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.

Accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers

The editor Peter Gulutzan has since at least November 2018 repeatedly removed reliably sourced content on climate change denial / fringe rhetoric on BLPs by claiming that there is a BLP violation in covering inaccuracies made by prominent climate change deniers:

• Myron Ebell[1] (removal of content sourced to Climate Feedback)
• Guus Berkhout[2] (removal of content sourced to Climate Feedback)
• Joanne Nova[3][4] (removal of content sourced to peer-reviewed publications, Science magazine, PolitiFact, National Geographic, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning InsideClimate News)
• Ian Plimer[5] (removal of Climate Feedback)

There is a consensus on the reliability of Climate Feedback, which the RSP list[6] describes as "a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements." It's starting to get tiresome to deal with these reverts of RS content, so I'd just like to get confirmation here that there is no BLP violation involved in adding reliably sourced content about the accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you discussed the issue with the editor on the various talk pages? I think we need to be very careful with a claim like that one removed from the Ebell article. The claim in question, "Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC."" is true so long as there is one example of it being true. Absent the context in which it was made we shouldn't include such statements in Wikipedia voice. Such a definitive statement should include a link to the original claim as well as an attributed explanation to why the claim is wrong. I didn't review the other examples but this first one certainly doesn't support the view that Peter Gulutzan's edits are problematic. Springee (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. In fact Snooganssnoogans did start a thread on the Myron Ebell talk page, I hope that editors will look at my reply there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Taking the points in order:

(Ebell) On 30 November 2018 Snooganssnoogans started a thread on the Myron Ebell talk page beginning with the incorrect assertion that I had had said climatefeedback.org is not a Reliable Source. In fact I had said no such thing, I had said "Not compliant with WP:BLPSPS and WP:WELLKNOWN.", and on 30 November 2018 I replied on that thread with a full explanation about the cited author/editor, to which Snooganssnoogans did not reply. On 2 December 2018 -- without pinging me and without discussing my actual objections -- Snooganssnoogans started a thread on WP:RSN and got 2 editors to agree (one editor did not) that in general climatefeedback looked like an RS. On 3 December 2018 another editor re-inserted the contentious material in the BLP. I asked if others had opinions (nobody did), and I did nothing further. Would anyone like to finally address what I said?

(Berkhout) Once again, a WP:RSN thread Factcheck from climatefeedback.org as a source at Guus Berkhout. I participated, others disagreed, the material in question was re-inserted in the Guus Berkhout BLP, I did nothing further.

(Nova) Snooganssnoogans points to this edit by me on 12 September 2019 and claims it was about various wonderful publications -- which is false, as anyone who looks at the edit can see. The cited source was cup.columbia.edu, my edit summary was "Removed "Nova is known for promoting fringe views on climate science". Cited source refutes some statements in her guide, but does not say she is known for that. Poorly sourced material." Nobody disputed that (as far as I can tell), it was a fact that the cited source didn't say it, and the statement has not been re-inserted.

(Plimer) In this case my edit summary was "Additional source is not compliant with WP:BLPSPS, and also unnecessary, there is already a cite." i.e. I made no change to the content, so this doesn't fit with Snooganssnoogans's opening sentence that I "repeatedly removed sourced content". (In fact not only did I not remove sourced content in this case, I didn't "repeatedly" remove in other cases.) I believe it could be discussed on the appropriate talk page, and wonder what's wrong with that.

(consensus) I refer Snooganssnoogans to the essay don't quote essays or proposals as if they were policy. More seriously, the reference to WP:RSP (which most charitably can be described as having "limited status" the same as an essay) should not be brought into a discussion as if people who are referring to WP:BLPSPS (which is a part of a real policy) need to bow to it. In this case, I looked deeper at the claim that "most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source" and found that it was added by one of the 3 or 4 editors who thought it was not self-published, as opposed to 3 or 4 who thought it was. If someone wants to establish a consensus whether Climate Feedback meets WP:BLPSPS requirements, let's have a talk specifically about that (which as far as I know has never happened) and let's have it on the relevant page which is WP:BLPN (which as far as I know has never happened).

I would greatly appreciate a confirmation that Snooganssnoogans's points are without merit, because Snooganssnoogans has used the same points to accuse me of "tendentious editing". Regrettably an administrator (Bishonen) after 11 minutes agreed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Credit: The statement about "most editors" was made by Newslinger, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"The cited source was cup.columbia.edu". Just to be clear: this is a Columbia University Press book published by a recognized expert in the field of climate science. This kind of misrepresentation, one among many, amounts to WP:TE at this point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who looks will see that I did not say there was anything wrong with Columbia, I said the cited source did not support the statement in the Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(Question to all) Is Climatefeedback something should be treated like the Politifact? I don't recall the exact location but I think people recently concluded that Politifact should be treated as something similar to a think tank. Their opinions are often cited by others and often have WEIGHT. However, it was also felt that they aren't a source in and of themselves. Thus if Politifac says "Senator X was wrong..." that doesn't establish WEIGHT for inclusion. Weight would be established if CNN says, "According to Politifact, Senator X was wrong...". I think discussions around the SPLC have reached similar conclusions. If that same thinking applies to Climatefeedback then I think the Ebell content, as inserted way back in the day, didn't establish WEIGHT for inclusion. Stating a living person was "wrong" is something negative about them and thus the typical BLP concerns apply. That doesn't mean it shouldn't make it into the article but we really should be careful that we aren't over simplifying what might be a more complex claim. In general I would be uncomfortable with statements like the one in the Ebell article since it looks like a random sentence thrown in to discredit the person rather than true explanation of what is almost certainly a more complex position/claim by Ebell. - Disclaimer, prior to my responses here I was not familiar with Ebell. Springee (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative views, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism. — Newslinger talk 10:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment — Newslinger talk 01:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Describing WP:RS/P as some kind of WP:ESSAY doesn't match the effects of, e.g., "deprecated" on not logged-in users, for examples see WT:WHITELIST, WT:RSN, and WT:AFC. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What I actually said was: most charitably can be described as having "limited status" the same as an essay. That charitable description is the WP:SUPPLEMENTAL guideline: "In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I don't think that's a good summary of the consensus on Politifact. Here's the recent RFC [7] and an earlier one [8]. The consensus to me reads that Politifact is a reliable source for factual claims, equivalent to a high quality news source. The only exception is that their specific truth ratings of a statement ("True", "Mostly False", "Pants on Fire", etc), and any kind of analysis of percentage of false statements should be attributed as an opinion. Just wanted to note that, I don't really have an opinion on Climate Feedback Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Nobody expects the spanish inquisition here: The Hill in a "Politifact fail" video on YouTube four days ago. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

RRC, you are correct. It was the opinion part that editors felt needed to be cited by others in order to establish WEIGHT. Do we think that is the same case here? If CF says Jane Doe made a false claim [here], should that statement have WEIGHT by itself or does that claim need other sources to establish weight? Also, should we just quote the high level claim or should the details be included. Again, I'm concerned about what look like random, negative statements without context. In general I think labeling people as climate deniers is problematic given the extremely political nature of the public debate. Springee (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Peter_Gulutzan here. As I understand, we are supposed to present all views of reliable sources in proportion... and for bios immediately remove poorly sourced contentious material.

• ClimateFeedback should be treated as an opinion blog site with recognition that the opinions come from credentialed academics (if verified). It carries some weight, but it's not the "supreme court" of climate change sources.
• My search for Myron Ebel at Duck Duck Go says most sources call him a director of a center at an institute, or head of the transition team, etc. Calling him a "denier" is a derogatory term, and cherry picking a particular source is not neutrally representing more than one source(s) available.
• Even the particular cited source (6 above) does not call Ebel a "denier."
• The source's opinions should be attributed as such, if you want to describe claims as "false" based on them.
• Factual accuracy and editing of material on Climate Feedback site: I spot checked this article looking at links to bios. Martin Singh's bio link gives a 404. This is a negative indicator regarding editing and reliability.

-- Yae4 (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yae4: but if you searched for "Martin Singh, Postdoctoral Research fellow, Harvard University:' you would have found this. He is now at Monash University[9] which is probably why the link no longer exists. So the fact that page was removed is not a comment on the Climate Feedback site. The site has been discussed at WP:RSN[10] - people can read the entire short discussion, but here's the first two comments:

"An editor[11] insists that Climatefeedback.org is a self-published source run by nobodies and that we can't use it as a source for statements such as "Myron Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC." Climate scientists note that past climate models have accurately predicted subsequent rates of global warming."[12] Climatefeedback.org has been cited favorably recently by sources such as Deutsche Welle,[13] Columbia Journalism Review[14], Axios[15], and the Guardian which referred to climatefeedback.org as "a highly respected and influential resource"[16]. It would be good if the RS noticeboard could clarify once and for all whether this source, which other RS cite and describe favorably and which rely on assessments by actual experts, can be used as a RS, so that editors who want to scrub this source and related content from the pages of prominent climate change deniers will stop doing so (or conversely, be allowed to do so). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"Hard to argue against Deutsche Welle, Columbia Journalism Review, Axios, and the Guardian. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"*Generally reliable. With published editorial and advisory teams, a clear methodology ([17] [18]), and multiple endorsements from established reliable sources, Climate Feedback appears to have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required of a generally reliable source. — Newslinger talk 10:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)" Doug Weller talk

None of that is relevant to the specific objections I made about the Myron Ebell cite, and I never said that climatefeedback.org is run by nobodies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: I have no idea why you are telling me this as I thought it was obviously a response to the post above mine by Yae4 Doug Weller talk 16:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: It was about me as well, you quoted from the WP:RSN thread that I'd mentioned, starring Snooganssnoogans's claim re what I'd said, and I have no idea why. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, The fact that Singh's listing is out of date since around January 2017, or 3 years ago, and he reviewed 2 articles in 2019, including November, but they didn't update his info' is no reflection on their editorial performance or factual accuracy? With all due respect, I disagree. It's not a huge error, but it's an indicator; big errors start with small ones. His comments also struck me as being much too long, as compared with others, which is why I clicked. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

^This is a strange criticism of a RS. This well-regarded fact-checking website comprised entirely of recognized experts is unreliable because one author did not update his author bio on the website (moving from a postdoc to a tenure-track job) and because his comments are long. You do realize that author bios are usually written by the authors themselves? This applies to the author bios in peer-reviewed academic publications, as well as the folks who write op-eds for RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not here to exchange snarky insults. I stand by my original, concise list of comments above. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

To clarify my last comment ^, I did not see all your edits of your previous comment until after I replied.

So it might be good to review Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_own_comments: "even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes."

Also, referring to the heading here and at User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan#Tendentious_editing_on_climate_change_topics a review of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages: "Keep headings neutral" also seems appropriate. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans has accused me of tendentious editing at least four times (15:38 11 January, 16:00 11 January, 03:55 15 January, 14:19 15 January), and if that's accepted then Snooganssnoogans's request is taken care of. Incidentally Snooganssnoogans's claim "comprised entirely of recognized experts" is not an opinion I could agree with. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable. We are in a situation analogous to that with alternative medicine: the specialists who critique climate change denial typically do so in venues dedicated to the subject of denialism, because denialism itself is not a live controversy within the field. You don't publish papers in professional climate literature saying that $RANDOMDENIALIST is wrong because (a) it's obvious and (b) it does not advance the field of climate science. So we have a number of venues, of which this is one, where specialists gather to critique a specific aspect of pseudoscience. Obviously that critique necessarily personalises things (X is wrong to say Y is hard to discuss without naming X as the source of Y). That means we have to be careful not to slip into hyperbole, but the content linked above, doesn't do that. The only thing I would do is WP:ATT everything. Guy (help!) 15:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Include. Climate Feedback (RSP entry) is not a self-published source, just as the similar Science-Based Medicine (RSP entry) was determined not to be self-published in a 2019 RfC. InsideClimate News won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2013, and is not self-published because it has a sizable editorial team. The guideline on fringe theories makes it clear that "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." Climate change denial is contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change, and is a fringe theory because it "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". In-text attribution is appropriate in some cases, and I would reword some of the text to focus the criticism on the people's claims, and not the people themselves. — Newslinger talk 01:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I made five points on a talk page post, one of which was about InsideClimate News, I've withdrawn it. It's disputed whether Snooganssnoogans's edits have always met WP:BLP requirements, and whether Snooganssnoogans's requests or accusations are laudable, but not (as far as I can tell) whether pseudoscientific views should be pushed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You've made some reasonable points, so I've taken a closer look at each of the edits listed in Snooganssnoogans's first comment in this discussion:

