Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive327

World Patent Marketing was a start-up company, only in business for about 3 years. Anybody can do the research and learn that these types of companies are not miracle workers, and that it requires a minimum of 2 to 3 years from submission of an invention to get it patented & marketed, and even then, there are no guarantees the invention will sell. The question is not about the process, or about good business practice vs mistreating clients; rather, it is about WP:GUILT because that company chose some high profile people to serve on their advisory board, including scientist Ronald Mallett, Omar Rivero, founder of Occupy Democrats, and Matthew Whitaker who was acting US Attorney General for a short 3 mos (Nov 2018 - Feb 2019) after he served as an advisor to the start-up along with several other high profile people described as Obama advisors, scientists, US attorneys, etc. The problem is that, regardless of whether the company was forced to shut down by the FTC within 3 years of opening their doors, or that they agreed to make restitution to clients without admitting guilt, or whether they were indeed scam artists - it is not our job as editors to do anything beyond stating facts. We should also be compliant with WP:GUILT relative to the BLPs, and therein lies the problem. I added Omar Rivero to the lead because for some reason, only Whitaker was singled out for the lead. My edit was reverted but Whitaker's name remains - none of the others are mentioned. That is a clear indication of WP:GUILT. I actually oppose any of the names being included because the company itself is not notable, except for its choice of advisory board, some of whom weren't even aware they named initially. Why smear the names of those high profile people when none of them were mentioned in the FTC case or found guilty in any way? I have nominated the article for AfD because other than the political angle that has been attempted, there is absolutely nothing encyclopedic about that company - it fails in numerous ways. Just because the news covers an incident, it is not an adequate reason to include it in our encyclopedia. What I'm seeing is a BLP vio, and that all mention of WPM in the BLPs and vice versa should be removed. Further reasons for its failure to pass GNG are provided in the AfD. Atsme 💬 📧 17:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

For Whitaker there was significant coverage with respect to him and WPM. (see WP:WELLKNOWN). He was, after all, the Acting Attorney General, and that's a critical legal post for one day, let alone three months. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it takes a good three years just to hear back from the patent office, and then like 98% of the time they are going to reject it. It's almost like a little game they play, probably just to see what you will say upon appeal. (Yes, you can and should appeal, in case they don't tell you that.) My advice is, stay away from companies like this or those looking to buy your gold. Go hire yourself a good patent lawyer who is bound by the ethical practices set by that profession.

I find it highly unlikely that AFD will succeed, given the amount of coverage this has in RSs. However, at the same time we do have quite a few questionable sources and primary sources too. You really need to go into AFD with the ammunition to shoot down all the sources, because many there lean toward "keep" as a default position, and it's hard to sell bad writing, tone, or even BLP issues over there.

This article reads like a news article rather than an encyclopedia article, and when combined with some of the sourcing I see, at first glance, I would be on the lookout for OR and synth. What I would be very careful of is making any direct statement or implication that is not found in the sources. For example, the Whitaker article seems to do a fairly good job of making it known that he was just on an advisory board, and really had nothing to do with the day to day operations of this firm (although I'm not sure just how involved he was and if we're giving this due weight in his article). The company article makes it seem more as if he was at the center of it all, which really doesn't make sense, since that is not what a panel of experts does. So I think it needs some toning down, and, while we kinda have to mention how his name was used to allegedly intimidate people, we also need to make his side clear, that he was never aware of this happening. Zaereth (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Zaereth - I agree with everything you said. It was a start-up company, so how could any of the advisory board member be aware? Advisory boards don't have any financial liability and their suggestions are NON-BINDING. Media spins for baitclick, and in this case it is quite obvious considering there was no evidence to indicate that he or any other advisory board member was aware of what the company was doing, which is why none of them were named in the case by the FTC. We need to put politics aside and comply with NPOV and GUILT. Atsme 💬 📧 20:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. I admit, I haven't had time to look at all the sources, being covered in grease and grime and hydraulic oil, but so far I haven't seen it verified that everyone listed as being on this panel was really on this panel. Whitaker sure was, or at least he agreed to be and even did some promo work, but a company that would do what this one is accused of wouldn't be beyond faking a panel of experts. Of course, I may have missed something, but I think what people really want to know is who was running this operation. That might be a BLPCRIME problem at this point (I don't know), although I doubt it would ever go that far.

One of the huge problems of our times, not just with the US but globally, is the corporate model. Many of these entities are more wealthy and powerful than nations, yet they are --required by law-- to behave like a sociopath, putting the profits and (for lack of a better word) greed of the shareholders above all else. When something goes wrong, as it invariably does with sociopaths, the entity takes on all the blame and punishment, and none of the people involved ever feel any repercussions (especially the shareholders, being twice removed). It's a crazy way to do things, but it goes back a long time. (For example, the American Revolutionary War had more in reality to do with the East India Trading Co. than it did with King George.)

So what I see in this particular case is a bunch of people who were named as an advisory panel of experts, in company ads, promos, and brochures, who are now being used as the only faces of what is probably being treated legally as the faceless entity; the corporation. That's what it looks like to me, anyhow, and I think we need to be very careful in just how we word this. Zaereth (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources make clear Whitaker was personally involved in responding to claimants (as shown in FTC documents) so his mention in the lead is appropriate. The company wasn't just trading on his name. Fences&Windows 12:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

"Personally involved"? No, not personally. Fences and windows, your inclusion of a primary source raises a big red flag, and I found it rather disconcerting. Did you take the time to review the items at the link you provided? For example, the first two audio recordings: the first was a message to Whitaker, and the 2nd was Whitaker's response and willingness to be cooperative. He also advised the caller that as of September he was no longer active on that advisory board. I also read the document that lists all the advisory board members: World Patent Marketing's Advisory Board includes: (i) Dr. Aileen M. Marty, a Navy veteran, infectious disease specialist, and member of President Obama's Advisory Council to Combat Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria; (ii) Brian Mast, a veteran of the United States Army, Joint Special Operations Command, and candidate for the US House of Representatives in Florida's 18th District; {iii} Pascal Bida Koyagabele, a Presidential Candidate for the Central African Republic; (iv) Nitzan Nuriel, a retired Israeli Brigadier General who received an Honorary Citation from the United States Congress for his contributions to world Security and counterterrorism; (v} Richard Paul Sulaka II, Deputy Public Works Commissioner of Macomb County, Michigan; and {vi} Matthew G. Whitaker, Esq., a former United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa and Executive Director of The Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust (FACT), a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting accountability, ethics and transparency in government. Is there a particular document that you believe supports the position that Whitaker was guilty of something? What is your point exactly - and please, whatever it is you're trying to prove, keep in mind that it must be compliant with WP:GUILT. You might also want to refresh your memory about WP:NOTNEWS, which is something I deal with on regular basis as a NPP reviewer/trainer and article creator. It clearly states (my bold underline as it applies in this case): Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Under News reports it further states: While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... I'm not going to argue over the inclusion of WPM if it is properly presented from a NPOV without BLP & WP:GUILT violations. I accept what DGG and BD2412 decided relative to draftify because the article, as it stands now, is a coatrack. The facts must be stated accurately, without media speculation, innuendos, and biased opinions - the case has been finalized by the FTC, and the bottomline is that Whitaker was cleared of any wrong-doing. To present it as anything other than that is unacceptable. If we can't get this resolved here, perhaps we can get it resolved with a bit more clarity at ARCA since WP:GUILT was one of the principal findings in a prior ArbCom case. Recent edits at WPM have restored Whitaker in the lead which is noncompliance with WP:GUILT. Atsme 💬 📧 19:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Patent Marketing closed as keep. As I said there, "many reliable sources have prominently discussed Whitaker's role at WPM, including that he was aware of and involved in responding to complaints (e.g.Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, Slate, ABC News)." We need to discuss Whitaker's role because the sources do and at no point does the article say he is guilty of a criminal offence. Fences&Windows 20:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

By way of trying to check whether mentioning any individuals is WP:DUE, I asked Google News for information about the company (search string: "World Patent Marketing"). I then checked the first ten results. They were a mix of obviously normal news sources that editors widely consider to be reliable, such as NPR and Politico, and some that I've never heard of before. The articles were dated in 2017, 2018, and 2020, showing sustained coverage. Here's what I found:

• Seven of the first ten articles mention Whitaker in the headline. (Remember, I searched only for the company's name, not for Whitaker's name.)
• All of the first ten articles mention Whitaker in the body of the article.
• Two of the first ten articles mention Ronald Mallet. Zero mention Omar Rivero.

The first ten articles about the company aren't necessarily the full story, but from where I'm sitting, it appears to me that it would be appropriate to mention Whitaker in the lead, and inappropriate to mention these other two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

First a reminder to everyone that per WP:RSPS Forbes contributor articles are treated as WP:SPS unless they are published in print. They therefore cannot be use for any claims concerning living persons per WP:BLPSPS. Note the article being an "editors' pick" is largely irrelevant, see WP:RSN#Forbes.com contributors yet again - editors' pick. If the author is a subject matter expert they potentially could be use for other content, but IMO we really should just replace [1].

In the mean time, I have removed one paragraph concerning Whitaker as it did rely on this SPS [2].

I did find this NYT article which partly mentions the content [3], but not all and it's complicated. According to the NYT, Cooper is the one who drafted the email Whitaker sent. Further the customer was "apparently" a disgruntled former employee of Cooper from a different business. I don't think we can ignore this detail, the NYT clearly thought it significant enough to mention and I can see why.

It provides context to the dispute with this particular customer as they weren't simply a customer but someone where it's likely there was already animosity between Cooper and the customer. (Remembering this is the article about WPM not Whitaker.) And if we explain that we also have to explain how Cooper drafted the email and Whitaker sent it. Yet this seems a lot of detail so frankly it seems better just to not go there at all. Also while I don't know for sure, I suspect "apparently" means the NYT did not try to verify the connection, it's just something they gathered from the emails.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Note also there doesn't seem to be any reliable secondary source that mentions the customer's response. Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I am responding to a diff request made by MastCell relative to my post on his UTP, wherein I asked him to provide input here. He asked again on my UTP, so I provided the diffs below:

1. March 20, 2021, I removed a BLP vio per WP:GUILT from the lead
2. March 21, 2021 Gandydancer reverted (WP;GUILT does not apply here--this is clearly well-supported by numerous references) <— what is "well-supported", his guilt?
3. (March 21, 2021), "fraudulent" was removed from the lead by BD2412; Note:- we don't use "headlines" in press releases - this is an encyclopedia. We report the facts, for example: The proposed settlement order resolves charges the FTC brought last year, alleging that Cooper and his companies deceived consumers and suppressed complaints about them using threats, intimidation, and gag clauses. A federal court subsequently halted the Florida-based scheme and froze its assets pending litigation. Notice the word "alleged".
4. (April 2, 2021) "fraudulent" was restored by MastCell. Note: FTC headline: FTC alleges company’s practices are “patently” deceptive If the FTC is "alleging", how can we state it as fact in WikiVoice in the lead?
5. I added Omar Rivero's name as another advisory board member for the sake of NPOV in the lead because I believe that adding only Whitaker's name is noncompliant with NPOV & GUILT. There were several other high profile members on that advisory board, all easily verifiable in the FTC docs. The company circulated several press releases that could be cited depending on context, unless inclusion is noncompliant with GUILT per MastCell's edit summary for removing board names: "potentially contentious/harmful material about living people." What makes it potentially contentious/harmful??
6. Smartse reverted Omar Rivero's name from the lead, but left Whitaker's name. His edit summary: (it's massively undue including this in the lead when the only source is a press release) What I'm seeing is an obvious misunderstanding of NPOV. Also, context determines a source's reliability for inclusion of material. Omar was quoted saying something for a press release that was cited to a press release. I'm ok with removing all quoted statements, but it's either OR or POV if we choose to use only Whitaker's and no one else's on that same board.
7. MastCell tweaked the edit a bit, and found no issue with Omar being reverted or Whitaker remaining in the lead;
8. MastCell removed the names of board members: (→‎Advisory board: rm per WP:BLP; high-quality independent reliable sources are required for potentially contentious/harmful material about living people; the website and press releases of a fraudulent company are NOT independent reliable sources; this is a BLP action) BLP action - he made it clear that it was contentious/harmful material except for everyone but Whitaker. WP:GUILT?
9. MastCell removed more names: (→‎Advisory board: rm WP:BLP violation; need high-quality independent reliable sources for this material; do not restore without appropriate sourcing)
10. MastCell cited a source: (→‎Advisory board: add ref for quote and statement) <--Is this NPOV editing?
11. MastCell cited a primary source (→‎Business model: not a great source) <-- he has no problem citing sources for material he wants to keep
12. I removed Whitaker's name, (Remove per NPOV & WP:GUILT - if you want to include advisory board members, do it in the body text - there are several high profile members that should be named, none of which belong in the lead, but if they are to be included, then include at least 3 of the individuals.)

I think it's rather obvious that NPOV & GUILT are at issue here, and that the article needs revamping. I'm certainly open to discussion with those who believe that I'm off-base in my evaluation. I'm certainly not perfect. Atsme 💬 📧 05:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV is clear: we achieve neutrality by accurately reflecting the content, emphases, and weight of reliable sources. WP:BLP is very clear: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Multiple reliable third-party sources link Whitaker to WPM (in fact, Whitaker's role is arguably the most heavily-reported aspect of WPM). In contrast, few or no reliable third-party sources link Omar Rivero to WPM—the effort to include him seems to rely on press releases and Facebook pages for a fraudulent company, which clearly violates WP:BLP. So to treat Whitaker's and Rivero's cases as if they were comparable shows deep ignorance of available sources and/or site policy.

  As for the specific diffs, I am at a loss for what underlies Atsme's aspersions. She cites this edit, asking: Is this NPOV editing? Since the edit in question simply consists of replacing a broken ref tag with a full citation to a reliable source, I guess my answer is... yes? And WTF? Likewise, Atsme's summary of this edit is a deceptive misrepresentation. I didn't cite any new source in that edit; I simply removed a citation to DemocracyNow!, which is clearly an inappropriate source for a BLP.

  So leaving aside these unfounded personal aspersions, we're left with the need to follow reliable third-party sources, which link Whitaker to WPM. If high-quality sources link other people to WPM, then we should mention them. If high-quality sources don't, then we don't. This is Wikipedia 101. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue with citing Wellknown, is that wellknown presumes the allegation satisfies WP: Synth (as in there is a source for the allegation itself). The problem with this content which I think Atsme is getting at with Guilt is that there's an implied conclusion of wrongdoing on the part of Whitaker by the way we are selecting and presenting sources. This is an WP: IMPARTIAL and WP: SYNTH violation. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no "synth" involved, because reliable sources clearly and directly connect Whitaker to WPM. There is also no "implied conclusion of wrongdoing"—we do, or should, state explicitly that Whitaker has not been charged with any crime nor any civil action in connection to WPM. Again, WP:BLP—a foundational policy—states very clearly that "if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." We don't suppress material simply because a reader somewhere might reach a conclusion that you don't want them to reach. It's still not clear what would justify hiding this relevant, amply sourced material from the reader, in violation of WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 20:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The synth isn't that sources connect Whitaker to WPM. The synth is the implication that Whitaker did something wrong. The way the section is covered we are implying wrongdoing, while no source is explicitly stating out wrongdoing. That is a synth and impartial violation. If we are providing material that implies a conclusion not presented in any of the sources we are violating synth, synth policy clearly states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" note the word imply. We need to be careful to not write the section to imply wrongdoing without a source that outright alleges wrongdoing. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Look, I have thought about your position and have tried again and again to come up with something to show that I cannot agree with you. But MastCell has said it quite well already and I have nothing to change or nothing to add to his words. Gandydancer (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Kyohi, Whitaker has not been charged with any criminal wrongdoing, and no one is pretending or implying otherwise. As to whether anything he did was "wrong", our job is to be honest with the reader and present relevant, reliably sourced facts, so that they can form their own conclusions. You believe he did nothing "wrong" in his association with the WPM fraud, but you don't get to suppress sources and manipulate our coverage to coerce readers to your preferred conclusion. MastCell ^Talk 00:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm reading through this, and ignoring the Vanity Fair source for the moment, the issue is not the factuality of the information (that Whitaker worked for this firm and later was this position) but its location in the lede (that is, it is a tone issue), barring any other issue. If it was a statement in the body, among other people that were involved with the firm, it wouldn't be a problem. But it's being pulled out into the lede. Given that it is unusual information to see about a company , and that it is the only other person mentioned in the lede besides the founder, its appearance there is basically focusing a massive spotlight on that. And after the prior sentences talk about the firm being fraudulent, this implicitly gives the impression that Whitaker was implicit in that, assigning guilt. If the lede was revised that the first sentence mentioned nothing about the company's fraudulent activities, then mentioned Whitaker, then mentioned "The firm was found to be engaging in fraudulent deals..." as the last sentence, that is better as it removes some of that spotlighting/implicit guilt, though it is still odd for this one factoid to be focused on in the lede. The same sentence can likely exist somewhere in the body, but in better context would not trigger any immediate implicit guilt.

Now, the source issue also comes into play and that leads to me to find "barring any other issue" is in play. That VF article supporting it is not great - it is clearly written in an opinionated style. So as soon as I go looking for a better, less opinionated one, I get this from ABC News, as well as some of the latter sources in the article that tells me there's definitely something important to say about this firm, Whitaker, and Whitaker's appointment as acting AG. Given what I'm reading, the better way to phrase that would be something like "Further details about the firm's fraudulent activities came to light following its former advisory board member, Matthew Whitaker, being named at acting AG to the Trump administration in late 2018." In that phrasing, the guilt remains on the firm itself, and while that's implying Whitaker knew of its fraudulent activities, that's also the general tone of the factual articles on the situation (but without the opinionated approach of the VF article), but importantly, it establishes why we're bringing up this person in the lede - WPM would likely be a footnote in history without the fact that Whitaker had ties to it. --Masem (t) 00:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It's also unusual for 70% of the headlines about the company to mention one person, and for 100% of the articles about the company to mention that same member of an advisory board – and 80% of the time, only that one member. Even though that's "unusual", that's what I found in this case. That unusual emphasis by the sources suggests that it actually would be WP:UNDUE to downplay Whitaker (e.g., by making his name only be one among many or buried in the body).

