Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive268

Shooting of Stephon Clark

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Stephon Clark was recently shot and killed by police in Sacramento, while unarmed and hiding in his grandmother's backyard. The press has reported that he had past criminal convictions.

In our article on his death, I had added Clark's convictions in a manner that I hoped would not lead or prejudice readers, but would nevertheless make the information available. Those convictions have been removed [1] as a "SYNTH impression... BLP smear." The editor who removed them, SPECIFICO, has asked that we take the issue to BLPN. So here we are: advice is appreciated.

Also pinging @GreenMeansGo, Darkstar1st, and MelanieN: they're participating in the conversation or have helped at the article as well. -Darouet (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The article title is "Shooting of Stephon Clark," not "everything we can dig up about Stephon Clark, a nonnotable private individual who was shot while holding a cellphone." I agree with SPECIFICO that adding unflattering material just to "make the information available" is wrong here. 16:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfChange (talk • contribs) (Sorry I forgot to sign my comment.)HouseOfChange (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

HouseOfChange—you say The article title is "Shooting of Stephon Clark," not "everything we can dig up about Stephon Clark, a nonnotable private individual who was shot while holding a cellphone." The article is not solely about the shooting of Stephon Clark. The article is about the events subsequent to the shooting of Stephon Clark. Were it not for the events subsequent to the shooting of Stephon Clark there would probably not be an article. In those events subsequent to the shooting of Stephon Clark there is discussion of the criminal history of Stephon Clark. Why would we omit that criminal history? Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is about the shooting. Unless his past convictions are somehow involved with the shooting, which I can't imagine they are, they should be excluded as irrelevant. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Seraphimblade—you say the article is about the shooting. The article is not solely about the shooting. The article is about events subsequent to the shooting. In events subsequent to the shooting, the criminal history of Stephon Clark is discussed. Why would we omit that criminal history from this article? Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange:@Seraphimblade:Thanks for taking a look. I hope you will join the efforts at the article and talk page if you are so inclined. @MelanieN: SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, he was shot evading arrest for a crime he is suspected of committing while on probation for the same crime. are you suggesting this is unrelated to this death? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Considering the police had no idea of this when they shot him, yes, it's unrelated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Right now, the text of the biographical section of the article looks like this:

Stephon Clark (born Stephen Clark) was a graduate of Sacramento High School. He was the father of two sons, ages 1 and 3. At the time of his death, Clark was 22 years old. His brother, Stevante Clark, told KOVR that he and Stephon had come from "underprivileged, broken homes”. A 16-year-old brother was killed in a shooting in 2006. Stevante Clark said Stephon had been released from county jail about a month before the shooting and had been staying with his grandparents on and off, adding "He was arrested before, but he's been different lately. He really changed his life." Sacramento County court records show that Clark had a history of convictions for robbery, domestic abuse, and a prostitution-related offense. At the time of his death he was on probation for a 2014 robbery conviction.

On the article talk page, it was agreed that the convictions should be mentioned in the this article due to their discussion in many, if not most, newspaper articles published on the shooting. Plus, wikipedia articles on similar shootings tend to mention prior convictions as well. Currently, there is a discussion on the talk page about whether to add a sentence to this section quoting or paraphrasing one or more activists who state that his convictions could not have contributed to his shooting due to the fact that the officers who killed him were at the time unaware of whether he had committed any crimes before. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It was most certainly not agreed, "baselessly bludgeoned" would be more apt. But the key point is that the article talk page is a separate venue and this page is for independent review. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• The information included is relevant to the subject because sources writing on the subject thought they were reliable to write about. We don't make unilateral sweeping editorial decisions about what is or is not relevant. We look at the sources, and mirror what they do. What's currently in the article has been discussed at length on the article talk page, and there is a single editor who does not agree, and has bludgeoned the talk page there with nearly 100 comments over the past few days. Those here are welcome to join in the ongoing discussion there. GMG^talk 17:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Respectfully, I think there are multiple sense of "relevant" being used here by various editors. IMO it is pretty clear that although criminal history (like a history of complaints against the officers) is not relevant to anybody's legal culpability, and did not impact the officers' decision-making, nonetheless it is relevant to a straightforward description of what happened and who was involved. N.B., it is an article about a shooting that has BLP implications, not a biographical article that mentions a shooting. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well actually, since the article is about actions of the officers' and how they exercised their official roles, there is some (not all) history of the officers that would be relevant in the strong sense. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you say the article is about actions of the officers. The article is not solely about the "actions of the officers". This is an article about events subsequent to the shooting of Stephon Clark. In those events there is discussion of the criminal history of Stephon Clark. Why should this article omit the criminal history of Stephon Clark given that the criminal history of Stephon Clark is discussed in events subsequent to the shooting of Stephon Clark? Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There's one source about a conspiracy theory that draws on mentions of Mr. Clark's arrest record. If that conspiracy theory gets wide coverage, we could add a section about it. There's no RS that relates the events or actions of the officers to the killing. SPECIFICO talk 18:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you say "There's no RS that relates the events or actions of the officers to the killing." This article is not solely about the actions of the officers at the time of the deadly encounter. This article is also about events that took place subsequent to the shooting. Those events included discussions in which the previous run-ins with the law were raised. Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• As he was convicted there is no BLP issue in mentioning his conviction. We do not censor information (widely covered that is) - and we let the reader do what they may with it.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes there certainly is a BLP violation, if the mention is undue and used only to insinuate the SYNTH suggestion that his priors were related to his killing. And I note that at least 2 editors in this thread appear to believe that, even without providing any RS that states it. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO—you say "Yes there certainly is a BLP violation, if the mention is undue and used only to insinuate the SYNTH suggestion that his priors were related to his killing." This article is not solely about the shooting of Stephon Clark. This article is also about the protests and social unrest and heated discussions subsequent to the shooting of Stephon Clark. Subsequent to the shooting, the Clark family's attorney referenced Stephon Clark's prior run-ins with the law. Subsequent to the shooting Betty Williams, president of the local chapter of the NAACP, referenced Stephon Clark's prior run-ins with the law. Other community leaders as well as Clark's family have referenced Stephon Clark's prior run-ins with the law. In each instance the point made was that prior run-ins with the law do not excuse the use of deadly force. But how is the reader of this article to know this aspect of the discussion, subsequent to the shooting, if we totally omit it from the article? Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• The distinction has been explained to you roughly half a dozen times here and at the article talk, so I'm not going to repeat. SPECIFICO talk 03:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• As the convictions were unrelated to the shooting (topic of the article), it is WP:COATRACK to add the material, although apparently Fox News is using this info to discredit the victim. Let's be Wikipedia, not Fox News. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

HouseOfChange—you say the convictions were unrelated to the shooting (topic of the article) but of course the topic of the article is not solely the shooting. I think this is the crux of the problem. When we are writing an article including a larger event we should be including details pertinent to that larger event. And as concerns that larger event, there is certainly discussion of Stephon Clark's criminal history. Bus stop (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• It would seem whether this was or was not related to the shooting and his activities prior to being shot is in dispute - hence the corrrect thing to do is to mention the facts, without editorializing.Icewhiz (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Please cite a reliable source saying that it is in dispute whether the prior convictions are relevant. All sources I have seen say they were not relevant, because the police did not know his identity when they shot him.HouseOfChange (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• All the sources I see state the police did not know who they shot. Unless his criminal convictions are related to the shooting in some way, it seems quite coatracky. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Folks, Coatrack is a policy that refers to ancillary material becoming the dominant focus of an article. It has no bearing. The criminal history is widely reported, so the suggestion it is a Fox news thing is also just wrong. Additionally, the suggestion that including the material would be an effort to "discredit" the victim is offensive and uncalled for.

Some community leaders insisted Clark's criminal history wasn't "relevant" but if that were true in a literal sense, it wouldn't be in so many major news reports. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Please cite some RS that say his convictions were relevant to the shooting, which is the subject of this article. Or even some RS that say there is a dispute whether his convictions were or were not relevant to the shooting. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

What a ridiculous suggestion! Sources don't make list of facts and say "X is relevant and Y is relevant and Z is relevant", they just talk about the relevant stuff. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

What the above said. Also the article is about the shooting. It is not a biography of the subject of the shooting. If it was a biography, their criminal convictions would likely be relevant (see BLP) if their criminal convictions were relevant to the shooting (eg, someone with a conviction for armed robbery being shot while carrying a gun and pointing it at a store owner) - otherwise including their previous conviction smells like a coatrack to make the story about the victim of a crime in much the same way FOX news likes to portray black victims as criminals. Since we are *not* FOX news, I see no need to follow their base tactics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The entirety of your comment is an insult that has nothing to do with what anyone is discussing. Nobody is trying to cite Fox, engage in "base tactics" or "portray black victims as criminals". Factchecker_atyourservice 01:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I am still of the opinion that past criminal convictions should be kept to a minimum (see my comments on the article's talk page). Mentioning he had some would be acceptable, but a laundry list of them would not be. The primary topic of the article is the shooting, so much more beyond basic biographical info would be coatracking imho. To Factchecker atyourservice's comments above, relevance to an encyclopedia reader is not the same as relevance to an newspaper reader. We do not engage in yellow journalism or human interest stories. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The only part of NOTNEWS that could conceivably lend support for excluding criminal history is "Wikipedia is also not written in news style." Are you suggesting WP articles about police shootings should avoid answering the five W's (who, what, when, where, why) with respect to the incident?

Your reference to yellow journalism cannot be taken seriously. Go read the WP article. And again, it is uncivil to attempt to smear editors in this way. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I've made no attempt to smear editors. And in terms of the shooting, we can answer the 5 Ws just fine without discussing his criminal record in detail. Just as I think we should remove the fluff statements from the family, we should remove the criminal record stuff. We was not shot in pursuit of an arrest warrant or anything related to those past events. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you see how applying the label "yellow journalism" to non-yellow-journalism material that is widely reported in mainstream papers has the effect of raising a false yet still insulting accusation of yellow journalism against the editors who advocate for its inclusion? Factchecker_atyourservice 22:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Evergreen Fir makes a valid point *(not necessarily the "yellow" part)🎶 -- The weight, tone, and content of an encyclopedia article is very often not the same as daily coverage in e.g. the LA Times. I have made this point repeatedly on the article talk page, only to get hooted down with disparagement, name-calling, etc. but the fact remains: WP articles are about narrowly specific, defined and bounded topics. Undue personal detail -- particularly with a negative slant -- is not appropriate, regardless of whether daily news media include it for background, human interest, gossip, or any other good or bad reason. Moreover, the WP editors who so doggedly insist on including this stuff didn't even take the time to include the sort of neutral personal information we find in the articles about other killings -- family, hobbies, interests, neighborhood environment, etc. I have now added some of that information to the article while removing overbalanced POV stuff about the details of his arrest record. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it is quite obvious that past run-ins with the law should be included in the article. The article is about the confluence of conditions that find expression in the lives of the people involved. The protesters are not just protesting the unjustified killing of an unarmed man. The protesters also cite the blighted neighborhood, the absence of job prospects in the area, and what they at least perceive as bad policing tactics, that commonly result in the mistreatment disproportionately of poorer people and people of color. If these possible injustices of a wider nature are to be addressed, how can we possibly omit a whole realm of facts from a Wikipedia article ostensibly addressing the subject area? We would be writing a fairy tale. An important principle at Wikipedia is that we follow the precedent set by the best of sources. We don't strike out on our own path in departure from the practices found at the best quality sources, which in this case are journalistic outlets. I don't think any Wikipedia editor is trying to discredit Clark and I would be distancing myself from any editor that I felt was doing that. Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

For starters, perhaps you could respond to the concerns that @EvergreenFir: and I have raised -- concerns that invalidate your "just the facts, ma'am" approach. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