1. Myron Ebell (Special:Diff/871394198): The text in the article is consistent with the the Climate Feedback fact check, but in-text attribution of Climate Feedback would be appropriate, and the text should also state the year Ebell made the statement (2018). Something like 'In a 2018 Newsnight interview, Ebell stated that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC", which was described as "factually inaccurate" by Climate Feedback.' would be fully BLP-compliant. It doesn't look like Ebell responded to the fact check.
2. Guus Berkhout (Special:Diff/919740851): This looks fine to me, since I don't consider Climate Feedback self-published, as explained in my previous comment. The text includes Climate Feedback's negative evaluation of the letter, but doesn't describe Berkhout or the other signatories with negative terms. However, the text could use some copyediting, and there's a typo in "scienctists".
3. Joanne Nova (Special:Diff/929091011, Special:Diff/915352813, Talk:Joanne Nova § A recent edit)
   • I agree that "known primarily for promoting pseudoscientific views on climate change and the harms of smoking" should not be used to describe the Heartland Institute, since Powell's book does not directly say that. The main article might have more supporting sources, but I'm not sure if they're relevant in the article on Nova. Alternative phrasing, such as "a think tank that opposed the Kyoto Protocol", would be better-supported and more relevant.
   • "The book argues that temperatures have not increased" is imprecise, as Nova's handbook states that "the world has not warmed since 2001". The text should add "since 2001".
   • National Geographic is one of the sources used for the text "The book promotes the myth that there is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more will not have an impact on temperatures." The magazine links to a UT News piece, which refers to a "myth" that consists of two claims: the CO₂ saturation claim, and the water vapor claim. Nova made the first claim in her handbook, but was silent on the second claim. I'm undecided on whether this is a potent enough counterargument to justify excluding "myth" from the text. There is probably some way to rephrase this unambiguously.
   • 'Her blog is described as "skeptical" of climate science.' isn't well-supported, since the cited NPR opinion piece doesn't explicitly mention Nova, but "a number of active bloggers".
   • There were other changes in those edits. No comment on these changes, since I didn't examine them yet.
4. Ian Plimer (Special:Diff/935260217): As I don't consider Climate Feedback self-published, I would keep the citation. The article text is unaffected.

— Newslinger talk 10:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This thread isn't about whether to insert that material (it already is inserted). It's about Snooganssnoogans's request. (Update: I removed some unnecessary words in that last sentence before there was a reply.) I want to discuss the edits, but does anyone object if we do so on separate threads? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I added a thread related to the first accusation, my revert on Myron Ebell. I'd like to do one at a time. I think that "what should be in the Myron Ebell article" belongs better in that thread, and "should the Snooganssnoogans request be supported" belongs in this one. Some people have suggested that there should have been attribution (meaning there was an WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV violation too?), but I didn't bring that in because it is part of the WP:NPOV policy not the WP:BLP policy. And, as stated, I regard talk about WP:RS guideline as unnecessary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Update: The Myron Ebell thread is now archived. The Joanne Nova thread is still live and I hope editors here will give it some attention. There doesn't seem to be much interest so I won't continue with my plan to add separate threads in WP:BLPN about each article.Newslinger: since you used the word "yet", I'm not sure whether you intended to add something, or whether we're done with this sub-conversation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Adding a couple more observations about Climate Feedback (aka Science Feedback and Health Feedback): It's a little early to claim good "reputation" for accuracy when they only had the notability tag removed last April related to Facebook, and a few months later were censured for a review of a video on Facebook: "The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories."[19] -- Yae4 (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Today I made a request on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for an uninvolved editor (I don't care if it's an administrator). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Joanne Nova

Snooganssnoogans inserted or re-inserted text about Joanne Nova. I reverted, it was re-inserted, and that's water under the bridge. But Snooganssnoogans has revived the specific matter of my revert by objecting that making it was wrong, and so I will ask the much narrower question: was my revert justified?

• Yes.

(a)) Snoogansnoogans added that Nova is prominent for "promoting pseudoscientific views on climate change". But the word pseudoscientific does not appear in the cited sources. (This wording was changed on January 20 but that does not affect the question.) So WP:V failure.

(b) Snooganssnoogans added a cite to Katherine Bagley in insideclimatenews.org without in-text attribution. I know now that some insideclimatenews.org reporters (not the publication itself and not Bagley) won a Pulitzer. But there are concerns about their bias, for example Jillian Melchior's lengthy National Review article InsideClimate News: Journalism or Green PR?: "The little that is known about InsideClimate News raises questions about conflicts of interest as well as about the publication’s ability, and proclivity, to report fairly and without bias." So WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV failure.

(c) Snooganssnoogans added that Nova's The Skeptics Handbook promotes "various falsehoods", citing a book by geologist James L. Powell pages 99-101, visible here. Example: Nova [said "Satellites ... show that the world has not warmed since 2001". Powell refutes by saying 1998 had an El Niño and 2008 had a La Niña and 2009 turned out to be hot, but 1998 was not Nova's start point and 2009 wasn't Nova's end point (the book is dated June 2009 so she wouldn't have known what 2009 would be). So Powell is indeed debunking but cannot say that her statement about the period she's talking about (2001-2008) is false. Thus Powell never says "falsehoods", it is a Snooganssoogans word and it is unsourced. So WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION failure. Notice as well that Snooganssnoogans only cites Powell, not The Skeptics Handbook, so WP:BALANCE failure.

(d) Snooganssnoogans changed "the book promotes the view" to "the book promotes the myth" and added a cite to an article "Climate Change Myths: Sorting Fact From Fiction" in National Geographic. I don't worry re WP:LABEL but National Geographic is not the true source, it mentions Joanne Nova without refuting her and then provides a hyperlink with the caption "Continue reading this myth ...", linking to a University of Texas site that is now apparently moved to this post in the University of Texas newsletter by Cory Leahy (whoever that is), saying "They also argue that water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas and therefore increases in CO2 shouldn’t be a concern. These claims have been made in recent years by Hungarian physicist Ferenc Miskoczi and other scientists. They were repeated in the Skeptic Handbook, published in 2009 by science writer Joanne Nova." Er, in fact The Skeptics Handbook contains neither the word "water" nor the word "vapor". So Leahy's attack is either obsolete or it is mistaken, and either way shows that the article cannot be trusted. So WP:RSCONTEXT.

(e) Snooganssnoogans changed a reference to the Heartland Institute so that it says "known primarily for promoting pseudoscientific views on climate change and the harms of smoking". But this is the article about Nova, not about Heartland and certainly not about smoking, so irrelevant.

(f) Snooganssnoogans changed "She [i.e. Nova] has claimed ..." to "She has falsely claimed ...". (By the way she was merely agreeing with another person's claim but let that go.) Subsequently there is a statement that Politifact says the claim is wrong, but that does not justify putting "falsely" in. So WP:WIKIVOICE.

I ping the two other editors who specifically mentioned Snooganssnoogans's accusation about this revert or my reply: Bishonen, Newslinger.

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(a) "Pseudoscientific" should be used because that's consistent with WP:FRINGE.

(b) InsideClimate News is a Pulitzer Prize-winning news outlet. Clearly RS.

(c) The cited Columbia University Press book says of the four central claims in Nova's book, "Each of the four points has been claimed by deniers, debunked by scientists, claimed again by deniers, debunked again, and now shows up once more in The Skeptic’s Handbook." The author, who is the recognized expert James Lawrence Powell then proceeds to debunk the falsehoods in more detail. That's also why we should use "Pseudoscientific" in #A.

(d) The National Geographic is citing reports organized by the Jackson School of Geosciences (at the University of Texas at Austin) on the most common climate change denial myths (which includes Nova's pseudoscientific works). You say the book doesn't mention "water vapor" specifically in the context of "carbon dioxide is already saturated to the max", but she expliticly talks about how "clouds and humidity" account for "more than half" of the effects of carbon (which is the same thing).

(e) It's clearly important context for readers to tell them what the Heartland Institute is, because the name of the organization may mislead readers into thinking it's a credible research organization.

(f) We should say "falsely claimed" for falsehoods. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

A comment only on point (f) above. The language "facilely claimed" absolutely requires in-line attribution as to who is asserting the claims are false, to avoid appearing as WP is making the stance that the claims are false. In the current situation, while the sentence with "falsely claimed" includes at least one organization that says way, that needs to be in the sentence in question itself as it reads still that WP is calling it out. Otherwise you have to leave the language as just "claimed" and then follow it with the counter proof. --Masem (t) 17:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(a) WP:FRINGE doesn't beat WP:V (b) I pointed to a bias problem, saying "Pulitzer" doesn't address it (c) again, debunking is not the same as declaring falsehood (d) clouds aren't made of water vapour (e) personal opinion isn't proof (f) now two editors have specifically said this is wrong. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• An IP tried to comment by inserting Yes here but another editor speedily reverted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Jaggi Vasudev

The entire article has been edited in the last few weeks in a way that definitely seems to violate BLP guidelines of NPOV, V & NOR. Some specific issues:

• Opinion pieces from websites have been used as citations to include accusations of murder and criminal charges. One of these articles has been referenced 9 times across the article, and another has been referenced 4 times to perpetuate a particular POV. References also include links to an online forum.
• There is a whole section titled Family, which talks exclusively about his wife and supposed murder, and his daughter's marriage. It uses three sources. One source is a non-English source and Google translate suggests that this article is not news coverage but more of an opinion piece. The second source is a news article about someone who tweeted such accusations. The purpose of this section seems to be to create a lot of smoke and imply that where there is smoke there is fire. The third source here is about the daughter's marriage. The wiki text (since edited) used the word "lavish" to describe the wedding, though the cited source described the wedding as simple. This edit combined with the fact that neither the daughter nor the daughter's husband are notable enough by themselves for their marriage to be included in this section, seems to suggest that the purpose of including this was to imply that an expensive wedding took place.
• Another section on political and religious affiliations synthesizes OR out of opinion pieces and reads like an editor's opinion rather than something from an encyclopedia
• The first paragraph also includes this OR.
• A group of editors seem to have monopolized edits to this page and are reverting other edits. An associated page Isha Foundation is also being edited by the same set of editors. This page was deleted twice as being not notable by one of them. Both deletions were reverted later. A page deletion by itself could have just been a case of difference of opinion in notability, but combined with the above factors, it seems to indicate a very biased set of edits.
• One of the editors referred to the subject of the article as a "dimwit" in the talk page. Once again, taken in isolation, this might not be a big issue, but considering the above points, it suggests a lack of objectivity in the editing approach.

I request other editors to take a look at this page and bring it up to standards. Tamilmama (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Tamilmama, If you are not aware then you should familiarize yourself with WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Wikimedia foundation has fixed guideline that pseudoscience should be labelled as such. I referred to him as dimwit because he is dimwit. Water doesn't have memory, blood doesn't have magnetic field and eating during lunar eclipse doesn't cause cancer--that is clear thing and reputed scientific magazines refuted these claims. He still wants to propagate these claims, so, Wikipedia's policy of WP:FRINGE applies here.