I agree that we want to avoid assigning guilt to him, but I do think we need to find a way to mention his name in the lede. Your suggested sentence ("Further details about the firm's fraudulent activities came to light following its former advisory board member, Matthew Whitaker, being named at acting AG...") might work, assuming that there is a source that explicitly makes a claim about the timing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you get at what I discovered in reading the sources: there is definitely a tie of importance between Whitaker and this firm that came about due to him being named Assc. AG, that's readily documented and that we can't avoid per UNDUE. The way the sentence that was being used to introduce Whitaker, however, didn't make this clear and just introduced him, and not why his story is relevant to the firm, which made it look like we were throwing shade at his guilt at being associated with it. A bit of rewording as I suggested to better explain the nature of how this connection was made relavant would help significantly, and that can be documented readily. It's basically a different tone issue to get the wording right. --Masem (t) 03:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Consider this my final summary now that I've had a chance to read the comments. Inclusion of any of the advisory board members in the lead of that article is noncompliant with WP:GUILT and various other policies. It is perfectly acceptable to summarize in the lead that WPM boasted about their advisory board which comprised notable people, and then in the body text, we have a section that provides accurate, well-sourced information about the advisory board and their responses. The obvious reasons media focused on Whitaker include (1) clickbait (2) if appointed AG he was expected to recuse himself from any investigations involving WPM, and (3) the Democrats highly publicized concerns that he would dismiss the Mueller investigation. None of that rises to inclusion based on the following:

1. UNDUE (my bold underline): For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Whitaker's involvement with WPM has been disproportionately portrayed by news media, and does not belong in the lead anymore than any other member who served on that same board, regardless of news coverage - newsworthy and worthy of encyclopedic inclusion are two different things. Also keep WP:SCANDAL in mind because it supersedes the argument to include Whitaker in the lead: Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. The draftify arguments in the AFD further support that position.
2. The article is about the company; it is not about Whitaker - he was not named in the FTC complaint, and neither were any of the others which further supports the concern of GUILT.
3. Common sense and sound editorial judgement tell us that the media utilized Whitaker's political affiliation in the manner I described above during a rather brief period of news media feeding frenzy. The timing could not have been more convenient considering the concerns expressed by House Democrats re: his appointment potentially ending the Mueller investigation - that simply didn't happen. Liken it to our coverage of Hunter Biden and Burisma or his dealings in China; except for the fact that Biden is still under investigation so it's not a closed book, unlike the FTC investigation of Whitaker who was cleared. We need to maintain consistency in our handling of public figure scandals and GUILT issues, so take a look at how we handled the Biden incident because many of the same policy issues apply here as well - BLP, NOTNEWS, SCANDAL, etc. The BBC recently reported on April 7, 2021 stating that "Hunter resigned from the board of BHR in April 2020, but still held his 10% stake in BHR as of July this year, according to the company report." Whitaker had no connection to WPM that included fiduciary responsibility, much less enforceable decision making as an actual member of the company's board of directors. His activity was limited to suggestions as a member of the advisory board, nothing more. When arguing DUE, please keep the latter in mind:
4. WP:NOTNEWS, clearly states that most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, especially when considering today's media conglomerates. We are still dealing with BLPs, public figure or not, and the way this article is written is unambiguously noncompliant with GUILT, as well as SCANDAL because it focuses only on Whitaker: Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person..
5. There were a dozen or so high profile members besides Whitaker on that same advisory board - all of whom are verifiable by the FTC documents - including Occupy Democrats founder Omar Rivero, Ronald Mallett, Aileen Marty, an appointee to Obama's Advisory Council, Brian Mast, and others. If we're going to include Whitaker, then we are obligated by NPOV to include the names of other notables - and that is where DUE applies, regardless of echo chamber coverage repeating a WSJ article or Miami New Times. Furthermore, DUE doesn't apply in this context because of GUILT.
6. Citing WP:BLP based on "noteworthy and relevant" crumbles under the weight of SCANDAL, NOTNEWS & GUILT. Not one RS demonstrated a "direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and conduct of the subject" - the news implied potential guilt based only on guilt by association. We also have the receiver's conclusion stating that Whitaker did not know, which corroborates Whitaker's denial. We already know, or should know that an advisory board has no control or fiduciary responsibility and could not have prevented anything. None of the members of that advisory board knew or could have prevented it. The proof is in the pudding. WP:GUILT takes precedent, but exclusion from the lead is supported even further by NOTNEWS & SCANDAL, and probably even POV fork. Atsme 💬 📧 14:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• I watchlist Atsme's and MastCell's talk pages, so that's how I became aware of these discussions, and today I decided to take a look. I don't claim to have examined everything, but I can give this much as feedback. It seems to me that the content decision should rest upon whether or not the available sourcing, taken as a whole, justifies naming Whitaker in the lead. If he is mentioned at all, it should be in terms of him being a particularly and notably prominent member of the advisory board, and should not imply in Wikipedia's voice, beyond that, that he was guilty of anything. The choice is between: (a) that, and (b) leaving him out of the lead. (It kind of sounds to me, based on what other editors have said here, that (a) is workable, but I could be wrong about that.) But Rivero, Mallet, and others should not be listed in the lead beside him, unless any one of them has had equally prominent coverage in sources (which it appears they have not). It's a false equivalence to include a Democrat to balance out a Republican (or vice-versa), and doing so simply for balance would, in fact, be a BLP violation, and would be a false NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Tryp, you said I don't claim to have examined everything, but I can give this much as feedback. I'm of the mind that examinations are always better before surgery. This particular case requires more than a quick look and a bandaid. I'll make it short and simple - See my comment here ^{corrected transposed names 12:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)} here. It's an eye-opener. Atsme 💬 📧 19:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

So this is coming from an offsite discussion here [4]. This random, user generated website [5] that engages in obvious speculation and has a fairly apparent political agenda is being used as a source in a number of BLP articles, at least 26 were detected by Andy. I would suggest some sort of search be run to find all citations to this website in BLP articles, and that all such citations and any content based on them be removed wholesale, and also that what accounts are doing this be identified (although it may be stale, the website looks a bit forlorn and not current) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This should be a start...I've removed from a few articles and will pick back up when I have time. GiantSnowman 18:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Per aboutpage [6], not for the BLP:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: I see you have zapped a bunch of links, thanks for that. I've poked aroud looking to see if maybe this was just one user adding it, because that would be an easy fix, but it doesn't look like that's the case. So that leaves me wondering if maybe we should ask for User:XLinkBot to add it to it's blacklist? This isn't really my area of expertise so I'm not sure this is serious enough for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts about the blacklist - but also like you I don't think I've ever done it before. GiantSnowman 17:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

There was strong consensus of an RFC Talk:Noah Oppenheim/Archive 1#Request for Comment Noah Oppenheim for the article Noah Oppenheim that the allegation that Oppenheim attempted "to stop Ronan Farrow’s reporting on the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases”, now the first sentence of the story “deserve a place in the lead. There is currently no consensus on how that information should be presented; further discussion may be necessary to elucidate its final form.” No one has responded with suggestions since the consensus decision was determined on Feb. 16. As noted in the article, I have a WP: COI as a paid consultant of NBC News.

1) The lead is not a representative summary of the body of the article or the cited source in regard to the Farrow accusation. Neither the body of the article nor the cited source state as fact that these allegations are unequivocally true, as the lead now does. On Wikipedia, in Noah Oppenheim#Harvey Weinstein, the article says: "Oppenheim denied Farrow's claim and said that the reason NBC News chose not to report on the story was that the available evidence did not meet their journalistic standards." The source cited in the lead includes this: "In response, NBC told the Times that “the assertion that NBC News tried to kill the Weinstein story” was “an outright lie.”^[1] “All significant viewpoints” need to be represented.WP:BALASP

2) The current lead is also not enough representative summary of Oppenheim's major accomplishments, as represented in the body of the story. I'd suggest the following, with anything about Farrow in a paragraph afterwards. This language is a straightforward summary of the actual language in the body of the article, already sourced.

Noah Oppenheim (born 1977 or 1978) is an American television producer, author, and screenwriter. He became president of NBC News in 2017. Oppenheim was previously the executive in charge and senior producer of NBC's Today Show and head of development at the production company Reveille. He co-created CNBC's Mad Money with Jim Cramer. Oppenheim wrote the screenplays for Jackie, The Maze Runner and The Divergent Series: Allegiant. He is the co-author with David Kidder of the New York Times best-selling book series The Intellectual Devotional.

In 2017, it was Oppenheim's idea to assign Ronan Farrow to investigate the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations. NBC News ultimately decided not to publish Farrow's reporting, a decision Farrow says Oppenheim played a major a role in. Oppenheim said that the reason NBC News chose not to report on the story was that the available evidence did not meet their journalistic standards. BC1278 (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I do agree that the way the lead is written doesn't match the sources as well as it could. Maybe something more along the lines of He became president of NBC News in 2017 and is known for his involvement in stopping Ronan Farrow's reporting on the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases at NBC. If we went with your suggested lead I'd rather see the second paragraph as In 2017 Oppenheim's suggested Ronan Farrow interview Rose McGowan which started Farrow's investigation into the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations. NBC News ultimately decided not to publish Farrow's reporting, a decision Farrow says Oppenheim, president of NBC News at the time, played a major a role in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that if a defining feature or reason a person is notable is due to one specific event, but that is not the only extent of why they are notable, trying to push that event into the lede sentence with brevity is a problem. You usually need a few sentences to establish the nature of the event for both ease of readability and to avoid possible tone/BLP problems. In this case with Oppenheim, the situation around Farrow is clearly lede-worthy, but I agree it cannot be easily summed in under a sentence and to try to wedge it into the lede para would be wrong; a full second lede para as suggested is much more sensible. --Masem (t) 17:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi BC. First, I want to thank you for disclosing your COI and working to do this the right way. I must admit, I had to laugh at the part about journalistic standards. That's something I haven't seen on any US news since the days of Cronkite and Rather. There's a reason that if people like me want good, neutral reporting on the US, and especially US politics, we watch the BBC, France24, or the HKN. Not to bust your chops, but I hope you pass that along to your bosses.

Having gotten that off my chest, I will say that when you come to a noticeboard like this, it's a good idea to phrase things in terms of how this is a BLP policy violation. You'll just get a much better reply.

This is really much in the same vein as some of the other discussions on this page right now. Does everything need to be in the very first sentence? My opinion is no, and the lede of that article is rather awkward to read. First, I would try to keep some sense of chronological order there. Saying things like "previously" is written from a present temporal perspective, and makes it read more like newspaper reporting. Encyclopedias should be written from a perfect (timeless) perspective, where the narrator speaks as if outside of time looking in. I would also avoid using phrases like "known for". That's telling me. Just show me what happened.

Thus, even without your additions, at the very least, I would move the part about NBC and Farrow to the end of the paragraph, and get rid of the "previously" and the "known for", and as briefly as possible just tell the facts of the matter. I think that's probably the best way to handle it.

It's a very short article, and I don't think it needs a large lede that is basically just a repeat of what is in the body. The lede should be a brief summary, and keep in mind that more space means more weight, so brief is often better. (And I would avoid also saying things like "it was his idea", because it makes it sound like we're mind readers, or we have close ties to the subject.) That's what I'd recommend, is correct some of the phrasing and put everything in a logical order. Zaereth (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I have a few moments while I was stuck on hold, so I did a quick draft of what I believe would be a more appropriate lede. Keep in mind, I'm just going by the article as currently written, and the article is currently in a very poor state, with a lot of unsourced material, poorly written in many spots, and some even written from future perspective (like a prediction of the future). The entire thing really lacks any time reference, cohesion, or continuity. Anyhow, if I were to write this lede, I would go for something more along the lines of:

Noah Oppenheim (born 1977 or 1978) is an American television producer, author, and screenwriter. He wrote several screenplays, including The Maze Runner. Oppenheim became a producer at NBC overseeing shows such as Mad Money and Hardball. In 2015, he became a vice president at NBC, and was the executive in charge and senior producer of NBC's Today Show, where he supervised the 7–8 AM hour of the broadcast, and was head of development at the production company Reveille. He became president of NBC News in 2017, where he received criticism for refusing to publish the story of the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations.

That's my two cents, so I hope it helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd note that Oppenheim and NBC adamantly deny they refused to publish "the story" or stopped Farrow from reporting at NBC. They claim that Farrow's research at NBC still had too many gaps - it was not a "story" yet when he left.[7] He eventually concluded his reporting at The New Yorker, with many on-the-record sources not part of the NBC research. David Remnick the editor of The New Yorker, says when Farrow brought the research to them from NBC it only had the "building blocks" for the eventual story.[8] So the final sentence in this proposed (well-intentioned) paragraph misleadingly equates that the Farrow reporting while at NBC as the same as the "story" as it eventually came out in Thew New York Times and The New Yorker[9] Also worth noting perhaps that the media columnist at The New York Times contends that many of his allegations against NBC are made without proof. "His stories are built and sold on his belief — which he rarely proves — that powerful forces and people are conspiring against those trying to do good, especially Mr. Farrow himself."[10] There are those who believe Farrow and those who believe Oppemheim and NBC. Wikipedia should reflect both sides. BC1278 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: I noticed User: ScottishFinnishRadish opened a Talk discussion about this on April 16., with a proposal. Talk:Noah Oppenheim/Archive 1#Proposed lead. The user has notified Talk discussion of this BLP post. No one on the article talk has yet to respond to the editor's proposal. BC1278 (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

No response is often as close to a green light as you can expect around here. If people have objections, then I'm sure they'd have said so by now. It's usually customery to wait a week or two, to give people time to reply, but if none are forthcoming, then I'd say Scot is ok to go ahead and make the changes. Zaereth (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I Laurence Galian am the subject of this article.

Please tell me how I can substantiate claims through printed documents, certificates, awards, etc., i.e. do you accept JPEGs, GIFs, PDFs, etc., of these written, printed, and photographed matter that provide information or evidence or that serves as an official record?

If so, where do I send them, so they may serve to support and prove statements in my article?

Thank you.

DazanMushin (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Do not publish stuff yourself. Show where stuff has already been published by other people with known good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Uncle G (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is some guidance:

• WP:BLP
• WP:AUTO
• WP:COI
• WP:EDITREQ
• WP:ABOUTSELF
• WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  Resolved

An editor has just noted that the subject has died. However, I have not been able to confirm or verify this information anywhere. If I am charitable, then it's likely the user found news of this death in a government index of some kind. Can anyone verify that the subject has died? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I added a source. Fences&Windows 01:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure it adds much to substantiate his death, but it's better than nothing. It's odd how there isn't anything about his death anywhere. Wouldn't it show up in the SSDI, or does that take time? Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

New York Times has finally covered his death: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_D._Brock&diff=prev&oldid=1019385143. Fences&Windows 20:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping at this. I appreciate it. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Jeffrey Tucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article fragment cites two sources, one from Reason magazine and one from the Economist. Diff here: [11] Am I right in thinking that they both are not RS? (1) The Reason article names a source, Timothy Virkkala, who tells about office gossip that he heard. (2) The Economist piece -- actually a blog in that magazine's website -- cites a blog by political writer Wendy McElroy; and she cites an anonymous blog. This sourcing dispute ran off and on [12] and returned with recent attempts to restore content removed three years ago. Bistropha (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

This page is of a living person and an editor is using primary sources on controversial posts. See the talk page. I removed the posts explaining the problem but the editor reverted my edits. I don't want to get into an edit war so I need help here. Mr. Vlašić was a Catholic Priest and still living. Ratko Peric was the current Bishop who just recently retired, Nikola Bulat a priest was a member of the commission that examined the Our Lady of Medjugorjeapparitions. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Thank you!@Governor Sheng: Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Looking for some help with Bjorn Fortuin's article with the reports of converting to Islam. My first question - is convert or revert the correct term here? Each have been used in the article in the past 24hrs. I simply have no idea when it comes to this area. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A user User:El C continually reuploads defamatory and false information about Julius R. Nasso in his "Personal Life" section regarding law suites he was formerly engaged in. The sources cited for the statements made do not support the statements, the statements are factually false, defamatory, and damaging to Mr. Nasso's reputation. User:El C has now placed a protection on the page and it cannot be edited.

El C is an experienced user with extensive knowledge and understanding of our sourcing policies for biographies of living people. A cursory glance at the section in question finds multiple references to highly-reliable sources such as the Los Angeles Times. Can you be more specific as to your proposed issues? If the Los Angeles Times published something and did not retract it, it is highly unlikely to be a violation of any policy to include it. Your claim that material sourced to an indisputable reliable source is factually false, defamatory, and damaging would need to be supported by a successful libel lawsuit filed against the sources in question, leading to a court decision that the statements were indeed libelous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That's about what I saw looking at the sources. Also that was one of the wildest stories I've read. Someone should make a movie out of it. I have an actor in mind for the lead role. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, the article is temporarily semi-protected and can be edited by any autoconfirmed editor. The proper place for you discuss any changes you want to make is Talk:Julius R. Nasso, using a formal edit request. You will need to provide reliable sources that provide a different account of the events. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I made a single edit to the page (ever), so there's no continually whatsoever (i.e. is just plain false). Oh well. Article talk page still blank at the time I am writing this. Requested conflict of interest disclosure from this individual, claiming to be the subject's attorney, yet to be provided, as well. So, all of that speaks to itself, I think. But one could always opt to start doing things the right way, the proper way, at any time. Here's hoping. El_C 11:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It's been about 14 months since this script was created, and since its inception it became one of the most imported scripts (currently #54, with 286+ adopters).

Since last year, it's been significantly expanded to cover more bad sources, and is more useful than ever, so I figured it would be a good time to bring up the script up again. This way others who might not know about it can take a look and try it for themselves. I would highly recommend that anyone doing citation work, who writes/expands articles, or does bad-sourcing/BLP cleanup work installs the script.

The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Kerem Bürsin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A handful of IP editors have been changing the "partner" field in the Infobox without a reliable source to back their claims up, therefore violating the BLP policy (NOR). Here are some diffs: [13][14][15][16]. As you can see from page history, this has been going on for two months. Some other editors and I constantly revert them, which is totally fine per 3RRBLP, but 3RRBLP also says to make a report here at BLPN just in case, so that's what I'm doing. The page has been under pending changes protection since December 2020, and it is set to expire December 2021. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

I sort of feel with the recent upsurge in edits, it's probably worth just moving to semi for a time although since you're one of the main ones reverting if you feel it's unnecessary it's probably better to defer to you. If you do want to move to semi, make a request at WP:RFPP if you get nothing from here. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thank you for the advice. I was also thinking a move to semi would be a good idea, so I'll make a request at RFPP now. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

George Pell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article faces persistent IP vandalism introducing negative content into the lede. Could and admin please consider introducing short term pending review or semi-protection? Melmann 20:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Please write a far better introduction than that. That one is truly terrible.

  Mr Wibble held all of these offices and did all of these important and worthwhile things; receiving recognition and awards that we are going to detail for two paragraphs.

  After his conviction was overturned …

  What? asks the surprised reader. What conviction? For getting medals? What?

  Uncle G (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Phillip Adams (American football) last week shot and killed six people before killing himself after a later police standoff; the story is well established, investigators have tracked the events and know it was him that shot the victims, etc. There's no question that a murder-killing happened with Adams at the trigger.

However, the problem is that we have editors that are rushing to add in "Adams was a football player and mass murderer..." as part of the lede sentence. The lede overall already covers that he shot and killed people, as there's no way to ignore that, but it seems extreme UNDUE and POV-ish to rush to call him a mass murderer. You cannot deny that the sourcing talks about Adams in context of the murder, and by definition "mass murderer" applies, but there are no sources that actually call him a "murderer"; there are no significant signs (yet) that this was a premeditated or provoked attack and while there's still investigation and a coroner's evaluation going on, the current theory ties to to complications of his mental health state from his football career, so the media are treating him more of a victim of circumstance and not calling him, outright, a murderer, though obviously they do not deny his crime. So it seems wholly inappropriate for us to rush to call him a criminal or a murderer in the lede like that, given that is not reflective of the sourcing.

If the attack was determined to be premediated or something that Adams had full control of, then it may be more appropriate to include it, but at this point, we just simply don't know enough, and given the state of the media, we should be as conservative or more so in our reporting rather than rush to use blaming language. --Masem (t) 00:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

He chose to go to a house with a loaded gun & kill 6 people. No-one made him do it. Jim Michael (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a BLP so this seems moot. Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

BLP absolutely applies to the recently deceased per WP:BDP. --Masem (t) 00:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

There's no good reason it should - that guideline/policy/rule needs to be changed. Jim Michael (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Being a murderer is a legal conclusion. Labeling him as such would be unacceptable under WP:BLPCRIME if he was sitting in jail awaiting trial. Should the tenets of BLPCRIME extend under WP:BDP? Do current reliable sources (not WP:RSOPINION) label the act as a murder? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

There's certainly no shortage of RS which clearly describe the mass shooting as murder. Jim Michael (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Do any directly label him a murderer? The categories that are in the article labeling him as a criminal and murderer are problematic without a conviction. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a point where we have to use some editorial judgment. First, the opening sentence: Unless a persons sole or main source of notability is being a murderer, then having an opening sentence like that reads as amateurish. When defining any subject, there are a certain set of questions you have to answer to build a context for the reader, so the following info will make sense. There is an order of importance to these question that is intrinsic to the questions, and there is a chronological order to factor in as well. The opening sentence does not need to cover every aspect of the person's notability. It simply needs to define the subject in the broadest terms possible. Then, once you have some context to build from, you can start describing different aspects.

As an example, the article on nitroglycerin would sound pretty funny if it began, "Nitroglycerin is an explosive and responsible for the deaths of millions of people." True as that may be, it sounds ridiculous. We need to build some sort of context first, and describe exactly what nitroglycerin is before we get into details of what nitroglycerin did.

People are no different. We need to begin first with defining what exactly a Phillip Adams is, and then go into different aspects of what he did. Unless he's like Charles Manson, whose only claim to fame is being a murderer, or his friend Bobby Beausoleil, whose primary claim to fame is still being a murderer, then it sounds silly to put that in the very first sentence, sort of like the way a child would tell a story.

I don't see how we can avoid having info about this in the lede. I would avoid using labels like "murderer" at all, and simply describe what he allegedly did. The way the article looked when I checked it, oh ... about 15 minutes ago, looked pretty good, and is just how I would state it. I'd keep in mind recentism, and how bad early news reports can be from the way they will be a few days/weeks from now. News outlets deal with events in real time, and that inevitable leads to mistakes, especially early on, so it's best not to be hasty in jumping to conclusions. Zaereth (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not childish at all. Try having a conversation about Adams - see how few seconds (not minutes) it takes for it to be mentioned that he killed people.

