SashiRolls (talk | contribs) →Draft:Laurent de Gourcuff: publish Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
→Suspect's name in the URL of sources/references: Reply re: WP:EVENT and WP:BLP Tag: Reply |
||
Line 232: | Line 232: | ||
::::I think it is helpful to note there is sensationalized coverage of this case, which per [[WP:SENSATIONAL]], weighs against inclusion. [[User:Beccaynr|Beccaynr]] ([[User talk:Beccaynr|talk]]) 15:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC) |
::::I think it is helpful to note there is sensationalized coverage of this case, which per [[WP:SENSATIONAL]], weighs against inclusion. [[User:Beccaynr|Beccaynr]] ([[User talk:Beccaynr|talk]]) 15:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::Indeed, there is some sensationalized coverage, as often happens in unusual crime cases. However, there are reliable sources such as the [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/families-of-murdered-teen-girls-abigail-williams-and-liberty-german-speak-out-about-ongoing-investigation/YFDFAZNCSRIQUTXKU4MQURNOTM/ New Zealand Herald] and the [https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2023/01/24/large-indiana-county-for-jury-selection-in-slain-teens-trial.html Toronto Star] which demonstrate the case has international interest. I’m mentioning all of these to help establish notability for the case, as it had been questioned. [[User:LovelyLillith|LovelyLillith]] ([[User talk:LovelyLillith|talk]]) 05:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
:::::Indeed, there is some sensationalized coverage, as often happens in unusual crime cases. However, there are reliable sources such as the [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/families-of-murdered-teen-girls-abigail-williams-and-liberty-german-speak-out-about-ongoing-investigation/YFDFAZNCSRIQUTXKU4MQURNOTM/ New Zealand Herald] and the [https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2023/01/24/large-indiana-county-for-jury-selection-in-slain-teens-trial.html Toronto Star] which demonstrate the case has international interest. I’m mentioning all of these to help establish notability for the case, as it had been questioned. [[User:LovelyLillith|LovelyLillith]] ([[User talk:LovelyLillith|talk]]) 05:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::Notability is assessed according to the [[WP:EVENT]] guideline, which includes guidance on how to avoid exclusion per [[WP:NOTNEWS]] policy, including the existence of an [[WP:EFFECT|effect]], and [[WP:GEOSCOPE|more than a broad scope of coverage]], as well as a need for [[WP:INDEPTH|in-depth]] coverage and a caution about [[WP:SENSATIONAL|sensationalized]] coverage. This case seems to clearly have interest to editors, but the request to add coverage according to the guideline and related policy to support notability (via a notability tag placed on the article) was removed, and a nondescriptive list of news sources was added to the article Talk page and this discussion, without a substantial discussion of how the sources relate to [[WP:EVENT]] notability. That being said, I do think the article has been improved, but occasional reports about case updates do not appear to transform the suspect into a public figure for the purposes of [[WP:BLPCRIME]] policy, so I continue to think caution is warranted with regard to material that includes their name. [[User:Beccaynr|Beccaynr]] ([[User talk:Beccaynr|talk]]) 16:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I don't think the latest developments are ''vital'' to the article but it would be nice to include them ([[WP:NOTNEWS]] and all). [https://people.com/crime/man-arrested-in-delphi-murders-liberty-german-abigail-williams/ This article] (is it ok to link this here? if not feel free to remove it and replace with [This People article] or whatever) does not mention the name of the arrested suspect in either the title or URL, couldn't that be used by anyone's standards in this discussion? [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 19:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC) |
I don't think the latest developments are ''vital'' to the article but it would be nice to include them ([[WP:NOTNEWS]] and all). [https://people.com/crime/man-arrested-in-delphi-murders-liberty-german-abigail-williams/ This article] (is it ok to link this here? if not feel free to remove it and replace with [This People article] or whatever) does not mention the name of the arrested suspect in either the title or URL, couldn't that be used by anyone's standards in this discussion? [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 19:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 16:53, 4 February 2023
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:
| ||
