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.

|- ! colspan="3" style="background: #CAE4FF; font-size: 110%; border: 1px lightgray solid; padding: 0.5rem;" |

Oliver Braddick

Not so much a violation, except to report that Braddick died on 17 Jan 2022. I made the changes to the article, with a reference for the news of his death, but cannot remove the biography-of-a-living-person tag. (I guess this is because I am not an administrator.) Please help.--Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Robert P. O'Shea, I've made the necessary changes. They don't require adminship (I'm not an admin myself), but they can be a bit tricky from a technical point of view for editors who rarely do things involving templates. You may find the script Rater helpful, as it simplifies it to ticking or unticking a couple of checkboxes. Vaticidalprophet 09:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know much about templates myself, but I'd keep in mind that BLP policy still applies to the recently deceased, and can apply for up to two years, so I'm not sure if removing the template may be premature at this point. Zaereth (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

BLP application isn't all-or-nothing and aspects of it apply to the recently deceased under many circumstances, but in the case of a relatively uncontentious article whose subject passed away of natural causes I don't think there's a use case for the tag currently. If the article starts having issues, an appropriate tag can easily be added. Either way, the outright "this is a BLP" tag is inappropriate, and for an article like this where the usual issues that cause the distinction are absent it's not too important whether it has no tag or the "this isn't a BLP but aspects of BLP apply" tag. Vaticidalprophet 10:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Vaticidal, Thanks! So it's as simple as deleting (the unnoticed) "Category:Living people" from the list of categories? If so, it's easy once one knows how. I do take seriously the reservations at least one other editor, although it always struck me that there really are only two sorts of people on that criterion: living and dead. Perhaps in Wikipedia there needs to be three categories: Living, recently dead, and deddybones dead. Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

While I don't see any harm in removing the tag here, I was reminded recently by Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing that the tag isn't just a useful way of informing editors and/or keeping track of relevant articles. It also affects whether the talk page is marked as NOINDEX (reducing the chances search engines will index it so make it findable when using the search engine). That said, our treatment of BLP talk pages is still a little weird since while we noindex the talk pages themselves, once they're archived they generally aren't marked as NOINDEX since they lose the header. Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The latter strikes me as a bigger issue than the former. (Is there any reason not to noindex all of talkspace?) Vaticidalprophet 07:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Jonathan Fletcher

Jonathan Fletcher, a living Church of England clergyman, is facing allegations of abuse and been suspended, in effect, but has not been convicted. A recenty created article fails to give the benefit of the doubt to him. Nedrutland (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed in 2 separate edits the lede and section. As its an acussation, it does not seem to meet the burden of WP:BLP. It is possible a briefer version would be acceptable but the lede statement would not be. Also not sure they are actually notable beyond this one event that likely should not be on wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I see it's already been mightily trimmed down. I've added it to my watchlist, and I'm pondering AFD. Thanks to those who trimmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I can see why you cut as you did and why you're considering AFD. He's a significant, but not central, figure within a certain strand of Evangelical Anglican Christianity that was more important in the 80s and 90s than it is today. Without these allegations he would be less significant than his older brother David who doesn't have an article. You can get some idea of the general background from the article at Titus Trust. The allegations themselves have been very widely reported in a range of reliable sources, but as you note never rose to the level of formal charges, and all actions taken so far have been internal church measures. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't see any alternative to AfD. He's not a public figure and once you strip out the WP:BLPCRIME material there's essentially nothing left. --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Article creator here again - I respectfully disagree. There is significant coverage of the subject in a number of reliable sources, and an independent review confirmed he was engaged in abusive behaviour. This has to make him notable. Ephesians511 (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Nominated at AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed references to JF from Anne Atkins and Emmanuel Church, Wimbledon. Nedrutland (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Given the text of the passage ("Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.") I think we can assume that Ephesians511 is principally here to right great wrongs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, article creator here... firstly, the subject attracted considerable coverage in multiple reliable sources (including major non-tabloid newspapers, not just church ones) over a period of almost two years, which should establish notability. I felt an article under the subject's name rather than "Jonathan Fletcher abuse scandal" was more appropriate, as, prior to the scandal, he was an important figure who was known far beyond his own church. This was mentioned in many of the references I cited. I don't think WP:BLP1E applies as the event (ie the abuse scandal) was significant, as demonstrated by the large amount of press coverage. Secondly, regarding neutrality and WP:BLP issues, I would point out that the subject himself admitting to carrying out beatings, and I cited a source and quoted an extract to make that clear. In addition, a detailed independent review concluded that the behaviour occurred and constituted serious abuse. Again, I cited this and quoted an extract, which included the fact that the subject has not been criminally charged or convicted. This is a slightly unusual case in that someone has committed abuse towards adults but the police have not considered it to be a criminal matter. None of the sources suggest that the abuse did not happen. There are different types of wrongdoing (including abuse) and not everything is criminal. In these circumstances, I think it would contravene MOS:ALLEGED to use words like "alleged", as they create doubt which does not exist (according to the sources). I did try hard to make sure I presented everything from a NPOV and every sentence had a reference to a reliable source. I will await responses before editing the article. Ephesians511 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

As no-one has responded to my comment above, I will do some editing on the article. I plan to return it largely to how it was, but to address the issues identified by others. Ephesians511 (talk)

You should not do that. See all of the discussion above, and read WP:BLPCRIME. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, you reverted my changes whilst I was mid-edit. Please could you give me the chance to fix the article. Regarding the content in the lede you reverted, it said

In 2019, it was reported that complaints of "spiritual abuse" and "naked beatings" had been made against him. Whilst he was not charged with, or found guilty of, any criminal offences, an independent review published in 2021 found that he had engaged in a range of harmful behaviours.

That was a good faith attempt to fix the concerns identified above. The first sentence about complaints were referenced with articles in the Daily Telegraph and Church Times, both reliable sources. The second sentence included a clear statement that there was no criminality involved (so BLP:CRIME is not engaged. However, an independent review from a recognised safeguarding charity found the subject was "engaged in a range of harmful behaviours" and that has to count as a reliable source. Overall, I believe the lede represented the sources from a NPOV. Ephesians511 (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

They are accusations of criminal conduct against a person who is otherwise not notable. If the only reliable secondary sources you can find deal with the accusations then the article should not even exist, and the accusations certainly should not be in the article while it's waiting for deletion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I am shocked at the failure to understand BLP shown here. Stop all the whitewashing. This deletion of properly-sourced content is especially worrying. (Here's a small part of it and this isn't all the abuse:

This section of the scope focuses on harmful behaviour and demonstrates evidence of spiritual abuse, bullying, coercion and control, naked massages and saunas, forfeits including smacking with a gym shoe and ice baths. There is also a serious incident involving a sexual act performed in front of someone that has been reported. The impact of these behaviours on a number of individuals caused harm and many will live with this impact in the long term. SOURCE:

It is only "unsourced" negative content that is a BLP concern, not such properly-sourced content. I see a concerted effort to delete properly sourced content about his proven abuses. The parallels to a similar article are interesting, and it is also undergoing whitewashing: John Smyth (barrister). These deletions are improper and reveal an abuse of BLP. We are supposed to document these things if they are mentioned in more than a couple RS, and they certainly are. See WP:Public figure. -- Valjean (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that a vicar meets the threshold for being a public figure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The number of RS dealing with this makes him a notable public figure. Without that he's just a public figure. This isn't just about one event, but a pattern of abuse over many years. -- Valjean (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources don't make someone a public figure, they make someone notable. Someone with a high rank in the clergy, or a position as a spokesperson would be a public figure, but being the vicar of a parish doesn't meet that bar. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

People also become notable for other reasons than their position. This man's long pattern of abuse made him notable. We're not dealing with someone notable only for a single event. That would be different. -- Valjean (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Alleged long pattern of abuse, which is allegations with no convictions against someone who isn't a public figure or otherwise notable. That's the kind of thing we don't document. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Convictions are not always necessary, especially when other investigations have proven the abuse. Even if there were no such evidence, the fact that the accusations have been so public makes this a matter covered by the principle behind WP:Public figure, and the air should be cleared by exposure of the facts, not burying and whitewashing them. That's what we do here. This is part of the "sum total of human knowledge" we are supposed to document, as long as it's found in RS, and this is. -- Valjean (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not how being a public figure works. A public figure is a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely of concern to the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society. A local vicar is does meet that threshold. I know that quote is from Wikipedia, and thus isn't reliable, so there's also A public figure, according to Gertz v. Robert Welch, is an individual who has assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of a society or thrust themselves into the forefront of particular public controversies to influence the resolution of the issues involved. Public figures also include individuals who have achieved pervasive fame or notoriety.[1] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That his "career" was impacted by the allegations does need to be documented, but there's far far too much detail and pull quotes to support that section, particularly with the unclear conclusion that was made. There's maybe a 3-4 sentence paragraph from all that, not the major section there. --Masem (t) 17:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It's currently difficult to assess this because of all the whitewashing going on. Lots of properly sourced content has been removed. Whitewashing is one of the most egregious types of NPOV violation there is. It needs to stop. How we deal with the accusations, the findings that document the offenses, etc. is a matter for us to deal with, but deletion of the article isn't a proper resolution, and neither is the complete hagiography we see now. -- Valjean (talk)