To use your example of Manson, your argument about Adams could be used to say that the first para of the lead of Manson's article should be limited to his 'work' as a cult leader. Or should it say new/fringe religious movement in order to avoid being negative towards him? Jim Michael (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

What I've stated is that it is too soon to be using that language. If down the road months after these events (likely after the investigation has closed) and that becomes the common way of thinking of about him , then yes, but right now, adding it is putting undue weight on the recent events and without giving the time needed to let the immediate emotional impact of the events simmer down. --Masem (t) 01:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand and agree, but I still stay that months/years after this event, an opening sentence that says "...football player and mass murderer..." will sound ridiculous. That's just bad writing, that's all. Months/years from now, onc the emotion of it winds down and people can look at it objectively, we likely won't have this problem. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law (yet I can't think of a better example of a mass murderer), even the article on Adolph Hitler doesn't read like that, and has a very professional opening-paragraph. Rather than trying to cram it all in the very first sentence, it's better to think about the reader, and what do they need to know first. Zaereth (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It won't ever sound ridiculous. If he'd only committed a minor crime it would be. Readers need to know about the mass shooting well before the list of teams he played for. He was an ordinary player who committed an extremely serious crime. He wasn't an outstanding, world-famous player who committed a minor crime. Jim Michael (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That's funny, because, no offense, but your first sentence sounds, well, ridiculous, so I couldn't help but laugh at the irony. It's not an insult to you, but please take it as a bit of constructive criticism, because, while I understand what you're trying to say, it's just poorly written. That's all. Zinsser's law states, "Easy writing makes for hard reading. Hard writing makes for easy reading." I tried above to briefly explain why it sounds "ridiculous", meaning "unprofessional", but it is difficult to do without writing an entire book. I'd suggest clicking on the link I provided above if you want more info, or I'd highly recommend the book On Writing Well: The Classical Guide to Writing Nonfiction by William Zinsser, to name but one. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

If it helps, though, I'll break it down like this: Anytime people write more than a text, they have info they want to convey, typically in the form of a relationship between info that leads them to a point. We always have to start with an introduction, and end with a point, or a summary sentence. In between is the content, which show how the two relate. When this end point is reached, then it's time to begin a new paragraph, or else people may miss it. The goes for anything we write, really, be it a single sentence, a paragraph, section, or an entire article. As much as people feel the need to make the point first, that's a mistake, because that's not where people look for it, and it becomes circular reasoning.

Look again at the article on Hitler. That is a very well-written lede there. It introduces the subject, and then leads to the main point. This really goes for all articles, even those like phosphorescence or mirror, and really any informative writing, not just bios. Introduce, relate, and lead to the point. Don't start with it. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Many notable people are known for 2 different things. In those cases, it's normal and commonplace for both to be in the first sentence. There are 3 mentioned in the first sentence of Donald Trump, 5 in the first sentence of Arnold Schwarzenegger & 6 in the first sentence of Jerry Springer. Even when one thing is criminal & the other is not, it's still normal & commonplace - for example Bill Cosby & Harvey Weinstein. If many WP editors shared your view that it's ridiculous, we wouldn't have a large number of articles which mention multiple things in their first sentences. Jim Michael (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The first examples are cases where those are multiple professions or careers, and thus listing them all in the first sentence is logic. Adding in the criminal or characterization facet that is not a career thing is what makes the sentence completely awkward and appear as immature writing, becuase that is putting that as equal weight as the career parts, which is usually not appropriate. There's a TV Tropes trope called "Murder, arson, and jaywalking" that is sorta the reverse of this but is the same idea: a lede sentence that includes professional/career descriptors and then adds on a criminal facet is mixing terms and phrases inappropriately to create poorly written sentences. Just because you can probably find hundreds of others BLPs with similar first sentences doesn't make it right: as I mention in the above section, this is a long-standing problem due to human nature of wanting to call out negative behavior, and we should really codify that the lede sentence should not be going to to call out criminal or other characterizations unless that is the only thing they were noted for. The whole of the lede can get to any critical criminal facets (as we clearly have with Adams). --Masem (t) 13:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that it's awkward & immature. I agree that in most cases criminality shouldn't be in the first sentence & that it would in most cases be undue weight to do so. However, in this case it's entirely justified. He's best-known for committing a mass shooting - it's not a side issue & wasn't a minor event in his life. He was an ordinary player who committed an extremely serious crime, not a world-famous player with millions of fans who committed a minor crime. Criminality is not mentioned until late in the articles of many sportspeople who've committed serious crimes, which I suspect is in many cases due to fans not wanting it to be prominently mentioned. Jim Michael (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Only over the course of the last few days has he been considered as a murderer over his football career; prioritizing that now is a problem per WP:RECENTISM. If months down the road - after the investigation and analysis has been completed - that sources still readily considering him a murdered over a football player, then maybe there is something to include in the first sentence. But in the days and weeks after his death? It's very much inappropriate to include - this is exactly why BRCP exists. --Masem (t) 16:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

What's BRCP? Jim Michael (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree about that. Unless a person is solely known for a criminal act, pushing the criminality into that first sentence seems very immature; someone gave the example that we do this on Harvey Weinstein where it is Harvey Weinstein is an American former film producer and convicted sex offender. which seems extremely awkward. --Masem (t) 02:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Should Weinstein's article list many of his films first? Try having a conversation about him & see how many seconds it takes for his sex offending to be mentioned. Even if you try hard to keep the conversation to his film career, the other person will definitely repeatedly bring up the fact that he's a convicted sex offender. Jim Michael (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no requirement at all that a person's criminal history has to be made in the first sentence of an article, unless they are solely known for that (eg Lee Harvey Oswald). If their criminal history is a clear notable facet, it must be described in the lede, but the lede still must be written to present the topic neutrally, impartially, and dispassionately, and the rush to include the criminality as early as the first sentence completely demolishes that neutrality (particularly the dispassionate side - it makes us look like we're focusing on calling out the negative). We will cover the criminal facet, but we shouldn't be putting it top shelf, and by placing it last - usually what ends most people's careers and/or lives - it is in appropriate order as well, and that makes us dispassionate to the topic. Keep in mind that we expect that if a reader visits an article they will read at minimum the whole lede, hence the importance of the lede to include this, but not required to be in the lede statement. --Masem (t) 13:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the act is clearly label as a murder, he is clearly named as the suspect/culprit. But they don't attach "murderer" or "killer" to him. --Masem (t) 01:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Mass shooter, mass killer or who shot six people and himself dead could be put in place of mass murderer. Jim Michael (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It currently says "Adams shot and killed himself following a standoff with police in Rock Hill, South Carolina, after being identified by investigators as the gunman responsible for killing six people the day before." which seems reasonable to me. He's not solely notable for the killing; he already had an article here. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The reader only finds that out after reading a list of the teams he played for. He's by far best known for the mass shooting he committed. The large majority of the people who've heard of him now have only known of his existence since then. Most couldn't name any of the teams he played for. Had he not done the shooting (even if he'd died), most of them still wouldn't have heard of him. He was an ordinary player who committed a massive crime, not a star who committed a minor crime. That's why a mention in the first sentence is due weight. O.J. Simpson's career was much longer, varied & successful - but his criminality is mentioned in the first sentence of his article. Jim Michael (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The probem is that you end up tying yourself in knots trying to phrase it in a single sentence without it sounding terrible. I would possibly swap the second and third sentences around so that the sentence about the shooting follows directly on from the first one which says basically who he was, with the list of teams following separately. Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That would be better than how it currently is.

Talk:Phillip Adams (American football) is a more appropriate place for this discussion. Jim Michael (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll respond down here, since it's time to undent but doing so would break up the continuity of the threads. I really don't know how to explain this all in a few, simple paragraphs. I can recommend a lot of good books on the subject, but that only works if people decide to look them up and read them. I think if people just understood how written communication works most effectively, then they wouldn't get so focused on the opening sentence as being this all-important thing. Don't get me wrong, because it's very important, but not for the reasons people seem to think.

I've tried one analogy, so I'll try another. This is also a big problem in scientific and technical articles. Math is a completely different language than English, and those proficient in it are quite often not very good in the other. The problem that arises is that scientists and mathematicians tend to want to start off by tossing people right into the deep end, without giving any of the background or basic, general definitions a person needs to follow along. It's really a common problem, in that people tend to assume the reader has all of the necessary background info to be able to follow along.

As an example, I'll use the mirror article. The natural tendency of anyone who is well versed in the science of mirrors is to begin by stating that a mirror is an object that produces specular reflection. That is entirely correct, simple, and precise. But what the hell does it mean?

Now, you can go on to explain what it means, and eventually people might start to comprehend the concept of specular reflection, but that is really doing it backwards. Instead, it's important to think about the reader. What does the reader need to know first about mirrors? What is the one thing that everybody recognizes when they see a mirror? What are the uses of a mirror? How did they come to exist? What are they made of? It's questions like these that need to be answered before we ever need to get into how a mirror works. That's what I mean when I say there is an order of importance to questions. There are certain things a person needs to know first or else the following info will not make sense, and it has nothing to do with people's personal feeling about what is most important.

It's really not so different for bios. There are different ways information needs to be organized in order to make it understandable. In a sense, we're writing a story, so chronological order is a prime concern, but there are also orders of what, where, when, who, how, and why, and orders of other things we can categorize, but ordering things by notability makes the least amount of sense. That first sentence is more like a gateway; a place to get us started on the pathway. The first sentence should be a short, simple equation: "Subject is(=)...". The sentence should be the single, broadest, simplest, most all-encompassing definition possible of what the subject physically is, given in the fewest words possible. As a fictional example, here is an article on John Doe: "John Doe is a politician. John Doe was born on January 1, 1900, in Barf City, USA. Doe worked at a local law firm for two years, until being elected city council member in 1925, where he did this, that, and the other thing. In 1929, Doe was arrested for the murder of his wife and two children..."

In that example, it makes no sense to start with, "Doe is a murderer". First, that's just name calling, which is what makes it look childish. Technically, Doe is a politician who became a murderer, and there is a story in that, so we need to show how it gets from there to here. When he goes on trial, he will be a politician on trial, and when he goes to jail, he'll be a politician in jail. Now he might become far more infamous for these murders, but a politician will still be the primary thing that he is. Second, it's like premature ejaculation to put the climax of the story first. That's what I mean when I say the summary is where the important points go. Putting them first is backwards, and is like trying to explain how a mirror works before first explaining what the damn thing is. While I totally agree with the comments on RECENTISM (this is too recent to tell), regardless of what he's done, a football player is what he is.

To Jim, the one question I would ask myself if I were you is: "Why is this so important to me?" I mean, why do you think the opening sentence is so all fired important? Isn't it better to have a well-written article? Wouldn't that get the message across more effectively? Wikipedia has a lot of rules people can use to micromanage with, but once in a while we should step back and look at the bigger picture, and see the forest rather than just the trees. In all these rules, we sadly have little beyond MOS in the way of good writing guides. Zaereth (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and at the risk of making this even longer, I think another important concept that people often misunderstand is "Show, don't tell". There's some basic psychology there. People tend to go in the opposite direction of where they're told. In theory, the seemingly obvious way to get kids not to smoke is to tell them not to. In practice, telling a kid not to do anything is the best way to ensure they will. In Aristotelian view, the universe was just like it seems, but since then we have learned things are rarely like they seem. This is really no different for names like "murderer". If you tell me Darth Vader is a murderer, I'm like "Yeah, right. Whatever." If you show me he blew up the entire planet of Alderaan, then I'm apt to believe you. It's always more believable to lead people to a conclusion and let them come to it themselves than to give it to them and then expect them to buy it. Zaereth (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Several people made the same edit to this article as I did - but none of them have entered this discussion.

Your hypothetical example of a politician-turned murderer wouldn't be a politician in jail - he'd be a prisoner who used to be a politician.

I strongly disagree that it's bad writing to include a profession & serious criminality in the first sentence - it's just as good writing as including multiple professions in the first sentence. Our readers don't need to read a list of teams that Adams played for before he chose to become a mass murderer. The team names are trivia in comparison to what he chose to do at the end of his life.

Another example of someone who used to have a successful legitimate career but who now is known for something else which gives him a bad reputation is David Icke. He's not a criminal, but it's a valid comparison in that it includes very different things in its first sentence. On top of that, it puts conspiracy theorist first. The lead doesn't go into details about his sports career before much later saying that years later he became a conspiracy theorist. The lead doesn't include any sports details; well over 90% of it is about him being a conspiracy theorist. Jim Michael (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Fortunately, the concept of what is well written and poorly written is based in science and not people's personal beliefs, and really goes back as far as Pliny with roots in ancient Greek and Babylonian. In the modern age, there is a very good understanding of the neuroscience and neuropsychology developing that helps explain why. I can recommend some more good book on the subject, but I'd start with the first one I already recommended, because that's one of the best. It's universal, meaning it doesn't matter what language it's in, and is a great factor in determining a sources reliability.

Of course, I don't expect to convince you. There is little point in giving advice to people who have already made up their minds. Like Masem said, this is a problem that transcends this article and is really Wikipedia wide. In any discussion like this, the people you really need to convince is everyone else. Zaereth (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Several editors whom I don't know were convinced enough to alter the first sentence in the same way as I did, without any prompting from me. Jim Michael (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of argumentum ad populum? It's what I call the lemming fallacy. If everyone jumps off a cliff does that mean I should do it too? See, this all has to do with basic logic, as all communication does. There is a premise, basis, and conclusion. If any of these don't hold water, then the whole thing is invalid, and it doesn't make sense. It's always a bad idea to make the conclusion the premise, because that becomes circular logic. You start with a premise, and end with a conclusion different from the premise. I don't know how to explain it any clearer than that ... at least, not without charging you. People make good money teaching what I'm giving you for free, so I hope it helps. Have a good day. Zaereth (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The page views of the Phillip Adams article rose from 12 on April 7 to 530,481 on April 8 - a factor of over 44,000. As of now, it has stabilized at around 4,000 per day.

Phillip Adams killing six people is far more notable than any aspect of his football career, including the teams he played for. That Adams was the gunman is now undisputed. His short description says "American football player and killer." I don't see any valid argument for how the list of NFL teams he played for is more notable than the fact that he murdered six people. Plenty of reliable sources describe his killings as murder. There is precedent for including his crimes in the first sentence: see Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Javaris Crittenton. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 21:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Just because the event was called a murder does not mean that sources describe him as a killer or murderer, nor does that give us allowance to call him a killer or murderer (outside of saying that he shot and killed 6 people). It is because they have yet to figure out how much intent there was to this, if he was impacted by his mental health or if he purposely chose to do that. And OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to include this; the fact we include those mentions in those other articles is just as bad form. Again, the lede sentence is not required to identify why a person is notable, but it is required to neutrally introduce the topic. --Masem (t) 21:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That Phillip Adams was a murderer is not an opinion; it is a fact, so WP:NPOV doesn't apply. Whether mental illness was a factor does not obscure the fact that six people died due to his actions. Harvey Weinstein had a much more notable career in the film industry, yet his sexual misconduct is mentioned in the first sentence of his article. Consider WP:10YT: in 10 years, it is likely that Phillip Adams will be remembered as a murderer who happened to play football, not a football player who happened to murder six people. He wasn't a star football player who ran a red light, or even robbed a bank. He was a mediocre player who murdered six people, and no aspect of his career on the field comes close to what happened on April 7, 2021. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 21:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That's ascribing WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS attitude ("he killed people so that's all he'll be known for, and we must stress that"). We aren't hiding that he shot and killed people and then himself in the lede, but until it is crystal clear in the sources that he is considered a murderer more than a football player, we cannot give that term weight in the first sentence. It's speculation to assume that in 10 years he'll only be known for this act. Perhaps it will be the case that his football injuries led to these actions, and subsequent caused changes in how the NFL handled head injuries. While he still will be documented for killing six people, it likely will not be that he will be framed as a "murderer" in this context. But we don't know that yet, and as media sources now do not name him a murderer or killer, we can't either. --Masem (t) 21:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Masem, Morbidthoughts, AllegedlyHuman, Koridas, and Jim Michael:
Saying "Phillip Adams was an American football player and mass murderer" is not stressing his mass murder above his football career - it puts the two in equal standing. A murderer is defined as "one who murders," therefore saying that Adams murdered people is the same as calling him a murderer. Adams was not a player who received an ephemeral burst of attention in the news (say, for appearing on a TV show, or saying something controversial on Twitter). Six people (seven, including himself) died due to his actions. O. J. Simpson had a far more notable football career but his criminality is mentioned in the first sentence of his article. In the Phillip Adams article half the sources cited are about the massacre he perpetrated. The fact that he was a mass murderer is far more important to his legacy than the fact that he was drafted in the 7th round of the 2010 NFL draft by the 49ers, or the list of teams he played for.
Jim Michael stated in an edit summary: Easily important enough for the first sentence. The large majority of people reading this have only heard of him because he's a mass murderer. Prior to him shooting several people, the vast majority of people outside the US had never heard of him. It's not trivial, a side issue or undue weight - he was a mass murderer, not a one-time shoplifter. I would go even further and say that the vast majority of people inside the US had never heard of him before the attack - only those who follow the NFL extremely closely, or who live in Rock Hill, South Carolina. He wasn't anywhere close to a star player. He was a nobody, whose Wikipedia page had an average of 7 views per day from 1/1/2020 to the day before the shooting. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 22:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Some of the arguments advanced above by Crossover1370 make sense to me but I still find the use of the phrase "mass murderer" in the opening sentence premature at this stage. We are supposed to follow WP:RS coverage in deciding how to characterize someone. Looking at the rather massive news coverage of Adams in the last two weeks I see that most sources covering 2021 Rock Hill shooting don't actually refer to him as "murderer" or "mass murderer". They use various other type of language to describe what happened. The term murder generally assumes intent and culpability, and it is not used if the perpetrator is mentally incapacitated and is not in command in their faculties. Here we still don't know whether or not that was the case (see, e.g. today's ESPN story Two weeks later there are still more questions than answers about former NFL player Phillip Adams). I believe that's why the sources are being more careful and generally are not describing the event as "murders", despite its horrific nature , and are not calling Adams "murderer" right now. We should follow what the sources do and hold off on using the "murderer" language, especially in the opening sentence of the article. Nsk92 (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Just because most sources do not use the word "murder" does not mean it was not murder. I examined several of the sources in the article on the Saugus High School shooting and not a single one used the word "murder." That does not mean that it was not a mass murder. It is appropriately categorized under Category:2019 murders in the United States, Category:Murder in Los Angeles County, and Category:Murder–suicides in California. The 2021 Rock Hill shooting was no different (in fact, the death toll was higher). - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 00:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Just because most sources do not use the word "murder" does not mean it was not murder. Correct, but it does not mean that it was murder either. And what it does mean is that we should not characterize the act as "murder" until the sources start doing so. I have not looked at the sources for Saugus High School shooting in detail, but note that the word "murder" is not mentioned in the text of the article itself (particularly not in the lede and not in the opening sentence), and appears only once in the infobox, in the term "murder-suicide". Our standards for category listings are less strict than for the article text; that's probably not a good thing. Nsk92 (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a WP:SKYISBLUE situation, Crossover1370. You need to get consensus to readd those label and categories into the article. If reliable sources are not directly labeling him a murderer, wikipedia should not be doing so either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

There is this source (from the website lawandcrime.com started by Dan Abrams), and this source (U.S. edition of The Sun). - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 01:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The Sun is not a reliable source per WP:RS/P. The first source is an RS, but the only place "murder" appears in the headlines, and we do not consider headlines as part of a reliable source. --Masem (t) 02:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

There's this from Yahoo Sports. In the 24th paragraph: Until he became a mass murderer, a child killer, a sweeping force of evil.
And there's this: The police report, according to ESPN, listed six counts of murder, possession of a weapon during a violent crime and first degree burglary. The police report itself describes it as murder. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 02:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That the police record is naming the events as "murder" is one thing, but that's more a technical aspect of how they had to report it (the legal language of the law), but we're still talking about how we describe Adams here. And while that Yahoo source does use it, 1) it looks more like an op-ed column rather than a factual news report (the reason its byline is "columnist" gives that impression, in addition to its tone) and 2) that's one source out of dozens, so it would be improper to use that to name him "murderer" per UNDUE. Again, it is far better to ask the question in 2-3 or so months after they have looking into the state of his mental health and determined if he was fully cognizant of his actions or not, and see where the media places him then. Trying to push the "murderer" label now is not at all appropriate. --Masem (t) 13:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Now that the police report has listed six counts of murder, it is indisputable that Adams was a mass murderer. That fact alone is far more important, and covered far more in reliable sources, than any aspect of his football career, such as the round or year he was drafted, or the list of teams he played for.
Imagine if the Donald Trump article said that he was a businessman and reality TV star, and mentioned every property he owned and the TV show he hosted, and in the next paragraph mentioned that he was president of the United States for 4 years. This is what the Phillip Adams article looks like right now. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 17:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, there's no question that the police are reporting six murders happened, and while by definition, Adams would be listed as a murderer, we still have to go by what sources say rather than our original research which is what you are asking us to do. And to compare to Trump there's no question that POTUS is a more significant position than being a businessman or reality TV star, and we have four years of sources to evaluate that. You're asking us to take less than two weeks of sourcing to make the same assumption here, which is fully against NPOV and RECENTISM. This is not the place where we are going to call out people's criminality just because a crime happened, that is against WP:BLPCRIME. --Masem (t) 17:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not "calling out" a criminal act, it is documenting a criminal act - mentioning that it is already a key part of Adams's notability - and that is documented by numerous reliable sources. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 17:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

