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.

Patrick Shyu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Shyu Patrick Shyu

The article doxxes a YouTuber "TechLead," who is a fictional satirical YouTuber persona, not to be confused with the individual. The article is primarily a negative hit piece. The YouTuber "TechLead" is a fictional character who makes exaagerated claims based not on fact to gain attention. It is libel to take unbased claims from a fictional character and to then attribute them to a doxxed individual. Wikipedia should leave YouTuber drama to YouTube, rather than assuming everything they see on social media is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techleadhd (talk • contribs)

• There is no "doxxing" since reliable sources already identify this character by his real name. I see this article is now at AfD, so may be deleted. As a general observation, it's amazing how many times people complain when called out on their unpleasant behaviour, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
• Patrick Shyu identifies himself as TechLead on his personal websites offering training courses: [1] [2] [3]. Note that the bio on each page links to the YouTube channel in question without mentioning anything about satire, and the YouTube page links to Shyu's business pages without any mention of satire either. I don't think the "fictional character" explanation holds weight, personally. White 720 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  Clickbait videos on YouTube should not be presumed to be fact, especially when published under a pseudonym. I think Wikipedia should draw a line here, instead of publishing articles based on clickbait. "TechLead" is a fictional character who intentionally presents controversial viewpoints for attention & discussion - not to be confused with any individual person. Also, the article seems to only cherrypick negative points - I don't see the purpose of this, as it is clearly not biographical or unbiased in nature, but rather serves as a hitpiece to defame/harm a YouTuber's real name & reputation. YouTubers have a lot of haters by the nature of the industry, but Wikipedia should leave YouTuber drama to YouTube. When there are real factual news publications (such as Reuters, AP, Bloomberg, etc.,) and not gossip publications (like Business Insider) that publish fact-checked articles about a YouTuber, then a non-biased biographical entry may be merited that properly summarizes both the pros & cons of an individual. It's stunning that even though the YouTuber "TechLead" amassed popularity to over 1 million subscribers by delivering value, the Wikipedia entry is almost entirely negative remarks on a 2-3 controversial videos out of the 300+ videos he made - obviously written by haters in an attempt to cause personal harm & harassment. Techleadhd (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  Then he should discuss that with youtube, we can't ignore the information cause he doesn't like it. Are you the individual? You were also asked at the AfD discussion if you have some relation to the subject of the article, given the similar user name.That is a conflict of interest if you are. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Techleadhd stated on his user talk page that he is associated with the content creator. Exactly how wasn't divulged. But a clear COI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

To be transparent, I am the person in question and am raising the concern that this article destroys my chances of job employment & future prospects. The YouTube channel is published under a pseudonym as a fictitious persona. This is done in order to disassociate the satire, attention-grabbing clickbait, and controversial topics that I sometimes challenge myself to approach on YouTube from my real identity. I think it would be more accurate to publish this post under the pseudonym "TechLead," rather than attributing a fictional persona with my real name. At the minimum, it should be clarified that this is just an on-stage character and his words do not necessarily reflect my own personal beliefs. I don't believe it is a conflict of interest to correct the misconception that a YouTuber character = real person. This is obvious for anyone who has ever met a YouTuber, as they're quite different people in real life and often "normal" and pretty nice people. I'm astonished to see someone who didn't get the satire (which is understandable as it can be subtle) but to then publish a Wikipedia article about that under my real name. Techleadhd (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If this is so concerning for you, why do you make it clear that Techlead and Shyu are the same person on various webpages, e.g. here? I am thinking we are dealing with a troll here. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The page you're referring to is a training program, where I break out of character and refer to myself by my real name. The content is also entirely different and educational, compared to the satire & clickbait on YouTube. It is like saying "Heath Ledger is 'The Joker' and in this program will teach you how to become an actor." Let me summarize my points:

• There is a difference between author and fictional character. Most YouTube videos are authored & acted by the same person due to budget constraints. I play the fictional character "TechLead," acting as a highly exaggerated version of myself, hence the pseudonym. On rare occasion, I will break out of character but it is simply inaccurate to think that these 2 are the same people, and to claim for example that "Heath Ledger said he wanted to bomb a hospital." TechLead is a show about a stereotypical arrogant "tech bro" character, where every line is scripted. It is subtle like a reality show but generally fictional in nature.
• Wikipedia should leave YouTuber drama to YouTube. The defamatory claims against 'TechLead' are often made by other clout-chasing YouTubers who will say anything to gain views. It is a world of clickbait. Under the clause of "non-notable person," the article should be removed because most YouTubers are really not notable and only relevant for their 15 minutes of fame.
• The article breaks NPOV (non-biased point of view) clause. It is obviously written by a few "haters" in negative light. This is clear because the article constantly refers to 'Patrick Shyu,' rather than 'TechLead' in an effort to defame. If the article were trying to be useful & informative, it would be titled under the more commonly recognized YouTube channel "TechLead." Further, the article is nearly purely negative yet the channel clearly has demonstrated popularity with over 1 million subscribers. It cherrypicks a few unbased allegations made by other YouTubers & gossip, but with no real factual sources. The article is clearly non-neutral and serves no other purpose than to harass & defame.

YouTubers are pretty nice & kind people in real life, not over-the-top characters as portrayed on-camera. They typically don't respond to 'hate' because haters are part of the industry. I believe a line is crossed when that hate shows up on Wikipedia and breaks the fictional character reaching into real identities, as that can cause reputational harm. Techleadhd (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "reputational harm" does tend to occur if you post multiple misogynistic comments on Twitter for the whole world to read. Who knew? Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

To provide context, the tweets were deleted and apologized for. The Wikipedia article never mentions this. The original intent of the tweet was that "women should not be programmers," but this was misinterpreted to think that women were the problem, rather than the programming industry being the problem. In reality, it was a "clickbaity" way to support women by drawing attention to how hostile the programming industry is towards mothers (and fathers too). A reworded tweet "the programming industry doesn't do enough for mothers" wouldn't have gained as much attention. The fictional character name is used for such controversial remarks (and oftentimes with exaagerated prose) to start a discussion, though I would never even approach such a topic under my real name. Historically, authors would often pose controversial ideas expressed through fictional characters, and through that achieve positive change in society. Therefore in reality I actually heavily support women in tech, although this viewpoint is narratively reversed in the "TechLead" character to make a point about how tech does not support mothers enough. Politics aside, I believe Wikipedia to not be the platform to memorialize clickbait. Techleadhd (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It's clear that your tweets about women in tech were deleted, but not as clear that you apologized for them. (To the contrary, this news article says that you pushed back against your critics, telling them to "get into Google first" before calling you sexist.) Do you have a self-published or reliable third-party source that contains your apology? Also, is your Twitter account written by you, or is it by the supposed fictional character "TechLead"? White 720 (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

On a general level, I don't believe Wikipedia should be the platform on which to debate YouTubers on the validity of clickbait, and to demand for clickbait to be explained to them or suffer the repercussions of having it associated with their doxxed real names. Obviously, even Wikipedia editors use pseudonyms and understandably many people separate identities online. The Twitter account for TechLead is also made as such, and it should be clear that in many cases it isn't even always a single person behind an account or the script of a video. Many YouTubers use ghost-writers who help with scripts. TechLead is a fictional character operated under an LLC - an exaagerated character made to gain views. While many do not realize, YouTube is more of a business entity and not an individual.

Now regarding your question specifically, that article is from Business Insider, which is not the most reputable reporting. They are also in it for views. If you're seeking another apology, I am happy to issue an official one right here on behalf of the character "TechLead is sorry and retracts all statements." The "get into Google first" phrase was subtle satire, perhaps a poorly made joke whose tone could not be understood through text alone, but it was sarcasm. Twitter is not the most expressive platform. In either case, whether you accept the apology or not on an individual level, I believe Wikipedia should (a) not associate YouTuber characters with real identities and (b) should not be the place to debate whether clickbait is real or not, instead relying on harder facts. Techleadhd (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

"To provide context, the tweets were deleted and apologized for," you said. I asked where your apology was, and you offered a retraction without any indication about what you were sorry for, other than for "all statements". Considering that the TechLead character (which I associate with you, whether you like it or not) posted a video last month called "why Kanye West is right", which has been condemned for its antisemitic material and suggestion that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion might be real, I'm not really ready to accept a generic apology offered in a Wikipedia thread. White 720 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the "Kanye West is right" video, it was actually an attempt to dispel anti-Semitism by exploring extremist beliefs more deeply rather than simply casting them aside. Why do they believe what they do, and how can we address those at the source? The original working title was a less juicy "Is Kanye West right?" but that wouldn't have gotten views. The video was later removed in any case. I occasionally challenge myself to tackle controversial topics - not all of them come out well but occasionally some do. The material is published under a fictional character, often in an outlandish tone of voice. While you may believe that the content is anti-Semitical (from the clickbaity title), it is actually the opposite in intent. Some of the material simply presents a counterpoint for perspective, and may not reflect my own personal beliefs. I'm not sure if it makes sense for me to sit here and explain each video and the satire underneath... happy to do so if you want though.

Your statement above seems to indicate a non-neutral point of view, as you harbor negative opinions for TechLead and are using Wikipedia as a way to punish by misattributing the fictional character's statements to a real person. Your refusal to accept an apology indicates you rather believe what you want (ie., that TechLead is a horrible person), even though he has clarified these statements. On that note, the other points in the article are mistaken too. For instance, the AlgoPro episode was amicably settled privately and much more complex (only one side was ever told). The Tren Black criticism on the online course was mostly made up, as he never even enrolled in the course. Many points in the article are simply untrue or lack full context. Most YouTubers generally don't respond to haters, who are usually chasing clout.

My suggestion would be if you have an issue with the character, to make a few videos on YouTube criticizing the character 'TechLead.' Doing this on Wikipedia and attacking the doxxed name seems an inappropriate use of the platform. Techleadhd (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Casting aspersions on an editor's behavior, such as by stating without evidence that I "harbor negative opinions for TechLead", is discouraged by Wikipedia policy. If you would like to include additional information in the article about you, and a conflict of interest would interfere with that, please suggest revisions and sources on the article's talk page. White 720 (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Why are are you discussing a clickbait headline "Kanye West is right"? Right in which regard? This is insane.

I'm not sure if I get this right. But I don't hope that you are defaming him on the basis of headlines. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. The page is outrageous.

@Tristario has also expressed grounds for removal, given the contentious nature and weak claims, and I would appreciate if we can have this page removed. Techleadhd (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand that it would be frustrating dealing with a page describing you on wikipedia which you think is problematic, but it is probably better to avoid using words like "outrageous" in order to keep the discussion civil.

As it is the discussion for deletion was closed as a consensus to keep. In my view, I think the article should have been deleted, but since that discussion has been closed the article will have to stay for now. Perhaps after about six months, (the recommended time to wait) I can try renominating the article for deletion, and it can be seen if the community comes to a different consensus.

I'll have a look at the article more thoroughly (sometime soon) and see if I think the sourcing is good enough for the more contentious parts. Besides that, if you can provide a self-published source (a blog post, video, tweet etc.) perhaps apologising or giving clarity to these things (per WP:BLP if a subject has denied something that should be included in the article, and it can be a self published source) that could also be included in the article Tristario (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your attention. I'm not sure why the discussion for deletion was closed, but in my view the author is one of my YouTube critics who wouldn't let the issue rest. You can find a video with context on this Wikipedia article here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQQT6r0qQIg. I have noted my view that this is defamation and that the doxxing/attribution of my name with a fictitious online persona damges my reputation & chances of employment. Techleadhd (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a look at that video soon. I would strongly discourage you from making aspersions about wikpedia editors like that though per WP:ASPERSIONS (ultimately their motivations for making the article are irrelevant, anyway, the question is whether it complies with wikipedia policy). Tristario (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, deletion discussions are usually closed after about seven days, which is why it was closed Tristario (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem!

The worst part of your thread and some other threads here is that some of the users

completely fail to take a conservative approach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy."

They actively defend what is written in any regard. I understand that ... if it isn't about

the entire reputation of a person. But when a person's entire reputation is at stake, including carriere, etc. - you gotta be very, very careful. You just can't find the slightest amount of humbleness or conservativeness in their approach in some of these cases. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing for those tweets isn't very strong, Business Insider isn't always a great source, and on the reliable sources noticeboard here there are some mixed views on The Quint, with some suggestion that it shouldn't be used for notability. Some of the other sources in that article also seem of questionable reliability, such as Candor and Reclaim the Net.

So I think given the contentiousness of the claims and the weak sourcing, there do seem to be grounds for removing some or all of this content from the article Tristario (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I've had a very hard time following what this discussion is all about. It starts out talking about doxxing the subject and his pseudonym, yet that makes no sense since nearly every source makes it clear that the two are the same person. The subject doesn't seem to have gone to any great lengths to hide it, and in fact seems to have made it as obvious as possible. Then there is a lot (and I mean a lot) of talk about how the pseudonym is simply a fictional character, yet that sounds a little after the fact given that none of the sources make that distinction, and normally they would. (And if I read the word "clickbait" one more time my eyes are going to glaze back over and I may just turn to stone. We get it already.)

