Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) |
Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 251: | Line 251: | ||
* '''Comment''': [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] were making similar weird BLP allegations in the DYK nomination page related to Israel-Palestine and hence I can understand what [[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] says. Did he really say that "''if a secondary source uses a primary source then that makes that source primary too''"? That IPN is criticized for its nationalist content does not make it unreliable (see [[WP:BIASED]]). --[[User:Mhhossein|<span style="font-family:Aharoni"><span style="color:#002E63">M</span><span style="color:#2E5894">h</span><span style="color:#318CE7">hossein</span></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 11:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC) |
* '''Comment''': [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] were making similar weird BLP allegations in the DYK nomination page related to Israel-Palestine and hence I can understand what [[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] says. Did he really say that "''if a secondary source uses a primary source then that makes that source primary too''"? That IPN is criticized for its nationalist content does not make it unreliable (see [[WP:BIASED]]). --[[User:Mhhossein|<span style="font-family:Aharoni"><span style="color:#002E63">M</span><span style="color:#2E5894">h</span><span style="color:#318CE7">hossein</span></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 11:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
::Explicitly, he said something like that on a different, somewhat related article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lw%C3%B3w_pogrom_(1918)&diff=prev&oldid=848326082] (''"That this is quoted via a secondary source does not make the information itself less primary"'') at roughly the same time. On this particular article, after he was called out on incorrectly invoking BLP, he switched to referring to the alleged problem as a, ahem, "BLPPRIMARY situation" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koniuchy_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=848487796] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koniuchy_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=848319855]. You know, it's not actually a primary source but a secondary source using a primary source so he's going to refer to it euphemistically as a "BLPPRIMARY situation" to keep pretending that there is an issue here. Icewhiz has a serious problem backing off when he's clearly incorrect and [[WP:DROPTHESTICK|dropping the stick]].[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 15:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:11, 2 July 2018
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.
Additional notes:
| ||
Rockin' Rebel: Dead or alive?
Bit of a tussle between sources and doubt at Talk:Rockin' Rebel. Also a subplot about professional wrestling integrity versus police authority in America, and a marital murder mystery complicating what (I assume) would've otherwise been a straighforward reflection of the exact same reporters' reports, rather than a locked-down article. Strange case with potential for strange precedent, but a rather obscure celebrity, so I invite the board to ponder it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, June 3, 2018 (UTC)
Fiona Bruce
Can anyone please review and comment at Talk:Fiona_Bruce#Unilever? It isn't really a legal issue but people are editing the article and ignoring its talk page. - Sitush (talk)
Comments on Cathy Young at Columbia University rape controversy article
Columbia University rape controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi All. Regarding this and this revert: Do we want to disparage a living person based on one article (even attributed), in an article not about them (Columbia University rape controversey), with the sentence also not (mostly) being about the subject of the article? Responses so far are on a talk section I started here Arkon (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Also another revert. I've asked the editor to self revert for now. Arkon (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Took it out again. Can't justify leaving what (I believe) is a BLP vio while waiting for a good faith revert. Arkon (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm really struggling to see how an attributed statement of opinion about a public figure constitutes a BLP issue. As I mentioned in my edit summary, Cathy Young is cited 13 times in the article and she's mentioned in text in 6 other places. Young's article prompted a response from Sulkowicz, and the Washington Post describes Young's article as the most extensive and sympathetic treatment of the accused student. If Young is not central to the story, it seems like we should remove some of those citations and in-text mentions. If she is central to the story, then it's reasonable to mention at least one author who criticized her work. Perhaps it makes sense to move the quote to another section, or to find another.Nblund talk 21:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Citing those articles and their contents would be ok from what I can see (haven't read extensively), however stating that Young is "reliably rape-skeptical", based on one article, which sorely veers into opinion territory is a different matter. Arkon (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Think I'm caught up on those links now, if we feel it's encyclopedic to have criticism of a (as the WAPO article says) reporter, from Sulkowicz (attributed of course) I don't, but reasonable people can differ and it's doable I think. Wording would need to be sussed I'm sure. Arkon (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- It veers sorely in to opinion territory because it's an opinion piece. It's attributed in-text and it's mentioned alongside several other opinion pieces - some of which are critical of Sulkowicz and some of which are supportive. There's certainly no policy-based reason for prohibiting opinions and criticisms from being mentioned. If you're simply objecting to the phrase "rape skeptical" I think we could simply remove that from the quote without losing the central point. Nblund talk 22:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well yes, I have a problem with that phrase. That's why the talk section was opened first. Arkon (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's also just sourced to one opinion piece on Jezebel, not the sources you provided above in which that text never appears. Arkon (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, so that makes it sound like your real objection is to the content of the criticism itself. I don't think constitutes a BLP issue or even a policy-issue at all. I went ahead and restored the quote minus the "reliably rape skeptical" wording. I'm fine with that but other editors might not be.