For starters I've responded to your complaint about my above post at the Talk page of MelanieN. Bus stop (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "undue personal detail", nor "unduly negative" personal detail. Nor does COAT apply to any of this. You folks are just making stuff up. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No such thing as undue personal detail? Surely you jest. We do not include every sordid detail in biographies (please refer to WP:BLP and WP:DUE). It is disingenuous to claim editors are making stuff up in order to dismiss the multiple editors who clearly disagree with you. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct, no such thing. There is a policy on UNDUE WEIGHT which refers to how prominently specific arguments and factual observations are featured in RS's, but it has absolutely zero to do with how personal the detail is or whether it reflects negatively on the article subject. And again, WP:COAT has no application here because it is a policy that prohibits ancillary details from becoming the dominant focus of an article, not a policy that prohibits negative details about a BLP subject. The arguments you're trying to make fall under the "encyclopedic or not" heading, not the "due or undue" heading. And of course the details of criminal convictions are encyclopedic. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Huh, I must have missed part where we include negative personal details indiscriminately. Or how COATRACK doesn't apply here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK is clearly not applicable here. "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." Clearly not applicable. Your other link is to WP:AVOIDVICTIM. This is not a biography. This is an article on an event. The subsequent protests catapult a shooting death into social unrest. There are many problems that are addressed by the protests that are subsequent to the shooting death: high crime, poverty, police abuse, few job prospects. How can we write about this while whitewashing the life of the person who was shot? The shooting did not take place in a vacuum. The Los Angeles Times can be depended upon to be just as forthcoming with any information of a negative nature pertaining to the policemen and you can bet that we will be including every salacious detail on the policemen in our article if information of that nature should come to light. This is an article about an inherently gritty subject. You can't omit crucial details. We should be following the precedent set by for instance the Los Angeles Times. Bus stop (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: - "This is not a biography" ... but BLP applies everywhere including this article. So this is still falls under WP:AVOIDVICTIM and related BLP issues. Also, I linked to the Balance section of BLP, not to COATRACK directly. We do not include tabloid details in articles. I still fail to see how past crime is related to the shooting event. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: RE the WP editors who so doggedly insist on including this stuff didn't even take the time to include the sort of neutral personal information we find in the articles about other killings --family, hobbies, interests, neighborhood environment, etc ., that is both insulting and untrue. The consensus paragraph I added DID include information about his family and his neighborhood environment. We had earlier chosen not to include puffery like “devoted father” and “enjoyed football and video games,” which you just added; what happened to “liked shoes” and “liked to make people smile” which were far more widely reported? And now you have taken it upon yourself to remove the sentence about his previous convictions. Discussion at the article talk page will decide whether to restore it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks and flogging are welcome on my talk page, not on point here. I hope you're not suggesting that the article talk page overrides BLP/N. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—nobody suggested that the article talk page overrides BLP/N. Bus stop (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Um, "Discussion at the article talk page will decide whether to restore it" SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• The main problem is that this is so entirely wrongheaded vis-a-vis the social unrest that makes this not an obscure shooting that fades with the day's news. The social unrest and the protests precipitated by the shooting of Clark are ultimately grounded in reality—not in fiction and not in the omission of relevant information. If you want to write an article about the real shooting of Stephon Clark you have to address the situation as it actually exists. Some editors here probably think they are doing the memory of Stephon Clark a favor by suppressing the negative. But it is is in a negative environment that something like this takes place. What we are really doing by omitting previous run-ins with the law is tantamount to sweeping a problem under the rug. BLP violation is bogus. The Los Angeles Times is not a racist publication and it doesn't want to disparage the individual. No one said it aimed to do anything like that. But the argument is made that our purpose is different from that of a news article. Yes, it is slightly different. But in general we are required to adhere to their precedents. Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO—what happened to your argument based on WP:Synthesis? Have you dropped that argument in favor of an argument appealing to WP:COATRACK? It is no secret that policies and guidelines can be misused. "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." Clearly this is inapplicable to the question we are addressing. Its inapplicability is approximately equal to the inapplicability of your argument based on WP:Synthesis. Bus stop (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO—you mention at User talk:Bus stop#BLP/N Stephon Clark that you "have not mentioned WP:COATRACK anywhere". This is my error and I stand corrected. I have crossed out my offending post, above. Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, Stephon Clark is covered by WP:BLP, because his death is so recent. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Recently_dead_or_probably_dead HouseOfChange (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• And the police officers that shot him are BLPs too. That they shot a man with previous convictions, escaping them after he aroused suspicions is clearly relevant. Whether they knew of his priors or not has little bearing to this being relevant - it is widely in the media, and will surely be brought up in any legal case.Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• As will the fact that there's no reason they would have known this at the time, and the fact that they were not in any fear of their lives, and the fact that this was a ridiculous escalation from a trivial crime, and all of these things will, as usual, be ignored, and the police will, as usual, walk away without consequences, because in a country where summary execution for Driving While Black is perfectly fine, there is pretty much nothing that can be done about blue on black violence. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I am sure there is commentary to that effect that may be inserted into the article. The police were out there searching for a burglary suspect. Per the copious coverage of Clark's priors in conjunction with the shooting it seems RSes think it relevant to mention that the fleeing suspect had prior convictions that included robbery.Icewhiz (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Guy, that is not helpful and frankly comes across as totally zenophobic. Police may have and may not have overreacted here and of course this death is very saddening, but the police are given many cues as to what they are dealing with by dispatch, so they can make a risk assessment, one of which is not, "he's a young black man, blow him away". Maybe actually reading the news reports would be helpful rather than make a blanket zenophobic slander like some BBC talking head. "two felony counts of domestic abuse, to which Clark – who preferred to go by the name Stephon – pleaded guilty and agreed to complete a treatment program. The court record also shows a 2008 robbery charge, and charges in 2013 for possession of a firearm and possession of a controlled substance"[2] when police get that info, they know they are dealing with someone with many priors, so when the guy refuses to stop for the police when ordered, but instead runs, the police go into the situation knowing then from dispatch that this suspect has a history of violence and criminal behavior and based on the fact he was just seen breaking into an occupied home, they had every reason to believe he was a threat, I mean, who the fuck wouldn't? Maybe Superman wouldn't...or Batman? If the police are guilty then I hope and pray they get a life sentence, and if not, then their careers are likely ruined anyway, for doing their jobs.--MONGO 13:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• @MONGO:, they got steered in by a helicopter. At the time they shot him, they had no idea who he was - just some guy running around breaking windows was all they had to go on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• If the media follows the story we will find out eventually...maybe. But the media doesn't want the truth...they just want to fill the narrative of "unarmed black man killed by police", cause that's what provokes anger and incites moral outrage. What is omitted is the SOP of these sorts of events, not unexpectedly.--MONGO 14:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• This is going into conspiracy theory area. Responding officers do not get info about every person that lives nearby prior to going on a arrest/manhunt for a specific target (which we know wasn't Clark). We can't work anywhere close to the assumption that the dispatched officers knew Clark's priors at the time they approached him. --Masem (t) 14:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I always did. Perhaps they did not get every detail, every past charge or conviction, but "matches the description of" is routine. The dispatch record of the shooting is available already and the finer details of what the officers may have been enlightened of may also be released.--MONGO 14:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• They had the description of the perp that they were assigned to go after, but no name. Clark matched the description. There is no way they knew of Clark's priors at all. --Masem (t) 15:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: "the fact that they were not in any fear of their lives" is about as close to flatly contradicted by all RS's as we would ever find in a case like this. What are you on about? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with what EvergreenFir said above, I think they should be briefly mentioned, but we don't need a full run-down. A key fact here is that just as the cops did not know who Clark was prior to trying to arrest him, Clark did not know why the cops were approaching him. Clark's reaction at the appearance of cops suggests a reason to be wary of why he was being approached; having past criminal history implies a good reason (we can't directly say it, obviously). We don't want to make Clark looking like a lifetime criminal, so going into full detail of past convinctions which otherwise have no bearing on the story is not necessary, but to not mention that he had some makes the cops' reaction seem more unnecessary. All that needs is something like "Clark had prior criminal history of robbery, domestic abuse, and a prostitution-related offense, and was currently on probation after being released from prison a month prior." Neither overly degrading, but still addresses this Clark had had run-ins with police before, thus explaining implicitly why he likely ran. --Masem (t) 13:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Just want to say that I agree with the above: "We don't want to make Clark looking like a lifetime criminal, so going into full detail of past convictions which otherwise have no bearing on the story is not necessary, but to not mention that he had some makes the cops' reaction seem more unnecessary. All that needs is something like "Clark had prior criminal history of robbery, domestic abuse, and a prostitution-related offense, and was currently on probation after being released from prison a month prior." Neither overly degrading, but still addresses that Clark had had run-ins with police before, thus explaining implicitly why he likely ran." This is a well-balanced approach, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia policy for BLP is quite clear that defamatory material unrelated to the topic of the article should be excluded. Your guess that he ran because of his criminal record is WP:OR. Please cite a Wikipedia policy that should in this case override WP:BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• There's no question he had a criminal history (not just small civil crimes like speeding or jaywalking). Noting that, given plenty of RSes that make its mention, is not defamatory. Going into detail of every prior crime, however, is. We don't want to shine a huge light on the criminal past, only noted that it existed, which does make it related to the matter at hand, to understand he was on probation a month out from prison release. --Masem (t) 17:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• (after edit conflict) Misuse of policies and guidelines is a problem, HouseOfChange. You imply that the material in question is unrelated to to the topic of the article, but the article is about social unrest encompassing a range of problems, one of which is the shooting death of a man. You point out that "he ran because of his criminal record is WP:OR", which would be the case if stated in article space, but I contend that it is not original research when stated on this notice-board/Talk page; it is merely an unsupported statement. I am not sure who you are responding to, but I have chosen to respond to your post. If you are responding to Masem, you might consider addressing them by name. Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

HouseOfChange—I regret my tone of voice. Striking my comment. Bus stop (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed that only the basics on past history are needed.--MONGO 18:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Ditto. Here's some sourcing. As is often the case a local paper has some of the best coverage on the issues we're talking about: Clark's criminal record and the officers' decision-making process. It has the most detail about Clark pleading no contest to various charges, as well as details of the incidents themselves, and reaction quotes from policing experts and an account of why officers shot, e.g.

Police said officers "gave the suspect commands to stop and show his hands," but that he "immediately fled from the officers and ran towards the back of the home." It was there that police said they pursued Clark and where he "turned and advanced towards the officers while holding an object which was extended in front of him." Police said officers believed the object was a gun and fired, "fearing for their safety." No gun was found at the scene. Police later said that object was a cellphone. It was found near Clark's body and taken into evidence.

Factchecker_atyourservice 18:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

References

As one editor has pointed out, members of the press have used his convictions to disparage Clark. As mentioned in that link, Clark’s attorney has directly addressed this tactic, and has asserted that this shouldn’t matter. An official from the NAACP has addressed the disparagment of Clark based on his record. His family has addressed it. The LA Times gives eight paragraphs to the subject of his arrest record , and includes mention of how “Community leaders” discuss it’s immateriality, and also includes a quote by an NAACP leader also addressing her assertion the arrests do not matter.

The mention of Clark’s arrest record by members of the press and the public at large have become part of the events surrounding the shooting, and are in that way similar to the events detailed in the “Responses” section currently in the article. The use of his record to disparage him has become part of the story, and is a “Response” to the shooting.

Wikipedia should provide the interested reader with the information required to intelligently discuss the topic for which they come to us. In this case, were a hypothetical user tasked with getting up to speed on the shooting and the events surrounding it, if they came to our encyclopedia, they would be left with a significant hole in their knowledge pertaining to the reaction to the Clarke shooting. They would be unaware that his arrest record is being used to disparage him by those who seek to denigrate him. They would be unaware that “community leaders” have addressed the use of his arrest record to smear him. They would be unaware that the NAACP has addressed the tactic of using his arrest record against him. They would be unaware that Clark’s attorney has addressed that tactic. That is part of the story, and part of the events surrounding the shooting. We would therefore be requiring readers wishing to truly learn about a topic to not rely on Wikipedia, but requiring them go elsewhere because Wikipedia does not include details of the story, and Wikipedia withholds information surrounding events which are being discussed by mainstream news sources and the public at large, based not WHETHER a fact is part of the public debate as reported by sources, but whether or not it SHOULD be part of the public debate. We would be serving not as neutral purveyors of sourced fact, but as gatekeepers using our point of view to exclude fact.s

That his arrest record is being used in the public debate is a sourced fact. It is not within our purview and mission as an encyclopedia to censor the facts of this debate because we may personally believe it is a debating tactic of scoundrels and personally believe it is irrelevant. News sources and individuals involved in the public response DO feel it is relevant, and have used it as part of their "response" to the shooting. These are facts as reported by reliable sources, and makes it per se part of the events surrounding the shooting, and we should include it in proportion to the weight given to it by reliable sources. Marteau (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You forgot to mention it's a legitimate matter of public interest to people who are not scumbags and who have no desire to disparage or smear Clark. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It was only my intent to address the complaint of several editors that his record has nothing to do with the event of his shooting. Other reasons why it belongs in the article have been addressed by others and did not in my opinion require my input. Marteau (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The question of whether his prior convictions played a role in the shooting is not a question we need to ask in making this decision (though I'd say it's pretty clear they didn't). The only question that matters is whether his prior convictions belong in an encyclopedia article about his shooting. Given that they are widely discussed in the press in the context of the shooting, to me it seems obvious that this information is relevant to the topic and should be mentioned. No policy prohibits the inclusion of this material, and the sources discussing the shooting cover it, so we should follow the sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

One more agreeing his record is relevant, whether it's to reasons the police fired, or reasons Clark ran, or merely that it was widely covered in the aftermath. We do want to give context (do any reliable sources definitively state the police did or did not know?), and we don't want to go too deeply into it, but a sentence or three seems called for. --GRuban (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

GRuban—I don't know how widely it was covered in the aftermath. I think this is an understandably sensitive topic as no one wants to tarnish the image of the deceased. But I believe that members of the community, a local representative of the NAACP, and the family's lawyer, have pointed out that the prior criminal record played no role in the shooting, and I believe that their reason given is that the police who shot him were not aware of his past run-ins with the law at the time of the shooting. See Talk:Shooting of Stephon Clark#Proposed wording for the "Stephon Clark" section of the article. Also, Marteau addresses this above at 18:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC). Bus stop (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I see claims that his criminal record should be in the article because it was widely-discussed in aftermath of the shooting. Could somebody add some links to WP:RS that are discussing it in relation to the shooting or its aftermath? New York Times, New Yorker and others covering this in depth don't include even a mention, let alone a discussion. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I included three. It's at the top of the nesting you just replied to. Marteau (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Links to sources can also be found on the article Talk page under the section heading Proposed wording for the "Stephon Clark. Bus stop (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

For convenience here are some links to reliable sources which discuss past arrests and convictions: [3],[4],[5],[6],[7]. It's included in multiple articles which cover the shooting, so seems it should be included in the article. Also, if we mention that Clark had a criminal record, seems we should specify and not leave the readers guessing what this record involves when the sources specify, but seems the specifics could be added to a footnote instead of article text, if there are concerns regarding this turning into a laundry list.--DynaGirl (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment (moved from the section below) We used to have this sentence in the article: “County court records show that between 2014–2016, Clark pleaded no contest to several charges including robbery, domestic abuse, and a prostitution-related offense.”, with reference. Discussion at the article's talk page favored including it. Right now it is being kept out of the article pending the outcome of this discussion. The article still does say that he had been recently released from county jail; that according to his brother he had “really changed his life” since his prior offenses; and that multiple community leaders stated that his criminal record was immaterial to his death. Those things make no sense without any information about about his convictions. For comparison, in articles about similar shootings such as Shooting of Philando Castile, Shooting of Oscar Grant, and Shooting of Walter Scott, information about a prior record is included, although none of them had as lengthy or serious a record as this subject. Presumably those other articles, some of them longstanding, had consensus and were regarded as being in compliance with BLP criteria. After all, well sourced negative information is SUPPOSED to be included in BLPs. If people prefer, we could just say that he had some previous convictions, with the detailed charges in a footnote. But right now we have nothing, pending a conclusion here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• replyI think it's a big can of worms to declare 3 articles chosen out of dozens or hundreds of killings articles as precedent that might override to circumstances and applications of policy as they relate to this article.WP:IAPD. SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• BLP policy is not like policy against original research. We can exercise judgement. WP:V is a nonnegotiable policy. Bus stop (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:BLPCRIME - this is not a BLP issue. The subject here was convicted in a court of law - there is no BLP(BDP) issue in mentioning that. the argument for exclusion here is based on non-BLP grounds.Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDVICTIM SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BLPCRIME is pretty clear that it is not a BLP violation to write that someone has been convicted of a crime. If it is inappropriate to write he was convicted of prior crimes, it is also inappropriate to include any other personal information about him. The argument above is that the officers were not aware of his prior convictions. Then they surely were also not aware he was 22 years old, that he lived in a tough neighborhood, and that he came from a broken neighborhood. If the article is about the shooting, don't include any personal information about Clark. If editors want a section with some sentences about Clark, then his prior convictions are just as applicable as him coming from a tough neighborhood. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDVICTIM Thanks, Ernie. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You're not addressing the problem, SPECIFICO. What does one do when two aims conflict with one another? How do you explicate an American social phenomenon when one element within that phenomenon constitutes a BLP concern? The very existence of this article is dependent on developments subsequent to the shooting which merely serves as a convenient title for this article. In this context BLP is merely a technical concern preventing us from completely addressing the actual subject of this article. The actual concerns of this article include poverty, unemployment, the structure of the family, crime, and police interaction with civilians. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Every time you repeat this basic misunderstanding of WP core policy you put another nail in the coffin of such article content. It's shut down pretty darn tight now with 20+ rivets. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It may be heresy but I don't think BLP is core policy. Core policy is WP:5P. That includes WP:NPOV. The article presently states in his brother's voice "He was arrested before, but he's been different lately. He really changed his life." Really? Sources are telling us that he was likely engaged in criminal activity on the evening of the fatal encounter. Core policy includes WP:5P5: Wikipedia has no firm rules. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone. And that "sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." It would be a good idea if you actually addressed the conflicting aims of an article on a two-week, far-ranging American social phenomenon, and an article focussed solely on a shooting in which the prior criminal history of the person shot bore no relevance to his being shot. That, believe it or not, is what we are discussing. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP was mandated by Foundation. It is 100% canonical. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

JzG—I think we need to weigh the interaction of one aspect of policy with another. NPOV is also involved here and it is also an important policy. Bus stop (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Not really, no. BLP mandates NPOV, but this is not an NPOV issue, there is no problem omitting irrelevant and discreditable details about living people. We do it all the time. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

We do it all the time when the sole focus of the article is the incident containing the BLP violation. This article is not about a span of time from the placing of a 9-1-1 call and a shooting. There were ample instances subsequent to that shooting that allowed for the legitimate raising of the concerns pertaining to the criminal history. They are NPOV concerns because we should be including counterarguments as found in reliable sources to the prevailing arguments that the police are guilty of gross negligence. I am not taking a stance on that question. I am arguing for a full inclusion of arguments given. We are not here to give answers. But we are certainly here to provide information—and not to contrive to omit information. Bus stop (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we get a summary or conclusion on this subject?