I've read the sources about the tweets, and those look like well-written news articles. Not op/ed pieces or tabloidish in any way. It appears they've done their research. Given the number of sources, I have a hard time foreseeing this getting through AFD. (Personally, I think we need much higher standards, but there are many who think every article should be saved as if it were a drowning puppy, and they like to hang out at AFD) All in all, though, I find this whole thread to be confusing and I'm not sure just what the complaints are. If you are the subject and think you're being treated unfairly or misrepresented in the media, why not simply contact them and try to set the record straight. I'm sure they'd be happy to give you an interview. Since we go by what the sources say, that's the best way to effect change in your Wikipedia article. That's what any good PR rep would tell you. Zaereth (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. To clarify, while it's not exactly a secret who the actor for "TechLead" is, the actor & character are really different people. "TechLead" (the YouTube character) is portrayed as an exaagerated persona with extreme/controversial beliefs made for YouTube. This is not the same as the real-life actor "Patrick Shyu," who may not even share the exact same beliefs. I believe the Wikipedia article, should at minimum, be titled as "TechLead (YouTuber)" rather than under my personal name. My personal name is also never referred to in the YouTube videos, because I am "in character" on there.

As for engaging with the Wikipedia writer, I'm happy to have a conversation (my contact information is online easily) and await any correspondence. Our deletion discussion seems to have led to a standstill, and so some moderation may be appropriate. Techleadhd (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I don't think you're quite picking up what I'm putting down. Nearly every source, from the first NBC article to the last, use your real name and Tech Lead as the name of your youtube channel. We have to summarize what the sources say, so we can't just turn around and make this novel interpretation that Tech Lead is now some fictional character. We need to find that information in reliable sources. If you're the subject of the article, then you and you alone have the power to influence how you are portrayed in those sources, or to set the record straight with them. If I were you, I'd contact Business Insider, Candor, NBC, or whoever, and see if they would like to get your side of the story. I'm betting they would. You can also use your youtube channel to help, such as putting in a disclaimer or talking about it in one of your videos, because it's apparently not clear to people watching them. That in turn may be picked up by reliable sources. Having a conversation with a Wikipedian would not help, because that would be original research at best, and as a tertiary source we just don't do that. We're bound by what the secondary sources say. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

So to respond, for about 90% of the videos, I'm in-character. It's a running joke and my longtime viewers know it's all subtle satire comedy, and I'm not really like that in real life. As others in this thread have noted, the sources here are not really reputable... Business Insider or Candor publish a lot of gossip, and they confused "TechLead" for a real person. A lot of these journalists can't tell the difference. I think the Wikipedia page is also fairly negative (non-neutral) and in that sense an inaccurate portrayal. To me, it's obvious that this is trying to harm reputation because the article is published under my real name rather than the more commonly recognized "TechLead (YouTuber)" title.

I should clarify here that I'm just a normal individual programmer who started a YouTube channel. I'm just one person, don't have a PR rep. I was surprised to find someone writing my biography on here, apparently misthinking that this "character" I created is now myself! When most people meet me in real life, they always say "wow you're much less crazy than I thought you'd be." Well yeah, because I'm usually "in character" on YouTube. It's all been for fun, sad to see this article now impact my employment chances and tarnish my name. Techleadhd (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The YouTube video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQQT6r0qQIg&t=473s clarifies this distinction between character & actor, from the source. Techleadhd (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I cited your video to note that you identify your posts as satirical. I don't hate you and I have no intention of harming your reputation; to the contrary, your success as a media personality makes you notable enough to merit an article, in my opinion (and in the consensus of other editors, at Articles for Deletion). If you'd like to continue this conversation, we can do so using this site's community features. If you believe that there is libelous content in the article about you, see the instructions in WP:LIBEL. White 720 (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me address the article.

• The page should be titled "TechLead (YouTuber)". For most YouTubers like Pewdiepie, their stagename is used in their Wikipedia. It is more precise to say "TechLead is acted by Patrick Shyu," rather than to say "Patrick Shyu, also known as TechLead." The reason is because TechLead is just a very, very small part of my identity - it captures about 1% of my life actually, since YouTube is something I do for fun. For this reason, I think it's simply erroneous to title this page under my name since this persona does not capture me as a person, nor is it representative. TechLead's views are satirical & controversial by design, this should be clarified to avoid libelous claims.
• My salary at Facebook should be confidential information. While the numbers may have been referenced in a video on occasion, those are not exact figures and I think it just looks distasteful to keep re-mentioning it.
• I'm not actually negative about Facebook's working culture, in fact I praise it a lot in many other videos. Some videos are negative on Facebook, some videos praise them. At a time when being negative about Facebook was gaining a lot of media attention, it made more sense to play that angle. Overall, Facebook is a great place to work.
• Obviously I disagree that Million Token would be a "pump-and-dump," as explained in other videos, it is technically impossible to "dump" into one's own liquidity, which is the case at the launch of a token. Actually, much of the token was later generously given for free back into the community. And while liquidity was removed, plenty was added as well and in fact in UniswapV3, liquidity must be repositioned (it is only static in V2 typically), there's no other way to do it in V3.
• AlgoPro/AlgoExpert should preferably not be mentioned, as both parties settled privately and agreed on a non-disparagement clause. It's a done case. While the way this article is phrased makes me look bad, the case has been settled to all party's satisfaction. Leaving out that resolution just makes it sound negative.
• The "women in tech" tweet was satirical rage-baiting done "in-character" and the tweets deleted - this should be clarified ideally, I tweeted under the character name. Further, the article lacks significant context because my point was to actually gain attention to support mothers in tech, having witnessed a mother at Facebook quit her job because Facebook did not allow her maternity benefits. I saw her dreams shattered and so heavily support women in tech. The tweets were retracted in any case since people didn't understand.
• The "Diversity is garbage" videos did not oppose diversity, but rather supports diversity on axis beyond just race & gender.
• The "Black Lives Matter" videos were removed and retracted, but it's relevant to note that later the BLM movement was discredited for buying mansions.
• I did not threaten to doxx Tren Black, I simply knew his identity. The rest of the drama occurred between the other parties.
• Lastly, this article should at least mention the hundreds of positive life-changing videos in my opinion. This is why I find the entire page non-representative, since it seems to ignore all the highlights. My opinion is that TechLead is a positive influence on society, if you can understand the character and dig beyond just face-value. If you take him at face-value, you'll have a negative view. He's also not me.

Techleadhd (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll request that the page be moved to TechLead (currently a redirect) since there are no other pages with this name. I can make other edits in response to your changes. It would help if you could publish information independently, or work with press outlets to do this, as over-reliance on self-published sources is not generally accepted on Wikipedia, particularly for self-serving claims (my attempt to cite your own YouTube video was reverted for this reason). White 720 (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your conceding to move the page.

As for the accuracy of information, this is why I have suggested to simply leave "youtuber drama" to youtube, simply because it's all just drama & gossip ("pewdiepie said X, but he really meant Y, and then he said Z, then made a follow-up video saying W." There aren't hard facts because imo, it's just not really newsworthy hence why I think there's a case for the entire page to just be removed. The speculative criticism is a catalog of unbased allegations from viewers, for which the YouTuber never got a chance to respond. Techleadhd (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to add that I believe the article, as is, is of non-neutral POV and non-conservative - both of which are necessary for biographies of living people. In my view, a neutral article would capture the top 10 (or top 20) most popular videos and summarize them. You can easily find the list on TechLead's YouTube page, but his most popular video includes lessons on how to code, passive income, or stories on dealing with a fictional ex-wife (loosely based on real life). For any criticism, it would make sense to also sort any reaction videos by popularity. From my perspective, the Wikipedia author has cherrypicked a few minor points of criticism and made an entire Wikipedia biography based on that. It's non-representative of who the character is. I understand that while some Tweets or videos may have gotten a few thousand views, that is not exactly newsworthy nor necessarily should every piece of criticism be engraved on a Wikipedia biography. People have varying views of YouTubers (and the truth is even I myself quite dislike the arrogance of this character "TechLead"), but he is quite popular as well and imo the reasons for this popularity should be the bulk of the article, rather than an entire page of what is seemingly criticism. Techleadhd (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There is an RFC on the proposed page move. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sam Brinton - only arrested but that's been put in the article under the section heading "Criminal history"

Doug Weller talk 16:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the heading title to "legal issues", no opinion on the content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this incident should be in the lead section but I also have no clue on the depth of coverage on this person outside this incident. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Deputy Assistant Secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy" does not seem like the sort of position that normally makes a person notable, nor do criminal charges of stealing a suitcase. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This person is paid by the American public to protect the integrity of nuclear-related matters. I have no tolerance for any attempt to downplay that someone seems to have been put in an extremely important role that has the potential to put your and my life in danger if done incompetently and is apparently a serial luggage thief, indicative of deep-seated issues and of being unfit for the role. This person was notable enough for a Wikipedia page from long before the controversy, obviously in some part due to their identity. It's not like this incident is going to lessen their notability, so I don't really agree with your point, at all. 2600:1012:B02E:D11D:A9D1:DDEC:D707:D404 (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The role is highly notable as it is a Senior Executive Service position in the U.S. government, i.e. in the "class of federal career officials who rank just below top presidential appointees in seniority".--FeralOink (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing for this isn't very good, this seems to be largely covered by unreliable and right wing non-mainstream publications. I just removed some other poorly sourced content from this article, which should not have been in there Tristario (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I have now replaced the sources for this with more reliable sources Tristario (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the position wouldn't pass WP:NPOL (and Brinton's a career civil servant rather than a political appointee, so NPOL is dubious grounds here anyway). But, the individual appears to also be a high-profile figure who's been given significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. The article subject seems notable to me, though the article generally could be expanded if someone wants to put in the work. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

FYI Brinton was appointed and was not a career civil servant, although that’s what the administration said he was appointed as. It’s a bit confusing and sources are not very clear about it. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The revised heading title of "Legal issues" looks good to me. I concur with Hemiauchenia's rephrasing and recommend that it remain like that until there is a reason to change it. I am aware of the second felony charge and of a warrant issued for arrest but we uphold the concept of innocent until proven guilty in the U.S., which is the locale for these events.--FeralOink (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk

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

---

That Elon Musk has criticized Black Lives Matter is not documented by any source. I have made all my remarks here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#%22and_has_criticized_the_Black_Lives_Matter_movement_[...]%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_source_and_should_stand_in_its_own_sentence_in_any_regard But to sum up my most essential remarks: The Wikipedia article links this article from Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/11/23/musk-wars-with-the-left-left-suggests-activists-killed-moderation-plan-and-baits-black-lives-matter-supporters/?sh=67b70a152aaf that doesn't in any way definitely say that Elon Musk has criticized Black Lives Matter. The article talk about a tweet that could appear to have a critical attitude toward Black Lives Matter movement. Forbes' article links an article that shows this tweet https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-tweets-cop-killed-unarmed-black-man-ferguson-1849815713 In the tweet he doesn't even mention Black Lives Matter, but the Ferguson protests. We could say he has been critical of the Ferguson protests. To be very specific, he has been critical of "Ferguson Protest's use of a slogan" Whether that is equivalent to being critical of Ferguson Protests, in general, is also questionable. It is not in any way equivalent to being critical of Black Lives Matter. That's not just poorly sourced, but not sourced in any way.

‪176.22.160.62‬ (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

All I had to do was a quick Google search and I found plenty of reliable sources relating Musk's statements to attacks on BLM and black Twitter employees. See some examples:

• https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/elon-musk-twitter-ferguson-protests-obama-b2231181.html
• https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-mocks-staywoke-shirts-twitter-black-lives-matter-dorsey-2022-11
• https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-stay-woke-twitter-shirts-black-lives-matter
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-23/elon-musk-makes-fun-of-twitter-t-shirts-linked-to-blm-protests
• https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/elon-musk-black-twitter-influencers-hate-speech-rcna59474

Those were all from the first page of results. The Forbes reference should probably be replaced with one or more of these, yes. Silverseren^C 05:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

None of those sources confirms that he has criticized Black Lives Matter ... 176.22.160.62 (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Every source you have just posted contains somewhat the same story as in Forbes.

A story about Elon Musk making fun of "Stay Woke" shirts. Making fun of Stay Woke shirts is not = criticizng Black Lives Matter.

You aren't automatically criticzing Black Lives Matter because you are critical of the so called Woke movement.

We don't even know whether Elon Musk was conscious about the shirts were made for the black staff - even if he was, it doesn't qualify him as a criticizer of BLM

I have already adressed all the other issues. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/independent-media-bias = left-wing

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/nbc-news-media-bias = left-wing

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/bloomberg-media-bias = left-wing

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/insider-media-bias = left-wing

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/mashable = left-wing

Oh god ... what is this even.