- Opinion pieces can be reliable for statements of opinion attributed to an author. Every quote in that section is sourced to one opinion piece - unless columnists are engaging rampant plagiarism that's sort of normal. The idea expressed in that story - that Young has a history of questioning or dismissing stories about rape is actually mentioned in both of the piece I pointed to above. Nblund talk 23:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorta astounded that it took this much, if you read the text, to understand why I said it was BLP vio. But you haven't really been the one to restore it without any substantial comment. I still believe you need to A) go to talk page to discuss the wording now B) use the WAPO or primary source as the basis. The current text still is flimsy at best, content wise, perhaps not BLP wise, so please talk page. Arkon (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- To be clear: I'm offering a conciliatory gesture, but I don't think it's anywhere close to a BLP vio. It sort of seems like you have a problem with the content of the opinion itself, which isn't a valid policy reason for removing something. I'm not married to any particular wording, but the section cites multiple opinion pieces, I don't see what makes this one flimsy if the rest are fine. Nblund talk 23:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well if you think calling someone "reliably rape-skeptical" in a random wikipedia article, that they reported on (per your source), from one opinion piece....alright. At least you removed it, no matter your motivation. You still need to respond to the content on the talk page however. Whatever it "seems like" to you, I really don't care. `Arkon (talk)
- I would absolutely see your point if this were being treated as a statement of fact, but it's not - it's an opinion that is being attributed to someone else in-text. I think WP:RSOPINION, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:BIAS answer your issues regarding sourcing and fact/opinion. Nblund talk 23:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would absolutely see your point if you didn't restore text to a source that you haven't once brought here, Edit: Crap, this could be misread, sources not used as justification for this report, after reverting earlier ) and not responded anywhere else regarding the content and provided sources when prompted (talk page, user talk). See ya at the talk page. Or not. Arkon (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would absolutely see your point if this were being treated as a statement of fact, but it's not - it's an opinion that is being attributed to someone else in-text. I think WP:RSOPINION, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:BIAS answer your issues regarding sourcing and fact/opinion. Nblund talk 23:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well if you think calling someone "reliably rape-skeptical" in a random wikipedia article, that they reported on (per your source), from one opinion piece....alright. At least you removed it, no matter your motivation. You still need to respond to the content on the talk page however. Whatever it "seems like" to you, I really don't care. `Arkon (talk)
- To be clear: I'm offering a conciliatory gesture, but I don't think it's anywhere close to a BLP vio. It sort of seems like you have a problem with the content of the opinion itself, which isn't a valid policy reason for removing something. I'm not married to any particular wording, but the section cites multiple opinion pieces, I don't see what makes this one flimsy if the rest are fine. Nblund talk 23:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorta astounded that it took this much, if you read the text, to understand why I said it was BLP vio. But you haven't really been the one to restore it without any substantial comment. I still believe you need to A) go to talk page to discuss the wording now B) use the WAPO or primary source as the basis. The current text still is flimsy at best, content wise, perhaps not BLP wise, so please talk page. Arkon (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- It veers sorely in to opinion territory because it's an opinion piece. It's attributed in-text and it's mentioned alongside several other opinion pieces - some of which are critical of Sulkowicz and some of which are supportive. There's certainly no policy-based reason for prohibiting opinions and criticisms from being mentioned. If you're simply objecting to the phrase "rape skeptical" I think we could simply remove that from the quote without losing the central point. Nblund talk 22:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm really struggling to see how an attributed statement of opinion about a public figure constitutes a BLP issue. As I mentioned in my edit summary, Cathy Young is cited 13 times in the article and she's mentioned in text in 6 other places. Young's article prompted a response from Sulkowicz, and the Washington Post describes Young's article as the most extensive and sympathetic treatment of the accused student. If Young is not central to the story, it seems like we should remove some of those citations and in-text mentions. If she is central to the story, then it's reasonable to mention at least one author who criticized her work. Perhaps it makes sense to move the quote to another section, or to find another.Nblund talk 21:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Opinion columns and blogs (and I don't believe Jezebel is a news organisation, so we can safely ignore NEWSBLOG) that lack editorial oversight are questionable sources and hence they are not reliable sources for controversial claims about living persons. ATTRIBUTEPOV does not give us a blanket permission to include biased opinions for that requires sources be verifiable, which Jezebel fails per WP:QS. Jezebel does not exactly have a good track record of accuracy and corrections. For instance, Anna Merlan wrote an opinion column about UVA rape story and made one relatively minor correction with a snarky comment
"This is what a professional journalistic correction looks like"
, but did not retract the column or correct the major errors when it was revealed that the Rolling Stone report was, in fact, riddled with errors. Merlan did admit that the premise of that column was wrong and apologised for being"dead fucking wrong"
, but the so-called correction is included in the original column only as one link among six others.
