone has been convicted of anything yet. Could you explain what's wrong with it?
 * However I don't think the article is following WP:BLPBALANCE in that it's giving a disproportionate amount of weight to this single scandal (simply because there's hardly anything else in the biography) Tristario (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Martzix please do not accuse other editors of crimes like blackmail without evidence, and if it is the case, it might be better taking up with Wikipedia (the Wikimedia Foundation) itself. At least least assume good faith. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Tate
An established editor (i.e. one who should obviously know better) has made vulgar and seemingly baseless insinuations about the subject’s mother: Talk:Andrew Tate. Is sanctioning and/or redevving necessary here? Dronebogus (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Redacted, revdel'd, and warned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a user who’s been here since 2010 randomly making vulgar insults about a living person’s mother almost deserves a temporary block. Almost makes you wonder if their account was compromised. Dronebogus (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to block without warning for what appears to be a one-off comment a week ago. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Janak Raj page edit war
There are some edit war (or may be vandalism) by on the page Janak Raj with the diffs here, here and here - and I have restored the edit wars to the editor 's edit. I request to look what is going wrong there. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Anastasia Soare
Anastasia Soare

Moderators remove Sebastian Stan as her godson despite her mentioning him several times as such.

'''Where she refers to him as her godson: ''' https://www.instagram.com/p/CoOsMclIAjk/

https://twitter.com/HiddleStaners/status/896602639366049793

'''Her history with his family in her own words: ''' https://www.tiktok.com/@sebastianstann13/video/7128171130971491626

This article also cites their relationship: It was removed despite other facts about Anastasia having used magazines such as Allure and Elle as sources:

https://www.lofficielusa.com/film-tv/things-you-didnt-know-about-sebastian-stan-bucky-barnes-actor-pam-and-tommy

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.204.37 (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Henry Travillion Wingate
Allegations have been placed on the Wingate article that stems from a single book. The author of the book is a person who was sentenced to a prison term by the subject of the article and appears to have an axe to grind. Again, none of the alleged information can be found in any other source except the self-published book. The allegations are potentially libelous in nature including claims of plagiarism, sexual harrassment and dishonorable discharge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahudson (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kahudson. I agree with your removal of the content from Henry Travillion Wingate. The book's "publisher", Cadmus Publishing, seems to be a vanity press, and as such the inclusion of the content is a clear violation of WP:BLPSPS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the disruption started late last year, I have semi-protected the article for three months. Cullen328 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you to both of you, I wasn't sure how to accomplish that. Kahudson (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Mridul Wadhwa
Can I have a second opinion on Mridul Wadhwa's page?

A large part of the 'work' section of the article is dedicated to synthesising and reporting the ensuing controversy around statements she made on a podcast. Other editors have sought to flag issues with how those statements have been synthesised and the weight they have given, and I have identified other concerns. They include that the article's synthesis of Wadwha's statements does not match what she is reported to have said; the sources reporting what she said do not appear to be reliable as they report things she did not say in the recording of the podcast, which is available via the article; and that the sources appear to base their reporting on a press release from an organisation that (according to the OpenDemocracy article used as a reference) have a history of attacking the subject on the basis of her identity.