But the sources fail too if you look at them with scrutiny 176.22.160.62 (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend this discussion on allsides -- perhaps not an absolute authority. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

But as the IP points out, these all are talking about Musk tweeting in a mocking post of t-shirts with a Stay Woke hashing on it. There is no explicit connection to Musk and BLM, these sources all bring it up to try to suggest an association but that's too weak for BLP principles. We certainly can talk how Musk is critical of the "woke" movement (there have been other incidents), but we can't jump to BLM from that. Masem (t) 14:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Critical of the right's caricature of the "woke movement" anyway. "Woke" just means being aware of systemic/historical bias/injustice, which is why the shirts have ties to BLM. When people who care about that kind of thing hear the right's anti-"wokeness" rhetoric, it's easy to take it as face value, i.e. not the generalized reactionary resentment it usually is, but actual criticism of concern for systemic racism. In any event, because of that distinction, I agree that partaking in some vapid lib-owning isn't the same as "criticizing BLM" directly. "Criticizing" implies intent. It would be more accurate to call it "insensitive" or something (at the risk of invoking another caricature). There may be a way to combine it with coverage of this kind of comment, though? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

We do want to be carefully of a claim that Musk may be racist or similar views similar from compiling RSes of his social media posts that do not directly spell out what he believes. Thats OR. Also we don't need to laundry list of every tweet that was found to be be offensive but had no followup. We want to summarize his views, not document every awkward social media post. Masem (t) 15:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Exactly 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The Independent is a reliable source and that story also says "(Musk) then criticised Black Lives Matter protestors. He said that the shirts stemmed from the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and that those protests were misguided. "Hands up don’t shoot" was made up,” (Musk) said. “The whole thing was a fiction.”" Whether that's enough for a mention, I'm not sure. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

He didn't criticize the Black Lives Matter protestors. It's an interpretation based on the tweet you can find in this article

https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-tweets-cop-killed-unarmed-black-man-ferguson-1849815713

He is criticizing whether some physical circumstances surrounding an event took place that a slogan refers to, and he links a federal investigation report that found no evidence that Ferguson held his hands up when he was shot - something which Independent leaves out ... so no, it isn't a reliable source ... in this regard.

The problem is that he isn't criticizing the political symbolics of the slogan either.

Neither can we say the report itself is critical to Black Lives Matter. No, it isn't, it just comments on whether some physical circumstances surrounding an event really happened, and that is what Elon Musk is commenting on. You can't just interpret your opinions into this. You might argue it sends anti Ferguson protests signal, or you may extend it even further to that it sends anti Black Lives Matter signals. But it's speculations. The problem is too that just because you once apparently hints something that doesn't automatically mean that it is relevant to your entire biography, wtf?

176.22.160.62 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The Independent article quite literally says that he criticised the BLM protestors. That's a near verbatim quote from the Independent. You don't just get to say "Well, I don't think he did" and then nullify the plain language of The Independent. It is a reliable source, you dear random dude from the internet, are not. --Jayron32 15:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

We know what Musk wrote, which didn't mention BLM at all, but the Independent makes the claim it was. We know that the Independent made an assumption here and claimed something Musk did not say directly. As such, we would need to include that claim with attribution to the Imdependent if we were to include it. Masem (t) 16:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Attribution is fine. Claiming that an actual reliable source is wrong because we think so is not. Stating "According to The Independent" is fine here, but unless we have a correction OR we have other equally as reliable sources broadly disagreeing or countering the statement (and silence is not disagreement), then the statement is backed up by a reliable source. --Jayron32 16:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The source isn't necessarily wrong. It's just an interpretation or an assumption as said.

The problem is that you absolutely refuse to look into the source. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

We ate not blind to problems with RSes that are making interpretive statement from typically short social media posts. Not in this case with the Independent (it appears as a valid conclusion), but if they said from Musk's tweet that Musk was critical of MLK Jr., that would be something we'd question even if inclusion was necessary. Masem (t) 16:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, the Wikipedia article doesn't use the article from Independent, but two sources from Bloomberg and Forbes where no support can be found.

With regards to the Independent article

We must make objections to the claim that Independent is a reliable source.

A source isn't just either unambiguously reliable or not unambiguously reliable. Reliability depends on subject that is being covered as welll.

Independent are left-leaning

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/03/07/how-left-or-right-wing-are-uks-newspapers

https://adfontesmedia.com/independent-bias-and-reliability/

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/independent-media-bias

Considering Elon Musk is a polarizing figure and has recently shown support for a Republican figure (stands on Elon Musk Wikipedia page too) https://www.google.dk/search?q=elon+musk+polarizing&ei=3xyRY9WXCfCwrgS89LOQDA&ved=0ahUKEwiVg7D2z-j7AhVwmIsKHTz6DMIQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=elon+musk+polarizing&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzoKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzoFCAAQkQI6BQgAEIAEOgsILhCABBDHARDRAzoOCC4QgAQQxwEQ0QMQ1AI6BQguEIAEOgQILhBDOgQIABBDOgcILhDUAhBDOgsILhCABBDHARCvAToKCAAQgAQQxwMQCjoGCAAQFhAeOgUIABCGAzoFCCEQoAE6CAgAEBYQHhAKOgYIABAeEA06BwghEKABEApKBAhBGABKBAhGGABQuwFY7CNgzSRoCHABeACAAXKIAZsPkgEEMjUuMpgBAKABAcgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Considering all the polarization around the hate speech versus free speech debate, the Twitter drama, and that Elon Musk has taken the "pro free speech at the expense of hate speech" stance which is anti-left/democratic, etc.,

and democrats losing trust in Twitter after Elon Musk's takeover https://morningconsult.com/2022/11/17/elon-musks-politically-polarizing-effect/

Considering that the Independent's story about Elon Musk doesn't just revolve around Elon Musk's actions that are apolitical.

But revolve around Elon Musk's actions that are political(ly questionable), and that those actions get depicted in a way that is, anti-left,

for example anti-BLM and anti-antiracism such that it fits into the rethorics of the bias of the newspapers.

Considering that Independent's story appears to be an outliar (Dumuzid did a mini research on that too)

Considering that the information on the Wikipedia article was added 1 day after the event took place and hasn't passed the test of time at all

and suffers heavily from recency bias.

Considering it fails "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments. Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. References must be cited in context and on topic."

on "passing comment" - and "unclear or inconsistency passages" because the paragraph of the article in question contains

"He then criticised Black Lives Matter protestors."

<- "He said that the shirts stemmed from the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and that those protests were misguided."

which isn't consistent or clear - being misguided isn't a critique either, if anything, it's a critique of those who have caused the misguiding (who is not mentioned),

even if that seemingly is a critique, it fails "open for multiple interpretations", and the connection between the opening statement of the paragraph and the rest of the paragraph is definitely not clear or consistent.

Considering that the article was written by https://www.independent.co.uk/author/andrew-griffin whose area of expertise is "Technology editor and science reporter" thus fails https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:GREL&redirect=no . You guys aren't analyzing your sources, lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.188.128 (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

- CONSIDERING ALL THIS, I don't think we can take this source or the information in the Wikipedia article seriously. At least not yet.

In any instance, using the Bloomberg and Forbes articles as sources have to be fixed. What do you think?Dumuzid (talk · contribs)130.225.188.128 (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

We need quotes from Elon Musk, not from left-wing media.

If you look in the paragraph you talk about, it refers to the tweet you can find here

https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-tweets-cop-killed-unarmed-black-man-ferguson-1849815713

which I have commented on. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Your casting of aspersions against news sources that report things that you don't like is only reflective on you, and not on their reliability. --Jayron32 16:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm just looking into the source.

Why do you refuse to talk about the content that the source covers? 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Because you are straying into WP:OR territory. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

No, that is what you are doing

"Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments. Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. References must be cited in context and on topic." 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia prioritizes secondary sources. While I quite agree with you about claritty, passing comments, attribution, etc. The Independent Source says what it says. It's perfectly fair to point out that it's an outlier or the like, but to say "I think their interpretation is incorrect" is a non-starter. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say their interpretation was wrong. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

But I'm strongly questioning that we can use that interpretation from Independent based on this Tweet

https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-tweets-cop-killed-unarmed-black-man-ferguson-1849815713

which Indepedent refers to in that very paragraph of the Independent article

as a source confirming that Elon Musk is criticizing Black Lives Matter.

That's not well sourced in any way.

Well, some people already said, we could attribute the claim to Independent.

Alright, that's ofc. possible - I didn't mean to disagree in that regard 176.22.160.62 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is your "original research" as we would term it around here. I don't necessarily think we should use the Independent quote, and there are arguments to be made against it, but "here's my reasoning as to why they are wrong" is just not what we're after. It can be a compelling argument in real life, but Wikipedia is weird. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

First of all. I'm glad that we can agree that the Wikipedia article isn't backed up by any source.

The Wikipedia article uses https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/11/23/musk-wars-with-the-left-left-suggests-activists-killed-moderation-plan-and-baits-black-lives-matter-supporters/?sh=650c6fb12aaf

which says "bait". It uses an another Bloomberg article that says "links"

Maybe you're right about original research. But I'm just trying to understand the source in question from what the source itself covers.

But I guess you are right that that is allowed to use interpretive claims.

"Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. "

But I'm still questioning whether Independent is a reliable source.

The problem is here that a source isn't definitely reliable or not reliable. Reliability depends on what you cover.

We know Independent is left-wing medium - I posted a source before (I could try to look for more sources perhaps).

If a left wing medium covers a person whom we know have been criticized sharply by the left (because of hate speech issues) and indeed criticizes him in a way that is in harmony with the left wing agenda (pro Woke movement, etc.), then it is strongly questioneable whether we can call the source reliable. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree it's not backed up by any source, though I don't necessarily think it belongs in there. In real life, criticizing the rationale behind reporting can be very convincing. I think you make a fairly good case here. But on Wikipedia, we default to secondary sources like the Independent. That's some evidence for the proposition put forward. They interpreted the evidence, and I don't think that interpretation is wildly off, even if I don't agree with it. So we don't (on Wikipedia, at least) get to say "I have the superior interpretation, so the source is incorrect." But then you're getting closer to Wikipedia arguments. Noting bias is fine; it's usually not a reason to discount a source, but can certainly make attribution seem appropriate. A better argument here would be "no other reliable sources interpret this the same way" (which is true, from the little investigation I have done). THAT is a convincing Wikipedia argument. You can say "as a total outlier from a source with a known bias, it isn't really WP:DUE to be included in this manner." You will basically always be on firmer ground if arguing about what the secondary sources say rather than why they say it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"it's usually not a reason to discount a source, but can certainly make attribution seem appropriate."

Yeah, glad we can agree on that.

Thanks for your inputs - I'm not a Wikipedia editor admittedly.

Alright. It is worth noting, if anyone missed it, that the Elon Musk article doesn't use the source from Independent, but from Bloomberg and Forbes. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate your neutral take. This will probably be the last comment on the subject because it's taking time from my study.

I wanted you and other people also to take notice of how it is written in the Wikipedia article

"He has promoted conspiracy theories relating to the attack of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband, and has criticized the Black Lives Matter movement, specifically stating that "hands up, don't shoot," a rallying cry that arose after the 2014 shooting of an unarmed black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri was based in "fiction."

I find it inappropriate that the story about "criticizing" BLM doesn't stand in its own sentence. I don't think it is appropriate to connect it to a conspiracy theory.

[In general there appears to be a lot of bias issues in the Wikipedia article, but I don't have time to go through it all. This is an unsubstantiated claim (well, the talk page is huge) yes, it's just a warning]

I hope, sincerely, you will strive for increased neutrality! Cheers. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, another problem to add is recency bias. This information was added approximately one day after the event.

It seems very desperate. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not how this works. Wikipedia does not analyze what people said or did. It summarizes the analysis of reliable sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments. Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. References must be cited in context and on topic." 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The quote from The Independent is not unclear or inconsistent. It is in plain English and rather easy to follow. Again, if you have a source that itself says the Independent is wrong, then we have something. Unless and until you have such a source, you don't have a leg to stand on. That doesn't mean we must include it, I agree, but your multiple attempts to argue that The Independent should not be used merely because you think it is wrong (without any evidence that it is other than your own analysis of the information you have chosen to highlight), that's a non-starter. If you think it isn't wrong, then I'm not sure why you're arguing? I'm fine with deciding that we don't mention the conclusions of the Independent; I don't really have a dog in the race here. I just don't like to see people repeatedly making bad arguments. --Jayron32 17:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I would like you to check the conversation between me and Dumuzid. I think we can agree on something. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

And thanks for your inputs about original research issues. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The Independent is a reliable source quoting it is perfectly fine. Due may apply as this is recent, but no other issues apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This "reply section" is outdated,

check my reply

23:36, 7 December 2022 130.225.188.128 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not reliable in this instance as I have thoroughly explained in

23:36, 7 December 2022 reply 130.225.188.128 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Not only does this source completely fail if you look it with scrutiny which me and Masem have done

which apparently is not allowed because that is "original research".