We already document the criminal act in the lede in neutral terms (that he shot and killed six people before killing himself). But until more about his motives or state of health, to ascribe the use of the word "murderer" as a primary descriptor is both inappropriate per our BLP policy as well as per the lack of wide use of that term in reliable sources per NPOV. It is not required to include why someone is notable in the lede statement, only that it is included somewhere within the entire lede. Trying to force the word "murderer" is calling out the criminal act in a way not reflected by sources. --Masem (t) 17:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

And as for the categories that User:Morbidthoughts removed (here & here) they are all valid categories. Mass murderer? The police report documented six counts of murder. Criminal? Murder is a crime. 21st century criminal? 2021 is in the 21st century. Murderer of children? Among his victims were a 5-year-old and a 9-year-old. Criminal from South Carolina? He was born and raised in South Carolina (SC), went to college in SC, and committed his crime in SC. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 19:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

They are not verifiable categories. The article you linked to describes Adams as the suspect. Not a murderer. Not a criminal. WP:BURDEN demands that the "cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article". This requirement extends to categories. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The ESPN article I linked to clearly mentions that Adams perpetrated the shooting, and is not merely "suspected" of doing so (see the 1st paragraph). Countless reliable sources corroborate this. So all the categories apply. (Right now, someone could read the 1st paragraph and the categories and conclude that he was just another cornerback in the NFL.) - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 06:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Naw, this is WP:Original Research. "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Check all the sources in the 2021 Rock Hill shooting article. It is clear that Adams isn't just suspected of perpetrating the shooting. We are now certain that Adams was the killer. Also check the categories in that article: Category:2021 murders in the United States, Category:Murder–suicides in South Carolina, Category:Murdered American children. If the Rock Hill shooting was mass murder, then Adams is by definition a murderer. If it's not murder (an assertion which is debunked by numerous reliable sources), you might as well remove the aforementioned categories from the article on the shooting. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 20:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me put it in a different frame: let's say a person was attacked by a thief in their own home, and shot and killed the thief in self-defense (and determined that way from followup police investigation). For all purposes, the the thief was murdered, but you will never find a source that would call that person a murderer because they were acting in self-defense. There is a similar vein of thought you need to consider here. While there is no question that six people were murdered, the question of whether Adams was acting with malice on his own volition is unanswered, and questions were raised that prior to the incident he may not have been in total control of his mental well-being. As such, few sources are calling him a "murderer" because the question of malice/intent is unknown. You cannot just say "X committed murder, so X must be labeled a murderer." That is not how WP works particularly around living and recently-deceased persons. The crime can still be called a murder if that is how police have cataloged it, but that doesn't mean the suspect must be a murderer. --Masem (t) 20:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia's definition of murder. The first element of common law murder is: Unlawful – This distinguishes murder from killings that are done within the boundaries of law, such as capital punishment, justified self-defense, or the killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants as well as causing collateral damage to non-combatants during a war. Killing someone in self-defense is not considered murder. By contrast, in the Phillip Adams case, several reliable sources including the police report describe his actions as murder. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 00:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

See, this is where we need lawyers, judges, and courts to make these determinations for us. Law is confusing, which is why you need a lawyer if you ever find yourself in court.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but nevertheless, common law hasn't been practiced in the US since the 18th century. The US is a civil-law country, as is much of the world. Back in the days of common law, there weren't many thing you could call felonies, and anything that was typically came with a hanging.

In civil law, although the definitions vary from state to state, there needs to be intent and a legal thing called "malice aforethought". This means the person needs to be aware of their actions, of the difference between right and wrong, and a whole host of other things. That's why an insane person can't be convicted of murder, regardless of how many people they kill. We don't know yet any of this information, and we won't until a trial concludes. We shouldn't be trying to play lawyer like this, and this is exactly why things like BLPCRIME exist. He's a murderer when he is convicted of murder, and not a moment before. Zaereth 00:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to correct Zaereth, Adams is dead (killed himself after killing six others). However, there is an open medical investigation looking into his health just before the event to determine if long-term injuries from his NFL career were at play. But this still is pointing to the same point; whether Adams acted with "malice aforethought" which no RS current really lists out. --Masem (t) 01:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew that, but forgot to slip in "or deemed so by the authorities". I was about to do that, but you beat me to the punch. Zaereth (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the shooting I have found an additional source which states that Adams may have followed a new religion/ideology before his massacre. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 19:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

And if after all is said and done in the investigation, that his involvement with that religion directly led him to this action on his own volition, and sources thus follow on that thread to call him "murderer" we can talk to that then. But we're not there yet. We're not saying it can't ever be added just not right now. --Masem (t) 20:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Seldom do news stories use the word "murderer" to describe those who kill. The typical language in news stories is: "The suspect was identified as...", "The perpetrator was identified as...", "<perpetrator's name> killed <# of victims> people", etc. But that does not mean that the killings are not murder. If reliable sources describe a killing as murder, Wikipedia can say that the killings were murder, and by extension, the perpetrator is a murderer. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 20:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

If reliable sources describe a killing as murder, Wikipedia can say that the killings were murder, and by extension, the perpetrator is a murderer. As pointed out by multiple others, no we can't; if RSes are not using the word "murderer" when the crime is a murder, then we can't do that without violating BLP/BIO and NOR/SYNTH. --Masem (t) 20:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Then is there any other way to clarify that he committed mass murder? Right now, someone can read the first paragraph and the categories in the Phillip Adams article and conclude that he was just another cornerback in the NFL. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 20:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The totality of the lede clearly indicates he shot and killed six people. There's no need for any more clarification given the sourcing present without being non-neutral. --Masem (t) 20:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

What about the categories? Should those searching for American mass murderers, or criminals from South Carolina, or American murderers of children, see Phillip Adams's name? - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 20:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is MOS:ROLEBIO: The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. Do most sources refer to him a football player who committed murder, a murderer who played football, or ...?—Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Splitting this part out from above as I think it requires a separate discussion: What about the categories? Should those searching for American mass murderers, or criminals from South Carolina, or American murderers of children, see Phillip Adams's name?

• This is actually a fair question. WP:BLPCAT is the advise we have for when to apply terms of criminality in categories to BLP (including recently deceased) and that text implies that as long as the matter is factually shown (which I do agree is the case for Adams being a murderer and criminal) and true, and is unquestionably part of his notability, even though RSes are not calling him that. BLPCAT remains silent on the issue related to where categories should be based on absolute fact for non-label terms but where those terms are potentially contentious if they were used in prose as we've identified above. My view : we should follow what we do in prose and that would be not to include said categories, yet, but BLPCAT is vague enough that I can't see removal being demanded at this time. --Masem (t) 17:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Jun Hong Lu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This caught my eye as this person is the subject of a website article published on facts.org.cn There have been repeated attempts of citing Chinese-sourced 'news' or news articles that cited Chinese-sourced materials in this person's BLP. In fact, I looked up this notice board and found similar situation happened in 2017

The most recent attempts are carried out by:

• WezSchultz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • Jun Hong Lu: Special:Diff/1020168563

• GSS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • Jun Hong Lu: Special:Diff/1019653514

To be fair, this BLP has many other issues, such as lack of proper citations in other parts, which should also be tidied up.

But that doesn't change the fact that any treatment to a religious figure, especially someone is subject to negative campaign by the Chinese authorities, should be handled in a very careful manner. It's not something a unsophisticated rollbacker can manage and simply label any attempt to improve the article as 'whitewashing'.

Unfortunately, my attempts of removing unreliable sources and their citations have been reverted.

For the lead part of the BLP, I also have concern that the current version has given too much weight on the criticism.

Few religious figures originate from mainland China can have the luxury of being treated fairly, much less likely in today's situation.

I humbly seek advice here.AutoPrime (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

BasedMises changed the lead to state,[17] "Furr is a historical negationist and Soviet war crimes denier who holds fringe views regarding the Soviet Union". The only source is two articles published in Russian in New Poland magazine. It's unclear if that's a reliable source or if the articles even support the claims, as the editor refuses to provide quotes that would back up the content. I am hoping that this can be confirmed as it is unacceptable to have unverified information or original research prominently displayed on a BLP. (t · c) buidhe 03:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, Based on that one diff I concur this is too problematic for the lead. Although the subject is controversial enough some sort of mention of this should be present there, but backed by reliable sources and worded more carefully. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The article, Chloe Smith (musician), references Freeman, Scott (October 11, 2013). "30 Under 30: Rising Appalachia's Chloe Smith stands on the beautiful edge of a creative cliff". ArtsATL.com.; which states "Chloe, 29, is the younger of the sisters". Based on this reference, I propose to add to the lede, (born c. {{birth based on age as of date|29|2013|October|11|noage=1}}) (which yields "(born c. 1983 or 1984)".

User:Skyerise opposes this addition, asserting that WP:DOB prohibits extrapolations of birth dates, including those of the sort that this template is designed to generate. I believe that this is a misreading of WP:DOB, as there is neither a conflict between sources nor reference to a primary source document. Per their suggestion, I raise this issue here to determine whether WP:BLP prohibits the use of {{birth based on age as of date}} in this article. BD2412 T 19:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A precise date of birth is PII, which is what WP:DOB addresses; age isn't, and estimated year of birth is merely a programmatic way of providing age without requiring constant manual update of the article. As long as we have a reliable source for age-as-of-date, it should be included in an article. I don't see it violating WP:DOB at all. (Note that even WP:DOB says If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, clearly differentiating between the privacy implications of date of birth and year of birth.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

As the original author of the articles on Chloe and her sister, Leah Song, I noticed that they never give their birth date or even year in any interview or biographical summary. From this I think that we can conclude that they would prefer not to reveal such details. Since as individuals they are much less notable than their band, Rising Appalachia, both WP:BLP and WP:DOB suggest that we be sensitive to the privacy of living persons. To add with a template c. 1983/1984 in lieu of a sourced birth date seems to be forcing the issue when the subject has consistently chosen not to disclose her birth date to interviewers. Skyerise (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

However, the subject does appear to have disclosed their age to the interviewer in this case. BD2412 T 20:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

artsatl.org [18] is possibly an ok-ish source in this context. The c. year can be added based on it. If it should be, that's editorial discretion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Its a reliable source for this, there is no reason to hide the date of birth on Wikipedia.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

YOB, not DOB. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought you guys would like to know that someone edited the wiki article for Jeffrey Goldberg has been updated to include a blurb from Greenwald's latest substack piece.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Goldberg&diff=cur&oldid=1020188263

I'm not sure if this violates the site's policy, but I thought I'd give you guys a heads up, especially since the blurb is essentially making the claim that Goldberg's New Yorker piece is one of the main reasons why the invasion of Iraq happened to begin with, which I believe is a great exaggeration and grossly unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooded-wanderer (talk • contribs) 00:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Blog platforms (Substack, Medium, etc.) that publish user-generated content should be assumed self-published, unless there is evidence that the source has a publisher who is not the author. Self-published sources should never be cited for BLP material about any third party. Politrukki (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

2nd ref article is not about Chuck Clements. It is about "Ryan Clement" a different person. Please remove, as I was not able. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper0901 (talk • contribs)

The cited article specifically mentions Chuck Clements, and is being used on Wikipedia as a reference to him being on the Broncos: After joining the Outlaws, he [Ryan Clement] beat out Chuck Clements, the sixth quarterback selected in the 1997 draft, for the starting job. Clements made the New York Jets' roster that year and later was signed to the Philadelphia Eagles' practice squad. His last NFL stop was Greeley, where he was in the Denver Broncos' training camp last summer. - DoubleCross (‡) 14:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Given that Hoskinson is announcing 'the world’s biggest blockchain deployment to date' this week, the change of Hoskinson's nationality from American to South African may be malicious:

18:16, 27 April 2021‎ 2a02:a420:68:17ce:b463:3ac6:fab3:b8ee talk‎  13,508 bytes −1‎  Fixed his nationality undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

He is 'US citizen, Hawaiian born', according to Rod Alexander, IOHK's media director. rod.alexander@iohk.io

Please change it back to American IOHKwriter (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

removed by User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång.VikingDrummer (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources for Hawaii: [19][20].VikingDrummer (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention to cases of ill-founded removal of birth dates from several articles and ask for help of the community. Quite by chance I came across two instances of such deletion in articles Brian George and Tony Curran. In both cases it was User:Homechallenge55 who deleted the dates that had been there for years. I didn't bother tracking other instances but I believe there are plenty. The edits adding birth dates are rapidly reverted by User:Homechallenge55 and User:NinjaRobotPirate (and maybe somebody else, I didn't check). The reasons are absolutely obscure for me. Those birthdates, as far as I know, are not in any way controversial or contentious. Moreover, they have verifiable references on Wikidata ([21] and [22]) and other sources are easily googleable. Why on Earth could the dates be considered "likely to be challenged" and "removed immediately and without discussion"? In my opinion, it is a clear misuse of BLPRS rules. Aren't there any other options to contest information some users (who?) believe to be unreferenced? What references are good enough (if not IMDB or Filmportal)? Does anyone check Wikidata before removing information? Thank you in advance. — 2dk (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)2021 (UTC)

See WP:DOB, WP:BURDEN, and WP:USERG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Basically, birthdates of living people should not be added without a WP:BLP-good source. Removing uncited birthdates of living people is recommended by the WP:BLP policy. They can be re-added with a good ref, a WP:BLPSELFPUB source, like a check-marked Twitter, can work, assuming it clearly states the year/date of birth. Like NRP says, Wikidata is WP:USERG, not good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

David died today, aged 82 - see https://www.facebook.com/AmphibiaWeb/photos/a.217344781393/10157654735471394 Can someone with appropriate knowledge please update his page. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aloysius the Gaul A dead Facebook link as a source for someones Dead is by far inappropriate, no one will update his DOD with such a source. Google does not know nothing about his death. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford The link is to his obituary on Amphiaweb - which was updated and live when I linked it, and strill is - dunno what you are looking at :( I see teh page has been updated already so no longer an issue.Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Now that the article is semi-protected and a recent sock blocked, this article is ready for improvement. I took an ax to it since it was a pretty egregious example of resume building, and I would like one or more of you all to turn it into decent shape--there are sources. Two things are the main concern here: can a decent biography be written with these sources (I'm aware that the "career" section is terrible, and that's partly my fault, haha); and are the allegations and their aftermath properly represented based on the sources? I could do it myself, but I've already done too much, and after having blocked four accounts in that history I want to stay away from its content. Thank you very much, Drmies (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Jan Żaryn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is a discussion at Talk:Jan Żaryn concerning the newly added sentence "Numerous statements by Jan Żaryn have been recognized by journalists of [snip - several Polish newspapers] as nationalist, anti-Semitic, chauvinistic and historically false". Snip is mine, of course. There is probably some relevant criticism here (although UNDUE is also a potential issue), but the current sentence may indeed be problemsatic. It would be good to see some neutral parties comment on the talk there, as the discussion there - in which I only suggested asking for 3O here yesterday - is already escalating and not in a good way. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is this problematic?VikingDrummer (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

VikingDrummer, Welcome to Wikipedia. You've been here for barely four months so you may not be familiar with policies like WP:BLP. Check it out and then you'll see. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Piotrus, the talk page is impossible to navigate with that long discussion. What is the problem here? Did the "journalists of [snip - several Polish newspapers]" not write these things?VikingDrummer (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence, as originally written by me, is too harsh. However, there are several data reported in those articles, and also in the discussion[23] that ensued, which deserve consideration, above all because they are arguments that are connected with the accusations of politicization of the Institute.[24]--Mhorg (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

VikingDrummer, Per WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, it is not our place to claim there have been "numerous" statements. As for whether they wrote this or not - I haven't seen any quotes supporting such exact claims being made. And even if they were, we need to consider WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Please read all mentioned policies, btw. I suggested you read BLP above - have you done so? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I have done so. The dispute between you and User:Mhorg was unclear in scope. But apparently you both agree that the sentence was inaccurate so there is no current dispute? You could just place what the individual newspapers write.VikingDrummer (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone added a date of death for Edward Applebaum, but I am unable find any information to verify it. Maybe the date should be removed until verified? Hrdinský ^〒 18:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It was put in [25] by User:Pasquale. Is there a source for his death? I found [26], but I don't think that's reliable.VikingDrummer (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I did. It was actually based on a private communication from a close family member of the deceased composer. If that does not meet Wikipedia standards, feel free to remove it. Unfortunately, I was not able to find an obituary I could cite either. Nonetheless, the date of death is absolutely correct. Pasquale (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Collins For over a decade, I have lived with this annoying and inaccurate wikipedia page. Some right-wing Venezuelan troll did an initial hit job, trying to make me appear more of a radical than I really am. it was a deliberate attempt to "red bait" me --posting a defunct link to "Democratic Socialists of America." I've tried to complain, I've tried to edit it --only to have information restored. What can someone do when they have a troll trying to undermine them? Wikipedia has so much power --and it is harmful when you let trolls with political agendas to define other people's lives. I'm about to write an oped for a major newspaper called "Living with My Wikipedia Troll." I don't know what to do.

The material in question appears to be poorly sourced and/or unsourced, so I've removed it until there's proper sourcing and consensus for its inclusion on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@EpicPupper: has been edit warring to add the following passage into the Cr1TiKaL article, under a separate subheading entitled "controversy":

Amid backlash toward fellow YouTuber Carson "CallMeCarson" King for grooming a minor named Sam, White claimed that he does not inherently "see a problem with 19 and 17",^[2] while also claiming that, when he was in high school, some 19-year-old students were dating 17-year-old students from the same grade.^[3] Shortly afterward, this prompted some to take to Twitter to accuse White of "defending King and supporting pedophilia",^[4] to which he argued otherwise, claiming that, although King was 19 and Sam was 17, sending or receiving sexual imagery at both of those ages at the same time is still considered child pornography.^[3][5]

To me this seems massively undue and entirely backed up with unreliable sources. Sportskeeda is a glorified group blog that has been judged to be generally unreliable in previous discussions. Dexerto is a website that previous discussions have had mixed views on reliability, but it tends to cover sensational minor internet personality drama with no lasting significance. Celebrityegy is a self-published Medium blog with 1 follower, and thus should be removed per BLPSPS. I explicitly stated that the medium blog was a SPS when i reverted them last time, diff but they added it back anyway. The twitch clips are by Cr1TiKaL so they aren't an explicit violation of BLPSPS, but they do nothing to substantiate that the controversy should be included. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Also the accusation in Wikivoice that CallMeCarson groomed a minor also seems like a BLP vio, considering that he has not been convicted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources covering this are close enough to reliable to be able to use them for BLP claims particularly of this type. Needs to be removed. --Masem (t) 17:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

BLP issues appear to be a perennial problem on YouTuber articles, who tend to be edited by (presumably young) Wikipedians who don't really interact with the wider community, and thus don't understand our policies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Hemiauchenia, thanks for the concern relating this issue. I now agree that this is a BLP issue, and the content included should be removed. I apologize for this mistake on my side. Thank you for bringing this up. However, out of curiosity, I'd like to ask a question regarding your comment on Wikipedians who "don't really interact with the wider community, and thus don't understand our policies". Are you implying that these users are problematic or unneeded, or that I am one of them? I personally believe that biting the newcomers is a negative way to deal with new editors and is harmful to the encyclopedia in general. Could you please clarify your statement or intent? Thanks! EpicPupper (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Not to speak for Hemiauchenia, but compared to when I was first on Wikipedia or even on the Internet proper (prior to the Endless September), there was a mantra of "lurk and learn" before one would participate, learning how a community worked. That mantra is long since gone, in place of an instant gratification. That is fine for maybe 75% of the first-time edits on WP (otherwise not vandalism) as they just need a bit of polish, but there are areas like BLP and contentious topics that new users really should read our policies fist before editing our articles, but unfortunately we cannot place any automated restrictions on that (outside of page protections on the most problematic cases). So its nothing against you directly, just a long-standing problem for all new editors that don't take probably a couple hours to be accustomed to how we deal with certain topic areas. Once you learn these ropes, we hope that you and others like that will be a valuable contributor. --Masem (t) 18:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for being stern with you, but it's really important that you understand BLP policy. These are serious issues that should not be taken lightly. EpicPupper, you've been here almost exactly a year, so you aren't really a "newcomer" at this point. I am implying that these users are somewhat problematic, since their editing goes against Wikipedia policy. That's not to say that they cannot change or improve, but they shouldn't be treated with kid gloves over BLP, its very important for them to understand how serious this is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION is relevant here as well; content should not be under a "controversy" section. I am in agreement that the content should just be removed outright. If this morphs into an RS problem, I'll point out here that a lot of the article currently is sourced solely to YouTube or Twitch clips, which is not enough to substantiate notability. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

An IP claiming to be Terry is currently dipping a toe into editing this article. I am notoriously spiky, and could use some welcoming, encouraging and supportive help! -Roxy the sometimes happy dog. wooF 14:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've left them a message. GiantSnowman 14:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, BLP-people. This article has lately seen heavy editing by SPA:s, one declared a COI. The question is, what should we do with it? Leave roughly as-is now? Cut down further? Nominate for deletion? If you have input, please share at Talk:Awad_Haj_Ali#Edits_made. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Terry Bean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I first became aware of this article at WP:ANI#Terry Bean, where a reader unfamiliar with internal editing culture was distressed by the article's ECP protection and by how unbalanced it was in favour of an apparently controversial subject. The article is rightfully ECP due to some pretty extensive warring over BLP vios of various types, and the "remove the legal-liability but keep the puffery" shape it was in at the time of that ANI thread's beginning is, to be fair, not exactly a glowing example of a top-tier article. I've removed the worst of it and cautiously expanded the section on the sexual assault allegations somewhat, but this still needs looking at to help especially with the prose, which in large chunks is basically advertorial. I'm also wondering whether it would be due to discuss the allegations in the lead, and how much, because I'm unconvinced burying them at the end of an otherwise POV-positive article is good practice. Vaticidalprophet 21:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This is Siavash Alamouti. On the wikipedia page describing my biography my Alma Mater is designated as Sharif University of Iran where I only attended one year and was expelled after the Islamic cultural revolution in 1980 where I was accused of apostasy and blasphemy. I never graduated from that University!!! MY Alma Mater is the University of British Columbia in Vancouver Canada where I received my university degrees and owe the opportunity to complete my education. Can you please correct this?