I don't have any opinion on his political or religious affiliation and neither I added it. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harshil169: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE doesn’t apply on BLP. WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE is meant for articles like 2012 phenomenon or The Face on Mars. Creating a whole section on his personal beliefs doesn’t make sense to me and per me is totally unworthy. Secondly the citations like The Quint, The Wire, Scroll.in fails WP:RS, especially in case of BLP. Wikipedia is not a platform for debunking claims. Personal blogs can be used for it. I am looking forward to restore this[20] version, as no proper consensus has been established since last July. These topics had been discussed multiple times in the past, yet no consensus has ever been established. Cheers!! ML ⁹¹¹ 21:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

My Lord, umm, no. RSN is that way, where you need to prove how outlets having won multiple Ramnath Goenkas or subject to critical acclaim over NewYorker fails RS. The sources dictate the levels of coverage and not our personal feelings. ∯WBG^converse 11:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The Ramnath Goenka award is given to individual journalists, not to publications. Being a recipient of the award is also no guarantee of that particular journalist being completely unbiased and factual in the future. With that being said, none of the sources whose opinions you've quoted (or the ones that you're defending) in this article are recipients of the award. 2409:4072:6394:A403:7D27:BB7E:7D23:DDCE (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool story, WP:RSN is that way. ∯WBG^converse 13:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Please acknowledge whether or not you understand that the award is not given to publications but individual journalists. You've stated this lie several times on the article's talk page as well to assert the credibility of your sources. 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

We don't find any coverage on the relation between Vasudev and Hinduvta. The sources cited are very well known for their bias, and per me fails WP:RS at very first place. Is this just the coincidence that ONLY these portals are trying to establish relation between Vasudev and Hinduvta? I don't see any coverage on it by reliable news outlets. Apart from that, I see the obsession of labelling him as supporter of Hindutva revolve around the portals like The Quint, The Wire, Scroll.in. ML ⁹¹¹ 18:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Since this discussion seems to be one-sided and other parties have stopped participating both here and at the talk page, I have reverted the article to the version suggested above by @My Lord:. Edits can be made to this after discussion. The previous version definitely does not conform to WP:BLP guidelines, including but not limited to: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner..." etc. Tamilmama (talk)

@Harshil169: Pseudoscience? You made ***41 edits*** to the page in December (it received only 100 edits in total) and deleted chunks of factual content on the UNITED NATIONS Millenium Peace Summit, WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM, Global Landscapes Forum, etc. from top tier media sources: Forbes, The Hindu, The Economic Times and The Indian Express. And the reason you provided was - "WP:NOTNEWS. These things are blatant WP:RECENTISM. Doesn't matter in encyclopedia."

Even now, after its been brought to the BLP Noticeboard and you've been informed by @My Lord: that Pseudoscience doesn't pertain to BLP, you continue to war on the page. And I see that you're doing similar stuff on the connected Isha Foundation page. :::You put a very serious allegation and cited an article from Firstpost. And shortly thereafter, blocked someone trying to provide a counter POV even though they used the exact same source as you had - Firstpost. And you didn't even offer a reason for the block. Its plain to see what's going on here. So rather than preach to @Tamilmama: on Pseudoscience, I'd ask you to educate yourself on BLP policies and how not to violate them. Jp7311 (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311, by this language, you made my case stronger. Thank you for using it. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311, what does Pseudoscience doesn't pertain to BLP even mean? A line can be probably devoted to his speaking at WEF, GLF and all that. ∯WBG^converse 13:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The sources connecting Sadhguru to BJP and "Hindutva", fail to stand the test of even the simplest scrutiny. Besides him stating on several occasions that he has no political leanings, he has endorsed several parties and leaders directly in opposition of BJP many times.

Some sources:

• Sadhguru has endorsed and shared the dias with Pinarayi Vijayan, Chief Minister of Kerala and member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (a bitter rival/critic of "Hindutva" and BJP) for doing remarkable work in the state.
• Former Chief Minister of Karnataka from the Indian National Congress, Siddaramaiah, has endorsed Sadhguru (and vice versa) on several occasions. Congress in Karnataka is the strongest political opponent of Bharatiya Janata Party.
• Former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Chandrababu Naidu, shared the dias and exchanged pleasantaries with Sadhguru after breaking off his Telugu Desam Party's alliance with Bharatiya Janata Party.
• Current Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal of Aam Admi Party, who is BJP's biggest political rival in the state has been praised by Sadhguru since the very beginning of his political career.

Coming to the articles that are referenced to connect Sadhguru with Bharatiya Janata Party and Hindutva, there are some very strong issues with their credibility.

The first reference article (cited as source No. 30) has been written by Girish Shahane, an art gallery curator and has been referenced multiple times throughout, as pointed out by another editor. This article is a loosely-sourced opinion and thus falls under the WP:OR category.

This article shows no primary sources or proof that Sadhguru has ever endorsed BJP’s sociopolitical ideology directly. It makes references to a Hindu (not Hindutva) belief, a clearly fictional story, an anecdote of Sadhguru finding an “ellipsoid” in Turkey and referring to it as a Shiva Lingam (another Hindu belief, not Hindutva) and Sadhguru speaking about the existence of Pagan temples in Europe as "proof" for his supposed endorsement of BJP or Hindutva politics.

The article then makes the false allegation that Sadhguru doesn’t acknowledge the Bhakti movement or the influence of Christian and Islamic cultures in India, and makes ZERO references to primary sources for backing up the same.

Sadhguru has acknowledged Bhakti movement in his writings, he has also written highly of several Sufi (Islamic) saints and their (positive) impact on Indian culture, and also speaks highly of Christianity and Jesus. The other two referenced articles from Scroll.in and The Wire are also opinion pieces that provide loose commentary on these connections at best and list absolutely no primary sources to undoubtedly prove that Sadhguru's sociopolitical ideology is the same as Bharatiya Janata Party.

Since these articles fail to prove strongly that their conclusions are backed up by primary sources, they fail WP:SECONDARY and should thus be discredited for encyclopedic purposes.

I can go on, but this evidence should be enough to clearly point a pattern of biased and malicious editing which can also be seen throughout the rest of the article. 2409:4072:6394:A403:3E:D32C:23C1:F736 (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

References

• There is no prohibition on using non-English sources. Multiple pieces (including academic scholarship) have described and discussed the subject's religio-political ideology; trying to counter reliable sources by deriving from other sources is not how we proceed and is termed as original research. Get your rebuts published over any RS, and it will be incorporated. Nothing to see over here. ∯WBG^converse 11:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? Read what I've said again. I have not once referred to any "non-English sources", nothing you've referenced in the article can be construed as reliable. Just because the platform where an opinion is published might be considered by you as reliable doesn't make the opinion itself reliable. **There has to be some scrutiny of the material itself, or you can perhaps write "As per Girish Shahane" to precede any arguments made by him. Of course, Shahane is not noteworthy enough for his opinion to count on its own, so how does it somehow gain credibility through the publication? This is also the case with the majority of other sources in this article.
  • The article has clearly been published with shoddy sources, which I've described in detail above, but of course, you haven't bothered to respond to any of them. If you're going to talk about academic sources (which are behind paywalls and inaccessible to people like myself, I'm assuming you have access), then we can have a separate discussion, wherein I would prefer it if you'd provide the full text of these purported academic sources where the merits or demerits can be discussed.
  • You cannot just badger a WP:BLP on the basis of fringe opinions. Unless something has been proven without a shadow of a doubt with primary sources, it cannot possibly be stated as fact. The qualification of a source as a secondary source alone shouldn't take away the burden of proof that said secondary source has to derive its conclusions from verifiable primary sources. That is not how an encyclopedia is written or referenced.
  • Like I said previously, I can continue dissecting every single issue with this article and its sourcing, but it would perhaps be better for you to clear this first. Also, I would request you to stop attempting to indulge in WP:GAMING and WP:LAWYERING to bully your way out of these issues. Kindly state your rebuttals in clear words. Thank you 2409:4072:6394:A403:7D27:BB7E:7D23:DDCE (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

IP, Why don't you log in ? If you are a blocked/banned user (and we have many on this topic) then you are not welcome to edit anywhere on Wikipedia (not unless your original account is unblocked). I have no idea what this link [21] has to do with this discussion. In any case, As far as I can see, the edits by WBG are reliably sourced. If you want something to be updated Please provide RS to back up your claim on article talk page. DBigXrayᗙ 13:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your completely unfounded insinuations but I'm neither banned nor am I interested in registering an account on Wikipedia. It is completely my choice whether I want to do so or not. As far as you are concerned, haven't you been warned for your edits to this very page just a couple of months ago? If you and Aruneek categorically state on record that you stand behind every source in the article, I'll take it to WP:RS and use this discussion for further proceedings against your WP:BIAS induced editing behaviors. Just my perception, we can let arbitration decide whether its true or not. 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Go wherever you wish to go. ∯WBG^converse 14:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Please confirm for the record, as an editor, your endorsement for every single source in the article as it stands today. Thank you. 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• • We don't bother to fact-check secondary sources, once it passes WP:RS and your first and third points are entirely bogus. Arguments of him propagating pseudoscience have been noted by multiple quarters, which removes the need for attribution. ∯WBG^converse 14:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

    • I have not once disputed the pseudoscience aspect of this article, so what are you on about again? I see a serious lack of reading comprehension since you've either purposefully or just absent-mindedly misquoted me twice now within the span of 4-5 responses. Also, please describe what constitutes as "we", I thought you were an independent editor just like myself so I'd appreciate it if you stopped speaking on behalf of Wikipedia in its entirety. Like I said, I will take all of your dubious sources to WP:RS, but I'd appreciate it if you can confirm, just for the sake of future arbitration proceedings, that you stand behind every single source in the article right now with your understanding of Wikipedia, RS and other policies. Thank you. 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

      Reading our arbitration policy might prove beneficial. Also, you need to move WP:RSN not WP:RS. I have been here for years and unless you are editing logged out, ought to have a better idea of community's interpretation of policies. Also, this is not some kind of litigation forum. Go wherever you wish to go. ∯WBG^converse 14:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

      • Don't worry Aruneek, my only intention was to make things easier to interpret for others in future proceedings. You can choose to either indulge or ignore (you've chosen to repeatedly ignore so I won't bother at this point). Your being here for years or not makes no difference to the weight of your edits or arguments, and if you're in gross violation of a Wikipedia policy, you're going to be just as liable for punishment as anyone else, so please get that straight. Any editorial privileges or experience that you may have with Wikipedia is to facilitate better work for the project, not for you to indulge in WP:LAWYERING against newer users. 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

        My current user-name is Winged Blades of Godric, not sure why you keep referring to my earlier pseudonym; it may be construed as a form of harassment. Feel free to have the last word and do whatever you wish. ∯WBG^converse 14:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

        • It is a former username of yours that I'm more familiar with than your current one so I'm using it to refer to you. If there's something about it that makes you uncomfortable, please let me know and I'll refrain from using it in the future. This I'll do out of the kindness of my heart, not due to a violation of WP:HARASS which I suggest you read in its entirety and refrain from making such accusations in the future to shift the direction of an argument. Thank you 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

          Lol. You can continue, as you wish. ∯WBG^converse 14:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

          • Thanks Aruneek, lmao 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to request an editor to kindly remove all WP:NONFREE sources as most of them are used as supplementary sources anyway. One authentic source per statement is enough. 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Read the policy, you cite. ∯WBG^converse 14:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

remove sources ? under which rule ? please read the links before you post them. DBigXrayᗙ 14:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The policy is for content and not sourcing, but the point stands. If you can get the same impact from a non-paywalled source, why do you need to pile on a nonfree source on top of it? Either way, if you wish to defend the inclusion of these sources, please (since you have access to them) quote the entire relevant section of the papers in your sourcing so that the material can be verified by other editors. Of course, you're under no obligation to do so, but I would personally perceive it as an honest effort to wanting to improve the encyclopedia on your part. If you're not interested, then due to the existence of other sources for the same statements, it would perhaps be in the best interests of the readers to remove such sources altogether. I will still make an honest attempt (upon your rejection of my request) to find these documents through WP:LIBRARY, but at some point a decision has to be made with consensus and I'll look forward to it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Make a request over article t/p, as to what sources you wish to be quoted. ∯WBG^converse 15:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources #72 and #73 in the current version at the time of this comment are the ones that I'd like relevant sections to be inserted in the reference area for. Thank you for being cooperative Aruneek. 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No the point doesn't stand. It doesn't work that way. You cannot ask editors to remove valid sources simply because you don't have access. you can use WP:REFDESK or ask for the quote on the talk page. DBigXrayᗙ 15:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Again with the WP:LAWYERING? If you can read the discussion I've had with Aruneek, you'll know that we've reached an understanding regarding this. I don't want to re-state everything, just read what I've written exactly above your comment. I would also recommend that you don't attempt to harass me, you've been accused of it by several people in the past, and you've received your fair share of sanctions as well, so please demonstrate some learnings from your past experiences. 157.46.108.234 (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harshil169:

I was wondering if you could please respond to the questions I had asked before. I'm having a hard time understanding some of your actions on this page. I'll restate my questions below so that its easier for you.