- If Jezebel is cited in multiple reliable secondary sources (for example, I have not heard that Jezebel's reporting of sexual assault allegations related to Al Franken[1] [2] has been called into question) we may cite those secondary reliable sources and possibly attribute the claims to Jezebel.
- If editors who restore disputed content are aware of BLP discretionary sanctions, e.g. through {{Ds/alert}}, they may be reported to WP:AE (see example). Politrukki (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's not really possible to verify an opinion. I think the reference to verifiability in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is simply saying that we need to verify that Erin Gloria Ryan actually made the statement being attributed to her. If we required editors to verify the content of quoted statements, it would be pretty much impossible to write about flat earth advocates or other cranks. I'm all for using some caution and common sense when it comes to quoting opinions about a BLP, but this is just one of several opinions expressed in the section. It's not particularly outrageous, and it's not any better or any worse than sources like the National Review that are cited in the same section. Nblund talk 19:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think you know very well that conforming to WP:V does not mean that we should "verify an opinion". Verifiability means lots of things: I mentioned WP:QS, but WP:SOURCE is also a part of WP:V and I have argued that Erin Gloria Ryan's opinion in Jezebel is not a reliable source for contentious statements about living persons (clarify: who are not Erin Gloria Ryan). The major difference between Jezebel and National Review is that the latter is a news organisation. But I would tend to agree that in this case the content cited to a column in National Review may as well be removed. Politrukki (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's not really possible to verify an opinion. I think the reference to verifiability in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is simply saying that we need to verify that Erin Gloria Ryan actually made the statement being attributed to her. If we required editors to verify the content of quoted statements, it would be pretty much impossible to write about flat earth advocates or other cranks. I'm all for using some caution and common sense when it comes to quoting opinions about a BLP, but this is just one of several opinions expressed in the section. It's not particularly outrageous, and it's not any better or any worse than sources like the National Review that are cited in the same section. Nblund talk 19:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Needs rev/deletion of defamatory content. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- the usual wikiwedia shite - living person published attack - it's been removed thankfully - I am watching the page now, please add it also to your watchlists. This is what wikipedia published https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Tye&diff=847327073&oldid=847326953 Govindaharihari (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- I nominated the article for deletion, only to discover that it has been deleted twice already and has been recreated. It seems to me that the simplest approach is to delete and salt the article, possible also an investigate into the activities of the creating editor could be warranted. Shritwod (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage
QubecMan (talk · contribs) has recently added a large number of individual politicians to the category Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage. I'm not sure all of these are appropriate; I'm also unsure that adding any politicians to that category is reasonable (as opposed to a sub-category of some sort). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Politicians voting records in most democracies are public record. While I don't approve of the category in general (I don't particulary think using categories as badges of shame/labelling is a good idea) if a politician has publicly opposed same sex marriage it should be easily sourceable (and probably already in the article if it includes a section on their political views) and so justify inclusion of the category. If there isn't a source/reference in the article justifying the category, it can't be added. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Voting records are actually a problematic source for such claims. If Suzy Politician voted against the Gay Marriage Legalization Act of 2009, it may be because she was against same-sex marriage, or it may be that Suzy saw that that act created a second form of marriage that did not give gay couples all the rights that straight people get, or it may be the Mandatory Puppy Sandwiches For Lunch Amendment that someone hung on the bill. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- As ever, someone needs to go over all these and remove most of them, deleting the Cat would be better and easier. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Subcategory might be appropriate, and I also agree that voting records alone aren't enough for inclusion. Voting records are primary sources that are subject to interpretation. Per WP:CATDEF it seems like anyone included in a category like this would need to be more than someone who merely voted against same sex marriage. Tony Abbott might count, but maybe not Stuart Robert.Nblund talk 19:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's a strange category, as if opposition to or even support for marriage equality were an immutable characteristic. The same person could belong to Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage and Category:Support for same-sex marriage. To which category does Barak Obama belong (different position in 1996 (pro), in 1998 (undecided), in 2004 through 2010 (for partnership, against marriage equality, in 2012 (pro))? To which category does Hilary Clinton belong (hint: in 1999 & 200 pro union, anti marriage; in 2004 averring marriage "is between a man and a woman", but also voting against a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage; in 2007 pro union anti marriage; in 2013 pro marriage equality)? - Nunh-huh 06:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hillary and Obama would not been in the category because they Support Same sex marriage Now. the category is for people who are Currently opposed to it. QubecMan (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
