Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Antony Blinken & co

Can someone help me out with an annoying edit war at Antony Blinken (and also virtually every other page that Jacksonshatek has contributed to lately? They are insisting that infoboxes should not indicate these people's presumptive positions in the Biden administration. I don't know whether infoboxes for incoming government personnel should or shouldn't include their presumptive titles, but the amount of constant back-and-forth on this is getting a little ridiculous. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what the norm on this is, but I don't think this should be included in infobox if it's just announced. Maybe if the nomination was actually submitted to the Senate and/or confirmed, but... It should probably only be in the lead/body. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox is premature because he is not actually nominated yet. I wouldn't know how we could phrase it in the infobox since he is not technically the nominee yet. I have hidden the information with a note that it should be restored after Biden is inaugurated and can officially nominate his cabinet members to the Senate. It seems fine to be mentioned that Biden has chosen him to be his nominee in the lead though. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It's clear to me we need uniform rules. This comes up nearly every single administration change I've researched, with people going back and forth. To me, I don't see why we WOULDN'T, as long as we make absolutely CLEAR they are the nominee and not in office yet (which we do already with President-elect Biden, Vice President-elect Harris, etc.) Not to mention the fact that if Wikipedia is looking to be as accurate as possible, why not go ahead and add them? It's arguably the most relevant information on the whole page, as that's why the vast majority of people will be visiting said articles in the first place.

– Sneakycrown (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, they are not actually a nominee for any office until Biden takes office, since only the president can make nominations to the Senate. Biden has chosen them to be his eventual nominees, but they have not been officially nominated yet. I also don't think anyone thinks we should remove the content from the article, but rather keep it in prose in the lead and the article body until it is an official nomination rather than the infobox where it could be misleading. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

How exactly would it be considered misleading, however? He is the presumptive nominee, and they rarely get retracted in the period between transition and the actual point they take office and generally just makes wikipedia more accurate overall with the information we know of at this point. Articles can reflect new information as it comes out but to wait when we know for a fact that he is going to be biden's nominee is just silly to me and waiting for no real reason. - Sneakycrown (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It's important to note nominations are not always successful, and that is part of the point of WP:CRYSTAL. Trump had 4 failed nominations, and Obama had 3. We don't "know for a fact" a prediction about the future, which is why a term like "presumptive nominee" may be appropriate but "nominee" isn't. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Forgive the ping, but I've noticed that Tartan357 has identified at least one bit of consensus that might help here. They've been pointing out on a number of these pages that Template:Infobox officeholder/doc notes: The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place. I don't know if this represents a longstanding consensus or just one template-doc-writer's view, but it's something. It also doesn't settle the general question of how people should be referred to outside the infobox. [Such-and-such]–designate seems a popular choice, but that seems at least OR-adjacent to me since I don't recall any sources referring to anyone as [Secretary of X]-designate. It's OK as a compromise position, I guess. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That was my understanding of how infoboxes worked, and I am not sure why there would need to be a rush to update them. Even for elected officials, we usually wait until after they take office to add their position to the infobox. Does anyone know if there is a better place to have this discussion and get responses? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

My feeling is that we're not a newspaper nor a crystal ball. An encyclopedia should be written from a "perfect" or "timeless" temporal perspective, as if what we write today will still be good 100 years from now. Adverbs like "today", "tomorrow", or "yesterday" should be avoided, and replaced with actual dates. We should avoid reporting things that "will" happen in the future; at best we can say as of so-and-so date it was scheduled to happen on such-and-such a date (that's still reporting past events). Articles should be written like we're writing from outside the timeline looking in. With infoboxes, I think it's especially important to avoid jumping the gun, because a lot of people will only look at the infobox and take it as the here and now. No one knows what the future really holds, and nothing is ever a foregone conclusion. A lot can happen between now and then. Zaereth (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth, while I agree with you regarding the use of 'temporal adverbs', I fail to see how WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS apply in this instance, as this is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Biden has announced that Blinken et al will be his nominees. This is not the speculation of a few Wikipedia editors. It is also not our responsibility if a lot of people will only look at the infobox and take it as the here and now, unless we say that Blinken has assumed office as Secretary of State.

Sdrqaz (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't so much referring to those, although in hindsight I can see how that would be confusing. I was more or less saying that we don't want our articles to read like a newspaper or a fortune teller. Encyclopedic writing, albeit a form of expository writing and in many ways very similar to journalistic style, it's still a very different way of writing. For example, unlike nearly all nonfiction, it's done in the third person rather than the first. (And to all the academics reading this, we should avoid the second person like the plague, except on talk pages. Academics love to write in the second person ... for some reason.) Newspapers are done in a present perspective, but not encyclopedias, and there are a lot of other differences to consider. It's more about how we phrase things rather than the information itself. Zaereth (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert, I don't think the comparison applies. If we look at the Senate freshman class for the 117th Congress, Ben Ray Luján, Cynthia Lummis, Roger Marshall, John Hickenlooper, Bill Hagerty, and Tommy Tuberville all have information in their infoboxes saying "United States Senator-elect from state". We can continue to look further at both Biden and Harris, who have equivalent words ot that effect.

Sdrqaz (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, that text that Tartan357 pointed out doesn't seem to apply for these cases; they would instead apply for the incumbent officeholder, like Mike Pompeo at the Department of State. I don't really see how that applies in this instance. I am personally fine with either "nominee" or "designate" in the infobox.

Sdrqaz (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that "nominee" is appropriate since that is not accurate. It would be like putting "Senator" instead of "Senator-elect", which would obviously be wrong. I don't have strong feelings about excluding the infobox, although I don't see any reason for why the infobox needs to be included prematurely, and I agree with Zaereth's reasoning. I do strongly believe that we should not put incorrect information into the infobox until that information is actually true. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert, while the pedant in me agrees with you, multiple reliable sources have described Blinken et al as being the nominees of Joe Biden. I don't think that this is premature. The arguments cited by Zaereth (WP:CRYSTAL etc) apply if there had been no announcement at all. But there has been one. It would be accurate to describe them as being "designated nominees". Sdrqaz (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I do think that "presumptive nominee" is better than "nominee" since that seems to be clearly prediction of the future. There is already a lot of confusion about how the cabinet process works, including some who have argued that Biden has already officially nominated individuals or that Senate confirmation is guaranteed and/or irrelevant, and we should strive to avoid contributing to that problem. I think that the infobox can be misleading since it doesn't have the context to talk about how a future president has chosen someone to eventually be their nominee, but I am fine with the proposal to just use a qualifier for "nominee" in the infobox that can be further explained in prose. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, True; I was reading sloppily. Worth pointing out that Template:Infobox officeholder/doc also has a whole section on what to do with "nominees" or "candidates": Template:Infobox_officeholder/example#Nominee/candidate.

In general: I think there's a disanalogy between presidents-, vice presidents–, and representatives-elect, on the one hand, and Cabinet member–"designate" on the other. Presidents-elect, etc, do not have an additional hurdle to pass through—namely, the (acrimonious, non-rubber stamp) Senate confirmation process. Prospective Cabinet appointees do. So their status is less clear.

My personal preference, then, would be to avoid using "designate" in infoboxes or article bodies (I think it's vaguely ORish) and to refer to people like Antony Blinken as the presumptive nominee until January 21; the nominee after January 21 (or whenever the nomination occurs); and, of course, the, e.g., Secretary of State once they're confirmed. But this seems overly pedantic and difficult to police.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AleatoryPonderings (talk • contribs) 21:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, I assume you mean January 20 (but that's largely irrelevant to this debate). Like I pointed out to wallyfromdilbert, multiple reliable sources have described Blinken, Yellen et al as being "nominees" and not qualifying it further. I think "presumptive nominee", "designated nominee", or "nominee-designate" etc are all fine in the infobox; I just don't like excluding the nominated office from the infobox because it removes an important piece of information. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think "presumptive nominee" or "designated nominee" are a good terms. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, for the date, yes, I meant whenever the inauguration is. You're right that news sources do seem to be describing Cabinet picks as nominees, although I think that's technically false as a matter of law. But we follow the RS, so nominee, without qualification, seems fine to me. As GoodDay notes below, we should do this consistently everywhere. I guess I !vote for nominee in all cases. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This debate is incredibly frustrating for me because the pedant in me is vehemently against calling Blinken and Yellen just "nominees". I would much rather call them "presumptive" or "designated" nominees. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

TBH - I don't give a bleep about what yas decide. Just asking (BEGGING) that ya'll implement it consistently. For those that require Senate confirmation? Use Nominee or Nominee-designate, but use one, not both. If yas want to delete the entire thing? then do that for all of them. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for political nominations