The only RS I see is one Telegraph article. --Masem (t) 17:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That's because of the whitewashing. Just this one diff (then deleted in a gross act of whitewashing, so check the next diff) shows other RSes. -- Valjean (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, If you have an accusation to make then make it at ANI. There was no white washing. There was complying with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:DUE. Now kindly stick to the topic and not make another acussation of other editors motives, especially clueless and uninformed ones as you have done several times in this thread and AfD. Slywriter (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow! Don't personalize this. Whitewashing is a commonly used description for deletions of properly-sourced content and sources when it leaves only one side of the issue visible, and the article looks like a hagiography. That's also a violation of NPOV. Motives do not have to be an issue, just different understandings of how to apply policies, and that's what we're discussing here. So please stick to content and not the motives of editors. -- Valjean (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a loaded term that implies intentional censorship, but we will go with your definition of relating it to content. Regardless, the article looks like a hagiography because he shouldn't have an article in the first place and the only BLP compliant information is rather boring and unencyclopedic details.Slywriter (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I was looking at the RSes in that diff, but I see there's more sources outside of that diff from the Telegraph that relate to it. But the PDFs are definitely not RSes in terms of "wide coverage" aspects here. The only source we have covering this is the Telegraph at this point, even with multiple articles. --Masem (t) 18:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Walking With's home page clearly makes them self-published (and with an axe to grind). Anything to do with them, negative or otherwise, is completely out per WP:BLPSPS. FDW777 (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Livingchurch.org [2] also doesn't seem to be acceptable for claims about a BLP. The Christian Today source[3] is identified as commentary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The Final Review is certainly a RS. We could easily source it to Thirtyone:eight, which is "the UK's only independent Christian safeguarding charity." Lessons learnt review concerning Jonathan Fletcher and Emmanuel Church Wimbledon . -- Valjean (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The Final Review is the equivalent of a judicial document and while we can use that to state a final conclusion (such as if they convicted him), we should not be sourcing that without help of a reliable third party to make claims about SPS. That charity is not a reliable RS for that purpose. We'd want something like the Telegraph to quote the Final Review to include such quotes within our article, otherwise it allows WP editors to pick and chose language to make the BLP as ugly or as clean as they want. --Masem (t) 18:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That's correct. -- Valjean (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't see how an "independent review" cannot be a reliable source in these circumstances. It's not self-published, either - the website that hosts it is not the author. And any extract has to be an accurate summary of what it concluded. But was picked up by the media, and I can add cites for that. Ephesians511 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You cannot use any documents hosted by self-published sources for claims about living people. FDW777 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@FDW777: This is not true, see WP:BLPSELFPUB. ––FormalDude talk 18:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is true in the current context. Since the websites in question are not run by Fletcher, they cannot be used for any claims about him. FDW777 (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we'd need to find a secondary RS and summarize what they say about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The press releases in PDF format are from the church and diocese, which count as reliable primary sources, allowed under WP:PRIMARY point 3. They support the secondary sources from major news media (Church Times as well as Telegraph, I have others to add). The independent review is a reliable secondary source, no matter what website it is on. 18:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Ephesians511 (talk)

Also, I found a better quote from the review (p.89) which is crystal clear: (emphasis mine)

From the evidence-gathering process of this Review, it is clear that JF engaged in a range of harmful behaviours that have been experienced by a number of people, through demonstrative accounts including a serious sexual act performed in front of another person, spiritual abuse, bullying, coercion and control, naked massages and saunas, and forfeits including smacking with a gym shoe and ice baths. The impact of these behaviours on a number of individuals has understandably caused great harm and many will live with this impact in the long-term.

I did include that in my edit today that got reverted.

Also note that BLP:CRIME is not involved. That doesn't mean we can't include the above finding of harm/abuse as it comes from a WP:RS. As far as WP:DUE is concerned, all the sources are about the subject's abuse. I was planning to include a statement from him to give full balance, but it's hard to edit when your work keeps getting reverted! Ephesians511 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOR does not operate in isolation from WP:BLP. If BLP says something can't be used, that's it, period. FDW777 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I cannot see how anything I have ever added to this article amounted to original research. Some BLP concerns had been identified which I was going to fix before this edit war started.Ephesians511 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

What?! You are the editor who said allowed under WP:PRIMARY point 3. WP:PRIMARY is part of WP:NOR. FDW777 (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Per WP:BLPUNDEL, I have repaired the content that ScottishFinnishRadish removed for BLP objections. I believe my version is policy compliant. ––FormalDude talk 18:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think the Christian Today source is a no-go, as it's clearly labeled as commentary, and Livingchurch.org does not seem to be an acceptable source for claims about a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Just so others know, those sources were not part of the BLP objections, they were just additional sources I added afterwards.

  @ScottishFinnishRadish: I'll remove the Christian Today source due to being op-ed. I'll need some evidence as to why The Living Church is not acceptable, as it seems reliable and independent. ––FormalDude talk 18:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  This doesn't inspire confidence about livingchurch.org. No editorial or fact checking policy, and a definite non-news objective. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  This says As publishers, teachers, and servant leaders, we pledge ourselves to produce excellent independent news reporting, incisive commentary, and edifying scholarship for a broad audience of thoughtful Christians. It seems to me they're a well-established publisher. It doesn't look like The Living Church has ever been discussed at WP:RSN, so we may wish to do that. ––FormalDude talk 19:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  And there's no visible difference between independent news reporting, incisive commentary, and edifying scholarship. There's no visible difference between this and this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  There is a visible difference, the former is tagged as news while the latter is tagged as a feature. ––FormalDude talk 19:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I only used the Christian Today ref to confirm that (1) the subject was an influential leader (2) the subject has an elder brother also in Christian ministry, and (3) that there were parallels with another related case of an abusive church leader. I can't see how that is problematic, and "commentary" is consistent with WP:SECONDARY - A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. It's not an WP:SPS and the author is a christian journalist so hopefully an expert. I never added livingchurch.org but it strikes me as a reliable secondary source Ephesians511 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Regardless of sourcing, that writeup is definitely more appropriate to what should summarize the sources given the lack of more mainstream coverage. --Masem (t) 19:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Concur. I still think that the article should be deleted, but at least it's not a full-on hit piece now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Phil Anselmo

in the beginning of the article it says "Anselmo is regarded as one of the greatest frontmen in metal history,[3][4][5][6] known for being particularly animated and donning a machismo attitude that became emblematic of the general theme of Pantera." it is an opinion that he is animated, and it is frankly not true or additive to the article, it would be better if it was something like "Anselmo is regarded as one of the greatest frontmen in metal history,[3][4][5][6] known for donning a machismo attitude that became emblematic of the general theme of Pantera." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.222.215.118 (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

None of the sources in that sentence mention Anselmo being "particularly animated"—but they also don't mention the "machismo attitude". I'm no expert but I've seen a handful of videos and both statements seem obvious to me. I will note that there's been no discussion about this at Talk:Phil Anselmo. I suggest starting a thread there, where editors would presumably be more familiar with sourcing. Woodroar (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Narcis Tarcau

Hello, BLPN regulars,

I don't frequent this noticeboard and I hope that editors who review pages like this can give a definite thumbs up or thumbs down on this article. My sense is that this article should be deleted, as the entire focus is negative, but I wanted to hear from you all about whether the Guardian article about the sexual abuse allegations is sufficient to mention them or if multiple reliable sources are called for in this situation. Thanks for any feedback you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

As it stands it is an attack page with reports of allegations but no convictions. I suggest it be deleted until criminal convictions are revealed. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC).

Nope. My motivation t write this articel was not to attack Narcis Tacau, but the reports of and accusations of sexual assault are obvers. So, there is no way to hide them. But I will work on the point, that there has been no conviction. --Bestof2022 (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

If you continue not to follow WP:BLPCRIME you could be blocked from editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC).

Instead of threaten me, it would make more sence to rewrite the articel in WP:BLPCRIME confirm way!--Bestof2022 (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Liz, can you help me in discribing, what I can improve in the named articel. Thanks, best --Bestof2022 (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That article should absolutely be G10'd. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I had tagged it as a G10 because it seemed like an attack page since it was completely focused on the accusations of sexual assaults, rather than as a biography of the person. I could not find any reports of a conviction. I see now that the article is tagged for notability. Netherzone (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The only reason I haven't brought it to AfD is that I'm waiting to see if it gets G10'd. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Have to agree I don't think there's a salvagable article nor is one possible and it would be best just to G10 it. Nil Einne (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Have created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narcis Tacau. The G10 was removed (which is how we landed here), and the article has been stubbed, so I've erred to the side of a nomination. Vaticidalprophet 02:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The WP:BLPCRIME content has been restored by MMc. Can we get the G10 yet? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish WP:BLPCRIME is not relevant for this article because WP:BLPCRIME is only relevant for "individuals not covered by § Public figures" and Narcis Tacau is a public figure as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures : "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." MMc (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

How is a yoga teacher that was in a single episode of a netflix show a "public figure?" Per Wikipedia, A public figure is a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely of concern to the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society. And per Cornel Law School, A public figure, according to Gertz v. Robert Welch, is an individual who has assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of a society or thrust themselves into the forefront of particular public controversies to influence the resolution of the issues involved. Public figures also include individuals who have achieved pervasive fame or notoriety. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted again and Mmc is advised not to re-add without consensus.Slywriter (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Narcis Tarcau is the founder of an internationally-known yoga school, presents himself as a guru to thousands of people across multiple countries via in-person teachings, YouTube videos and more, and has had articles written about him by The Guardian, The New Zealand Herald, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, The Daily Mail (UK), the Bangkok Post and many more. I think he clearly qualifies as having "a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely of concern to the public". MMc (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Javonte Green

I'm not seeing the Montenegro connection. What's up with that? Thanks, Dean Ennes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.21.76.45 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Mercola

Valjean has reverted my removal of an article by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch from Joseph Mercola [4]. Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Quackwatch and the 2019 RfC, articles written by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch are self-published. Valjean justified the restoration of content by saying When attributed to Barrett, the statement is perfectly fine as he's a subject matter expert, and his attributed opinions can be cited just like any other attributed opinion. I read WP:BLPSPS as prohibiting all content from self-published sources being used on BLP articles. Can I have a second opinion? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. is pretty clear. There is no caveat for the opinions of experts published in SPS. WP:RSOPINION says There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this, but I believe WP:Parity comes into play for fringe topics, and Mercola is definitely fringe. Isn't this a legit exception? -- Valjean (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. The article already has Chicago Magazine, WaPo, Chicago Tribune, UMASS Law Review, The Guardian, etc. We're not dealing with a WP:PARITY situation because we already have better quality sources dunking all over the guy like Shaq dunking on the entire New York Nets. We have four ((4)IV)) primary sourced FDA letters telling him to stop saying his supplements cure things. That is the parity of sourcing, as normally we wouldn't be including primary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right. I got tunnel vision. -- Valjean (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see these Barrett-related disputes getting resolved quickly. The COVID pandemic has created much more interest in quakery and health-related conspiracies, resulting in better coverage that we've had in the past. Hopefully we can use the new references now available where before we used Barrett. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand, but Barrett still gives the best coverage and plenty of RS. -- Valjean (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

moshe reuven azman

after a look online i saw that ukraine had a chief Rabbi of ukraine until 2008 (rabbi azriel chaykin) (Hebrew Wikipedia ) and al the rabbis in ukrain went against him saying that hi is the rabbi of ukrain

(Hebrew jewish news)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach own (talk • contribs) 22:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC) 

References

Dan DiMicco

In the interest of transparency I am writing this on behalf of Dan DiMicco to resolve an issue with accuracy on the article about him. I hope someone can help resolve this issue and thanks in advance for taking the time!