All of those individual politicians are opposed to same sex marriage and are well sourced for it. QubecMan (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Remove this category "Opposition to same sex marriage" is not like a light switch with just two options, on or off. This category seems like a would-be Wall of Shame, and whatever the intention of its creators will be used as such, if it ever gets used at all. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- that's a bias comment: this category seems like a would-be Wall of Shame. they do have people who are opposed to same sex marriage doesn't mean they are doing something shame.QubecMan (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep this category people who are opposed to same sex marriage should have a category. QubecMan (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Remove this categoryThis is not a concrete category. It is based on subjective judgments about someone's opinion on a topic. Opinions can change, and there are no set criteria for deciding that someone is opposed to same-sex marriage. - Donald Albury 12:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I do think the category is inappropriate for people. - Donald Albury 22:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- This category should not be applied to people. This category is perfectly fine for organizations and laws for which opposite to same-sex marriage is a defining characteristic. Natureium (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
if that's the case you should get rid of the category of Muslims. what is a criteria for deciding that someone is a Muslim. they should have a category that marks somebody down that they are opposed to SSM. QubecMan (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Pinging users QubecMan, Donald Albury, Nunh-huh,Nblund, power~enwiki, Only in death does duty end that I nominated this category for deletion. I can't find the right link to post here, but I will when I find it. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @HouseOfChange: Categories are deleted by nominating them at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, not by adding something to the category page, so I reverted your edit to the category itself. That said, the category should probably not be deleted but only the recent additions removed. The category does make sense for other topics, such as California Proposition 8 (2008) or Romanian constitutional referendum, 2018. Regards SoWhy 13:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, @SoWhy:, I know I messed up with that effort so I will redo it using Twinkle instead. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I wish you had considered the rest of my message as well before redoing the nomination because you failed to take into account that this is a category from 2012 that was not problematic before yesterday because it did not contain biographical articles. Unfortunately, most commentators here seem to have missed this. Reverting QubecMan's edits fixes the pointed out problems without having to resort to deletion. Regards SoWhy 13:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, @SoWhy:, I know I messed up with that effort so I will redo it using Twinkle instead. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @HouseOfChange: Categories are deleted by nominating them at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, not by adding something to the category page, so I reverted your edit to the category itself. That said, the category should probably not be deleted but only the recent additions removed. The category does make sense for other topics, such as California Proposition 8 (2008) or Romanian constitutional referendum, 2018. Regards SoWhy 13:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the category contained biographical articles before QubecMan came along. Examples: Alexandra Colen, Marcelo Crivella, Ted Cruz. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Can we have a sub-category of some sort. I truly believe we should QubecMan (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- In general, "contentious categories" should not be used for any living persons unless they are self-described as being members of that group. We already use that requirement for religion, ethnicity and nationality, sexuality and the like, and it would appear that this category is clearly of that same nature. Using categories otherwise is easily abused, and a pox on the desire of Wikipedia to "do no harm." I further note that Wikipedia, like it or not, will end up having to follow EU laws concerning contentious claims, and the earlier we accept that, the better. Collect (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- This category is badly-named if its purpose is to be a container for laws or policies that oppose same-sex marriage. All names of people should be removed asap, as per WP:SEPARATE, and perhaps the category should be re-named, or else marked with an informative message at the top, to prevent this mess from happening again. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Remove category. This is just looking for trouble. When do we identify people for this category? Would Obama be included? Using any metrics to decide inclusion is just asking for trouble. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Remove category. - all activist cats like this are basically closer to propaganda than cited relevant cats, for living people it's unless totally clear then it's a obvious WP:BLP violation Govindaharihari (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Remove category. As per other editors. For example, I noted that Pope Francis is included in the category, along with his other categories like 21st-century popes and Christian humanists... something seems a bit out of place with this category for the majority of those who are in it, and I can't think of any good reason to have it. --HunterM267 talk 21:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep or Rename category. we need to have a category of people who are opposed to same sex marriage.QubecMan (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- This discussion seems to have turned into a !Vote on whether or not to keep the category, but I don't think this is the right forum for that.