I sought to remove this section as a violation of the BLP, but it has been reinstated 'because the article does not make sense without it'. When I removed it, I believed this material should be removed because it was contentious, parts of it were unsourced, other parts poorly sourced, and that its inclusion was sensationalist and insensitive to our obligations to subjects of BLPs. 90.242.228.84 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article no longer makes sense because it refers to the reaction to the statements by Mridul Wadhwa without any mention of the statements. This has the effect of making the article extremely biased, because it looks as if MW has suffered harassment without any cause. There is no report of Ms Wadhwa suing for defamation, which would have been appropriate of the statements had been falsely attributed to her.
 * The material which has been removed includes:Wadhwa later released a statement saying that "All support is survivor centred, as it should be", and that conversations about societal prejudices would take place if and when victims were ready,[7] but that "If what we see/hear from someone is clearly prejudiced and we are not responding to their urgent support need it is also part of our role to provide a space to explore and challenge this, in as kind a way as possible."
 * So Ms Wadhwa does not deny the substance of what it is reported that she said.
 * Also removed was this In December 2022, J.K. Rowling said that Wadhwa's claim that survivors should "reframe" their trauma led to her setting up Beira's Place, a "women-only" centre for sex abuse survivors which excludes trans women. This is relevant information, because it shows the significant effect of Ms Wadhwa’s statements.
 * The removals have the effect of denying information to readers, and whitewashing the subject of the article.
 * I do not know why the IP has immediately come to this noticeboard, rather than engaging in discussion on the Talk page.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think your response, read alongside the discussion on the talk page, helps explain why I flagged Wadhwa's page here. I am concerned that you think heavily synthesised material, based on reportage that distorts what the subject said is fit for a BLP because it provides "cause" for the subject's harassment, harassment which predates those statements by more than a year. The subject not pursuing expensive litigation does not make the issues with the sources and the weighting of the synthesised material lesser, neither does her attempt to explain what she said after it was distorted. 90.242.228.84 (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not what I said. Sweet6970 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * With respect, the article was previously misleading, because the abuse directed against Wadhwa pre-dated her appearance on (in?) that podcast by two years. With regards to why Wadhwa is being harassed, reading between the lines of both the October 2022 OpenDemocracy article, and a February 2021 article in gal-dem, the root cause seems to be good old fashioned transphobia, because Wadhwa is trans woman who has been director of two rape crisis centres in Scotland. To put simply, Wadhwa is being attacked because of who she is, not what she's done. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Could an uninvolved editor please revert ? This particular section, and variants of it have been objected to on good faith BLP grounds at least six times since it was initially added in December 2022 . I've asked Sweet6970, who was the editor who most recently restored it to self-revert on WP:BLPRESTORE grounds three times and they have refused once  citing an implicit consensus, and otherwise not responded to these requests. Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The material is well-sourced and the objections to it seem to be made on an OR basis. I am hoping that someone will suggest a version which is in accordance with the sources and meets any objections that the sources are incorrect. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Content has now been reverted, and discussion on what sourcing there is to support a potential version of it is underway on the article talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Seymour Hersh
People are adding editorializing content and potentially vandalizing Seymour Hersh's wikipedia page due to his release of a report on the Nord Stream 2 bombing. Without reference to the article itself, repeat edits are being made from IPs to add conspiracy theorist to his bio, even though any claims to that are detailed in the controversy section. Potentially more vandalism/editorializing might come as the story picks up traction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaybeNotPhillipCross (talk • contribs) 17:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone block the obvious sock. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Troll now blocked. feel free to remove this thread altogether if you want.--  Ponyo bons mots 20:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Kim Bartmann
I'm a little concerned about this BLP. Subject has been nom'd for a prestigious award, and there's been backlash over her dealings with employees. We don't normally create an article for folks nominated for a James Beard, only a win would support a claim to notability. Can someone take a look? Valereee (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I've removed content that was sourced to articles criticizing the company but which don't actually even mention her. I think that leaves us with a non-notable restaurateur, actually. Valereee (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * She seems to be notable under WP:BASIC with multiple articles in RS about her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Lord help anyone who gets in the newspapers. If there's controversy, Wikipedia will ensure it's never forgotten. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * None of those sources would support a claim to notability for this restaurateur, they're all local coverage. There are literally thousands of restaurateurs in the US alone who get that level of routine coverage in their local media. Valereee (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no limitation or exclusion in WP:BIO for WP:ROUTINE or local coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't exclude it. We calibrate it. If the only sources are local, it doesn't necessarily support a claim to notability. Valereee (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Simon Ekpa
I just blocked a bunch of socks here--clearly there is a concerted effort to whitewash this article. At the same time, it is not in very good shape, and I would appreciate it if some of you could spend a few minutes to clean it up, improve formatting, tone, and references, and make it comply more with our BLP. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Persistent removal of individual's name from Talk:American Academy of Dramatic Arts
One or more editors, using multiple accounts (registered and unregistered), edit Talk:American Academy of Dramatic Arts to remove the name of an individual who was previously mentioned in the article. They claim that this is to prevent or reduce harassment. I don't see any harassment in the discussion about whether this person belongs in the article and this redaction of their name appears to be an overreaction to me as the end result of the discussion was to remove the person from the article. But I'm posting this here so that other editors can evaluate the situation. If someone has been or is getting harassed to the point where their name needs to be redacted from an article's Talk page, we must consider suppressing that information from the history of the Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ,, , , : You have been involved in these incidents so you may be interested in this discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the details especially having skimmed through the discussion someone is trying to modify, I found it unlikely that anyone would be harassing someone over that discussion. Having found this [//www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/14/what-seems-like-a-courts-judgement-entry-ordering-removal-of-my-post-item-about-a-previous-forged-court-order/], I find it even more unlikely. IMO, if the harassment is real, they should provide the private evidence to arbcom to show this. If arbcom finds there is evidence of harassment then definitely we would see what we can do to help probably redacting the names, maybe even rev-deleting it. In the absence of that, under these circumstances I think we can assume there is no harassment.  Even so, we sometimes courtesy blank certain discussions when they name living persons in a way that can cause embarrassment etc. We could do so here. However as much as I care about BLP, I do think we have to be careful about not being too ready to courtesy blank as transparency on previous discussions can be important and I don't think it good for Wikipedia if everytime someone is embarrassed by something that happened they can get it blanked. As an article talk page, most search engines will obey the no index request and won't index it so it's unlikely the page will be found from most external searches.  In this particular case I find the on wiki history troubling too, as it seems to me there could be attempts to add the named individual somewhere else and blanking may make it more difficult track this behaviour.  Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would add that it seems to me quite likely all this is actually coming from one individual no matter if multiple IPs etc are involved. This arguably means they're all unwelcome to edit per WP:NLT. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also I found Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive933 from 2016 (compared to the recent stuff which was from 2020) which makes me even more convinced we should not courtesy blank here. There is a strong risk this stuff may reoccur sometime in the future so we should not make it more difficult to track these problems. One option to deal with the removals may be to archive to an actual archive page and semi or even ECP that archive page. Nil Einne (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's an SPI that covers some of the sock activity at Sockpuppet investigations/Garnerted/Archive. MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I just got this Cease and Desist' at my talk page, claiming that we're harassing Robert Downey Jr. MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The COI accusation is oddly specific. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have no idea what they're talking about. If there has been genuine harassment, they are encouraged to contact the Arbitration Committee, report on the administrators noticeboard, or get in touch with Wikimedia's Trust and Safety team. ElKevbo (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Did anyone send the IP address these instructions? Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well that IP alleges on-wiki harassment which may mean arbcom isn't needed just actual evidence i.e. WP:DIFFS. I think we can be sure there is no such evidence and the IP is just taking refusals to allow them to remove the talk page discussions as 'harassment'. I guess it is slightly complicated by the fact they're de-facto banned from editing as long as they keep making these legal threats. But if they're going to keep evading that anyway they could actually post the evidence rather than make just more legal threats, I mean they're going to need that evidence for arbcom anyway. If there is off-wiki harassment or other private evidence then yeah that would need to go arbcom although I find it incredibly unlikely there is that either. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Qamar Javed Bajwa
A lot of newbies are adding defamatory content sourced with primary sources/news reports to this very contentious biography - I get it, the country is going through severe economic crisis, but blaming him without any secondary source (analysis) to back it up is clearly violation of WP:BLP policy. 109.171.194.161 (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * News reports can be secondary sources. Would you mind discussing each of the sources you removed from the article? —DIYeditor (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe one for the article talkpage? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

California Birth Index and BLPPRIMARY
This isn't about any particular article, but a perennial reminder about misuse and abuse of public records that violate WP:BLPPRIMARY. Currently over 700 pages on English Wikipedia (including articles, talk pages, drafts, and archives) link out to californiabirthindex.org, which is a public records dump from the California Birth Index of virtually every birth in California from 1905 to 1995. At first glance the majority of these links appear to be living people. I've removed some on sight (including links for children of article subjects), but I'm just one person. Some instances may be appropriate, and wholesale automatic reversions may not be warranted, although even if paired with a reliably published source for birthdate, the record may contain additional sensitive material like names of parents (which may or may not match with someone's publicly acknowledged parents). Could we perhaps flag this and other similar public records sites so that users are firmly warned to think twice before adding it, and/or have bot monitor usage to facilitate periodic sweeps? A blacklist may not be called for, but perhaps a warning to tell editors — especially newcomers seeking to add their favorite celebrity — that they may well be violating BLP? Perhaps something similar to the pop up menu when linking to disambiguation pages. It takes vigilance to enforce this. Thanks. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe add it to something like CiteHighlighter? That at least lets other editors easily scan the list. Valereee (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I don't know how to do that. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably a discussion at maybe RSN that concludes there's consensus not to use it as a source or to use it cautiously. Valereee (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It might help with this particular source. Unfortunately I'm not sure how we can deal with the wider problem namely the large number of editors who either aren't aware of or don't understand BLPDOB; and are convinced DOBs are super important often compounded with the equally problematic belief and that birth records etc are the best due to people lying about their ages, or at least that they are sufficient. Not to mention the large number of irregular or one off editors who don't care about sourcing point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that is the real underlying issue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And it will become a problem that only worsens over time (especially should the CABI website go offline), as Wikipedia becomes the de facto sole semi-credible non-primary online source, fan databases regurgitate it, careless journalists unquestioningly perpetuate WP:CITOGENESIS, etc. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Someone can use it as as source then some journalist picks it up and then editors swap it to that one. I do not think it was a California Birth Index entry but if I recall correctly some editors were editors were trying to use an article from The New York Times to try and put in a birthdate even though that article had errors elsewhere that were later corrected but the birthdate or it might have been just the age were still included. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Suspected vandalism on the biography of Yuzuru Hanyu
The user is repeatedly removing content from the biography of figure skater Yuzuru Hanyu that concerns his achievement of the so-called "Super Slam", which is an established term used by multiple reliable secondary sources, including the Olympics and NBC Olympics. Yesterday, the same account has added false and unsourced information about Hanyu's personal life. The account was created yesterday and has made edits only to Hanyu's article. I have reverted the edits and left warnings on the user's talk page, but I don't want my own account to get blocked, so I'd like to forward the case here. Henni147 (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Joe West (umpire)
I've blocked, who purports to be the subject of the article, for making legal threats regarding content in Joe West (umpire). It looks like there has been a flurry of edits leading to protection of the article, so in the spirit of Don't overlook legal threats, a review of Crewchief22's concerns would be prudent.-- Ponyo bons mots 20:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the edits he disputed are not supported by the given citations so I have removed them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Joe West recently appeared on a podcast and gave an interview, in which he admits that he was the one behind the edits. The podcast is available here. I found this link thanks to this reddit thread. Phuzion (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hao Li
This page is consistently being edited to paint Mr. Li in a negative and potentially defamatory light.