(1) On November 5, 2019 - you deleted a chunk of content on the UNITED NATIONS MILLENIUM PEACE SUMMIT, WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM and other important developments. The sources were solid - Forbes, The Hindu, The Economic Times, etc. But you deleted it all. And I don't see that there was any discussion on the Talk page. 2 weeks later when someone had reinstated it, you deleted it all again. And the reason you stated was "Removing content per Talk Page consensus". But I don't see that there was any discussion about it though, so consensus would not have been reached. Would love to know why you needed to get rid of it, thanks. Jp7311 (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311, We don't mention about all things which he spoke at multiple places because we are not newspaper. Refer point number 4 which clearly says we are not diary. We just mention things which are encyclopedia worthy and can matter after 50-100 years. For an example, you can refer to Narendra Modi, which is good article but has NO MENTION of all of his speeches. Here is consensus about it. Also, not that page had resume template then. So, it was necessary to remove these details to remove that problematic template. Hope it clarifies. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Harshil169 I'm afraid that's not a good enough argument. I'm sure you're aware of wiki's policies around editing to make the platform more robust. The information you deleted is not mentioned anywhere on the page, and you deleted large sections in one go. This is not a case of reducing redundancies as you're claiming. In fact, I don't see any of these noteworthy engagements mentioned anywhere anymore. Speakers often put some of their key speaking engagements on their pages. And the United Nations, World Economic Forum...these aren't your run of the mill organizations. So it does not look good at all for you that that you deleted this.

Also, could you be a little more respect please of your fellow editors? A little more civility. You didn't care to discuss this on the Talk page with folks who may have spent valuable time contributing to the page. And in fact when someone saw what happened and restored it into some semblance of what it used to be before you went at it, you once again immediately deleted it all. Some would call that vandalism. Your motivations to remove factual data from this page seem very high. And I do think you broke more than a few rules here. So please take care not to repeat this, thanks. And I look forward to continuing our discussion on the points below because you also deleted their entire body of literary work. I would like to discuss why please. Jp7311 (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

'Above is evidence of rampant vandalism by Harshil169:}}

'Pls see above 'malicious removal of encyclopedic content' from Jaggi Vasudev page by Harshil169 one of many instances of vandalism (some others listed below) & request appropriate action including to disallow their editing of the page.'

User has violated Wikipedia policy on VANDALISM: The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a 'deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.

Jp7311 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(2) Then on December 31, 2019 you you deleted some information about the Isha Yoga Center which some others might have been interested in. But the reason you stated was "It is related to his CULT." So would that be the reason why you deleted the content?

@Harshil169: Still waiting for you to please explain why you called Jaggi Vasudev's organization a Cult, Here, and again Here. You have also referred to the subject's words as "gibberish", added content which you referred to as "Adding his nonsensical health claims" and "more nonsense". Jp7311 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Above is evidence of Personal attacks, Vandalism, and Disruptive Editing by Harshil169:}}

Pls see above highly derogative remarks by Harshil169 targeting the subject of the article and calling their organization "A CULT" while editing the Jaggi Vasudev Biographies of Living Persons page by Harshil169. Several violations of Wikipedia policies on No Personal Attacks, Neutrality, NPOV, Vandalism, etc. Request appropriate action including to disallow their editing of the page.

User has violated Wikipedia policy on NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans."

"Some types of comments are never acceptable:

- Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

:A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming 'good faith', and can be considered disruptive editing.''

Jp7311 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(3) The same day, Dec 31, you deleted a List of 29 books and cited - '"Wikipedia is not catalogue to list all of his books// This is suitable for his personal blog or cult's website// Period"'. I'm curious why? Because I've seen the pages of many authors who have a 'Literary Works' or 'Publications' section where their work is listed, with descriptions etc. On the CULT thing, are you sure you're have enough of a neutral POV? Thanks Jp7311 (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311, We only list notable books in literary section which attracted significant book reviews and reception. Regarding point 2, what do you mean by "others might have been interested in". This is encyclopedia and we don't add everything. This is not diary or website of the foundation. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Harshil169 Ok lets start with the "others might have been interested". Everyone is an editor, and everyone is welcome to contribute. So, if someone else has put some information up on the page that you don't think should be there - well you have to take it to the Talk page and have a discussion about it. One editor can't just swoop in and decide that it has no place. Wikipedia policy is also clear on this. On your deletion of his entire body of literary work because you don't think it has sufficient "book reviews and reception" - I'm sorry but that won't pass muster with anyone. You should have discussed it with the other editors on the Talk page. And been more thoughtful about axing content so swiftly. Jp7311 (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311, that's what I did. Just look at the second section of talk page. There is consensus between two editors who took part. See Recentism in article" section. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Harshil169, No that's not at all what you did. You wanted to delete a huge section of the page, and took it to the Talk page on Nov 8 under "Recentism in Article". There, within an hour 'you got support from DBigXray' who agreed with you. But as even they suggested, you didn't even wait a day to see if others, maybe the editor who had contributed the content, had a different POV for debate and discussion. You went ahead and deleted that huge amount of factual content the same day. You did not bring this to the notice of the any editors. In fact, the only user you chose to bring this to the attention of, was Admin Bbb23. Please could you explain why you chose to get specifically and only Admin Bbb23's opinion on this? And why you didn't wait for others editors active on the page to get involved? I hope you are aware of Wiki rules on canvassing? Jp7311 (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

In fact Harshil169, after 'you deleted all this content on November 8, 2019', (not even waiting a day after bringing it to the Talk page, nor tagging the contributing editor to discuss it), clearly 'Admin @Bbb23: didn't approve of your action and REVERTED the edit on November 8' citing "(talk) too much sourced material to remove without discussion - take to Talk page". After that there was no further discussion with anyone on the Talk page, much less with Bbb23 who had made the revert. But 2 weeks later, on November 25 you AGAIN DELETED all the same content saying "Removing content per talk page consensus". Please explain why? Jp7311 (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harshil169:, the truth of the matter is that, as a result of your disruptive editing, on November 18, 2019, Admin @Bbb23: 'sanctioned you with a 1-week block citing "Disruptive editing: including WP:NPA, retaliatory abuse of process, failure to collaborate, abusing other editors of misconduct in content disputes". This block was for November 18-25, 2019. And on November 25, 'the very same day that your block was lifted, you went back and made the same edit that you had made on November 8, 2019', and which 'Bbb23 had reversed on November 8, 2019', and sanctioned you for with a 1-week block. Would you care to explain why? Jp7311 (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Above is evidence of rampant vandalism, personal attacks, edit warring, disruptive editing by Harshil169

'Pls see above 'malicious removal of encyclopedic content from Jaggi Vasudev page by Harshil169 as one of many instances of vandalism, personal attacks, and 'highly disruptive editing - even overriding Admin Bbb23. Request appropriate action including to disallow their editing of the page.'

Jp7311 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jp7311, thanks for using this language. You gave me third content which can be used against you. And yes, you can do anything to me. I don’t have any fear of your threat. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harshil169: you have just left a lengthy message on my Talk page, 'threatening to block me'. You wrote "Disclose that how you’re associated with Jaggi and his organisation. Do you consider him as religious or spiritual master? You must disclose it under COI. Your edits are problematic and can lead to block on you."

I can certainly see how my comments on this noticeboard, could be problematic for you given your actions. But, even if I did have a COI which I don't, I have never made any edits to the Jaggi Vasudev page, so your warning is rather odd. If I didn't know better I'd think you were trying to intimidate me. Please rest assured that if I were to mysteriously get blocked and disappear off this thread - well, others would miss me. :) And that would in itself get you, or others, the kind of attention that I'm sure you are not looking for. Also, this is the second time you have posted a threat to my Talk page so you may want to quit it. And think twice about editing the page of a person you characterize as speaking "nonsense" and "gibberish" and leading what you call a "CULT".Jp7311 (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Harshil169, because of your second attempt at harassing me on my talk page, @Kashmiri: advised you to 'take back your warning along with the threat' which I am happy to see that you did. However, rather than apologize, you deleted your comments, along with those of Kashmiri from my Talk page. I must advise you against deleting conversation from other editors' Talk pages, especially comments of others.

'Third Attempt at Harassment' by @Harshil169:

Furthermore, having done that, you have just now made a 3rd threatening statement targeting me, just a few sentences up on this noticeboard, saying "You gave me third content which can be used against you. And yes, you can do anything to me. I don’t have any fear of your threat." I object to your language "which can be used against you" and view it as yet another attempt to intimidate. As for my "threat", to be clear, I have never threatened you. Factual discussion on the BLP noticeboard of potentially disruptive or even libelous actions of an editor does not constitute a threat if conducted in accordance with Wiki policies. You may certainly face consequences as a result of this discussion, but one doesn't need to threaten another person for that to happen. The facts will speak for themselves. On the other hand, you have just made your THIRD attempt at harassing me. Jp7311 (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I have left a warning on Harshil's talk page about their behaviour. That said, I do believe that the cleanup they did to the articles mentioned here goes in the right direction - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nevertheless, content disputes should never turn into personal attacks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Kashmiri: thanks for your intervention and support regarding Harshil169's behaviour. I wouldn't call this a clean up though! More like a take down. Do take a proper look at all the facts. Cheers. Jp7311 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Above is evidence of Repeated Harassment by Harshil169:}}

'Pls see above 3 cases of harassment targeted at me by Harshil169. This doesn't include the action he took yesterday (below) to try and prevent me and Tamilmama from exposing his vandalism and other actions. Or maybe to intimidate us? Request appropriate actions please.'

Jp7311 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

'Sockpuppet Investigation Launched by Harshil169

@Tamilmama:, greetings! It appears that Harshil169 has launched a sockpuppet investigation of you, me, and some other user. I didn't get a notification, so you probably didn't either. Here are details of their complaint:

"All are involved in removing negative informations from Jaggi Vasudev and his cult Isha Foundation.

Same profile description: just me and just do it.

Jp7311 first adds copyrighted material but gets deleted then on 26th January Tamil mama opens BLP thread but this was stale account after 2017.

Jp7311 starts supporting them there and opposes other contributors like me, Winged and DBigXray.

Both has around 50 edits but their behaviour is not like the newcomer.

Dox rhyme which was inactive since 2018 becomes active on talk page of Jaggi Vasudev and talks about bias. Note they have only 6 edits and they know about talk page conversation.

Editing behaviour is sufficient to know these accounts are not new accounts but someone’s sock account or something connected like meat. - Harshil169"

What to say? I'll just let this speak for itself.

But for the record, this is at least the third instance of Harshil169 referring to the subject's organization disparagingly as "A CULT". Jp7311 (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

(UPDATE: Dear Tamilmama, not sure you saw, but Harshil169's sockpuppet investgation of us was booted because of this on-going discussion. So we get to stay! :) Again everyone, if I stop writing, you know its because I've been SHUT UP. So come looking for me and do a search in the Block Log to see who booted me and why! :) Boy oh boy, you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.) Jp7311 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311, Don't ping me again on this noticeboard. My all efforts to let you understand have been failed. I am bound to answer my edits to those who can understand Wikipedia's policies or admins if they want to raise objection. I, in my personal capacity, can refer it as cult but I didn't use same word for Wikipedia article which is not violation of any policy. If you think you are correct then just type long messages and post it on different noticeboards but I have no intention or energy to explain you. I am also dropping stick like other editors User:Winged Blades of Godric, User:DBigXray etc. Don't ping me again! Propose changes which you want to see in article instead."" Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, I won't ping you again on this noticeboard - I was doing it as a courtesy really. And while you may choose not to participate, I will be continuing to lay out the facts here. And others probably will too.

On your statement "I am bound to answer my edits to those who can understand Wikipedia's policies or admins if they want to raise objection" - I thought that the basis of your sockpuppet complaint lodged today is that I know too much about Wikipedia to be new. So which is it? I know too much or too little? Also, as you well know, anybody can raise objections, not just Admins.

On your statement "I, in my personal capacity, can refer it as cult but I didn't use same word for Wikipedia article which is not violation of any policy." - You absolutely did use this word - more than once in justifying edits to the article. See the reason for your edit HERE and HERE. Also, your personal views (lets assume that's what you meant by 'personal capacity') are integral to your ability to have a NPOV, it directly informs your eligibility to edit a certain page. I don't mean to sound pedantic, but you really need to read the policy NPOV.

On your statement "Propose changes which you want to see in article instead." - What I want for this page, and for all others on Wikipedia, is for it to reflect reality. And to adhere to national and international laws, not just wiki policies. And where the behaviors of editors are in compliance with the law and with Wikipedia's policies. Several editors have made repeated attempts to rectify the vandalism on the page, but you have continued to obstruct and disrupt right up until today. So think about what YOU can do to rectify the mess you and others have created. If I were you, I would go through 'all the edits you have made on this page' and consider which of your actions violate Wikipedia policy, libel and other laws, or both, and think of ways to dig yourself out of this pit. You have many resources available for to you to rectify this situation peacefully, and no shortage of creativity, so I will leave that to you. In the meantime, I will continue to lay out the facts here below. Jp7311 (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

(4) Harshil169 starts new section, "PSEUDOSCIENCE, now 'LARGEST section, comprising ~40% of Jaggi Vasudev page. 100% Opinion. And done in a way highly indicative of bad faith.'