• Is there a concern that people have with the term "presumptive nominee"? Seems like a pretty good solution to this debate is to keep the infobox but use that phrase rather than just "nominee". If there is consensus for it, I think we could even add that to the infobox template for clarity in the future to avoid this same situation recurring. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - presumptive nominee in the infoboxes, will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think while it would be a reasonable compromise, I still don't understand why we need 'presumptive' there. It's not like we can't cite sources saying these people are going to be nominated. But cemantics, I suppose. -Sneakycrown (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Well it's either a compromise or editors get blocked for edit-warring / articles get protected because of edit warring. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support presumptive nominee, with nominee (unqualified) as second choice. Would give us a uniform rule to apply in these scenarios without having to parse individual RS once a nomination has been made to see if they say "nominee" without qualification or with some qualification. If this is adopted, we should say "presumptive nominee" or "nominee" (as the case may be) absolutely everywhere in the article—there should be no inconsistency between infobox and body. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I still think, for the infobox, we should wait until he actually gets the job. The problem I see with "presumptive nominee" is that, while we all know what that means (because we're talking about it), the average reader is going to look at that and say, "WTF?". It's like calling someone "a little bit pregnant". You either are or you aren't. The infobox should list the person's current profession, period. I don't see any good reason why we should rush it. It's already in the article for those who want to know more, but the infobox is just a list of basic attributes. Zaereth (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I would object to this because most people would know what presumptive nominee is. The more that I think about it the more I actually like it. It states, quite clearly, the information as we know it at that point, which again, is the basic function of an encyclopedia, is providing the most up to date, accurate information as we know it. There is such a thing as being too cautious. Sneakycrown (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support presumptive nominee, until Biden formally nominates them upon becoming president. These debates have gone on for too long, with edit wars and reverts all over the place. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support presumptive nominee, the longer I think about it, the more I think it benefits everyone. We need to have uniform rules, and if this makes it so everyone lives with it then so be it. Sneakycrown (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but I oppose adding another parameter to the infobox (whether to the template or otherwise). Zaereth is right: waiting has been our long-standing policy, and waiting has historically worked—after all, people die, some reported nominees don't always get their positions (I'm thinking of the case of John B. Stetson Jr., for instance), and nominations do fail. The infobox should show current and former offices and current professions, without any additions for expected future positions; the way I see it, that's the only way to respect WP:CRYSTAL: after all, "otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident". Let's not rush things: there's no need to make this change. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Javert2113, although I am admittedly not an expert on Stetson, a cursory reading of his page seems to show that he was not announced to be a nominee; rather, it was speculation in the press that President Coolidge was to do so. This is not the case here: Blinken and Yellen have been announced by Biden to be his choices as nominees. Yes, people die. Biden may die between now and Inauguration Day. But that does not preclude us calling him the president-elect in his infobox. The passage you quoted from WP:CRYSTAL was incomplete: the beginning of the sentence states that Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place (emphasis in text). We are not mentioning the date here, and my reading of WP:CRYSTAL is that the point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Javert2113, just to be clear, this isn't about adding another parameter to the infobox, but about what term to use for the "status" parameter in Template:Infobox officeholder (and also whether to include the infobox). While I agree with you and Zaereth that we should wait on the infobox entirely, using that the term was my suggested compromise. I personally think it makes more sense for the infobox for public officials to be limited to changes in an actual status, such as a candidate who has filed for office, a nominee who has been submitted for nomination, or an elected official who is pending inauguration. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Wally, Sdrqaz. Having taken a bit more time to think about it, I think it could work —just changing "|status = Presumptive nominee", right? Hm. I still think we should only have the following three statuses for that parameter: acting, de facto, nominee. But that's another matter entirely; here, at least, I think that having it covered in the lead, or the body, of the biography is enough, at least until one is formally nominated or installed. I just can't see how jumping the gun as a good thing, especially given the vicissitudes of life. After all, if nothing else, we have time: WP:NO DEADLINE; we can wait the few weeks before the formalities, non? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Javert2113, your comment is exactly what I think about the issue. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Javert2113: Yes, that's basically the substance of the proposal. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this matter: I understand the point about WP:NO DEADLINE, but since the news would be written in the lead and article text of the individual, I don't see why it shouldn't be included in the infobox as well. These times are tumultuous, but Wikipedia will keep up as necessary. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose because "presumptive nominee" isn't an official position. We just don't add that to an infobox until they become actual nominees. Their articles' lead or text may mention that Biden chose to nominate them once he assumes the office of the President, but that's not an official status until they are nominated. Putting that information into an infobox might make it look official to readers. "Presumptive nominees" have no responsibilities or authority, while actual nominees have to be investigated by the appropriate committee in the Senate and submit paperwork. Enivid (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Enivid: I'm afraid that's not true. Presumptive nominees have received committee hearings and gone through most of the committee process during the lame-duck period. Recent examples would include Gen. Jim Mattis, who had his nomination favourably reported by the Armed Services Committee January 18, 2017 and a waiver passed by Congress January 13; Hillary Clinton had a Saxbe fix passed and signed into law in December 2008, her nomination hearing began January 13 and was reported favourably on January 15; Donald Rumsfeld had his nomination hearing on January 11, 2001. The list goes on. Just because the nomination has not been officially made does not preclude the Senate from acting. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Enivid (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, "presumptive nominee" is not an official position and there is no official nomination for the Senate to consider yet, which is why only committee hearings can be held (because they are determined by internal Senate procedure). Those "presumptive nominees" still have no authority or responsibilities in any legal sense, and the Senate itself holds no hearings and cannot vote on the nomination at all. The actual submission of the nomination that the Senate can consider is not allowed to be done until after the president-elect takes office. For example, Donald Rumself was not nominated until January 20, 2001, and Jim Mattis was not nominated until January 20, 2017. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to also note in response to Enivid's initial comment, the nominees do not "have to be investigated by the appropriate committee in the Senate and submit paperwork". While that is ordinarily part of the modern Senate process, it is not required by any law and is not always followed in the same manner, and any Senate rules can be overridden by a Senate vote. The only legal requirements for a cabinet member is that they are nominated by a president and confirmed by the full Senate. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

That seems to be in contradiction to the link provided by Sdrqaz — that states that the nomination's date for Rumsfeld was January 11. Enivid (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Enivid, that's for a Senate committee not the Senate, and committee procedures are determined by internal Senate rules and have no legal effects (since Senate procedures are determined by a vote just by the Senate and are not passed by the Senate or signed by the president, and so have no relevance beyond the Senate itself). As per the link I cited above for his actual nomination, that cannot happen until the nominating president is actually president. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: I take your point, but given how presumptive nominees are described in reliable sources and how they receive committee hearings, they can probably be accurately described as de facto nominees. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I definitely understand where you are coming from, but I do not agree that they are "de facto nominees". I think when their upcoming nomination is mentioned in the body and lead, it can be described with additional context to make that status clear. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Strongly oppose using infoboxes for people who have not actually been nominated yet. Yes, there are scads of so-called "news" articles out there labeling these people as "nominees" but they're using the term either loosely or proleptically. "Nominee-designate" or "presumptive nominee" or whatever is good enough for the lede, but it's not formal enough that it should be considered worthy of the infobox. Think about it this way: speaking generally, the kind of information that we reserve for infoboxes is the kind of information that never gets removed from infoboxes (unless we change our standards for what goes there, like for religion several years ago): spouses (new ones may be added, but old ones don't go away), birth dates, offices held, etc. Once you achieve some kind of infobox-worthy office, that information stays there in your article forever. However, by putting information about people being nominated for offices into their infoboxes, we have already taken one step back from our standard and created a situation where information really does get removed from the infoboxes of those whose nominations fail (e.g., Andrew Puzder, whose infobox in late January 2017 showed him as "United States Secretary of Labor / Nominee" before the nomination failed; his infobox now says nothing about him ever having been nominated). I actually think that decision (to include nominations in infoboxes) is itself worth reconsidering (for one thing, we are very inconsistent about it: we add infobox information for nominees to Cabinet positions, but not for nominees to judicial positions? not even the Supreme Court? ACB's infobox didn't say she was a nominee to the Supreme Court before she was confirmed; only once she had been confirmed, it went in a matter of minutes from saying simply that she was an incumbent judge of the Seventh Circuit to saying that she was a justice of the Supreme Court, assuming office imminently). But I think it is sheer madness to come to a consensus in favor of taking yet another step back and saying that we should include not only offices for which people have actually been nominated, but also offices for which we have merely been told that they will be nominated. That's two steps removed from the kind of permanent, irrescindible information that is generally considered infobox-worthy and even more embarrassing for us if any of these people don't actually end up getting nominated (let alone confirmed). Slow your roll, guys. It'll be okay. In another six weeks, Biden can send nominations to the Senate officially, and we can update like crazy. It'll be a party. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Christ. Nominee and/or assuming office wasn't enough, we now have presumptive nominee? Oppose. Put it in the lead, or the body, in the meantime. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox until positions are official. While I started this discussion and proposed the compromise so that we at least wouldn't have incorrect information in the infobox by calling them "nominee", I just wanted to make clear that I think the infobox is unnecessary until they have actually been nominated, and prefer just keeping the information in the body for now (and lead where significant). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: You proposed the compromise & now you're going against it? BTW, at this moment an edit spat has developed at the Lloyd Austin article, over this topic. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, I proposed the compromise to try to find common ground, but I do not actually think that is preferable. I favor keeping the infobox out until a position is official, and I think even including official nominations is excessive. I have tried to clarify that by expanding on the "oppose" I left above. It doesn't seem like any type of clear consensus here though, and so if there are still editing debates about this, then it may be useful to create an actual RfC somewhere where it will be seen by more interested editors. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Right now @KidAd: has dug in his heals at Lloyd Austin article, pushing to use Nominee (instead of Nominee-designate) & thus throwing that article out-of-sync with the others. Do you both want the articles protected or editors blocked? GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"Nominee-designate" is a made-up term. Until reliable sources use it to describe Biden cabinet selections, it is WP:OR. As for Do you both want the articles protected or editors blocked?, I have no idea what you're even trying to say. KidAd talk 01:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Well then, I'm changing all to Nominee. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like the proper reaction. I think the discussion here supports either excluding the infobox until the nomination is official or including "presumptive nominee". It seems like several people have expressed concerns about using the term "nominee" before the nominations are submitted to the Senate. In general, during an editing dispute, the disputed material should be probably be left out entirely until an actual discussion can reach a conclusion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

We can't have them messed up, we need consistency. From what I can tell, you & KidAd seem the most determined about this topic & so it's likely something that should be worked about between the two of you, as a starter. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

So now the BOTH of you are fighting me on these articles, in opposite directions? SO FRUSTRATING, you both are. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You were frustrated before I got here, and no one is trying to fight anyone else. Try taking a break. KidAd talk 02:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

We do not have to have all pages looking exactly the same, although that certainly is nice when it can be done with consensus. As I already said, if there is an ongoing editing dispute, then I would recommend removing the infobox changes until a consensus for inclusion can be reached per WP:ONUS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

James Mwangi

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

Could I get some opinions on the content in the James Mwangi#Controversy section, please? An IP editor left a message on my talk page earlier today:

Hi, whats your opinion on the edits of this based on the sources. They have been tagged as possible BLP sources. For this another user who is inherently promoting the page has reverted the edits. The edits are about sexual assault allegations about James Mwangi. I feel the reversal is subjective as the articles are inherently notable based on the specifics of the allegations and verifiability. James mwangi is a public figure whose personal conduct in the public domain is of public interest . Esther Passaris gave actual interviews to these sites (Nairobi news of nation.africa and Tuko News), there are actual court records about these allegations. These are actual allegations that can be cleaned up but not removed. Esther Passaris spoke directly to Nairobi News and Tuko News, as per the article. Business today reported as per court records. All which can prove mwangi's conduct on these allegations to meet inline citations. What is your opinion on this?