While there is no way to know exactly who is behind these malicious edits, Mr. Li has been embroiled in a contentious lawsuit with a former employee for more than 2 years. It is likely that Mr. Li's disgruntled former employee is seeking to discredit and defame Mr. Li due to the nature of the lawsuit against him.

This same employee was behind several malicious edits to Mr. Li's page a while back. I think the page was locked or restricted for a while then.

Any action that could be taken to prevent this disgruntled employee from further vandalism would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.155.6.209 (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , did you make this request? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

FYI to other editors about the lawsuit from RS. Retraction Watch, a blog, recently published an update about the allegations.. The question is whether Li is a public figure for the purposes of WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I don't think he is, but he may become one in the future. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * After giving this some more thought, the allegation of the lawsuit that Pinscreen faked their deepfake technology (ironic) is pertinent to his business enough that it may satisfy WP:NPF. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Andreas Struengmann
Andreas Struengmann never studied at the university of Buffolo. He studied medicine in Munich, Freiburg and again in Munic, where he finally qualified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.184.33.249 (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Removed, as it was unsourced. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Lemrick Nelson
Hi all, I noticed that Lemrick Nelson is currently included in Category:American murderers. For context on this individual, he's a living person who fatally stabbed another person during the Crown Heights riot in 1991; this incident appears to be the basis of his notability. Nelson has admitted to the stabbing, but was acquitted of murder on trial. My initial instinct is that, because of the acquittal, we shouldn't be including him in a category that labels him as a "murderer"; however, because he's admitted to committing the stabbing, the situation feels a bit more nuanced. What do people think is the best approach here? ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is a complicated one. The context is: he initially denied committing the stabbing, and was found not guilty of murder. He was later retried for violating the victim's civil rights and causing his death, and was convicted of the civil rights violation, but not of causing the death (apparently some dispute about whether the death was due to the stabbing or a hospital error).
 * Bottom line, he had admitted he stabbed a man who died after being stabbed, and was convicted of a civil rights violation, but not of murder, or of being responsible for the death itself. We should be conservative about categories like "American murderers," and someone who hasn't been found guilty of either murder or causing the death of the person he stabbed shouldn't be there.  I went ahead and removed him. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should remove it. Murder is a legal term and he was acquitted of it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Henry Wace
Henry Wace, Principal of King's College London (1883–1897), former Dean of Canterbury

Listed in the Old Rugbeian ALUMNI list (under Rugby School) but went to Marlborough School according to his Wiki article ?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mruthsanderson (talk • contribs) 10:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Please ignore my comment on Henry Wace as I see that he went to Marlborough School and later to Rugby School so there is no problen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mruthsanderson (talk • contribs) 10:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Vivian Kubrick
Are any or all of these sources (1-6 below) appropriately RS to support the concept that the subject Vivian Kubrick (a) was involved in Scientology, or (b) was estranged from her family, or that (c) one led to the other (aka disconnection)?

Despite these sources publishing about (a), (b) & (c), there is a single editor who has repeatedly reverted edits by multiple other editors in both Vivian Kubrick and List of Scientologists, claiming that (a), (b) & (c) above are all gossip, and using edit summaries variously referring to BLP, BLPGOSSIP, BLPRS, BLPREMOVE, and lastly ONUS. Discussions on both talk pages have not resolved. The last straw for me was this relatively innocuous edit (diff) which was twice reverted/removed. I would like to lay this issue to rest and so seek some community consensus.


 * 1) Article: After Stanley Kubrick, August 18, 2010 on The Guardian
 * 2) Article: Stanley Kubrick's Lost Daughter, August 26, 2010 on The Daily Beast
 * 3) Article: Scientology Looms as Kubrick Daughter Scraps Shelley Duvall Crowdfunding Campaign, November 23, 2016 on The Hollywood Reporter
 * 4) Book: Stanley Kubrick: American Filmmaker (page 192), 2020 by David Mikics ISBN 9780300224405
 * 5) Book:
 * 6) Book:

I have personally checked four Church of Scientology print magazines which list Vivian Kubrick as having completed four Scientology auditing (counseling) programs and attained an honorable status within the International Association of Scientologists — which indicates a significant expenditure of personal time, effort, money, and commitment within Scientology. I am not seeking to use such magazines as sources/citations, however they do corroborate (a) above.