Andy Ogles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is ongoing conversations about the Andy_Ogles article/editorializing an opinion of the Member of Congress by describing them as "far right." This is a subjective standard and is not applied unilaterally to other members of Congress, and is at best, editorializing. For example, if you go to Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez she is not described as "far left." If we want Wiki to be objective, you've got to apply an even standard across both sides of the aisle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Only Objective Truth (talk • contribs) 21:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Only Objective Truth, do reliable sources call Ogles "far right"? Do reliable sources call AOC "far left"? That's the even standard that should be followed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia biographies should summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. The article currently includes references to four reliable sources that categorize Ogles as far right. A quick Google search shows that several other sources also call him far right. Cullen328 (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- You can have a "reliable source" that is right leaning that would call someone a Conservative while a "reliable source" that is left leaning might use another. Why choose one or the other when you can be objective? To say CBS et al doesn't have an inherent bias doesn't make sense. Only Objective Truth (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not every source uses "far-right", but this is Wikipedia, so of course shoehorners gonna shoehorn and cherrypickers gonna cherrypick. Gotta get the reader primed in that first sentence! --Animalparty! (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- AOC is, notably, not described by a large number of reliable sources as being on the far-left. We've had this discussion enough times as is. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- At least two of the currently referenced sources are passing mentions; which should be removed or replaced. Of those, one doesn't describe the article subject as far-right. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 23:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Nashville radio station WPLN calls him far right too. Cullen328 (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's a much better source; in so far as it's primarily about the article subject. Potentially, hairs will be split as to whether "far-right conservative" is congruent to "far-right"; or whether there is a place where "conservative" ends & "far-right" (solo; not as a qualifier of conservative) begins. But substituting this source for the ABC News & NYT sources currently used, would be a good start. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 23:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- There is a difference between finding sources that say "far-right" and even mentioning far-right in the article, and shoehorning "far-right" into the very first sentence of the lead, before any other adjective besides nationality. Conservatives seem more likely to be 'marked' or 'othered' in the first sentence compared to more liberal or progressive counterparts who get neutral introductions (e.g. "Democrat X is an American politician..." vs. "Republican Y is a far-right conservative politician...", as if liberal is normal and conservative the aberrant condition). Note how none of the politicians in "The Squad", some of the most progressive and left-wing members of Congress, get "progressive" or "left-wing" shoehorned into their introductory sentences, Fuzzy political labels like far-left or far-right are often better contextualized, rather than shoehorned, such as "X is a politician from Ohio. She is among the most progressive members of their Congressional caucus." Note also Jim Jordan, founding chairman of the conservative Freedom Caucus, is not immediately and bluntly labeled. Similarly, we can say Chuck Schumer, Eric Cantor and Jon Ossoff are Jewish politicians in their articles,[1][2] but we need not introduce them first and foremost as "is a Jewish politician". --Animalparty! (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- There is a big world of difference between describing a politician's political ideology in the lead sentence (exceptionally relevant) and describing a politician's Judaism in the lead (irrelevant and objectionable Jew tagging). I have no problem with adding more details to the Ogles biography to provide additional information about his ideology. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Nashville radio station WPLN calls him far right too. Cullen328 (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is along the lines of a much better solution. People often have this misconception that every point needs to be made in the first sentence, but that's "flat-Earth" thinking, meaning that it only seems that way to the untrained eye.
- Journalism 101: start with the most important info first and work your way to the broader explanations later. This is pretty standard for most expository writing, but how do we define "most important"? Since all info can be categorized by the questions they answer, the most important info is by far the what, followed by where, when, who, how, and why, in that order. In journalism, this really arose during the US Civil War, when telegraph lines were slow and unreliable, and constantly being cut or blown up, etc. Encyclopedic writing is not journalism by any means, but it is still important to define the what right off the bat --as quickly as possible-- even though that initial sentence will be rather vague on the details. It's just a point of context for further information. Details are what further sentences are for.