----197.237.79.204 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why they picked me to ask, since I don't believe I've edited the page. I also don't have any familiarity whatsoever with Kenyan sources, which makes it a bit more difficult to evaluate the reliability. To me the section seems a bit questionable—focusing somewhat heavily on alleged actions of a totally different BLP, as well as on allegations that have not been proven in court. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That does seem hard to properly evaluate without better knowledge of Kenyan sources as none of them look particularly high quality. While the article subject does seem to be well-known, these types of allegations need very good sourcing, and I don't think that has been met in this case (although it seems to be more of a question of whether the content is due given the low quality sources more than the verifiability of whether the allegations were actually made). Some of the claims about the accuser are definitely entirely inappropriate. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I had a few moments, so I picked through the sources. They're all in English, so that makes it easier. Many countries offer news in multiple languages, almost always including English when they do.

First, the stuff on the sexual harassment should go immediately. It's not an assault, as we've labeled it, but it still falls under BLPCRIME, and should be deleted immediately.

Sources 27 is Nairobiwire, which is a blog. Obviously no good.

28.) Tuko.co is a gossip-news magazine, or what we in English call a tabloid. Also no good.

29.) Youth Village.co is a youth-based magazine, but this article is an op/ed column, and not only that, it says the opposite of what the article says, in that the author believes the subject was being blackmailed with these allegations. Still, not a good source.

30.) Kahawa Tungu seems like a good news site, but is just a reprint of the same op/ed column as Youth Village. Also reports this as blackmail of the subject.

31.) Standard Entertainment and Lifestyle looks like a reputable entertainment news site. However, the article does not mention the subject once, and no sign this has anything to do with him.

32.) Business Today also looks like a reputable news site, but it's really a news blog. Same as 31. No mention of the subject even once.

33.) Kahawa Tunga looks like a good source for the cited info. But is it undue? That's a question for another board.

34.) Business Times is a news blog. No good

35.) Business Today is a news blog. Also no good. (Not to mention I notice that a newly created article Business Today (Kenya) is related to this, and is up for deletion.)

For these reasons i have removed everything except source 33 and its associated info. I see no BLP violation with that, although I would hardly call it a controversy (at least, not by the dictionary definition of the word). It should be worked into the text, that is, if it is even due weight at all, but I'll leave that for others to fix. I also removed the name of his wife, because there's no indication that she's notable. Zaereth (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

And it looks like it was added right back. I'll revert it one more time, but it might be worth it to have an admin look into page protecting this article. The poorly sourced info should not go back in, and the allegations most certainly need to remain out as a blatant violation of BLPCRIME. As is, I'm at 3RR, and, although I believe this is exempt from the 3RR rule, I don't have time for it and will let someone else handle it from here. Zaereth (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that thorough review of the sources. That was my initial impression on them as well. Without high quality sourcing, I agree that this information is not appropriate to include. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that an IP has also started a discussion on the article's talk page, and so I provided them a response there and informed them of this discussion as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Zaereth, for your very thorough review. I agree with your conclusion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

As per this link from kahawatungu " a good source for the info" it is safe to return the sexual assault allegations. I do not agree on the classification of Business Today as a blog because notability of the editor can be established and has a history of opinioned work that is reputable. see this and this. Also look at sources such as this from Çnyakundi.com. The editors of these sites have reputations of having been involved in specific opinion work that is reputable. This is evidenced in court rooms, judgements against editors of these sites which Zaereth (talk) has described as blogs. So now because this has been added from another blog with a provable editorial reputation we have to discredit it. The same kahawatungu is also a blog associated with Robert Alai as per this. So technically according to Zaereth (talk) some editors with a proven reputation of reputable editorial work are ignored while others content is taken up.

Back to the specific issue of sexual assault, according this link, another activist Boniface Mwangi also shares the same opinion of supporting the allegations as credible. According to the activist boniface, james mwangi has assaulted several women. Even if you claim that these allegations have to be from reputable sources, can all these independent people with their own mind target James Mwangi for nothing in the public media?

On wikipedia, these were allegations added as controversy. The specific reason i support addition of these as controversy is because they are mentioned by notable people to the public media in the public domain. That's why this qualifies as a controversy. The exact edits on the page were clear to indicate claims and allegation. Mwangi is a public figure; against whom a series of reputable editors and activists have reported allegations against him.

Mwangi has a history of bribing bloggers and paying editors, see this. From a neutral point of view mwangi has legitimately been reported to have assaulted Esther Passaris. Did he actually assault her? No way to know. But according to what was reported by these sources the allegations qualify to be returned on the page as allegations.

On Land grabbing, this matter qualifies as a controversy on the page, because it is not routine activity of his career to engage in land grabbing as per the entry done under career section. I see it geniune and reasonable to return the edits. I am not targeting Mwangi, but i am basing on sources from reputable editors. Everywhere in the world whenever allegations by reputable people are published by reputable editors for claims against reputable individuals they are newsworthy and inherently qualify to make valid wikipedia entries (as long as they are reported). Mwangi should take the bloggers, editors and personalities who have reported this to court. As a neutral editor it is imperative to stick to facts reported based on citations by reputable sources such as reputable editors and notable persons involved. Otherwise what is the purpose of reading in the first place, if we do not refer to sources that have an editorial opinion to form conclusions about issues. Consequently its not practical to discredit some reputable bloggers then omit some info then use others of other reputable bloggers otherwise described as editors. It is standard practise everywhere in the world that when a stroy breaks, some journalists refuse to cover, others cover it. Does this selective actions makes the news not noteworthy? Definately not. I think this is the case on this matter. The only instituition that can dispute veracity of this sources is a court judgement against the allegations published by SOME reputable editors, which again will simply be added as another entry on the controversy.

If mwangi has an issue, he should take the persons to court and have it reported, then that will be added as another entry. Wikipedia sources that pass WP:GNG are qualified to be added. The edits qualify to be returned as per WP:SUSPECT with self sufficient explanatory information. All these editors cannot honestly be mad to tarnish mwangi's name based on baseless accusations, including the fact that other notable persons participated or supported the allegations in their individual right. Mwangi is a public figure and his personal conduct in the public domain is of public interest.

--2C0F:FE38:2022:DBF0:1:1:5898:E8B5 (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Having a "reputation of having been involved in specific opinion work that is reputable" is not a reliable source. Sources need to have a reputation for fact-checking and for editorial oversight. If one person is self-publishing their own blog or the blog has no reputation for editorial oversight engaged in fact-checking, then they are generally not going to be reliable. For an accusation of a serious crime, there would need to be multiple high-quality sources to include the information. If you have those, I would suggest providing them. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

really? Self published sources? According to the article, it is based on facebook posts by passaris and media interviews by passaris herself as a victim and notable person. According to WP: SUSPECT a source can be added with a sufficient self explanatory statement. Where is it written that it requires multiple sources? This consensus found kahawatungu to be reliable for info. So again no basis for such a statement. Argument stands matter is safe for return based on reliable source.

-2C0F:FE38:2029:DC64:1:2:59CD:3DEC (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Where was there a discussion about kahawatungu being reliable? Zaereth said that it seemed like a good news site, but already noted that the article about the sexual assault alleged sexual advances is an op-ed copied from another site. The other article [1], Zaereth raised questions about whether it was due given the sourcing. Looking into the site more, while it doesn't look like a blog like many of the other sources, I can find no information about its editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking, and they do differentiate between what is an opinion or editorial (such as the article about the sexual assault alleged sexual advances) versus more news-oriented content (such as the article about the land). The article you cite to them regarding the sexual assault alleged sexual advances is also written by Robert Alai and looks to be clearly an editorial/opinion column rather than any sort of news reporting. That article doesn't look reliable for any purpose on Wikipedia, much less the serious accusation of sexual assault sexual misconduct. Finally, if you don't think that making serious accusations against living people requires multiple high-quality sources, then you need to spend some time reading WP:BLP and specifically WP:WELLKNOWN. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is your second source.This plus the first one qualifies as multiple. -2C0F:FE38:2029:DC64:1:2:59CD:3DEC (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

That is a blog, and the other source was an opinion article. Neither of those is reliable. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:SUSPECT, it is reasonable to add back and clearly indicate according to the specific blog plus opinion article (with sufficient self explanatory reasons). Even the actual tweets and Facebook posts as per WP:USESPS can pass to include this. Esther passaris gave a media interview to two blogs, she posted on her Facebook page, she posted on her Twitter page, Boniface Mwangi posted on his Twitter page. All these clearly and concisely stated qualify for addition considering the two sources only: kahawatungu and cnyakundi (plus sources from these individual pages). Boniface mwangi is not self published in case you want to bring that again. You seem to be fighting these edits with seriously lame reasons considering am repeating sources I shared earlier. -2C0F:FE38:2029:DC64:1:2:59CD:3DEC (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Again your statement of unreliability is false. See WP:NEWSBLOG These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[8] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ..." . I have lifted exact sentence so we don't keep arguing in circles about the same thing.This clearly matches what I said earlier about clearly adding it back and clearly describing it while attributing to the writer with sufficient self explanatory reason -2C0F:FE38:2029:DC64:1:2:59CD:3DEC (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time to continue with this discussion, so I'll leave it to others for the time being. I just leave off by trying to explain, but first a question. Why is this so important to you? Do you have a personal stake in this? If so, you should read WP:Conflict of interest.