Thanks and regards,

Siavash Alamouti

Siavash, I have added UBC to your alma_mater list. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Li-Meng Yan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am having trouble verifying the claim that she is a virologist.

Evidence against:

• No degree in virology or any closely related field.
• I cannot find evidence that her former employer gave her the job title of "virologist" (but it might exist in Chinese).
• I cannot find a peer reviewed paper on virology published in a reputable acedemic journal. She did co-author quite a few,[27] but it is possible that an ophthalmologist could contribute to a paper on viruses without actually being a virologist.

Evidence for:

• Published some preprints on the subject of virology.
• At first, only unreliable right-wing sources called her a virologist, but this was soon picked up by multiple reliable mainstream sources. I have searched and searched and can't find a mainstream source that says why she is a virologist -- they just say it. No "degree in virology". no "employed as a virologist". But they do call her a virologist.

Under the "follow what most sources say" rule she is a virologist. Under the "WP:MEDRS sources are required for biomedical claims" rule, maybe not. I am leaning towards "virologist". --Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS is a stricter guideline for good reason. When possible, that should be the standard we adhere to IMHO. Just because a bunch of lower quality sources assert something does not mean that it should be repeated when a higher quality source disputes it. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 00:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@BrxBrx: I couldn't find a MEDRS source that says she isn't a virologist, but then again I can't find a MEDRS source that says Jimbo wales or Joe Biden aren't virologists. Normally, I just look at the paper. If it says "Joe Biden, professor of frisbeeology, university of Southern North Dakota at Hoople" that settles it. Just being a coauthor on the paper with no title or degree mentioned? Could be a lab technician. Or a word-renowned virologist that nobody ever heard of. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, none of the references on her page dispute her description as a virologist. The sources that describe her as a virologist include National Geographic, Snopes, PolitiFact and The New York Times. A press release from the University of Hong Kong described her as "a post-doctoral fellow" but did not say whether or not she was a virologist. Her peer-reviewed work in the "Previous co-authored publications" section of her page is also related to virology ("Viral dynamics in mild and severe cases of COVID-19", "Pathogenesis and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in golden hamsters").

Here is her response when she was questioned about being a virologist during an interview in September 2020:

• Maria Ryan: Oh, your PhD is in ophthalmology and your medical degree is in clinical medicine. Is how it is? Okay so you're not a virologist?
• Yan: I became a virologist five years ago. Because I went to the University of Hong Kong and the Professor of the top coronavirus, virologist Professor Malik Peiris. When he knew me, he felt that I’m suitable for this kind of research. And then when I got my PhD degree later, he invited me to go to that department and I think it's a challenge and interesting, so I moved to that Lab to do further research.

CowHouse (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for finding that. Here is something I found:

• "She did work at one of the world’s top virology labs, at the University of Hong Kong, but was fairly new to the field and hired for her experience with lab animals, according to two university employees who knew her. She helped investigate the new outbreak, but was not overseeing the effort." Source: The New York Times

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

One paper says Yan is from the "WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong" ([28][29][30]). In another paper, she is acknowledged "for preparing the H3N2 challenge virus". CowHouse (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Per CowHouse. My own searches basically turned up the same things. Reliable Sources described her that way, no sources disputed it. Are the RS correct? No idea. Koncorde (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that matters. We present what is in the sources even when our original research shows the sources to be wrong. The OR does have a use; it encourages us to search for more sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean second guessing reliable sources in the absence of a reliable source disputing her status seems odd. We wouldn't normally do that. If there are articles questioning her status then we should use a more neutral description of her expertise. I have no issue with us looking for corroborating or dissenting information, but even then we wouldn't know if they were right or wrong without an authoritative debunking of the back story of some fashion. Koncorde (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Kee MacFarlane —I have updated the lede paragraph to comply with Wikipedia standards, replacing "A man was unjustly imprisoned for 5 years due to her ridiculous methods" with something more appropriate. There are comments on the talk page that also are inappropriate, including a remark by a QAnon supporter. What is Wikipedia policy on this?

Kee MacFarlane is a subject notable only for one event. Is this page even useful?

JHowardGibson (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this page even useful? Running through WP:NOT1E...MacFarlane is only covered in the context of one event and otherwise of a not particularly high profile, but the event and her role in it were both major, significant occurrences. Your response seems to be to one edit from last month from an IP -- surely it could just have been reverted? (Although your non-revert modification seems reasonable too.) It's fair to note that she was a major player in a massively controversial incident where serious charges were brought against people later cleared of them, and that such a matter can be expected to flare up emotions. Aside from the single IP edit, this article otherwise seems to be as balanced a treatment of the matter as one could expect. The talk page comments are inappropriate, but years old. Perhaps they could be removed, but I don't know whether it's an urgent issue. Maybe I'm being too lenient. Vaticidalprophet 00:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I've amended the short description, which came from Wikidata and described her as a conspiracy theorist but that's not really supported by the article's content. I also wonder whether there needs to be a separate article for her, though. All the content apart from the McMartin preschool trial affair is just run-of-the-mill stuff and I think merging anything useful into the McMartin article and then making Kee MacFarlane a redirect to that wouldn't result in the encyclopaedia losing anything. Neiltonks (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Negar Mortazavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Farnaz Fassihi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor is targeting above two female Iranian-American journalists. This a continuation of an online harassment campaign from Twitter and elsewhere including allegedly doxxing Mortazavi’s physical address on the web ^[1].

The “sources” cited are Youtube videos, Twitter, unknown websites or websites potentially owned within the same groups who Mortazavi reported on ^[2] for running attack campaigns online.

Both pages (Negar Mortazavi and Farnaz Fassihi) are now altered to add “views” and controversy , focusing on a very narrow difference of opinion and then creating libelous claims.

The editor also only edits these two articles. A revert war is ongoing. Example edits are this diff for Mortazavi and these diffs for Fassihi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebright82 (talk • contribs) 14:08, May 7, 2021 (UTC)

• Noticed another point, making me seriously question neutral point of view of said editor. In this diff one of their citations (to a website icbps.org) is the one not available to the public: http://box5389.temp.domains/~ecocheap/icbps/iran-lobby-what-you-should-know-about-negar-mortazavi/ . It might be likely that they copied it from the site’s internal CMS, as they were affiliated with the website itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebright82 (talk • contribs) 17:07, May 7, 2021 (UTC)

Reverted the worst of it at Negar Mortazavi and warned the user. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• adaction.org    
• conservative.org    

I'm pretty sure we should not be primary-sourcing activist groups' ratings of how "liberal" or "conservative" people are. These ratings are very much designed to drive politicians towards the extremes, and if the ratings are not covered by third-party sources then including them seems WP:UNDUE to me. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree that these arbitrary ratings should be excluded. Additionally, something I see far too often in these bios are primary-sourced "letter" or percentage grades from partisan advocacy groups like the NRA, NARAL, NRLC, and the League of Conservation Voters, etc. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The 1998 film Saaz attributed as being inspired by "the lives of Indian playback singing sisters, Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle" is debatable - It uses the following article as reference [[31]] (Note the word used in the article is "Speculated"). Asha Bosle is quoted, "Its not true at all. To have two women in long plaits, take a couple of incidents and exaggerate them into a 3-hour film is such a waste of time." in the wikipedia page of the Film itself. [[32]]). Interview link - [[33]]

You're exaggerating this dispute. I've added a" possibly" to Paranjpye's page. Bosle was responding to the question "How true is the gossip?", not whether her life inspired the film. Films are not required to be true to life. Fences&Windows 21:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Please clean up this article as soon as possible.

Please add reliable sources for her contest history as soon as possible, thank you.

Please add contest history with reliable sources, while also expanding the article! Thank you!

Not clear what the rush is. Signing so a bot will archive this eventually. Fences&Windows 21:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Baek Jong-won (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lack of citations included in particular to biographical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newb787 (talk • contribs) 2021-04-23T20:11:44 (UTC)

It was a mix of promotional content and negative unsourced material. I've removed it all. Fences&Windows 21:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Matthew Garrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page is repeated getting defaced with a baseless accusation surrounding the movement to remove RMS from his leadership positions.

This violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

Violating edits:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Garrett&type=revision&diff=1016973205&oldid=1015081824
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Garrett&type=revision&diff=1016973587&oldid=1016973205
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Garrett&type=revision&diff=1018382981&oldid=1017318653
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Garrett&type=revision&diff=1019771672&oldid=1019403622

Problem seems to have been resolved by reducing amount of material on this. Fences&Windows 21:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is it acceptable for an editor to undertake a highly-questionable revert that includes deleting a source] in an article that needs a lot more sources, not less? 109.249.185.62 (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a fairly straightforward content dispute, please take it to Talk:Ursula Andress. Str1977 and Serial Number 54129, you both also need to discuss on the talk page rather than reverting please. Fences&Windows 23:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

EDP445 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some users have added poorly-sourced, potentially libelous material to the article above in a manner violating WP:SUSPECT; see this diff and this diff. --Kzkzb (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Page is protected and up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EDP445. Fences&Windows 23:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

This is Tilman Fertitta, living persons, writing the Wikipedia Editors and Volunteers to personally change my biography. Lauren Ware is my current wife.

Please let me know what I can do to confirm this request. Although I have not issued a press release I would like to request an update to the copy under "personal life," first sentence only:

Fertitta married Paige Farwell from Houston and they have four children, Michael, Patrick, Blayne, and Blake. Today he is married to Houston attorney, Lauren Ware, and they live in Houston and New York.

There is also the top box on the right hand side - bio: Spouse changed to Lauren Ware

TFertitta (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@TFertitta: Unless we have sources, it's pretty impossible to change based on statements like above. See also Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2021_March_3#Personal Life for Tilman Fertitta. Maybe someone else has ideas. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the details about his previous marriage and children since it wasn't directly supported by the outdated source (2012). I also do not know whether the source itself is strong in terms of reliability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

A Lauren Ware was head of litigation at his company in 2013,[34] but that doesn't support the claim made here.

Morbidthoughts, let's not whitewash his life - his four now-grown children and marriage to Paige Farwell in 1991 are verifiable: [35][36][37][38][39][40] Fences&Windows 00:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Then you can reinstate it with the appropriate sources under BLPNAME; but they do not confirm who he is married to today. I don't consider it whitewashing if he prefers his family life generally private from the press. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Mia Kang Some content on this article is deeply personal and not appropriate for public audiences, especially content detailing eating disorder and body dysmorphia, as well as content discussing sexual activity - I have tried to remove some of these descriptions and revised edits on the page, but some users continue to undo my edits and continue to maintain inappropriate content on this page, which I believe is disrespectful to any person, living or dead (no one should know details about their personal life like this, wiki bio should be a straight forward bio suitable for public). The content presented here is harmful and not accurate to the biography for the individual in question (Mia Kang). So, I believe this goes against the biographies of living persons policy, and would like another editor to review the content and remove inappropriate material including tabloid references.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiiyha (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

You would have to point out specific examples/diffs. Wikipedia is not censored and some of your recent edits removed content that had reliable sources because you did not feel it was "relevant" or "outdated".[41][42] These are not proper BLP reasons for removal. If something is outdated, then the content can still be acknowledged in the past tense. You also previously attempted to remove the same material by calling it tabloid material,[43] which Trillfendi reinstated. I pinged her to get her opinions on this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Related sockpuppet investigation of Kiiyha [[44]]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Cole Frenzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Needs more eyes for possible WP:COI ownership. Marginally notable subject, with the article becoming a poorly edited resume/press release. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• The more I look at it, the more this falls short of notability for a baseball player. Any takers for AfD? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  The article is confusing but if I understand [45] [46] correctly, although he was drafted for the MLB, he only ever played for the minors? If so I agree he doesn't seem to meet WP:NBASE. Nil Einne (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  That's my takeaway. No time in the majors. It looks like the subject or associated accounts--the IP is editing from Mr. Frenzel's home town--are using the article as a scrapbook, complete with him posing with a deer he killed. Kudos. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  Article has been prodded by another editor. We'll see how it goes. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Floyd Mayweather Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across this diff by an IP editor, which seems like it might be a request from the subject to delete the article. IIRC, there's a procedure for dealing with things like this, but I can't quickly find it - it'd be great if someone more well-versed in BLP issues could sort this out. Thanks! Gaelan 💬✏️ 06:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no guarantee that it is the subject. The ip address traces back to New York City while Mayweather Sr. lives in Vegas. Further, he is not a non-public figure under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE given his history as a fighter and trainer. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Further, he is not a non-public figure under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE given his history as a fighter and trainer Is this reasonable per WP:LOWPROFILE? That is, regardless of his career history, has the subject been actively seeking out media attention in a relatively recent timeframe, particularly outside of what's strictly required for his job? Vaticidalprophet 07:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You do not know anything about the attention-seeking Mayweathers if you think they may be low-profile. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, I don't. Can't assume everyone on Wikipedia knows everything about everything it covers :) I think it's reasonable that if there's some possibility a subject is requesting deletion, that we can see if the borders of what is and isn't notable can stretch a little to include them; I was quite disheartened once to see the most wholesome prod rationale I've ever seen get rejected because the subject technically passed NPROF. In this case, we obviously don't have any confidence this is actually the subject requesting deletion, so it's a bit of an academic exercise, but I think it's an academic exercise worth having. Vaticidalprophet 07:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are some citations for people who do not follow boxing [[47]][48][49][50][51] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

None of those really seem to establish the subject is "attention-seeking" IMO. His son perhaps. But IMO, it's not helpful to get into debates about whether he's low profile or not. The more important point is that BLPREQDEL only applies in cases where there is no consensus. In this case, it seems clear to me that the subject is clearly notable so there's little chance of a non consensus outcome. Whether editors want to call him low profile or high profile isn't particularly important for that issue. He seems to clearly meet GNG, but also I think "won the U.S. Championship Tournament in 1977" means he meets WP:NBOX. Nil Einne (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

He is attention-seeking if you watch any of the documentaries on the Mayweathers (HBO 24/7;[52] Showtime All-Access). His article mentions his self-promoting behaviors, albeit unsourced, throughout his career. He describes himself as the greatest trainer in boxing history.[53][54] He also clearly passes the GNG as a trainer, even if he is forever linked to his son for obvious reasons.Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

List of major crimes in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Significant WP:BLP violations about many, many living people being restored. FDW777 (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems absolutely reasonable to request that each entry (including historical ones) have at least one main source to document the crime. If we have a blue-link article target, this should be trivial to complete, but per BLP, it must be done. --Masem (t) 14:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The historical ones are obviously less problematic, but as they were unreferenced I decided to save time by culling everything without a reference, rather than have to manually check many entries to see which involved living people. FDW777 (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

This seemed like the best option, I don't question that. Again, blue links, that means they better be referenced there and so repopulating with a source (historical or not) should be possible, but that's up to those wanting to maintain that page. --Masem (t) 22:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this thought is off-topic for this noticeboard, but the scope of that article seems very subjective. Articles on events like crimes are already expected to pass WP:NEVENT, so what the qualifier "major" means in practice is uncertain. Fences&Windows 23:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I would delete the article. There must be hundreds of infamous crimes that are ignored, so it violates weight. TFD (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Robert_Kelly_(comedian)

There have been brigading edits of references to "Doug Bell". It's a viral joke related to a character of Jim_Norton_(comedian). Thank you for your help ComedyFixer (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sisay Leudetmounsone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ruling party insists that a stolen diplomatic cable is a valid source for the fact of being a member of the ruling part on this WP:BLP, and is edit-warring to include it. I cannot verify this fact from an independent RS. The editor insists that it is my responsibility to do so, and I should learn Laotian and find a source myself, in violation of WP:ONUS. They assert that removal is vandalism and in bad faith.

I think that leaked cables are not appropriate sources for statements of fact in BLPs - even when they directly support the text, which is not actually the case here. What do others think? Guy (help! - typo?) 12:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the idea but I'm not sure if that follows any policy. It seems to be the idea is if the information was acquired via illicit means we should leave it out of Wikipedia. If yes, would we apply the same standards to RSs reporting on Trump's leaked tax returns or on material from Wikileaks? Personally I think we should err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP but if we decide to do that I think it would/should result in the removal of a lot of information from other articles. Springee (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Edited to clarify that I mean RSs talking about the material, not directly citing the material. Springee (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Springee, it does: WP:RS. Sources have to be reliable, independent and secondary. This is a primary source via an unreliable intermediary. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

If the only source is leaked cable on Wikileaks then the info should stay out. Wikileaks cannot be considered an RS for verifying the authenticity of documents. If other reliable sources mention the cable and treat the cable as genuine and unmodified, IMO we can mention the this info (i.e. according to a leaked cable). While I'm always wary of WP:PRIMARY, I think mentioning someone is a member of the ruling party based on a document from the party in a one party state is one case where it's okay. Going further, if reliable sources treat the info as genuine i.e. don't simply treat it was something in a leaked cable, we should treat it as genuine too. As always, it doesn't matter whether these reliable sources are Laotian, English or some other language. Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

BTW although I composed the above based on my own personal view, WP:RSPS supports my opinion of Wikileaks. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I can't find any evidence that other sources treat it as genuine. In fact, it's extremely difficult to find other sources that treat it at all. Which is why we're here: this seems to be pretty much the sole source. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"Stolen" diplomatic cables (is that the standard terminology for the US diplomatic cables leaked by Chelsea Manning to WikiLeaks?) are primary sources. Wikipedia obviously has a strong preference for secondary sources, but in this particular case, I don't think there should be much concern about using the US diplomatic cable. One of the problems with using primary documents, in general, is that they require analysis, which we don't trust Wikipedia editors to do. However, in this case, the primary document in question is extremely straightforward: it is simply a list of Lao People's Revolutionary Party (LPRP) Central Committee members, compiled by the US embassy in Vientiane. There's no analysis at all required, and the cable almost resembles a secondary source. The information that Ruling party wants to add - Sisay's membership in the LPRP's 8th Central Committee - is also a straightforward fact. If a primary source were being used to add controversial, potentially damaging or highly nuanced material about a living person, I would be concerned, but that's not the case here. This material is in no way contentious: Sisay Leudetmounsone is currently a member of the LPRP Central Committee, and the US diplomatic cable simply documents that she became a member of that committee in 2006. In this case, I would say that we should use the diplomatic cable as a source, followed by a better source needed tag. Hopefully someone can find a secondary source (possibly in Laotian) that provides this same information.