Can we please get a decision here about whether it is or is not appropriate to mention his police record? We used to have this sentence in the article: “County court records show that between 2014–2016, Clark pleaded no contest to several charges including robbery, domestic abuse, and a prostitution-related offense.”, with reference. Discussion at the article's talk page favored including it. Right now it is being kept out of the article pending the outcome of this discussion. The article still does say that he had been recently released from county jail; that according to his brother he had “really changed his life” since his prior offenses; and that multiple community leaders stated that his criminal record was immaterial to his death. Those things make no sense without any information about about his convictions. For comparison, in articles about similar shootings such as Shooting of Philando Castile, Shooting of Oscar Grant, and Shooting of Walter Scott, there is information about a prior record, although none of them had as lengthy or serious a record as this subject. If preferred, we could just say that he had some previous convictions with the details in a footnote - but right now we have nothing, pending a conclusion here. (Moving substantive comments to the main discussion if this is going to get hatted.) --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Its probably going to need a formal RFC. If people cannot even agree on if it is a BLP issue or not, then generally erring should be on the side of caution. However I suspect that will not go down well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's quite clear that once we leave the closed loop of the article talk page there is very substantial concern that this is a BLP violation, except as it is discussed by RS in the context of the so-far UNDUE conspiracy theory coverage that mentions Mr. Clark's history. And much of the advocacy for inclusion here is simply visitors from that article talk page that required this BLP/N visit. If there's renewed attempts to include it we will need at the least a formal thorough close to this thread and perhaps an RfC. Over the course of three weeks since the killing, there's been a lot of ongoing coverage of the event and its context and implications and conspicuously little about this personal and synth-prone personal profiling. SPECIFICO talk 15:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—can you argue in your own words why we should leave this information out of the article? Use your own words. Don't use policy. Of course, that's not how this project works. But would it be so terrible if we had a parallel conversation, one in which reference to policy were held in abeyance? Why do you think this information, in any form, should be kept out of this article? Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

As I have detailed above, his record of arrests is a topic of discussion in the community itself, with his attorney, the NAACP and his family, addressing it, among others. The Sacramento Bee (Clark was shot in Sacramento, of course) just today gives four paragraphs to the subject of his arrests, without invoking any "conspiracy theories". I above have cited multiple sources in the mainstream press of his arrest record being a topic of discussions without invoking any conspiracy theories or synthesis. This does not require a formal closure, just a cessation of the by now tedious and spurious repetition that all mention whatsoever of his arrests is a "synthesis" or the furthering of conspiracy theories. Nothing in today's article in the Sacramento Bee invokes any such thing and reflecting theirs (and other sources) inclusion in a likewise manner in our article is in no way a BLP violation. Marteau (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Per MelanieN I have requested a close at AN. I am going to hat this sub-thread. Any further substantive comments can go in the original stream above. I have requested close at AN here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Other_types_of_closing_requests SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

(I have un-hatted.) Bus stop (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The record of the prior arrests, and the high likelihood that he was committing the break-in type of crimes on the evening he was tragically and unjustifiably killed, are an irrefutable part of the two weeks of roiling and far ranging controversy—also involving poverty—that have gripped Sacramento and other cities. How does Wikipedia get to duck beneath BLP technicalities to omit what plenty of other sources of information include? Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times writes "On Tuesday, speakers cried as they described the poverty and increasing income inequality between wealthy parts of Sacramento and its poorer neighborhoods."[8] The two weeks of protest touched upon issues other than the police shooting. Writing a comprehensive article is in this instance at odds with hewing to BLP technicalities. Bus stop (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And here it is being argued that I am "openly rejecting our WP:BLP policy". No, I am not. I do not concede there is a violation of BLP policy. It is a grey area. As in so many other things, it requires good judgement. Bus stop (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe Bus Stop is arguing that the police officers who shot this unarmed man were somehow aware of this man's prior record, and that somehow a record of something involving prostitution was relevant to his being shot in the back a couple of times. In other words, no. Again we have the POV that the black victim had it coming and deserved to get shot. Sorry, I know, you were only suggesting that, not saying it explicitly, but we're all feeling you. Just don't use "tragically" if you don't believe it was a tragedy, that young man's and his family's tragedy. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah let's not do that User:Drmies. There are sources that include his history in the context of the shooting. Let's not try to demonize good faith editors. Arkon (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh please. Surely we don't dance like all others dance; they don't have a BLP like we do. "There are sources"...so what? We have a BLP and hopefully some common sense. As for demonizing--well, guess what it's called when you want to include negative and irrelevant information in article space. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

My common sense says you're not adhering to policies governing content and instead attacking an editor. Yay you. Arkon (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and my sides, "There are sources"...so what?", this ain't the place for you. Arkon (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Pff. If you think that the BLP is satisfied the moment "there are sources", then you just don't get it. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If you think attacking editors that are arguing inclusion for content that is verifiable is able to be brushed away with your snide nonsense, well, again, you don't belong here. You are welcome to regale me with a limerick about some nonsense on my talk if you like, but stop your personal attacks on other editors here. Mind reading isn't your forte it appears, so keep that in check. Arkon (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Then skip the snide nonsense and address the argument. If you can. If you have anything besides "there are sources". Otherwise, well you know. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Which argument would that be? Arkon (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Drmies—Please don't put words in my mouth. You say I believe Bus Stop is arguing that the police officers who shot this unarmed man were somehow aware of this man's prior record. No. I am not saying anything remotely like that. No source says that. You say Again we have the POV that the black victim had it coming and deserved to get shot. Not only did I not express that but no one expressed that. You say you are feeling me. As concerns "feeling" me, I would say that it would be far preferable if you actually read what I write. Bus stop (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh I read what you wrote, thanks, and I think that many PoC agree. But setting personality aside, if the record wasn't relevant to the shooting (as you seem to agree), it is not relevant in the article. We are not writing a "comprehensive biography" of the subject: we are writing a comprehensive article on the shooting. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It's easy, what do RS's say? You've already readily dismissed that above, while disparaging others, how far down this hole are you? Arkon (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what PoC means. Bus stop (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

People(persons) of color, but just another non sequitur. Arkon (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I considered that but the next sentence reads "But setting personality aside..." How could "people of color" be a reference to a personality type? Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

They may have been hitting the sauce? They haven't said much that's made sense here so can't help you there. Arkon (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

RSes are necessary but in themselves insufficient for the inclusion of any information in a Wikipedia article. The information in any article must pass WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:CONSENSUS to warrant inclusion. Regardless, Bus Stop admits that "No source says" that the police who shot Clark were aware of his prior record. If it cannot be demonstrated that RSes agree Clark's prior record played any rôle in the shooting, then the information cannot be demonstrated to be relevant to the topic of the article. It is a BLP issue as the inclusion of the information can bias readers—and is the most likely reason both for RSes to mention it and for WP editors to push for its inclusion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me be clear personally on these points, everyone of the the WP:wordsoup's can be covered by what I've run into on this issue (besides the consensus one obviously, but that's not for here), but I don't have a preference on inclusion or not. I'm just sick of the the aspersions being thrown around at people who are obviously trying to do what's best for the project. It won't help this conversation, and it won't help the encyclopedia. BLP is satisfied on the RS point however, so again, talk page. Without the ABF above. Arkon (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "BLP is satisfied on the RS point"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I suppose I must ask the opposite question, there are (please don't make me look them up again, cause I really was just here to stop the PA's) RS's that present his previous issues in the context of the shooting. Which part of BLP does that violate? Arkon (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP is about WP text. Not source text. SPECIFICO talk 04:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Which should be hashed out on the talk page. Arkon (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Arkon: I was asking what you meant by the statement, not questioning the validity of it (I can't question the validity of it until I understand what you meant). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—the article isn't just about the shooting. If the article were just about the shooting it probably wouldn't exist. The article is also about all subsequent events. Many topics have been raised, most importantly including poverty, which as we know can lead to crime. No one wants to disparage the deceased. But the family was disadvantaged and the individual turned to crime and with a high probability was committing a crime on the evening he was shot. There is dialogue and discussion from many quarters on the particulars of this incident. And that dialogue—subsequent to the shooting is reliably sourced. This source is from yesterday. The Sacramento Bee isn't a racist publication. It mentions previous run-ins with the law because the readership wants to know the details. The inclusion of that information does not feed a point of view based on race. It is information for the sake of information. It answers the question of "what happened?" Our readership doesn't benefit from being kept in the dark. This is not just a straightforward WP:BLP. There is a need to provide the full picture of two weeks of oftentimes heated dialogue. The imperative of being informative overrides the negative aspersions cast on the deceased. The Sacramento Bee faces the same questions that we do and they include this information as do other good quality sources such as the Los Angeles Times. Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The press has different purposes and policies than Wikipedia—we're not reporting the news, we're not competing with other publications for readership, and our aim is to be balanced and comprehensive, not exhaustive. We're not keep the readership any more in the dark than denying them information about Clark's musical preferences, which the press might report in any amount of detail they like, but is not known to have played a rôle in the officers' decision to shoot him. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