Personally, I've never heard of this guy until it was brought to this board. I did read the sources, each and every one. I've been participating at this board for a long time, and reviewing sources is what we all do here. It's really easy to tell what kind of source you're dealing with in very short order. A good source will stand out. Blogs and other sources that anybody can make are not reliable. Every news outlet has opinion/editorial columns, but those aren't reliable columns --even if the actual new articles they publish are. A real news article will give opinions of experts or other such people whose opinions really matter, and they will not only attribute those opinions to the expert, but will go out of their way to find opposing opinions and give those fair coverage too. In a really good news article you can't tell what the author's opinion is because they never let it show. It makes no difference what some writer or editor thinks. Those op/ed columns are just special-interest pieces, to fill space.

Now, besides the lack of good sourcing, there are several other problems I have seen. Some of these sources, such as the op/ed columns, say the opposite of what was written in our article. Those sources said that they believed he was innocent, and everyone who knows the subject says the allegations are crazy, and they think this woman is just greedy and trying to blackmail him. We can't just WP:Cherrypick the info we like and ignore the rest. We have to give a summary of the source as a whole. (That is, if those were good sources, but they weren't, so that's really moot in this case.) Then two of the other sources were about lawsuits against the bank, and never mention the subject. Just because he works for the bank doesn't mean he's a plaintiff in every lawsuit they get into, and we can't use that source to try to make such a connection when the source itself makes no such connection. See WP:Synthesis. That's just scratching the surface.

Now for some event to be exempt from BLPCRIME, it has to be very widely covered in reliable sources. We don't count non-reliable sources like blogs. There can't be just one or two sources reporting on it, but it needs to be widely reported as such that there's no longer any point in trying to protect his right to be innocent until proven guilty.

Lastly, and most importantly, you all have to stop calling this an "assault". That word has a very specific meaning, implying it was done with violence, and none --not one-- of the sources describes an assault nor do they even call it that (and wisely so). At best, this allegation falls under harassment, but to use the word "assault" is downright false , and that is a violation of BLP that I can't just stand by and watch. And BLP applies to talk pages too. Zaereth (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth (talk) am not trying to cherry pick sources for addition.

The argument here is that we must stick to the rules. Not imagined sentiments or ideals that are not wikipedia rules. We refer to WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:SUSPECT. If we go down the road of sentimental activity and how long you have been editing we will be losing direction here.

I dont have any interests in this matter Personally. But I feel sexual harrasment by people like mwangi should not be swept under the rag in many unexplained sentiments or blogger fights. He should face these people in actual court rooms.

Let's stick to facts and rules, not your imaginations. What I wonder is that, have you too been paid to fight this? Mwangi as per above has had a history of paying editors and writers for such activity as per sources shown above.

The issue on this matter is the wording. I participated in this discussion because I too felt there was need for clarity on this especially on wording.

Those your claims about sources and blogs, please refer to rules on wikipedia. Again please let's refer to rules to remain sane in this. Please don't make this personal with sentiments. Let's stick to the rules . The rules apply to mwangi, you, whether you have been paid or not. That's why Im here too. If there were no rules why waste time explaining myself or anything to you or participating.

Let's stick to rules, facts, citations and references. If you still dispute addition please show rules that we can refer. If you claim I am cherry picking, simply add all that I missed out. Am I preventing you from adding what I have missed? Of course not . So please don't lose direction on things that are not rules. That's why we are here, because of rules that apply to all of us, me included.

I repeat Mwangi is a public figure with a wikipedia page, and his conduct in the public domain is of public interest as per wikipedia rules. Whether you know him or not he has a Wikipedia page as a public figure.lets stick to facts, rules, references and citations without being sentimental.-2C0F:FE38:2029:DC64:1:2:59CD:3DEC (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

None of these sources meet our very strict requirements for claims about living persons. See WP:RSP and our policies at WP:BLPSOURCES for details on the types of sources that we're looking for. Woodroar (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I wish! I'm just some guy on the opposite side of the planet, who cares about the BLP rules very much. You keep saying stick to them, and that is exactly what we're doing. You didn't just carelessly omit a few things. You completely missed the point of the op/ed, and completely turned it around 180 degrees. You pulled out info that met your narrative and left out all the other stuff that didn't That is textbook synthesis, which is what all cherrypicking is. Please don't insult our intelligence like that. This is all part of the core policy WP:No original research.

You ask why I don't just fill in what you missed. First, I'm not here to do your job for you. The WP:ONUS is on the one who wants it to make sure it complies.

You can't just cherrypick policy either. You should think of it as one, big equation, where the info must satisfy every part of that equation in order to be included. First, NOR. Then, verifiability. Then, reliable sourcing. next, is neutral point of view, which in itself re a bunch of hurdles. But let's say you did include all of the info from that op/ed. Next is WP:Due weight. Here, we have to weigh the sourcing against all of the other sources on this guy. Not just what's in the article, but all sources. Then it needs to be put into proportion with the size of the article. Does it deserve an entire section, or just one paragraph? Or would that be too much. Maybe it deserves no more than a single sentence. Or maybe even that is too much, given the size of the rest of the article. But now you'd have to put it into the proper proportion.

But that's all moot, because the sources are not reliable. You still haven't even cleared the first hurdles. Zaereth (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I still do not agree with this argument completely. Just because it's a blog and no fact checking or oversight doesn't mean this story was not fact checked. And Zaereth (talk) you need to get this clearly in your head, it's not personal and no one has a stake in your feelings. This is a blp noticeboard where we refer to specific things. I don't know what bothers you with my location and stickler to rules that you keep writing this sentimental comments with so much pain. Can't you give comments and feedback without pain and complaints. No one is targeting you, no one is targeting mwangi, no one is after you. These is an open and transparent dialogue by normal people.

On fact checking according to tuko

TUKO.co.ke decided to call the 52-year-old Passaris and get the full story. First, she has admitted that she has authored the tweets. Secondly, she is not crazy. She is frustrated, very frustrated!- this is clear fact checking and oversight.

Passaris continues to tell TUKO.co.ke that during a Strathmore Business School training that was held at Mount Kenya Safari Club, Mwangi kept pestering her for sex. She says he even tried to get into her room but Passaris warned him to keep off.- this is sexual assault not harrasment.

This was an actual verifiable event that actually happen but has been fought by editor payments and blogger fights. See this

This is Tuko a site with a reputation for fact checking and oversight. Zaereth (talk) you need to get this into your head clearly, I have no personal stake in this and I don't feel pain or embarrassed about being on the opposite side of the planet. You think your side gives you better views of actual facts. I am not here to fight you, whatever pains you about me, you need to redirect it to actual references and rules; not your wild sentimental outbursts that have this misguided idea that being on the opposite side of the planet is a pain and following rules are very strange things.

On issue of cherry picking policy, this should be re-added and give room for additional sources that pass more consensus . Multiple people were involved in these, politicians, media and activist but these issues have been fought using editor payments and blogger fights. Tuko has a wikipedia page on it's own, it verified the story directly from the source (Esther passaris), it published screenshots from the source on facebook. Now you want to use my location on the planet to rubbish me in the name that it doesn't satisfy the equation.

This is clearly oversight and fact checking. On due weight it passes because of multiple notable people involved as mentioned who by the way happen to have wikipedia pages for reference. Zaereth (talk) be serious , we are normal editors, no one is targeting anyone. We just want transparent dialogue as you seem to have a super misguided idea about my location and stickler to rules. -105.63.60.147 (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Eduardo Yanga in Pat Buckley (priest)

Can I ask for an additional pair of eyes on this? Eduardo Yanga is not even remotely a public figure WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. He's mentioned briefly in the article as the husband of the article's subject. He committed a driving offence which led to his license being suspended for 20 months, which I can only find mentioned in one online article, so hardly a significant event. Within the article itself, it's coatracking and hardly significant to understanding the subject of the article. Valenciano (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That content looks like a clear BLP violation. If the article subject's husband is not notable, there is no reason to mention crimes they have been convicted of on their husband's page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah no way that belongs. There are cases where it can get complicated, e.g. there was one case where an ambassador/diplomat was recalled or at least asked to return after some controversy due to alleged offences of their husband. This is very far from that. BTW, the article link above was to a disambiguation page, since it's in the title so wasn't signed I just modified it point to the correct article as per the diff. Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Lodro Rinzler

There have been repeated attempts to add slanderous information to Lodro Rinzler's BLP, relating to an unsubstantiated claim of sexual misconduct while at Shambala center. The original contributors that added the information noted multiple sources, but they are simply re-shares of the original source; a blog that has since gone out of business earlier this year. If you click on any of the sources it's plain to see that everything refers to the original article.