As for the authenticity of the diplomatic cable, that's not in doubt. The US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks are widely acknowledged as authentic, and have been used by countless news agencies around the world in their reporting. The initial release of cables was done in conjunction with The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El País and the New York Times, and the cables have since been used as the basis for so many news articles that it would be impossible to even attempt to create a list. The idea that WikiLeaks might have slipped in a fake 2006 cable with an incorrect list of members of the LPRP Central Committee is extremely far-fetched, particularly since (to my knowledge) none of the cables has ever been seriously called into question. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: If you can provide evidence that the NYT, Guardian etc treats every single cable in this batch as original and unmodified, then we can consider it. Otherwise no. As it stands, it's not even clear to me from the page this is a US diplomatic cable. There is mention about "Public Library of US Diplomacy" on the page, but I initially thought this was sent from Laos to various governments. That shows how shitty the source is. As I said, I'm not so worried about the primary source issue for this particular issue, I would be fine with an official document from the Laotian government but it seems that's not even claimed here. Anyway definitely not this source of unknown providence. We don't allow shitty sources in BLPs just because the information is uncontentious or editor's are having trouble finding accept sources. We keep the information out until an editor finds an acceptable source. Indeed, if this is a US diplomatic cable, that shows how silly the whole thing is. We're using a US diplomatic cable to verify an uncontentious claim about a member of the Laotian government because no one found a suitable source. While WP:Systemic bias is an obvious issue, it also seems that this particularly factoid is not that important hence why it's so hard to find a suitable source. So it's fine to keep it out until someone can find a source. It's not like we're not mentioning she's a member of the central committee. We are because she still is. It sounds like we also have sources for her being a member of the 9th and 10th central committees so it would be fine to add that. We just can't mention she was a member of the 8th which while maybe not ideal, is not that big a deal. Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking more carefully, I see the metadata does suggest this is a US diplomatic cable. However it remains unclear to me how we know which batch this is so can consider the issues raised by Thucydides411 about how an initial batch was authenticated by the Guardian etc. BTW, just want to point out no one ever said Wikileaks modified anything. The point is we have no idea of the path of transmission of these cables to how they end up on Wikileaks because by their nature, that info often isn't made public. We therefore have no idea if anything could have been modified or added, possibly even unintentionally. Even for something like this, there could be various possibilities e.g. an early draft with an error which somehow lost the draft part. But also, we as editors shouldn't have to do that generally especially not with BLPs. There should be some party standing behind the source. Nil Einne (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: The authenticity of the US diplomatic cables is not in doubt. They have been treated by news agencies all over the world as genuine diplomatic cables in countless stories. Just to give a few random examples: The Hindu, The BBC, CBC, FT, Haaretz, and CNN. These stories (and too many others to list here) all treat the cables released by WikiLeaks as genuine. Der Spiegel, one of the original outlets that worked with the cables, published a FAQ that states,

DER SPIEGEL, the New York Times, London's Guardian, Paris' Le Monde and Madrid's El Pais have viewed, analyzed and vetted the mass of data provided to the publications by WikiLeaks.

The New York Times described the cables in this way:

A cache of a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables, most of them from the past three years, provides an unprecedented look at back-room bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats.

The documents are, in other words, genuine US diplomatic cables. There's no doubt at all about this.

The question, then, is whether the particular diplomatic cable that lists Sisay Leudetmounsone as a member of the 8th LPRP Central Committee is usable. First off, this cable was transmitted (the recipients, including the Secretary of State, are listed in the header). It is not an unsent draft. After thinking about this a bit more, I think we can basically consider the cable a secondary source, as it is simply a list of members of the 8th LPRP Central Committee, compiled by a third party (i.e., not by the LPRP itself). No analysis of the cable is necessary on our side - we can just read the list of names. As long as we believe the US embassy in Vientiane is reliable for this sort of information, then there's absolutely no problem with using the source. I see no reason why the embassy would be unreliable for such basic, factual information. I would treat this document as we would any other reliable secondary source.

As this information is not at all controversial or damaging to the subject of the BLP (it merely documents that she was a member of the 8th Central Committee, and other documents already show that she was a member of subsequent Central Committees), I don't see any BLP concerns here. This is important information to the biography of Sisay Leudetmounsone, as the LPRP Central Committee is one of the most important political bodies in Laos, and we shouldn't omit it from her biography. The cable provides sufficient documentation for inclusion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: BLP is clear we don't include information without a reliable source, even if it isn't damaging. Even if we accept what the NYT says is sufficient to establish that the 250k cables are original and unmodified, it's unclear to me how we know that this particular cable is part of the 250k cache from the source provided. So please provide evidence that this cable is part of the cache the NYT refers to, otherwise it's pointless discussing this further. Once you've done that please also provide evidence the headers prove it was transmitted. They suggest it, but without an explanation for a reliable source, preferably one familiar with this particular cache of cables and what their metadata means, I don't see how we can reach that conclusion without WP:OR. Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: This entire conversation is very strange, and I feel that it's divorced from reality. Are you suggesting that the cache of 250k US diplomatic cables that WikiLeaks provided to Der Spiegel and the NY Times is a different cache from the 250k US diplomatic cables on the WikiLeaks website? I just don't feel that you're raising realistic objections here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I never said that. What I said is I have no idea whether this single document is part of the 250k cache you keep talking about. Nothing on Wikileaks seems to tell me what cache of documents this cable is part of other than it being an alleged US diplomatic cable. Also quoting you from RSN 'I've never heard of a different cache of US diplomatic cables hosted by WikiLeaks'. I've never heard is not a basis for forming an opinion of the providence of this document. It's possible that there was a small alleged leak from the Vientiane embassy at some time for example. The tone of your comments here and RSN suggest you would agree such a leak wouldn't necessarily get much media attention. The problem with the nature of Wikileaks is that from what I can tell, they give no indication of which leak that cable is part of. All they say is it's a US diplomatic cable. Even that is very poorly done IMO as I pointed out before, I originally thought this was a cable sent from the Laotian government to various embassies in SEA countries. While we can understand why Wikileaks doesn't want to say how they got this document especially who they got it from, it should at least be clear which leak this document is from even if the circumstances surrounding that leak aren't revealed. Unfortunately AFAICT, Wikileaks doesn't really provide that information. Perhaps you can tell from analysing the URL or by seeing where the URL is linked from on Wikileaks, but that seems way to WP:ORy for me. Nil Einne (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Nothing on Wikileaks seems to tell me what cache of documents this cable is part of other than it being an alleged US diplomatic cable. [...] The problem with the nature of Wikileaks is that from what I can tell, they give no indication of which leak that cable is part of. The cable is in the "Public Library of US Diplomacy" (PLUSD), as the banner at the top of the page says. See WikiLeaks' About page for PLUSD, which you can also get to by clicking the "About PLUSD" link to the left of the cable. As the About page explains, all the cables in PLUSD, with the exception of those from 1973-1976 (which are declassified cables released by the State Department), are from Cablegate (i.e., the 250k-cable cache given by Chelsea Manning to WikiLeaks). It's possible that there was a small alleged leak from the Vientiane embassy at some time for example. Unless there's some sort of source to suggest this is the case, I don't see why we should consider this hypothetical scenario. While we can understand why Wikileaks doesn't want to say how they got this document especially who they got it from, it should at least be clear which leak this document is from even if the circumstances surrounding that leak aren't revealed. The About page I pointed you to explains that the Cablegate cables were anonymously leaked to WikiLeaks. While it is WikiLeaks' policy not to identify their sources, the "anonymous" source for Cablegate is well known from abundant media coverage, was convicted in a court of law for the leak, and even had her sentence commuted by the President of the United States. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason why all of this strikes me as unreasonable is that we're talking about an extremely famous cache of documents, which was reported on intensively by the news media in 2010. It's very frustrating that we're getting sidetracked into what I consider a completely unreasonable discussion about hypothetical scenarios in which the cables in the cache are not genuine. There's a possibly interesting sourcing question here - whether or not a cable from a US embassy containing basic factual information is reliable - but we're not discussing it, because we're getting sidetracked by source-free speculation that the cable might be fake. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll respond in the coming weeks. I'm currently renovating my house so a lot of my focus is elsewhere at the moment :) --Ruling party (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• In general our problem with this sort of thing is that they’ve never actually been published... We can’t use them directly, we can only use what WP:RS publish about them (which I will note is often extensive). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this particular US diplomatic cable is essentially a secondary document. A straightforward list of members of the LPRP Central Committee, compiled by the US embassy in Vientiane, should be unproblematic to cite. If we were sourcing a cable that provided nuanced analysis, that would be a different matter, but this is just basic factual information. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

You would have a point if the US State Department had published these but they didn’t, at best we can say that wikileaks published them (using the broadest possible definition of publish) but then our problem is that wikileaks is not a reliable source. Might I remind you that basic factual information about a living person is held to a higher standard than nuanced analysis not about a living person? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: You explain my position way more elegantly than I ever could. Thanks for taking you're time to write a comment here. --Ruling party (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Just as a quick comment, as I understand it the cable isn't simply being used to support her being in the 8th Central Committee but that she was new to the 8th Central Committee. Although it sounds like there are RS for the 7th Central Committee, so we potentially we could resolve this issue via WP:CALC. Please I'm willing to trust the US diplomatic service to be accurate about whether someone is new to the committee just like I'm willing to trust whether they are a member of the committee since it isn't a secret body, but it's IMO not entirely correct there is no analysis even if it's fairly simple analysis that is one of the few types we're allowed to perform ourselves. But as I said above, there remains the question we can be confident this is an original, unmodified US diplomatic cable that was sent by the US diplomatic service. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I've asked for more feedback at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#US diplomatic cables on Wikileaks since at the moment the biggest issue seems to be assessing the reliability of the cable instead of anything BLP specific. (Other than whether the information should stay out until we resolve the concerns.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: There are no arguments against this source. It is confirmed as a reliable source by "Yamada, Norihiko (2002). "第6章 ラオス人民革命党第7回大会―残された課題" [Chapter 6: The 7th National Congress of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party 7th and Challenges Ahead]. Vietnam and Laos after the 2001 National Congresses: Challenges Ahead. Institute of Developing Economies of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (46)." Its also confirmed by state media listing of the 8th Politburo, as seen here when published by the Organisation Commission of the LPRP and by the Lao News Agency here. No other sources, either primary and tertiary seem to say this source is wrong. Probably way more sources as well.... --Ruling party (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ruling party: Neither of those sources mention the US diplomatic cable. A source which is not reliable cannot be used regardless of whether it's right or wrong. You are welcome to add simple information from those primary sources to our article as I already mentioned. Nil Einne (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ruling party: While I mentioned before you could use a document from the 9th central committee to mention she's a member, it was pointed out at RSN that it would also be fine for you to use a source from the 7th central committee which does not list her as a member, and a source from the 9th which says she's a returning member to say she joined in the 8th. I also agree this would be fine even if perhaps pushing at the boundaries of WP:CALC. Of course you would need a source from the 9th which says she was a returning member not simply one which says she was a member. And a source from the 7th with a complete membership list. And to be clear, neither of these should be cables on Wikileaks. Personally I would be fine with US diplomatic cables officially released although you can see on the RSN discussion that not everyone agrees and this isn't specific to BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: The list is also in line with every other list of the Lao Cental Committees.. .For instance from the 5th Central Committee of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party to the 11th Central Committee of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party all new members are listed at the bottom. This should be non-controversial and obvious, but you refuse to accept that all other sources match with this one. WP policy says that Wikileaks is "generally unreliable" and that specific WikiLeaks documents can be judged as "reliable" through discussion. As far as I see you haven't been able to formulate one argument that dismisses this source other than "Its WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks sucks." --Ruling party (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ruling party: Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. If those articles have reliable sources, you can bring them to the Sisay Leudetmounsone article. If not the information needs to be removed. I have been able to formulate good arguments as have others here and on RSN. The fact you're ignoring them is neither here nor there. Nil Einne (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ruling party: I checked and the information at 7th Central Committee of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party lacked any RS using the same cable used on the Sisay Leudetmounsone article. So it was useless. I removed the unsourced list of members. Same problem with the 8th central committee list. The other 4-6 and 9-11 seem to have okay sources. One of them also mentions Wikileaks but I assume although didn't check, that the other sources also mention the full membership list. I think you said you found a source for the 7th central committee. It may be a Laotian source but whatever, if you have a source and it verifies the information, it would be fine to add the information back to the 7th central committee article. I assume the 8th central committee article will remain a problem since the whole reason we're here is no one has been able to find a source of all members. When I looked I did find some sources mentioning specific members so you might be able to add some limited information back but not a whole list. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: This vandalism has to stop! The rules clearly state that its generally unreliable and one has to discuss these things. YOu're blatant attack on articles, facts and sources is a joke. Disist and stop vandalising crap you don't know anything about. --Ruling party (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ruling party: making false accusations of WP:vandalism is a personal attack. My edit even if it was wrong, which it wasn't was clearly made in good faith and based on my understanding of policies so is clearly not vandalism. And no one is stopping you from discussing things. Indeed I have been the one who has explained my concerns. Thucydides411 has offered a contrary view which while I disagree with, at least they were able to do so. You've mostly failed to make any argument backed by our policies and guidelines. I thank you for fixing the problem with the 7th central committee article by adding reliable sources. We still have the problem for the 8th central committee article though. Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: The rules clearly state "Some editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail the verifiability policy, because WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate them, and there are concerns regarding whether the documents are genuine or tampered. It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source. However, linking to material that violates copyright is prohibited by WP:COPYLINK." It is mentioned by a third party source [55] and probably was mentioned in a hell of a lot of other third party sources back in 2006...--Ruling party (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ruling party: Scoop may be a third party source. It's not a reliable source though. It mostly hosts press releases and other such documents without any analysis. If you can find a reliable source discussing this cable, please provide it and we can discuss whether it's enough to authenticate that specific cable. It's what we've been asking for since this discussion began, so I don't know why you spent all your time talking irrelevant stuff rather than finding these sources discussing the cable. Note that both me and Thuyydides411 have already tried to find online RS with a membership list of the 8th central committee and failed. It's easily possible such an RS exists but it may not be that easy to find. I thought you yourself were saying you tried and failed but I'm confused now. Whatever the case, please stop adding information about living persons exclusively sources to that cable. Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: THese are not false accusations. IF you're so bloody blind as to not see that they are than its something wrong with you! --Ruling party (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ruling party: I've been here for a long time and have a decent understanding of the definition of vandalism, hence why I linked to the policy and was able to explain why my edit was not vandalism. You however have not be able to explain why my edit was vandalism according to our policy. Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I cannot comprehend how my views fail to take into account WP policy:

1. Its a list and not an analysis
2. Compared to other LPRP Central Committee lists and third party references to them its listed in the same manner.
3. The list clearly is correct when matched with Politburo and Secretariat lists
4. There is no proof that it is factual inaccurate. Everything points in the other direction—that it is accurate.
5. WP's own rule on "Perennial sources" calls its "generally unreliable", but again, WikiLeaks is not listed under "Unrelaiable sources" but "Perennial sources". You are making this a clear black-and-white case when it clearly isn't.
6. That rule does not make any clear judgements, but you obviously are and by making that judgement you are making WIkipedia worse for it.
7. My position has always been clear cut, and most in line with WP thinking, we leave everything as it was until this discussion has reached a conclusion. As far as I can tell there is no clear cut conclusion to this debate but you are forcing you're point of view on the Wikipedia community.

How is my line of thinking in breach with Wikipedia protocols? Tell me? I want discussion and you want to force you're point of view! --Ruling party (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

That I'm saying is that consensus in both this discussion and the RSN discussion while ongoing points towards that specific cable being unreliable. What I'm also saying is that as this matter concerns living persons, the information needs to stay out until and unless a consensus is established that the cable is a reliable source. That is fully supported by BLP policy. As I pointed out, in the Sisay Leudetmounsone article, the information isn't even long standing. It was only added on the 6th May. Therefore it cannot possibly be taken as long standing information. Therefore even in the general case, there is no policy or guideline which supports keeping the information in. The status quo ante is without the information. Also we don't need to prove a source is inaccurate. Instead, what we need to know is whether a source is reliable. This is a subtle and important distinction. Does the publisher of the cable have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? For the US diplomatic service, perhaps although not everyone agrees. For wikileaks, most seem to agree we cannot be confident their documents are what they purport to be. Therefore the publisher of this document is taken as Wikileaks, who lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The fact there is no proof that this particular cable is inaccurate is not very germane. Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: EVerything points in the direction that this reference is accurate. All old members are per third party sources members of the 7th Central Committee, per sources the order of rank of the first 20-30 members are correct. Per sources everything is correct. The position of governments they hold match primary and third party sources. Everything bloody points to it being reliable. If it had been unreliable the information would have been corrected in third party sources --Ruling party (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Ruling party, why would it be corrected in third party sources, when you have failed to show that any meaningful third party sources cover it at all> You clearly think this is of paramount and compelling importance, but nobody out there in reliable source land seems to care at all. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Found a scanned book published by the Organisation Commission of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party Central Committee... Good enough for you?

https://www.facebook.com/Soubanh-Bank-MOF-laos-119590454816035/photos/a.199629176812162.40166.119590454816035/199634926811587

1st Central Committee 161

2nd CC 167-169

3rd CC 225-228

4th CC 248-252

5th CC 265-270

6th CC 298-301

7th CC 318-320

8th CC 338-342

--Ruling party (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Ruling party, as I said to you several times, dead tree sources, even in Laotian, are fine. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See Talk:List of United_States presidential assassination attempts and plots#When is an assassination attempt not an assassination attempt?. FDW777 (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(refactored from Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons)

If a subject posts a pride flag on social media, but later complains that it appeared on their Wikipedia page that they self-identified as per the pride flag, should such information be kept or discarded in their article?

In this specific situation, the subject wanted to let everyone but her direct family members know. The post is still publicly accessible. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Somebody ought to teach them about social media. -Roxy the sometimes happy dog. wooF 14:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Are we headed towards Streisand territory here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

We also don't add full names and birth dates to BLPs if the person in question complains about it, for privacy reasons. I'd say being LGBT+ is even more sensitive info, so we should follow the same principle. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Social media posts are not generally reliable sources. In addition, merely posting a pride flag is a pretty ambiguous statement. Pharos (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Pharos, it was followed by a tweet saying how she is "blatantly open" about it. Also subject is verified. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Surely if the individual is out it will have been covered by third-party sources? I have concerns about using photos/comments on social media like this. GiantSnowman 15:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I would agree. If this has been covered by reliable 3rd party sources it can be included (adhering to IMPARITAL of course). We would have to be careful to make sure any content that makes it to Wikipedia is reliable vs speculative. So a source saying "person is because of this photo" wouldn't be OK. If no RSs have covered it then it stays out. Springee (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This right here. We're making pretty massive assumptions by assuming a pride flag posted on social media means anything, much less something to document. We're not a gossip rag. --Masem (t) 16:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Going from "subject posted an image of a pride flag" to "subject came out as LGBT" is pretty blatant original research. Noting the flag tweet itself without independent RSes would verge on BLPGOSSIP territory. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Not only gossip, but also WP:DUE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: how do we know that "In this specific situation, the subject wanted to let everyone but her direct family members know.” do we have reporting to that effect? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, yes, but in further followup tweets, so it's more of the same social media self-reference. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Then you mean no? I asked if there was reporting, not if there were more tweets. This sounds like WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, the link to her Twitter threads are at Talk:Caitlynn French and that's the only sourcing. Nothing's officially reported by third-party sources or news articles. I'm not aware of OTRS tickets or Oversight emails. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Then it appears that the original edit [56] should never have been made. There is absolutely zero basis on which that should have been added to the page. This is exactly the sort of fuck up our BLP policy is meant to prevent, if it had been followed we wouldn't have an issue here. For pete's sake the original post was automatically tagged as "possible BLP issue or vandalism” how did nobody catch this for months? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add my two cents on this matter. If the sexual orientation was confirmed by the subject themselves and it is covered in reliable sources like newspapers or trade magazines, we can use those to verify it. However, if it is not covered in those sources, we can remove them. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

This resonates with me. I own a rainbow pride flag and fly it during pride month,, and sometimes post photos of it on social media. I also happen to be a boringly heterosexual AKA "cisgender" male. If somebody said I was gay because of the flag I fly, they would be wrong. I fly that flag because of the many LGBT people I have known and loved for over a half century, including several family members, and for freedom. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

But in this case, the article subject unambiguously said on their verified Twitter account that they were coming out in both the linked Tweet thread as well as replies to her original post, all of which are still up. Technically, this meets all the requirements of WP:BLPSELFPUB, is neutrally written, and doesn't really fit among the privacy concerns at BLP, which mostly deal in cases where the information isn't self-published and refers back to BLPSELFPUB-compliance for sources that are. However in this specific case, they viewed posting it on their Twitter account as an online action separate from their real life and did not want their family to know. They also happen to be famous enough to have a Wikipedia article and a verified Twitter account, but not famous enough that independent, third-party reliable sources published stories on her coming out. This is such a rare edge case, I'm not sure if it's likely to be repeated. I guess we could frame it as a WP:BALASP issue, but I don't think it's appropriate to view someone coming out as something so minor that it doesn't deserve coverage even if it meets BLPSELFPUB. If we try to balance interests here, I'm not sure how we could expand BLPSELFPUB appropriately. Require the article subject to use OTRS before inclusion of BLPSELFPUB-compliant material that's potentially sensitive/harmful and not backed by a 3rd party source to confirm they are okay with inclusion? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

When in doubt, leave it out. In all of this, I haven't seen anyone even try to explain why this info is necessary. Just 20 years ago, the thought of outing someone against their wishes would have been repulsive to most people in the LGBT community, but today it's like a race to see how fast we can spread the word. It always amazes me how people often become the very things they fight against. If sexual orientation is so important to a person's bio, then why don't we start labeling everyone who is hetero as such in their articles? That sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it? So why is it necessary to report the sexual orientation of everyone who is not? I can't see one good reason to even touch upon the issue unless it is somehow a big part of their notability. What I can see is that this is a good example of why we should never use Twitter as a reliable source. Let the RSs analyze and interpret the tweets, and do all the OR and themselves, and we should just stick to information that has some encyclopedic significance to the subject, otherwise we just start to read like any old gossip mag. Zaereth (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Terry Halpin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I suspect this article may have been vandalized, possibly by people who know the subject personally. Many purported facts documented in the article seem dubious.