- Writing 101: Nobody ever remembers the first sentence. It's a vague little starting point on a road to the main point of the paragraph or section, which is located at the end. People always remember the last sentence, because that's what the entire section or paragraph, or article, was leading up to. That's where the main point is located, and readers all understand this instinctively even if they don't realize it consciously. Not to mention, it's the last thing on their mind, which is what sticks, because working memory can only hold so much info at a time.
- At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, look at the Adolph Hitler article. I'm not comparing anyone to Hitler here, so it's not a Godwinian reference, per se. I'm just saying this is a really good example of what an encyclopedic article should look like. We don't start off by saying what an evil person he was. We save that for the end. The beginning just tells us, plain and simply, what he was, factually. The point is, labels like "far right" have no clear definition; it varies considerably from person to person/region to region. It's subjective, like the term "evil" is, and in the first sentence these things look very out of place, and makes the article look amateurish. Whatever the goal, the first sentence is the worst possible place to put anything of that nature, contrary to popular belief. Zaereth (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree this is a better solution. The current opening sentence isn't ok. First it fails as we haven't established that he is largely viewed by most sources as "far-right" per the definition provided by the Wikipedia blue link. To decide this is a common descriptor we need to show that a significant percentage of news sources would call him that, not just that a key word searched set of sources. More importantly the article body needs to show this label is valid via his actions. Also we need to be careful with how sources define "far-right". Wikipedia says it's associated with things like racism, nationalism etc. What if the sources really mean "hard right" as in uncompromising on say more gun control or other areas viewed as political right (killing a popular bill to avoid giving a mm on an issue important to the right). A hard "no new taxes" stance can be hard right without fitting our definition of far right. Regardless, if the sources for the claim don't support the label with reason then we shouldn't include it. We should show, not tell such things. Springee (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, look at the Adolph Hitler article. I'm not comparing anyone to Hitler here, so it's not a Godwinian reference, per se. I'm just saying this is a really good example of what an encyclopedic article should look like. We don't start off by saying what an evil person he was. We save that for the end. The beginning just tells us, plain and simply, what he was, factually. The point is, labels like "far right" have no clear definition; it varies considerably from person to person/region to region. It's subjective, like the term "evil" is, and in the first sentence these things look very out of place, and makes the article look amateurish. Whatever the goal, the first sentence is the worst possible place to put anything of that nature, contrary to popular belief. Zaereth (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Why do only hot-button terms like "right-wing" merit shoehorning above and before anything else? Are the political ideologies of Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren not worthy of mentioning in the very first sentence, such that the poor reader knows immediately how they should should frame the subject? (this is rhetorical: their current intros are neither whitewashed nor overstuffed). Note that even extreme-right, capital-F fascists like Mussolini and Francisco Franco manage to be adequately and fairly described without "far-right" being tacked into the first sentence. I agree with Zaereth's good comments above. Anything more I could say about this BLP I've probably already said, in greater detail, at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive341#Donald_C_Bolduc_BLP_issues_in_the_lead. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Animalparty, Journalism 101 is fine for entry level journalism students, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a journalistic venture like an endangered medium sized city daily paper largely supported by the advertising dollars of local department stores, plumbers, hairdressers, banks, insurance companies and major local employers. I am all in favor of better writing. I am not in favor of writing for the purpose of making extremists look mainstream. Cullen328 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Why do only hot-button terms like "right-wing" merit shoehorning above and before anything else? Are the political ideologies of Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren not worthy of mentioning in the very first sentence, such that the poor reader knows immediately how they should should frame the subject? (this is rhetorical: their current intros are neither whitewashed nor overstuffed). Note that even extreme-right, capital-F fascists like Mussolini and Francisco Franco manage to be adequately and fairly described without "far-right" being tacked into the first sentence. I agree with Zaereth's good comments above. Anything more I could say about this BLP I've probably already said, in greater detail, at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive341#Donald_C_Bolduc_BLP_issues_in_the_lead. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I know you're responding to AnimalParty, Cullen. I just want to clarify that I agree with your point. It's just my observation that people usually go about doing it all bass-ackwards. Instead of getting the result they want, they ironically end up getting just the opposite of what they intended. In the Aristotelian world, things were just as they seemed. It turns out that Aristotle was wrong about most everything and the world is very different than it appears. Humans have a very funny way of looking at things completely backwards, and putting such major emphasis on this idea of the all-important first sentence is one of them. If you want the information to stick in the reader's mind, then the end is the best place for it. That's where the why goes, which is what the readers all want to know most, but to really understand the why, they first need all of the context so that it will have its full impact. Starting the story with the ending is not only anticlimactic, but it comes off as desperate and amateurish and gives the opposite effect that people usually intend. Zaereth (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- WP:CONTENTIOUS is a relevant guideline here, which recommends for contentious labels the sourcing needs to be very strong, and then you typically want to attribute it in some manner.