- Going back to the original question of whether politicians should be included in the category, my view is that this should only happen if they are vocally opposed to the concept. Politicians might oppose specific attempts to introduce laws for any number of reasons, of which opposition to the concept is only one. For instance they might not think the proposal goes far enough, or the law being discussed is badly drafted or open to interpretation, none of which mean they oppose the concept. Neiltonks (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- All the politiicans I putted on are known to be against same sex marriage are Known to have been the only few MPS who voted against it when governments legalized it. that sick's out. QubecMan (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Remove category as per arguments already articulated, we shouldn't be making controversial statements in cats ever. QubecMan comment above this "that sick's out" indicates this editor is not motivated by BLP and neutrality but by o`pinions on same-sex marriage. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why people are !voting here instead of at the deletion discussion.--Auric talk 16:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think people are voting here on whether people should be removed from the category and there whether the category should be deleted. Natureium (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- If Quebec man can have three votes in this odd election, can I? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Please read the offending comments in the header of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.78.250 (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Content on this page was recently reverted - does this clear up the concern? --HunterM267 talk 16:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I reverted again. Meatsgains(talk) 01:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
In recent weeks there has been a campaign to add cherry-picked, unverifiable, and non-neutral content to the lead section of Richard B. Spencer in violation of BLP. I have little appetite to defend neo-Nazis, but our policies must be enforced everywhere, and I believe at this point the lead section is so distorted that the article has lost its credibility. Perhaps folks here would be interested in helping out. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Dr. F is currently engaged in WP:Forum shopping. He filed an AE enforcement action alleging BLP violations and was laughed out by multiple admins, one of whom even threatened to block him. The talk page is also almost uniformly in favor of the current lede: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_B._Spencer#New_lede
- There is no BLP violation but there is apparently a WP:TE issue here. Steeletrap (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks like a vanity page maintained by the subject himself--may not meet notability guidelines. More eyes on this will be appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:CDA0:623:849E:B032 (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I researched the subject and the citations provided and have opened an AfD here. --HunterM267 talk 19:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Article-subject asking for assistance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I am bringing this here on the advice of Voceditenore, and mainly incase I am off-wiki for some days or the subject does something new that I might not have access to. There are three issues here, 1. Caroline Danjuma wants to change her date of birth without providing a reliable source or sending a confidential birth certificate to Wikipedia that was issued in the 80s or 90s. 2. She also wants to change her Wikipedia name to something that violates WP:COMMONNAME. 3. Failure to achive (1) and (2) has led her to get disgruntled and lay false accusations on me. I thought she had understood how Wikipedia works after a discussion with her representative on the talkpage until when I saw this publication, where she libelously laid accusations on me. Going forward, I want to make the following assertions and propositions:
- I have never at any time communicated with Caroline Danjuma, or anyone that claims to be her representative, either through mail or in person outside my WP talkpage or the article tp. Infact I haven't spoken to anyone at all concerning the article outside en-Wikipedia.
- From the discussion on her tp, and the manner so many experienced editors became involved in the discussion, it suggest to me that she has been in conversation with some Wikipedia representatives, I don't know how this works, but I want to suggest she is made to understand that paid editing is not allowed here, and encouraged to forward any evidence that will assisst in fishing out the Wikipedian that requested for it, although my guts tells me she made that up. Finally, those Wikipedia representatives that responded to the request of her supposed rep privately should also make her understand that Wikipedia works with reliable sources, and does not make up information. She is fighting the wrong battle, instead of calling out Pulse, Eagle and other respected news platforms that published correct info on her, she is calling out WP.
- Finally, I think she has deleted her IG account so you would not have access to the original post. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Dear Editor, I entered accurate information about this person and I made sure that this information was cited appropriately. The information was totally deleted by James Allison w/o any explanation. My understanding is that deletion of accurate information w/o explanation is considered VANDALISM according to wikipedia guidelines. I would appreciate it if you could look into this and let me know. Thank you GlassFort (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- As multiple editors have now undone your additions, the proper thing is to raise the issue on the talk page of the article, Talk:Linda Katehi, and gain consensus for the additions before re-adding. (And no, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to delete even accurate information, and while doing so without explanation may not be the best practice, that would not automatically amke it vandalism.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Dennis Herrick
- Dennis Herrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dennish1942 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Self-promotional account. The article is an autobiography, with almost all the sources of the primary type, leading to his publisher or personal website. I'm not finding much from Google searches to support notability as either an author or academic, and would AfD this if I could. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- There are multiple conflict of interest issues elsewhere. Mr. Herrick added his books as references [3]; [4]; [5]--the last one is yet unpublished; and created an article about one of his books [6]. The subject may be well versed in his field, but before we can accept his scholarship and self-sourcing, let's see if the bio can stand with acceptable sources. Otherwise there's a history of adding original research to multiple articles. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm concerned by continuing edits like this [7], and am asking whether this merits discussion at ANI. Thanks. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Continual posting of unbiased articles from a party directly involved in a dispute with Robert Quigg. Only intent of reposting reference note 16 & 17 is to harm Robert Quigg's reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckaroo Jeff (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
This article libelously describes Jordan Peterson as Alt-Right after he has repeatedly repudiated the movement and disavowed the label. It appears to be deliberately attached to his name in this article as a way to discredit him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.91.11 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Template says person is living when he is deceased
Can we have a different template for Robert Mandan?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- The template does not directly say he is alive, but says the article is a BLP and falls under those rules. Since he is deceased, there is a pretty strong argument for removing the template entirely. However, BLP rules still apply to those who are recently deceased, so there may be a good argument for leaving it in place for the time being. (Difficult to say without delving into the edit history. See: WP:BDP) What I would suggest is opening a discussion on the article's talk page about whether or not it should be removed at this time. Zaereth (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- The person is "recently deceased" and there is no "deadline" for Wikipedia. Unless you create a "recently died but still covered by BLP - template", no reason to have a fit. Collect (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see anyone having a fit, just someone raising a reasonable concern. This template is awkward on this page for anyone reading "biography of a living person" in actual English rather than through Wikipedia editor lingo. Using the non-BLP template may be a better choice, barring a rewording or development of a new template. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
User Grayfell continues to insert unfound claims about Nagle copy-and-pasting and plagiarizing her book using anarchist blog Libcom.org as his only source. This source qualifies as extremist and low quality (the blog has no fact checkers and is full of all kinds of highly ideological, dubious accusations against people) under Wiki living biography guidelines. I have asked Grayfell to use a more reliable source for the Libcom claims of plagiarism but he refuses. The Daily Beast mentions the accusations but, contrary to what he claims, does not corroborate any copy and pasting/verbatim lifting/etc.