Grorp (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * While this seems to be a secondary issue, Grorp has not produced diffs related to the background of the disputed content, and does not seem to be representing events clearly or accurately, based on the edit history of the articles and the related Talk discussions. However, the focus of this board is content, and editors can review the edit histories and relevant Talk pages as necessary to better understand the current disputes. Beccaynr (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That attack is below the belt, ! I worded it as neutrally as I could because I wanted the opinions of previously-uninvolved editors based on the content and RS issue on their face, NOT get involved in earlier arguments. You arguing old points here is just muddying the waters and sabotaging my request for fresh opinions. Grorp (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Grorp, we have discussed your conduct towards me on your Talk page, e.g. and the Vivian Kubrick Talk page, and I am concerned about statements such as "Despite these sources publishing about (a), (b) & (c), there is a single editor who has repeatedly reverted edits by multiple other editors", which does not appear to clearly or accurately reflect what happened, or the current state of the articles. I continue to ask you to focus on the content. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since 20 January 2023, the Vivian Kubrick article has included content about when she joined the Church of Scientology, e.g. when I moved the information to a Personal life section. The sources were found during a discussion at the List of Scientologists article Talk page between 19 January 2023 and 21 January 2023, which concluded with this comment  by . The List of Scientologists article currently includes Vivian Kubrick with four references, including the 2010 Guardian interview. So to clarify, based on the content currently in the articles and the most recent attempt to use the 2010 Guardian source in the Vivian Kubrick article  (and the article Talk discussion that followed), is the question for this noticeboard primarily whether this source can be used in the Vivian Kubrick article to support the disputed content? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the Vivian Kubrick article and the use of WP:DAILYBEAST was previously discussed at BLPN . Beccaynr (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like a broader consensus from uninvolved editors, moreso than a two- or three-person narrowly presented issue and one recent fly-by commenter, and wanted to lay this to rest with no chance of it coming back up. Despite seeming to accept The Guardian source, you still deleted 's addition... twice! Eight months ago when the Daily Beast was brought up, the article didn't cite The Guardian article at all; an article which is substantially similar to Daily Beast's despite the two agencies interviewing two separate people for the two articles. That discussion started out "the entire "Social media activity" section is sourced to The Daily Beast" which is a far different situation that the recent issues which were involved with a single citation for a single data point. So that is not particularly relevant for my question posed above. Apples and oranges. WP:DAILYBEAST is considered 'no consensus'; not 'generally unreliable' and not 'deprecated'. Grorp (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I continue to object to the use of the 2010 Guardian interview with an estranged relative for contentious statements about Vivian Kubrick in both articles. I disengaged from the List of Scientologists article after noting my objection during the discussion on the article Talk page - in the list article, it now appears to be an excess reference related to membership, for which better sources have been found. The discussion here could help clarify whether it is an appropriate source to include in both articles, and I am trying to better understand the content questions for this noticeboard. There is a reference to the Daily Beast above, so the previous BLPN discussion about the use of the source for 'association with fringe groups' may be helpful to consider. Beccaynr (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion on whether inclusion is warranted overall for content about Kubrick's estrangement from her family. If we are going to mention it, and if the only cited source is to be that interview in The Guardian, then the mention had better start with something like "According to Christiane Kubrick ..." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The first 5 sources all cover the material. The 6th I have no access to. Grorp (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Which ones do not explicitly rely on Christiane's report? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Number 2 includes an interview from three people, each of whom cover points (a) & (b): Katharina Kubrick (Vivian's step-sister), Stephanie Bennett and Paul Joyce. Number 3 has some extra info from Mark Ebner. Grorp (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool. Stuff mentioned by them should also be attributed, if included. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The WP:DAILYBEAST recycles the 2010 Guardian interview with Christiane Kubrick for gossip about when and how Vivian "cut ties" with Stanley "just before he died", and is centered on gossip from her stepsister. Speculation from Paul Joyce and Stephanie Bennett also seems to be what WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLPREMOVE warn against, especially from WP:DAILYBEAST. As to WP:THR, this source is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics, including its articles and reviews on film, TV and music, as well as its box office figures - but it is presented here for "Vivian Kubrick disconnected from her director father and the rest of her family decades ago, according to relatives" and relies on "According to Hollywood Interrupted‘s Mark Ebner" for observations and speculation based on a GoFundMe page. These sources have been previously discussed at the List of Scientologists article Talk page.
 * Also, WP:NOTSCANDAL seems to be relevant in the context of this article - reproducing contentious statements by estranged relatives, or speculation by former acquaintances interviewed by WP:DAILYBEAST, or speculation by an Andrew Breitbart co-author from Hollywood, Interrupted, does not seem encyclopedic or well-sourced. Beccaynr (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers The biography by Mikics (#4) and the academic journal article by McEntee (#6) do not appear to rely on these second-hound accounts, or at least not explicitly so. These are also academic sources of the highest quality (Yale University Press and Routledge Press). — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , to help clarify, which claims do these sources support? My understanding is that they are used in both articles to support the date that Vivian Kubrick became a member of Scientology, and the discovery of these sources helped resolve the question of whether to include this information in both articles. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes precisely. I think it supports the text "Vivian Kubrick joined Scientology in 1995, during the filming of Eyes Wide Shut." (or some version thereof) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, you object to the "estranged" bit being in the Vivian Kubrick article, though I fail to see why you think it's 'contentious', other than you contending it. You have repeatedly removed content saying the families were estranged such as this edit and this edit (among others) but you yourself call the family members 'estranged' over and over again, such as: "reproducing contentious statements by estranged relatives", "we don't use gossip from estranged family members", "statements from estranged family members", "relying on statements from estranged family members". Your argument of "to say they're estranged is gossip" falls flat on its face when in the same breath you state it over and over again as a fact. Grorp (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * To clarify, the family members refer to themselves as estranged, and then make contentious statements about Vivian Kubrick, her personal life, and her family history. These statements do not appear appropriate to use in a BLP about Vivian Kubrick. I am not sure when it would be appropriate to rely on family gossip in a BLP, but it does not seem appropriate in the context of this article and the available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Be more specific. WHAT is contentious? Which specific words that someone has tried to add to the article do you consider contentious? And why are those particular words contentious? Grorp (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For example, the diff referred to at the beginning of this post relies on the 2010 Guardian interview for statements about Vivian Kubrick's personal life, and includes the unsupported phrase "ever since". Per WP:BLP, Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, so the origin and nature of the claims do not seem to support inclusion of these personal details. From my view, this is based on the overall principle of caution expressed in WP:BLP policy. Beccaynr (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for just one single example, I wrote: Be more specific. WHAT is contentious? Which specific words that someone has tried to add to the article do you consider contentious? And why are those particular words contentious? I want to understand exactly what you're objecting to so we can get past this. If you had merely objected, once, to one instance of "ever since" (quite ignoring the moderating words "has largely been") then in the spirit of being cooperative and collaborative and come to some sort of consensus, you might have tried editing or modifying the comment instead of repeatedly deleting it in whole, and I wouldn't have bothered to bring this up to this noticeboard. But your editing pattern on this subject had been to revert entire edits which contain content or wording you don't like          and argue on the Talk pages but without coming to any agreement between editors, so I felt obligated to try to resolve it on this noticeboard (albeit I wanted other people's opinions, not a rehash of the same unresolving arguments). Please note, I'm not the one who added any of this content in the first place and I have no knowledge of these players beyond the sources I've read, but I sure haven't been convinced by any of your arguments because so far they simply distill down to 'I don't like it and I don't want it in my article'.


 * You omitted covering which specific wording of 'Vivian is/was a Scientologist' you objected to, repeatedly; and I can't tell if you've accepted the inclusion of that content or if you're just waiting for some quiet time in the future to delete it again.


 * You seem to want to ignore all press on the subject because the earliest one was a mother's interview, and you're discounting all the other interviewees including those who interacted with Vivian but not with the mother.


 * Please try again to point out specifically which content is contentious (not who is contentious). Grorp (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Grorp, the fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not mean that others are obligated to answer, much less satisfy you with their answers. I have expressed my views on article Talk pages and here, and I continue to encourage you to focus on the content. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To answer the original question, I consider 3-6 to be RS to support the inclusion and acknowledgement of whatever contentious issue. It does not matter if the RSs may have originally sourced an interview from someone's perspective. We are not supposed to second guess how the RS came to its conclusion or its fact checking (TRUTH!). For example, Hollywood Reporter clearly writes, "by then Vivian had begun the process of disconnection from her family". If the RS's acknowledges an original source, then we should explicitly attribute that source while citing to the RSs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Zhang Lei (investor)
My name is Phil and I have a disclosed affiliation with Zhang Lei (investor). Recently there was a flurry of edits and reverts on the page I believe left the page out-of-sync with Wikipedia's BLP policy. The Zhang Lei (investor) page now has a "Controversy" section that discusses "speculative tidbits" and "whispers" of this or that, citing this article. I think this violates BLP because:
 * It violates WP:BLPGOSSIP by repeating information the source itself identifies as rumors, not facts.
 * It violates WP:BLPBALANCE by repeating only the gossip and not other aspects of the cited article. For example, the article has a substantial amount of biographical content about Mr. Lei's life story and says his asset management firm is the best performing firm in Asia.
 * It violates WP:CRITS by creating a dedicated section with an editorialized "Controversy" section.