- I personally think a sentence like "Ogles has been widely characterized as far-right due to his views on X, Y, and Z" would both be more natural and more informative. The rest of the lede should follow WP:LEDE too, in that it should summarize the rest of the article in a balanced manner. Tristario (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
You are not “making extremists look mainstream”, you are alienating readers by making it appear that Wikipedia has an agenda. We should be doing our best to make such bios as neutral as possible in their lead to avoid this. Thriley (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- The only readers that we are alienating are those who have already rejected Wikipedia's core content policies, and have immersed themselves in the disinformation media economy. Folks like this have decided to refuse to accept the notion of well-referenced factual content. Yes, Wikipedia does have an agenda, which is legitimate and stated quite clearly: We strive to accurately summarize the significant coverage that independent, reliable sources devote to various topics. Discussing anything other than that in a discussion like this is a diversion from our core mission. Cullen328 (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Cullen328, what is this "disinformation media economy" you refer to? Even those who have "immersed themselves" in something you find so clearly uh deplorable DO learn from neutral, factual content. Well, they might if (as Thriley suggested) they don't get blind-sided in the very first sentence of an article by a description like 'far-right' or 'far-left' as both imply that Wikipedia has an agenda. As Bneu2013 and Zaereth have suggested, that adjective can be in the second sentence of a BLP. Secondly, it doesn't matter who you personally consider to be an "extremist", when you say, "I am not in favor of making extremists look mainstream". Many western European and UK readers of Wikipedia would likely consider Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer to be center right or even right-wing. This is English Wikipedia not American Wikipedia, so we write for them too, i.e. it is part of our core mission that you mentioned. I am in agreement with what most everyone else has stated, about how to approach this. P.S. I apologize if this went in the wrong place. I tried using that new "Reply" button, which I won't do again.-- FeralOink (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- These sorts of labels self-evidently make Wikipedia appear like it has an agenda. But some editors seem very convinced that their concept of the political "extreme" is objective and empirical, and, for various reasons, some of which are in good faith, are very attached to the idea of using these labels in Wikivoice. Everyone here might be interested in this, which was an attempt on my part to delve deeper into this issue. aaPhilomathes2357 (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's where the irony comes in. It's all one-in-the-same goal! If we want people to believe our articles, then we have to start by writing good, professional articles from a totally objective point of view. We cannot possibly say --in the objective-- that so-and-so is evil or that someone-or-another is far-right. That's a judgment call or a conclusion. It requires an "operation of the mind". Now, there are certainly people who are actually extremists, and it would not be neutral to create some false balance by trying to give all viewpoints equal weight if clearly in the real world the sources do not weigh out so equally. Facts are inherently neutral, but we have to apportion all the viewpoints (judgments, conclusions, etc.) accordingly to remain in anyway neutral. But whatever the personal feelings or goals of the editors here, all of them benefit by making the best articles we can rather than trying to cram everything we think is important right in the front. As Einstein said, "Time exists because everything cannot all be read at once". (Or something like that.) Zaereth (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Again, we as Wikipedia editors are not some type of idealistic "objective journalists" from some mid 20th century Hollywood newsroom drama. That sentimental notion is the exact opposite of our role. We are writing a 21st century encyclopedia which also happens to be the greatest compendium of free educational content in human history. We accurately summarize what published reliable sources say. No more and no less. We can always do better, but at the fundamental level, we have nothing to apologize for. Our consistent approach is precisely what has made Wikipedia great and exceptionally widely read, and we should never waver from our exemplary goal. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- You're still editorializing and cherry picking sources. Doesn't make sense to immediately frame someone because some random writer fits your exact narrative. Only Objective Truth (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Again, we as Wikipedia editors are not some type of idealistic "objective journalists" from some mid 20th century Hollywood newsroom drama. That sentimental notion is the exact opposite of our role. We are writing a 21st century encyclopedia which also happens to be the greatest compendium of free educational content in human history. We accurately summarize what published reliable sources say. No more and no less. We can always do better, but at the fundamental level, we have nothing to apologize for. Our consistent approach is precisely what has made Wikipedia great and exceptionally widely read, and we should never waver from our exemplary goal. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- For the record, I am generally not in favor of using "Example Example (born whatever) is a (nationality) far-right politician..." in the first sentence of the lede; I find it jarring and not inline with our other articles, as it is almost always used in reference to currently serving American politicians. I think a much more tact method is to mention it in its own sentence, usually the following or 3rd one, so it can be expanded upon in a way that isn't cheap (part of the issue also comes from the gray line between right-wing and far-right, whereas there are pretty clear lines on the left end). However, I think Ogles may be one of the exceptions, as he is covered in a plethora of RS as being not just a hard conservative but an actual active proponent of actual far-right politics. Curbon7 (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have any links to these far-right policies he's a proponent of (as opposed to run of the mill Conservative policies)? https://andyogles.com/issues/ If you go to his campaign site, none of the points on accountability, immigration, education, or any other issues seem outside the scope of what a normal "conservative" politician thinks/believes. Wouldn't that primary source being the issues he ran on give a better perspective than an opinion piece written by a journalist? Only Objective Truth (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, because we don't engage in analysis of primary sources to reach our own conclusions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, a reliable secondary source is better here. Please see WP:PST. Editors attempting to determine whether he's far-right based upon analysis of his policy positions would be WP:OR. JaggedHamster (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it makes sense to cherry pick two sources that fit a narrative if you want the article to be objective. I also don't understand why you'd instantly frame someone like that as fact instead of doing a separate section on "Accusations or categorization of far right" later on to imply it's an opinion. Only Objective Truth (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think the below summary of sources that are listed that refer to him just as a Conservative are indicative of cherry picking and agenda setting. I propose consensus around not shoehorning a title in, but allowing people to explain with other sources down below in a way that doesn't attempt to steer the lede off the bat. Only Objective Truth (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it makes sense to cherry pick two sources that fit a narrative if you want the article to be objective. I also don't understand why you'd instantly frame someone like that as fact instead of doing a separate section on "Accusations or categorization of far right" later on to imply it's an opinion. Only Objective Truth (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have any links to these far-right policies he's a proponent of (as opposed to run of the mill Conservative policies)? https://andyogles.com/issues/ If you go to his campaign site, none of the points on accountability, immigration, education, or any other issues seem outside the scope of what a normal "conservative" politician thinks/believes. Wouldn't that primary source being the issues he ran on give a better perspective than an opinion piece written by a journalist? Only Objective Truth (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's much better to show than simply tell using imprecise labels. The mere fact that some sources use the term "far-right" does not mean that Wikipedia should unquestioningly regurgitate it (let alone shoehorn it into the lead). Labels without clarity do a disservice to readers. What exactly makes him "far-right" cf far-right politics? Is he a Fascist? A neo-Nazi? Is he radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and/or authoritarian? If he is any of those things, it's better to be specific rather just boilerplate stamp "far-right". Or is he "far-right" because he is simply further right than some other members of his party, he opposes abortion and gay marriage, supports Trump, and suggested voter fraud took place in the presidential 2020 election? While of course some sources use "far-right" (some of which are reprints of AP reporting, e.g. [3] [4]), for the record, here's an incomplete short list of independent sources that do NOT describe Ogles as "far-right" (although the term may be found in some articles):[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalparty (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Ebert, Joel; Boucher, Dave (September 14, 2017). "Conservative activist Andy Ogles launches U.S. Senate bid for seat held by Bob Corker". The Tennessean.