'On Dec 31, 2019 Harshil169 added this content' "Jaggi has spread pseudoscientific claims on multiple times for which critics have condemned him. Girish Shahane, writing for Scroll.in, has wrote that he often invokes science but displays his little knowledge of fundamentals." 'And the content' "Jaggi claimed that body dies slowly, and added that hairs and fingernails of died person can grow for 11 to 14 days. With this false physical evidence, he justified the Hindu ritual of burning the body as it helps body dying faster because "dying slow can be torturous". He also claimed that tantrik "scientist" can revive the dead because they are not fully dead by citing an anecdote. And also the content "He has perfected a dish that is a mix of religious politics and blind faith and yet tastes surprisingly like a blend of rationality and ecumenism. Critic has also documented that the research available on the Shambhavi Mudhra, which Jaggi promotes, appears to have been conducted by the disciples of the himself. He has also made a claim that "Europe was full of temples before 4,700 years" by citing example of so called Shiva lingam on the grounds of the Archaeological Museum in Konya, Turkey.

SOURCE for all above is the OPINION PIECE: '"Opinion: The disturbing irrationalism of Jaggi Vasudev", by Girish Shahane.' 'Even the article states that this is an opinion'

'On December 31, they added the content', "His views on the Higgs boson and alleged benefits for the Vibhuti have been refuted by the rationalists and labelled as anti-scientific. Vibhuti & Rudraksha Mahatmayam: A Wellness Guide from Times of India! Jaggi Vasudeva doesn't understand science.

SOURCES for the above is 2 opinion pieces from obscure Nirmukta(?): Jaggi Vasudev Doesn’t Understand Science (or the Nature of the Universe) and Vibhuti And Rudraksha Mahatmayam: A Wellness Guide from Times of India!' Both are obvious opinion pieces.

On December 31, they added the content, "Babu Gogineni has also criticised Jaggi for his business model and tricks to confuse pseudoscience with science."

SOURCE for this is: 'India's own Carl Sagan: Meet Babu Gogineni, the science populariser from Hyderabad.' Please see the source article, to see how Harshil169 has operated in bad faith. Presented an opinion as fact, and doctored that also. Not only is it the opinion of some unknown individual, but Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev is barely mentioned once in this article, in passing, and even the sentence mentioning him has been doctored to look like a legitimate criticism.

On December 31, they added the content: His attempt to label the 11th latitude as "scientifically perfect place" to build Ashram to receive "positive effect" of earth has been refuted by the scientist.

SOURCE for this is: ‘It’s a battle for the survival of scientific research’'. Again, 'Harshil169 has operated in bad faith. Jaggi Vasudev is not even mentioned in the article.'

Jp7311 (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Bbb23:, @My Lord:, @Tamilmama: etc., I wanted to inform you that though this discussion started on this page - the BLP Noticeboard - when it wasn't working out too well for Harshil169 they opened a new discussion on the Admin Incident Noticeboard. There they alleged that I had made personal attacks against them on this page (pls see above - I had presented evidence along with each and every claim), and were successful in getting me a 24-hr block, in part for 'accusing established editors of vandalism'. Not sure how that works, but ok. But then, when presented more and much stronger evidence on the Admin Incident Noticeboard, Admin El_C intervened and Harshil169 got an indefinite block from editing the Jaggi Vasudev page. Again as things weren't going well for them, Harshil169 once again split the discussion, starting a third discussion on the Partial blocks Noticeboard where they canvassed their supporters to get El-C to remove the block. And in a matter of a few hours, the block has been removed. All of this happened in a matter of less than 24-hours (while conveniently a block was on me). Harshil169 has once again misrepresented statements on the Partial Blocks Noticeboard - to the extent of even lying about what was said on these 2 prior Noticeboards!. And in an incredibly brazen action, when I tried to respond to some of the allegations being made of me on the Partial Blocks Noticeboard (that my claims were all rubbish), Harshil169 has just deleted all my comments from the Partial blocks Noticeboard. Unbelievable the lengths to which they are going to keep the truth at bay. Anyways, if any of you are inclined to intervene please do. I am not blocked from editing that page and perfectly within my rights as an editor to do so. It was their decision to split the discussion. They are simply trying to confuse people and make this tedious for the Admins and 'prevail at all costs' that way. I personally have no interest in this being a promotional page and if something was promotional it should of course be edited to make it encyclopedic. But this is far from that - it is an organized effort to defame and should be met with the fullest action on the part of wikipedia. Thanks. - Jp7311

Rick Castro

The SPA Eigilvesti (talk · contribs) has been occasionally editing Rick Castro since 2007, and frequently in the last 10 months. All the user's edits have been to the Rick Castro article, or to add Castro's name to another article. The material added has not been, as far as I have noticed, particularly problematic, but the user consistently adds bare urls as references, and the purported sources sometimes do not have any connection to or mention of Castro. The user has never responded to talk page messages. Eigilvesti and I are responsible for 95% of the edits to Rick Castro in the last 10 months. I would appreciate other eyes on the article. - Donald Albury 14:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I've PRODded Cloutier, wikilinking this section in the edit summary, let's see what happens. –84.46.52.25 (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I took a look, it is basically fluff. I did fix up a link to the 3 page article in Los Angeles Magazine and recovered an archive link to the other source, but the latter requires registration, so I didn't read it. - Donald Albury 17:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Why Cue

please look into this page Why Cue for deletion as I do believe it doesn’t meet wiki notability requirements, potentially spammy and does not present references in reliable sources 67.81.121.57 (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

AFD as IP is brave, I gave up on it after one attempt. –84.46.52.25 (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Josip Pečarić

Can someone with both an ability to read the sources in this area (not me) and a neutral point of view on Croatian-Serbian relations (I know, a tall order) take a look at Josip Pečarić, please? I tried today to take out the more obviously partisan attack-page aspects of our article (e.g. emphasizing his failure to obtain certain faculty positions, instead of the positions he actually did obtain) but was immediately reverted. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

While I can't help with the sources, I can say that the article needs a lot of work to even make it coherent. It's written with a thick Eastern European syntax and I believe the translations are much too literal. A lot of it has this really choppy form with many redundant statements, and statements that really have no context. A lot of it reads as meaningless, unless you already know what it's talking about, and many things, like failing to get a job, are just bizarre at most and trivia that no general reader would care about at least. Hopefully, someone who can go through the sources will come along and fix these issues. But in the meantime, I'd feel better removing any possible BLP issues until that happens. Better to err on the side of caution. Zaereth (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The bizzarity + trivia are the facts this man pointed at in his interview referenced in the article. His PhD thesis was reviewed by three Belgrade university professors and rejected for many errors found in. One of the Thesis reviewers was late M. Asic, professor of mathematics at the Ohio State University. This review can be found in the University archives along with the PhD thesis. Pretty soon all Belgrade University PhD theses will be digitized and online accessible. Wait and see! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.243.245 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok. And what does that have to do with the price of rice in China? By that, I mean, who cares? What is this information supposed to be telling me? It's not encyclopedic information unless there is some significance to not getting a job. That happens to everybody who has ever looked for a job. Most people eat dinner and bathe too, but it's not encyclopedic to report it. So what good is it? Zaereth (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

For sure, the price of rice in China is encyclopedic information. I guess you are ten year old person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.243.245 (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

On Wiki-calendar, 11, which is about as long as I've been participating at this noticeboard. That's a common English metaphorical expression, which I explained means "Who cares?" "What does it matter?", which you still haven't explained. That's the problem in translating literally, because much of the meaning is often lost. Zaereth (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand this entire discussion, but regardless of who and how many people reviewed Josip Pečarić's thesis and what they said about it, it's irrelevant to us if the only way we know this is from the thesis itself. If Josip Pečarić mention the early failings with his thesis (I guess he eventually fixed the problems since it sounds like he earned his PhD) in an interview I guess there is a chance it may be worth mentioning this in the article, but it would need to be mostly based on what he said in the interview with only some limited additional support from the thesis itself, if even that. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but would add that, if the info is worth mentioning then there should be some point. We're either missing a bunch of valuable stuff that ties this article all together, or something's been lost in translation, or I don't know what. But the article as written is mostly a bunch of incoherent statements like that. Someone who speaks both languages fluently needs to step in and sort it out. Zaereth (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there was a lot of strange material in the article, and that the coverage was WP:UNDUE. Pečarić does appear to hold some fringish right views, however, as supported by some of the Croatian newspaper sources that have been included in various versions of the article. I looked a little further and found also this article in English from N1 (TV channel) which substantially discusses Pečarić's non-math book, and which in this context uses the words "Holocaust denial". It looks like there's enough there that something should be in the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear all (well, not the ranting IP), as this discussion gets more concrete, may I invite you to participate on the article talk page? More eyes and voices there would certainly be a good thing. (Russ, I think you're probably right, but definitely that needs to be hashed out by people without axes to grind.) --JBL (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to point out, the original post was not so much about the Holocaust denial or any of that stuff. That most likely is correct. If you look at the history, it was about the odd, trivial stuff, such as the subject having applied for three jobs and got turned down, or bad grades in school. While I believe much of the negative info is likely appropriate, I get the feeling that people are going out of their way to add everything negative they can find about this person, no matter how small, in the hopes of making him look like the devil. Unfortunately, I don't think they realize that it has the opposite effect and just makes the article look ridiculous.

But there really is no coherence. By that, I mean it reads like, "Joe Schmo is carpenter. Joe Schmo is considered best carpenter. In addition to carpentry, Joe Schmo has built houses and woodsheds. Joe Schmo failed sixth grade and had to repeat. He built a house and inspector made him come back and fix things..." There's no flow and nothing to tie it all together into a meaningful article about this person, and I can't do that without being able to read the sources. Zaereth (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I see enough to think that a number of Pečarić's views and claims on non maths issues, are to say the least, controversial. Where these are sufficiently covered by RS, this should be reflected in our article. Establishing someone views are controversial based on their own writings is more problematic. As for their math work, maybe what the IP says is true. But in the absence of secondary sources we cannot cover it. We definitely cannot cover negative reviews of his thesis based only on stuff published with the thesis. Although I don't edit the area much, a problem we sometimes get in this area is Serbian and maybe Bosnian sources write about how the person is the most evil, dumbest, person in the world treating even any reasonable views they have as wrong. And Croatian sources write about how he is the smartest, bestest, person in the world completely ignoring even serious problems with their views or claims. (To be clear, this happens in all the other directions too.) So far I haven't see any sign of this with the person, but it's probably something that should be considered. Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

173, I have deleted your comments. Please provide sources to make such allegations or don't make them again. I will ask for you to be blocked if you violate WP:BLP again. Nil Einne (talk)

Burt Rutan and major reduction in presenting his views on environment and climate change?

Three questions: Should the article coverage of Rutan's views of climate change and data be expanded or contracted (as recently done by others)? Should the article link to PDFs of his presentations, as it had done for 8-10 years? Should the article link to YouTube or other videos of his 2009 presentation?

FYI, This article section has been discussed a little, elsewhere.[22].

• Which is better for Wikipedia, (1) the long standing presentation,[23] (with sources) which later also included links to Rutan's published presentations explaining his views,[24] (2) a slightly longer version with another quote added[25], or (3) the recently stripped version.[26]?

Put another way, does Wikipedia want to minimize presentation of Rutan's actual views (because they are considered "wrong") or does Wikipedia want to accurately present his views in enough detail for a reader to understand?

• A particular disagreement to settle is linking to Rutan's presentation itself (PDF). It seems the last thing some editors want is to make it easy for readers to see what a notable person actually said about climate change and data. I feel nothing has changed to justify removing the link that existed for almost a decade.[27][28] Please see below for discussion of the rps3.com site.

I feel the info' from secondary sources should be expanded, not gutted, by including some information from relevant primary sources. This may apply to other sections too, for example to present his views and approaches towards design and innovation, fun, education, or cars.[29][30][31][32]

But, I now focus on whether Rutan's views on Global Warming or Climate Change are correctly presented with due weight. I feel they are not.