These edits were made by new editor and I believe were made in good faith. Hopefully I'm not scaring them away by complaining about their edits. Best regards. Phil2600 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a bunch of badly-sourced speculation and gossip, which has already been reverted. Neiltonks (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Frederick D. Gregory
Frederick D. Gregory

The text in his introductory paragraph is displaying an error. Picture of Gregory not showing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.74.150 (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the link to the article. The picture wasn't showing because the changes you made broke the formatting for the infobox - I've reverted those changes. You have introduced a death date (today), but you didn't provide a source. I checked on Google now, and I didn't see any announcement of his death - if you can provide a link to a reliable source confirming this, we can update the article. Best Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the fix! One of my students was trying to argue that he passed away despite no other source, so they thought editing wikipedia would make a convincing arguement. Thanks again! 100.1.74.150 (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Marjorie Taylor Greene
The article is blatantly biased and is the reason I will never contribute any money to the furtherance of your ridiculous entity which, in your own words, is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B2A4:FCC7:FD64:4E5E:3594:B42D (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay cupcake. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hint: we do not need your money. The Wikimedia Foundation is rolling in cash. Buy healthy groceries instead. Cullen328 (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, Wikipedia is not corrupt. We will not change article content in exchange for your money. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, OP. I think accelerationism is the solution to Wikipedia.
 * But to satisfy your "urge", I can give you this.
 * https://www.allsides.com/news-source/wikipedia
 * https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1606701487601901568 176.22.160.62 (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Matt Taibbi is not a reliable source. I think this thread can be shut down. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Nathan Lewis (chemist) (request for eyes)
At an anonymous user's request, I've just removed my decade-old protection of Nathan Lewis (chemist), an article that, once upon a time, was a target of a lot of vandalism. I'm not very active on Wikipedia at the moment, so would someone be able to keep an eye on the page? I have no objection to someone else reinstating the protection if they think it apposite. Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * - I'm not seeing vandalism, but there is a great deal of editing by an IP since you unprotected the article. Did someone ask you to remove the protection so they could edit it? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe so, yes; though I would generally prefer not to have an article protected for years and years unless absolutely necessary anyway! Josh Milburn (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Suspect's name in the URL of sources/references
I made a recent addition  to the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German, but was reverted by   who said "apologies, but I think you should get consensus before naming the suspect, even in URLs" Note: I didn't name the suspect in the content I added, so the revert by the user is due to the suspect's name being in the URL.

Is there a policy/guideline prohibiting the use of sources that contain the suspect's name in URLs? Some1 (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * See the section above re the 2022 pregnancy, where there was lengthy discussion of using URLs with the suspects name in them. M asem (t) 00:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The closure of that section says No consensus, but a proposal from me 5. URLs containing the suspect's name... 's proposal seems decent... should there be a community-wide RfC regarding this issue so that guidance could potentially be added to Biographies of living persons? Some1 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just WP:BLPCRIME really, and please see the heading just three up from this one. Should consensus go against me on this, no worries, but since it is a BLP issue (even in URLs, by my lights), I think consensus should be demonstrated before inclusion.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the number of articles that name the suspect on a Google search of the crime, I would say the url is not an issue as only WP:BLPCRIME applies, provided the source has usable information and isn't inckuded for the sake of the url. Inclusion in the article itself is more debatable as currently a search for only the suspect's name does not place the crime in the search results, which would likely change if they are named here especially if a redirect was also created. Slywriter (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because the name may be widely disseminated across the news doesn't mean for our purpose of non-notable individuals that we necessarily should include the name, particularly if no arrest or charges filed against the person. We have a stronger standard for BLP aspects than the media. M asem (t) 01:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would not consider the 2022 pregnancy case a precedent to be generally cited when deciding on suspect names in urls. The specific factors in the (very rough) community consensus there included It seems like the first factor is not at play here, and I'm not sure about the second. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's core purpose is to enhance people's access to information/knowledge. Why are some editors intent on finding ways to work against that purpose? This business of worrying about what's in a url -- it's completely bizarre. The edit added content that did not name a suspect, and yet the edit was reverted because the name was in the url?? That's the problem, despite the name itself being included in the source article (but nonetheless omitted from our own content)? This is a sufficient reason to prevent someone from adding the content? the answer to your question Is there a policy/guideline prohibiting the use of sources that contain the suspect's name in URLs? is: no, there's no such policy/guideline, and it would be absurd if we adopted one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with @Nomoskedasticity, as well as this quote by @LovelyLillith
 * "At this point, it is literally almost impossible to put current references into the article without the arrested suspect’s name being mentioned in the titles, as well as the fact that there is international attention on this case (The Sun and Independent.co.uk are two examples) using his name. We are not stating he is guilty, but what we ARE doing at this point is going to extremes in contorting ourselves to omit other pertinent information in order to hide his name, which makes (as stated by another) one of the most highly-read sites in the world look ridiculous now."
 * In an ongoing murder investigation, and subsequent court trial, there is a very strong chance that reliable sources will cover the trial and include the suspects name in their urls to help with the SEO rankings. Should those be left out because they mention a name within the url, or should the contributor have to search for a possibly non-reliable source in order to appease people regarding the name? This honestly makes no sense.
 * I'll use an example. The New York Times covers the trial, and has 'suspect-name-in-court.html'. It should be avoided because the suspects name is in it, even though it's a respected source? Wikipedia gives more weight to a reliable source than a podcast, so it should be linked to.
 * The only thing even remotely close to addressing this is this
 * "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles". from External links
 * @Masem you said the following
 * Just because the name may be widely disseminated across the news doesn't mean for our purpose of non-notable individuals that we necessarily should include the name, particularly if no arrest or charges filed against the person.
 * The person being discussed was arrested, and charges were filed at the end of October. If the link in question is regarding their court case/them appearing in court, it is nearly impossible to avoid their name being in the url, as stated above.
 * Awshort (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In response to the comment above that suggests coverage in The Sun should influence content here - WP:THESUN was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject. I have been thinking about how to approach this particular article, which does not appear to cover a notable WP:EVENT - Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a vehicle for sensationalism, and with the limited depth of RS coverage available, BLP policy compliance does not seem possible at this time.
 * It seems best to wait to publish anything about this nonpublic figure until a conviction is secured. Wikipedia is not everything, and it is not news.
 * In this article, it appears to be the headlines of the sources that introduce BLP violations into the article, and these should be removed for now, until a conviction is secured. A draft could be developed in the meantime that includes the 'breaking news' with urls/references that name this defendant. Beccaynr (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * See the list of RS coverage below about the case:

- New York Times
 * 2017
 * 2017
 * 2019
 * 2022

- CNN
 * 2019
 * 2021
 * 2022

- Time
 * 2017
 * 2022 "case that has captivated national attention for nearly six years."