It also fails internally (in itself). It fails at so many parameters that I can't believe it, lol. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

New information has been added in my long post written 23:36 8. december

The article from Independent also fails https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:GREL&redirect=no

@Jayron32 @Dumuzid 130.225.188.128 (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright. I hope you have read 23:36, 7 December 2022

We need to talk about this passage too

"He subsequently tweeted criticism of Twitter executive Vijaya Gadde's policies to his 86 million followers, which led to some of them engaging in sexist and racist harassment against her"

The passage is completely meaningless as it isn't relevant to Elon Musk's critique, this isn't relevant to Elon Musk's person either.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220428030308/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/04/27/technology/twitter-elon-musk-news

Look at the source - the article says nothing about whether Elon Musk's critique is sexist or racist or inspires it or anything alike, and Elon Musk isn't responsible for "some people" (2 people or more) in his large following.

As I pointed out in the talk page - it is, frankly, extremely trivial that at least "some people"(2 people or more) engage in sexist or racist attacks if a person with a following of many million people criticize a woman who has held "censorship"(it's a private company though) power over million of people (to the better or to the worse).

This is extremely trivial such that you can't expect anything else. And it's still not relevant to Elon Musk. If it is relevant to Elon Musk because he is a "polarizing" character, then use

the word "outrage" which the article uses too. The New York Times article actually sums up the events as "In tweets, Musk takes aim at Twitter executives, creating outrage."

So why would the Wikipedia editor cherrypick the detail of that situation that is centered around the racist and sexist attacks against Ms. Gadde? If you wanna sum up a situation in short detail, you wanna sum it up generally, instead of cherrypicking specific detail of the situation.

When it happens that those detail also coincide with framing Elon Musk sexist or racist in subtle way, it's very critical. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I just made these article edits to try and address some of the points discussed above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Genuinely, thank you for taking my concerns seriously. I think there is likely much more about the article that can be discussed, but I don't have more to add - other than something that, honestly, must be a very, very uncontroversial suggestion.

"He has promoted conspiracy theories relating to the attack of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband." [... *NEW SENTENCE* ...]

Elon Musk's statement about the slogan in question isn't a conspiracy theory which no sources suggest either, thus shouldn't be connected to the first verb of the sentence. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that concern was already addressed by the edits I made. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The article is getting better definitely.

I will give you two suggestions now

The first suggestion:

I have made a suggestion on the Elon Musk talk page which has been ignored for days now with regards to the first sentence

"Elon Reeve Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/ EE-lon; born June 28, 1971) is a business magnate and investor."

This suggestion is very close to undiscussable imo.

It is absolutely undiscussable that Elon Musk is an entrepreneur.

This seems to be his most common label, and the label can even be found on book covers too.

https://imusic.co/books/9798648453920/caleb-bennett-2020-elon-musk-paperback-book

https://www.saxo.com/dk/elon-musk_paperback_9781761036835?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7N-E3KHr-wIVAwWiAx3wWgINEAQYAiABEgIm-PD_BwE

Otherwise:

https://www.biography.com/business-figure/elon-musk

https://astrumpeople.com/elon-musk-biography/

"He is not only an entrepreneur but [...]" (they make it sound like it is obvious for everyone)

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61234231

"Born in South Africa, Mr Musk showed his talents for entrepreneurship early, going door-to-door with his brother selling homemade chocolate Easter eggs and developing his first computer game at the age of 12."

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/061015/how-elon-musk-became-elon-musk.asp

On Investopedia they have even put him under the section "Entrepreneurs".

I can't even find any sources that call him an investor - I can find sources that talk about how "he invested in x company" how he was an "investor in this company". Finding sources that describe him as an investor, in general, seems very difficult and even if such sources exist, they must be very underwhelming compared to the sources that call him entrepreneur.

I have seen sources that call Elon Musk an inventor (the danish Wikipedia call him that actually), but I find that is likely to be disputeable, but I don't know.

One thing is sure "entrepreneur" should be included in the sentence before "investor".

"investor" should probably be removed too. "business magnate" can arguably stay, but

"entrepreneur" should come first.

The second suggestion:

With regards to:

"Musk's statements have provoked controversy, such as for mocking preferred gender pronouns, and comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler."

Adolf Hitler analogues are extremely common and have been seen on both the right-wing and left-wing, thus

this analogue does not give us insight into Elon Musk's views. We have to understand how he used the Adolf Hitler analogue to

emphasize his view. He used the analogue in the light of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_convoy_protest .

Another problem is the use of the word "controversy". This problem might extend to many Wikipedia articles.

Many Wikipedia editors refer to reliable sources, but might forget:

Generally reliable in its areas of expertise

The problem of the word controversy is https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/controversy?q=controversy

"public discussion and argument about something that many people strongly disagree about, think is bad, or are shocked by"

The problem is that lots of newspapers, including reliable newspapers, use this word in a completely careless way.

The word describes a quantity, MANY people. But if they are not referring to any polls, human research survey, etc., or if they don't work for an institute that conducts such surveys, then they can't just

throw that word carelessly.

Words such as "controversy" should be replaced with words such as "heated discussion" rather.

I have seen a discussion on this problem on Danish Televion TV2 News among Danish mainstream newspaper editors-in-chief

before (I might be able to find it later ...) 130.225.188.131 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

We should be careful with a source that reaches takes the same basic facts as other sources yet reaches a different, more negative conclusion. This is especially true when we can look at the facts and in good faith say, those facts don't mean what the source is saying. Springee (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, it's helpful to un-indent these threads from time to time, so I'm doing that now. It's running right off the right side of my screen. Like trying to read a totem pole.

I really haven't been following this discussion too closely. Entrepreneur, investor, mogul. Tomato/Tomaato. These are little details that should be worked out on the talk page. That's not what this noticeboard is for.

I do agree with you, 130, that in most cases people use the word "controversy" incorrectly. Usually you see this here in so-called "controversy sections", where suddenly any dispute, lawsuit, spat, traffic ticket, or any negative thing a person has ever done --real or perceived-- is deemed a "controversy" and lumped into a single section. This causes all sorts of problems, not the least of which is throwing the entire article off balance by loading all the heavy stuff on one end. (Do that on a plane and you'll crash.) However, I looked at the section you're speaking of and that is one case where we're actually using the word correctly, so I'm not sure what the complaint is. Either way, this discussion is no longer about anything that is a real BLP issue, so I'd suggest taking it to the talk page. Zaereth (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I kept it to the talk page. You just get ignored. Anythingyouwant actually fixed the concerns that were brought up in the beginning.

IT appears like Elon Musk's biography has been attack of political motivations clearly.

Check

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&type=revision&diff=644912934&oldid=644895983 [I'm not referring to this specific revision, just noting that it was written differently in the past - I don't know when it was changed]

The Wikipedia page even used to call him an entrepreneur - ofc. lol.

It's horrifying.

There's also a guy https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QRep2020

who systematically insert negative information and stories about Elon Musk in every article that is related to Elon Musk, lol.

The guy disagreed with two of my suggestion WITHOUT giving any reason. I tried to ask him - still didn't give me any reason. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

See, this is where I get confused, which is part of why I haven't been following along too closely. The first link you just provided was just the insertion of the letters "IPO", which for all I know stands for "Illustrative Purposes Only", or "International Press Organization". Possibly vandalism but was reverted as a good faith edit. Whatever the case, I have no idea why you're showing it to me, but it has me utterly confused.

The next link is the history of the Musk article, but why you're linking it is a mystery to me. Am I supposed to see something there?

The third link is to someone's user page. It says something about Musk, but no clue what I'm supposed to glean from that. If people on the talk page are having the same problem, it could be the reason you've gotten no reply. I certainly don't know how to reply, except to let you know we seem to be having some communication problems. I'm really not very interested, though, and I think this particular conversation has run its course some time ago. Zaereth (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

My bad. I did actually make a couple of editions to my post right after I had posted it. It's a bad habit - editing my post after I have posted rather than before posting.

I was just pointing out that the Wikipedia article on Elon Musk in the past was more objective.

Secondly, I just wanted to cast light/warn you on the actions of the user QRep2020 in the history page of editions and

to cast light on all the user's editions. I apologize if this is not the right place to do it. Please tell me if there is a page to report users.

I don't want to highlight the specific actions the user has done - just casting light on the user - because I don't have the time.

Nah, my suggestions were specific and clear and were also finally met.

I do disagree too that I should have kept all this to the talk page. Some of the content was framing Elon Musk subtly as a racist, sexist and frame him as a criticizer of BLM without being backed up by any sources - it is close to defamation.

Look at my first thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#Replace_%22highly_polazring%22_with_%22highly_discussed%22_and_remove_extremely_trivial_story

The first respond I get is from "Slatersteven":

"Because RS say it?" from a guy seemingly questioning my motives - and I still don't know what RS is, honestly, and I tried to ask him - I didn't get one.

The next reply I get is from "Muboshgu":

"I would argue saying he has '86 million followers on Twitter' is trivial given that an estimated half of them are bots"

He is not making any point here or replying to my concerns, but just seem to have an issue with Elon Musk.

I also get a reply from "QRep2020":

"Disagree against both recommendations"

Without giving any reason.

Therefore I came here because the talk page is a complete shitshow. Content with the possibility of damaging one's reputation shall be taken very seriously, it didn't get taken seriously, therefore I came here. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright. Entrepreneur or not is not about defamation. The case that started my thread has ended. My bad. I will keep the rest to the talk page. At the end it's worth noting that QRep2020 has been banned from the page before. I had no idea about this until I went into his Wikipedia page. It doesn't come as a shock. https://www.reddit.com/r/elonmusk/comments/u86csy/guys_we_succeeded_qrep2020_is_now_indefinitely/. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

unblocked. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above I agree that we shouldn't report that Musk said things about BLM. It appears that there are no quotes from Musk about BLM but a few sources that interpreted his quotes to be an attack on BLM. This is a general issue with a lot of the press when dealing with controversial figures. They often take comments that are compatible with a view that is considered negative and then take those views to mean the negative thing. Rather than differing to "it's a RS" we as editors should question when a source appears to be jumping to a conclusion. While it would be OR for us to write "[source] took the statement to mean Y" we can decide if other sources didn't reach that same conclusion then perhaps this isn't a good conclusion and should be left. Deciding to include poorly founded conclusions about controversial figures is a systematic bias that exists in Wikipedia and is a reason why we should be very careful with BLPs. Disclaimer: I've been accused of being anti-Musk and anti-Telsa. Both are true and a largely avoid editing those topics for those reasons. Springee (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everything. I'm the person who wrote this thread, and I have been on an interesting journey learning the policy of Wikipedia, etc. But I have lost all faith in BLP and maybe HASS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities,_arts,_and_social_sciences . I have spent a lot of time putting fine arguments forward, referring to Wikipedia policies, and followed the principles of WP:AFG, etc. But at this point I can't any longer. The Elon Musk article has been captured by activists, and at this point I regret that I even tried to make it a neutral and a valid encyclopedia entry because I think the best that can be done now is to let the article become obviously partisan such that no one in his/her good mind buys into it, but laughs at Wikipedia instead. Sometimes I have wondered whether that is actually the goal of one of the editors, lol, and whether I should contribute to that goal (but I won't).

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Yeah, Wikipedia articles on HASS subjects are doomed. Have fun. Jatlin1 (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

No idea what "allsides.com" is, but for the benefit of the IP, we don't care if some site considers some sources to be "left wing", and nor do we care if some sources are "left wing". They are still reliable sources that can absolutely be used as sources on WP. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• NEW CONCERNS

My and many other editors' good faith revisions get reverted without any reasons or arguments which goes against WP:TALKDONTREVERT. A good example is this one https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=1126239322&oldid=1126238371 which I tried to get back as well, but that was reverted too ... once again without any explanation - that is despite I brought it up on the talk page, but the vandalizers don't wanna participate in any dialogue. Some of the information in the article is not backed up by any sources as I have shown here [[...%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_sources|Elon_Musk#The_entire_sentence_%22Musk's_statements_have_provoked_controversy_[...]%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_sources]]

There continues to be so many issues about this article. Question is why isn't this article marked with a warning or something like that? I tried to revert the editions of someone who was alleged of COI on Cher Scarlett https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=1093142001&diffmode=source . I have brought it up here [[..._along_with_deleting_his_responses_to_critical_tweets_from_Cher_Scarlett_[...]%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_sources]], but this edit has also been reverted without any attempt to meet me in a dialogue. Jatlin1 (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You don't have consensus. Simple as that. ~ HAL333 03:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Nor do yourself. Question is why you don't enter a dialogue. Jatlin1 (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no clue what you're referring to. Your first link is something done by an entirely different editor, and the others just link to the talk page. Nothing specific in the talk page, just the talk page. I'm not going to read the whole thing, and I can't read your mind. If there is something specific you want us to look at you'll need to either tell --specifically-- what that is, and link to specific diffs or talk page sections at the very least.