Additionally the allegation was denied by Rinzler, there was never any evidence presented, he was never found guilty of any misconduct. Yet the information continues to be reposted. There are discussions by other contributors agreeing and confirming that the information should not exist on the page per policy unless more legitimate information was presented. I attempted to remove the content but is immediately being reposted by others, with threats that the removal of the content per BLP guidelines is somehow not allowed. Thus my only recourse is to submit this notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonaccors (talk • contribs) 02:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The two reliable sources seem to several articles by Think Progress [2] [3] and an article by Publishers Weekly [4] that references the allegations made in Think Progress when discussing why his book deal was cancelled. The other two sources look like self-published blogs. The cancellation of his book deal does seem particularly relevant, although I wonder if the specific allegations should be reworded or attributed to Think Progress. I reverted the editor's attempts to remove this content for now given the comments by other editors on the article's talk page. I should also note that it looks like there is an apparent COI regarding Mbonaccors, who has only edited this article and makes statements about apparently non-public information, and I have asked them about that on their talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I am hesitant to the argument of Think Progress as a reliable source for these matters given its listing at WP:RSP, but Publisher Weekly is one and its reliance on the report seens to indicate WP:UBO. Is that enough to satisfy WP:BLPPUBLIC if he is a public figure? Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I think its a borderline case, which is why I removed some of the details and referred to the allegations more generally as "sexual misconduct". There is also some discussion on the [Talk:Lodro Rinzler#Allegations Discussion|article's talk page]. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing Buddhist Door and its news content, I think it seems to be reliable enough to report on matters related to Buddhism to buttress this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Akbaruddin Owaisi

• Anindian2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Akbaruddin Owaisi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Anindian2020 has been edit warring to retain adding contentious material in the Akbaruddin Owaisi BLP.[5][6]

The claim they are adding is "anti-hindu and anti-national speeches" sourced at first to a YouTube video that does not pass WP:RSBLP ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU-5DJivuAU ) then to an article in India Today that does not support the claim ( https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/akbaruddin-owaisi-hate-speech-aimim-bjp-cpi-1573946-2019-07-26 )

It appears that Akbaruddin Owaisi has made multiple speeches that are controversial, and that others have accused him of being ant-hindu, but per WP:BLP such claims must be attributed, not stated as if they were established facts in Wikipedia's voice. I see several problem statements in the article that have this problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(The following was moved here from my talk page.[7] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC))

India Today is a news channel. You said you contacted them & they denied the news ? Please confirm! Because this was all over the newspapers. Also you say Yuva TV is not a reliable source. How did you reach that conclusion ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anindian2020 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: YuvaTV: "The Bharatiya Janata Party has launched an internet television channel by the name of Yuva TV... BJP’s official website prominently links to Yuva TV."[8] Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Yuva TV

Re: India Today: They are indeed a news channel but the link you supplied does not support the claim you used it as a reference for. Per our WP:BLP policies such claims must be attributed, not stated in Wikipedia's voice as if they were established facts instead of opinions. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: YuvaTV: I am a new Wikipedia user, if a link is related to BJP it becomes unreliable is it ? I want to know what is the basis of marking Yuva TV as unreliable ?

Re: India Today: If you click the link given, it says that Owaisi in his controversial remark made in 2013, said that if police is removed for 15 minutes, “we (Muslims) will finish 100 crore Hindus”. Is that not anti-Hindu ? Another link [9] in which Owaisi says that India can never be a Hindu country! The only country with Hindu majority is India & Owaisi wants to ensure Hinduism is wiped off India! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anindian2020 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I see what your problem is. You say "Is that not anti-Hindu?" That is classic WP:OR. You need to understand what an encyclopedia is. We state verifiable facts (example: "On November 22, 1963, John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas") as facts, but we do not state opinions -- even opinions that we strongly agree with -- as facts. So let's look at [10]. We could use that as a source for a claim of "Asaduddin Owaisi asserted that India would never be a Hindu country", but we cannot use it as a source for a claim "Asaduddin Owaisi is Anti-Hindu". The reference doesn't say that. Even if you find a reliable source that actually uses the phrase "Asaduddin Owaisi is Anti-Hindu", we can only state "newspaper X (or person Y) called Asaduddin Owaisi Anti-Hindu", but we can never state "Asaduddin Owaisi is Anti-Hindu" -- an opinion -- as if it was a fact. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the site? What Owaisi said was "India was never a Hindu country, nor is and will never be - God-Willing". So it is not as if he made a statement that India would never be a 'Hindu' country based on some scientific research. As Owaisi used 'God-willing' (Inshallah), in a statement like this, it shows his sentiments or bias against Hindus! And what abt my question on the India Today website, which quotes from Owaisi's speech in 2013 where he said few crore Muslims claimed he will kill 100 cr Hindus! I replaced anti-Hindu to 'pro-Muslim' & included these new sources & this was undone by a user named 'Blackkite' & I was again reported by some user HostBot that I am using unreliable sources and I am engaged in an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anindian2020 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that specifically states that? Nobody cares that you think that "it shows his sentiments or bias against Hindus". In fact, nobody cares if every single Wikipedia editor reading his words thinks that "it shows his sentiments or bias against Hindus". You need to find a reliable source that says that. Please read the pages at these links very carefully: WP:V, WP:RS. Those are basic policies that you are required to follow if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Michelle Goldberg

There seems to be some type of infobox on Michelle Goldberg that is either libellious, or just totally unrelated to the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.116.226 (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

More of an image or collage than an infobox, I've reverted to the version before the changes made by User:Mediaviolations as well as nominated the collage they made for speedy deletion on Commons:Commons, and given them a warning here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Vladimir Leposavic

Vladimir Leposavić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) False information relying on unreliable source "Pobjeda" contained in "political career". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin002 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Erin002:, that's awfully nonspecific. Can you point to discrete passages you think are false or specify which sources or (better yet) provide diffs that identify the edits which you think are problematic? As it stands, this complaint is not going to generate any action. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure there will be much support for categorising Pobjeda, the oldest Montenegrin newspaper still in circulation, as unreliable. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• This appears to be the contentious content. At a glance it looks reliably sourced. Thanks to @Erin002: for bringing it here instead of edit warring. @Fackchecker74: could learn from the example. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Palmer Report

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

An editor have added this to Palmer Report, citing Bill Palmer's blog posts (emphasis added):

1. Unlike other political analysts he often uses logic to backup his position, for example he expected Biden to win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination even after losing Iowa and New Hampshire as the third primary, South Carolina, matched the demographics of the overall Democratic primary electorate more closely.
2. Palmer Report has also been speculating since at least August 2018 that Trump will go to prison which has since been backed up by other sources.

References

Is this acceptable per WP:ABOUTSELF? Politrukki (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The first example seems like a textbook example of unduly self-serving content.

In the second example two sources are cited, Palmer Report and a post in Vanity Fair's Hive blog, but don't let the second citation fool you as Hive doesn't mention Palmer Report. Hive also doesn't say that Trump is going prison.

In my view, the second example is a clear-cut example of BLP violation as it is sourced to palmerreport.com – which is "the publication of record for anti-Trump conspiracy nuts who don't care about the credibility of the record", according to The Atlantic, and the material is improper synthesis of two sources. Politrukki (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This content is clearly editorialising & synthesis. - Ryk72 ^talk 12:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The first one is clearly unduly self-serving. The second one is more complex. The first half of it is trivial to source to a secondary source (and needs to have that added and to stay because the site's position on Trump is central to its notability; there's a secondary cite for it in the lead); the sourcing requirements are also lessened when it's framed as mere speculation, since the fact that the site speculated about something isn't particularly exceptional. But the which has since been backed up by other sources bit is WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Remove the first item. Find a reliable, independent, secondary source for the bold part of the second item; remove the non-bold, synthesised part. - Ryk72 ^talk 13:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, a secondary RS is needed. Millions of people casually say Trump will be jailed. Millions said the same of Hillary, who remains at large. SPECIFICO talk 13:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe I’ve seen a source of Michael Cohen, Trump’s ex-fixer, saying he will go to jail so happy to add that if that will settle the issue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Now we are getting into the weeds. The article has had several recent content disputes, but I chose to summarise only some here. It is true that the lead currently says "has built a following based on speculative theories about Donald Trump going to prison", but that is due to recent edit-warring. The status quo version is one of these:

• The site has been criticized for building a large following based on "wildly speculative theories about Donald Trump."[11]
• The site has been criticized for building a large following based on speculative theories about Donald Trump.[12]

This has been discussed on the article talk page, where I have asked how where the "going to prison" part came from. The explanation I was given was "social media" and duckduckgo.com. For the lead, I support a more general version that says "speculative theories about Donald Trump"

The source you cited is already covered quite extensively in the article, in "Criticism" section. Now I have to ask, does the source you cited support the new content "since at least August 2018"? Politrukki (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This really seems to be a case of massive over escalation to avoid discussing it on the talk page Politrukki...