- People
 * 2021
 * 2022

- The Independent (a UK site)
 * See:

- ABC News
 * A bunch

- Rolling Stones
 * 2022
 * 2022

- Washington Post
 * 2017
 * 2017
 * 2017
 * 2022
 * 2022
 * 2023

- USA Today
 * 2019
 * 2022

- Associated Press
 * 2017
 * 2019
 * 2021
 * 2022
 * 2023


 * From the answer I was given above, there's no policy or guideline prohibiting the use of sources/references that contains the suspect's name in the URL. Maybe editors should start a community-wide RfC about this topic in general to see if there should be a policy about this or not. Similar issues (suspect's name being in the URL) might come up in the future on different articles, so it would be nice if there's something 'official' that editors can point or refer to. Some1 (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For this article, the issue appears to be naming a nonpublic figure accused of crime in the source headlines, not the url. It is the headline that adds the nonpublic figure's name to the article, in the references section. In this article, there are sources that do not include the name in the headline, so there does not appear to be a compelling reason to use sources that add the nonpublic figure's name to the article via the headline in the citation. Beccaynr (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The name was both in the sources' headlines and URLs. If it weren't in the headlines, the user would've still reverted based on the URLs (since they said "even in URLs" in their edit summary). Anyway, after the revert, I've added what I wanted to add to that article using sources that do not include the suspect's name in the sources' headlines and/or URLs. Since we're on the topic of sources' headlines, is there a policy/guideline prohibiting the use of sources that contain the suspect's name in the sources' headlines/titles? If not, maybe that hypothetical RfC (not about this specific article, but in general) can cover both the issues of the suspect's name being in the sources' headlines and URLs. Some1 (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC) add a sentence, Some1 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in this day and age, I feel like having the name prominently included in a URL is about as bad as a headline, since one need not even click through to see it, and I still think Beccanyr's basic reasoning above is where I land -- when it's not necessary, it should be avoided. If there were no suitable replacements, I would think differently, but I believe here there are.  All that said, happy to go with consensus, of course, and an overarching RfC might not be a bad idea.  Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Should there be specific language about this (suspect's name being in the sources' headlines and/or URLs) in WP:BLPCRIME itself so that editors who encounter the same issues elsewhere on other articles have something to reference? Some1 (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons Some1 (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beccaynr As stated on the Talk page, The Sun (as well as Independent.co.uk) was mentioned to demonstrate the fact that this case has been published internationally, therefore making it beyond just regional interest. I also know that The Daily Mail (another unreliable, yet international, source) has published news about it, and news.co.au has, too. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is helpful to note there is sensationalized coverage of this case, which per WP:SENSATIONAL, weighs against inclusion. Beccaynr (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is some sensationalized coverage, as often happens in unusual crime cases. However, there are reliable sources such as the New Zealand Herald and the Toronto Star which demonstrate the case has international interest. I’m mentioning all of these to help establish notability for the case, as it had been questioned. LovelyLillith (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability is assessed according to the WP:EVENT guideline, which includes guidance on how to avoid exclusion per WP:NOTNEWS policy, including the existence of an effect, and more than a broad scope of coverage, as well as a need for in-depth coverage and a caution about sensationalized coverage. This case seems to clearly have interest to editors, but the request to add coverage according to the guideline and related policy to support notability (via a notability tag placed on the article) was removed, and a nondescriptive list of news sources was added to the article Talk page and this discussion, without a substantial discussion of how the sources relate to WP:EVENT notability. That being said, I do think the article has been improved, but occasional reports about case updates do not appear to transform the suspect into a public figure for the purposes of WP:BLPCRIME policy, so I continue to think caution is warranted with regard to material that includes their name. Beccaynr (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Aren't you forgetting about GNG? GNG and the SNG are applied separately, a subject just needs to pass one of them. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , I apologize for my delayed reply, I just saw your comment today. Per WP:N, notability has two parts, 1) either GNG or SNG, and 2) it is not excluded by WP:NOT. The event guideline invokes WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS in the WP:EVENTCRIT section, and helps assess sources to determine both prongs of WP:N as applied to events. WP:NCORP is similar in how it helps assess coverage and WP:PROMO. Events are assessed for WP:GNG, but WP:NOT analysis is also needed per WP:N, so WP:EVENT offers guidance. Beccaynr (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think using better sources than The New York Times could help sidestep the issue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the latest developments are vital to the article but it would be nice to include them (WP:NOTNEWS and all). This article (is it ok to link this here? if not feel free to remove it and replace with [This People article] or whatever) does not mention the name of the arrested suspect in either the title or URL, couldn't that be used by anyone's standards in this discussion? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

In my view, URLs are content. If "Levivich" is in a URL and the URL is in an article, then "Levivich" is in the article; one could search for it; same as prose. Given how websites work these days, if the suspect's name is in the headline it'll likely also be in the URL. BLPCRIME should be applied equally to any text on an article page - prose, heading, URL, infobox parameter, etc. If it's possible to find a source that doesn't name the suspect in the URL, that source should be preferred. It's very case-by-case... if there are strong reasons to exclude the name and lots of RS that exclude the name, that would suggest exclusion. If the reasons are weaker and RS without the name is rare, then we might include a URL with a name in it. I'm not sure which is the case for this article, but that's how I'd approach it. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The reason that we avoid stating the suspect's name in Wikivoice is because there is a legitimate privacy interest of people falsely accused of crimes and the name may not of great value to the article in and of itself; it's a consideration that balances the positives with the negatives. That being said, when we are talking only about content here, there are three core principles here that I think Wikipedia needs to give more consideration to: Imposing a ban on using certain reliable sources because we personally find their editorial and SEO decisions objectionable—even though we fully admit the article's content is reliable—would be deeply damaging towards Wikipedia, and would be nothing short of rejecting the wisdom our core content policies for something that's of limited value to the crime suspect. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia is build on a neutral point-of-view. This means means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. If a large number of news organizations are offering coverage that contains the suspect's name, and for reasons of SEO most of them put the suspect's name in the URL, it's quite possible that we have run into a situation where certain news organizations are expressing the view that the suspect's name is important while others are implicitly expressing the view that it is not. I have a feeling that systematically excluding sources that contain the name of crime suspects is going to skew our coverage of crime in a way that is incompatible with WP:NPOV.
 * 2) Wikipedia is verifiable, meaning that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. WP:V notes that All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material (internal links ommitted). If we ban a class of urls on the sole basis that we do not like that they include the suspect's name, this will harm our ability to build articles based upon the content contained therein; even if material I add is completely verifiable, I would be prohibited from adding certain material if the only sources that report it also happen to contain the name of the suspect in the url or headline. Frankly, this could be all sorts of material; if more or less all the local sources that give continued reporting on a criminal case use the suspect's name, but we exercise editorial judgement to exclude it from the article, then we would restrict the ability of editors to add solid, verifiable, encyclopedic information other than the name of the alleged criminal (i.e. trial dates, motions being filed, updates from the investigation, etc.) on the basis that we have artificially imposed a ban on links that makes adherence to WP:V's sourcing requirements impossible. It's a core constitutional principle of Wikipedia that, If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it, yet imposing a blanket ban would result in so many cases of IAR being invoked that it reflects poorly on the proposed rule.
 * 3) WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Declaring certain articles that are published in reliable sources to be verboten simply because some editors do not like the fact that they include the name of a suspect in their url or their headline is a form of censorship, and it is generally not warranted on our end inasmuch as it provides little actual privacy benefit to the suspect.