Some of the disagreement may be because it may be harder to access a full copy of the interview than when it was cited about a decade ago.[33]

An interview of his got some attention,[34] and is available to hear him give it, as part of an interview. [35] This interview is also linked to from Rutan's hobbies and global warming pages.[36][37]

His 2009 Presentation is also available to watch at YouTube.[38] (part 1 of 6)

His presentation PDF[39] is available at his website.[40] Note this website is already used as a source for his awards.

Note: Previous links to 2 versions of Rutan's presentations were hosted on Robert Scherer's website. Millionaire investor Scherer was a Rutan supporter: Arrived together on Scherer's plane.[41]. Flies chase missions for Rutan’s SpaceShipOne.[42][43]

-- Yae4 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, This is forum shopping. You got an answer you don't like at WP:FTN. Guy (help!) 22:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

JzG, The questions and answers, and consensus, if any, were not clear to me there, and I didn't raise the issue there. This seems like a more appropriate venue for a BLP issue. So, I raise it here, in the form of specific, answerable questions. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you've asked a general question, here's a general answer. I would keep in mind that this is an article about a person and not about his views. While its important to understand his views, this article is not about those views.

I would try to avoid a lot of quotes cherry picked from interviews, but use quotes that are discussed in reliable, secondary sources. Quotes that are being talked about, caused some controversy, or otherwise have some notability themselves. And use quotes very sparingly. Instead, try to summarize his views so that we can get the entire picture in just a few paragraphs or so.

In deciding just how much space to devote to those views, I'd ask myself, just how well is he known for those views in comparison to all the other stuff for which he's notable? Then try to put it into proportion with the rest of the article.

I would avoid linking to a lot of things like presentations, lectures, and, most definitely, youtube videos. Keep in mind, there is a fine line between reporting his views and espousing them, and we don't want to start looking like we're doing the latter. Zaereth (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth, I actually asked three specific yes/no questions and one multiple choice question. I'd appreciate if you'd weigh in on "Which is better for Wikipedia," and specifically give your choice as to which of the 3 linked versions of the article you like better (referring to the Global Warming aka Climate Change section, specifically). Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't do multiple choice. Too often my answer is not on the list. I answered your question as "What is best for Wikipedia?" Zaereth (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth, especially when the list is compiled by someone with a dog in the fight... Guy (help!) 19:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I looked over the recent history of Burt Rutan. Yae4, your edits there have been reverted because they are terrible, and the edit summaries of the reverters explain clearly the details. --JBL (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

If it helps, I'll give an example. Dogfight is an article that contains a large amount of quotes. Now you could just keep adding hundreds and thousands of quotes on this subject, so where do we draw the line? First, you'll notice that this is largely a historical article, and in such articles there is much more room for quotes, what with hindsight being 20/20 and all. People have a lot of time to discuss historical events. (By contrast, you may notice the significant lack of quotes in a technical article like Basic fighter maneuvers, except maybe in the history section.) And nearly all but the Red Baron's quote come from secondary sources that discuss the quote. These quotes are used not to make a point on their own, but to help elaborate on what the text is already saying, so the reader can have a clear example. Examples are very important to understanding, which is why I'm giving one now.

The recommended addition is extraneous, meaning it really serves as no example but as a point of and within itself, thus I see no reason to add it. It seems like pushing a POV. It needs context and some review in a historical context. And how much space should we add for that context? I don't know without seeing it. But I would say that a people like Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are mostly known for their views. People like the subject, not as much. Zaereth (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth, it got a lot of press. Burt Rutan is a bit of a cult figure in aviation, always a colourful figure, but standing up at Oshkosh, probably the most famous gathering of aviation geeks in the world, and spouting a straight Heartland Institute climate change denialist line in front of a scientifically literate audience who are acutely aware of issues around weather and climate, was always going to gain a WTF reaction. So of course IEEE Spectrum, New Scientist and others covered it.

There's a popular misconception on Wikipedia that we should -even must - "balance" critique of a person's idiocy by citing the idiocy or the person's defence of it directly from their own self-published sources. That's the false balance we see in news media. Wikipedia does take a side: if reliable sources say that a thing is wrong, we don't cite the wrong thing for "balance". See also WP:MANDY. Guy (help!) 19:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I believe that the universe is self-balancing if you just let it, and if we follow the coverage in sources, in proportion to that coverage, then everything balances out. I don't know much about this person. I mean, I've heard of him but, personally, I'm more into the actual flying. Most of this discussion really has nothing to do with BLP, and really belongs on the talk page, which is why I just gave some general advice. What I'm referring to specifically here is the addition that Yae4 keep putting up and everyone else keeps taking down. (I generally rely on the article history, much more than the OP's question and barrage of links, to determine what's going on.) I believe his views deserve some coverage, but I don't know how much. It seems like you all had this worked out at FTN. Zaereth (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth, yes they deserve some coverage, and indeed are covered. The issue is trying to "balance" that coverage, which is reality-based, by including primary-sourced fringe advocacy from the subject. That's obviously inappropriate. Guy (help!) 20:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Obviously. I wasn't even looking at it from a fringe standpoint, but I see your point. I really think we're trying to say the same thing from different starting places. Zaereth (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth, heh! That would be normal for Wikipedia :-) Guy (help!) 11:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Re: "The OP seems to have gotten the message and left a long time ago." No, the OP decided to WP:DISENGAGE for a while, and more often. Thanks for giving some examples. What would be more helpful, however, are examples of biographies of science/engineering people who are famous mostly for topic A, and secondarily famous for topic B. Then they would better match Burt Rutan. A comparison with (college dropout) Rush_Limbaugh#Environmental_issues is a little enlightening, however. Limbaugh is NOT a science/engineering person, yet there are 3 paragraphs on his environment views, versus only 1 paragraph for Rutan. Also, apparently it's OK at Limbaugh to link to PDFs for criticism[44] and to self-published blog PDFs for a survey result.[45] Comparisons with examples should help, but they're not yet.

What could help is to compare This long-standing version (before I even touched it) and the current 1-paragraph version, and explain how the newer version is a more "honest" presentation of Rutan's views? (It's not)

A reason putting quotes in a biography is useful is because there is no argument about what the person said or meant; it's in their own words. People like JzG aka Guy can say whatever they want about "Heartland Institute" or "a person's idiocy," but that is just a diversion, and frankly only their opinion. If you read the presentation or better, watch the presentation on YouTube or elsewhere, you can see for yourself whether he sounded like an "idiot" to ignore, or not. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Procedural Question: Why is this discussion here vs on the article talk page? The talk page has only two entries after May 2018. I would suggest closing all the external discussions as premature since no discussion has occurred on the article talk page. Springee (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. I patrol this page; never been to that one. I was wondering why it was even brought here in the first place. Even though there's no BLP issue, I decided to give an explanation from a BLP standpoint that I thought would quickly put it to bed. Oh well, the best laid plans... Zaereth (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Guy explained above why it was brought here: forum shopping. There is no BLP rule that WP is required to spread fringe proponents' propaganda for them by quoting them, so this is indeed a completely wrong place for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so what is the beef here? Is there some rule that says I can't answer someone's question when they come here, simply because they asked it somewhere else? The OP seems to have gotten the message and left a long time ago. And that would probably be the end of of it, but the rest is basically just Guy and me comparing notes. Simply put, all roads lead to the same destination. Whether you go strictly by FRINGE or by all the other policies combined, the addition Yae4 wants is not going to cut it. What more do you want? Should I have just said FU, get the F outta here?

I don't mind people bringing their questions here. I'll happily try to explain Wikipolicy if it helps them understand. Sometimes they need to see it from the larger perspective. Sometimes it just helps promote open communication and raise overall community awareness of these things. This doesn't just occur in fringe topics, you know. The same thing happens with scientists all the time. Just wait, one will be along any moment now. We often get some article about a scientist, and it will invariably have two sentences about the person, and ten whole sections devoted to describing their theories in detail. It's no different if they're a genetic researcher pushing their widely-accepted research, a proctologist pushing, uh ... whatever it is proctologists push, or someone pushing a fringe theory. If they believe it and it helps the reader understand the person, it belongs in their article, but we should not be advocating it in that same article. Simple as that. Zaereth (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth, you acted in good faith. Yae4 did not, but that's not your fault. Guy (help!) 11:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: Hob_Gadling took it to noticeboards first. They should explain why. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, that's half the answer. The other half is that you didn't get the answer you wanted. Guy (help!) 11:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It was relevant for the fringe theories noticeboard. It is not relevant here. That's why it is correct to bring it to FTN, but not correct to bring it here. Can we please archive or delete this pointless nonsense? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Re: "You got an answer you don't like at WP:FTN." and "you didn't get the answer you wanted." "you acted in good faith. Yae4 did not, "

WP:PA +3. eric, Martijin Meijering, and ApLundell seemed to favor not sugar coating Rutan's views. I agree with that. We're not talking about science or data details here, so it's not really a "fringe theories" question. This is a biography, not a Flat_Earth type article. So, Why wasn't the Talk page used before Hob Gadling started the external discussions? Was that proper procedure, or not? -- Yae4 (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Katelyn Faber

Should Katelyn Faber even exist as a redirect to Kobe Bryant sexual assault case? She's not mentioned by name in the target article. I believe the consensus decision was to keep her name out of Wikipedia. Zagalejo^^^ 01:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should be deleted. I tried PRODing it, but it was protected after the "delete and redirect" result of this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Katelyn_Faber_(2nd_nomination) back in 2007. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK we are not supposed to PROD redirects—definitely never after an older PROD or AFD—while admins are supposed to set a timeout for page protections, I asked them to check this. An admin android removing obsolete protections might be smarter than piecemeal humanoid efforts, but HEY. –84.46.52.25 (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You are right, thank you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

See, the problem is that her name is a likely search term. A history-less redirect which is protected and points to the reason someone is searching for her is a "lesser of two evils" for someone searching the name in Wikipedia, finding a missing article, and in good faith trying to create it again. We can't stop people from trying to search for her name, so this seems like the best possible solution, IMHO. --Jayron32 17:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be better to delete and salt the article if it gets recreated repeatedly. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Climate change deniers: Again

Here in WP:BLPN, "RfC: Category: Climate change deniers" started in May 2019, closed in August 2018, established yet again that "Climate change deniers" was an unacceptable category. However, in WP:CfD, Category:Climate change skepticism and denial established via renaming a "Climate change denial" category containing about 170 BLPs (based on a quick count of this list).

I claim that this is effectively an override of the WP:BLPN decision, and therefore request: "override the WP:CfD decision". I ping the participants of each discussion.

WP:BLPN participants: LaundryPizza03 Slatersteven Anythingyouwant Peter Gulutzan Marcocapelle M.boli Pincrete KarasuGamma agr Milowent Guy Macon Hob Gadling Niteshift36 Masem Jonathan A Jones Bluerasberry Bodney Mangoe SemiHypercube JBL RevelationDirect Hanyangprofessor2 UnitedStatesian IuliusRRR Bus stop Newslinger Adoring nanny 24.217.247.41 Halo Jerk1 Guy Springee AReaderOutThataway Atsme Simonm223 Leviv, closed by GRuban.

WP:CfD participants (excluding those already mentioned): jps 67.187.30.225 PaleoNeonate CatCafe Crossroads Someone Not Awful Calthinus XOR'easter, closed by MER-C.