The only reliable source he uses is The Daily Beast, which merely accuses Nagle's book of 'Sloppy Sourcing'. There is a retraction of the original accusation of "copying content" in bold at the top of the article but user Grayfell refuses to engage with this fact.
These are very serious and potentially libelous accusations that require immediate investigation when promoted on the internet's encyclopedia.
FriendlyKor (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)FriendlyKor
- Minor cavil. Read WP:NLT and the fact that accusing editors of libeling others is fraught with peril. Nagle appears to have had a "demand letter" sent to The Daily Beast or the like, but the gist of the criticism rests on whether Nagle went beyond "close paraphrasing" or not, as neither source asserts lengthy plagiarism as much as non-attribution of sources. What the sources would support is a claim that Nagle failed to list all sources used, nor credit such sources for certain claims made by those sources. Pretty serious, alas. Collect (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Should all the addresses and contact info really be listed? Seems to me this is BLPVIO--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Alan Sabrosky
I have been trying to correct a page created on me by @Seraphim System, which has been (according to him) been vandalized continuously for months. But the vandalism is, oddly enough, the lesser problem. The article itself is seriously flawed, and with the vandalism added, it is in the demeaming-to-defamatory range. @Seraphim System has caught some issues, but has not been responsive for weeks and is obviously busy. A user named @SPINTENDO identified several factual or demeaning issues on the Talk: Alan Sabrosky page. And a volunteer editor named Lawrence Devereaux has been very responsive but apparently cannot do much.
I have tried to have the errors corrected and an accurate entry crated, but to no avail. Let me tell you what happened in the hope that we can reach an amicable resolution, and yes, I'd be willing to undertake an edit at your request for your review before it would be posted. I created an account and looking at the entry, found that an editor named "Seraphim System" had created the page and had been forced to deal with ongoing vandalism for months. A user named "SPINTENDO" had caught several factual errors and identified them. I tried to address SPINTENDO's errors but did NOT attempt to edit my entry myself, which would not be ethical. I did post an explanation of what had happened on my Facebook page and asked any Facebook friends who were interested to take a shot at correcting things. I did suggest that they do searches using "Alan Ned Sabrosky" rather than "Alan Sabrosky" (and mentioned the same thing in a message to Seraphim System and on the "Alan Sabrosky" Talk page), since without my middle name almost all of my academic and government work and publications are not visible, leading to the scarcity of sources noted by Seraphim System.
So after a week or so, I got an information copy from a Facebook friend of a major revision to the entry which he (with help of other Facebook friends) intended to use to replace the existing entry. I put it in the Talk section for information, and let the others proceed. They indicated it lasted a day or so before Seraphim System reverted it to the page he had originally created, factual errors and all, after which one of the usual vandals added his two shekels worth.
What do I mean by factual errors? The first sentence starts "Alan Sabrosky is a retired Marine officer and a former mid-level civilian employee ....", and there isn't a word of truth in it: I am not a retired Marine, I was never an officer nor claimed to be one (I was a sergeant), and I was a GM-15 (senior civilian) at the Army War College not a mid level civilian employee, as SPINTENDO pointed out. And so it went.
I am more than frustrated by all of this. I get enough flak for taking "politically incorrect" but factually accurate positions, and simply do not need this type of disinfo out there - particularly on Wikipedia. I was flattered to have an entry, but only if it is accurate. Seraphim System is at a minimum too busy to respond. If you can designate another editor to take over this issue, I will ask my Facebook friends to give it another shot, after which the page needs to be protected to avoid the endemic months-longvandalism to which even Seraphim System referred. If you cannot do that, then pull the page (for the second time) and block any attempt to re-insert something. I would prefer greatly the former, but I'd rather the latter than what is now there.