I restored an earlier good version, which seems vandalism-free at least. I'm don't have time to analyze the sources, so I'm assuming they're okay. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

A second opinion from the good people at BLPN would be welcome at Talk:Dalia Gebrial, where I have argued that WP:SYNTH and WP:DOB require removing the subject's putative birth date. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Aaand now it's escalated. Anyone else care to weigh in? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's getting out of hand. Any admins watching the page that can take some quick action? Srodgers1701 is now repeatedly blanking the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a BLP-related dispute on the Ami Horowitz article. The editor User:The Kingfisher (who was temporarily banned for running the sockpuppet User:UberVegan) is removing reliable sources that describe a Palestinian-Israeli rapper Tamer Nafar's music as "satirical", opting instead to state in Wikipedia's voice that the rapper's music is "anti-Semitic" (which is only sourced to op-eds and local US news outlets). As far as I can tell, RS characterize the song as satirical, not unequivocally anti-semitic:

• Two Times of Israel articles characterize the song as satirical.[57][58]
• A peer-reviewed in-depth study of the song similarly describes it as satirical[59]
• The Jewish Telegraphic Agency calls it a "joking song"[60]

This is the edit in question.[61] This is one of many problems on the Ami Horowitz article, which has primarily been written by The Kingfisher. A lot of content is sourced to op-eds and small local news outlets that lend undue credence to the videos produced by Ami Horowitz, a right-wing James O'Keefe-style provocateur who came to prominence a few years ago for making false claims about immigrants in Sweden. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Besmirching the reputation of an editor

For the record, with this post, Snooganssnoogans attempted to muddy the water by announcing that I was banned as a sockpuppet. Although technically accurate, what they didn't mention is that originally, I was wrongly blocked for being a sockpuppet, and because I so wanted to edit Wikipedia, I created another account. After a few years, ARBCOM, in a very rare move, investigated and confirmed that I was wrongly accused of being a sockpuppet:

Email from ARBCOM to The Kingfisher

Dec 28, 2020, 11:46 AM

Hi The Kingfisher,

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to grant your appeal.

We do not consider you to be a reincarnation/sockpuppet of NoCal100. Accordingly, I have unblocked both The Kingfisher and UberVegan. Please pick one of these accounts to edit with; while you are under no restrictions, such as a one-account restriction, it is best practice to use one account (note the legitimate/illegitimate uses of alternate accounts at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry).

For the Arbitration Committee,

Maxim

The Kingfisher (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course there can be discussion on how it should be worded, but based on the plethora of reliable sources below stating that the song was anti-Semitic, I believe that there should be a WP:BOOMERANG for Snooganssnoogans for bringing this complaint. This is simply a talk page issue. (I can supply more RSs if needed, there are many more.)

1. US Dept. of Education: "The University does not dispute that the artist identified in the complaint made offensive, anti-Semitic comments during his performance at the Conference."
2. ABC NEWS: "...a rapper's anti-Semitic message last month at an event held at UNC-Chapel Hill."
3. Chapelboro.com "INTERIM UNC CHANCELLOR KEVIN GUSKIEWICZ RESPONDS TO ANTI-SEMITIC SONG AT CAMPUS EVENT"
4. Carolina Journal "Anti-Semitic comments at event sponsored by UNC-Duke group fuel conflict over campus speech"
5. AP News "...complaints about a March conference featuring a rapper accused of anti-Jewish bias."
6. JNS "Video depicts rapper performing anti-Semitic song as part of Gaza conference at UNC"
7. Inside Higher Education "ZOA said the complaint related to a performance of an anti-Semitic song"
8. Brandeis Center "Weeks after this musical diatribe, UNC’s Interim Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz acknowledged that members of the community are “heartbroken and deeply offended” by the “disturbing and hateful language” of the performance."
9. ADL " We are appalled by the video of Tamer Nafar’s performance at the Duke-UNC Consortium for Middle East Studies conference where he mocks Jews and anti-Semitism and, most disturbingly, successfully engages the audience to do so as well. This type of conduct has no place on the campuses of Duke or UNC. We are encouraged by the positive statements released by Duke and UNC leadership condemning the performance and anti-Semitism, but there must be a more formal review of how an official university sponsored event opened the door to such troubling conduct."
10. Alumni.unc.edu "... critics said the rapper used anti-Semitic language as part of his presentation."
11. NBC NEWS "...included a rapper who performed a "brazenly anti-Semitic song," Holding said in an April 15 letter."
12. FOX NEWS " He also alleged that a rapper performed a brazenly anti-Semitic song at the conference."
13. CBS: "Reportedly, speakers and panelists distorted facts and misrepresented the complex situation in Gaza. A video recently surfaced depicting the main musical performer, rapper Tamer Nafar, singing a brazenly anti-semitic song,” the letter reads."
14. The Jewish Journal: " The conference featured a performance by the Palestinian rapper Tamer Nafar that was condemned as anti-Semitic."
15. National Review: "Critics accused the artist of anti-Semitic references in a song..."

The Kingfisher (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This may, in fact, be a talk page issue, but WP:BOOMERANG does not apply to noticeboard posts like this, and the edit summaries you've been leaving read almost hysterically. I haven't had the chance to go through the whole argument yet, but from a cursory glance, it looks like you're POV pushing a possible BLP vio. Most of those sources cite the personal opinions of people who aren't experts on anti-semitism, and as such, can't be used to call anything anti-semitism in wikivoice. I mean, Biden is accused of being a socialist by far more people than this artist, but we don't call him one in wikivoice for a reason. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear Kingfisher most of the quotes you just pulled do not state that the "song was anti-Semitic" and even fewer make that statement in their own voice. Lets keep our assertions factual please (especially if we wish to wield a certain curved wooden Australian hunting implement). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

With the exception of "ABC 11" (not "ABC News") and the "Carolina Journal", don't all the other sources attribute the anti-Semitism charge to critics? I'm perfectly fine with stating in Wiki voice that someone or something is anti-Semitic, racist, anti-Muslim etc. if that's how RS report, but it seems like the high-quality sources that are specifically about the song and the performance characterize it as a satirical song and attribute the anti-Semitism charge to critics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

There are some that specifically state "anti-Semitic song" and they are backed by other WP:DUCK. Regardless, as I said, this is a talk page issue on how this should be phrased. Just to be clear, MPants, I did not refer to the rapper as an anti-Semite or even anti-Semitic. The song. Can you please show me policy that states that an RS with a quote of a person, that that person must first be proved to be an expert on a subject? That said, the chancellor of the university isn't good enough? Or ZOA? The Kingfisher (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, MPants, I did not refer to the rapper as an anti-Semite or even anti-Semitic. The song. I apologize if my comment read as an accusation that you were calling the artist that. However, while calling an artist's songs "anti-Semitic" is not the same as calling the artist that, it's still a contentious claim about a BLP. At the very least, it logically follows that the BLP in question engaged in an anti-semitic act (the performance of the song), and it contradicts the sources Snoogassnoogas provided.

Can you please show me policy that states that an RS with a quote of a person, that that person must first be proved to be an expert on a subject? WP:ASSERT makes it quite clear that we should never write an opinion in wikivoice, and WP:NEWSORG makes it quite clear that expert opinions carry more weight (IMO, enough to assert opinions widely held by experts as facts).

That said, the chancellor of the university isn't good enough? Not to assert his claims as facts, no. Not unless they are non-self-serving claims about the university, or claims about his field of expertise. The ADL link you provided is quite arguably an expert opinion, but the ADL has a tendency to use the term rather loosely, so I'd want confirmation from another expert source.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with phrasing like "...has been called anti-Semitic...", but the phrasing "...is anti-Semitic..." is a problem for me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't understand why The Kingfisher is making this about Snooganssnoogans. This is as good place as any to let the larger community know about this dispute. The talk page of the article is limited. I'd never heard of Horowitz (or Nafar) so I would not have come across this were it not for this notice. I also find it puzzling that Kingfisher provided no links in their Teahouse complaint. You can't get a wider debate without links, unless burying this issue was the intent. It seems there's more than one editor not in agreement with Kingfisher, judging by the edit summaries and having looked at all the references, I'm inclined to go with Snooganssnoogans on this. Wikipedia cannot declare, in the Wikipedia voice, that a song is antisemitic. What can be done is state that there are critics who characterize it as such. Wikipedia (and its editors) are supposed to be neutral. Most of the references provided by Kingfisher are opinion pieces or simple reporting of the controversy. As a whole, it's unconvincing (and WP:UNDUE). I am not opposed to mentioning that there are critics who label the song as such, backed by the more substantive references. But it must be tempered with the sources that state that the song is satire. I don't believe on artificial balance (nor does Wikipedia policy). We don't give equal weight to Holocaust deniers, for example. In this case, a balance is needed as there is a small but loud contingent in the right wing media that make the claim and there is strong sourcing stating the song is satire. As for the other issue in the Horowitz article, the notability of the various videos, again we can only go by sources and in contentious subjects, we need solid references. The depth and breadth of sources provided by Kingfisher is lacking and we don't need to mention every single video Horowitz has made, except in passing, unless there are substantial sources about the video. In this case, it seems most of the solid sources are about Horowitz's deceptive use of editing to make highly misleading videos. We can talk about that and we can mention that Horowitz has supporters but we can't go into great detail about every video, per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTE. freshacconci (✉) 16:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

There were comments about "deceptive use of editing" on one video, which Horowitz denied. That was mentioned. However, wouldn't calling him a deceptive editor or raising the question on every video be UNDUE and possibly BLP? The slant here also seems to be because he is right of center. I just have the feeling that if he were doing this from the Left, the responses would not be so harsh. Maybe I'm wrong. The Kingfisher (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You are, in fact, wrong. freshacconci (✉) 17:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I can't access the academic journal article [62] for some reason (working on that now), but based on these Times of Israel sources [63][64], Snooganssnoogans is absolutely correct that this edit [65] is a BLP violation. The Times of Israel describes a satirical performance by Arab Israeli rapper Tamer Nafar and notes,

The [UNC] conference featured a performance by the Arab Israeli rapper Tamer Nafar. Edited clips of Nafar singing his joke song “Mama, I Fell in Love with a Jew” at the conference were posted on social media.

Both TOI articles describe various people calling Nafar's song anti-semitic, and other people disputing that characterization. In this context, saying that his song and/or performance was antisemitic in Wikivoice is absolutely wrong. Really, if the issue is to be discussed, any allegation of antisemitism needs to be attributed, and a countering view also needs to be provided and attributed. -Darouet (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this makes sense. My intent was obviously not BLP and that's why I said it was a simple talk discussion. The Kingfisher (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

+1 to Darouet's analysis and conclusion. I wholeheartedly concur. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion. My first time on this page. Maybe I shouldn't be a stranger. The Kingfisher (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You said there was a plethora of reliable sources that say the song was anti-Semitic, then provided sources that only say that claim was made. Making false claims is disruptive to Wikipedia since articles should be reliably sourced and you are taking time away from people who could otherwise be engaged with improving the article. If you are looking for an online forum where you can argue that the subject is anti-Semitic, this isn't the place. TFD (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A) You seem to be late to the party and are simply rehashing observations already made of which I was educated, and B) I'm not the one who brought this here. I said from the beginning that this could have been resolved on the talk page. The Kingfisher (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Gina Carano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The IP editor 46.97.170.112 persistently makes non-neutral and potentially libelous remarks on the talk page of the Gina Carano article. Some examples include calling Gina Carano an "alt right propaganda figure", claiming that she "had a history of spreading trumpist conspiracy theories", and saying "...being called "racist" and "bootlicker" don't appear to be inappropriate as criticism in her case." Thank you, — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 01:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

They are definitely not neutral, but they are also statements of opinion about the subject that argues why the content should be included. I don't agree with those arguments unless they are actually arguing that is why reliable sources are covering her. Does it violate WP:BLPTALK enough to stricken? I don't think so. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, [66] How about this? They're not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support them. It's just complaints and insults about a BLP. This is hardly the worst, but it was fairly recent in the history and so easy to find ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Their category arguments may be meritless but it is still "related to making content choices". Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I've seen this IP acting tendentiously before on the Jordan Peterson talk page and other controversial articles. If calling a BLP a "Nazi supervillain" [67], or a "far-right grifter" [68] are not BLP vios, then I don't know what is. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Uhhh, context? They're stating his opinion on a content inclusion discussion about a source that compared Peterson to the Red Skull, a nazi supervillain. Perhaps 46.97.170.112's opinions on Shapiro was informed by this article[69]? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Where does that source call Shapiro a "far-right grifter"? The IP made the same comment in this edit summary, where this time they refer to both Coleman Hughes and Shapiro as "far-right grifters." What are BLP violations in your opinion? I normally consider unsourced rants about how terrible the subject is a BLP vio. Would you say these rants are acceptable?:

• "She was an MMA fighter who lost her only match against a real opponent. Other than that, she had some bit roles because hollywood feels some obligation to give her a job despite the fact that she cannot act."[70]
• "Gina Carano has a history of making dumb political takes on social media abd hurting Disney's PR. Fans have been calling for Gina Carano's firing over her ignorant tweets."[71]
• "Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs, as insane and nonsensical as they are, to be of any relevance, outside the usual far right echochambers."[72] Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources do not have to explicitly say "far-right grifter" for an editor to form the opinion that Carano is a far-right grifter. Look at the first sentence of WP:BLPTALK very carefully and the examples you cited are all responses about assigning proper WP:WEIGHT AKA "related to making content choice". They may be IDONTLIKEIT or ILIKEIT arguments but they should not be stricken or refactored. What is the end game here? If you want the ip blocked because of this pattern, then go and complain at ANI. The disparaging Trumpism comments are strikingly familiar to Tenebrae even. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe that all of these comments constitute BLP violations. The comment, "She was an MMA fighter who lost her only match against a real opponent. Other than that, she had some bit roles because hollywood feels some obligation to give her a job despite the fact that she cannot act." was removed by the user Sangdeboeuf, who brought up the issue at User talk:46.97.170.112. The "far-right grifters" comment was brought up on that talk page as disparaging of BLP subjects. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 19:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC) (updated 19:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)) (updated 19:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC))

Wow, looking at their /24 range, they have an even longer history of blatant BLP attacks and POV pushing.:

• Calling a BLP a "white supremacist" in mainspace without a source [73]
• "Volokh is a right wing hack. Of course he's going to read it in a way that makes his side and his people look good."[74]
• " Gina is C-list actress with no talent, who got the role out of pitty by Favreau whom she put into a difficult situation, playing a replaceable supporting character"[75]
• " The fact that Gina Carano's idiotic beliefs are shared by half of americans, is exactly why the rest of the world sees americans as stupid"[76]
• " Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame." [77]
• "Not only is Musk not a scientist, his dangerous lies about COVID-19 has proven that he's a science-denier."[78]
• "None of these nameless idiots are notable enough to deserve even the slightest mention."[79]
• "Sanger isn't anyone important. He's just some chud who had ties with wikipedias founders at one point, yet his fellow trumptards are using him like he was an authoritative source on all things wikipedia, when he's little more than a parasite, trying to use the works of pthers to become relevant.his opinion on wikipedia, couldn't matter any less."[80]
• "Barr's opinion is of course bullshit"[81] Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

There may be issues with the article in question but I think the issues being raised here are editor behavior, not so much BLP related to content. Springee (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Your point is a good one, and Morbidthoughts' opinion seems to be largely similar. I must admit, I did not fully understand the purpose of this noticeboard and how it contrasts with ANI when I started this discussion. This is probably not the right place for this discussion, as it is about editor behavior rather than a problem with a BLP. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 21:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: What do you think, wrong noticeboard? — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 21:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC) (updated 21:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC))

Angry Red Hammer Guy, if you're looking for some admin action against the IP, then ANI would probably be the place to go. The IP has been alerted to DS, so AE may be acceptable too. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I will now remove the template on the Gina Carano talkpage that says that it is being discussed here. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 22:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#46.97.170.0/24. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Matt Mondanile (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch courtesy links Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I think people are vehemently placing in tabloid journalism about Matt Mondanile to bully him. This information needs to be removed. It is completely unnecessary to his life.

The content looks well sourced and neutrally worded. I think the controversy section could probably be condensed to a single paragraph and still provide the pertinent information, but it's not a BLP violation, or bullying. The article subject has even taken responsibility for the reported actions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Craig Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is some disagreement going on with the Craig Murray BLP article, involving a very small number of editors, that I think might benefit from more eyes. Specifically, there is an argument over a neutral way of describing him in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley, good luck with that. He is regarded as a saint by those who worship Assange. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Draft:J Hutton Pulitzer
• J. Hutton Pulitzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jovan Hutton Pulitzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As far as I recall, most of the previous versions of the article on the CueCat guy were self-promotion. However, he is now involved in the Arizona GOP's efforts to invent election fraud - he has been covered on and off for over twenty years, but there are significant new mentions today. Does this draft pass muster? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy, I'm afraid it reads as a hatchet job at the moment. "Failed treasure hunter" for example seems unnecessary even if it is sourced; we don't need to adopt the language of his political opponents and a local newspaper. He's probably notable and the sources are generally not kind to him, but we can write more conservatively and pad out his biographical details. You've not got his original full name as Jeffry Jovan Philyaw, for example, and his time on The Curse of Oak Island is missing. I guess you saw this recent hagiography? I think we can tack a middle path.