The policy you linked above just says not to delete comments from talk pages, but has nothing to do with the article itself. The article is covered by WP:BRD, which says be bold, and if someone reverts your boldness, then talk about it rather than edit warring.

When it comes to BLP rules, however, we're a lot more strict. If someone adds a BLP violation we are obligated to remove it without discussion. Even if it is only a potential violation. It should then be discussed and not reinstated until there is consensus that it is ok to do so. Keep in mind that BLP rules apply to all of Wikipedia, including talk pages, user pages, and especially main space, so even on talk pages you have to be very careful what you say. Zaereth (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Your first link is something done by an entirely different editor

Yeah, that's coherent with the concern I just told you

My and many other editors' good faith revisions get reverted without any reasons or arguments which goes against WP:TALKDONTREVERT. A good example is this one https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=1126239322&oldid=1126238371 which I tried to get back as well, but that was reverted too ... once again without any explanation - that is despite I brought it up on the talk page, but the vandalizers don't wanna participate in any dialogue.

Just use ctrl+f on the remaining, but I will edit it. The policy you linked above just says not to delete comments from talk pages, but has nothing to do with the article itself. The article is covered by WP:BRD, which says be bold, and if someone reverts your boldness, then talk about it rather than edit warring.

I'm not sure if you refer to WP:TALKDONTREVERT which I mentioned myself. But read this from WP:EDITCON

All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work.

HAL333 doesn't do this. He doesn't even wanna talk on the talk pages (rarely)

You are strict? Yet, I have pointed out dozen of BLP policies violations, but nothing happens. Jatlin1 (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

First, I know what I said, so you don't have to repeat my words back to me like I'm some kind of idiot. I have the ability to read a response and understand what is being responded to. See, we seem to be having some communication problems here. If others at the article are having the same problems, then it's no wonder that you are having such difficulties. Try to look at it from my point of view. I know nothing about this subject, nor do I really care, but I'm willing to look if you give me something to look at. But you gotta realize that where I'm at we just got dumped on with around 5 feet of snow, so everybody is hauling ass trying to dig everything out and I don't have time to play private investigator with "control-F" because it's too much of an inconvenience for you to post the actual diffs here. If you're not going to make it easy for me, then I have no interest in going out and looking for myself.

On the one diff you posted, I don't see what that has to do with your edits. Did you post that info? How am I supposed to know that? Anythingyouwant made several edits there, so it's not like I can look at the preceding edit to see if it was a reversion. Am I just supposed to read your mind? Now, I fully agree with their change there, because as it was written before it told me nothing. "Sexist" and "racist" are conclusions, but they don't really say anything of any substance. The edit made by Anythingyouwant at least gave some factual information.

If you think the problem is editor behavior, then you're at the wrong noticeboard. That's what ANI is for. This board is for BLP violations, yet you have shown me no such violations here? So what is it you want me to do exactly? My interest in this is quickly waning. Zaereth (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Leon Black

Information about a recent court case involving Leon Black, which is well-sourced and neutrally worded, has been removed by editor SPECIFICO (talk · contribs).

WP:BLP#People accused of crime says that "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material ...", however, Black is very much a public figure. So I don't understand the argument that including information about the court case is a BLP violation.

What is the consensus from folks here? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Black would appear to fall under public figure as a high level businessperson, so yes, the removal of a lawsuit against (not just an accusation) seems wrong. Masem (t) 21:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that anyone can sue anyone else. It hasn't even reached the stage where the complaint might by summarily dismissed by a court as frivolous, malicious, time-barred, or whatever. It is not getting ongoing media coverage, and there are millions of wealthy business people who get sued every day for all kinds of things. In fact, their wealth invites such suits. If this gets to the next stage and is demonstrated to be significant and a matter widely reported to the public, that merits a mention. I don't see that this has met the test at this time. SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I tend to generally agree with your approach here, but at the same time, I think these things can hit a critical mass where simply the initiation of a suit sort of demands coverage if it makes a big enough splash in the RSes. This one for me would probably clear that line, but reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: To respond to a particular point made about the possibility that the case may be "... summarily dismissed ... [or] time-barred, or whatever", this is from the Insider article which I had cited in my initial edit: "Pierson is able to pursue legal action against Black due to New York's Adult Survivor's Act, which opened up the state's statute of limitations for abuse cases on November 24." And this is from a recent CNN article: "Adult survivors of sexual abuse now can sue their abusers in New York – even if the statute of limitations on their claims has expired – under a state law that goes into effect Thursday. The new law gives adult survivors of sexual assault one year to file lawsuits against their perpetrators." So it appears the case won't be dropped due to statute of limitations reasons. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• While you're quite right about the statute of limitations issue, I cannot help but nerd out momentarily as I am not sure whether or how courts might interpret the doctrine of laches with regard to these claims, and it does not seem to be specifically addressed in the legislation. Ok. Back to your regularly scheduled programming! Dumuzid (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  I have no idea about that, but there are bigger cases based on the same legislation: Writer E. Jean Carroll sues Trump under new N.Y. sexual assault law, so I guess we can wait and see what happens. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You may be more familiar with this than I am. I have seen it mentioned only because a series of SPA editors have wanted to add it to the WP page. Lawsuits against wealthy people are not generally considered significant until they've met the intial standards of plausibility and process. OP, do you have any published commentary as to the credibility and seriousness of the allegation? SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

A lawsuit against a public figure reported by reputable sources (here. Nytimes, cnn, wsj) is something hard to bury under BLPCRIME. If it was only based on court reports or weak sources, then I would agree we could ignore it, but that not the csse. Masem (t) 22:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"... do you have any published commentary as to the credibility and seriousness of the allegation?" It seems too early for that kind of analysis to be available, all the media reports I have seen are simply quoting the different attorneys, and reviewing the legal filings. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact that it's too early for that is exactly why it's too early for inclusion in his biography. We need to be cautious. I have no idea about this matter, but we do know that involved parties may want to rush such content into the encyclopedia prematurely, so there's a bit of an inherent bias toward including UNDUE negative material. SPECIFICO talk 23:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

But what does Wikipedia policy actually state (or is there a cultural precedent that is generally followed by editors)? For example, it seems that Masem has different ideas on this. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RECENTISM. Policy is not written like laws, nor should it be, because there is no way possible to create a distinct policy for every single possibility or combination of factors that may arise. I agree with Masem, that if this was a non-notable person we wouldn't even consider adding this, but for a person as notable as the subject, there is no point in trying to protect their right to be innocent until proven guilty. That said, we are not a newspaper, and we don't have to rush into it heads in the sand and butts in the air like a newspaper either. That's the problem with news, because they give up-to-the-minute coverage, so in the initial stages of any event coverage is spotty and unreliable at best. They're just starting to assemble the pieces of the puzzle at that point. I see no harm in waiting until the story unfolds a little more and we actually have a much better picture. Zaereth (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Another section of this BLP is titled “affair” but the section describes accusations of much more than an affair, so I suggest modifying that header. Black countersued that (first) accuser and others for conspiring against him, but that countersuit was dismissed.[4] The first accuser was Guzel Ganieva, and the more recent accuser is Cheri Pierson, both represented by Susan Estrich Wigdor LLP. Given the widespread coverage in RS’s, it would seem appropriate to briefly mention the second accuser, and Estrich, and also Black’s dismissed countersuit, in the section now inadequately titled “affair” together with Black’s denial. The second accusation is closely related to the first, so the whole thing has been going on for quite a while. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, it's definitely not a one off random thing, or coming out of the blue. Updating some of the language, as proposed by Anythingyouwant, would help clarify this content. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

What "whole thing"? SPECIFICO talk 04:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Wigdor’s court cases against Black (both involving Epstein), and Black’s countersuit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Two clients of the same lawfirm do not merge so that we should call them a single "thing". These are two complaints, they have been reported distinctly at different times and they have distinct facts and weight in sources. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why we are all here, discussing about inclusion of more information surrounding these events. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

More recent news about this:

Leon Black seeks sanctions against law firm pressing rape claims - Reuters, December 16

Leon Black seeks court sanction against attorneys representing rape claims - Financial Times, December 16

Accusations of "frivolous claims". I'm not sure how long it will take the court to decide on the validity of Black's request, but the outcome should help us decide about including this information (or not) on Leon Black's Wikipedia article. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

David Lifton

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

I'm not sure if this is the proper forum for this. A new editor has changed David Lifton to note that he died the other day, but I cannot find any reliable sources for this. The editor who made that change appears to be the same one who mentioned it in THIS conspiracy forum. Not sure what to do in cases like this. -Location (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I also cannot find any reliable source announcing his death, and have reverted the recent changes (which had problems beyond adding today as the death date). As it's a BLP, I think such unsourced information cannot remain in the article, even with a {{cn}} tag. Levivich (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Paid obituaries as sources for death of BLP

• David Lifton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Source: NYT via Legacy.com
• WP:OBITUARIES
• Edit: Special:Diff/1127593022

Is this a valid source to update the article and state the subject is dead? The source is self-published, but I cannot find another source, and I can't tell what the best course of action is: state that he's dead sourced to a self-published source (with the risk it's not true), or not state that he's dead with the risk that it is true. There must be some consensus on this already but I can't find it and OBIT doesn't seem to answer this specific issue. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#David Lifton. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Same topic, but the source is new, published today. (I've merged the two threads.) Levivich (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

My view is that a paid, family written obituary in a reliable newspaper is adequate to state that that a person has died on a given date, but is not reliable for other biographical details. Obituaries written by staff reporters that go through the normal editorial review process are fully reliable. Cullen328 (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Cullen beat me to the punch. This is my gut feeling as well--for some people who are lower on the notability spectrum or whose notability has long past, this may be all we ever get. While I understand the hesitation, I think inclusion of the fact of death is warranted. Premature obituaries are definitely a thing, but my sense is that errors in paid obituaries are not such an issue that they should be innately distrusted. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Legacy requires death care provider information to post a paid obituary. Presuming they actually follow up and contact the death care provider I would say obituaries on Legacy are reliable for dates of death. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. That's my view, too: paid obituaries are reliable for the fact of death but not for other biographical details. Does everyone agree date and place of death are OK to source to paid obits, or just date of death? Levivich (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Absent conflicting evidence, I don't see an issue with date and place. Slywriter (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no issues with the consensus that seems to be forming. FWIW: There is discussion in the aforementioned conspiracy forum HERE that appears to confirm that it was written by a family member and published by the NYT today, but I don't actually see it in the NYT. - Location (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I think there are certain details beyond the fact/date of death for which a paid obituary would still be a reliable source. Date or year of birth/age at death if otherwise unknown; dates of degrees received, if receipt of the degree itself is otherwise attested. BD2412 T 21:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

BD2412 - If consensus is with you here, that's fine, but I personally don't find details like that nearly as reliable in this context. Circumstances of the death of the subject person are pretty assuredly within the immediate knowledge of whoever is posting the obituary; things like date of birth, education, et al, may not be. In my experience, that sort of information is much more susceptible to 'family legend.' But, as I say, no worries if that's just me being a stick-in-the-mud. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I share Dumuzid's skepticism about using paid obituaries for anything other than date and possibly place of death. Grieving relatives cannot be counted on to do fact checking of family lore about a great grandparent. Cullen328 (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I hope whatever the consensus is, we can update WP:OBITUARIES with specific guidance about this issue. Levivich (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC) ETA: I think it's safe to presume the person writing a paid obit has first-hand knowledge of date and place of death, and/or can refer to the death certificate which would contain those facts. So I think a paid obit is reliable for date and place as essentially a primary source. For historical/biographical details, however, it would be an unreliable secondary source. So I would draw the line at OK for contemporaneous facts like date and place of death but not OK for historical facts. Levivich (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

As a side-question here, which is the notable subject here, the author or the book? The case for his notability here seems to entirely rest on the book, which makes me think that the article should be about the book instead, with the authors name as a redirect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm OK either way, but I think he was somewhat notable as a conspiracy theorist well before his book. THIS 1967 article has been reported to have been the first article addressing the "conspiracy phenomenon" and Lifton is (briefly) mentioned in it. - Location (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Molly Robbins

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

Folks, this article is written like a PR piece and needs some heavy clean up, if anyone has time. Thanks.—ukexpat (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Robbins -Roxy the dog 22:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Roxy the dog 12:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek staff

• Naveed Jamali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nancy Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• AdagioMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am concerned by the recent additions to the above articles by the user AdagioMan, which seems to written in a way designed to attack the subjects [5] [6], rather than to be encyclopedic. The underlying sources may have some merit to be included in the articles, but would need to be completely rewritten. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Naveed Jamali had several statements criticizing Newsweek in general, sourced to articles that don't mention Jamali at all, thus becoming an off-topic WP:COATRACK. @AdagioMan: you have been editing for a long time. You should be aware of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP by now. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPBALANCE should also be kept in mind. BLPs need to be balanced at all times, it isn't appropriate to have them temporarily unbalanced until other material is added Tristario (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Using the occupation parameter in an infobox to state that someone is a "cult leader"

Sigh. I'm probably going to regret this and noticeboards really aren't my forte, but I think that greater awareness might bring me some peace of mind here. I'm also stressed out and dealing with some complicated real life matters and I don't want to have this on the back of my mind when I'm trying to deal with everything else. If I'm in the wrong, I'm in the wrong. If this is really nothing and it really is just me, I'll stand down.