Happy to remove item one if you guys think it’s not appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Nezar AlSayyad

Multiple accounts continuously try to remove a well-sourced section on sexual misconduct allegations. The section been undone twice by User:Gamal Elsherbini. These are the account's only two edits. At http://faculty-alsayyad.ced.berkeley.edu/portfolio/xxa-partners.html, there is a Gamal Elsherbini listed as one of AlSayyad's frequent partners and collaborators. Furthermore, nearly the entire article was written by User:Pejiedita, which has also recently removed the section. Looking at all Pejiedita's contributions, it's clear that this account belongs to either AlSayyad or someone close to him. There's also an account, User:Madan Mehta, which has made only one edit—the most recent deletion of the sexual misconduct section. Essentially it's turning into an edit war to retain the section. Gbrkk (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The content looks appropriately sourced and neutrally worded. Those three accounts probably could be submitted to WP:SPI by this point. All three have edited no other pages and are repeatedly attempting to remove the same section. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The editor is now repeatedly adding opinion articles to include the claim "Others express a different view point exonerating AlSayyad and putting much of the blame on the complainant" (which is not supported by the cited opinion articles either). I think this is a clear BLP violation without reliable sourcing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

A section named "Sexual misconduct charges" was repeatedly added to the article. Any attempt to

A) remove it, B) change the section title so that it does not contain the word "sexual", C) add sentences or references that present other views, D) reveal the name of the person who is behind the sexual harassment claim,

results in reversal of changes. It is not known whether AlSayyad did something inappropriate until facts are discovered. The pending court hearing might clarify things. Meanwhile media and Wikipedia are used to associate Alsayyad's name with the words "sexual harassment". People who know AlSayyad for many years can vouch that he is not that kind of person. But the student insists that he harassed her sexually. This is clearly a controversy and it would be fair to depict it as that. Is it possible to lock the article and prevent edits to show only one side of the controversy?

Thank you!

Pejiedita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pejiedita (talk • contribs) 04:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You should read up on Wikipedia's policies about verification and WP:WEIGHT. How do reliable sources like newspapers (aka the media) report on this? That is what Wikipedia summarises. That probably explains why the attempts were reverted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Kermit Gosnell

1. The use of serial killer in lead seems contentious on the talk page. 2. I don't know know how much personal information is appropriate, but listing his DOB and other personal details seems excessive. 3. Referenced news articles appear largely sensationalist/speculative, and neutrality might be an issue. I haven't read the whole article, but I'm concerned it might be a target of activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pythagimedes (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the POV-pushing label since it was not established by reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Chloe Agnew

There is constant arguing over Agnew's birthday. (Here's the article history:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Chlo%C3%AB_Agnew) User:Laterthanyouthink is trying to say there's no reliable source over her birthday when we've put two separate sources

Last I checked, Twitter can be used as a reliable source if it's minimally used and not used in either of these ways: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I don't think a tweet stating her birthday is "self-serving" despite what Laterthanyouthibk says. Here's the link https://mobile.twitter.com/ChloeAgnew/status/476201102908481538

And I mentioned above, I put a separate article that states the year of her birth: https://www.rsvplive.ie/news/celebs/chloe-agnew-twink-husband-david-12943255 (If you read the bottom of the article, it says "Twink married oboist David in 1983 and had two children, Chloe, born in 1989, and Naomi in 1993.')

And Later accused me of trying to own the article, when he's the one not listening.

Can you help me sort this out, I'm tired of fighting. Kay girl 97 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I have pointed out, several times, WP:DOB ("Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". There are good reasons why Wikipedia does not advertise living people's birthdays. Secondly, the Twitter source is actually dated 10th June, and the birthdate which keeps getting added is the 9th. Thirdly, RSVP Live is hardly a reliable source. Fourthly, her date of birth is not shown publicly anywhere else, such as her own website - it is not meant to be publicly available. And fifthly, putting together a year from an unreliable source and a Twitter post with day only, and a different date of the month to boot, is WP:OR. Lastly, I have suggested that the editor take it to the talk page of the article, which they have not done, but continued to revert, multiple times. I'm not interested in "fighting" - I'm interested in applying Wikipedia's rules and protecting someone's privacy. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

What they said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I also noticed this edit-summary "Keep deleting it, I'll keep putting it back". User:Kay girl 97, I can assure you that's really not a good idea. It appears that you also really need to re-read WP:RS, as I notice this reply to someone who quite correctly told you to use reliable sources. Apart from your "you're an idiot" comment to them (another bad idea), the fact a random Facebook post wasn't self-published was exactly why we couldn't use it. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• For some reason I've always assumed Twitter is fine as a dob which is why I tend to use it, Although I do realise no year is included so some guesswork is needed. If it's deemed Twitter should not be used then I will also happily remove them from other artices I've sourced. –Davey2010^Talk 12:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing against Twitter being used for DOB in a WP:BLPSELFPUB manner, but it has to speak clearly on the content it is meant to support. Here [13] I'm arguing to use FB for DOB. IMO, this [14] didn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Aleksandr Dugin

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

The article is packed with editorialization in place of information

This board isn't meant for general distaste of an article, you'll need to provide more details about what specifically is objectionable and violating WP:BLP. Praxidicae (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

A glance shows nothing untoward and everything looks well sourced. OP should discuss content and sourcing on Talk:Aleksandr Dugin . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Abigail Shrier‎

One editor has inserted a great deal of non-WP:RSs and WP:OR into Abigail Shrier‎. Here:[15] the editor has inserted self-published sources, or sources that don't directly mention Shrier or her book, which makes it WP:OR. Similar matter with this edit:[16]. The lead sentence is also non-reliably sourced. The editor has been warned of their conduct:[17], but continues to edit war and insert poorly sourced claims into a BLP. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

March Boedihardjo

There does not seem to be a reason for this man to have a Wikipedia article. According to the article he’s only “famous” for getting into college at a young age. In the talk page someone writes “March is a math wizard, a miracle of nature and a savant. I created this article to make him an icon of others who cannot afford to study in prestigious schools.” This doesn’t seem to be a valid reason for the page to exist. He does not have any influential articles or books, or even a job as a professor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_Boedihardjo

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:500:4181:590:1f2:276d:2ae:850e (talk • contribs) 05:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

So take it to AfD. This board is not really the place for such complaints. But I predict that if you do, it will be kept. He appears not to pass our academic notability standards, but the in-depth coverage of him in major media over the course of multiple years is likely to give AfD participants strong arguments for keeping based on general notability instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ted_Hill_(mathematician)

I stupidly included a self-published source in this article. It was a blog by a Cambridge prof, critiquing a controversial paper. In a blog a few days later, the prof revised his criticism (still quite negative about the paper). A Ted Hill SPA added a positive fact from this new blog. I, after reading WP:BLPSPS, deleted both. Got reverted by same SPA.

Received angry e-mail from Ted Hill, addressed to my supervisor, and wish to disengage. Can any experienced editor here make sure it complies with WP:BLP? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It's been removed. Do you or your supervisor know Hill personally? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't. I had never heard of him until a friend of mine drew my attention to that opinion stated as fact. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You may want to consider your options under WP:OWH. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I trimmed a little more from that article since it was sourced to an opinion column (verbose, but still clearly an opinion column). XOR'easter (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It's okay to source to opinion (WP:RSOPINION) as long as it's made clear that it is opinion and clearly attributed as such. For example, the entire controversy is because conservative commentators and possibly the subject believe and alleged[18] that the paper was pulled because of political correctness. This should be documented somehow. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION applies only to opinions expressed in WP:RS. A personal blog, even by a notable college professor, is definitely not a WP:RS but a self-published source and the restrictions listed in WP:BLPSPS apply to such blogs. A personal blog of this kind certainly cannot be used as a direct reference for a scientific critique of another scientist's work. If the blog post in question gets discussed in some published source, then some information about the blog post can be included, but not until then. Nsk92 (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

That direction contains BLP issues about people other than Hill, who have been accused in conservative columns of nefarious behavior in pulling Hill's piece, largely on the basis of being female and having an opinion on the piece rather than having been in any position to exert editorial control over it. We should be very careful in providing a platform for this sort of accusation. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Peggy Gou

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

Several controversial statements sourced directly and only from Daniel Wang's recent Facebook posts are being presented as facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.207.9 (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Removed and the poster warned. Page may have to be locked if the edit war continues. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Peter Tufano

hi, Flagging that contentious and irrelevant material has been added to the page, Peter Tufano, a biography of a living person.Nasilemak1973 (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Kay Burley

This article is tagged as having a controversies section which may be compromising its NPOV. The most blatant case here is an alleged story from September 2001 which is cited to a dead link from 2010. This story is denied by the subject https://metro.co.uk/2010/09/13/kay-burley-i-was-surprised-to-see-peter-andre-cry-510520/ and https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/if-i-didnt-have-skin-rhino-i-might-be-offended-why-kay-burley-wont-let-trolls-bring-her-down/ . There are some mentions of this story from December 2001 in lists of quotations from the year, but I am yet to find one from the actual event.

I removed this material and was reverted immediately without an edit summary by a recent changes moderator, who I myself have reverted once. I have no intention of further reverts or 3RR. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Your removal of the Eastern Seaboard quote was correct since assertions of facts were cited to a columnist rather than a news report. I do not understand why you removed[19] the golden retriever story dismissing it as mere twitter outrage and notnews when the Independent reported on it. You should not be weighing the gravity of the controversy, rather the weighing should be about the quality of the sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Mike DeWine

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment inquiry against Mike DeWine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine, some non-notable information in a paragraph claiming that "articles of impeachment were officially issued" was merged into this article, replacing a prior sub-section, and those 3 stand-alone articles.

The same user created all 3, and an off-site "IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION AGAINST OHIO GOVERNOR MIKE DEWINE {UNOFFICIAL WIKI}". URL: https://dewineimpeachmentwiki.weebly.com/.

This has already been the topic of 6 prior sections of the Talk:Mike DeWine to-date. Yet it persists.