If we've made the editorial decision to exclude a name on BLP grounds, we should usually try to use sources and URLs without that name. But if doing so would bar the inclusion of legitimate, encyclopedic information that isn't WP:UNDUE, we should allow the use of the source and URL. Of course behaviour like pointlessly using multiple articles with the name in the title/URL would not be okay. Also, we shouldn't be having bare URL anyway, so in this formulation, having the name only in the URL is far less problematic than having it in the source title, because it would only be visible in a tooltip. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull
While we are here talking about Chloe Cole, can we also talk about Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull? The extreme level of detail given to each of her misdeeds makes it appear as though the article only exists as an attack page. Surely it is possible to summarize all of these historically recent events into something less wordy than the complete history of some nations? Round and rounder (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes I also think this article is going into much too much detail. Biographies of living people aren't meant to be an account of every event the person has ever attended and piece of activism they've engaged in Tristario (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's far too detailed, though on the other hand when you have people like Keen-Minshull whose only notability is as being a notorious transphobe allied with the far-right and neo-fascists, who even "gender-critical" feminists have criticised as going too far, it's unsurprising that the article has ended up sounding like an attack page. It could be trimmed back to the main controversies, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the majority of the article is about her "Let Women Speak" rallies, do you think splitting that into its own article would be the appropriate move here? Not sure where we'd move it to, either "Let Women Speak" Rallies or Standing for Women, but since the latter seems to just be Keen's vanity org I'm not sure if that would be appropriate and I'm more partial to the former. Generally, her rallies are very much tied to her and a lot of her criticism is due to events/collaborations at her rallies so it would be a tricky move.
 * If we move it out, we could link to the main article and summarize the most cogent points, namely that she's hosted these rallies in the U.K. and U.S., they've been criticized for violence and slurs from her supporters and appearances from the far-right, have been defended by pigs with a reputation for brutality, and have been counter-protested by trans people, allies, and anti-fascists at nearly every instance. Also, that her planned rallies in Australia/NZ have been opposed due to her far-right ties.
 * A quick overview of what should be migrated to the rest of the article if the rallies section is given its own article
 * That attendees have included Hearts of Oak, the Proud Boys, the Independent Nationalist Network, Alpha Team Assemble and in Glasgow some other far-right groups (haven't had a chance to update the article to mention them yet) should be moved to the section on relations with conservatives and the far-right, perhaps as a subsection on attendance at her rallies specifically.
 * The prominent TERFS and anti-trans activists who've attended should be mentioned. Relatedly, I feel cutting off the intersex, trans, and POC chevron should probably be mentioned somewhere, since the symbolism is incredibly telling.
 * Statements from groups protesting should be kept in the abridged summary of the rallies, or included elsewhere.
 * She received a lot of controversy over the whole "a person quoted Hitler to justify attacks on trans people and Keen was reported as having no issue with it" thing, so that should be included, not sure where exactly.
 * TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @TheTranarchist You seem to have a clear agenda with this article that may not be compatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Round and rounder (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What agenda is that exactly? You said the article is overly detailed, I recommended moving the section in question to its own article, since the rallies have received a lot of press attention in their own right, and summarizing the relevant details in a much shorter section on Keen's page. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think many people are interested in reading about a list of all of these rallies and the blow by blow accounts of what happened in them, and wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Regardless of which article this information is in this content needs to be much more summarized Tristario (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a note that the OP has been blocked as an LTA sock. I removed a comment of theirs that received no replies. Any of their earlier comments can be safely ignored although comments made by others including in reply will still need to be considered. (I didn't bother to strike out their comments that gave received replies as I feel it's unnecessary but if someone else wants to I won't object.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. Regardless of who the LTA sock was, I believe their original complaint has merit. To ignore it is folly. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd like to make sure uninvolved editors are aware that self-published blogs of the Anarchist Federation, libcom.org, and other sources of dubious reliability are being argued as acceptable sources for this article. Does Wikipedia disregard policy when it comes to disliked people? --Animalparty! (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not make statements about edits that are not accurate reflections of the edits to which you refer. In my partial restoration of stable article content here, for example, I was careful to observe WP:BLP policy and not to restore any contentious material based on questionable sources. So no, I do not disregard policy when it comes to disliked people, and I find the insinuation offensive. Newimpartial (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems very unlikely that those sites would be reliable, and even if reliable, that they would be WP:DUE. In biographies of living people we need to use strong sources for anything potentially contentious, and that material is pretty clearly contentious. On top of that, BLPs need to be written conservatively - something just being verifiable does not mean it should be included. @Newimpartial you shouldn't have restored that, the concerns of Animalparty and other editors are valid Tristario (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not restore any contentious BLP material. Meanwhile, other editors have removed material in that article sourced to RS publications, seemingly because they do not trust (or, perhaps, do not understand) anarchists. Newimpartial (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You very much restored poorly sourced contentious material in that BLP that had been challenged by other editors, including"
 * Here, when you restored content contested by other editors to both a random opinion piece and to "Anarchist Federation";
 * Here, when you restored content contested by other editors, sourcing it solely to a random opinion piece;
 * Here, when you restored content contested by other editors, sourcing it solely to a random opinion piece;
 * Here, when you restored content contested by other editors, sourcing it solely to "Anarchist Federation";
 * WP:BLPRS notes that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately... The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. I don't know what is trying to creatively state here, but it's quite clear that you repeatedly added unsourced and poorly sourced content to the article even after it had been challenged by other editors—and at the same time using sources that are of comparable quality to or lower quality than that of the tabloids. —  Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 06:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * None of the diffs you present include any contentious material about living persons, which is the type of material to which the policy applies. You stating that you question a source (which you have repeatedly done with perfectly reliable sources) does not make the related material "contentious". Newimpartial (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "Contentious, adjective: causing, involving, or likely to cause disagreement and argument". The fact that there are multiple concurrent arguments and disagreement about this content and it's sourcing indicates it's contentious. The disputed content involves actions of living people, even if they are not named, and can be reasonably construed as inferring guilt by association to the living BLP subject. BLP applies in any article, even if it's not a biography, to any living person. Review WP:BLPREMOVE. Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced... (or) relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP. Repeatedly declaring AF a reliable source does not make it so. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are misconstruing the policy language: the actions of people whose identites are unknown are not covered by WP:BLP, and material does not become contentious the moment an editor or two objects to a source. I haven't seen any disagreement about the content itself that I re-introduced, only about its sourcing (and whether or not it is BLP content). Newimpartial (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you had a dozen or so high quality sources, all saying the same thing in their own words, and no sources contesting it, then you likely do not have contentious material. But here you have one iffy RS as well as a primary source (which may never be used for claims on living prrsons). That in no way show some type of agreement in sources. So it is very reasonable to consider the material contentious. Otherwise, you would be allowing articles to be flooded with negative material that are cherry picked for one or two sources, claiming that no contested material ecists. M asem (t) 14:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The source in question, used with attribution, gave additional information about the acts of protesters and about the counter-protesters. No negative material about any living person was included, and therefore no contentious BLP material.
 * This is entirely separate from the question of DUE, which could have been handled with a food deal more adherence to policy than we have seen in the noticeboard discussion, dominated as it was by unsupported IDONTLIKEIT commentary. Newimpartial (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * One source does not make for sufficient agreement among all sources to say that what is being sourced to it is not contentious. The material has a negative tone, and without multiple sources to back it, editors have every right under YESPOV to determine if the material is contentious and should be removed. M asem (t) 14:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If it isn't material about a living person, the BLP provisions we are talking about (and the expectation to remove the content until affirmative consensus is reached) do not apply. Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Both parts of the text (the linked diffsvabove) appear to be BLP related to Keen, so yes, contentious material can be removed immediately. In addition, even if BLP wasn't involved, contentious material that has yet to meet consensus can be remove, particularly if under a BRD cycle. M asem (t) 15:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is a biography of a living person, and by implication any content is about that person. It does not need to be explicit for BLP to apply.  --Kyohyi (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You say this, but WP:BLP doesn't say this, and nobody has presented evidence that this is what the community understands WP:BLP as meaning, in spite of not saying it. Newimpartial (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP: BEANS style arguments are not very good arguments for BLP's. You should be seeking consensus for your position that the community agrees with your position on BLP's.  I put the onus on you since BLP's are intended to be written with the greatest care, and I see a lot of potential harm in your interpretation.  --Kyohyi (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't an interptetation, it's what WP:BLP actually says, and it also reflects how BLP articles are sourced and written. There is no blanket ban, say, on the reception of an author's books in a BLP article containing SPS commentary, so long as the commentary is about the book and not the author. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Then you should be able to quote the passage in BLP that says it. Specifically that content on a biography of a living person, which is not specifically about the living person, does not have to satisfy the higher sourcing requirements called out in WP: BLP.  My take of your position is that BLP does not explicitly forbid this, therefore this is permitted.  Which is an interpretation.  --Kyohyi (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The scope of the content to which BLP concerns must be maintained is identified in the policy as information about living persons and assertions about a living person. It specifies that This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. I don't think this is an interptetation - it seems clear that the BLPRESTORE provisions, 3RRBLP exemptions, and BLP sourcing requirements are all specific to information about living persons (while the policy does also address balance and tone at an arricle level). Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this doesn't explicitly make your point. It just seems that you're saying on an article about a person, that you can have information on that article that is not about that person.   --Kyohyi (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have already given the examples of book reviews and organizational founding dates as instances where information can be (and is) included in BLP articles that is not information about a living person in the sense of BLPRESTORE. I don't know how to make the plain reading of BLP any more clear. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * BLP applies everywhere, and we are suppose to treat BLP as "do no harm", taking the most cautious approach with any BLP related material. M asem (t) 16:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * While BLP policy applies to all articles and in all domain spaces, not all article text and not all Talk comments are considered to be BLP content requiring BLP sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that there is community consensus that long-term, stable article content becomes contentious the moment a single editor questions the source. Newimpartial (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That material appeared to have been added in kate January, so it absolutely is not long term or stable. M asem  (t) 15:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In a new article, I think three or four weeks makes an inclusion "stable". Newimpartial (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree that is stable. It may take that many weeks before editors are even aware of the article.  Aware editors may be addressing other parts first.  Finally, ONUS would apply. Springee (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS only applies to disputed content, though. A single editor questioning the reliability of a source doesn't immediately turn stable content into disputed content (at least not according to the interminable discussions at the ONUS talk page). Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To judge stability, one needs to consider both time and number of edits. If someone adds a contentious statement on a BLP that is not watched by anyone and only gets a couple edits per year, the its still not appropriate to consider the contentious material as stable. On the outer hand, if the material was up for several weeks during which hundreds of othe edits were made, that could be called stable. In this case, there was less than a half dozen edits between the addition and removal, so no, that content clearly was not stable. M asem (t) 19:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, there is a related RSN discussion ongoing regarding the "Anarchist Federation" source, and it seems like the community very swiftly found that it's not sufficiently reliable to support the claims in a BLP that it was being used for. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the discussion for those watching. Can we please all drop this? AFUK is not due, since RS did not explicitly refer to their statement or even note that they were there (somehow, only breitbart and the daily mail did). Freedom news seems to be generally reliable, but it is an opinion piece and can't be used. I never would've included it in the first place had I read more carefully and seen it was labelled commentary. @Newimpartial, there is not really not a good argument for either of these sources. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not trying to reinsert either. The material that was removed, which should go back, is from the other Anarchist sources. Newimpartial (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