So, the article I'm talking about here is Billy Meier. The issue is the thread title. Currently, the infobox states that his occupation is "cult leader and author". That's contentious and I'm not sure the sources given are suitable for that purpose. It seems unnessecarily sensationalist. I tried to remove this because I'm wary that this could violate WP:BLP.[7] My change was reverted. I tried to start a talk page discussion and so far it looks like no one agress with me. I'm pinging SchmuckyTheCat and LuckyLouie so they are aware of this discussion.

The only reason I am even aware that this article even exists is because a new editor was upset about all of this and made that very clear in their mentorship question. See User talk:Clovermoss#Question from Uleih on Billy Meier (13:49, 11 December 2022) for that. I probably could have dealt with this better but at the same time I'm not sure what else I could've really done. There's a part of me that's anticipating an even worse reply than the last one calling me a clown. I doubt that what our conception of a neutral article on this figure would look like are not aligned but I do think that calling someone a cult leader as their occupation is not ideal. Apparently there have also been issues with SPAs removing this content repeatedly...

The impression I got was that the precedent/sources for saying he's a cult leader is in this previous talk page thread: Talk:Billy Meier/Archive 2#Sources to consider, re: FIGU a cult, Meier a cult leader. In my opinion, calling someone a cult leader is a pretty big deal and passing mentions of this isn't really enough. I think that it's possible some of these sources could be used elsewhere in the article. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, x described this as "a cult of personality" or something like that. But there's really no context elsewhere in the article apart the lead that mentions he founded a UFO religion.

My main concern is that if my gut instinct is right and I'm not getting this out of nowhere, the content should be removed. Given how important the BLP policy is. But I'm also not going to edit war. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:CULT, "cult" is always used pejoritavely, and is something that scholars of new religious movements avoid using. It's also inconsistent with how we describe the leaders of other UFO religions, like Marshall Applewhite and Raël (at least in the lead section). Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

When we call out professions, this should be actual vocations, and not loose titles of what they do that isnt a career path. The body can describe someone as a cult leader, where there is room to included the sources and reasoning why it applies, but that is simple not a recognized vocation. Masem (t) 23:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think we should avoid using "cult leader" to describe a person in Wikivoice, and I think the Manual of Style is correct to discourage it. However, the message left on your talk page was inappropriate, and it's entirely reasonable for you to challenge it or simply disregard it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah "cult leader" probably doesn't belong in anybody's infox. Two articles about people who definitely were cult leaders start with "Melvin James Lyman (March 24, 1938 – March 1978) was an American musician and writer, and the founder of the Fort Hill Community, which has been variously described as a family, commune, or cult" and "George Feigley (June 23, 1940 – April 13, 2009) was an American church leader. He has been described as a sex cult leader". And these people were cult leaders, in that they were surrounded by people who basically worshiped them, considered them the wisest of men, and would serve them and follow them down basically any road. Meier's article doesn't indicate he's got anything like that. So in his case it's not so much that "cult leader" is pejorative, it's that its not even true. But I can't think of anyone dead or alive that we would flat out say "cult leader" in the inbox. Write about in the article. Herostratus (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Since this is about the infobox, then the answer seems quite simple to me without the need to get into all the reason why it is also bad to use in the article text. It is simply not an occupation, which is "a job or profession". It's similar to a problem that recently occurred over at the Bobby Beausoleil article, where someone was trying to list his occupation as "unemployed". Sorry, but that is not a job or profession. Neither is a cult leader. Zaereth (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm also pinging JoJo Anthrax to also notify them of this discussion since they have since posted on the talk page after I started this discussion: [8]. I feel like removing cult leader from the infobox is a sensical change, which is why I was surpised I was reverted in the first place. Thoughts about using it elsewhere? That was the main point I was trying to get across in the original thread, that if it's somewhere it should be cited with context in the article itself. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Clovermoss for the ping. As I wrote here, I propose removing cult leader as Meier's occupation and instead use it as a "Known for" descriptor. Contrary to some comments above, there are ample sources reporting Meier as a cult leader (see this for some of them). To not identify him as such in the infobox and the article body would seem to me an example of WP:PROMO by omission. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem with those sources is that only two of them even use the term "cult leader", and one of those two is noted as not being a good source. If the only good source actually describing him as a "cult leader" is a single reivew with a single mention, I'm not feeling that there is a lot to justify including it in the infobox. A discussion in the body about the group would be more nuanced. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the sourcing for this in wikivoice does not seem great (per Bilby). I also don't think that's an appropriate use of that part of the infobox, a "Cult leader" isn't generally an occupation, apart from in some very particular scenarios maybe. I think the best thing to do here is to just not include that entry of the infobox. Some more detail about the "cult leader" aspect could be included in the lede as well as the body, as appropriate Tristario (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

why not Religious leader ? Almost exactly the same information, a lot less pejorative. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

There has been a two more talk page comments since I started this discussion at Talk:Billy Meier#Someone upset about this article on my talk page with a request that the discussion remains centralized at that page. The reason I started a discussion elsewhere is because I was worried about possible BLP implications and I thought broader input from people would be useful. Should this stay here? The BLP noticeboard template mentions that policy compliance issues should be discussed here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably best it stay there, unless some impasse is reached and the discussion stalls out. I have this page on my watchlist, so I generally leave my 2 cents here and people can do with it as they wish. (I try to limit the number of pages that I watch, mainly because I'll never remember to remove them later.) People may continue to comment here, so I'd suggest just considering what they have to say. This page is archived fairly quickly, so if no one comments in a few days it will just disappear into the abyss. Zaereth (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

My concern is that if it stays at that talk page, "cult leader" will stay in the infobox and we will have some sort of conflicting consensus. This is one of the new comments on the talk page thread as a reponse to getting rid of cult leader in the infobox by SchmuckyTheCat:

Because as a daily job he's a cult leader. He has a big farm where all the cultists live. He communicates with other cultists globally. He manages who gets paid from the cult's funds. He delivers messages to cultists about what's what. He's the leader, of a cult, and that takes up the majority of his time. While these guys are dead (hint, hint about the future) Wikipedia doesn't hold back from calling David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite cult leaders. The same as Billy here, there day to day job was leading a cult. [9]

There are various reasons this is not a good idea, as expressed by others on this noticeboard. There's MOS:CULT, the sourcing in general is really weak as described by Bilby, and it's inconstistent with other articles per Herostratus. The article still describes his occupation as a cult leader in the current version of the article. I haven't tried to remove it ever since my change was reverted. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC); edited to ping the person whose comment I'm referring to Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

ROFL! And I don't use that acronym lightly. I may have to check out the talk page now for some more entertainment. That seems easily dealt with, though, because the entire argument quoted above is one of the most basic logical fallacies, called affirming the consequent. "I play football with my friends. Football is a profession. Therefore, I am a professional football player." Sorry, but neither arguments hold water. Zaereth (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Rubbish. If you're paid to pay football with your friends then yes, you're a professional footballer. Meier is paid to administer, lead, and organize, his cult just as any other kind of corporate admin. His corporation is just based on selling his religions that comes from his stories about riding around the universe and time-traveling with aliens.

It's well-documented that FIGU is a cult, with all the negative assertions that go with it. He's the leader, in both the figurative sense of it being based on him, but also his control of finances and the relationships of the people. BLP is not SPOV. If he's a cult leader, so be it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

So, if I understand you right, a cult is a corporation? I suppose he's also paying dividends to all his shareholders, filing his followers tax forms, going to seminars on brainwashing techniques, and hobnobbing with all the other cult tycoons out there. That just sounds ridiculous. You can't be seriously trying to sell that, right? Please, tell me you're just joking?

Now, I'm not saying he's not a cult leader and that the term doesn't belong in the article. The term is a subjective one, because one person's cult is often another's sanctuary, so such a term should be attributed to someone. But that's not what this discussion is about. A cult leader is not an occupation no matter how you try to spin it, and if you can find a good, reliable source that says it is I'll eat my shorts. Zaereth (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, his cult is a registered non-profit under Swiss law for corporations. This is perfectly normal for religious organizations in most of the western world. I'm not sure what you think is odd about this but clearly you do. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with nearly everyone else here that cult leader is unlikely to ever belong in the info box as an occupation. Probably never in the info box point blank. If editors refuse to accept the consensus, well BLP is a DS area and BLP is one area where topic bans should be imposed readily. Nil Einne (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, but remember, he's not even a cult leader. Are there people around him willing to give him all their possessions? Are there people around him willing to die in storm of bullets to protect him from being arrested? Are there people around him willing to marry a stranger if he says so? If we're not more less at that level, he's not a cult leader.

By they way it's pedantry to insist that it has to be an occupation. The poet Wallace Stevens spent his days, and made his living, as an insurance executive. Should we put "Insurance Executive"? What to look at is what will provide the plurality of readers a quick grasp of who the person is. Everything else is mostly noise. Herostratus (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree, after having read the article. To some (and in some contexts) a "cult" is simply defined as any religion that people think is strange, which is what I think people are focusing on here. To my thinking, a cult falls under the more specific definition of something far more sinister, where things like brainwashing, protein deprivation diets, isolation from friends, family and the outside world, giving up all your worldly possesions to the great leader, etc., are going on. The article doesn't talk about any such things. He just has some beliefs that some people think are strange.

Funny thing is, that's pretty much how all religions started. 2000 years ago people thought Jesus was a weirdo with some whacked out beliefs. He had all of 12 followers, but to my knowledge no brainwashing was going on.

Carl Jung once said that the absolute worst thing to ever happen to religion was writing it down. Prior to writing, religions were passed down orally, which made them very fluid and easily adaptable to the changing times. Now we have religions that are stuck in the early medieval era while the times are just passing them by, because in their written form they are rigid and inflexible and no longer able to evolve with the rest of humanity. It's no wonder that people are growing disenfranchised and unable to relate to them, and go looking to all these new religions which are built around modern mythologies like aliens and time travel, such as this one or Scientology. We shouldn't be making fun of them or trying to make them look like some evil conspiracy by calling it a cult unless they are crossing that line into those nefarious things that cults are known for. Zaereth (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Herostratus

• "Are there people around him willing to give him all their possessions?" Yes! He takes large donations quite regularly from people for the right ot move onto his sanctuary, where he then makes them work. Basic membership for anyone "nearby" (most of Europe?) requires yearly pilgrimage to work the farm, in addition to thousands of $USD in donations.
• "Are there people around him willing to die in storm of bullets to protect him from being arrested?" Yes. He brags about this often.
• "Are there people around him willing to marry a stranger if he says so?" Yes. Relationships between established couples have been broken on command of the aliens. Especially when he's taken a liking to the female of the pair, how convenient. He's gotten the wife of a couple pregnant and demand the husband be exiled from the community. Other relationships have been made, and children given up or moved between households. That's the kind of mind control and psychological manipulation that defines cults, and it's exactly what he does.
• "If we're not more less at that level, he's not a cult leader." He's way beyond the classic definitions of a cult by any rational standard. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Cult is rarely a helpful word. Feoffer (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Except when it is. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The major problem with SchmuckyTheCat's analysis above, and that of other editors who want to call Meier a "cult leader" is that absolutely none of that is in the current version of the article. Reading the article, it is clear that Meier holds fringe beliefs and leads a group that spreads those fringe beliefs. So, before even thinking about calling him a cult leader, it is essential to expand the article with well-referenced content that describes his group as having the scholarly recognized aspects of a cult. It is entirely possible for someone to be what would colloquially be called a "kook" and a "crank" without being a "cult leader". Any such description should be attributed to a recognized expert on cults, unless it is widely used by multiple reliable sources. Throwing it into the infobox without well referenced content in the body of the article is a BLP violation. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, I appreciate your comment here and I agree completely, but at this point I doubt these two editors are going to change their mind. Look at this barnstar [10]. Honestly, I'm blown away too. This is frustrating. I also find it concerning that an editor whose been here for 19 years has this attitude towards BLP violations. I didn't want this to get to this point. I was thinking everyone could discuss like reasonable adults. It seems like eveything just keeps on escalating. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Apparently I'm an "unknowledged person" [11] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not an insult. Your only knowledge of Meier is reading Wikipedia. By "unknowledged" I'm only saying you aren't knowledgeable on this subject matter. And without any knowledge you decided to take on the crusade of a fringe-pushing SPA. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I did actually look at those soures cited in the previous talk page thread. None of them say what you've been saying here. That's why that other editor said to stop with the OR. Because that is OR. Specifically "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". BLP doesn't contradict all of our other PAGs. Only one of these sources could be considered reliable and calls him a cult leader. That doesn't make his occupation a cult leader and that doesn't make it okay to put that in the infobox as such. That's a clear BLP violation and I'm tired of dancing around what I should just be stating plainly. I'm not "taking on the crusade of a fringe-pushing SPA" and I'm incredibly frustrated that you're either patronizing me or insulting me.There's more than two options and I regret this comment with some contemplation.Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I have tried so hard to be fair with you. To give you every benefit of the doubt. It's incredibly frustrating for you to twist my actions like you did in that diff. I didn't revert your revert of my removal of the content, even though BLP says that such content must be removed immediately without discussion. I started a talk page discussion before I came here. I came here because this "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons" and it was clear that this was not going to change at that talk page discussion when people have been reinstating said content over a long period of time and somehow do not see the blatantly obvious issues with it.