The article on Dan DiMicco currently lacks the sources to support some of the more provocative claims in the article. The current wording in the Charlotte Independence section of the page summarises issues which arose in response to DiMicco’s activity on twitter. I have a few concerns about the current wording of the article which I hope can be resolved without making radical changes.

Firstly, this section is worded to suggest that DiMicco holds racist views, a claim which demands better sourcing on a BLP. While there was a reaction to the twitter activity that DiMicco posted, the source tweets are not available online, and there is no reliable source which confirms they spread racist conspiracy theories. Currently, the only sources provided do not contain the original, unaltered material in question, and are of varying quality as citations. I looked into other available sources which have a confirmed editorial process and these sources only confirm that the tweets spread misinformation on the riots, Covid, and 2021 election, not that they contained explicitly racist content (see https://www.ft.com/content/c371fe7b-4b4f-4a8a-9190-dfdeac9d1cc5 and https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2021/09/09/plot-thickens-for-sale-of-charlotte-independence.html ). Even if we do take the claims of messages about Soros, Antifa, and the CCP at face value, these are not races but a person, organisation and a political party, and to conflate the disinformation spread as racist is to mischaracterise the beliefs DiMicco actually holds.

Secondly, there is technically no official supporters’ group (though various fan groups do exist) and the statements/actions they have taken are only supported by citations from twitter, which is not usually a strong enough source to be the only citation. The reactions to these tweets indicate that they didn’t draw much engagement, so some of the supporter groups’ actions should be removed on notability grounds.

I am not looking to dramatically change the article, but my suggested rewording for the section is below:

In 2018, DiMicco bought a majority stake in the soccer club Charlotte Independence, that plays in the USL Championship, the second tier of the American soccer pyramid.[7] Following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, DiMicco sent out a series of tweets about the protests blaming subsequent riots on "Antifa", George Soros and the Chinese Communist Party. DiMicco was also accused of spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and false claims of election fraud. Some supporters of the club responded strongly to these statements, with the Independent Supporters Council issuing a statement urging the league to "take action" against him.[8] [and add https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2021/09/09/plot-thickens-for-sale-of-charlotte-independence.html as a further source]

On March 29, 2021, the club announced that several owners, including DiMicco, were "in the process" of selling their ownership stakes[9] but appear "in no rush" to do so.[10]

Please do compare it to the original and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for your time and I hope the above satisfies Wikipedia’s need for unbiased, neutral content. Floresfire (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have access to the Financial Times source, but that, the Bizjournals source and this ESPN piece are probably the only sources fit for use in a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I tweaked the article based on the Financial Times source (which I could read), the ESPN source, and this one from The Athletic. Only minor changes were needed. I would disagree with several of the changes suggested above, such as adding weasel wording such as 'was also accused of' and referring to the protests as 'riots'. - MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I made a bit of an adjustment after your edits, using ESPN as the source for the backlash from some supporters and the Independent Supporters Council, rather than just the ISC tweet. I also dropped the appear "in no rush" from the last sentence, since it didn't seem to add much. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick note, the below citations look to be in reference to a different request above, so I'll just add in a break Floresfire (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

———

List of stage names

List of stage names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Re: Wikipedia's "List of stage names"

I have in my PC about 18000 stage names + birth names, i.e. approximately twice as much as are listed now on Wikipedia. What is the best way to upload this, because it would mean that the present list would have to be deleted.

Also, by uploading this list, which does include names of 'celebrities' that are deceased, there are a few things that would immediately be resolved, i.e. my list is purely alphabetical, whereas the Wikipedia list that is now viewable is not. It does not have an A or B or C list. It is one long list, alphabetically sorted on the surname of the celebrity's stage name, or when only one single name is used, this name is within the alphabetical order. Within the list that is shown at present on Wikipedia, there are a few mistakes. These do not appear in my list.

So, what can you recommend I should do ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imthechief (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be for the best if you added them to the existing list in small groups, making sure to cite each entry to a reliable source. Also, this should probably be discussed at Talk:List of stage names, rather than this noticeboard. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, am I the only one concerned that the currently list is actually completely unsourced? Many of these may be sourced in articles, which of course isn't sufficient anyway, but I just removed one where the link is actually to a list i.e. the person is apparently not notable so the alleged birth name is unsurprisingly unsourced. This seems to be a major WP:BLPNAME risk to me. Nil Einne (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I gave up on list articles about 20 minutes after I started editing, except for the most blatant BLP issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Second ScottishFinnishRadish on list articles like this being pretty much unfixable, it took close to 100 edits over multiple years for me to get List of modern armament manufacturers purged and stable. Not sure its even a surmountable task with something as pop culture as stage names. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

While a lot of list articles, have problems IMO there's minor problems then there'a major problems. For example, I'd consider anything in list of modern armanent manufacturers a minor problem since I don't see how there can be any real BLP risk from that list. All lists which including living persons do have BLP risk, but there's a difference in severity.

There was a list of criminals or something that came up last year which is an obvious high risk. List of pornographic performers by decade is another one. That's also unsourced which isn't ideal but at least we removed most of the non notable ones. (The list is only blue links, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are redirects e.g. to lists like the one I removed.)

List of stage names seems to fit into the high risk category as well, and frankly IMO probably higher risk than the pornographic performers one when unsourced. If you've been dealing with BLP issues for a while, you've probably come across those who insist we need the birth/real name of people who use a pseudonym/stage name even when the sources aren't there. This can including trying to use trademark applications and other primary sources to prove the real name. Worse still are people using forums, shit like Porn Wikileaks and similar.

I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of people have removed poorly sourced or unsourced real names from our articles on the person, not realising it persists in that list article. Requiring sources in the list wouldn't prevent poorly sourced additions, but at least barring those who lie about what their citations say, it would make it easier to glance through the list and look for obvious problems like that.

The example I removed is one where I feared this might be the case. Looking into it more the alleged birth name is on IMDB (as an alternative name) which has more info suggesting to to me our inclusion of the name was not that big a deal. However I'd be hardly surprised if there are bigger problems in the list and we shouldn't play any part no matter how small in the subculture dedicated to doxing/exposing the real names of people when it is not well established in reliable sources [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

BTW, while my earlier examples involve (almost exclusively female) pornographic performers and similar where it tends to be a big problem it's not the only area where people for whatever reason prefer that their real names aren't associated with their stage name. I dealt with a case I think last year involving a notable singer where the name wasn't at the time well covered in reliable secondary sources. If the name is widely cited in reliable sources and they are notable, we probably can't help. But the issue is while the list is relying on citations in the linked articles, it very hard to see if there is a problem.

P.S. To be clear, I'm not saying most people adding such names are trying to dox or expose anyone. The problem is that this subculture exists which get the real name out there, and then well meaning people try to add it while not understanding our sourcing requirements and also either not realising or not carrying about the consequences. E.g. I'm sure the OP means well but unless they were very careful in how the made their list, I strongly suspect it does cover some such examples. Even in the sources I provided earlier, it seems clear some of those involved efforts to dox are on some sort of moralistic crusade (I didn't include [12] because of it was of limited relevance but it's one extreme example), while others have more mundane motivations.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This list seems like a WP:SALAT fail as an overly broad list. I might take this to AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Francis Bourgeois (trainspotter) real name yet again

This is a continuation of my previous discussion.

It seems like sources like the Rolling Stone and Variety have started to use the supposed real name of Francis. Do you think it's safe to add? wizzito | say hello! 21:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Having had a look on Google news, it does appear to have been widely used by reliable sources. Not seeing a BLP issue including it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Steven Crowder

Steven Crowder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is a procedural request based on WP:BLPKINDNESS: The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. - (As many may be aware, there is an ANI thread relevant to this report.)
The article subject has raised concerns on the talk page of their article about NPOV, specifically that they do not believe this content is backed by a subject-matter expert. Other editors expressed that this content was considered to be backed as an expert voice, as Bloomberg (a reliable source) quoted the individual. Kingoflettuce has now asserted that the content violates WP:NPOV by being “textbook WP:UNDUE” and challenged the inclusion of the content via reversion. It was then added back by Aquillion and FDW777 who assert the content is DUE. Given this is a highly contentious matter (regarding an individual who [verifiably] is contentious) I feel that ArbCom’s request that we take an article subject’s concerns seriously (no matter how we feel about them) requires more eyes on this matter for a final decision. - I myself hold no opinion on this matter, and am neutral on the content being re-included. But, I’ll note that WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPSTYLE are both likely relevant here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There's no problem with the long standing content, other than Coffee's repaeated attempts to circumvent consensus. FDW777 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Related discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Steven_Crowder_YouTube_video. The article subject didn't so much 'raise concerns' as use a sockpuppet account to attack their critics. - MrOllie (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks due to me, but can we get some clarification on whether the challenge is to the entire bit or just to the use of a direct quote? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: My understanding is the article subject challenges the use of a direct quote, and Kingoflettuce disputes the use of the bit altogether. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'm always a fan of rephrasing direct quotes from red ink people. Kingoflettuce is coming out of left field as long as I'm concerned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I refrain from getting involved in tedious discussions and this feels like it may devolve into one. But, consensus, consensus, it's established content, yada yada, give me a break. And to be clear, as I already noted in the Crowder talk page, I think there's a case to be made for the stuff to be reincluded in a proper section (assuming one can be drummed up). But if that "researcher"'s opinion is the best you have... Also the stuff about aggressive Asian-ness is probably fine and seems to have been added recently. Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I just hope and pray that somebody can point out how flawed FDW777's argument is: "Going by the access dates, it's been in the article since October 2020 therefore it has consensus by default. There's no need to re-achieve consensus for inclusion every time someone comes along and removes it." Yawn... Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion this matter should be discussed once the ANI thread has been resolved. This seems like a very nuanced edge case in the BLP guidelines. Note WP:BLPKINDNESS states Edits like these by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns. I think it is important to wait for community consensus on how to deal with Crowder's edits and his subsequent video in order to properly determine if they've been allowed to express their concern or if there are other motivations than just sourcing issues. Note that there is WP:NODEADLINE, and so removing the relevant content until concerns are resolved or evaluated by the community either through the ANI thread or here is the wise choice of action. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to wait for the ANI thread to be resolved before we deal with this. Even if Crowder is banned, this doesn't mean we will ignore his concerns. It simply means he cannot express them on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Nil Einne, especially since most of the "Oppose" !votes at ANI rest on WP:DENY, either explicitly or implicitly. If there is community consensus that this is bad-faith trolling, WP:BLPKINDNESS may not really apply. Generalrelative (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this looks like questionable content. My first concern is that this is an example of a "sound bite" sort of quote. It's not a quote with a lot of substance, instead it's a subjective opinion and in this case of a person who's qualifications to offer it are not clear. Yes, Bloomberg decided to quote her but that doesn't raise her to the status of expert, at least not to the point where we should include such a damning claim regarding racism (a very charged term) in a BLP. Regarding if Lewis is an expert, well the Bloomberg article only mentions her once and it seems only for the sake of including this alarming quote. Concerns that readers may assume she is a well established expert vs a 20 something grad student offering an opinion is an issue. It doesn't say anything about her research or why she feels the way she does. It doesn't offer examples etc. I agree with Coffee's concerns, especially since this is a BLP and we need to err on the side of not including harmful, subjective accusations. Springee (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Kingoflettuce (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