On review of what later press sources have said about the topic (eg NY Times on Mar 30) which cover the event without mentioning Clark's background, I think it is right to err on non-inclusion of his previous crimes at this point. The whole situation can be discussed without that. None of the articles that appear in the week that follow really focus on that, because the situation is more focused on how the cops approached him and mistoke what he had in his hands and then their apparently excessive response; it's less about Clark and more about these officers' actions. Including the material is not a wholesale violation of BLP, but BLP requests we defer anything potentially negative like this that is not instrumental to the core topic. I can see his history potentially coming up later should there be court action, but that's CRYSTALBALLing its inclusion at this time. --Masem (t) 06:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The actual BLP issue, long term, is the police officers (and it doesn't require a BALL to see that the prior record will be raised in any future legal proceedings involving them) - and we should represent their position in a fair manner. The BDP issue of Clark is secondary (particularly as given BLPCRIME - mentioning convictions is not a BLP issue).Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be stressed again: the officers had no idea who they were looking for or who the person they found when this happened, there is no way they would have known he had priors. Their reaction is based on how he reacted and what they took to be a weapon in the darkness, not because he was a known criminal. Taking on the BLP issues related to the officers, there's nothing that we gain in maintaining their BLP by including Clark's prior criminal history, since it is not connected to their actions. --Masem (t) 14:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think you can disregard the fact, as is indicated only a few inches above here, that the issue is WP:AVOIDVICTIM and your blpcrime bit is meaningless? SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Certainly there are opinions to that effect which can be included carefully - though saying "no way" in Wikipedia's voice may be stretching possible on the ground inference. What we need to be careful of here - long term - in terms of BLP policy is framing this in a manner that suggests the officers were criminally culpable in some manner for the event - as long as they haven't been charged, let along convicted - that's the real BLP issue with the article. The shooting described in the article may be a crime, we describe an investigation into the shooting, yet no one has been tried let alone convicted, and per WP:BLPCRIME - For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. - which is relevant regarding the police officers.Icewhiz (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, all BLP issues are real BLP issues. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't try to make Clark look like a saint here to make the cops' action seem wrong. Just as they couldn't know his priors, they couldn't know if he was a good citizen. Clearly, his family and those upset at the shooting are going to insist that he was a "good kid" and the like, as to try to argue their side, and that's likely going to be part of this article, but that should stay out of our description of Clark that is stated in a factual voice. --Masem (t) 14:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• General comment: This would be a misapplication of BLP policy because this article isn't primarily a BLP. This article is about an approximately two-week period of American social introspection and unrest. Addressed on this American occasion are such diverse issues as poverty, job availability, the family, crime, and the interface of police and civilians. As concerns the purposes of the press versus the purposes of this project on the topic at hand, the purposes are virtually identical. There would not be an article on just the shooting. It would lack notability. We have this article because the shooting noted in the title of this article sparked a discussion that not only spanned two weeks but spanned the length and breadth of the country and spanned a range of topics. Naturally, many observations were made. Many participants weighed in with relevant points. It is myopic to think that because the criminal history of the suspect did not play a role in the shooting that therefore, based on BLP concerns, it must be excluded from the article. Crime is unavoidably a part of the problems that play into the much-needed American discussion that is the real subject of this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • BLP applies to all topics, not just articles that happen to deal with BLP (or recently-deceased). --Masem (t) 14:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Masem—I actually regard the omission of this information as a distortion of this article. The article is about the social condition of America. It is not just about one shooting. Multiple instances of criminal activity increase the odds that police will kill a man. The sources are showing us that multiple instances of criminal activity exist. Omission of the information of the police record distorts the fundamental fact that repeated lawbreaking played a role in increasing the likelihood of the shooting. This relates not just to the one shooting that is the title of this article. That information plays into the total picture that is the real subject of this article. This isn't just an article on one shooting. It is an article on two weeks of protest following that shooting. Anyone can read the accounts of the protests to understand this. The New York Times tells us "On Tuesday, speakers cried as they described the poverty and increasing income inequality between wealthy parts of Sacramento and its poorer neighborhoods."[9] One does not put on blinders and pretend that this article is merely about a one-hour period of time spanning the placement of a 9-1-1 call and the shooting of an unarmed man. That is a myopic view of the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Not persuasive. If such sociology research on crime has been done by scholarship and vetted by scholarship, it could arguably have weight and appear in the appropriate sociology article (with citation(s)), not in this current events article - because it sounds like you are arguing for original research. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Alanscottwalker—the article is not just about the brief period of time between the placing of the 9-1-1 call and the shooting. Were it just about that then the BLP concerns would hold. But the article also would not exist if it were just about the shooting. The actual scope of the article, and its reason for notability, is all that has transpired since the shooting. That has certainly included discussion of the criminal history. It would be a contrivance of us to omit it. Bus stop (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
          • I heard you the first-time, as I said not persuaded, see also COATRACKing, we are not here to imbue things with a significance of our selection - that is not our job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanscottwalker (talk • contribs) 13:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
            • I don't think we are imbuing things with any significance at all. This is an article that receives its notability from the social unrest which is subsequent to the shooting. In that social unrest there are numerous instances of the invocation of the criminal record of the victim of the shooting. I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge that this is not just an article with its sole focus on the period of time between the placing of the 9-1-1 call and the shooting. That is an artificially concocted scope designed to accentuate a BLP concern that looses a good deal of its significance in the larger picture. Bus stop (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• BS, Each of your 20+ repetitions of your flawed POV shows us that you have no policy-based criticism of the consensus you're trying to oppose. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• • • • There is a logical idea that the police knew they were going into an area of the city that had higher crime rates, and so were likely less hesitant to use more aggressive means to find and arrest the perp, but I stress again, Clark's identity was not known to the cops prior to the confrontation, going by all reliable reports. All they had was a description of a person , where they were, and what they thought they saw him doing (breaking windows). Anything else outside of his physical appearance (Race, age, height) should not be of concern to Clark's background, at least with respect to the incident itself. His prior criminal history may come up in ongoing protests or in the assessment of the cops' activities, and/or any court actions, and if that history becomes a major facet then, then we should include it, but there's nothing presently that suggests his prior criminal history is essential to understanding this event. --Masem (t) 13:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Masem—the windows broken were not only in autos but in at least one house. How often do you think one can tamper with other people's property before one has a negative outcome? We aren't discussing why the police shot him. We simply do not know. We are discussing what is relevant for inclusion in the article. And we are discussing conflicting aims of different aspects of policy. Did the police shoot an innocent man or did they shoot a man who was engaging in criminal activity and who had a history of criminal activity? This is an NPOV concern. We are not taking sides by including the info on the history. We are providing balance. Should we be contriving to remove balance if reliable sources include the relevant information that the police shot a man that repeatedly engaged in criminal activity? I thought we followed sources. You mean every time a reliable source mentions the criminal record we relegate it to the status of the unmentionable based on BLP concerns? Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
          • You're reading too far into the situation. First, I don't think anyone has yet claims or affirmed that Clark was the person seen breaking windows, so we can't assert he was even possibly engaged in such activity. He only matched the rough description, and certainly on the spot there's no way the cops could have made that determination (they didn't witness him). Second, the whole reason for the protests was that cops fatally shot a young black man who they thought might have been armed but shown afterwards to not have been (having mistaken his cell phone he had out as a weapon). Some are calling this racial profiling, others calling it excessive force, but none of that involves Clark's prior history. We are not beholden to what mass media prints if that violates our core policies. --Masem (t) 14:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

perhaps a way forward is to agree on the term recently deceased. i suggest we add the RS material about his felony convictions only, after enough time for it to no longer be considered recent. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

What would that amount of time be? Bus stop (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems the best way forward may be WP:RFC, considering this has been at BLPN for a long time and doesn't seem close to being resolved.--DynaGirl (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nicole Louise Pearce

The article reads like a POV piece demonising the subject, but since it is not an area I have much experience editing in, I ask for input here. It is the creation of a user who, in addition to creating and editing this article, has done very little editing except for adding mentions of Pearce in other articles, so pretty much a single-purpose account. I am not denying that the actions perpetrated by the subject of the article (as described in the sources) are awful, but there are several very problematic aspects to the article, such as discussion of the gender identity of the person as if that were a factor, a very long section about "evil" with a lot of references that have nothing to do with Pearce, and even inclusion of a paragraph about "similarly controversial and later deemed regrettable releases of murderers" which is pure OR and again appears to try to link the gender identity of the perpetrators to their crimes. (I have moved that paragraph down into the body of the article from the lede, and removed the "regrettable" verbiage. I think it should go entirely, but won't edit war about it.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Good god -- that needs a lot of attention. (I'll help when I'm done with kids this evening...) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That is indeed terrible. I've taken a somewhat unusual measure, perhaps, by redirecting the article to Murder of Peter Aston. It strikes me as in line with BLP1E, and the edit history shows that the article creator, who indeed seems to be an SPA, is up against various editors who cite WP policy more appropriately. User:Crimescrutineer, you can make your case on the article talk page. That discussion, along with this one, will decide the fate of the article. In the meantime I will not hesitate to block you if you continue the edit warring or undo the redirect. Discussion first. User:Bonadea, User:Nomoskedasticity, thank you for your attention, and you too, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The rationale for the article has been added to the talk page. I really found these criticisms myopic and hope that future criticism points out precisely why academic biographical information about Pearce, plainly linked to in great detail, is readily thought of as irrelevant, let alone "indeed terrible." User:Bonadea, User:Nomoskedasticity, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Drmies, (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimescrutineer (talk • contribs) 20:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

John Philbin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone please have a word with user:SemiHypercube who is trying to re-add a totally undue Personal Life section to this biography? Cheers. 94.118.33.196 (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

And same user, same problem, at Reby Sky. 94.118.33.196 (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@94.118.33.196: First off, I would like to know what makes the Personal Life sections in question "undue"? You seem to be removing sections on legal issues, i.e. 1 2. Secondly, you seem to be using ad hominem remarks on my talk page here. Third, perhaps you could explain your use of changing your IP with this edit? SemiHypercube (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

NOt seeing a problem with either of the first two edits (the arrests), they're reliably sourced and constitute only a small part of the article. I DO see a problem with the third edit, the remark the I.P made back to SemiHypercube, that is a personal attack and that's not allowed. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 15:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi, it was not your talkpage, and even someone with my limited understanding is aware that IPs can change. You have a lot of edits already for a newly registered user -- somewhat sus.

Kosh, you are a demonstrable buffoon. Aren't there some Pokemon articles you could be editing?

Back to the problem... The section in question consists solely of this:

<WP:CWW violation removed>

The section is about as long as the rest of the article. Without wishing to demean Mr Philbin, he is not particularly notable, the incident even less so. How on earth is this acceptable? 94.118.51.92 (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rebecca Rios

This content is currently on the page: "In April 2017, Rios' husband, Vandon Jenerette, was arrested on suspicion of assaulting Rios." This is sourced to this newspaper article. I can't find any follow-up reporting on this incident. I'm not sure we should include this content...Rios is the apparent victim of domestic abuse, and her statement in the newspaper article suggests she wants to keep the matter private. In this case, it seems prudence would suggest we not highlight the incident. Somewhat related, I removed content from the page about an ethics complaint against her alleging an inappropriate sexual relationship--the ethics complaint was tossed as lacking merit, so I didn't think it warranted inclusion. Is there specific guidance on how to handle content when an article subject is the alleged victim of domestic abuse? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:AVOIDVICTIM to me. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The source says "This is a very personal matter. Ms. Rios has no comment at this time. She would appreciate respect for her privacy," said an email statement to The Republic from Sharon Ng, Rios' spokeswoman.[10] It shouldn't be in the article. Bus stop (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm with Bus stop here, and have removed it. Thanks to all. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I wasn't familiar with WP:AVOIDVICTIM but that is helpful to know about. Marquardtika (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Scheer

An RfC re recent edits of this Canadian politician's bio has been added at Talk:Andrew Scheer#RfC about Removing edits by the IP and the sock puppets. If interested, please comment there not here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Ben Caesar

Following Advice Alex Shih gave me, I'm going here. User WikipedianEnigmatica Keeps on adding sources from goodreads (Which is not an RS) and a google search result, and reverted me when I tired explaining to him how they are not reliable sources, with an hypocritical edit summary (If wikipedia is unreliable, then why are you contibuting to it?) Could someone please do something about this, or tell the user to listen more? 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I've sent it to AFD as I can't find any significant discussion of him in WP:RS to justify the article remaining. I might get slapped down, but let's see where it goes. Neiltonks (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Roy Woods

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

The following line in describing Roy's associated acts and by extention, openers, is very much forced.

"Woods has also had other underground artists open for him at his shows, such includes other members of the OVO Sound group, JYDN, FRVRFRIDAY, 24hrs, and members of his collective."

JYDN and FRVRFRIDAY have never been associated with Roy or UTU. 24hrs is a long term collaborator who brings out Roy at his concerts and Vice Versa.

addition and association of JYDN and FRVRFRIDAY seems like a marketing scheme by these artists' management to create a false associaiton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffffanboy (talk • contribs) 21:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Since they are unsourced, I have removed the two items to which you object, and I have marked the rest as needing a citation. MPS1992 (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Stallcop, mall cop

Over the past few weeks, there have been a couple of IPs trying to change the surname of New Hampshire state legislator Joseph Stallcop to "Mallcop" instead. They do this in the guise of correcting a spelling error, but that's not what they're doing — his name is verifiable in both self-published and independent sources as Stall, not Mall, so the IPs are just trying to be funny and failing. But the first attempt stayed in the article for three full weeks until I somehow caught it this past Sunday, and today a different IP reverted it back to "Mallcop" again. I've placed a week of semi on the article for the moment to prevent IP edits, but obviously this isn't a serious enough issue to warrant longterm edit protection — so I just wanted to ask if some additional editors are willing to add it to their watchlists, in the hopes that it'll get caught faster if they try this stunt again once the semi expires. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Added to watchlist. Neiltonks (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Paul Nehlen

There are several pejoratives being used in this article Paul Nehlen that are not substantiated by Nehlen or any of the articles cited as references. Specifically, people are using articles suggesting Nehlen is a white nationalist and calling him a white supremacist. This is not a trivial distinction, and, even given the extra burden of proof when the subject is a public figure, calling someone a racist without corroborating evidence is dangerously close to, if not across, the line of being libelous. Nehlen has admitted to being a white nationalist but consistently and vehemently denies being a white supremacist (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/12/27/ryans-pro-white-primary-foe-denounced-by-breitbart-after-his-anti-semitic-tweets/?utm_term=.e691799d8d29). QPhysics137 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems problematic that the first sentence of the lead reads "Paul Nehlen (born May 9, 1969) is an American white supremacist and currently a candidate in the Republican primary for U.S. Representative from Wisconsin's 1st congressional district, which is being vacated by Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives." Perhaps as a first step that assertion that he is a "white supremacist" should be moved out of that position of prominence in the lead. Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If reliable sources consistently refer to someone as a white supremacist, and that is a significant part of their notability, it should be in the lede of that person’s biography. See Richard B. Spencer for an example of this. The question, then, is whether or not reliable sources call him one. If the statement can be sourced and there is no substantial debate among reliable secondary sources, we can and should state facts as facts, not opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

He explicitly denies that characterization. Bus stop (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

So what? So does Richard Spencer. To use an example on the other end of the spectrum, Rachel Dolezal explicitly claimed to be black. It doesn't matter what people claim to be or not to be, if reliable sources disagree with them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Denying being a white supremacist and using euphemisms such as "white nationalist" is a known tactic of white supremacists. Here's a snippet from white nationalism: "Critics argue that the term "white nationalism" and ideas such as white pride exist solely to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy, and that most white nationalist groups promote racial violence." --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we know his beliefs better than he does? He says "I reject being called a White Supremacist..." Dictionary definition of white supremacist: "a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races". The first sentence of the lead is hardly the place to contradict a person's expressed beliefs. I would suggest language such as "he is widely described as a white supremacist". Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

His beliefs are not relevant here - his actions and statements are. One can claim not to be an anti-Semite, but if one declares that Jews are responsible for all the world’s problems, one will be labeled an anti-Semite by reliable sources. His actions and statements have defined him as a white supremacist by reliable sources, and those are who we rely on on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of what RSes say about him, the approach taken in this article (at least as of this version) is completely inappropriate per BLP, NPOV, and NOT#SOAPBOX. It is not an encyclopedia's place to level every negative connotation about a person that is seen to have values contrary to the prevailing public view (or at least as stated by the media), simply because his believes, statements, and actions suggest his supports those values - we are not here to right great wrongs, nor try to put people that may be seen in a negative light by the public/media in the darkest, most negative light possible. It is fair and necessary by weight of RSes to identify as criticism towards the person that he is seen as supporting white nationalistic views, but the section "White nationalist campaigning" is basically loading a bunch of coattrack arguments to support this ("he used triple parens in one of his tweets" as evidence of white nationalism is total BS for us to have in a BLP). This article is the epidemic of the combination of the current media hysteria around right-leaning politics and too many editors saying "we have to say what the RSes say!!!" and ignoring the basic tenets of what BLP and NPOV tells us not to do. --Masem (t) 13:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Masem on this. We shouldn't just blindly repeat what sources say, but use some editorial judgment to summarize, weigh, and balance the article so that we can ultimately make it all encyclopedic rather than the typical media crucifixion. I'd also be careful as to labeling a person as one thing or another. If their actions indicate something about their character, then its better to describe those actions and let the reader decide. (ie: If so-and-so is an a-hole we don't call him an a-hole, but rather show the reader what makes him an a-hole. It's a basic principle of writing; "show, don't tell".) If some sources decide to call them by a specific label, then we should attribute it to those sources. If the subject denies the particular label, then their denial should be included. However, unless their sole source of notability is being white supremacist or whatever, then we shouldn't be labeling anyone using Wikipedia's voice, because that would be giving the reader our own conclusion, when we really should be giving them the information to draw their own conclusion. Zaereth (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

That’s not how Wikipedia works. We call spades spades, when reliable sources do. We do not simply throw up our hands and say “both sides” when one side is a slew of reliable sources and the other side is an avowed racist and anti-Semite plaintively crying “unfair.” Our mission is to write an encyclopedia based upon reliable sources, and the reliable sources here are undisputed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Labels can be problematic because the definition of the label is rarely if ever airtight. We have a good idea what a white supremacist is but there is bound to be wiggle room given the variety of understandings different people might have. Labels are only approximations so we shouldn't rely on them too heavily. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP, NPOV and WP:LABEL are very clear that we do not simply treat the media as judge and jury in such cases; their opinions are still important, but they are not required to be taken as fact nor piled on per BLPCRIME. We need to remain apolitical and stay out of the media's current rampage of the right at this point, though clearly still need to acknowledge it, otherwise WP becomes a soapbox for the media, which we are not. Neutrality is just as fundamental to reliability to WP, and we can met both as long as we recognize the use of labels and attribute them appropriately, as well as appropriate tone and structure that still will keep the criticism but in a much more appropriate tone for an academic work. --Masem (t) 22:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem with labels is the same as with all stereotypes, and this is exactly what leads to things like racism in the first place. I've posted many reliable sources here on just that subject and will be more than happy to do so again. People are far more complex than a simple label, and labels, stereotypes, and other forms of categorization are far too useful a tool for those who want to rally a people against another. It is a tactic used by white supremacists, neo-nazis, Nazis, ancient Romans, going back to the dawn of civilization, but should be avoided by respectable journalists. (In fighting monsters we should make sure we don't become them.) A label like this is an opinion. Possibly a righteous one, but an opinion none the less, thus it needs at the very least to be attributed to someone.