This is why I said this is so frustrating and only escalating. I think it says something that you refer to this discussion with numerous experienced editors as a "pile on" and that this doesn't cause you to reflect on your own actions. If you haven't seen this now, I don't see the point in further engaging, because it's pointless. This whole ordeal has been so frustrating. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I don't mind putting that he's the founder of that particular UFO religion in the infobox, which was your last suggestion. I can agree with that. It's much better than saying cult leader is his occupation and more in line with NPOV. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Is their primary occupation leader of a cult? Do the majority of reliable sources describe them as such? Then thats about the only situation it would be appropriate to have it as their occupation in an infobox, backed up by sources and the article reflecting that in the prose. In practice that applies to not that many people, as many 'cult' leaders (as the media would define cults) over the years also have other 'occuptions' either a job of some sort, or something cult-adjacent like preacher etc. And most reliable sources will reflect that in their work. Two of the more famous cult leaders we have articles on (Charles Manson and David Koresh) have no occupation and occupation respectively. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Bernard Looney

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

Hi editors, I'm back again to request some small changes to the Bernard Looney article that have a significant impact on the neutrality of the text. I have tried posting something similar on NPOV/N, but have not received a response, so I thought I would make a similar post here.

Several edits were made to the article that I think do not meet the standard set by NPOV guidelines for article structure. At this point, I am specifically referring to the Russia controversy subheading and similar language in the lead. The guideline states that "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure." I think the addition of the Russia controversy subheading fits the definition.

This subheading, and related content that was already addressed (thanks to those editors who helped with that) was added immediately after news broke of the invasion of Ukraine. I believe the billing of the situation as a controversy, and a controversy specifically for Bernard Looney, is an editorialization of the available reporting. This editorialization carries to the lead of the article, which characterizes Looney's tenure as CEO "controversial" specifically because of a state which Looney does not lead invaded another. I would argue that such a characterization is non-neutral.

I would also note that it was noted bp took swift action to begin disentangle itself from its Russian business interests (The New York Times: "making it one of the first large companies to abandon Russia"; Reuters: "marking the most significant move yet by a Western company in response to Moscow's invasion of Ukraine").

I will rest my case there. I won't make any changes myself due to my COI. Please let me know if this is not the appropriate place for such a post, and thank you in advance for your consideration. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree the article is somewhat less than NPOV. Unfortunately, Wikipedians seem often too eager to construe any dispute, criticism or negative news blip as a "controversy", then misrepresent and give undue emphasis to the "controversy" by making devoted subheadings. Wikipedians on the whole tend to be good compilers but rather poor editors. Activists criticizing somebody isn't necessarily a "controversy", no more than a critic giving a negative review to a film is. An article can include multiple points of view, including criticism, without framing every disagreement as a "controversy". The article flow (and neutrality) would be significantly improved in my opinion by the simple elimination of the two 'controversy' subheadings: MOS:OVERSECTION advises against sections consisting of short paragraphs or single sentences, and WP:RECENTISM is reduced. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I have made several edits to make the language more neutral without removing any of the substantive content. Cullen328 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both! The neutrality of the article has been definitely improved by your contributions. Appreciate the consideration of this noticeboard. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)

John_Campbell_(YouTuber) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Apologies for bringing this article up again, but I wasn't able to follow up on the comments made before it was archived. I did attempt to add the BLP Noticeboard template to the article talk page in order to direct conversation over to this page, but another user keeps reverting it. How do you all find time to edit/guard pages so? I only have a few minutes every few weeks. It must favor the retired or unemployed. So, question-how are the comments given here carried forward to the editors guarding a page? Is there a volunteer editorial board? Or is it up to me to post the article here, take note of the issues which are agreed on by consensus, and then attempt to make the edits? I ask because it seems whenever I make an edit on John Campbell's talk page, there's a small but notable group of editors who block any discussion or changes. I can only imagine the haboob which will follow actual content modifications to the main page. Any advice welcome. Altairah (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Altairah. There are plenty of fully employed Wikipedia editors who have much more than a few minutes every few weeks to edit Wikipedia. People spend vastly more time than that watching TV or YouTube, knitting or gardening or whittling or gourmet cooking or reading novels or jogging or playing chess or video games or poker, drinking in US bars or UK pubs, applying makeup or trimming their beards or playing with and feeding their pets. I have been editing Wikipedia for 14 years and was self employed full time through most of that, although I am gradually winding down to semi-retirement. The problem with your comment above is that after reading it, I have absolutely no idea what you think the problem with this article actually is. So, instead of blowing off steam criticizing other editors for the amount of time they spend on their hobby, why don't you take the time to explain to us what the actual problem is. Despite the multiplicity of our hobbies, none of us are actual mind readers. Cullen328 (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Ngozi Fulani and Sistah Space

Ngozi made the UK news a few times in recent weeks for being the victim of a racism incident at Buckingham Palace, and then for being the target of online abuse, and then for allegations of financial impropriety. IP vandalism of the article about her followed, but was stopped by temporary protection.

Background news:

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64005705
2. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/16/lady-hussey-apologises-ngozi-fulani-buckingham-palace-racism-incident

Now both IP addresses and one WP:SPA user is keen to replace "Ngozi Fulani" when written with her former name, putting her actual name in brackets, which to me seems like some sort of effort to deny her her legal name. I think it's appropriate to mention her former name at the biographcal article, but seems like a strange stretch to consider it necessary at Sistah Space. I've twice reverted such edits on Sistah Space as I don't think an article about an organization needs this level of personal detail about the founder, as it has no relation to the operation of the organization.

People disagree with me. Input would be welcome at Talk:Sistah Space. CT55555(talk) 22:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Racists wish to add her birth name because they believe it undermines her legitimacy - Marlene night be a common name in the West Indies (I don't know) but it's also a very ordinary British name, as is Headley, whereas Ngozi Fulani sounds far more African. Along with mentioning how she was dressed at the reception, the goal is to paint her as a fake and a grifter - a wannabe African with a fake name, whereas really she's just ordinary black British. Racists regard asking where you're from as harmless, and so they're trying to paint her as uppity for complaining about it as racist - by making her "Marlene Headley" they're trying to make her "just as British as you and me" and it makes her a "fake" for choosing instead an African-sounding name.

Clearly the incident was racist, as is this narrative about her name, but equally neither Ms Fulani nor Sistah Space are notable - they are notable only for this racist incident, and almost all the references on both articles were written in the wake of it. Both articles should be deleted. 87.196.73.215 (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I hope that you understand you are hurling personal attacks, despite not using names, because these are real editors who are working on the article. If you cannot ascribe to them (or this Lady of the Household who was merely doing her job) any other motivation except malicious racism then please keep quiet about it. Elizium23 (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I checked the Telegraph article and noticed it only confirmed her birth family name; it doesn't verify her actual place of birth, birth year, or her full name. Geni is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. I removed the full name, birth date, and birthplace from Ngozi Fulani[12] due to WP:BLPPRIVACY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Because of the paywall, I had originally reviewed an archived copy of the Telegraph article from the day it was published.[13] I reviewed a later copy and found that it did confirm the first name so I have reinstated it on her bio page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Musk

Wikipedia says Elon Musk is a “polarizing figure”, in the following excerpt from his BLP lead: “Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure.”

Aside from poor writing, lack of inline attribution, and thin sourcing, there’s also a possible conflict between our Musk BLP sentence that I’ve just quoted, and this part of our WP:BLP policy: “Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.” Also see WP:LABEL.

I don’t think anyone would dispute this observation by Professor Thomas Zimmer: “‘Polarization’ is almost always used as a pejorative term: it is meant to invoke dysfunction, instability, conflict.” That’s how it’s used in the Musk lead, in wikivoice. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about this Zimmer fellow, but polarizing in this context simply means that some people really like him and others really don't. Not much to it. Well documented in sources as well: NBC labels him polarizing, Bloomberg says Musk is on a polarizing mission, Inc. calls him a "polarizing figure", Yahoo News calls him a "polarizing figure", Variety calls him "polarizing". ~ HAL333 05:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDECITE, it appears some sourcing (though more could be included) is present for that claim in the body. --Masem (t) 05:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

You're quoting Professor Zimmer out of context, he is speaking in the sense of political polarization not in the context of polarizing people[14]. That being said though WP:RS coverage would suggest that invoking "dysfunction, instability, conflict" would not be undue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

To say that someone is "polarizing", when reliably sourced, is hardly contentious or loaded, you act like we're calling him a supremacist. Let's save BLPN for serious issues. Zaathras (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the same context as Zimmer referred to, per the Yahoo News piece cited above: “Musk has become an increasingly political — and polarizing — figure….” A handful of the thousands of recent news articles about Musk say he’s “polarizing”, but none as far as I know employ the redundant one-two punch of “controversial” and “polarizing” in the same sentence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of sourcing (which would need to be near-universal, but isn't), "polarising" is far too fuzzy and subjective to be encyclopaedic. It's an empty word for an empty thought. Beyoncé and LeBron are empirically among the most polarizing personalities (according to one study with significant WP:RS coverage, anyway). So is Justin Bieber. It's noise.

The spirit of Wikipedia is that we are here to (reliably) document the world, not to change it. Psychology research on social proof tells us, with high certainty, that if we imply someone is controversial, we are directly and actively lowering readers' opinion of that person, no matter their starting point.

It's very inappropriate to include, especially in wikivoice, especially in the lead, especially in a BLP. Let people read the verifiable facts, and come to their own conclusion. DFlhb (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, if that is what the spirit of Wikipedia is, then...I still disagree and think the description is not only supported and appropriate but apt. Happy Holidays to all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion is controversial, and on top of that you are polarizing. 😝 Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

And I would have it no other way! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That lede sentence is honestly way more neutral than I would have expected and likely more neutral than necessary in regards to what reliable sources actually refer to him as in that manner. Silverseren^C 18:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

What if we leave neutrality aside, and just consider precision? What does "polarizing" mean, in what context does it apply (US? worldwide? media/celebrities/left- or center-left people? environmentalists? everyone?), and is it encyclopedic? When a term has been used by multiple WP:RS to refer to Stephen King, Hillary Clinton, Beyoncé, and Musk... does it have any meaning? People are focused on sourcing when that's not the issue at all. DFlhb (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Polarizing simply means "divisive". "To divide or cause to divide into two sharply contrasting groups or sets of opinions or beliefs." It simply means he has a magnetic personality; either you're attracted to him or repelled by him. Personally, I think it's pretty silly to even try to say that this adjective doesn't describe the subject, or that it is somehow a pejorative term. It simply means he's no Mother Teresa, who's loved by all, nor is he an Aleister Crowley and hated by everyone. Good or bad, those people were unifiers, but ultimately rather boring. The subject is definitely divisive and that makes him interesting.

That said, is it really necessary to point out the obvious? That's just bad writing in most cases. If I were to use this term I would do so in dialog, as in "So and so has called him polarizing." or something like that. Just my 2 pennies. Zaereth (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

My take is: "a polarizing subject" is neutral; "a polarizing person" is negative, since it clearly alludes to specific criticisms or controversies while being nebulous about what those controversies are. We could avoid a BLPvio entirely, by being more precise about what was criticized. DFlhb (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Really? Because I view it as being more of a positive term, or a little plus of neutral if anything, and we're not here to stroke his ego. But if there's one thing I've learned it's that anyone can find insult in something if they look hard enough for it. (Usually it has more to do with their own self perception than anything else.) The term is well-defined in the dictionaries, and it's not like it has any other meanings, except in physics (which is about the same as in other contexts).