How much of a subbject matter expert does one need to be to determine whether Crowder's content is racist or not? What qualifications are needed? FDW777 (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

First, that question and it's answer doesn't address all of the concerns I raised. Second, more than the views of a random grad student. Springee (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a random grad student, an expert that was cited by Bloomberg. On Wikipedia we define an expert as someone 'whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications' - this is a person who, besides being quoted by Bloomberg, has peer-reviewed publications on harassment on Youtube, including one that specifically discusses harrassment by Crowder. MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the topic harassment or racism? If her expert views are so notable why didn't Bloomberg ask her for more evidence or facts. What we have is her opinion, not evidence. That's not good justification for including a quote that is strong in hyperbole but contains no facts or evidence. It's an appeal to emotion rather than fact and a poor style for an article that wants to be encyclopedic. Springee (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If you read the source I linked, it was both. And it isn't up to us to second guess a reliable source like Bloomberg - whatever additional evidence or facts they got from her they seem to have been satisfied, and that ought to be enough for us. MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Bloomberg attributed only that single quote to her. The rest of the article didn't attribute facts/evidence to her research. Also, it very much is the up to editors to discuss how much weight should be given to claims even in generally RSs like Bloomberg. No source is always reliable and more critically, WP:V says that verifiable is only one part of inclusion. Springee (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Springee, I think you just made the case, albeit accidentally, that we should include more of this subject matter expert's analysis about Crowder than we currently do. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk)

Just commenting on one part: Yes, Lewis is a reliable source for harmful speech, extremism, and not-so-extremism on YouTube. Her research on the Alternative Influence Network (see here, also mentions Crowder, incidentally) is well known and a number of publications have cited as well as built on it directly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's an issue with the quote from Lewis from the Bloomberg article, but I do think it is rather inappropriate that from the same Bloomberg article there's no additional comments from ChowderCrowder himself in response to those statements that are included. (Even within the same paragraph from the Bloomberg article they give ChowderCrowder space to comment on the statements from Lewise). That's an NPOV issue on a BLP page. You don't have to give more than a sentence, but not to allow's ChowderCrowder's own stance, covered by an RS, to be there too, is a problem. --Masem (t) 15:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Masem, your autocorrect may be going a little wacky, or you're subconsciously hungry -- Crowder, not Chowder. :) I agree that the subject's stance should be included. Zaathras (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That's my own typo, my bad. --Masem (t) 19:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

So long as everyone is here, I noticed this text [13] (restored in another edit) that includes, "...Crowder's YouTube videos were put under review over his repeated use of racist and homophobic slurs against journalist Carlos Maza". This seems exactly like the sort of material that shouldn't be in Wiki voice. Based on the Wiki article Youtube found that Crowder wasn't engaged in sanctionable activates and thus I would assume wasn't engaged in "racist and homophobic" speech. The general content seems DUE to me but the specific telling looks like a violation of IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Quoting from the article in American Behavioral Scientist, which I linked above: In May 2019, Maza called attention to Crowder’s harassing content when he tweeted a compilation of Crowder calling him a “lispy queer” and an “anchor baby,” among other slurs. - MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't that claim attributed? What counts as "racist" and "homophobic" is variable and depends on context etc. Since YT decided this wasn't sanctionable we have to assume they didn't agree with Maza's claims. Given the claims being made this should be attributed. That is a pretty fundamental rule for a BLP. Springee (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's not open for debate whether such slurs are racist or homophobic. Are you fucking kidding me? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

"Anchor baby" and "lispy queen" are offensive but I'm not sure if they are necessarily racist/homophobic. It's not very befitting of somebody to rail against such slurs anyway and then ending your statement with an expletive. Let's keep it civil... Kingoflettuce (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That was shock, not incivility. It's hard to assume good faith from someone with a comment like that. To be clear, these are objectively racist and homophobic slurs. It's pretty much impossible to characterize them otherwise, and it seems in bad faith for an editor to argue otherwise. If we can't agree on something as basic as this, that's utterly ridiculous. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

My bad, I misread "queer" as "queen". That does seem undeniably homophobic, nonetheless the point stands that it should be presented in a BLP-compliant way. Kingoflettuce (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree, of course. And while this is a tired refrain, that's what reliable source are for. We let them speak for us. While we present it neutrally, watering it down too much can amount to white-washing. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

We still follow BLP policies. Context matters. We should use RS to state in their view what happened and what the controversy was. We should not state things in Wiki voice that could lead a reader to a false conclusion. It seems very unlikely that Crowder would have remained on YT if his comments were direct, racist, homophobic attacks as the sentence suggests. BI is not likely sympathetic to Crowder but it does suggest this isn't quite so black and white [14]. Again, claims like this need to be attributed and impartial. Springee (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, IMO the text is fine. If one wants to include some sort of rebuttal from Crowder himself, also fine. But the man is already described as a utilizer of racist and homophobic slurs in the lead, so let's not get too far into the weeds of his self-defense of his words. Zaathras (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That's circular since the lead refers to this incident. Springee (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No. The lead summarizes the body. There are already details in the body the article regarding Crowder's troubles with racist and homophobic content targeting Carlos Maza. The wrongly-detailed content was an analysis, along with an example of other problematic content. Zaathras (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The text is fine; it's well-sourced and clearly relevant. This is WP:CRYBLP from a troll. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Your edit summary is such a disingenuous and flimsy side-stepping of the real concerns here. Nobody is disputing that these ARE "factual" quotes from "reliable sources"--it's whether or not they are cobbled together in a way that does not conform to BLP standards. With all due respect, I think the likes of Coffee have a tad more experience than you. WP:CRYCRYBLP is equally as applicable too. Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Admins aren't super-users, they do not have a greater voice in a content discussion than you, I, or the user above. Tone it down a notch or two. ValarianB (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Kingoflettuce there is no need for that kind of animosity on this noticeboard. We're all here to improve global access to free, quality information. Criticizing someone's argument based on the time they've spent on wiki does not help this discussion progress. There's neither a hierarchy nor authority between editors except that we all must work under consensus. Please, I'd appreciate if you reworded your statement in a way that's more constructive towards further discussion.

NorthBySouthBaranof I'd appreciate if you expanded on CRYBLP, as I feel you might use the wikilink as an easy substitute for your full argument. As can be seen by the ANI thread this is quite a contentious and complex issue, so giving your full, comprehensive thoughts will be much more helpful than just referencing an essay and calling the job done.

I hope neither of you see this message as passive-aggressive, just trying to find some common ground here :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: Santa, my reference to one user's relative inexperience was preceded by a matter-of-fact explanation as to how he was misrepresenting the argument being made. As has been noted below, nobody is disputing that Bloomberg news is an RS. However, I am evidently not alone in feeling that the presentation of the information leans towards UNDUE and is therefore a BLP violation. Moreover, I think that insinuating that we are trolls or time-wasters is an actual form of animosity, so hopefully you can let them know that there is no need for such animosity. Indeed, we are all here as volunteers working to build a better free encyclopedia so I'll continue to do that and express my views as I have been doing. I do not believe that I've engaged in any personal attacks thus far and am merely latching onto arguments (or assertions) that others have made. At the same time, it is not unreasonable to assume that admins, by virtue of having earned their adminship, would have a better grasp of policy especially in a contentious scenario like this. And Valarian, I do not appreciate the condescension of being told to "tone it down a notch or two". Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thats not condescension its genuine advice which I will repeat for your sake, please "tone it down a notch or two" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