Aside from that, it's just poor writing. Whether fiction or non-fiction, a reader doesn't like to be told what to think (and I can source that too). Zaereth (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Of course we need editorial judgment to go along with reliable sources. Is the dude more or less a professional at white supremacy? Is that how he makes his money? And if he is a white supremacist, whether professionally or part-time, why would that be pejorative? If one is a supremacist, isn't that supremacy thing something to be proud of? I never got that with these cats.

  I looked over the article and its sources, and I think we can say safely that it's worth mentioning in the opening lines, yes. BTW these cats and their Jesus-shaped holes...nobody better tell em Jesus wasn't white... Drmies (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• I was going to say the sourcing wasn't really there, but I saw this nytimes article where he is described "The most prominent conservative challenger to Mr. Ryan has been Paul Nehlen, a white nationalist and anti-Semite who challenged Mr. Ryan in 2016". If not literally the first couple of words, it still should be in the first sentence, i.e, "widely described as white nationalist" Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources also describe him as far-right: [11][12] Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not so much that there isn't sourcing for "white nationalist" or other labels to be includes as criticism, but that our article treats the labels as fact nor accounts for his counterclaim that he isn't. Policy is clear that these labels must be treated as attributed opinions, and there's shouldn't be a pile-on of attempts at evidence of why they consider him a white nationalist, particularly into the trivial elements like triple parens in a tweet. Having the views of a white nationalist, last I saw, wasn't a crime, so this should be treated more as criticism as far less as it is now as a scarlet letter of shame as the article is written. --Masem (t) 13:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

In almost every sense, secondary sourcing trumps primary because through the lens of a reliable outside source we get a clearer picture. Someone's political views absolutely fall in line with this. Secondary sources report on someones actions, despite what they might try to tell people, and there's a saying about actions and words, you know? Parabolist (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

There are neutral political views, like if one is a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, and so on. Those aren't labels. Polical labels like "white nationalists" absolutely have to considered as opinion and treated as such, and understanding the nature and bias of sources as to whether the negative connotation of the term has encyclopedic value. The media has made it clear they are out to shame anyone that they feel doesn't match their stance and engaging in treating divergent views as thought crime, but WP is not in the business of shaming people. We must be apolitical and much more neutral here. We can't ignore the fact, here, that Nehlan is criticized for having white nationalist views, but key is to make sure that's presented as the opinions of the press, as well as making sure that (if we can source it) that Nehlan denies this label. --Masem (t) 22:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Shame, what? You have cited nothing to support your Original Research, POV -- ascribing to RS a desire to "shame" just because they use words you don't personally approve of is nonsense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It is the way we write the thing that matters. You don't start out the thing by saying "Paul Nehlen (born May 9, 1969) is an American white supremacist and a candidate in the Republican primary for U.S. Representative from Wisconsin's 1st congressional district, which is being vacated by Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives." He isn't a white supremacist. He is an upright vertebrate. He favors bipedalism. My point is he is many things. But all don't belong as the first descriptive term. We are offering an opinion. I agree that we are "shaming" him. Bus stop (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Evaluation the nature of sources and any issue with them (bias, unreliability, expert-ness, importance) is not OR, but a fundamental part of what we as editors do in building the encyclopedia as a summary work. We rely on that ability to judge sources to make sure we are providing reliable sources and neutral coverage to know what sources to use and how to organize information. We use that to, for example, put heavy restrictions on the use of Daily Mail due to outright fabrications, or to recognize that works like Brietbart have been found to be manipulative to mudslinging on left-leaning targets, and thus unreliable. We have every ability to apply the same considerations to the media today, and its very clear the media is making it a stigma to be considered anything close to alt-/far-right. Those people may not be popular, and we should not hide that they are unpopular and disliked if that is a significant point in the coverage (like here), but we absolutely should not be taking up this mantra that the media unabashedly uses that we must shun and ridicule anyone to the alt/far-right, particularly when they have not done or been convicted of anything legally wrong; we can't judge morals, so we have to stay amoral here. That's why LABEL exists, that's why BLPCRIME exists. It is not in any way or shape original research to recognize this; we are a summary work and we need to look at the situation from a high level to understand how to place the coverage appropriately, and that includes recognizing coverage that is not sufficiently objective, even if it is coming from a reliable source, for a encyclopedia with strong BLP provisions. But to stress, this is no way changes WP:V or NOR; biased coverage does not cause an RS to no longer be reliable, and we still can only include material that comes from RSes and avoid those we know are not RSes barring statements of opinion, its a matter of how that material is presented that is affect that by how the sources are evaluated. --Masem (t) 12:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

That's quite a long disquisition, but none of it supports your POV-pushing/OR shaming claim. `Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that I added BLP and American Politics sanction notices to the talk page 2 days ago. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The first thing we should be saying is why he's notable. After we've said why he is notable ("he is a candidate in the Republican primary for U.S. Representative from Wisconsin's 1st congressional district, which is being vacated by Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives") we can delve into neutrally-stated and well-sourced qualities that fall under the general heading of white supremacism. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, because his minor fringe candidacy is not why he’s notable. Last time he ran in the primary he got like 16% of the vote. Nobody would ever have heard of Paul Nehlen except that he’s a white supremacist candidate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

(combining a few replies). We have to understand that regardless of how many sources use it, as long as a person has not self-identified as a label like white supremacist, it remains a label that is to be treated as a subjective matter, particularly when dealing with BLP. There is no question that the reason Nehlen is notable is because he has expressed views that many see aligned with white nationalism/white supremacy, and he's running for office, which to many people, is a disconcerting prospect, and so for that reason, they are going to call that out. I fully understand why that's being done, and that's well within the press's legal capabilities to do that. And because there's been that much focus on that issue, it is not appropriate for us to ignore it. But, we have to realize that having a different moral compass is not a crime, despite the way the press wants to make it to be. The "shaming" here is because we have the press trying to line up every bit of evidence of Nehlen's actions and statements to justify that he must be labeled as a negative term, despite having not done anything illegal. We have to be fully aware we are living in a period where identity politics are playing a massive role, but we are a global work, and just because maybe Western culture presently sees white nationalism/white supremacy as a bad morals, it is not universally true. We can't assume a moral center for WP and need to stay amoral. (If it were the case that he started calling for outright genocide of a specific racial group, then maybe we'd have to take a stance in WP's voice).

So we have to recognize that the attention that Nehlen's gotten is to label him in a way that is strongly against the American moral center, so that they can convince people not to vote for him, to distrust him, and otherwise impact his reputation. They're pulling any bit of evidence that suggest these far-right positions (like the triple parens) to justify it. That's effectively shaming. We know this happens from the right-leaning press to figures on the left (typically around "fascism", and see how much mud the right tried to throw at Hillary Clinton.) This happens, the press has been this way for at least a decade, but it's only gotten more aggressive in the last few years for obvious reasons.

WP should not be in the business of supporting any type of media or political mudslinging. We can document that it happened, in this case, noting that many of the media consider Nehlen to have white nationalism/white supremacy views and actions, but we should not be making that the lede or focus of the article. It has to be in the article, it is probably going to be a significantly sized section if more attention has been given to criticizing Nehlen, but we cannot consider this criticism towards him as the sole factor we have an article on him. Otherwise, that becomes equivalent to a BLPCRIME issue; just as we would not have an article on a person who's only claim to notability may be because they were accused but not yet convicted of a violent crime, a person accused of having a non-central moral or ethical view as their only claim to fame should not have an article either, otherwise we are engaging in thought crime; given WMF's goal of being in free speech and open content, that's a terrible position to be taking. That said, I think Nehlen's notability is a combination of factors, that he is a controversial figure and there's a history of events around that that goes beyond just criticism that we can cover appropriately. The current article might cover these events, but clearly twists them to favor the press's opinions. (Keep in mind, things like Bannon/Breitbart disavowing their support for him are clear factual events that are important to note how different his views are from even know right-wing figures). We need to be far more careful to keep WP's voice out of presenting a moral compass and stay indifferent to the issues at hand, and this basically starts by attributing all labels, and de-emphasizing the use of these labels until after more neutral elements (his background and political career) are presented first. --Masem (t) 16:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

All of this is special pleading, making a case for overlooking/de-emphasising core facts about Nehlen. So much commentary about "American moral center" & "shaming" & the like. None of this is relevant. We can stick with our usual policies and approaches and convey the aspects of his public notability in the way we would for any other person. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Policies are very explicit about how to deal with labels, and how to stay neutral, impartial and apolitic. We are not to be a mouthpiece for the media, though clearly cannot ignore what they have to say. Policy explicitly says to not write the way this article is presently written. --Masem (t) 18:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I still agree with Masem and, in a rare instance, Bus stop. No one is trying to stop or censor this information; it most certainly should be in the article. What we're talking about is presentation. Should it be presented in a neutral, professional, encyclopedic manner or in more of a tabloid, TMZ type manner. It's not censorship to present the same information using the former rather than the latter. Zaereth (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not agreed with more often or I would leave this place. Bus stop (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's policies are clear in this case, so let's be clear. If numerous independent, reliable sources describe Nehlen as a white supremacist and anti-Semite, then it is appropriate for Wikipedia to describe him as such. That's the distilled essence of our fundamental content policies. We don't create special exceptions to site policy for white supremacists. We don't pretend that they're victims of a media conspiracy.

  Of course espousing white supremacy is not a crime. No one is proposing to say that Nehlen is a criminal. They're saying that he espouses white supremacy. Readers can apply their own "moral compass", but they need to be provided with well-sourced facts in order to do so. Otherwise, we're not being honest.

  If we take someone widely described in reliable sources as a white supremacist, and water down our description of him because of the confused (and somewhat disturbing) reasoning given in this thread, then we're violating WP:NPOV, by altering the content of sources to reflect our editorial biases. We're substituting our "moral compass" (which, in the case of at least some commenters here, seems to have a noticeable blind spot when it comes to white supremacy and anti-Semitism) rather than reflecting the content of published reliable sources. WP:NPOV and associated policies are non-negotiable, and cannot be set aside by a small group of misguided editors. If people are failing to adhere to these policies in their article editing, then as an admin I will consider my options to enforce them. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

So what your saying is that this is the media's opinion therefore it is our opinion too, and we should report it as our own opinion rather than simply providing an attribution? That sounds oddly like applying our own moral compass to the situation. And your insinuation that because certain editors want that attribution then they must share the subjects views is beyond insulting. Zaereth (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that if reliable sources consistently say X, then Wikipedia should say X. It's silly to speak of "the media's opinion", because the media don't have a collective "opinion". If only one reliable source identifies Nehlen as a white supremacist or anti-Semite, then the label should be attributed. If there is disagreement between reliable sources about whether Nehlen is or is not a white supremacist, then that disagreement should be described with appropriate weighting. In this case, it appears that numerous reliable sources identify Nehlen as a white supremacist and/or anti-Semite, and no reliable sources contradict that identification. So that makes our job as editors pretty straightforward, assuming of course that we choose to follow site policy.