- ^ Weigel, David (August 4, 2022). "Ogles wins closely watched GOP primary for U.S. House in Tennessee". Washington Post.
- ^ Mattise, Jonathan; Kruesi, Kimberlee (8 November 2022). "Conservative Republican Ogles wins Nashville US House seat". AP NEWS.
- ^ Tamburin, Adam (5 August 2022). "Andy Ogles wins GOP primary for Tennessee's 5th district". Axios.
- ^ Janfaza, Rachel (4 August 2022). "Andy Ogles will win GOP nomination in redrawn Tennessee 5th District, CNN projects". CNN.
- ^ Gainey, Blaise (10 October 2022). "Democrat Heidi Campbell faces Republican Andy Ogles for Tennessee's 5th District. Their opposing stances on abortion could shape the race". WPLN.
- ^ Aabram, Virginia (5 August 2022). "Andy Ogles wins Republican nod in redrawn Tennessee GOP pickup district". Washington Examiner.
- ^ McCarthy, Darby (3 January 2023). "Newly-elected Nashville Representative Andy Ogles among House Republicans refusing to vote for Kevin McCarthy". WTVF. Nashville.
- ^ Elliott, Stephen; Herner, Hannah (November 8, 2022). "Republican Andy Ogles wins redrawn 5th Congressional District". Nashville Post.
- ^ Powell, Jay (July 23, 2022). "Andy Ogles files lawsuit against PAC for claims regarding property taxes". The Daily Herald. Columbia, TN.
- ^ "Meet the 20 rebels bucking McCarthy's bid". Politico. January 3, 2023.
- ^ Arnsdorf, Isaac; Sotomayor, Marianna (November 2, 2022). "New class of combative MAGA candidates poised to roil House GOP". The Washington Post.
- ^ Mintzer, Adam (2 September 2022). "Andy Ogles talks abortion, Jan. 6, economy in 1-on-1 interview". WKRN. Nashville.
- ^ Christen, Mike (October 4, 2021). "'Finding the balance': Growth defines Ogles' role leading Maury County". The Daily Herald.
- ^ Elliott, Stephen (November 8, 2022). "Republican Andy Ogles Wins Redrawn 5th Congressional District". Nashville Scene.
- ^ Styf, Jon (September 27, 2022). "Tennessee's 5th Congressional District race between Ogles, Campbell will take spotlight on Nov. 8". The Center Square.
- ^ Rau, Nate (11 May 2022). "Maury County Mayor Andy Ogles announces early fundraising numbers". Axios.
- I maintain that the first sentence is in this case not an appropriate place to shoehorn "far-right politician", even though some sources use this term, for the same reason we typically don't immediately tag people with verifiable labels like "female politician", "moderate politician", "experienced politician", "controversial politician", "Christian politician", "Asian-American politician", etc. Even though these may be verifiable, important traits, they can be typically be described in subsequent sentences (e.g. Barack Obama was importantly the first African-American president, but his intro sentence does not other him as "an African-American politician"). Treating a subset of politicians substantially differently in their first sentence creates an othering effect (see Wikipedia:Othering), implying that politicians come only in 2 classes: default and conservative, or default and female, or default and atheist, or default and non-white. Labels like "Far right" or "far left" are even more problematic to front-load into the introductory sentence, as they are often imprecise, ambiguous, and subjective terms that can differ regionally and over time. And, as I have demonstrated above, the term "far-right" is far from unanimous in describing this person, thus shoehorning it into the first sentence is cherry-picking, giving undue favoritism to a select subset of sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think this makes the most sense @Animalparty and am fine with you going ahead and declaring consensus/making the edit. Only Objective Truth (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I believe the argument presented below by sums up how we should proceed on this matter.