And people get a pass for assuming bad faith and calling others trolls?! I don't need your "genuine advice", I'd rather you work on the Crowder article and directly engage with the policy-based arguments that have been made, instead of being on the tone brigade. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Lots of people have discussed this issue and multiple users have expressed the opinion that you are wrong. Your option here is to open an RFC, not to remove longstanding, impeccably-sourced material from a biography citing nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Article subjects and their sockpuppets do not get veto power over content in their biographies. If you think the material is WP:UNDUE, then your remedy is to open an RFC and gain consensus that it is undue. Your personal opinion does not have special authority. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof I forgot to include it in my previous statement, but I would like to extend a friendly reminder that labeling other editors as trolls, unless clearly backed by evidence, is not assuming good faith on their part. As the message is unclear as to who you are labeling a troll it adds fuel to a fire that does not need being lit, as it could be any of the editors you are disagreeing with. I understand that other discussions on this topic, whether in the article's talk page or ANI, are being highly contentious and stressful for all, but us using words like troll will only make establishing a consensus on this issue on this noticeboards ever more difficult. Let's all turn the page, Kingoflettuce and NorthBySouthBaranof, and get back to discussing the content aspects of the article that may or may not violate BLP guidelines. Additionally, I will remind the thread here that if necessary, dispute resolution is an option in case editors here believe having a moderator would benefit the discussion here. I don't necessarily think that is the case right now, but just thought I'd add the reminder :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Santa :) Now, there seems to be a little dispute as to whether the contentious material should stay up or not while the discussion is ongoing. The principle of "do no harm" seems to apply here but I do not wish to be involved in an edit war. I hope either you or somebody else who hasn't reverted anything on that page can make the appropriate determination once and for all, so we can continue the discussion without any distractions. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"I do not wish to be involved in an edit war" -- says the editor who is well on their way [15] [16]... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity this is not the most appropriate noticeboard to discuss editor behaviour. Let's keep that discussion in the appropriate noticeboards, please. I understand you might see pointing out Kingoflettuce's behaviour earlier today as necessary for context or the discussion, but neither the wording nor the purpose of your comment will guide this conversation to a more constructive result. This whole issue is being stressful to all of us, let's not let the noise distract us and get back to discussing how the BLP guidelines instruct us to act regarding the content of the page. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable making any edits myself, but would encourage caution under BLP guidelines to keep content off in case it violates BLP guidelines until discussion on the matter is settled. There is no deadline and I see the wiser choice of action as removing the content for a few weeks for it to be fully discussed before reinstating it (modified or not) or leaving it off the article. However much I might dislike Crowder, I don't see much harm in keeping a few sentences off the article while they are discussed. That would also allow us to discuss rewording them in a more sterile location (such as an RfC or an informal discussion here). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly!!! I believe I said something similar (think it was on Arbitration). Why is that so hard to handle? Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomo, I am just executing what I assume the principle of "do no harm" entails. If I must say it, I really do not wish to be involved in any edit war but for the greater good I might have no choice but to do so. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This is what pretty much everyone who is in an edit war on any subject thinks, including both sides of this argument. MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Kingoflettuce one always has the option not engage in an edit war. I would suggest backing off from this from a few days and rejoin the discussion once it's settled. If you feel you need to engage in an edit war it's probably just that you're too wikistressed and might benefit from a break. See also: WP:CANDOR. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: But surely I alone cannot start a war, right? As I was the one who originally made the removal, does that count as the first revert or not? I did not understand that to be the case. If so, the ones who insist on having the stuff remain on the article right now should be the ones violating 3RR, right? Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Displaying a WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY mindset here won't help you or those who agree with you. The specifics of 3RR do not matter here. Please, I suggest you follow the spirit of the guideline and back off from the article for now, however right you may feel you are, Kingoflettuce. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not intend to touch the Crowder article anymore but I just hope the right thing is done. I think the specifics of 3RR do matter anyway, coz that would clearly determine whether the stuff should stay up or not... Hoping someone will see to that. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Really bad take. You don't get to edit-war your preferred version in and think 3RR means that your version wins because you reverted first. Also edit warring doesn't require 3RR, so repeating a suggestion made several times now, create an RfC to change consensus, lest this becomes about editor conduct and not content.Slywriter (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Kingoflettuce 3RR will never determine whether stuff stays up or not. Editor consensus and the guidelines around BLPs will. No matter how hard it might be, or how unfair it might seem at this time, you must always trust the wiki community to do the correct thing by consensus. That is all any of us can do. No one does the wrong thing willingly when acting under good faith. If the content is remaining on the page, that means that enough people think that keeping it there is the right thing to be done. We'll see over the next few weeks as this is discussed both here and in ANI whether that is true or not. In the meanwhile, increasing animosity or putting pressure on the discussion won't help. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Obviously I meant if it would or should stay up or not for the time being while the discussion took place. You seem to agree with me there but I get your point. Anyway, the page is fully protected now, so it's a moot point. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is fully protected as a direct result of your actions. The chutzpah here is astounding. ValarianB (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted an instance of blanking. The material is entirely in line with our conventional standards. There's all sorts of special pleading and policy invention in this discussion -- people coming up with reasons that have no basis in our policies or the typical application of them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to be anything approaching a BLP violation given the sourcing. Some of the arguments to the contrary are frankly ludicrous. There may be an argument its undue for inclusion in the article, but thats not a BLP issue and probably doomed to failure. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not a separate analysis. WP:BLP does not just demand strict adherence to WP:V and WP:OR, but also WP:NPOV, of which WP:UNDUE is a part of. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

But whether or not something is unsourced or poorly-sourced is generally a straightforward question - is the source reliable or not? If not, it should stay out - BLP is clear that such material may be removed unilaterally without limitation. A reasonable editor should be able to make the determination that something sourced to "DirtBag90210" posting on "MyGossipTrollFarm.biz" is prima facie not reliable, while something sourced to journalists of the British Broadcasting Corporation is prima facie reliable. By contrast, whether or not a particular passage is due or undue is not a straightforward question, and involves issues of sourcing, context, appropriate rebuttals, etc. It is a question requiring consensus and discussion, not easily placed in the hands of a single editor. Thus, it makes sense that there is no provision in BLP policy permitting unilateral removal of material an editor believes merely to be undue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You should look at WP:ONUS (Part of V) and WP:BLPUNDEL, especially the part about "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies." It is not enough to for an editor to state there is consensus for WP:DUE. They must actually demonstrate that, usually through past discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, that's pretty much what I thought. Perhaps I didn't Wiki-link enuf in expressing what I felt was a common-sense view. I apologise for kickstarting this whole chain of events. Even if I may have been justified in doing so, it is now clear to me that it's better off just leaving contentious BLPs as they are. I wish all of you all the best in the discussion! Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, no one has raised any BLP concerns here outside of WP:BLPKINDNESS, which does not reference article text. Coffee, who performed the removal, specifically said it was purely procedural (eventually, and mistakenly, citing WP:BLPKINDNESS when pressed), and none of the earlier reverts cited BLP as the reason. This is part of the reason why I feel that Coffee's initial "procedural" edit is the root of the problem - for there to be a BLP dispute, someone has to actually raise an objection that can be engaged with. Nobody has done so here yet outside of the suggestions that we should be polite to Mr. Crowder as an editor and not ban them for vandalism, which have no bearing on whether the disputed text is included or excluded. --Aquillion (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: To be clear, that is simply not accurate. My procedural revert was not the "initial" edit, nor was it done per WP:BLPKINDNESS. The initial change of content was done by Crowder himself, and the secondary removal of the content was done by Kingoflettuce. As I noted in my opening statement: Kingoflettuce has now asserted that the content violates WP:NPOV by being "textbook WP:UNDUE" and challenged the inclusion of the content via reversion.
  
  My action to revert to that version was not based on BLPKIND but was based on WP:BLPUNDEL, specifically: To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. And per WP:ARBBLP which echos this, specifically in the unanimous finding of Principle 1 (BLPs): In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned ... such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached. (emphasis added)
  
  Where WP:BLPKINDNESS comes into the matter is that the initial challenge was done by the article subject, and we are to at least address the individual's concerns, so opening a BLPN thread was a rational decision to make. There are now multiple challenges to the content as it is (including from Masem), but they began with Crowder and then were actioned further via Kingoflettuce's UNDUE challenge. So, to claim no one has "actually [raised] an objection that can be engaged with", is flatly false. I think Masem's objection actually holds weight on the merit of: if there is a response from the person to a statement made about them, we should include their response as well. And, while I don't hold an opinion on Kingoflettuce's challenge, an argument of WP:UNDUE is also an objection that can and (from my reading of this discussion) has been actively engaged with. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

And let me be clear: the "troll" I refer to in this case is Steven Crowder, through his admitted sockpuppets - not any established Wikipedian commenting on this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll just chuck my 2c in here. First up, I can't see anything wrong with the content in question. It looks like perfectly ordinary, sourced and valid content which is not new to the article. Furthermore, it is not clear to me (and I apologise if I missed something somewhere) that Crowder has actually approached Wikipedia about this matter in any valid way. Sending meatpuppets to edit on his behalf is not a legitimate way to approach this and the meatpuppets should all be blocked. As regards the call for "kindness", I feel that this is the wrong metric. Kindness is appropriate when we are approached in good faith by somebody who has genuine concerns (whether actually valid or not) about what we say about them. In Crowder's situation (a man who has been extremely unwilling to show any kindness to those he arbitrarily defines as his political enemies) I feel that what we owe him is not kindness but fairness. That means that we need to openly and impartially address any genuine concerns that he may put to us in a valid way. I've yet to see any and I'm not sure why this has been discussed at such length. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The 2c that DanielRigal provides here are pretty much the same 2c that I was going to add. XOR'easter (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

If you don't mind me building a wall of text, I'll give my own analysis of how BLPKINDNESS applies. Now, even if we agree to bind ourselves by WP:BLPKINDNESS in this case, it states Edits like these by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns. (emphasis my own). Crowder's person or conduct outside of the relevant video I think is extraneous here. We should first ask ourselves "Has the subject raised their concerns in good faith?" If you (and I'm speaking in a general "you" here) do not believe that he has, then I don't see a way where you would see BLPKINDNESS applying here. However, if you believe he has we now proceed to the second question. We should then ask ourselves "What exactly are the subject's concerns?" Note that other editors' additional concerns on the content do not apply to BLPKINDNESS even if they do to other BLP guidelines, and editors should raise their separate concerns within the thread but in another discussion to the subject's concerns. Coffee said above that Crowder disagreed with using a direct quote but did not explicitly mind the content (from what I understand). Here we can finally discuss policy, namely WP:DUE, WP:BLPRS (particularly WP:BLPREMOVE), and WP:RS/QUOTE. We need to remember that subjects will very rarely understand either the encyclopedic mission nor policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, but we can extend their statement to where we see it would naturally do so. That's where I think BLPKINDESS applies. I personally believe we have a duty to do this as Crowder certainly won't join the discussion on WP:PAGs, but we still must ensure that the content in the article is in accordance with our PAGs. Now trust me, I think every single sentence in the article saying he's said racist and homophobic things is true and founded. However, this must be proven through proper discussion and calm, content-oriented arguments. It can't be that every time a conservative pundit is up in arms about the media we start a food fight. BLPKINDNESS applies to the subject. Wiki kindness applies to each other. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I want to particularly underline that what WP:BLPKINDNESS means is not being rude to the BLP subject themselves, and not treating their edits as vandalism - their edits are allowed, not given special force or weight. Nothing about it says, or implies, that anything a BLP subject says should be given even a whisker more weight than anything a random editor says; it is considered in the same way any point raised by any editor would be, ie. it should not be summarily disregarded because it would otherwise qualify as vandalism or because of their COI. BLPKINDNESS protects them from being banned (at least as a vandal purely for removals made to their own page, even if those edits would otherwise qualify as vandalism; it obviously doesn't protect any other policy violations they commit in other contexts) and discourages people from calling them names. It gives absolutely no additional weight to their edits, nor does it allow for the removal of longstanding text simply because they find it objectionable, nor does it add anything of significance at all for what the article text should look like, either in the short or long-term. BLPKINDNESS is solely and exclusively about how we interact with editors - it has no bearing on content or content disputes at all beyond that, fullstop. --Aquillion (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum

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

I think that the (wives and children) part in Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum § Personal life is very poorly sourced and I don't think that's appropiate when listing this many living people. I'm not sure of the notability of the section anyway, especially when it leaves cells empty and says others details are unknown. I struggled finidng reliable sources that are this detailed in listing his wives and children, the only place where you can information that is this detailed is Wikipedia.