I don't claim special knowledge of individual editors' motivations; I can only judge their actions. If someone consistently argues for a special exception to site policy when discussing white supremacists, and if they argue that white supremacists are unfairly victimized by a "media conspiracy", or if they consistently argue that white supremacy is just a "belief system" no more or less valid than any other belief system, then one could draw a range of inferences, from the charitable to the... well, less charitable. I'll leave it there, since in the end policy is pretty clear. MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects the opinion of reliable sourcing. To support its neutrality it has no opinion of its own. If a subject is described by a wide range of RS as <insert thing> then we say they are <insert thing> unless it isnt a general view, or there is some argument about it in reliable sources - and no the subject themself is not a reliable source on if they are an <insert negative label>. There is a distinct difference between white nationalism and white supremacy. But if the available RS describe him as a white supremacist, it doesnt matter if he says he is or not. If they describe him as a white nationalist anti-semite, then we wouldnt say he is a white supremacist but we would state he is a white nationalist anti-semite. If the subject spouts white supremacist bollocks, and everyone says he spouts white supremacist bollocks but doesnt call him a white supremacist, we dont either. But we do state his views are considered bollocks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Zaereth, phrases like "the media's opinion" is really just trolling around with terminology--as if "the media" are all the same and none of them say anything we can take at face value. It's not about "opinions". We trust that reliable sources supply us with facts, and if in this case those statements are contradicted by the subject ("I'm not a white supremacist! I'm a white nationalist!") we should weigh the sources and their quality and their number. And in this case the result seems pretty clear. That's not necessarily the same as "labeling", since we're not going around arbitrarily putting a sticker on people cuz we like it. And by the way, Mastcell's comment on blind spots should be taken seriously, certainly if we, one the one hand, try to do away with the qualification of someone as a white supremacist because of the BLP or whatever, while on the other hand we demean the very basis of the project by lowering the level of reliable sources to "media opinion". Drmies (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

MastCell—I made no reference to "belief system". Why are you enclosing it within quotation marks? Bus stop (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I've described before that we're putting far too much weight in the current sources of the media. We're too close to events around this person to use the media's opinion as factual matters. We need the test of time, from political analysts and historians to determine if, well into the future, people like Nehlen are still considered white supremacists. (For example, we reasonably and unabashedly can and do say someone like David Duke is a white supremacist in a factual tone, we've got a few decades of evaluation since he's fallen out of the public light to establish that). The media reporting today, regardless if you think they are biased or not, are reflecting opinion and views of the present. We are less concerned about trying to chase down the present (that's why NOT#NEWS exists) and instead want to focus on how the person is viewed in the long-term, which the media cannot provide presently. That doesn't mean current controversy, such as a candidate for office that media perceives as being a white supremacist, isn't appropriate to include, particularly when the weight of RS suggests that it should be included per WP:UNDUE, but it should be recognized as a label and a opinion in line with BLP, YESPOV, and LABEL, to avoid having WP try to speak in factual statements that haven't had the test of time to prove out. That then sets a number of matters related to organization and tone to put such information in appropriate place and weight to things that are objectively factual (eg that he is a politician in this case)--Masem (t) 22:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The idea that we need decades for this is frankly ludicrous. So is the idea that reliable sources somehow become unreliable because they are "too close." What's the cutoff? Why have a cutoff? If there is near unanimity on this, wishing and hoping that time will somehow make something that is true untrue is not a coherent basis for policy. Trying to link this to a RECENTISM issue is just muddying the waters, as it isn't gossip or tabloid news, it's basic reporting on someone's politics. Parabolist (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There isn't an "idea that we need decades for this". There is an idea that we don't take a moral stand on a position such as white supremacism or antisemitism. We are a compendium of information, not a pulpit for preaching. We state facts. Or more precisely, we understate facts. The facts should be there for any careful reader to comprehend. But they should be stated in an aloof voice. It doesn't matter if the labels come later in the article than the concrete and specific and well-sourced examples of for instance things said and positions taken by the subject of the article. All white supremacists are not the same. White supremacist is a label and it is necessarily imprecise when considered in its aggregate applications. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Calling someone a white supremacist is not "taking a moral stand." It's documenting verifiable facts as described by reliable sources. If you object to that, you object to the very basis of this project. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No one said that calling someone a white supremacist was taking a moral stand. No, I don't object to the basis of the project, and by the way, don't make me laugh—this is not a humor forum. We state things in an article in a way that prioritizes the concrete and additionally provides applicable labels. I am not the only editor saying this. As another editor has said: It's a basic principle of writing; "show, don't tell". Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Abbe Raven

• Abbe Raven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biography of a notable person has received much attention today from a WP:COI account. I've reverted the most egregiously promotional and paraphrased content several times, and the most recent edits appear more benign. But this surely merits more eyes. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Michael Corbat

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

Hi, my name is Jennifer and I work for Mike Corbat at Citi. We noticed edits to this article following our March 22, 2018 announcement of our new U.S. Commercial Firearms Policy, which contain editorialized language and therefore don’t adhere to a neutral point of view. The edits also are missing source citations. We suggest editing the first two sentences to remove the “gun control activist” designation and clarify that the policy is not an outright ban on firearms sales to those under the age of 21, but rather imposes restrictions on those under 21. I’m including here the New York Times article that Mike is quoted in, along with a few other articles from Business Insider, Reuters and the original New York Times story that contain the facts about our announcement and policy. Can someone review these suggestions? LowneyJen (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, LowneyJen. Bus stop (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the entire Gun Control section, as there was not one reference throughout and it made quite a few claims. So per WP:BLP, it was removed. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 14:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Bus stop and KoshVorlon for your quick response and your help. LowneyJen (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Hall (writer)

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

Matthew Hall (writer) it says his mother was Grayson Hall actress (Dark Shadows) and screen writer Sam Hall, but when you look his up it says his parents are someone else not the ones listed or linked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:9905:4F46:E44C:771D:AADF:C60E (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

As the Family section was completely unsourced I have just deleted it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

And another editor has restored it with some sources that are not great but will probably do. Jonathan A Jones (talk)

Arjun Sablok

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

Page is small and mostly relies on IMDb as 2/3 of all the citations, which is against the citation policy. This is since IMDb is considered as user-generated according to Wikipidia. The Biography of Living Person Policy requires reliable sources, thus causing the page being mentioned as being supported ONLY ON A SINGLE SOURCE. This single reliable source that complies with citation guidelines also only cites a SINGLE ELEMENT IN A TABLE. Thus there is NO RELIABLE CITATION ABOUT ANY OF THE BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION THAT IS ON THE PAGE. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I've tagged the page accordingly. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Vinod Thomas

Vinod Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Obviously this links on this page are excessive, though I can't find guidelines on what is a legitimate amount of links. Most of the links are dead, if they were ever active or RS. Though widely published, subject is of questionable notability. Not sure where to begin in editing. Bangabandhu (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I have cut back on the links per WP:EL, but you should feel free to cut back much deeper. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I've removed a list of books labelled as 'references' as they're also in the other list of books and aren't quoted as references in the article text, and I've removed the entire Honours and awards section because it was completely unreferenced and some of them looked crashingly trivial ("best student" etc.) Neiltonks (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

More removed - exceedingly great puffery is evident. Wikipedia does not generally list every article related to a person either. Collect (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Devon (actress)

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

The article is at least weird, and seems to contain highly dubious information. 91.10.42.18 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The article clearly had been vandalized. I reverted those edits. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Y.S.Jaganmohan Reddy Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy

Many of the references made in the current version of the Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy page are libellous in nature and reek of political vendetta. The changes made by the user Mdann52 Mdann52 has made wholesale changes to the page using the fabricated news to distort the page content. REF: Reference no 6 - CAG ordered a probe is false. The article in question makes no mention to the case highlighted by the user REF: Reference no 7 - IRS is also conducting investigation which again wrong...in the related article itself quoted there is a statement recorded by an IRS official. THESE ARE THE WORDS USED IN THE WEB PAGE<<<In addition to the CBI, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG)[29] and the Indian Revenue Service (IRS)[30] have been probing the corruption charges.>>>

The article only deals with charges of disproportionate assets, a subject which is under consideration of the Courts in India. Most of the information is old and new initiatives taken up by the leader post-2014 have been wholly removed. Even earlier, the changes made by the user had been reverted, however, the page is currently locked for editing. The current version of the page violates the Wikipedia policy of Neutral point of view (NPOV). The sensationalist claims made stand in violation of Wikipedia policy to ensure that "the page is not a primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment".

This is to request the admins to restore the version to the edited by Auric at 00:41, 21 April 2018 [The permalink is: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Y._S._Jaganmohan_Reddy&oldid=837466048] on an urgent basis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeker5489 (talk • contribs)

Fix ping to Mdann52 Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Likewise, a lot of the new version is unsourced in violation of WP:BLP, and has a completely inappropriate tone. NPOV does not mean the page can not be negetive, just if it is the references need to support this, which I am happy it does.

I would also note there has been significant COI and POV pushers editing this page in the past (hence the indef semi-protection applied to it), and this appears to be a campaign to continue that. Mdann52 (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I am struggling to see Mdann52 as having "a preset agenda" against some politician from Andhra Pradesh. I had always assumed Mdann52 was American or British or Canadian or something, and therefore unlikely to have significant interests in Indian state politics. I could be confused?

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the article in question, when I looked at it a few moments ago, talks about the fellow's tax returns showing his assets. Now, this did indeed strike me as odd, so I looked at other examples to try to prove my belief that it was odd. But the first example I looked at, Donald Trump, mentions that fellow's net worth in the last sentence of the second paragraph of the article. So not very different? The second article I looked at was Theresa May -- her net worth is not mentioned anywhere in the lede of that article, and perhaps that would be more normal for politicians? MPS1992 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I deo agree there are issues that need addressing, yes - I think Trump's is known as a businessman primary in the past, and maybe the assets should not be mentioned, however this was not factored into my decision making. I have no interest whatsoever in this politician - I only reverted after being made aware to the whitewashing of the article. I haven't fully checked the sources, correct, however I was happy the current version was better than the reverted revision made. Mdann52 (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I seem to have skim-read this rather too quickly, and the article content is almost entirely about his assets! On the other hand, it's sourced. On the third hand, I think perhaps it is a truism that a larger proportion of democratically elected Indian politicians have had criminal cases filed against them than anywhere else? I hope someone can help restore some balance.

@Seeker5489: my comment above was intended to make clear that your accusing Mdann52 of being responsible for the problems in the article, and suggesting an "agenda", was not a good way to go about getting the article fixed. MPS1992 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say that a large amount of politicians unfortunately have criminal cases. I would say the investigations and arrest and what not is important, made front page news numerous times IIRC and what not Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Here in the United Kingdom, a large amount of politicians do not have criminal cases, and it is the same in most other democracies. I would guess that less than 1% of United Kingdom politicians currently have pending or recent criminal cases against them. If in this person's country that figure is more like 20% or 40%, then some of this is WP:UNDUE. (Although of course I agree that it is due weight to cover it properly in the article, and to mention it in the lede.) MPS1992 (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason for showing his assets is because of the disproportionate assets and resulting investigations and arrest too for 16 months. Now 2/3 the lead and half the article is on that, which is possibly a bit excessive, looks like there are some other continuing political activities to cover; but everything is appropriately qualified and sourced that I see, so I don't see a big problem, and it is important/has large coverage. And the version by Seeker is obviously extremely inappropriate. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This is to bring notice that alot of refrences used to support claims for the article either are bot sites or there addresses are invalid. I count 12 of them which are invalid. Around 12 reference links (out of 45) - constituting 27% of all references - in the current version are dead links/invalid. These include reference no.'s 1, 2, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 28, 30, 36, 40, 44. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajwa1311 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Ali Carter

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

The article states Carter is a supporter of the UK Independence Party. The citation links to the following archived content from the Independent https://web.archive.org/web/20120910001339/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-sprouts-as-celebrities-make-a-stand-on-brussels-6169196.html This page does not mention Carter anywhere and I can find no evidence online that Carter has ever claimed to support the UK Independence Party. I therefore believe this is not verifiable, at least not by the citation mentioned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.195.246 (talk • contribs)

I have removed the material for now. --Malerooster (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Indira Jaising

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

The article lead contains mostly denigratory remarks on the subject. It is in fact sourced lies. Some vengeful act by the government overset later by the courts are being presented in the lead merely to tarnish the subject. Please note that she is a human rights activist and opposed to the current regime for which the right wing Sangh Parivar has been engaging in a vituperative campaign against her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D400:69AE:F13A:F52:94F7:68B8 (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Revdeleted. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Salim Mehajer

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

I think this article could really use some attention from some non-Australian editors. Mehajer is a controversial property developer and former local politician who manages to attract national media for his antics on a very regular basis, but while he is notable, his article has turned into a colossal collection of everything negative thing he's ever gotten media coverage for and I think it's gotten to the point of overkill that violates WP:BLP. I think it could really use someone who isn't familiar with him reigning in our article a bit. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I've taken an initial look and removed some of the more minor incidents, and reworded a number of other sections. Mdann52 (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Tagteam of editwarriors inserting undue, unsourced, and poorly sourced material into multiple BLPs

• Kim Delaney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Joyce DeWitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jackie Warner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Roger Clinton Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors involved: Shellwood, CLCStudent, Etothepi, NewEnglandYankee. --94.117.6.89 (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this related to a current request for arbitration? MPS1992 (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

non-admin comment written before the above question was added: They are not inserting it, they are undoing the removal of it. I believe this difference to be relevant here because it indicates that the "involved" editors are not actually interested in committing BLP violations but rather preventing damage to the encyclopedia. It might have gone a little to far, though, and the accusation of edit-warring on the talk page of 94.117.6.89 seems a little ironic when looking at the edit history of the edited pages.

I have already left a message on Etothepi's talk page about this, and asked 94.117.6.89 to disclose their affiliations before editing further. I was just about to check the other undone edits to see if leaving a message similar to Eothepi's on the other users' pages might be helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that some of this IP's contributions [13] [14] have merit, in fact. However, the IP has been asked several times[15] [16] [17] to use the articles' talk pages to discuss the changes, and has not done so. The material being deleted is mostly fairly standard Wikipedia fodder: X celebrity was arrested for Y minor offense, and the like. It doesn't seem to me to be generally very controversial, much less derogatory--but I'm open to being corrected, and if I've been disruptive I'll take my medicine. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The edits that the IP are removing actually are reasonably appropriate removals under BLP - no sources or minor arrests/violations that BLPCRIME does recommend avoiding. However, I question if this IP is related to a recent editor that has been blocked indef for similar types of edits on similar articles. --Masem (t) 00:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

another non-admin comment: There might be an actual problem with the message conveyed here. This message text does really not match with WP:BLP. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I wrote that comment, but I agree with NewEnglandYankee that the material doesn't fit WP:BLP criteria for removal. I may be wrong and if so I accept that, but I was merely doing what I thought was the right thing. etothepi 👽 ^(u)•(t) 00:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The IP is Hillbillyholiday block evading again. They may be reverted freely but please make sure you are not reintroducing obvious BLP violations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Aren't they supposed to be taking a holiday? MPS1992 (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of giving aid and comfort to a sock, it looks to me as though there are grounds for trimming Kim Delaney. I've added a new sections to the relevant talk page. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this all about minor celebrities who we imagine are now experiencing regret over their decisions to drive cars while under the influence? Or is there something really deep about this? Indeed, have any of the minor celebrities concerned made any complaints? MPS1992 (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Pyo Chang-won

• Pyo Chang-won (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Veritas et aequitas Korea (talk · contribs)

An SPA is determined that the world should know the truth about this South Korean politician (see this August 2016 declaration). Of course some politicians are slimeballs, but even they should have an article where the facts are presented in a neutral and due manner. This caught my attention at ANI where someone opposing the SPA resorted to legal threats. I cannot read the sources but they appear to be typical news reports of political bickering. I greatly refactored the negativity but I would need to ferociously edit war to avoid the article sliding back to its 18 March 2018 version. Should I take this to WP:ANI to seek a topic ban? Or, can someone explain that a neutral article would just briefly state the facts without piled-on negativity. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that explanations would help much now -- this has been going on since 삼국시기 about two years ago, and I never see any improvement from any explanations given. The SPA needs to seek consensus on the talk page, and if they do not then they should be reverted and if necessary blocked. MPS1992 (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

(I have also just now requested full protection of the page "for a few months") ... MPS1992 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Nicolás Maduro Guerra

Nicolás Maduro Guerra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Nicolás Maduro Guerra article has been subject to BLP violations in edits made by User:ZiaLater, or more specifically is in breach of WP:BLP#PUBLIC FIGURE. The relevant section is Nicolás Maduro Guerra#Jose Zalt wedding incident (see video). ApolloCarmb (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see it has mostly been subject to silliness, and I have just removed some of it. MPS1992 (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Julian Edelman

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

A few days ago, I tried to add a new section concerning sexual harassment allegations on New England Patriots player Julian Edelman. An edit war ensued, and the page was protected from editing until April 29. I've seen similar sections added for other players, most notably Peyton Manning, and yet, his section remains, while Edelman's was removed. An editor cited WP:BLPCRIME, however, Edelman is well-known. He wasn't convicted, but neither was Manning, yet, again, the section for Manning remains. Both incidents received national coverage, so it's not as if these were merely local stories. I'm just wondering why two different standards are applied, and if both sections can/should be removed or remain.