Here's some more sources: [82][83][84][85][86][87][88]. As a bonus, here’s his old website:[89] Fences&Windows 23:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, it is what the RS call him. And it's kind of hard to wrote a flattering biography of someone who is mainly known as a grifter. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to flatter him, just don't write like a tabloid journalist. See WP:BLPSTYLE. Fences&Windows 14:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I added more sources and detail. Guy, have you got any comments or edits before I move it live? Fences&Windows 13:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, no, I think you have done a great job, thanks much. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I just have to add an observation made by many: how did they not call the CueCat something along the lines of "the CatScanner"? This world deserves a better class of failed tchotchkes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

CatScanner would've been good, but possibly not able to be trademarked. Fences&Windows 19:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:NACADEMIC we can have a "biography" of an academic with no reliable independent sources at all, based on publication count. That seems... unwise. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

One of the clarifications of NACADEMIC relating to its Criteria 1 says Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. The way I read it, NACAD goes out of its way to avoid a case of presumed notability by straight-up publication count unless that itself is notable by other reliable sources. --Masem (t) 14:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Masem, the way I see it at AfD, editors assert the exact opposite, alas. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy, you are conflating two different things, reliability and independence. We cannot have any kind of biography without reliable sources, per WP:V and WP:BLP among others. But the requirements of independence of sourcing and of having depth in individual sources rather than through a multiplicity of smaller sources are both something extra, used for sourcing-based notability (like GNG) but not necessary for accomplishment-based notability (like PROF or NPOL) because if we can reliably verify that they have the accomplishments deemed sufficient to pass, then independence does not add anything to that verification. Also, although newcomers to academic AfDs sometimes attempt arguments based on number of publications rather than on impact of those publications, those arguments are quickly shot down by the regulars, so your argument that "editors assert that" misleads by failing to point out that those assertions are not what guides the typical outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, WP:PROF has explicit qualifications for how sources that don't meet the independence gold standard can be used. For example, Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details (emphasis added). This boils down to saying that we can, e.g., use a statement from the university where somebody works to verify the date they were hired. Likewise, For documenting that a person has been elected member or fellow (but not for a judgement of whether or not that membership/fellowship is prestigious), publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source. XOR'easter (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Some independence is 100% required by WP:V. The NPROF criteria should be leading to that (not to the more narrower GNG) I can see the case that an extremely well-cited author (ignorant of any other sourcing that might be out there) - somewhere there would likely be some independent sourcing now or that will be written in the future to talk about how well-cited that person is to meet WP:V. There's a threshold for that that we can use for a criteria in NPROF. But its clear that simply just having a large body of papers is not sufficient as NPROF explains, and having a limited number of citations from that body is also not sufficient. I'd be expecting citation counts in the thousands here if we're going to allow this go as an allowable criteria, as getting a few hundred cites on a body of papers is not too hard nowadays (I have papers out there myself and am close, and I *know* I clearly would fail NPROF). We do allow the implication that WP:V-meeting sourcing will come about, but the criteria should meet that, and NPROF is written to support that, but AFD seems not be responding that way. --Masem (t) 23:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem I often see at AFD is more one of raw inclusionism vs. deletionism. (Do you remember when that was a thing?) It tends to be a hangout for those who seem to prefer quantity over quality, and tend to go into these discussion with the idea of heroically saving articles rather than looking at the situation from a quality-writing standpoint.

For me, I've never given much thought to all these special notability guidelines. It's usually just a way to circumvent the real policies, and is quite a lot of instruction creep. The question I would ask myself for any person is: is there enough, reliably sourced, biographical information on this person to create a decent biography that is at the very least a c-class article?

There is an inherent danger in using only primary sources. In many instances, these are difficult if not impossible for the lay-person to interpret, meaning you need to be an expert to verify it. They are often devoid of any real biographic information, thus articles become pseudo-biographies about the person's ideas or theories rather than the person themselves. That, or they end up reading more like resumes. Perhaps I just have a higher set of standards, but I personally think we need some, because unless people have been widely noticed by the secondary sources then to me they're still private citizens with all the rights to privacy as any other schmo. Zaereth (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Gergely Karácsony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The biography of Gergely Karácsony said that Karácsony "only speakes Hungarian". Seems like a weird thing to mention, even if properly sourced, which does not seem to be the case.

1. The first source seems to attribute the claim that Karácsony does not speak English to a Facebook post by Balázs Fürjes, a member of Viktor Orbán's administration. And Karácsony is anti-Orbán. I didn't find much proof that Newsbeezer is a reputable source.
2. The second source consists of a quote by Fürjes. Same Facebook post again.
3. The third source is a column by "Charlemagne". I can't remember off the top of my head, who writes "Charlemagne" for The Economist, but the column does not seem to verify the claim.
4. The last source again quotes Fürjes in verbatim. Magyar Nemzet's only contibution independent of Fürjes is asserting that Karácsony used an interpreter when interviewed by The Economist.

In short, the claim that "He only speakes Hungarian." – in my view – is poorly sourced and should be removed. Even if verifiable, this would be irrelevant trivia if not put into proper context. Politrukki (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• An IP user returned the statement to the article, so I reverted it again, and directed them to the article talk page. I agree that the sourcing for the claim is thin at best, and, even if it were strong, it's not clear why it's worth including it... BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  I agree too, even if the sourcing were strong, I don't see any reason to include that in a BLP, let alone its lede. The information was, for what it matters, added on 11 May, presumably by the same dynamic IP user, and I daresay I should have looked at the history more deeply and restored the clean version at that time itself. JavaHurricane 07:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Concerning this diff:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rose_Namajunas&diff=1022576334&oldid=1022470184
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rose_Namajunas&diff=1022470184&oldid=1022437672
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rose_Namajunas&diff=1022246417&oldid=1022183516
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rose_Namajunas&diff=1022183516&oldid=1022172074

To insinuate that somebody is a racist (and including a phrase like "critized by some as being racist" does exactly that) requires strong evidence. The given sources do not provide that evidence, they just vaguely reference "some people". But just that "some people" make claims somewhere on the internet cannot be sufficient reason to include such a serious and potentially libellous accusation. (I would argue that the claims would have to be made by reasonably relevant journalists, bloggers etc. in order to consider to mention them in a BLP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.10.86.25 (talk • contribs) 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, that entire section is like all those rasslin articles--full of gossip and silly stuff, all blown out of proportion and with lousy sourcing. So I suppose you could say "potentially libelous", but what would be better would be just cut all that sh*t out of the article, and leave only the little bits verified by CBS or whatever. Or cut that too. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

According to Whitney Davis from the Internet of 2019 (formerly with CBS), "CBS Has A White Problem", so maybe stick with NBC (peacock symbols are still colourful, sensitive and inviting to me, dammit!) InedibleHulk (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Frances Okeke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page with this title has been in draft for months. Please could someone figure out what is wrong with the page? What is wrong?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolendu (talk • contribs) 06:26, May 15, 2021 (UTC)

@Nicolendu:, articles do not automatically pass from Draft status to the main space. They need to be submitted as the Articles for Creation process defines or moved manually. This article was created in main space by Iceone2000 last August but was moved into draft by GSS this January over copyright and quality concerns. I have now added an AfC submission template so that it can go through that process. There is another template below that which indicates concerns over the Manual of Style and I would also encourage better sourcing. Feel free to edit the draft to improve it. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Eggishorn Thank you. Will do as suggested.

Grover Furr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Stalinist professor Grover Furr has what I believe is a clearly-wrong view of the Katyn massacre. However, several users are attempting to describe Furr as a "historical negationist" or "denier," when there are apparently no reliable sources which describe him as one. More eyes are needed on the article, particularly with regards to BLP provisions which require high-quality sourcing for potentially-defamatory claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There may be some significant issues regarding accuracy and verifiability of this article. --ℕ ℱ 21:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The entire page is libellous and completely false. What is vaguely true is so twisted as to be wholly the reverse of the reality. ICZN Ruled in favour of Hoser in 2021, but from reading this page, you'd think the reverse. Hoser WON all legal battles, sometimes on appeal, but from reading this page, you'd never know this. The page should be deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.90.238 (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for your claims? I had a quick look at the article seems to reflect the sources. For example you claim that the "ICZN Ruled in favour of Hoser in 2021" but this source [90] "The ICZN has just voted on the Spracklandus Case and Hoser's journal Australasian Journal of Herpetology (ICZN, 2021) and decided against a formal confirmation of availability of name and journal, but also against the suppression of the journal" supports what our article says i.e. the ICZN neither clearly ruled in favour or against of Hoser's journal. Since Hoser won all legal battles, can you provide the sources establishing that Hoser managed to overturning the finding he intentionally allowed a snake to bite his daughter, and the fines imposed for violating his licence condition? This source about his successful appeal against the finding he was not a fit and proper person to hold the licence still treats the finding of getting a snake to bite his daughter as an established fact suggesting it wasn't overturned from that appeal [91]. (It doesn't mention the fine.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Even this extremely bombastic press release by Hoser [92], while making some fairly fantastical claims like "Judge found that Raymond Hoser is a living legend!" and "The Snakeman was also labelled the greatest conservationist and wildlife scientist in Australian history" seems to support the snake bite thing. It doesn't seem to mention the fine, nor do other PRs of his claiming victory that I saw, suggesting to me the fine was never overturned. Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The ICZN did not rule in Hoser's favour, it simply stated that the case was not in its juristiction, same as the Wells and Wellington affair. Raymond Hoser is notorious among Australian herpetologists for his dodgy taxonomy. This 2013 Scientific American article gives a good overview. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Over the past week, an entire controversy section has been added to MrBeast's article. Most of this seems like WP:UNDUE and trvia, perhaps the "Allegations of workplace bullying" section is notable, but I'm not sure that listing so many random incidents is warranted—especially when there seem to be few (and often low-quality) sources on the topics. I'm not well versed on BLP issues so I thought I'd come here. Aza24 (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Can I get some additional opinions at Talk:Brace_Belden#Nicknames? IP's like to add 10+ unsourced and offensive nicknames to this article's infobox, which I sometimes revert. But I'd like to generate a local consensus on the talk page before I revert again, apply for WP:RFPP, etc. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

In the article 2021 storming of the United States Capitol multiple instances refer to the incident as an insurrection or there were insurrectionists. Such as "To gain access, several of the insurrectionists scaled the west wall." These labels appear to violate BLPCRIME, since insurrection is a crime clearly documented in https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383. In that specific instance of people scaling a wall, not one person has been indicted, charged, convicted of the crime of insurrection.Yousef Raz (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yousef Raz: that isn't a BLP violation; it isn't attributable to any identifiable individual as discussed at WP:BLPGROUP. This has already been explained to you on the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Who are the insurrectionist that the article mentions that scaled a wall?Yousef Raz (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. VQuakr (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

And "rioters" is equally bad, because just like insurrection riot is a crime too. You agree that referring to living people climbing a wall is not consistent with BLPCRIME?Yousef Raz (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

"Some rioters climbed a wall" is not a BLP vio when we are referring to a large enough group that the description cannot be ascribed to any individual. "Person X, Y, and Z are rioters who climbed a wall" would be a BLP vio. VQuakr (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course it does. You are labeling living people rioters, yet those living people are not rioters until they are convicted of the crime of riot.Yousef Raz (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You've kept repeating that opinion, but it isn't supported by policy. VQuakr (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. Yousef Raz is hurting their claims here. No, it's not technically a BLP violation to refer to the entirety of the people as "insurrectionists". Yes, it violates other policies and multiple consensuses on that page have determined that we shouldn't be using the term "insurrectionists" for other reasons. Yet, their fixation on BLP has caused the discussion to derail. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

it violates other policies and multiple consensuses on that page have determined that we shouldn't be using the term "insurrectionists" for other reasons this, of course, isn't true, and your repetition of the claim won't make it so. VQuakr (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The article already uses the term "rioters" for these people. It is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications than to avoid tedious repetition by employing another term such as "insurrectionist." Compare to WP:SAID. Terjen (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

In that article, the label insurrectionist is applied to a very large group of people, implicating no named, individual persons. Reliable sources describe the group as insurrectionist. Those two facts alone are sufficient to say there are no BLP issues here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Does "several" qualify as a "very large group"? Yousef Raz (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

"Several" probably refers to a small group. Regarding small groups, WP:BLPGROUP says:

A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.

In this case, would any Wikipedia readers connect the "several" to the individuals? Are we using high-quality sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

"To gain access, several of the insurrectionists scaled the west wall." is in the article.Yousef Raz (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

And that statement is cited to a high-quality source. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Here's a question: Are there any RSes who insist that the Jan 6 riot was not an act of insurrection?

I don't mean RSes that simply don't call it that, but RSes that says "It was not insurrection." If not, then this is, by definition, not a contentious claim, and so BLP doesn't give a shit if we make it. If there are, then we need to be careful that the vast preponderance of RSes call it that (in relation to those who insist it's not that, not in relation to those that make no statement on the matter) before we can say it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue with RS stating its not something is like proving a negative. If it was an insurrection, and there's video footage that details numerous people's action prior during and after, then why has the US Attorney not charged a single person with the charge of Insurrection?Yousef Raz (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it isn't. There's plenty of RSes out there arguing that X is not a case of Y, in almost any topic. Unless, of course, the preponderance of RSes all consider X to be a Y. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Given that there is a legal facet and fallout about what an insurrection is (just as there is a legal aspect around what terrorism is), we really need to be careful with the use of that term coming from the media only and not from a body with legal authority to charge people with that. eg saying "John Q Smith was a participant of the insurrection of the Capitol" can be problematic since that could read that Smith did something illegal. That said, it should also be apparent that in talking broad strokes about the event and the group of people w/o any names, that the media describing the event as an insurrection are not necessarily trying claim the legal meaning but the broader non-legal meaning of a non-peaceful uprising. "Riot" is likely a better term as there's far less legal weight on that term. --Masem (t) 03:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

And really, as a wholly separate matter, a source survey should be done. Claiming "how many sources claim it was not an insurrection" is not the right way, as you're preloading landing on that term. We're several months away so you can look through reliable sources now looking back on the event, and start collecting the terms used of which I assume will include "insurrection", "riot" and more. Don't just cherry pick, but figure out "insurrection" has a sufficiently high use over other terms to be the descriptor. IF that is not the case, then we shouldn't be using that term. (a quick and dirty survey using Gnews, from 4/1/21, gets me 14 pages of hits with "insurrection" and only 13 pages with "riots" so it is likely the case, but this should be properly proven out and nailed down on talk pages). --Masem (t) 04:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia calling it an insurrection is not a legal basis for anything, and since WP is not a legal work, anyone interpreting a legal statement from a WP article is causing their own problems. That's not something we need to worry about.

But the standard I've always used and seen for what constitutes a "contentious claim" has always been "is it contentious in the sources?" This is because any other standard boils down to WP:OR. So if there's no disagreement in the sources, we have absolutely no business pretending there is. That being said, if only 2 out 30 possible sources call it that and none disagree, it's perfectly reasonable to prefer whatever is the more common term. However, if the gHits you got below are representative, then it seems like the sources use the terms "insurrection" and "riot" pretty interchangeably, in which case, our article ought to do so, as well, by calling it a "riot" when referencing a "riot" source, and an "insurrection" when referencing an "insurrection" source. And if we find a couple of right-wing RSes calling it a "protest", then go ahead and call it a "protest" when referencing those sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Right, I'm just saying that if there is doubt that it should be called an "insurrection" over any other term (in representing the broad picture), a source survey absolutely should be done and documented on the talk page to put the matter to rest - this also should help to identify the best top tier RSes sources so that (ideally) you only need to source the NYTimes, BBC, etc. for that. I've seen enough cases of editors cherry picking a few sources for terms they'd prefer to use to force those terms as principle descriptions when the source survey proves otherwise, that the documentation of the source survey (and thus a way to point to it if challenged in the future) should be a standard practice. In this specific case, as you say, my gnews rough search would suggest there shouldn't be a problem to prove "insurrection" is interchangable with "riot" in this case (when describing the event outside the BLP issue). --Masem (t) 05:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

On the legal basis aspect, this is the BLP factor, specific BLPCRIME. We cannot assign criminality, or even imply to someone that hasn't been convicted of such. That's why understanding that if we're talking about a specific person or a narrow enough group of people that would make them identifyable that were involved with the Capitol events, using the word "insurrection" in that context can be potentially read as assigning criminality to them since that one meaning of "insurrection" is a federal crime in the US, and such statements could be read in WP voice that we're saying they were guilty of that crime. We have a stronger responsibility to avoid that connotation than the media due to our BLP policy. There are probably ways to word the event on Jan 6 as an "insurrection" (as to follow sources from above) in the content of a named invidual or identifyable group that avoids the legal/criminal implication, though my mind can't come up with one. But a statement like "John Q. Smith was present at the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection." is problematic for these reasons. Perhaps "John Q. Smith was present at the storming of the Jan 6. Capitol, which has been likened to an insurrection by pundits." (which both takes it out of wikivoice and out of the legal connotation). --Masem (t) 05:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The source survey is, indeed, the way to go. And as I said, there's a way forward even if there's no clear preferred term.

I agree about not calling any individual person an "insurrectionist" unless and until they're convicted of the crime.

In fact, I don't believe the article should use the term "insurrectionists" to refer to the people, except in attributed quotes, even though I'll tell you right now that I have no doubt in my own mind that each and every one of them is, in fact, an insurrectionist, and I further have rather strong feelings about how traitors should be dealt with. But that's a matter for the courts, not WP. In this case, the accuracy of the information we present about them is not changed by whether or not we identify them as insurrectionists. In the future, it might, but by then, there will have been convictions or acquittals we can look to to inform our opinion.

But I do prefer to call the event and "insurrection" because whether or not it was is an important detail, (provided there aren't a significant number of RRSes saying "This was not an insurrection.") ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

My caution, and its only a caution, about calling the event absent BLP issues an "insurrection" on the basis of "no souring exists that says 'it was not an insurrection'" is that's still preloading want of the term, and will steer future discussion in the wrong way. The absence of sources that do not use the work "insurrection" and opting to use a term like "riot" is important to know. It's what leads to cherry picking just a few RS sources to justify inclusion of a label or other term under claims of UNDUE, when in reality that may be the minority or fringe position. A source survey without presumed results to know the range of terms that had be used and what are the most common as to know what to use safely in Wikioice and to make sure one is not cherry picking may be a bit of extra work but also good documentation that you did the homework to justify everything. (Now, if you're saying "how many sources are calling the event 'not an insurrection/riot/attack or other related term implying a violent revolt' and pretend that was a peaceful demonstration within their rights", yeah, that's different.) --Masem (t) 12:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: I agree, there is no legal basis to calling this an insurrection or the people involved insurrectionists. I can't stress enough that zero people have been indicted/charged for the charge of insurrection, and there is enormous amounts of evidence. Pundits, politicians, and journalists can loosely use these terms. In this forum, these legal terms shouldn't be loosely used.Yousef Raz (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not quite what I said. We absolutely should not call any named individual as an insurrectionist if they have not been convicted of that yet, and directly connecting their name to the term "insurrection" is a BLP issue we should avoid. But if we are talking about the broad group without any specificity of any individuals or sub-groups of those, and there is a sufficient number of sources that call it an "insurrection" in the broad, non-legal term, then this is less a problem and one that is not as restricted from a BLP standpoint. If I had my personal leeway, I would absolutely select "riot" in describing the event when talking about the group as a whole, which is less legal-heavy burdened than "insurrection" but at this scale, that's a consensus-based call that should be based on a strong sampling of sources to make sure what is the most appropriate term --Masem (t) 04:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

What takes preference BLPGROUP or RS? "To gain access, several of the insurrectionists scaled the west wall." is not well sourced. The article has no named author, it merely states "Story by The Atlantic Editors". Its basically a blurb. Both www.allsides.com, mediabiasfactcheck.com both indicate The Atlantic as left leaning bias. The Atlantic is a great source for facts but objective people should read through the editorializing.Yousef Raz (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Since BLPGROUP and RS aren't in conflict in this case, your question is moot. VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

But they do. "To gain access, several of the insurrectionists scaled the west wall." does anyone believe that "several" is a large group? Is that well source. It appears to not be. Is wikipedia is not an echo chamber for editorialized comments that are not based in fact. The sources are stating opinions. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on facts. No one calling this an insurrection is a legal authority. The authority is a jury and to a lesser extent the US Attorney, and neither has.Yousef Raz (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No one calling this an insurrection is a legal authority. That isn't a standard based on any of our policies; it is one you've made up and it's getting as much respect as it deserves. Size of the group is irrelevant; the key aspect is whether an individual is being identified or is identifiable from the article content. VQuakr (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yousef Raz, Ha ha ha ha ha! Oh wait, you're serious.

Yes, it was an insurrection.

But the people who did it are not insurrectionists until they are convicted. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The House of Representatives called it an insurrection. They're kind of a big deal in legal circles. Mcfnord (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Bunch of go-getters down in the legislative department, anyway. That subcircle knows a thing or two about writing laws, but is totally powerless to apply or interpret them, especially ones written back in analog pirate days. You want legal opinion and argument that matters, see a judge. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Subsection 'Plagiarism' potentially libelous as the citations do not work - the links lead to error messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyraryA (talk • contribs)

The WebCitation links work for me. This is verified by LaborJournal and a statement from Heidelberg University. Fences&Windows 14:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

An editor has been trying to include a marital separation between Taika Waititi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and his wife even after it was established that no reliable source has documented said separation. I have repeatedly removed it per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, but a discussion on how to incorporate the information into the article per subpar and/or unreliable sources is still taking place on Talk:Taika Waititi (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs). KyleJoan^talk 01:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Waititi and Winstanley are separated, as verified by reliable sources including People magazine, Stuff, and the New Zealand Herald. Waititi is now apparently dating Rita Ora, although no one is trying to add that bit of gossip to the article. It would be odd to omit that he is separated from his wife when he is publicly dating someone else, though. That would be confusing to readers. See The Cut, Elle Australia, Grazia, Glamour UK, etc. Marquardtika (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)