I'm here to flag the issue, it would be great if you could give me some details of what you think as I'm not too familiar with editing pages related to people.

Vyvagaba (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Sho (wrestler)

Sho (wrestler) § Personal life[17] The addition of the personal life section in this page is filled with unreliable sources which only link to other pages on Wikipedia, and the sources on the pages that it links to also are unreliable or unverifiable as they do not provide any real information on whether it is true.

Other pages alongside this that are affected:

• Mina Shirakawa § Personal life
• Unagi Sayaka § Personal life
• Giulia (wrestler) § Personal life
• Ai Shinozaki § Personal life
• Jamie Hayter § Personal life

It seems a user is making multiple accounts and adding these in since the start of December. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.138.75 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This has to do with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stardussst, where about a dozen accounts were CU blocked. It looks like the content has been removed from all of these pages now, but it wouldn't hurt if more people were to add these pages to their watchlists. Spicy (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Stephen Albair

This biography of a living person has multiple issues already noted on it including missing citations, but the bigger issue is that the person is not particularly notable and it appears the page was written by a friend and fellow artist in his neighborhood. Appears to be a promotional biography.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Albair The article was first posted by KryptoniteSF, and in early versions there is extensive unsourced personal history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KryponiteSF This user also posted his own autobiographical page, which might be considered for deletion for a similar reason (lack of notability and sources). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Vlahides

When googling "Stephen Albair" the first hit is his own website. The second is this Wikipedia page. Following that, there are some links to his "rate my professor" profile and links to arts websites where he has works listed for sale, and some other promotional pages on Facebook and elsewhere. There is not a lot else published about him in reputable journals or books that I can find. He may be a decent artist but there are thousands of such artists in cities like San Francisco, and I don't find much notable about him in the sense that Wikipedia's guidelines call for, other than having this promotional Wikipedia page. The links / citations on this page don't substantiate any notability and the majority of them are either broken or link back to his own website.

On the Stephen Albair page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Albair, the very first citation is to an arts blog promoting a show he did - it is not an independent journalistic article at all, but promotion. https://fineartmagazineblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/stephen-albair-private-views-hidden.html

The second citation, which is supposed to support his "notability" as an artist, is a page that never loads, on a page which seems to be a Chinese "knowledge website" similar to a wikipedia - but the page linked on Albair never opens. It's not a reliable source. http://www.ckcest.zju.edu.cn/kb/conceptsearch?searchType=-1&searchId=39355365

The third and fourth citations are just gallery exhibition online catalogs, where he is just listed, not an article about him.

Fifth citation is in a newspaper, SFChronicle, but it is just two paragraphs and clearly a promotion for a gallery show. https://www.sfchronicle.com/thetake/article/Stephen-Albair-s-Private-Views-6536351.php

Sixth citation link doesn't mention him at all, just a generic link to https://www.cnn.com/travel

Seventh citation is a link to his own website, which is a broken link (no article). http://stephenalbair.com/pdf/chicago_daily_news.pdf

Eighth link reads like a press release/promotion article about his show and the gallery it is in. Note, this one exhibit is the subject of several of these types of promotional "stories" in publications that are not widely read. https://artofthetimes.com/2015/07/22/stephen-albair-private-views-hidden-reflections-september-17-2015-october-29-2015/

Ninth link is similar, a promotional article about him in San Francisco's 7x7, which at that time was more of an advertising magazine promoting local businesses. Additionally the link goes to his own website which only has a pdf of the article, not a clear source (and I could not find it on 7x7's site) http://www.stephenalbair.com/pdf/7x7_Magazine.pdf

10th link also goes to his website with a PDF of a Bangkok times article, no way to independently verify publication http://www.stephenalbair.com/pdf/BKK_POST_2008.pdf

11th link is broken - http://www.kathmandu-bkk.com/exhibition_past021.html

12th and final link is back to his own website - http://www.stephenalbair.com/pdf/BangkockPost.pdf

Then there is a listing of his gallery shows, unsourced, which likely would have come from the artist himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElongatedGrin (talk • contribs) 16:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Adam Gase

He is not the head coach of Dallas Cowboys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.55.10.34 (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Just silly vandalism. Fixed. ValarianB (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Jean-François_Gariépy

Several tabloid and ideologically bias sources have been used, providing Circular-Reasoning as opposed to actual evidence of the person's views and/or behaviours.

"where he calls for the creation of a white ethnostate, pushes antisemitic messages, and advocates for the genetic superiority of white people." Amongst the citations for this claim are "Wired", "CBC" and the "SPLC", in-which none provide evidence for the claims and simply repeat the stated accusations.

The ADL are also cited -- a well-known Jewish/Zionist interest-group that promotes Jewish ethno-states and belief in Jewish-Superiority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:AD19:3B01:FC3E:239C:5467:A574 (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Mason Greenwood

Some postings on the talk page for this article are at least implicitly identifying the alleged victim in an alleged sexual assault case. Any way of dealing with this? PatGallacher (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Those revisions should probably be revdel’d. Under British law it’s an offence to publish the identity of the complainant in a rape accusation. Neiltonks (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

They're also included in the article's history, fwiw. Solipsism 101 (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Well that's a mess. I've rev-deleted some, specifically revisions containing a name. We can get semi-protection on the talk page if it continues. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I have decided to be bold and delete the offending material, but it would be worth keeping an eye on this article and its talk page. It might even be worth oversighting old versions. PatGallacher (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

A Night at Switch n' Play

A Night at Switch n' Play (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There have been a large number of edit requests at this page, as well as someone reaching out to me on my talk page, saying they're the director, and we're being offensive to the cast members by using incorrect descriptions of gender and the like.[18] It appears that we're using descriptors found in a source, but the IP says the source used their own interpretations. I've asked the IP for any sourcing they can find, and directed then to WP:OTRS so we can at least know they're the director. Any assistance with this would be appreciated. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I would just take out the descriptions for now pending clarification. The sourcing doesn't seem good enough to retain them against what superficially appear to be a genuine complaint. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a good call. I've done that for now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Definite BLP Violation for Edward Mickolus

On Edward Mickolus's wiki page, there are several edits just adding more books to the article. The editor is Mickolus himself as in one of the notes he blatantly admitted so. The article is now mostly unformatted books added by the author themself and needs to be cleaned up. Seabass715 (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Seabass715

The article presents nothing much to indicate that Mickolus even meets Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thomas John (medium)

How should Wikipedia refer to mediums, or those who claim to have psychic, telepathic or clairvoyant powers? For example, it is appropriate to refer to someone as "a (medium/psychic)", if this is their profession (and the way they are described by most reliable sources), or should we refer to them as "a (claimed/purported/self-reported/alleged) (medium/psychic)"? There seems to be an inconsistency in articles in this area.

And even within articles – for instance, individuals are referred to as a "medium", not "claimed medium", in the article titles to differentiate themselves from others. This is not uncommon and is standard practice for titles, so I'm not raising an issue here. But then why does the text of Thomas John (medium) and Matt Fraser (psychic) refer to the two as Claimed psychic medium and Purported psychic medium respectively, whereas Allison DuBois is simply an American psychic (no qualifiers in the short description, but qualifiers in the lead section). I just the last two individuals at random; there are hundreds of discrepancies of this type. Additionally, a number of articles relied on snarky scare quotes either in the short description or in the article leads and prose, to cast doubt on the profession. This is totally unencyclopaedic, IMHO.

My opinion: "Medium" and "psychic" are terms for the job in question – even if the job has no proof behind it. We wouldn't be calling magicians "claimed" or "self-reported" magicians, because we don't think magic is real, and I think the same applies here. I also think the consistency on including "claimed", "reported", etc. is related to the ongoing skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration request; those articles with stronger words regarding the subject disproportionately include editors involved in the controversy, and are more likely to cite Susan Gerbic and Skeptical Inquirer than those who don't. This doesn't mean they're violating BLP or anything – but I think it needs to be pointed out.

Thank you. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I won't comment on the content of the thread as I am a party to the ongoing case, but AFreshStart I believe you should notify the relevant wikiprojects of this discussion as this is of great interest to them and the articles their projects cover. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you; I have notified the Skepticism WikiProject, as well as the Biography WikiProject, and placed a note on the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Though I am slightly concerned about how this will play out, as this w/r/t the concerns over co-ordinated editing on Wikipedia, alerting a WikiProject that was disproportionately involved in the dispute may affect the outcome of this discussion. So I would urge other editors to cast a sceptical eye over any comments here. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

So, by way of introduction, I'll just say I have no connection to any Wikipedia groups and speak only for myself. AFreshStart, I completely understand and sympathize with your point, but I am slightly hesitant, for what effectively boils down to linguistic reasons. In my idiolect, calling someone a "magician" might mean that you are asserting that they have supernatural powers, but it can also mean that you are saying they are a particular kind of entertainer. Thus, to me, saying "Penn and Teller are magicians" is a noncontroversial and completely mundane statement. The same is not true (again, for me) with the terms "medium" or "psychic". Those titles come with an inherent claim that there is some kind of paranormal power being brought to bear. A person who does self-consciously and openly fake cold readings, for instance, I would likely call a "magician" rather than a "medium" or the like. It's is entirely possible that this is a quirk of language only for me, and that the trends are against me. Still, I felt it worth sounding that slight note of caution. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, AFreshStart. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

We have many categories on spiritual mediums [19] and psychics [20], even telepaths [21]. These people are or were famous for being known as mediums, psychics or telepaths etc so we don't need to use the terms "claimed" or "purported" into their biographies when it comes to their profession. Rational folk are well aware that psychics, mediums and telepaths are frauds but they make a living out of it, it is a job at the end of the day. Doesn't make any sense to me to put claimed or purported in front of their profession. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I actually keep going back and forth on this. Although mediumship is defined on WP as the practice of purportedly mediating communications..., in many a reader's minds, the definition excludes the word purportedly and when they read "X is a medium", they understand that "X communicates/is a channel for communicating with the dead", which is something that I don't think should ever be stated in wikivoice. I don't know how to fix that without weasel-sounding words, but I would love if we were able to find a way. The way I see it, when we write that someone claims/is claimed to be a medium, we are being neutral and impartial - that is something objectivelly true and easy to verify -, and when we write that someone is a medium, we can be seen as supporting the credulous POV. For instance, whenever I talk about a "medium" in real life, I gesticulate finger quotes to be clear. Also, although I would love to be able to agree with what Psychologist Guy said above, that Rational folk are well aware that psychics, mediums and telepaths are frauds, things simply are not that simple. I can't see a way to divide people into "rational" vs "irrational", no one is always perfectly rational. And unless our test for rationality is "does the person believe in the supernatural", which would make the claim circular, there are all sorts of highly rational people that believe in weird things - supernatural or not. VdSV9•♫ 17:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is a practical way it can be fixed without weasel words because there are hundreds if not thousands of Wikipedia biographies for astrologers, diviners, dowsers, fortune tellers, mediums, psychics, spiritualists and telepaths and who knows what else. The point is if we start using these words like "claimed", are we going to change thousands of biographies? The more important question would be why? We have Wikipedia biographies for many mediums that have been on Wikipedia for decades, for example Leonora Piper. Or take for example the astrologer Nostradamus. We have never called them "alleged", "claimed" or "purported" mediums in their leads. The "claimed" astrologer Nostradamus sounds ridiculous. No historian would write like this.