To summarize:

1. Manning and Edelman were accused of sexual harassment.
2. Manning and Edelman are both well-known figures in the sports world.
3. Neither person was convicted.
4. Both incidents received national coverage.
5. The sexual harassment allegation on Manning's page remains, while Edelman's was removed.

I don't know if consensus can be reached for both pages, or if I need to be open a separate dispute for Manning (although, it would seem rather unnecessary, given the similarities, and the fact that the same explanation would be used). Dsaun100 (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Manning's, there was some result/change/impact that happened as a result of the allegation, even though it was never proved out. With Edelman, the allegation was proved wrong and no change happened so per BLPCRIME its not really appropriate to include. --Masem (t) 05:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but Manning wasn't convicted, which is the basis of WP:BLPCRIME, unless there's some other interpretation that I'm not privy to. Dsaun100 (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not seeing much comparable, in the Peyton Manning case 300,000 was paid in compensation, that content cleanly belongs in his biography, this content about Edelman has mush less notable biographical value. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not public figures. Therefore, using it in the case of Julian Edelman seems inappropriate. For public figures, an allegation is allowed in an article if it is "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented", which is the case here. Giving the allegation its own section would be undue weight, but adding it to an existing section of the article should be permitted. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Minor allegation verified as totally unproven - nothing to cause this to be added to his biography. The issue is already seven years old with no follow up at all. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
    • BLPs simply document what reliable sources say about the person - there is no requirement continuing coverage. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Let's not forget that the allegation about Manning (which goes further back than that of Edelman) was barely known in the public sphere until a writer unearthed it after Super Bowl 50. I'm with Hirolovesswords. If Edelman's allegation doesn't warrant its own section, then at least, it should be included in an existing section, such as his 2011 season (the year of the allegation). Dsaun100 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Some background. This evidently started when Dsaun100 attempted to remove something from the Peyton Manning article: [18] with comment Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard that controversial content, such as this, would not be included for BLP. If that consensus has been changed, then similar content can be added for Julian Edelman.

Evidently at the time, he they felt the standard applied. Since he they were thwarted there, he they appear to be engaging in WP:POINT by attacking another article. This resulted in my reporting him them for edit warring (failing to adhere to WP:BRD), and an administrator has been trying to resolve this. See Talk:Julian_Edelman#Sexual_harassment_allegations. Regards Tarl N. (discuss) 19:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

What Tarl N. conveniently forgot to mention is that he started the edit warring and violated the three-revert rule first, and now, instead of engaging in any constructive analysis, he's making this personal. I simply added the section on Edelman, as I thought the consensus had changed regarding content of this nature. However, I'm willing to compromise on the suggestion that Hirolovesswords offered: Put the info in an already-existing section, as to not conflict with WP:WEIGHT. Dsaun100 (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• • • • This discussion is about the Edelman article, not Manning. They are two different cases and should be discussed separately. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Correct. But the background shows that the Edelman article is not the motivation for this incident, Dsaun100 is leveraging it as a way to get his their way in another article. As for Edelman, the incident was in 2012, it was reported, investigated and found to not be sustained by evidence. It went nowhere. Given that, this is on borderline of simply defamatory, and the type of entry WP:BLPCRIME addresses. On whether Edelman is a public figure, if you are a New England Patriots fan, you know who Edelman is. If you're not a football fan, the reaction is more likely "Julian who?". Tarl N. (discuss) 20:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
          • There you go again, making this personal. This is about Edelman, not me. As I pointed out before, I thought consensus had changed. Instead of engaging in deflective tactics, why don't you actually try to discuss the topic at hand? Going by your logic, I could just as easily say you're attempting to get your way. At least I've agreed to a compromise/suggestion offered by Hirolovesswords. Edelman is well-known beyond football. After all, TMZ even covered the incident, and has reported on him and other high-profile players for separate stories. This was a national story and not localized to Boston. Dsaun100 (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• The material is WP:UNDUE. A tell-tale sign that someone is righting great wrongs is the subheading Sexual harassment allegation—that is a good reason to omit the mention. The article talk page shows other stuff exists misunderstandings and an unwillingness to engage with the points raised. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see how the subheading has any bearing to WP:RGW. It was merely worded in the same manner to other headings involving similar content. I've even seen issues raised with the subheading "Controversy" in other pages. So, what would you title it then? Or, just don't have the subheading at all, but include the info in a section that already exists. That was already proposed as a solution. In regards to the article's talk page, I offered a compromise, which was rejected, then I came here and agreed to a separate compromise. Besides, the actual content is what's relevant here, not a talk page. Does Hirolovesswords's compromise work for everybody? He suggests not to have a subheading, but to include the info in a section that already exists. That seems reasonable to me. Dsaun100 (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Anyone who added that heading has shown they do not understand WP:DUE and what is appropriate at a WP:BLP. Arguing about what portion of the undue material should be retained does not seem worthwhile to me. Was it a single incident? Did anything significant result from the incident? Has a secondary source written an analysis of the incident and its impact? The answers indicate that the material is undue and should stay out. Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Going by that logic, you may as well remove the subheading on Manning's page, which is identical. An administrator even thought it was OK, so you're basically saying he doesn't understand WP:UNDUE, despite the allegation being a single incident. I understand we're debating Edelman's page, but I only mention that for context. The subheading isn't even the issue anymore. We've already agreed it shouldn't be there. The content is what's being disputed now, and just because the incident was a singular occurrence, that doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. Dsaun100 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the Manning article. If you want to fight that battle, start on the Manning talk page, leave the Edelman article alone. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I brought up the Manning article for context (which I plan on disputing later). You have no right to tell editors what they can and can't do. This is a discussion, not a dictatorship. Dsaun100 (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Dana Ullman

[User talk:Spintendo|Talk] advised me to come to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spintendo#You_previously_helped_me...but_your_changes_were_reversed He had made some changes to my bio page at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Ullman

These changes got reversed by a Wiki editor who has had a long-time strong antagonism against me and to my field of homeopathic medicine: [User Talk:JzG|Guy] This editor deleted information that Spintendo thought was accurate and well-sourced, but JzG asserted was a "copyright violation" and was not RS. However, Spintendo notes this rational is odd considering the newspaper is open access. Further, Spintendo asserts, "Alternative sources are used on Wikipedia all the time, and the way I used it — as a primary source for the quotation of an interviewed public official only (the district attorney) I felt was an acceptable, non-medical use of the source."

What is additionally odd here and what is showing a high degree of bias here is that JzG has not deleted an antagonistic statement on my bio page which is sourced from a blog, not a reliable source or an objective source: "Kimball Atwood coined the "Dull-Man Law" in vein of Godwin's Law to characterize Ullman's persistent, irrational, and self-serving arguments in online discussions defending homeopathy, which states "In any discussion involving science or medicine, being Dana Ullman loses you the argument immediately…and gets you laughed out of the room."[13]

I am concerned that this editor, JzG, is not showing good faith or fairness in the sourcing of information and is even seemingly creating questionable excuses to not include information about an earlier court case in which I was involved.

I am hoping that someone with a neutral point of view can help resolve some of these issues on my bio page.

In addition to deleting some important biographical information about my winning of a courtcase involving my arrest for "practicing medicine without a license," this editor, JzG, also reversed some other material for which the primary players in a research study were referenced as per their direct correspondence. I look forward to having a neutral party help and to educate all parties involved. DanaUllman^Talk 03:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

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

I have not examined the issue but the edit by JzG relevant to a claim of a copyright violation was diff with edit summary "This is sourced solely to an alternative newspaper. And the link is a copyvio". I am not in a position to assess whether the link is a copyvio, but the claim is that the linked website (revealdigital.com) does not own the copyright to the material they host, and WP:LINKVIO requires that such links be removed. The first part of the edit summary is saying that if an assertion can only be verified in an obscure and nonspecialist location, then the issue is WP:UNDUE and should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly correct, especially since the claim relates to legal action against a living individual. If Dana can find a description of this case in a reputable mainstream source then it can be included. I could not. I missed the "Dull-Man" bit. That also does not belong in a BLP, I have removed it. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

First, thanx for finally deleting that quote fro a blog that has has been in my bio for years. In reference to your assertion that the quote from the "Berkeley Barb" newspaper was a "copyright violation," are you still asserting that? The fact that the Berkeley Barb quoted from the District Attorney, are you suggesting that the Distict Attorney's words are not valid? These were not simply my objections, but those from Spintendo, who expressed other concerns too. Are you editing here from a neutral place? It doesn't seem so. DanaUllman^Talk 12:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC) 12:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:LINKVIO. The copyright does not belong tot he website, so we can't link to it. The question of the source itself is separate. The Berkeley Barb was an obscure source, an underground newspaper, for claims relating to criminal activity we require significantly better sources than that. As I said, if you can find a reputable source that covers it, fine, but this is a copyright violation of an unreliable source, so is excluded on two grounds. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There is NO copyright violation simply for linking to this article in an open-access collection. Using a short quoted passage from an article that is properly referenced is not a copyright violation. Once again, I wish to appeal to a neutral editor because I am concerned that this editor, JzG, is not showing good faith or desiring accuracy in reporting. I hope now that other editors here will see the types of biases with which I am dealing. I am even now wondering if this editor should be blocked from editing my bio and editing subjects related to homeopathy. Below are other deletions that he has made for which I also wish to question.

JzG also chose to delete references to other writings of mine, including a chapter in a book published by Reader's Digest...and a reference to an article in the "Western Journal of Medicine." Are these "alternative sources" too? Here's the link to your edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dana_Ullman&diff=prev&oldid=832229047

Even further evidence of bias is JzG's deletion of this background information about me. JzG seems to believe that the esteemed publisher, PENGUIN, is not a "credible" source: In previous years he served as chairperson for the National Center for Homeopathy's Annual Conference, and has been a consultant to Harvard Medical School's Center to Assess Alternative Therapy for Chronic Illness. He has spoken at universities, medical schools, pharmacy schools, and hospitals. By the way, this information has been in my bio page for 3-5 years! DanaUllman^Talk 17:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

If they are your publisher promoting your work, then they are not a "reliable third-party source", as they have some skin in the game, and should not be used as a source for aggrandizing material. And I say that as a publisher (and as a writer, who was written the "about the author" materials that my publishers have run, a common practice which limits the value of such pieces as a reference.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

References

As the learned Judge said:

The Court found Mr. Ullman’s testimony to be not credible. Mr. Ullman’s bias in favor of homeopathy and against conventional medicine was readily apparent from his testimony. He admitted that he was not an impartial expert but rather is a passionate advocate of homeopathy.

Dana Ullman is only interested in Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting homeopathy and himself. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#DanaUllman and associated evidence pages. He is topic banned from homeopathy, indefinitely. That ban actually includes this article, but we allow some latitude because of WP:BLP.

From the evidence page for the RFAR, and from independent sources outside Wikipedia, we know that Dana has a long history of self-serving interpretations of sources: he is a poster child for motivated reasoning, and in fact he pretty much admitted it in court.

He's within his rights to present his view of what sources should be included, and we're within our rights to politely decline, because our objective is to build a neutral encyclopaedia and his is to promote homeopathy. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's the proper reference to the bio page at Penguin: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/authors/249801/dana-ullman -- In due respect, you are special in generic terms about publishers and that is not appropriate. Penguin & Random House are not generic publishers. They are RS. A publisher may have "skin in the game," but their reputation is deeper than any skin, especially when dealing with "major publishers." It is akin to compared ANY newspaper with the New York Times or the Washington Post.

Additional evidence of the bias frequently observed from JzG is his assertion that I "only" want to "promote homeopathy." That is not true. I simply want a neutral and accurate point of view. JzG is pointing to an Arbitration that occurred 10 years ago. Although I made some errors in the past, I also made many good efforts to provide accurate information about homeopathic medicine. The very fact that I chose to use my REAL name is strong evidence that I have nothing to hide and that I have a strong ethic towards transparency. I wish others would emulate such standards.

It is interesting to note that JzG has not responded to my assertion that there is NO copyright violation by the simple linking to an article, and the short quotation from the District Attorney is RS. For the record, there was a lot of press about my court case in 1977, though no press about the above mentioned court decision in 2015. I'm curious if this reference is appropriate for Wikipedia (as someone with little recent experience editing on Wikipedia, I don't know all of the lingo, but I wonder if every court decision is worthy of reference here OR only if some RS source reports on it as worthy). DanaUllman^Talk 19:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record, the link to the BERKELEY BARB does have permission from the copyright holder to post that article: http://voices.revealdigital.com/cgi-bin/independentvoices?a=p&p=legal&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN---------------1

They further note: "Permission must be requested from the copyright holder for any subsequent use." However, the usage of a couple of sentences with proper reference to its original source does not require copyright permission. DanaUllman^Talk 23:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

1. The Penguin bio page is not independent. See WP:RS. Author blurbs are promotional material and we can, and do, reject them as a basis for the significance (and thus inclusion) of any specific fact or claim.

2. We are not permitted to link to any third party copy of material unless we have clear evidence that it has full permission to republish, because such links are illegal. The copyright statement you linked is, bluntly, bullshit. It claims both explicit release and fair use. You don't need the former in the case of the latter. We see that kind of crap all the time.