I just think that's a stretch to try and play semantics like that, and that argument is rather circular, so isn't likely to convince. The premise is just as much in need of proof as the conclusion. It's a longer and more pedantic route to the same goal. Franklin Roosevelt was polarizing. Kanye West is polarizing. Bill Gates is polarizing. The problem I have is that it's so damn obvious that it doesn't need saying. It's like the old writer's axiom, "Show, don't tell." You don't need to tell me Darth Vader is evil. I can see that for myself, so pointing it out just comes off as condescending to the reader. (It's what separates the humans from the Vulcans... besides the pointed ears and bowl haircut of course.) So I say just leave out the unnecessary adjectives and show me how he's polarizing. Same goal, just a different route to get there. Zaereth (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, it should be removed. It would never be tolerated in the FDR lead, because it’s vague, imprecise, unilluminating, and also derogatory in that divisiveness is not a popular trait. Moreover, it adds absolutely nothing to the sentence in question which already says he made controversial statements on Twitter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd say it's an unpopular trait, but, rather, it's often a trait that makes one popular, so more often than not the people who are notable are those who are polarizing. "Popular" is another one of those terms that can be positive or negative depending on how you look at it. In fiction writing we're taught to make characters that are polarizing, because those are the ones that are really interesting and life-like, and keep people interested. It's practically a job requirement for the office of President. (As Douglas Adams said, "For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character.") Of course, we live in a very polarized society these days. It's almost like watching the events that led up to WWII playing out all over again. But, I digress. At the end of the day, telling people that such and such a person is polarizing is just poor writing. Now I know this is non-fiction, but many of the same principle still apply. People who are total saints or evil just for evil's sake come off as one-dimensional and boring in general. But if I'm reading a book and the writing is so bad that the author actually has to tell me someone is polarizing, then it leaves me thinking, OMG this is awful. Zaereth (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Collapsing comment by admitted block evading IP.

First of all I'm Jatlin1, and I was banned recently. In the spirit of WP:BRAR, I write this. I want to point out that all the reliable sources that call him polarizing seem to be from 2022 30. april and to be spread in the events of the Twitter-takeover. So I think those labels have issues with regards to WP:RECENT. Mind, for example "Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, with attention to the long-term significance of the information included[...]" The information in the Elon Musk Wikipedia article is also a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact and should therefore follow the policy outlined here WP:WIKIVOICE "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." Mind also Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. from WP:NEWSORG 213.237.89.41 (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

IP, your honesty is admirable but you are evading your block which is not permitted. I have blocked your IP address. Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• This revert pretty well establishes that the lead in this BLP is simply name calling. The editors who firmly control this BLP want to label Musk in the lead as a “polarizing figure” without saying in the lead why they think he is a polarizing figure. Bad editing, IMHO. It’s also telling that no one in this BLPN discussion has been willing to directly state this stuff in the Musk lead is consistent with this BLP requirement: “Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.” Musk is *rarely* called a “polarizing figure” in RS’s, and never in the same sentence where he or his statements have already been called controversial. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Cherry-pickers gonna cherry-pick whatever "feels right". --Animalparty! (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

We follow the sources, and if many high-quality sources describe someone as polarizing, it is appropriate to follow suit, unless there is some countervailing reason why we should not (for example, equivalently reliable sources contesting that someone is polarizing). That's just Due Weight 101: we explain the biographically significant material about a person, and we do so in context. Descriptive material, including characterizations, are often perfectly fine, if well-sourced and appropriate weight. I also agree with Zaathras that "polarizing" is not a particularly contentious label if well-sourced (here, it is amply so). Surely "polarizing" would likely not be the only way we describe a subject, but we do not exclude it merely because some editors have a distaste for it. Neutrality^talk 18:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"Distaste" has nothing to do with it; MOS:LABEL explicitly lists "controversial" as a contentious label, and indicates that it should be attributed if "widely used" (which is objectively not the case, since 5 sources is not "ample", here, it guides us to avoid the term altogether). (Speaking of cherry-picking, User:Animalparty, would you support that descriptor for Beyoncé and LeBron, where there's actual empirical data? I wouldn't, for the reasons I just mentioned.) The only basis for including this is WP:IAR; if you want the guidelines changed, then start an RFC. DFlhb (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

For me, the question simply comes down to editorial sense, and while I don't think being "polarizing" is a key part of the notability of LeBron or Beyoncé (although maybe getting closer in the former case), it has become so in the case of Musk, especially recently. I don't think there is a way to arrive at an iron-clad ruling on this one, and so, as with most things, I think it comes down to consensus. As I have said, I think the word belongs in the lead and that the article would be worse without it. If consensus should determine otherwise, however, that's fine. As I like to say, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers and Happy Holidays to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, very happy holidays to you! DFlhb (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Candace Owens

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

The article was somewhat stable until maybe a month ago? Owens promotion of conspiracy topics is in question. The body of the article seems to cover some of these under a controversies section. How should the lead, as written, handle that so as not to be undue weight and npov? Should she be included in the category conspiracy theorists as well? Malerooster (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is the dispute? This article is under discretionary sanctions (BLP and US politics) so if someone is trying to removed reliably-sourced content or argue that she's not a conspiracy theorist, you can just report them to WP:AE. –dlthewave ☎ 02:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

As an editor at the article why would you ask that question here? That aside, it also should be pointed out that the conspiracy theorist category was added to her BLP and restored despite objections. dlthewave, I think you were one of the editors who restored it though it was part of a larger revert. Per BLPCAT categories like that have a high bar for inclusion. I don't think Owen's BLP meets that bar. Springee (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This article really could use a few more eyes. The body of the article doesn't contain much to support the view that Owen is a conspiracy theorist and the examples given to prove the claim are very limited in scope, reach etc and are generally from low quality sources. Yet this is material that some editors feel must be in the lead to avoid "white washing" the subject. Like this recent discussion at The Daily Caller's talk page [15] there is a difference between IMPARTIALLY reflecting what sources say and trying to turn yet another Wiki article into something that reads like a hit piece. Springee (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I would say that her promotion of conspiracy theories is not in question (vaccines, moon landing, climate change, Gates, Soros, mailbombs etc, etc.) It is whether she should be defined as a conspiracy theorist and whether that definition should be in the lead paragraph. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

List of -gate scandals and controversies

List of -gate scandals and controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

How literally are we expected to take WP:BLP, particularly in relation to notability of individuals and charges and allegations for which no convictions have taken place?

This 'Qatargate' entry in the above list article has been troublesome - for its inclusion in the first place, its wording, and its sourcing. Currently it has two US sources which do support the fact that there is an affair known by that name, but I'm not sure either of them support the general assertions about the individuals who are are implicated or that any or all of them are involved in all the misdemeanours listed.

Can we have more eyes on this please? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Not just WP:BLP but also per WP:NOTNEWS it is far too early to include this. Once the dust has settled and investigations are concluded, if it becomes more widely known as "Qatargate" (or some other "-gate", then it should be included. But not now. This is a real problem with this list, editors rushing to add every event that one or two sources refer to as a -gate before we know the long term outcomes. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS is for routine news coverage. Scandals, while pletiful, are not routine (each is unique). It's important to note that we have WP:NTEMP that says that notability is not temporary, so we don't really need to evaluate whether the scandal is long lasting.
Regardless, such a discussion belongs in the article's talk page, not in this noticeboard. Banana Republic (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Notabiloty also requires more than just a short burst of coverage. Just because a good handful of sources call something a -gate over a day or so doesn't make it a enduring -gate we should cover, particularly for BLPs. Masem (t) 17:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You can take that up at the talk page for Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament. The scandal already has its own Wikipedia article. Certainly not appropriate for this noticeboard. Banana Republic (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no requirement that the scandals result in convictions. That's why the article has sections for scandals in fiction, as well as for scandals that are nothing more than conspiracy theories. I fail to see how this could possibly be interpreted as a WP:BLP issue when no specific individuals are being named. Banana Republic (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not whether the scandal is long-lasting; it's whether the -gate name sticks in the long term. One or two sources using the term at this point doesn't mean it will come to be known as that down the line. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

While I certainly disagree with you (how many sources would be required and over what time period?), but obviously that's a discussion that's more appropriate for the article's talk page than this noticeboard.Banana Republic (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Do we think its current wording is compatible with BLP, particularly this bit: Ongoing political scandal in which politicians, political staffers, lobbyists, civil servants and their families are alleged to have been involved in corruption, money laundering and organised crime?

BLP says:

• Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. All those implicated are living people, and most are readily identifiable, even though unnamed in the content.
• For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Most of those implicated are not public figures, but have been accused of multiple crimes.
• Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The current two sources only cover some people from some of those groups and for some of those allegations.

-- DeFacto (talk). 07:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The sentence in question is almost word for word the first sentence from the article Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament. Banana Republic (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Would it be sufficient to say "if it's determined to meet the requirements of WP:DUE and WP:BLP in an article on Wikipedia, that article can be linked to and the "-gate" term used in the list?" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Gregory Tony

Eyes needed on this article for possibly WP:UNDUE BLP vios an IP has been inserting. Curbon7 (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Paul McKenna

I am looking for a consensus on an article regarding a Living Person where I have a Conflict of Interest. I have made a request at the Talk page, but as of yet it has not been answered. Upon consideration, as the request is to get a lasting consensus on a particular section of the article, I thought it might actually be better for the long-term to point multiple editors to this page to evaluate the issue. The current page wording makes an inaccurate claim and has been subject to various levels of WP:SYNTH over the years before I made my request, and given that the page previously required protection from BLP violations I thought this is likely the forum to talk to. If anyone has time to weigh in please do! Memereese (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Jenna Presley

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

I reverted the addition of information about the subject cited to a Dr. Phil (talk show) video. I don't agree that this falls under the WP:ABOUTSELF exception since she is not the publisher of the video. I'm not sure where in RSN is the Dr. Phil considered a RS for this type of information?[16] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion caused by this poorly worded edit summary. The issue is this: There are two types of claims being made with the reference at https://www.drphil.com/videos/former-sex-worker-says-she-and-husband-work-to-inspire-others-to-live-what-they-call-a-pure/. 1) Jenna Presley (actually, she calls herself Brittni de la Mora these days) was on the Dr. Phil show 2) Brittni is now married with kids. While I think it would be reasonable to include the claim of her being on the Dr. Phil show using the website of the Dr. Phil show as a reference, as per WP:ABOUTSELF (not unduly self-serving for Dr Phil, no claims about third parties made, no claims about Dr. Phil except Brittni was on his show, there’s no question about whether she was on the show, it’s just one reference of many in the article), in the interests of establishing consensus I am withdrawing the claim she was on Dr. Phil’s show from the article so that we can more easily reach consensus together. On the other hand, I see no harm in using a Dr. Phil reference to point out that Brittni is married and has children. This claim isn’t controversial, and discussion over at WP:RS/N indicates that using Dr. Phil’s website is OK for non-controversial claims like that is OK; see for example this discussion or this discussion. I have opened up a discussion about this over at Talk:Jenna Presley but I don’t see any contentious claims being made or any reason why we can’t include her current martial status. If this discussion is to continue; WP:RS/N might be a better place for it (since the discussion about whether Dr Phil’s website is reliable enough for non-controversial content from there to be used in Wikipedia articles tends to be a RS/N kind of discussion) Samboy (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll be blunt. I never see how it makes sense to claim no claim is made about a third party when the claim is being adding to the article on some other person. Clearly a claim is being made about a third party otherwise this would not belong int he article on Jenna Presley since what goes on with Dr. Phil has jack shit to do with Jenna Presley. ABOUTSELF was intended to add claims people make about themselves. So in the Jenna Presley article they only time ABOUTSELF applies is if Jenna Presley is making a claim about herself. We can add claims about to Dr. Phil's article originating from Dr. Phil. In that vein, I don't think claims made about the Dr. Phil Show by the Dr. Phil Show website really fit into ABOUTSELF point blank. Either those claims don't relate sufficiently to a living person that BLP doesn't apply so we just have to consider WP:SPS or they do in which case the claims from a show website do not belong since these claims are published by the show not a specific subject. For small Youtube channels, there's often insufficient distinction between the channel and the person behind the channel such that I think it's fine to accept them as the same thing, but not with a massive network television show sold all over the world. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe the examples given at RSN show consensus that the Dr. Phil Show is a reliable source for BLPs. If the information you are trying to insert is that mundane, then there should be better sources out there that actually satisfy ABOUTSELF like her church site or social media. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you w.r.t how reliable of a source Dr. Phil’s website is. Dr. Phil isn’t, based on those discussions, a WP:GENREL source, but he’s a WP:MREL source (No consensus on reliability, but some editors consider him reliable). That’s fine for a mundane non-contentious claim. Samboy (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)