Even skeptics who debunk such people refer to them as mediums or psychics in their articles and books, look at Harry Houdini for example. Mediums and psychics, telepaths is just their profession. I am not sure why an issue is being made about this, we are not saying they are genuine mediums or psychics. We are not saying they communicate with the dead or have genuine psychic abilities, we just say what they are known for. Based on what I am seeing here it is the skeptic group Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia who have been re-writing popular psychic biographies such as Sylvia Browne and Chip Coffey with such text as with "who claimed to be a medium with psychic abilities" and "self-proclaimed" in the lead. They have targeted high-traffic articles, but they are sadly selective here because there are hundreds of articles for mediums and psychics like Arthur Ford (psychic), Daniel Dunglas Home Helen Duncan, Mina Crandon at Wikipedia etc etc where the lead just cites these people as mediums and psychics, none of the "claimed" commentary. I would like to add that I support the Guerilla Skepticism group and they have done fantastic work at Wikipedia but they are wrong about this specific thing IMO. The self-proclaimed commentary reads as ridiculous in leads and info-boxes and is being selectively used. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

On the topic of GSoW, it might surprise you to know that I'm on the "other side" in the current arbcom case, and I generally support using a qualifier for mediums and psychics and the like. I actually reverted AFreshStart's bold change to a few articles, and advised they seek a broader consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy I don't think the number of pages that would be affected has any relevance to the discussion, nor for how long we have had pages that don't use qualifiers. I also don't think anyone interprets calling someone an astrologer as implying astrology works, it's like being a homeopath, and there is no need to qualify either of those. I don't understand why you say those examples are "selectively used". They weren't "selected", it's not like someone decided to use it on some pages and not on others. As people were writing and editing those individual pages, they didn't think it was right to simply write "medium" or whatever, and used those qualifiers. The fact that they then didn't go around changing every medium article doesn't make it "selective". Or maybe I just don't understand what you mean by the word. VdSV9•♫ 21:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This question goes back to at least 2008 [22] and has been hashed over many times. Not to say that a fresh RfC wouldn't do some good. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Will check it out. VdSV9•♫ 20:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Ditto, thanks so much for bringing this to my attention! I assumed that something like this must have been discussed at one point – freethought, scepticism, rationalism and empiricism and Wikipedia go back a long, long way. And I'm rather surprised that "qualifier not needed" was the consensus opinion here (of course this can change). —AFreshStart (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts are that a qualifier isn't needed, as they technically are mediums and/or psychics as we define those terms on their respective pages: they make money off of purporting to communicate with the dead and claiming to use ESP. If we write that someone "claims to be a psychic," then we are saying that they claim to claim to use ESP, which doesn't make any sense. I think most people understand that mediums don't actually communicate with the dead and psychics don't actually have ESP. I don't think there is any risk whatsoever that someone will read our article on Miss Cleo and come out of it thinking that Miss Cleo actually has supernatural powers. Mlb96 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This is basically a question on whether the qualifiers are WP:DUE. How are mainstream RS sources describing those individual subjects? Most sources I am aware of do not qualify these descriptions in writing about the person unless the person was notable as being a fraud or swindling people or for their fantastic claims. I think it is enough that the wikilinked medium, psychic, or clairvoyance articles discuss the underlying issues, especially if the RS about the person doesn't do it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Completely disagree, here. The issue in these cases, just like with several other fringe topics, is that mainstream reliable sources too often write from a credulous perspective, which I think is inapropriate for an encyclopedia. VdSV9•♫ 01:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You still have to comply with WP:BLP's demand of no WP:SYN and WP:NPOV if you do not have RS describing these specific people with these qualifiers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with that. A good source --and a big part of how you can tell its a good source-- is that they don't make judgments one way or another, especially on philosophical topics like these. "Can't prove they exist and, by the same token, can't prove they don't." May as well try to prove or disprove the existence of God ... or string theory. Those who believe will do so no matter what rationale you throw at them, and those who don't, won't. When you can't test it, it's no longer science and has gone into the realm of pure philosophy, and I think the average reader is smart enough to be able to decide for themselves their own philosophy. Otherwise, it just seems condescending. (By the way, I personally don't believe in psychics.) Whatever you believe in there is always, on some deep level, an element of faith involved. As Richard Feynman once said, "It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible." Zaereth (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The condescension is one of my main worries with putting "claimed" on every psychic's page. How stupid do we think our readers are? Or rather, do we want to make it so obvious that we think our readers are stupid? Mlb96 (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

My big qualm with most of our skeptic-editing is the absolute lack of subtlety. I once had to remove the wording "false and debunked pseudoscience" from an article. There is no conceivable context where you would need that many redundant adjectives. Fundamentally, it is bad writing, and my belief is our articles should be well-written. We don't need every word qualified and every statement adjective-studded. Vaticidalprophet 09:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

By that reasoning, only WP:FALSEBALANCE sources are good sources. That is not how Wikipedia should work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that using the same standard in all such articles is a good idea. Which standard that should be is secondary. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the magician argument. We wouldnt use qualifiers like that for many other professions that rely on misdirection/subterfuge. If we did, well all the notable chiropractors will also need an edit. Ooo and the pope. Speaks to God you know... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between medium, psychic, and astrologer. An astrologer is someone who studies the movements and positions of the stars, and in general they actually do so. The fact that they then make predictions based on that is a separate step - after all, a metereologist studies the weather, even if they then are phenomenally bad at predicting the weather ... as many of them are, to be honest. Now a medium or a psychic claims to commune with spirits, and the claim here is that they don't. Straightforwardly don't, as in there aren't any spirits that can be communicated with. Unlike stars, which certainly exist, and which positions can absolutely be studied. So in general, I'd say "Jane is an astrologer" but "John is an alleged psychic." Note that a chiropractor actually does adjust your spine, whether or not that does good or bad for you, and that the pope, in general, does not claim to speak to God any more than anyone else does, the pope claims to direct the church, which he actually does. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this -- I lean towards the inclusion of some sort of hedge, but I am also sympathetic to the (correct, in my mind) argument by Psychologist Guy and others that it would force some pretty awful syntax on the articles. I guess I am with Morbidthoughts insofar as we should defer to the RS descriptions. I did a quick check on Sylvia Browne, just to see, and noted that "self-proclaimed" was a pretty common description. Sorry I have neither vehemence nor certainty to add, but I think the discussion has been productive. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm struggling a lot with what I would view to be reasonable here. Issues with calling someone a medium (etc - I'm just going to use medium for simplicity) in wikivoice implies that the mediumship is real which is a huge problem. However, "claimed medium" (and similar) is atrocious language and goes against a bunch of other conventions we have. And mediumship is to some extent an entertainer, as mentioned by some people. So, rather than trying to reconcile these, I'm going to do my second move of sidestepping. If the contention is that they're actually entertainers, then we could call them entertainers whose genre (so to speak) is mediumship. If they're using their "abilities" to lend credence to their religious views that other people are following, then we call them a religious leader who happens to also use mediumship. In this system, Thomas John (medium)'s first sentence goes from Thomas John Flanagan, known professionally as Thomas John, is an American psychic medium becomes something ... is an American who performs as a psychic medium. If we're going to be adding "claimed" or whatever in front of the name, then we're throwing out using the "most commonly used terms" anyway. At least this way, we avoid horrific sentences and weasel-words.

To put it simply, we say their profession is the most basic version of what it actually is. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh wait actually, at that point the sentence construction allows for words like claim without making upsetting sentences: is an American performer who claims to be a psychic medium (in this case, "claims" is definitely demonstrated - Susan Gerbic and co.'s work is more than enough to support that word, even if consensus here ends up being against mass application of the word). --Xurizuri (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the specific citation that demonstrates this qualifier for Thomas John and does it satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. By simply saying "medium" or "psychic" or "astrologer" or whatever, we're not in any way saying it's real or not real. It's like the flying saucers Feynman was discussing when he made the quote I used above (see full quote on wikiquotes or wherever). You can't prove they exist, and by the same measure, you can't prove they don't. We all know this. The reader knows this. Even a small child knows this. Unless we're talking about someone who is a known fraud, adding words like "claimed" is pointing out the obvious, and in common parlance pointing out the obvious is known as "talking down to". No matter what you believe, that just comes off as condescending. No need to point out the obvious or talk down to our readers.

For example, someone came to the moose article once, and said, "Uh, aren't you forgetting something? Why do you start by calling a moose a deer? A moose is an animal. It's not a plant or mineral." The answer is simple, starting off like that would be pointing out stuff that any child over the age of four should be expected to understand, and comes off as condescending to the average Earth-born reader. Now, if we were describing a moose to aliens from another galaxy, that level of detail would be necessary, but aliens are not our target audience. Any person on planet Earth over the age of kindergarten should already know a deer is an animal, and likewise know of mediums and psychics.