Many thanks, Alan Ned Sabrosky Docbrosk1941 (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Not investigated the content . Govindaharihari (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- I reverted to an earlier version to remove some uncited additions due to BLP concerns and have protected the article for the moment to encourage talk page discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Article nominated for AfD as "No evidence subject qualifies under NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC." I can't edit the article to add that tag to the article, but Twinkle did the rest of it, I think. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
IPs have been repeatedly inserting statements into this BLP that she has died. The only sources offered have been Reddit and a former colleague's Facebook post. I can't find anything. I'm not 100% sure she's notable, but AfDing would be a nuclear option and especially sad if she has died, and I don't want to request semi-protection since there have also been good IP edits; and the IP editors adding the information may be the people best equipped to find an acceptable source. Help, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- Closest I found was this where a variant spelling was used for a relative (brother). Other than this - there is the reddit post and a change.org petition (on next season). Taking this to AfD - I don't see how this individual is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Subject passed on June 26, 2018. I have made edits with reference. Do I need permission to remove the BLP header? Thanks! BenBurch (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- BLP still applies to people that are recently dead. (WP:BDP) Natureium (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Long term subject of promotional, unsourced and BLP violation content. I've requested page protection, but consider that a temporary band-aid. What's necessary is further copy editing and watchlisting. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Koniuchy massacre
I am bringing this issue to this board a bit preemptively and as a way of getting outside input. On the article on Koniuchy massacre, User:Icewhiz has made a quite ridiculous allegation [8] that there is a BLP violation in the article. There isn't. But there's no way he will listen to anything I say, hence, this posting.
The issue is that there was a massacre in the village of Koniuchy during WW2, perpetrated by Soviet partisans. The town was in interwar Poland, today it's in Lithuania. In the past 20 years, there have been two separate investigations into the massacre, a Polish one and a Lithuanian one. Icewhiz keeps on insisting that the two investigations were "the same investigation", which is completely false and something he just made up himself. Strangely enough, Icewhiz himself provided a source which says that these were two separate investigations [9] even as he kept insisting they were the same. That's Icewhiz for you. But nevermind, that's not the alleged BLP vio, it's background.
The Polish investigation was carried out by Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), an institution which is obliged to conduct a formal investigation whenever there is enough evidence that a possibility of a crime has occurred. Earlier this year, in February, the IPN closed down its investigation because it found that it was not able to establish "beyond a reasonable doubt" that any perpetrators of the massacre were still alive
Icewhiz believes that including this information in the article, that the IPN said that there were no known perpetrators of the massacre still alive (at least ones which it could be proven were involved) ... is the BLP vio. Seriously, that's his claim.
Note that this info - that it was closed down and why - is sourced. It is sourced to a secondary source , yet Icewhiz keeps insisting that this is a primary source [10]... or something like that. It's not clear. He says the original IPN report is primary, and if a secondary source uses a primary source then that makes that source primary too... or something like that. And that makes it a WP:BLPPRIMARY issue. Icewhiz continues to repeat this nonsense [11] even after it's been pointed out to him several times that this is not a BLP vio (his WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is exactly why I'm bringing this here). This is all blatantly absurd (since all secondary sources use primary sources, that's what makes them SECONDary) but wait, it gets better.
Icewhiz believes that saying that this agency found that there are no known perpetrators of the massacre still alive is a BLP vio because.... some perpetrators of the massacre might actually be alive! So, I don't know, that's like an insult to them or something. I have asked him several times to actually name the individuals who this is suppose to be a BLP violation against [12] [13] [14], but each time he has refused to answer that very simple question and has deflected, and then just repeated the claim that it's a BLP vio. It's sort of driving me crazy - I don't see how one can have a constructive conversation with someone who does this stuff. Hence, this posting.
Oh wait! It gets even more confusing. Based on this comment it appears that Icewhiz thinks that the individuals who participated in the massacre, who are still alive, but who are getting BLP-violated because IPN says there are no such people, did not actually participate in the massacre. Yeah, it gives you a headache. IPN says "no individuals alive who participated in the massacre". That's a BLP vio because such individuals might still be alive. But if they're alive, then they're the ones who did not actually participate in the massacre and any such allegations are slander. But somehow the IPN statement is still wrong and including it still violates BLP. Even though Icewhiz says the same thing... ... yeah, I don't know what to do with that.
Honestly, all of this is just one big WP:GAME excuse for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal of a source/information, and apparently Icewhiz couldn't come up with anything better. The strange thing is that IPN - which Icewhiz really really does not like - is basically clearing any individuals who are presently alive of being guilty of this massacre. Icewhiz likewise thinks there are no individuals alive who are guilty of anything. But having the info in the article that IPN found no one to charge with a crime - and effectively agrees with Icewhiz - throws a wrench in Icewhiz's attempts to portray IPN in the most negative light possible (which he's been attempting to do across several articles). How dare they agree with him??? The nerve. It's a BLP vio!