In this case, merely filing something doesn't make it "officially issued". It was just a press release. No hearings. Everybody else in the legislature (and the world) condemned it. It stands out as inflammatory grandstanding.

What is our current process for formally removing non-notable nonsense and prohibiting its reinsertion, that isn't an article or a category or a rename or a template XfD? Is this it?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Stating for the record that Senate Bill 311 originally came from impeachment ideas. It was a compromise instead of impeachment...was vetoed by Governor DeWine. Also, William Allen Simpson had a long discussion on this current Afd where he is saying a very clear merge consensus of 6 editors was actually a massive delete consensus. Slightly concerned now that I see this. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Also for the record, the website has been declared on my user page since December 3. I have even talked about it on Talk:Mike DeWine and on the Teahouse. Website is irrelevant in this discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Since s/he has now commented, note that this is the apparently interested party who created the articles, as well as admitting to the off-site replication.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I am slightly worried that he is refusing to accept that multiple editors (counting 7) deem things notable per Afd discussion. I don't know what else to do. The website is declared and I have a high standing in the community as I am the lead coordinator of WikiProject of Current Events. Just wanting to drop that in there. I even have a political blog, which is declared, and people don't care. They allow me to coordinate a major thing like the WikiProject of Current Events as I have proven that I keep Wikipedia and irl things separate. Just making all that known. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment for record. 7 separate editors in this Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine came to a clear consensus with no editors opposing to a merge as the information relating to impeachment efforts are notable for Wikipedia, but not notable enough for stand alone articles. {Also for record. In the Afd discussion, I was the 6th editor to agree to a merge. As stated, I was the article creator.} Elijahandskip (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - We put a little bit of the info-in-question, into the Mike DeWine article. Let's just do the same at the Gretchen Whitmer article. Same treatment for the same situation. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I find it rather uneven though, that we have a sub-section at Whitmer called Impeachment resolution. But we don't have one so named at DeWine. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I honestly believe there should be a subsection for it. I just haven't challenged/started a discussion over that topic. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Dianne Feinstein's health

I'm flagging issues related to how Dianne Feinstein's article covers issues related to her mental health (e.g. a mental decline). The issue has been covered in reliable sources but raises BLP issues.[20][21] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there a talk page discussion on the subject? I generally don't think this stuff should be in the article but Feinstein is a public figure so the policy issues aren't clear to me. I generally think we should err on the side of excluding things like this unless it can be shown to have a real impact on the subject. At the same time if she were to retire tomorrow for health reasons would we keep this material or just say "she retired on [date] for health reasons."? Springee (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

We should never include material about a BLP's mental health unless it is directly from RSes based on mental health assessments by doctors/physicians that have actually evaluated that person and concluded something about their mental health. Everything else is 100% speculation, even if it is from other medical professional otherwise observing the BLP but not actually evaluating that person. It's basically rumormongering. The only time such material would be reasonable is well post-death where the mental state of a person was later deemed part of some change in their life. --Masem (t) 15:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Just came back from Talk:Dianne Feinstein to say the same thing: no discussion on the article talk page. Nothing at User talk:Einsof either. I know that if I wrote something that someone thought might violate BLP I would want to be told about it and given the chance to self-revert rather that it going straight to BLPNB. If brought up on the talk page I would oppose inclusion. Per BLP we don't report the opinions of doctors who have not personally examined the patient in BLPs. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the edits[22] as contentious material in a BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

As long as Donald_Trump#Health remains devoid of issues of mental health, despite wide coverage, IMO other politicians where the coverage is far more muted would be off-limits, too. ValarianB (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

We've heard plenty of stories about Trump & Biden, as well. None of this holds water, unless a person has had an examination & the results are released to prove such a condition. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Ronald Reagan had an examination and was diagnosed, and we reported same. When we see a diagnoses for Trump, Feinstein, ect., we will report that diagnosis. According to HIPAA, the doctors cannot reveal any diagnosis unless the person gives permission -- as various politicians who were diagnosed as not having dementia have done -- or reveals it themselves, as Reagan did in his famous letter. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Strenuously disagree with this interpretation. The practical result of the argument you're making is that we will never discuss a living subject's mental health, under any circumstances, no matter how overwhelming the coverage, unless the subject themselves wants it covered, because under American law (and comparable law in most other first-world nations) it is flatly impossible for sources of the sort you want to ever be released against the subject's will. Obviously BLP requires caution and high-quality sourcing, but setting a bar where we only cover certain things if the subject allows it goes far beyond what is appropriate - we don't do that for other medical issues, for instance, nor for political affiliation, nor for personal beliefs or anything of that nature. There is nothing intrinsically unique about mental health that makes it distinct in this regard - if overwhelming high-quality sourcing treats someone's mental health as a major topic, then we must cover it in our article as well. We might have to attribute things that are said about it, but it doesn't make sense to set the bar for this and this alone in a place where only the article's subject has the power to determine if we cover something about them. This is without regard for if the coverage is good enough for both, just that I feel there is a clear point where high-quality coverage becomes sufficiently overwhelming, and it is sufficiently clear that this is a core element of the topic, that we must cover it no matter how strenuously the article's subject denies it and even if they are taking all legal and practical steps available to them to kill the issue, just as would be the case with any other negative material. BLP is not "never cover any negative material about the subject ever unless they agree to it, fullstop", and your interpretation would effectively put us in that place for mental health. Just to give an example, under your interpretation we could end up in a situation where a major political campaign hinges entirely on a candidate's mental health - where it is nearly the only thing covered about a candidate, consistently, for months on end, followed by a decisive election where nearly all coverage overwhelmingly cites that issue as the sole deciding factor in the election, with multiple historians writing major works about the issue over the next few decades and it having substantial long-term impact on the political and social direction of the country - and we would not be able to cover it at all, on any article, as long as the candidate remained alive and refused to release their medical records. That is absurd and simply not practical; it delves into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory where it feels like you are starting to say that eg. the sources, people, and public that care about that shouldn't care and we ought to ignore them for the greater good. --Aquillion (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not just mental health. Any medical issue. And not just the USA. Anywhere on earth. We have different standards for different kinds of information. The sourcing requirements for "Living person X grew up in Ohio" are pretty loose. The sourcing requirements for "Living person X is gay" are stricter; they must self-identify. The sourcing requirements for "Living person X is a murderer" are quite strict; they must have been convicted of murder and even then we say "convicted of murder" instead of "murderer". And the sourcing requirements for "Living person X has medical condition Y" is that they either self-identity (Ronald Reagan) (page while he was alive) or we have a diagnosis from a medical doctor who has personally examined the patient (Terri Schiavo). (page while she was alive) If you don't like our sourcing standards, feel free to try to get them changed. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you point me to the relevant policy that specifically states these unique medical requirements covering discussion of medical issues for BLPs? I searched BLP repeatedly and could find no mention of it. It certainly does not reflect policy as I understand it - we would not state in the article voice that someone suffers from a particular medical condition, but if there is heavy, high-quality coverage speculating about someone's medical state we have always covered it. eg. health and appearance of Michael Jackson (version from shortly before his death) covered substantial, well-sourced speculation about his health issues, as did his main article. It is rare for such speculation to have enough coverage to meet the standard for WP:BLP and WP:DUE, but we cover it when it does (and Michael Jackson's example shows why; large parts of his bio simply don't make sense if you don't understand the speculation about his health and the ensuing reactions based on that.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe that you are correct. See Wikipedia:Help desk#Health speculation. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It should be apparent that for a living person (taking Feinstein's case here) that speculation on their mental health is attempts at rumormongering and trying to erode support for that person. From a BLP standpoint, that violates a "do not harm" stance. That said, if that becomes a situation in of itself - if there become issues around the fact that Feinstein's health was questioned to a point that she or her office speaks up on it, or similar actions, then we can't really avoid that issue, but we should be written around the controversy and only touch on the health issues enough to establish context.

But if it is just a story or two that touch on someone's health, and the story goes nowhere from that, we should not be adding that. --Masem (t) 04:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, we should not be including stuff like that unless they were examined, in person, and diagnosed. PackMecEng (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course it should be in the article. While we should not speculate, we can and should mention speculation if it is widely reported in reliable sources. We should never second guess the wisdom of mainstream media in what it reports, because they set the standard for what content has weight. Now that it is a widely reported on-going story, experts will weigh in and Feinstein's staff can respond, so that we can fairly present it. Where I would object is if the mainstream media had largely ignored the story and we would be putting to the foreground something that lacked weight. TFD (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the issue comes in at who is a RS for that kind of information? The only ones that can know for sure are doctors that have examined the subject in person. Speculation about the mental or physical health of a BLP can be very problematic and has big NPOV issues as well. It is best to wait until something is confirmed rather than uninformed speculation. PackMecEng (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion illustrated the argument well. The policies justifying inclusion are WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:NFRINGE. We do not need to speculate on a subject's health, but we report on the noteworthy speculation of others. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I think a good example of this coming up was at the Trump article here. Where there was extensive discussions and broad community input on the subject. The closing statement there is a pretty good rundown of the situation. PackMecEng (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