IP removing relevant information about an assault allegation
IP keeps removing this section on Artemi Panarin that references an allegation of violence. In my opinion, this section is well-written and does a good job of laying out the facts clearly. IP seems to think that since the allegation as (allegedly) been disproven, it is somehow not relevant to the article. <b style="font-family:Verdana;color:Green;font-size:100%;">Catalyzzt</b> (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Inclined to agree with IP here regarding relvancy.
 * Following a check of several media outlets and reports. the accusations appear to be baseless, based on the following factors
 * Confirmation from his Team mate at the time that the incident didn't occur.
 * The Latvian Authoritys and the KHL (the league Panarin was playing in at the time) received no reports regarding this alleged incident.
 * No charges were filed or police conduct taken and overall no evidence.
 * The matter only came out from his ex-coach Andrei Nazarov conveniently after Panarin made comments about Vladamir Putin, who Andrei Nazarov is a known supporter of. Andrei Nazarov is also quite known for his controverial opinions at times and open for his dislike of Panarin
 * Comes across to me as fabricated, baseless accusations from a bitter coach.
 * Despite how well written it is Wikipedia isnt the place for heresay and factless gossip and it serves no purpose being there. Flamewingphoenix (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We probably need something related to the announced leave of absence, but if you just leave it at that, and don't delve into any possible reasons why, that would be fine. M asem (t) 16:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps just remove any mention of leave?
 * Players take leave alot of the time be it for personal or trade reasons.
 * a example of this are Alexander Ovechkin leaving for personal matters, it only came out in the following days that it was due to the passing of his Father but there is nothing referencing this on his page?
 * Patrick Kane is also expected to take leave ahead of the impending trade deadline. Flamewingphoenix (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if the allegations are baseless, it's probably relevant that he was targeted due to his political speech. We can mention the allegations without going into detail, and then note that both Panarin and his team believe he was targeted due to his support of the Russian opposition. Yee no   (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say thats an acceptable conclusion :) Flamewingphoenix (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like it's WP:DUE to me. And if we're going to include it, we should cover it properly, because if we're covering something like this we need to provide the appropriate context and details in order to be fair to all living parties involved. It seems quite well written as it is to me Tristario (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't know a whole lot about the topic, so I'd defer to you all. From my research it just seemed like it ought to be included in some form, and that removing the entire section is a bit overkill. <b style="font-family:Verdana;color:Green;font-size:100%;">Catalyzzt</b> (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)