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Several people in that discussion noted "This category should not contain any biographies at all" and I mostly agree with that, however some small allowance should be made for people who self-identify clearly and publicly with that label. That is, where it is a term that a person applies to themselves, it would be appropriate. Where it is a term that someone else has applied to them, less so, and where it is a term that only Wikipedia applies to them is right out. --Jayron32 15:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced we can stop it: excluding well-known climate change deniers from a category of similar people feels like trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Category:American Christian Young Earth creationists exists, as do Category:Flat Earth proponents and Category:Conspiracy theorists. Sometimes being wrong is genuinely what people are best known for. Guy (help!) 19:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• I think the issue isn't so much with the existence of the category, but with ensuring only people who're known for climate change denial or scepticism are included in it. So long as their denial or scepticism is present in the article, and is adequately sourced, I don't see an issue. The problem is that editors sometimes try to use climate change denial as a means of smearing people, and add it to articles on the basis of little (or no) reliable sourcing. That's a much bigger problem than the existence of a category. Neiltonks (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree on that, though. Per WP:CATDEF, it is not enough to establish that a person to deny climate change to be placed in that category. Instead, it should be a defining characteristic of the person. If a person who is notable for unrelated reasons has once or twice made an offhanded remark that they don't believe anthropogenic climate change is a real thing, then they should NOT be so categorized even if that have made such statements. In order for any biographic article to be included in that category, it would need to be a defining characteristic of that person; i.e. one of the things they are primarily known for. --Jayron32 17:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  Jayron32, that is reasonable. Burt Rutan, for example, should not be in the category, but might well qualify in a list article where we can give context. Guy (help!) 12:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Per Jayron32 and Neiltonks, this additional discussion should lead to criteria when biographies should remain in the category or when they should be removed from the category. But that has nothing to do with the category which is not (primarily) about people anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I more or less agree. If climate change denial/skepticism is a defining characteristic of a particular living person, we should be able to include them within this category. If they wrote a book about it, or gave a TED talk about cow farts and modern ice ages, they should probably be included. If they only made an offhanded remark while being interviewed about their upcoming rap album, not so much. - MrX 🖋 23:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• I generally agree with Jayron32 that this category should not be used for any BLPs, with the possible exception of people who self-identify as such. If we are going to extend it then it has to be limited to cases where (1) it is a central characteristic of the individual, rather than a side issue, and (2) there is impeccable sourcing, that is multiple reliable sources (no blogs) and preferably secondary sourcing (if we are going to report in Wikipedia's own voice rather than reporting what some other individual thinks about one of their opponents). And as in previous discussions I remain appalled that we are applying this term to genuinely distinguished atmospheric physicists such as Judith Curry (former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) and Richard Lindzen (former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report). This is utter madness, and it's astonishing that we have to keep on returning to this point. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  Jonathan A Jones, Up to a point. The problem is that climate change deniers do not self-identify as such. They call themselves "skeptics" or whatever, and we don't use euphemisms.

  We describe "vaccine safety advocates" as anti-vaccinationists. We should do the same here.

  So if you mean that we can add anyone who self-identifies as a climate change skeptic to the category of climate change deniers, then yes, I agree. Otherwise I don't. Guy (help!) 12:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  No I don't mean that. Richard Lindzen has self identified as skeptical of some aspects of climate change, but any definition that classifies him as a "denier" is simply nuts. If you want to describe him, or indeed Judith Curry, as skeptical of certain nuances in the current mainstream then go right ahead, but tagging them with perjorative categories based on the flimsiest grounds breaks every core principle of BLPs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Mobolaji Dawodu

Hello I'm inquiring on the behalf of Mobolaji Dawodu to have personal information taken withdrawn from the article Mobolaji Dawodu. I attempted to make these changes myself but was eventually guided to this page.

Dawodu Assistant (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)DawoduAssistant

Spintendo replied on the talk page with the email address that should be used to ask for formal removal.

With that said, I believe the personal section should be deleted. It's reliance on unreliable gossip columns makes it an easy removal. The 1st sentence of that section is the only part that I am not familiar enough with policy to know if I can just remove or whether it requires formal request Slywriter (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. This isn't facebook, so we don't need to list who people are currently dating or keep up-to-date relationship statuses. And we certainly do not need to know who made mistakes in reporting who he was dating. If they were married, that would be different. But we should respect the privacy of private citizens and not name anyone who is not notable enough to have an article of their own, especially children. In most cases, it's enough to know he has children. The names would be meaningless to the average reader, but really that sort of personal stuff is just trivia and not germane to understanding the subject. Without the names, the first sentence would be ok to stay, but by itself it's like, what's the point? I'd just nix the entire section. Just leave a good explanation in the edit summary, and you can reference this discussion if you like. The worst that could happen is that you may get reverted. Zaereth (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I question whether he's actually notable enough for an article. He's the fashion director of GQ and has worked as a costume designer for a couple of films. That doesn't seem much to me, but I'm not really an expert on notability of individuals who work in the creative arts. Neiltonks (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

That is exactly why I'm attempting to request changing it because the information is also outdated. There is more notable information that could be added to the page. Im new to this so I'm not entirely how I should be doing that or if I'm on the correct track. but thank you for the information you have given so far. Dawodu Assistant (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)DawoduAssistant

Hello. To avoid confusion, I'll just call you DA. The place to request changes is at the article talk page. Just look at the top of the article and you'll see a link that says "talk". Since you're new, I'll start by saying that you have a conflict of interest with the article, which means because of your position, your interests may conflict with that of a neutral encyclopedia. (ie: We're not here to provide a gallery for artwork or notifications of upcoming shows, facebook-type stuff, or whatever.) If you'd seriously like to help in improving the article, the best thing you can do is to bring reliable sources to the talk page that contain the info you want added. Things on Wikipedia must be verifiable, so we need sources, not your word as the subject's assistant. Please click on the blue links I provided for more info about the policies I've mentioned, and welcome to Wikipedia.

By the way, please do help find some good sources if you can, because I agree with Neiltonks that the sourcing we have is inadequate, and as such it may end up getting deleted. Happy editing. Zaereth (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Kobe Bryant#Daughters' names, continued

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kobe Bryant#Daughters' names, continued. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Jared Kushner – father made $2.5M donation just before Harvard admission

Is it a BLP violation to state in the Jared Kushner article that his father pledged $2.5M to Harvard University just before his son was admitted to Harvard?[46][47] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Normally reliable sources I feel. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Importantly, the sources relate a possible connection issue, so that part is not OR on WP's to include. If it were the case that one source said Kushner was accepted to Harvard, and a separate source said his father made that pldeg, but made zero connection to the acceptance, it would be begging the question for us to include that. It is only because the RS called that fishy does it make sense to mention and should be put in context, with attribution. --Masem (t) 20:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Both sources are listed as RS/P evergreens –84.46.53.231 (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it has to be attributed to Golden. - MrX 🖋 23:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The article currently states as fact ""Kushner was accepted due to his father's donations and history with the school." None of the sources listed explicitly make that claim, though they strongly imply it. Also the Golden article, which other sources depend on, is based on anonymous sources at Kushner's high school saying they were surprised he was accepted, not even making the factual claim that is in our article.. Please see WP:BLPGOSSIP which says we should avoid innuendo based largely on anonymous sources.--agr (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree that the current text fails WP:BLPGOSSIP? If so, please explain why. If not, I will remove it.--agr (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The current text properly attributes the connection. The text could be made more clear, but it's not a BLP violation for this public figure. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

agr is correct, Daniel Golden insinuated but didn't say, unless someone can find something that we're missing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Mohammad Javad Zarif

Hi, so an editor is editwarring and adding this paragraph to very beginning of the article of Mohammad Javad Zarif, He obtained all of his university degrees in the United States. The lede is now is an Iranian career diplomat and academic. He obtained all of his university degrees in the United States. He has been foreign minister of Iran since 2013. During his tenure as foreign minister, he led the Iranian negotiation with P5+1 countries which produced the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on 14 July 2015 I wonder what is the purpose of this comment in that very beginning? We dont usually do that. The editor who added this has made it clear that its purpose is to make an "ironic" comment "This should be mentioned in the lede. Muh irony." I believe this should not be in the lede section Wikavina has reverted me twice in that article without starting a discussion for inclusion although this is a BLP not a place to make ironic comments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I started the discussion before you on the talk page, so your above statement "Wikavina has reverted me twice in that article without starting a discussion for inclusion" is wrong. Also, as i said on the talk page, this is a relevant information and it's reliably sourced now. Also, the one who is edit-warring is you since you have reverted two different users whitout starting a discussion on the talk.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikaviani, per WP:ONUS, you should first seek consensus for inclusion. The paragraph is boldly added and verification alone is not enough to add that paragraph at the very beginning. You have reverted me twice before considering starting a talk page discussion and there is no consensus to add that questionable value info in the very beginning of the lead section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

First off, when you reverted LouisAragon, you asked for a source and for an explanation for inclusion, since a source is provided and an explanation given on the article's talk page, i consider that your concerns are adressed. Instead of trying to game the system, i would suggest you to read more carefully Wiki rules, nothing in WP:ONUS allows you to block an inclusion without a valid reason, especially when the content is relevant for an article and improves it, see WP:OWN.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikaviani, I asked for a source that shows that this claim is important, we dont just add stuff like that to the lede paragraph without having sources and explaining why that paragraph should be in the lede section instead of "Muh irony" as LouisAragon said. Totally ignoring my argument is not my problem, it's your issue that you are refusing to understand my objections. There is no reason for that statement to be in that very beginning in the article except for some sort of making an absurd "irony". You preferred to editwar as you know you will never be able to explain why would we need to include that statement in that place. Total disruptive editing just like your recent POV RfC that you started in the talk page of Qasem Soleimani.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

since another editor also expressed his/her concerns about this, i have no problem with dealing with it in the body of the article (as i said on the artice's talk page too ...). Since you're engaging in battle comments about me, let me just remind you that you've been blocked 4 times for edit-warring and lack of civility within a short period of time. Also you almost got blocked a fifth time for your irrelevant comment about a veteran admin (El_C) on his talk page while i already recognized my mistake on that RfC, but all this is another story and i don't know why you're mentioning this here. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't think for a second that there wouldn't be another editor who notices your absurd arguments to include something just to make an "irony". For the admin, I would be happy to ask all admins who their whole time being here was only to revert or to make minor changes, how can they fix and solve disputes and issues? That admin was totally unable to solve that issue that you disruptively created and instead created a bigger issue. That was a legit question, I don't want editors who don't have much experience to become admins which is why I am going to spend some time in RfA to make sure the adminship doesn't go to those who don't deserve it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

You're free to do whatever you want with your time. Good night.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

James Frain

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

Missing first film he was actually in - 1992's Orlando, starring Tilda Swinton. I would make the edit myself, but the few times I've attempted to author something, people have removed it IMMEDIATELY, even though I was still working on it and it was in the SANDBOX.

Citation

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107756/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmc33 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Kay Coles James

ANI is locked right now; can we get rev/deletion of the racially offensive comments? Thanks, 73.186.215.222 (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm adding a specific link against my preferences, because some, but not all, rev/deletion was done [48]. Flagrant WP:BLP stuff. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Marcelle Francois

Hi,

I need help. Someone has been editing my page and putting false information and trying to tarnish my name on my page. I recently changed it back and would love it to stay the way it is now. how do I go about making sure that no one could edit my page but me. Who can help me out with this? what can I do? the person edited my page about 5 days ago and said nasty things about me. I recently changed it a moment ago. I hope this helps. I need help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jablojoe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Jablojoe: The subject of an article is discouraged from editing their own Wikipedia page except for reverting vandalism. So the removal content recently done from an IP was fine, but we can not protect de page so that only the person that claims to be the subject can edit it. I have added the article to my watchlist. If you are the subject of the article you can propose improvements in the talk page, but other than reverting obvious vandalism you should not directly edit the page. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jablojoe:, to address the substance of your complaints, the text has since been hidden from public view by JJMC89, one of our administrators. These were removed as what we call "BLP violations". The policy is here if you're ever curious. If this happens in the future, the fastest way to ensure it it taken care of quickly is probably to post a new section on your article's talk page, state that you have found BLP violations, (e.g., insults, defamatory statements, lies, controversial claims without sources, etc.) and also use a certain template that calls attention to admins. It would look something like: {{admin help}} Can an admin please remove <whatever the problem text is> as a BLP violation. I am the subject of this article. ~~~~. I hope this helps and that you have no further need of these instructions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Michael Kelly (physicist)

Michael Kelly (physicist) and recent edits. Note: All I did there was add a category to the article, but I observed the following edits a couple days later by JzG aka Guy.

1. Diff [49] Edit summary: (fix cite)

Deletes a self-published primary source (for thegwpf.org) and leaves in place a different self-published blog source (desmog.co.uk = DeSmogBlog according to their about us[50]). Previous RSN discussion[51]. Even so, what that source actually says: "The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a UK-based think tank" versus what the article now says: "UK climate change denialist think-tank"

2. Diff [52] Edit summary: (primary and unreliable (WSJ not reliable for editorials ion climate change, per WP:RSN))

Removes 2 sourced statements.

A) How does the editor know what kind of source the first one is? It gives a 404. Even if it is "primary," isn't that allowed sometimes? If in fact Kelly wrote the letter to the editor, why shouldn't it be mentioned?

B) A number of people signed the Wall Street Journal op-ed or letter to the editor in 2012. Fox News noticed the LA Times would no longer publish such letters.[53] There is no doubt the letter was published.[54] Wall Street Journal is a source in thousands of Wikipedia articles. The co-signed letter is still a source in a few.