We better get this right in how we handle it, for all bios of living people. With 78-year old Biden, coming in as US President next month? there's a good chance 'mental health' will resurface as a topic. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, I am very familiar with the RfC, but I disagree with the close. The conclusion that "there shall be no paragraph regarding the mental health of Donald Trump" is in my opinion overly broad, because it has the effect of excluding any mention of the public conversation about Trump's mental health, when the focus of the RfC was actually about whether to include information about his mental health. I would understand if the RfC were to exclude text such as, "According to psychologist Dr. Bandy Lee, 'Trump's mental illness is a growing danger'",[23] but I disagree that it would be appropriate to exclude text stating that Trump called himself a "very stable genius" in response to concerns about his mental fitness,[24] or text stating that according to Psychiatric News, "columnists and op-ed writers decided en masse to diagnose [then candidate Donald Trump] with mental illness." Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, if there is a serious extended matter of public conversation around a BLP's mental health to affect their life/career or create major controversy, that would be different. What we want to avoid is the same rumormongering that these types of stories can lead to, in the same manner that celebrity rumors can generate, where the story is repeated but without any analysis or impact. There's a clear line we have to wait for these stories to cross before we should consider them for inclusion. --Masem (t) 06:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. At this point I feel that the discussion about Biden's health only belongs in his 2020 campaign article, and the Feinsein story falls under RECENTISM. That being said, if the reporting about Feinstein is true this story will not go away. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, Again the only way to know it to be true would meet the criteria mentioned by me and others above. Specifically if they were examined, in person, and diagnosed. Which would then not be a problem. Anything short of that is problematic. PackMecEng (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it is true, my point is that if it is true what we can expect is that it will not go away, so we should watch carefully. But the fact that she would not commit to completing her term when asked in response to these concerns tells me that this information should go in the article very soon, as I said below. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, That is not how facts works, truth perhaps but not facts. PackMecEng (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

References

I see the words "diagnose" and "medical condition" come up repeatedly here, but the text in question offers neither of those things: it describes the subject's behavior, which has attracted enough attention that multiple RSs now comment on it. BLPs have this sort of information all the time: the Elon Musk article contains a quote that describes his behavior on a podcast as a sign of "instability"; the Kim Jong-un article repeats observations about his gait; the Britney Spears article directly states she displays "erratic behavior". Those aren't diagnoses or imputations of medical conditions—they're behavioral or physical observations that RSs have made, and we don't need a doctor's go-ahead to include them. As for whether this has sparked a large enough public conversation around the issue, major news organizations have both covered the story and reached out for comment, resulting in Feinstein herself refusing to publicly commit to serving out the remainder of her term. Of course this story is significant. Einsof (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Einsof, She actually did comment when she was asked by CNN if she found the New Yorker aricle to be fair; she said, "No, not particularly. No one talked to me." She also did not commit to completing her term. Considering the coverage I think that even considering RECENTISM we should only wait a fews days, just until the reporting tapers off and we can properly summarize how the story has been presented. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's all fine. But the arguments made earlier that we can't talk about it because of doctors and medical diagnoses are irrelevant, imo. Einsof (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Einsof, I 100% agree that those arguments are not valid to prevent all mention of the subject. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

As this debate continues perhaps we need to ask, why do we need to put this in the article now? Let suppose we say nothing then a year from now the story breaks and it turns out that all the speculations were true and this becomes a breaking story. OK, we put it in then. Conversely, let's suppose that it turns out to be nothing. Well we were right to leave it out. I understand that the Trump articles have created some bad examples as people have worked to jam every negative thing possible into each article. Fortunately not every article is Trump and we can try to be better with other articles. This one included. Springee (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I suspect this kinda topic will gradually take hold at Joe Biden's article. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The story is not going to break "a year from now"—it has already broken. And the policy in WP:PUBLICFIGURE is that If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative. Einsof (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The recent and ongoing issue with respect to Sen. Feinstein relates to the performance of her duties. These can be discussed as appropriate without tagging a diagnosis or psycho-babble terminology. The issue was raised in the 2020 campaign with respect to Joe Biden as part of a narrative to discredit him and promote the now-deprecated narratives of Tara Reade, an accuser. The Trump-labeling was just about unanimously rejected because it would have added nothing but confusion and controversy to an article that seeks to describe, not evaluate the man. The fact is that, even if a public figure is medically diagnosed, as Reagan eventually was, it adds quite little to the narrative of his words and deeds. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Feingold? GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Thinking of Russ Feingold. SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

In terms of the state of the Feinstein story, doing a 30,000 ft look at the state of Google News results, I'm not seeing a reason to include it as we would have it yet, given that we're coming off what appears to be the report from the New Yorker [25] that is the original call highlighting this, and that where it is being repeated are not high-level sources. That is a good article on the impact of social media for US lawmakers, how they have to maintain a presence and avoid showing even medical weaknesses, but that wouldn't be in Feinstein's article yet. Now, if there was some process that was started to remove Feinstein from office for being of poor mental health, then that becomes fairgame, but as ID'd above, we're too soon to judge if this is a RECENTISM issue or not. --Masem (t) 21:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Dana Fischer

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

This person is 10 years old and not a celebrity. Too much private information about the child. Might be a COPPA violation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2801:d035:4cc2:5de5:352e:2f40 (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

You will need to be more specific on the problematic information rather than speculating on COPPA. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a legal expert, but COPPA shouldn't be an issue here, since it's relevant when users are under 13, not just websites that contain information about people under 13. After all, the news articles are online. Gbear605 (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Christine Fang

Media are reporting on an investigation by Axios, which claim a past link or suspected affairs between an possible Chinese spy, congressman Eric Swalwel and several mayors. In Wikipedia, there is now a paraphrasing of the the original article, that is only a few days old. Essentially, most of the information about Christine Fang is based on one Axios report [26] and circumstantial evidence. Fang was followed for potentially being a spy. The only facts were her interest in powerful men and politics. She may have had her own reasons for being involved, as there's no evidence of being directed by the Chinese government, and her attending San Francisco consulate functions were not secret. She was an international student, but her visa wasn't cancelled. There's not even an exit interview. Essentially she was monitored but no case was assembled against her. The only action taken was that Swalwell was advised to cut ties with her. It's possible these scandalous accusations are true, it's more likely she was just an ambitious young woman, trying to make a name for herself. We don't know her real story biographically and the matter will be tied up in salacious partisan politics.

The Wikipedia article has many sources, but as per WP:RESEARCH they are "multiple works that derive from a single source.". WP:RS says "Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source" and WP:RECENT says "editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information". Referenced articles in the SF Chronicle, The Hindustan Times, Cleveland's City Beat, Politico, Fox, CNN and most of the others, specifically say they are basing their information only the Axios report, and each use the term suspected, alleged or reported. Of course, the political reaction around Swalwell will have multiple-sources, but that is irrelevant to the lack of factual and neutral biographical information about Fang. There's no real name, no birthday, no birthplace. Her situation since leaving the US is unknown. I would understand the most relevant policy here is WP:SUSPECT, in that the articles allege a crime, but there's no direct evidence or propositional case about it. Fang would not belong in the List of Chinese spy cases in the United States, none of whom have a biographical article. For the record, I have no link to anyone or any side. Travelmite (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The material meets WP:CRIME and WP:NCRIME, particularly given the prominence of the people involved in her suspected spy operation. Should also be pointed out that the same editor tried a speedy deletion of the article but was insta-reverted Forevertruthsayer (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are advocating for the deletion, your reliance on quotes from WP:RESEARCH and WP:RS are misplaced. RESEARCH cautions against using wikipedia as the sole source for research, but does not guide content on wikipedia. As for WP:RS, the news coverage goes beyond mere wire service articles. The sources collectively are not "essentially a single source" as there is intellectual independence between the writers even if they report or rely on the original single source. See Note 5 of WP:BIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The note says: "Intellectual independence requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work ... A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not." In this case the entirety of the content about Fang is from a single source. Axios says officials suspected her. All other reports say that Axios says officials suspected her. They cannot verify, so they are intellectually dependent. Importantly, even the officials told Axios "suspected". So the chain of events are (1) officials conducted surveillance, but no case was made. (2) Surveillance details were leaked to Axios (3) This became newsworthy because she is suspected of having sex with a famous congressman, which is a real political problem, mentioned on his page. The onus is on the editor, to show encyclopedic notability for Fang. The only certainties are she was president of the student group and helped with fundraising. Everything else is suspected and unverified. Travelmite (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the sources or misunderstanding what you quote. For example, the San Francisco Chronicle article[27] is not a copy of the Axiom article and contains original reporting (intellectual contribution) beyond a summary of the original report. It is obvious with quotes like these "But those Bay Area officials who rubbed shoulders with her told The Chronicle they had only vague memories of the woman in her 20s or 30s who simply stopped showing up to events about five years ago." All other sources that report on fallout from the original report are intellectually independent from Axios because it contains information beyond what Axios reported. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Jubb david

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=David_Jubb&action=edit&section=2&editintro=Template%3ABLP_editintro&vehidebetadialog=1

I AMM DR DAVID JUBB. REMOVE THIS CONTENT AT ONCE PLEASE. THIS IS NOT ACCURATE. I WILL UPLOAD MY OWN BIOGRAPHY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ECLIPSENOWJUBB (talk • contribs) 08:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Please review the wikipedia guidelines about autobiographies and addressing problems with your article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Justin Berry / Death sourcing

Editors are invited to this discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Death of Justin Berry / User:JustinBerry and to review the article Justin Berry for BLP compliance particularly in relation to their death. Note that to avoid splitting the discussion, please either comment at RSN or Talk:Justin Berry, not here. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

VIKTOR SHOKIN FIRED WHILE JOSEPH BIDEN'S SON WAS ON BURISMA'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Someone with rights to remove other people's edits keeps changing this biography to remove references to Hunter Biden have been appointed to the Burisma Board of Directors when his father was Vice President of the USA, and it was only after Hunter joined Burisma that Joe Biden threatened to withhold aid funds from Ukraine unless Ukraine fired Shokin who was then investigating corruption at Burisma. It is impossible to understand Shokin's firing without this factual context.