3. The copyright issue is secondary because the Berkeley Barb, as per our article, is a fringe source and thus fails WP:RS.

Finally, please stop making statements such as JzG has not responded to my assertion that there is NO copyright violation by the simple linking to an article, when in fact I have, and so have others. The relevant policy, WP:LINKVIO, has been pointed out to you. The legal issue is contributory copyright infringement. You may not like our policy, you may disagree with it, you may believe that there is a copyright release in place, though none is listed as far as I can see, but you cannot say that people have "not responded" when actually we have, several times. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your statement about putting an About The Author page from Penguin on the same footing as the New York Times or the Washington Post -- we would also not consider those companies to be reliable sources for boastful material about their writers, as they are not third-party sources in those matters. And as far as the Penguin Group goes, I have been one of their authors, and I can tell you from personal experience that they publish About The Author information that is both promotional in intent and not fact-checked. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

According to Spintendo (who is a Wiki administrator), "It was claimed that the source used was an alternative newspaper and that the link was a copyright violation, which is odd considering the newspaper is open access. Alternative sources are used on Wikipedia all the time, and the way I used it — as a primary source for the quotation of an interviewed public official only (the district attorney) I felt was an acceptable, non-medical use of the source." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spintendo#You_previously_helped_me...but_your_changes_were_reversed

Once again, I ask for a neutral editor to comment here. DanaUllman^Talk 19:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to clarify to Mr. Ullman that I am NOT an administrator.   SPINTENDO          22:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Admins are only admins when doing admin things. When editing an article, they are just regular human-beings like anyone else, restricted from using their admin tools in their own disputes. I disagree with Spintendo on this and fully agree with most everything Guy said. The article was (and still is) overtly promotional and in a rather persuasive style, which is not encyclopedic nor scientific. I do notice, however, that we have some information sourced to Westlaw, in particular, the quotes from judge and attorney. I sincerely hope we are not sourcing things to court documents, as this would be a very big breach of BLP policy. I'm not going to subscribe so I can check myself, but WP:BLPPRIMARY is very clear about not using such primary sources at all. Zaereth (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Zaereth. And to answer your question, the link provide in my bio to directly to court documents, and IF such sourcing is not allowed, it should be deleted from my bio immediately. I therefore ask you or JzG to delete this information from my bio. JzG is a highly experienced editor at Wikipedia, and I cannot help but wonder if he KNEW that this sourcing to court documents was not allowed, and yet, he choose to keep this improperly sourced information in my bio. I sincerely hope that he will show good faith by deleting it immediately...and if not, I hope that someone will do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Ullman DanaUllman^Talk 14:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Zaereth:, this is from the judge, not one of the parties, and it directly addresses Dana Ullman - it is not a BLP violation. I know what you mean though, we have a lot of places where a statement is applied by implication or taken from the statements of one side or the other, and that can be a real problem. There's ample precedent for using specific judicial findings applied by name as sources in biographies.

However, such sources are not evidence of notability. And here's a curious thing: once the puffery is pruned out, all we have in reliable independent sources are mentions of Ullman by people criticising his promotion of homeopathy. Our notability and sourcing standards have tightened considerably since the AfD in 2007, I wonder if this article would survive a deletion debate today. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

What JzG is not saying was that the judge's statement was in relation to my "objectivity" in THIS particular courtcase. It was not a statement about my credibility or expertise on the subject of homeopathy in general...and there is a BIG diff between what he was saying and what you want him to be saying. Here's where a third party should make this determination, not JzG or me. 22:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC) DanaUllman^Talk 15:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it was a fair summary, it is in line with the few other reliable sources that discuss you. But there are so few reliable independent sources that I wonder if we should have an article at all. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see the case for arguing a copyvio here, but if there's really any ambiguity, then editors can remove the link without removing the source all together. The notability question might be outside the scope here, but, if this subject warrants an article then it seems like this would be the level of sourcing that you would expect. Regarding the citation to Westlaw: I think this kind of primary sourcing is questionable, but the quote is also mentioned in this source by a credible author on the subject. Including the full quote seems to be laying it on a little bit thick though, and it might be better to just paraphrase. Nblund ^talk 00:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanx for your thoughts, Nblund. You are now the second person to question the copyvio here. Because this bio is about ME, I cannot make this change by reversing previous deletions. You are also the second person to question whether the court statement is appropriate in my bio because the judge's statement is in relation only to a specific courtcase. I hope that you, as a neutral source, will take the action of deleting that material from my bio. DanaUllman^Talk 15:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: The original link is a copyvio. The statement on the site about copyright, is plainly not an actual statement of release. But, as I keep pointing out and Dana keeps ignoring, that is a secondary issue because the fundamental problem is it's not a reliable source. It's an underground newspaper, a samizdat publication basically. I have no idea why Dana wants to include the fact that he practised medicine without a license and now has to tell his customers that he is not a doctor, but for Wikipedia to include this we'd need a substantially better source. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

JzG, in due respect, it seems that you are the one who is not listening. Two people here plus Spindendo (a Wiki administrator) assert that it is NOT a copyright violation and that the quote from the District Attorney is worthy of inclusion. Whether the source is an alternative publication or not, it has been asserted that there is a lot of information on Wikipedia that utilizes such publications...and even more important is that the quote itself is worthy. JzG, I suggest that your extreme involvement in the anti-homeopathy movement creates its own non-neutral point of view and that a third party neutral source should comment and/or act on what the majority of people here have asserted above. DanaUllman^Talk 03:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutral editors should note that JzG has asserted above (April 22) that he wonders if there is should ANY article on me. This assertion is strong evidence of his non-neutral point of view. Is it appropriate to suggest blocking him from commenting on and/or editing my bio due to this extreme point of view? DanaUllman^Talk 04:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Dana, as I keep saying, the fact that the original link is copyright material with no evidence of copyright release is a secondary issue, because it is not a reliable source. If you can find a reliable independent secondary source for this claim, then we can include it. Instead, you keep arguing about the copyright status of the link, which, as I have said half a dozen times by now, is not relevant to the content itself, only to the link to the copyright material hosted by someone other than the copyright holder. Do you understand now?

I gave an entirely valid reason for my question. I am unable to find a single reliable independent secondary source that is about you. I can find interviews on quack websites, I can find mockery on skeptical websites, I can find namechecks in reliable sources criticising what you have written, I can find non-independent sources (publisher blurbs etc), but I cannot find anything that meets the standards of WP:GNG. I have been through all 17 pages of Google hits for your name. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion on the basis that notability does not seem to have been established. Shritwod (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

We do not require editors to have a neutral point of view; that is our standard for article content, not for people. And questioning whether an article should exist is far from a violation of any standard for editing at Wikipedia; we have a variety of deletion processes specifically because some articles do not meet our standards for inclusion, and rely on people raising that very question. Raising the question does not make for an "extreme point of view"... and in this case, the editor you are concerned with has not even (yet) called for its deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanx for that clarification, Nat Gertler. 16:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC) DanaUllman^Talk 19:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I have provided an important response to the proposal to delete my bio at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dana_Ullman_(2nd_nomination)#Dana_Ullman

In fact, I have provided several significant, with RS, support for adding notable contributions to medicine and science. And once again, I ask for a neutral editor to add these works to my bio page. Please note that several people here have attested that reference to the court proceedings are not allowed. And finally, I will soon provide a reference to the San Franicsco Chroicle's and the San Francisco Examiner's reports about my courtcase. I'm working on that now. DanaUllman^Talk 04:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Important? Not really. The claim that you were the first to use the word "nanomedicine" is original research and in any case rather a silly claim since there's no evidence that homeopathy is considered nanomedicine (or medicine at all, in fact) by the reality-based medical or scientific communities. I was the first person to use the term Chopralalia to describe incoherent quantum wibble in the style of Deepak Chopra, that doesn't count for much either. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Wanted to offer my thoughts on this, I initially approved the addition believing the Berkeley Barb was either a partisan secondary source or a questionable primary source. If it were the latter, then as a questionable primary source I believed it could be allowed if "the primary source was the best possible (available) for use, such as when supporting a direct quotation." If it were the former, I believed that "no matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source." Mr. Ullman made a plea bargain with the Alameda Country district attorney Martin Brown and the charges were dropped by the Oakland Municipal Court. Those court documents would have provided neutral corroboration as a reliable primary source for the quotation of DA Brown's comments. Mr. Ullman did not provide access to those court documents, but I did not reject the claims within them merely because they were "difficult or costly to access." Based on that, I approved the request. But reading the comments above has been very helpful on how one ought to approach requests like this in the future, all of which I am processing. I appreciate everyone's input.   SPINTENDO          00:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention, for anyone curious about the type of publication that the Berkeley Barb is, I would strongly recommend, if you can spare the time, flipping through the pages of a few of their issues. The May 13-19, 1977 issue in particular, is a good representation of what is published there. That issue is 5 issues after the one containing the DA interview mentioned above was published (I wont post the link). In that particular issue are stories on Henry Kissinger, the city's usage of parks for public events, a voter's guide on the upcoming vote on Proposition T, a story on amnesty for Vietnam War absconders, and an "exclusive" interview with Justice Wiley Manuel, the newly sworn-in, first ever Black associate justice to serve on the California State Supreme Court. Amidst those stories are ads for Levi's from the Gap, local area clothing stores and radio stations, liquor ads, a crossword puzzle, and a very robust and active classified section (if you catch my meaning... I guess in the 1970's, sex — as it does today — sold really well). There are also 2 comic strips, a letters to the editor, a travel section, information on the KPFA Poetry Festival and even a weekend guide featuring film ads and reviews, theater listings, book reviews, upcoming concerts and many other local SF/Oakland/Sacramento area events. I'm not sure what most people's perception of an "underground" publication is, but IMHO this issue certainly has more in common with a city newspaper than anything I would have imagined. I understand that there are criteria for what constitutes a reliable publication, and that those criteria ought to be followed, but I also think it's helpful to look closely at the publication itself when applying those criteria, and I would hope that any editor who hasn't had a chance to look at an issue, might take the time to peruse one, to see what it's all about. Thanks again,   SPINTENDO          05:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)  

References

Colion Noir

In this article, a section titled "Reaction to the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting demonstration" was inserted by User:Quisqualis.

While Quisqualis could argue that it serves a purpose for highlighting a major event, the entire section is written in such a way as to defame Noir as being contradictory (by juxtaposing articles about Blaine Gaskill with his statement that Blaine Gaskill received little attention, without also showing the comparably brief period of Officer Gaskill's media coverage).

In fact there is otherwise zero description of any of the other content Noir has published (in written word or in video format), of his political views, or anything that would even remotely justify this section.

Therefore the only valid reason for this section to exist is to attack Noir's reputation extemporaneously. Quisqualis alludes to this in the Talk section where his disdain is evident.

I propose that this section to be stricken from the article with immediate effect.

Mn 436 (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the entire section should be collapsed to just an appropriately sourced mention of Noir's statement that “No one would know your names if ...”. Wikipedia is not well placed to deal with people like Noir. MPS1992 (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The section is obvious WP:SYNTH. A secondary source would be needed to point out Noir's mistakes. However, as MPS1992 said, this kind of issue is very difficult to deal with. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

References

I don't think this section can reasonably be on a biographical page if its only purpose is to present a negative slant with no context.

Secondary sources on Noir about the Parkland survivors are inherently biased as op-eds, and that's not in the spirit of Wikipedia's biographical policy, particularly because these secondary sources don't explain the context of Noir saying the statement in question.

> this kind of issue is very difficult to deal with

To me this issue is easy to deal with. Delete the section until one can be made that actually obeys policy.

Mn 436 (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, the washington post article is not an oped, and it directly supports the statement about the contradiction Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• This was widely reported, WaPo is merely representative of a pretty substantial backlash. It's hard to see how it would be excluded from an article that is very short to begin with, a lot of people would never have heard of him prior to the crass comment going viral. But you know what? When we rely on the Daily Beast to identify the birth name and then go surfing the web to link that to his Texas bar listing, that seems to me to be a solid indicator that this article should not be a standalone biography. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

William Paterson University‎

William Paterson University‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should material about a non notable individual be added to the history section of this article? I would wait to see if anything really comes of this, and then I am not sure it belongs in the history section if at all. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You mean this? I dunno. It's not an obvious call either way -- the incident has been widely reported, though mainly in what I would call second-tier sources. Seems more like a WP:WEIGHT issue than WP:BLP. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I mean that. Lots of stuff is widely reported that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The reason I thought BLP was a person's name was being inserted into the article. Thank you for your response. --Malerooster (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• The text should be kept out of the article as it is totally WP:UNDUE for an encyclopedic treatment of the university. The text is merely an attempt to coatrack an incident into an existing article in order to punish an individual for some apparently unwise actions. The response should be to follow the principle of write the article first—that is, if the incident is notable (it's not), write an article about it. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Johnuniq: WP:UNDUE, not really relevant to the subject institution. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Andrea Pezzi

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

The entreprenurial part is more like an advertisement. The sources cited refer to the interviews given by the person described, no neutral sources to support the statements (i.e. studied Psychology at University of Saint Petersburg) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.35.123.3 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Patrick Ramsey

The entry is written from a seemingly negatively-slanted perspective, particularly in the following section: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Ramsey#Washington_Redskins)

The encyclopedic value of some of the events described is questionable, and often either un-sourced or poorly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.197.107 (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Corrected Patrick Ramsay in the section header to Patrick Ramsey. The former is a decease British diplomat, the latter plays some sort of America sport. Shritwod (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• I've removed one sentence from the Washington redskins section, which wasn't backed up by the reference supplied. However I don't know enough about American Football (I'm from the UK) to be able to judge whether anything else needs to go. Neiltonks (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Even people overseas should see that "however"-type sentences tend to be a tad opinionish at best. Collect (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Harald Udo von Riedl

Harald Udo von Riedl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My name is Harald Udo Riedl without "von".

Main data: born March 16th, 1936 in Vienna Austria. PhD from University of Vienna February 4th, 1960. Entered staff of Vienna Natural History Museum, Department of Botany Hanuary 1st, 1960, director of the Department 1972 - 2001, retired with the end of 2001. About 200 publications on plant systematics and ecology, mycology, lichenology, history of botany including biographies. H. Riedl — Preceding unsigned comment added by HRiedl (talk • contribs) 07:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately all the obvious sources I can find [19], [20], [21], use "von Riedl", so this is unlikely to change unless you can point to a reliable source supporting your request. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Publications omit the "von", which is not commonly used much in Austria. This is easily shown. Collect (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)