Is this proper editing? Or POV-pushing editing? Is there an agreement or agenda to rid Wikipedia of any mention of the famous Wall Street Journal letter?

-- Yae4 (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, policy does not require review of every single source in an article when removing a source that has been used inappropriately in multiple articles. If you have an issue with desmog, raise it, and if consensus exists, remove it. Guy (help!) 11:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

List of sex symbols

FYI, see Talk:List of sex symbols#2020 suggestion, some not good enough 2019 rules are now implemented. –84.46.53.137 (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I pointed out last year that the list is unmanageable. Trim it to only notable persons notable for being a sex symbol. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Yousef Al Otaiba

The Intercept had a long article about Yousef Al Otaiba, who is United Arab Emirates ambassador to the US. (See here: Diplomatic Underground: The Sordid Double Life of Washington's Most Powerful Ambassador).

Some editors wants to downplay this, see Talk:Yousef_Al_Otaiba#Page_Issues.

My question is, can we keep what is presently in the article? Huldra (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I see 5 current uses of the Intercept. Of those, the one that is used to source the scope of the Yemen War is not wrong, but the sentence itself is begging for sympathy from the prior sentence (about him speaking out against the war). My gut says that sentence attached to the Intercept isn't necessary, but if it is accurately describing specific facets that Otaiba had with the war, that should be stressed better. The first 3 uses are all plain, standard facts and no issue, and the 5th is related to the investigation about him, and appropriately in-line attributed, so fine. The Intercept is normally reliable (though clearly written as opinionated journalism to try to bring you to their way of thinking), but what bias is there is not showing up in the use on this article. --Masem (t) 20:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Masem. Have you looked at Talk:Yousef_Al_Otaiba#Page_Issues? If so, do you have any comments about the objections raised there? Huldra (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Jack Walker

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

Walker's died, but there's a controversial statement about Walker's daughter, cited only to deprecated source The Sun. BR1997 insists on edit-warring it in, though I've flagged the BLP issues.December, today, today, just now. I also noted on the editor's talk page the BLP issues. I've removed it again as a blatant WP:BLP violation, but more eyes would be good. Or even a source that's not a blatant BLP violation, and of sufficient weight to mention a non-notable third party in the article - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard is removing several edits relating to the Sun newspaper based on his own bias. The quote comes from a political figure Tim Farron who is the former leader of the Liberal Democrats. BR1997 (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The quote is to a source that should never be used on Wikipedia, per WP:THESUN. Is there really no other source for it, one that isn't intrinsically a blatant BLP violation? If not, it fails that test. Is it of undue weight? It's about a non-notable third party, so WP:BLP considerations apply - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with David Gerard. The Sun is not a reliable source, so I have reverted the changes and added the article to my watchlist. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

("never be used" should really be "almost never be used", but the exceptions are narrow indeed, and this isn't one - I would never trust a claim of controversy sourced only to the Sun ... is there really no other source for this claim, if Farron really said it? Note that this is before even the due weight issue.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Even if we had a RS for that statement, wtf does it have to do with Jack Walker? An RS to support that may make the statement appropriate to include on the article about the FC in question, but not about Jack Walker here. Absolutely inappropriate in terms of BLP and general BIO. But the fact its from the Sun to start with means this is a no-go addition until a replacement source can be found. --Masem (t) 20:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

BR1997 Has been reverted one more time and has been warned about the 3RR. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverted once again and is now blocked. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Millennial Woes

• Millennial Woes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article describes Colin Robertson as 'white supremacist, and anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist' using as sources an article from The Boar on Jack Hadfield, and an article from The Guardian. The first source is irrelevant and the second is an article written by a journalist, it doesn't qualify as a primary source and doesn't contain enough references to prove certain claims made in it. However the Wikipedia article about Robertson gives the above definitions as objective facts. In order to present those statements as facts the Wiki article should use verifiable sources which prove that Robertson made clear, public statements about racial superiority and about theories that are proved to be wrong by impartial research (for instance the hoax of The Elders of Zion). Even in Natural Sciences, a scientific consensus is required to make factual claims (like about Global Warming). A theory, even if supported by a number of studies, cannot be presented as a fact unless it meets the general consensus of the scientific community. When dealing with politics and ideologies, which are fields much more vulnerable to bias, the opinion of journalists and even social 'scientists', if they don't offer incontrovertible proofs, is not enough to present something as a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proconsul74 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please review the welcome message I left on your talk page.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Guardian is generally reliable. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Death of Luo Changqing

• Death of Luo Changqing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chinese state media is being used to source contentious factual information on a the page for the death of a recently deceased person (14 November 2019), I believe their use violates WP:RS as they arent reliable sources especially when it comes to an issue related to controversial social and political issues in China. My removal has been vigorously challenged so rather than go over three reverts (even though it would be entirely justified under the BLP exception) I thought I would bring the matter here. I guess the question is does BLP apply to this page? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes it does, for "about one year" from now I believe. More than that, if in regard to content related to others who are still living. MPS1992 (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The user has provided zero legitimate rationale why a certain material should be removed. BLP is about contesting material, while what the user is actually doing purging Chinese media sources (see his or her edit on the article), even if there are multiple other sources or it's not BLP related (see the aforementioned link to the edits).

Here is more evidence that the user's focus is to mass purge Chinese media sources from Wikipedia without much regard to the material: [55][56][57][58][59].... I do not want to list them all, but they run in the dozens. You just need to CTRL+F "Remove unreliable source" (if not misspelled) in the user's contributions.--Cold Season (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

As you have addressed me personally rather than my interpretation of BLP I feel compelled to explain why I edit the way I do. In general I try to leave information that is straightforward, appears entirely uncontroversial, and should be simple to verify, (like in this case I kept "On 9 December, Luo's body was transferred from Hung Hom Universal Funeral Parlor to mainland China.”) I will add a citation needed tag and then come back in a few days to see if a source gets added. In the cases when none does I often try to find a source myself. When I believe that information is both of critical importance to an article and also poorly sourced or unsourced I endevour to find a WP:RS immediately and generally am successful in doing so. I also tend to treat the pages of the recently dead even more gingerly than I would most BLP pages, I believe that respect should be the utmost consideration after policy. No attempt to blanket purge Chinese sources is being made, I have used SCMP multiple times over just the last week. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

That individual has been deceased for too long for BLP to apply. Using Chinese state media to reference controversial facets of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests is obviously a problem, though. I'd need to know more about the specifics of this dispute to tell whether that is the case here. El_C 20:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha, for future reference is there a rule of thumb for how long is too long or does it vary by individual? There is a discussion underway at Talk:Death of Luo Changqing which covers the larger dispute, please disregard my BLP arguments... I thought MPS1992’s response settled the matter and that was my mistake. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: As far as policy goes, by WP:BDP:

The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.

The extension is up to editor judgment / local consensus. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21:Thank you for taking the time to link me the policy. I guess I’m still a little confused because this person died much less than six months ago and it was a controversial and violent death. Is this one different because the death itself is the notable event rather than the dead person being notable in their own right? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: I don’t know what this particular dispute is about, but I think BLP would only be extended here insofar as something like what BDP calls contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends. It probably wouldn’t apply for, say, details about background on the protests or the event’s effects on the protests. I haven’t looked carefully at this particular dispute though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yavuz Baydar

Randam (talk · contribs · count) I'm concerned that the Yavuz Baydar article is receiving politically motivated vandalism from the account User:Randam. This account appears to edit exclusively in support of the government of Turkey, having created a number of articles for members of President Erdogan's party, and having been criticised for edits to Erdogan's article. Randam keeps attempting to insert unsourced claims that Yavuz Baydar is connected to the organisation of Fethullah Gulen, a former ally of President Erdogan who is now accused of masterminding the failed 2016 Turkish coup attempt. Journalists who are critical of the Turkish government are often accused of belonging to Gulen's organisation in order to discredit them, and it seems to me that this is what is going on here. I would like to seek other Wikimedians' opinions about whether some kind of sanction is necessary to stop User:Randam editing this article in particular, or articles of Turkish opposition journalists in general. --Jwslubbock (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I autoconfirmed it, which doesn't affect longer-term editors, of course, and have it on the watchlist - David Gerard (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Mary Lou McDonald‎

Mary Lou McDonald‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been a few attempts to add a claim she was a member of rival political party Fianna Fáil. The existing reference in the article states When I was in my 20s, a friend of mine invited me to a Fianna Fáil meeting and I went to a couple of more meetings but it was very clear I was in the wrong place. I never joined the Fianna Fáil party. That denial seems clear-cut enough to me? FDW777 (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Dale Steyn

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

I'm just going through the news about Wikipedia to write "In the media" for The Signpost.After writing a draft, I just feel sorry for the guy. Here's what I wrote

Dale Steyn doesn't know how Wikipedia works: India Today reported that South African cricketeer Steyn tweeted "Can anyone from @google help me change the information of me on your Wikipedia? A pretty serious point of information is FALSE and I’d love to have it changed." . Following the tweet, 35 edits by 24 users over about 8 hours resulted in no change in the article, which was then semi-protected. Ok Dale, this is how it works: go to WP:BLPN and leave a message there saying who you are, what you'd like removed, and why. If you don't want that public record write an email via "Contact us" giving them the same information, but any result will take longer. BTW, Google doesn't own Wikipedia and can't remove our content. That's ok, though Dale. I don't know how cricket works.

I feel like that might let a few other people know how to best handle his situation. Better yet, I should just tweet him and let him know directly. But I don't know how Twitter works, either! Any help appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Smallbones, ping me by email, I have a story to share. Guy (help!) 13:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Raj Anand

This pages exists purely as a marketing tool. This person is neither famous, known outside their speciality group, or known for having contributed significantly to society. Such pages should not be here, otherwise Wikipedia runs the risk of becoming a marketing tool (for example, as is happening with Quora). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjd300 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Roger A. Pielke Jr.

• Roger A. Pielke Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There appears to be some WP:COATRACKing going on with this article, as well as some back-and-forth between supporters and opponents of the scientific consensus on climate change. I have cut out a bunch of stuff from differently wonderful sources such as HuffPo, Think Progress and National Review, none of which should be used for potentially contentious statements about living individuals. I think it still has too many primary sources and excessive focus on his states as a climate contrarian, to the point that the actual claim to notability is unclear on a first reading. Redux: this article could use some love. Guy (help!) 13:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Didn't you notice the mis-attributed Nuccitelli Guardian blog source[60] while stripping out[61] the sourced mention of Forbes blog columns written by Pielke, among other statements? That Times-Call source was previously called a reasonably reliable source for statements of fact, in recent RSN discussion[62] The fact he writes Forbes columns in particular seems uncontroversial.

I'd also dispute "this is what it actually says" for this change[63], as follows.

What source literally says (highlight added):

• For his work questioning certain graphs presented in IPCC reports, Pielke has been accused by some of being a climate change "denier." Meanwhile, for his work on adaptation, he has been accused by others of being an "alarmist."

• Editor’s note: Pielke has informed the editors of FP that he strongly objects to being included on a list titled "Climate Skeptics."

What article previously said:

• notes that his statements questioning graphs in the IPCC reports have led to him being considered by some a "denier" of climate change, though Pielke strongly objects to those labels

What JzG/Guy changed the article to say:[64]

• notes that Pielke's published views have led to him being considered by some a "denier" of climate change and by others as an "alarmist".

I note the alarmist phrase is actually in the source, but "published views" would seem to greatly expand the scope of criticism.

Lastly, I'll note Earth Island [65] appears about as reliable as other random sources. HuffPost, National Review, and ThinkProgress at least have the "advantage" of being on WP:RSP with "no consensus."

The last four "pruning" edits have all appearances of shaping the presentation to fit a desired slant, while creating the "concern" over notability by deleting sources. Concern for "potentially contentious statements about living individuals" seems inconsistent with adding labels while subtracting a sourced statement of objection to the labels. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Jeanette Wilson

Citations are all Tabloid newspapers and not a reliable source of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace11111 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Erasto B. Mpemba - supposedly dead?

Erasto B. Mpemba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone edited the article of this (admittedly not particularly noteworthy) guy yesterday stating that he died of a heart attack. They did not cite any sources, and they don't even have a Wikipedia account. I can't find anything about Mpemba's alleged death online - no local news, no obituaries, nothing - but it seems like an obscure page for someone to vandalise like that. I removed the claim, but I wonder if it would be possible to get to the bottom of this.

Xereeto (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)