Now, people can believe whatever they like about things that cannot be proven one way or the other. We don't describe a Christian's belief in a "claimed" god, or the Buddist's belief in a "purported" tao. In any belief system there are those who are crooks and will use it to prey on people, but we need damn good sources to start connecting those dots on someone's bio. There are a lot of ways to trick people with magic and sleight of hand, whether a preacher, psychic, or politician. But that doesn't mean everyone who believes in it, or who truly believes they are one, is a crook, nor does it prove in any way that they are wrong. People can find faith in anything. They can even find faith in nothing, and when it comes to belief systems, our readers come from all of them. There may be certain cases where "claimed" or "purported" would be appropriate, but, as in all things, when dealing with belief systems and other unproveable things, it's important to really examine our own belief systems to understand how it may influence our own editing. Zaereth (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Multiple Biographies in the Indian Film Industry Need Cleanup

I was looking through Saladin's article and in the cultural depictions section, several BLP's for Indian actors needed a lot of clean-up whether the formatting was off or some poor grammar. These people are Ghulam Mohammed, Mazhar Khan, Yakub, and Ishwarlal. I hope that some of these can be cleaned up. Seabass715 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Seabass715

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto González Echevarría

I completed a malformed AfD for this article on an academic only to discover that the IP that solicited it is from Yale University (where he teaches), had blanked a section detailing sexual harassment allegations from 2017 (with multiple citations), and that the IP had asked another editor to remove the page stating González Echevarría would like the entire page removed from this cite. The subject probably passes WP:NPROF. I suspect that the course of action for this page is not going to be a deletion outcome, and because of the BLP issues, I am asking for the input of other editors knowledgeable with the policies and guidelines. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't be deleted given the feature article in the Miami Herald, but the allegations might not satisfy WP:BLPCRIME nor WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:REDFLAG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The subject would have a clear pass of WP:Prof, so it's not a case of BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC).

• The AfD has been closed, but some BLP expert eyes would definitely be appreciated at Talk:Roberto_González_Echevarría#After the AfD. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sascha Grabow

Potentially biased article, opinionated in regard to his competitors in the introduction. Sascha Grabow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.189.199 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted recent edits by an IP who added the inappropriate content.Slywriter (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure the article has one or more undeclared COI editors. It has undergone a significant reduction in size as trivial and unsupported material has been removed.Slywriter (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he's notable given that there seems to be no RS in the citations for all this puffery. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Scotty Mac

Someone without an account made a series of derogatory updates still visible in the edit history section. These are baseless accusations without sources and a personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepitreal46 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The edits have correctly been reverted because they weren't reliably sourced but IMO there's nothing there which is so bad that it requires removing from the history. Neiltonks (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

richard skinner (broadcaster)

Once again - this is Richard Skinner (broadcaster) protesting the inaccuracies on the page regarding my life! Why -oh Why - do you insist on publishing the wrong information re my birth date? your concern seems based on an inaccurate BBC article which says I joined Radio 1 Newsbeat in September 1973 at age 19 I didn't! I was 21, which if you care to look at the timeline in the rest of my bio is the only age that makes sense when factoring in when I left school aged 18 (September 1970). That is a fact you could check by contacting the online team at my old school - Portsmouth Grammar School - they have records of who attended the school - when they did and how old they were. Meanwhile I have already provided you with a picture of my passport which clearly states my accurate date of birth - December 26 1951 And in December was able to provide further proof - as if it is needed - via a link to a 'music birthdays' page created by John Kutchner I worked with Mr Kutchner at the BBC in the 1980s and he knows very well when I was born! The reason the link to his reference appears 'dead' is that he changes the month available to view to fit the current calendar month ie - it currently shows February anniversaries etc His website allows for people to email him - and if anyone at Wikipedia cares (which I begin to doubt) he could be asked about my birthdate. Or you could accept that I am Richard Skinner - I know when I was born - and I have provided the proof you need in the picture of my passport!! I look forward to this ridiculous situation being resolved. I was born - on December 26 1951 - fact. Richard Skinner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.122.46 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Skinner. I'm sorry this has been such a problem for you, and if there is anyway to help, we most certain want to correct any factual errors. Most people over 30 don't seem to mind shaving a few years off their date, but that's beside the point, because we do want to get things as right as possible.

Unfortunately, most of your solutions are not viable for Wikipedia purposes. We can't use public records or other such primary sources, nor can we just take your word for it, as harsh as that may sound. We're all a bunch of anonymous volunteers here, and I wouldn't recommend giving us your passport or driver's license or anything of that nature. There is a secure way to verify your ID, and that is for you to contact WP:OTRS, and then we can give some more weight to your request. Perhaps, if we're just gleaning the date as you say, it should just be removed entirely. (We can often do that upon request.)

However, to correct the date, we need to find it somewhere in a reliable source. We're a tertiary source, which means we get our info from reliable secondary-sources. You can do more yourself from out there to correct the date than we can from in here. For example, try contacting the BBC and have them run a retraction. Any good source will want to correct their mistakes, and then we will have something we can use. There are other options for you to use, and correcting source mistakes is one of them. I hope that helps, Zaereth (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain you concerns a bit better? I understand why you were unhappy when we were reporting your year of birth as 1953-1954, but as far as I can tell, we haven't done since September last year [23] [24]. Instead we report the year 1951-1952 which based on what you've said is accurate i.e. it's no longer "wrong information" since a date of December 26 1951 is definitely circa 1951/1952. Per WP:BLPDOB we don't report precise dates of birth unless it's either well established in reliable secondary sources or by sources linked to the subject since plenty of people do not like their full dates of birth to be so public. Apparently you fall into this category, if you had an official website or verified social media account and published the date there we could consider it, but there's really no reason why we need your exact date of birth. We intentionally to not have it for a lot of our biographies. And as I've said based on what you've said the information we report in our article on your birth year is no longer inaccurate even if it's not precise. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, the Twitter account linked on our Wikipedia article is not verified, so even publishing your date of birth there doesn't help us. Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

How about using [25] (Bibliothèque nationale de France) for YOB, not DOB? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Robert W. Malone

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."

Per the article, Robert W. Malone has spread "misinformation" about COVID-19. Controversial information does not equal misinformation. Sources that indicate that his prior statements are "misinformation" are sparse to non-existent. Scientific discoveries regarding COVID-19 as well as related mRNA vaccines are still regularly occurring. Furthermore, the use of the term "misinformation" implies a malicious intent that borders on libel. I suggest the term "misinformation" be replaced with "controversial information" to better portray the spirit and intent the original author likely intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottaevers (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's BLP policies are not a crude cudgel to remove well sourced negative information from BLP articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Key to the quoted policy is "unsourced or poorly sourced". In the case of Robert W. Malone, the term "misinformation" is well-sourced. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Malone is spreading misinformation and we don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE by giving debunked ideas equal weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not "contentious" that Malone's wrong claims are wrong. The OP calls it "controversial" but it really isn't in sane sources. Classic WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The talk page had to be protected because of the constant flow of similar trolling. —PaleoNeonate – 09:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Massive ongoing vandalism at Bakary Gassama – revdev required

Bakary Gassama, a football referee's article is seeing massive vandalism. I think it urgently requires page protection and some revisions will also need to be deleted. See [26], for example. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I see it was protected this very moment. That means we only need some revision cleanup. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Maher

Came across Andrew Maher - there's just three sources and a lot of material that is unsourced. Whats the correct way to deal with this? Remove all unsourced material? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

dj envy

• DJ Envy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good Morning... My wiki page keeps being changed...I am not from Dominican Republic and i was never a landscaper or a pool cleaner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realdjenvy (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Realdjenvy: Good morning. I've added a level of page protection which should help cut down on that kind of editing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Christine Dietrich

Christine Dietrich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm Christine Dietrich and I'm not a right wing extremist. This information is wrong. I never "operated the right-wing, Islamophobic platform PI-News." I've not been in contact with this platform for over 11 Years The information "Years active 2007-present" is a simple lie unwothy an ecyclopedia. I demand the clearly infamatory article about my person to be deleted immediately, thank you Christine Dietrich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1210:3EA9:8100:19D4:FD1A:40B:3209 (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that article is a mess. My lack of German language skills will make it difficult to do any appreciable cleanup, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll remove what is unsourced and see what it looks like from there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Unless the sources are unreliable, cited content seems to match what the sources say.Slywriter (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I saw at least two blogs, one cite to the de.wikipedia Der Spiegel article (?), and the article seems to leave out things from the sources like In the "Tages-Anzeiger" she distanced herself from the website this week - it's the third time. Her commitment to PI is "a bad mistake from the past," says the pastor today. Its difficult to really dig into though, as I'm relying on machine translations, and I'm not familiar with most of the sources. I noticed that two different sources have the same header and navigation in different colors, although perhaps that's just the newspaper conglomerate's standard website for local papers? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

There's also significant machine translation copyvio. From the source, google machine translated:

"Spiegel" based on internal protocols of the PI operators. When the Norwegian neo-Nazi Anders Breivik killed 77 people on Utøya, Dietrich's concern was for the right-wing blogger Fjordmann, Breivik's spiritus rector and friend of Dietrich, as she stated: "I know Fjordman personally - he is NOT a killer. It's a disaster, for us and for Fjordman, of course. Poor fellow, he was my guest."

Our article: Der Spiegel published protocols from the PI operators. When the Norwegian neo-Nazi Anders Breivik murdered 77 people on Utøya, Dietrich's concern was with the fascist blogger Fjordman (alias Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen), Breivik's Spiritus Rector and friend of Dietrich. “I know Fjordman personally - he's NOT a killer. It's a disaster, for us and for Fjordman of course. Poor fellow, he was my guest. " she wrote. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Moneytrees who has blocked Outdoor-Bro for machine translations in the past. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Ugh, indeed an issue there. So this is either she is not notable and article should be AfDed or the content should be cleaned up as honestly the blog is the only thing that makes her notable. She isn't mentioned in the Politically Incorrect article here and does not appear to have a German wikipedia page to compare any sources/content.Slywriter (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This hostile news interview conducted years later gives a clearer picture of the controversy.[27] The fact that they still talk about her 8 years later suggest this goes beyond BLP1E territory. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Anzu Lawson or Christina Aznu Lawson

I have a doubt on the age mentioned as 41.. Born 23 May 1980 (age 41 years).. I got this doubt cause when I search with Cast of Movie Bloodfight (1989), her name is emerging as actress acted in the move with name Milky McKenzie... if she is born on 1980 how could she be acting as an young female actress Milky McKenzie who appears to be in her 20's in the Movie.. A 9 year old girl acting as a young female actress who looks like an adult in the movie makes no sense is my opinion.. I have no other sources to show my point as valid..

I may be wrong if she is the same person acted in the Movie Bloodfight (1989, but in her Biography this move is not in the list of movies/TV shows which she has acted..

Please check this fact once.. Thanks22:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)22:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)~~