Note that the page is under discretionary sanctions. It was recently protected by User:TonyBallioni. Another admin, User:Ealdgyth, has also been active on the article doing gnomish work. Input appreciated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- To be clear - I was referring to WP:BLPPRIMARY press releases from the IPN itself - [15][16]. The IPN The IPN has been criticized for being
"overtly nationalist content of its mission led to its over-politicization"
[17], has been ordered by the government to popularize history asan element of patriotic education" and oppose so-called false allegations that "dishonor" the Polish nation"
[18]. The IPN has also been promoting the fascist NSZ, and has promoted a music CD with skinhead nationalist bands in their honor.[19]. In this particular case, the IPN is acting under its role as a investigator / prosecutor of alleged communist crimes - the investigation itself was a criminal investigation against living people (some of whom were named over the years, and at least one of the people falsely connected to this over the years - is alive). The IPN's investigation received fairly little notice world wide, however the parallel Lithuanian one (already closed) - was seen as a contemptible farce by some Lithuanians and the outside world.[20]. My assertion of BLP is solely in regards to PRIMARY material from the IPN per BLPPRIMARY (this being akin to a press release from the police / DA). In as much as there is reliable coverage of IPN's claims in WP:IRS - it is a different matter - however the IPN should not be used directly.Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)- " To be clear - I was referring to WP:BLPPRIMARY press releases from the IPN itself" - well, that's strange because that press release says nothing about the investigation being closed down and there being no known perpetrators still alive. Probably because it's from 2012, while the investigation was closed down in 2018. So all this time you were complaining about a source which did not actually say what you claimed it said? So why were you complaining about it, and why were you pretending it said something which it didn't say? Do you withdraw the allegation that there is a BLP violation in the article?
- (And thanks for illustrating the point that you're on a little crusade there against IPN, by cherry picking a source from the head of the Polish version of Antifa who's had a bone to pick with IPN for awhile now (the IPN actually did no such thing, but nm, that's a separate discussion. As always, Icewhiz is trying to hijack the thread with irrelevant stuff)) Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Rafal Pankowski is the director of the Polish Never Again anti-racism network and is quoted in RS,(Newsweek) as well being a habilitated dr. of sociology and a member of staff at Collegium Civitas,[21] the cited work was published by Routledge.
- IPN Primary sources are being used in the current article (either by themselves or in conjunction with other sources) to support:
The Koniuchy (Kaniūkai) massacre was a massacre of Polish and Byelorussian carried out by a Soviet partisan unit along with a contingent of Jewish partisans
[22] (one should note that per Foreign PolicyFacts about the raid are heavily disputed, including whether the villagers were acting in concert with the Nazis
.[23]).The Soviet units surrounded the village and then attacked at five o'clock in the morning. The attack lasted between one and a half to two hours
[24]One of the groups was from the Kaunas Brigade of Lithuanian Headquarters of the Partisan Movement (subordinate to the South Branch of the Lithuanian Communist Party) while others were from the Vilnius Brigade.
[25]
- The use of a 2018 Do Rzeczy piece is also questionable to Polish censorship following recent legislation[26] (Criminal provisions are apparently going to be removed as of last week, however
there were other “tools” it could use to “protect Poland’s good name”.
in the bill.[27]) - however this is a more complex issue than the BLPPRIMARY situation above. - There is at least one current BLP (Arad) who has been mentioned in the course of this investigation (there have been other individuals who were BLPs at the time - not sure of present status). Any assertion about the details of the event is pertinent to a BLP. In general we should not be using WP:PRIMARY sources (all the more so when they are press releases by a much criticized government agency that has been investigative the event as a crime (in this case - the prosecutor's office in the IPN)) - WP:BLPPRIMARY outright forbids it when BLPs are involved.Icewhiz (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- You're trying to deflect. The question of reliability of IPN is for WP:RSN (which you have refused to consider). Here we are concerned with your strange claims that there is a BLP violation in the article. Your strange claim that the BLP violation is present because we have the text which says that the closed IPN investigation found no one alive responsible for the massacre. You claimed the BLP vio was present because IPN was a primary source. But we weren't using IPN as a primary source. And here is the basic question which you have repeatedly evaded answering: who is the BLP vio against? Is it Arad? Well, the IPN never said anything about Arad nor investigated him (please stop falsely insinuating otherwise). YOU are the one who added info about him to the article. So why are you complaining?
- Please explain how the statement that "the investigation found there is no one alive who was responsible for the massacre" is supposedly a BLP violation. Don't talk about other stuff (reliability of IPN, NSZ, some legislation or some other lame attempts at deflection). Just explain that simple thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: Icewhiz were making similar weird BLP allegations in the DYK nomination page related to Israel-Palestine and hence I can understand what Volunteer Marek says. Did he really say that "if a secondary source uses a primary source then that makes that source primary too"? That IPN is criticized for its nationalist content does not make it unreliable (see WP:BIASED). --Mhhossein talk 11:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Explicitly, he said something like that on a different, somewhat related article [28] ("That this is quoted via a secondary source does not make the information itself less primary") at roughly the same time. On this particular article, after he was called out on incorrectly invoking BLP, he switched to referring to the alleged problem as a, ahem, "BLPPRIMARY situation" [29] [30]. You know, it's not actually a primary source but a secondary source using a primary source so he's going to refer to it euphemistically as a "BLPPRIMARY situation" to keep pretending that there is an issue here. Icewhiz has a serious problem backing off when he's clearly incorrect and dropping the stick.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)