- "Lead sections, which are a summary of the body, do not usually need direct in-line citations, if the information the lead is summarizing is well cited in the body of the article. So, for example, if there is well-referenced text in the body of the article that establishes that Bundy has participated in anti-government activism (and even if the body doesn't use those exact words, if there are events which Bundy has participated in that could reasonably be called such), then it's fine to summarize that in the lead. The lead is a summary, and summaries don't need to exactly quote every word or sentence that they summaries (else they wouldn't be summaries). If there is clear, well-cited information in the rest of the article that makes it clear that Bundy has done something, then the lead can summarize that he has done that thing without needing a separate citation in the lead. This is fairly standard practice. Of course, if the body of the article does not contain any information about any such activities, then the lead shouldn't mention it. I don't know which situation applies here, but the basic principle is that the lead section should only summarize what the rest of the article says, no more and no less." - User:Jayron32
- Since there are no reliable articles to support Andy Ogles being far-right, other than a label that is slapped on by MSM news outlets, there is no substantive reason why it should be included in the lede. It probably shouldn't even be included in the body until there are reliable secondary sources that explains how Andy Ogles and his policies are far-right. If the article needs citation in the lede, it probably shouldn't belong there. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is mainstream. Mainstream means "reliable sources". I'm sorry that reality is not supportive of your ideology. Reality is not going to change.--Jayron32 11:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is not a question of reliability but of weight and tone. Do an unbiased search for the subject. Currently only a minority of reliable sources (all rather recent) appear to use "far-right", and the term is not clearly defined, so why should we dismiss all the reliable sources who don't use it and apply a label that evokes fascism, authoritarianism and neonazism? Too often the existence of any reliable sources get cherrypicked and shoehorned into the lead (never to be mentioned in body), to massage a narrative. And even uncontentious adjectives like "woman" or "white" or "gay" generally don't belong in the first sentence. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I concur. You expressed that very well. I could probably dig around in WP:MOS to support your finessed point here. FeralOink (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Agree. Go ahead and make the edit! Only Objective Truth (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- The protection should be removed, and the page restored without this lede. There is no consensus on the talk page for Mr. Ogles or here, and there are several Wiki policies that clearly state how a lede should be formed, and that is, without bias, without undo weight, and supported by the body. If the body of the article can't support a strong statement in the lede it doesn't belong. This issue has been discussed ad naseum on multiple right-wing politicians page, and the fact we have an extended lock on a freshman House members page just shows how desperate people are to falsely label and misrepresent this guy. Even Matt Gaetz doesn't have this false characterization in his lede, despite leading the caucus that kicked off this entire edit war. One has argued that even the characterization of him as far-right is cherry-picked, as most news outlets simply label politicians instead of explaining the nuance of their policies and how those are reflective of the socially stimatized labels. This goes for both the left and the right. Kcmastrpc (talk) Kcmastrpc (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's not going to happen. Perfectly good sources identify him this way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I concur. You expressed that very well. I could probably dig around in WP:MOS to support your finessed point here. FeralOink (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is not a question of reliability but of weight and tone. Do an unbiased search for the subject. Currently only a minority of reliable sources (all rather recent) appear to use "far-right", and the term is not clearly defined, so why should we dismiss all the reliable sources who don't use it and apply a label that evokes fascism, authoritarianism and neonazism? Too often the existence of any reliable sources get cherrypicked and shoehorned into the lead (never to be mentioned in body), to massage a narrative. And even uncontentious adjectives like "woman" or "white" or "gay" generally don't belong in the first sentence. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is mainstream. Mainstream means "reliable sources". I'm sorry that reality is not supportive of your ideology. Reality is not going to change.--Jayron32 11:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I believe the argument presented below by sums up how we should proceed on this matter.
I have proposed that the matter be closed on the Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Andy_Ogles closure request board. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia should neutrally reflect what is published in reliable sources. The current wording is supported by reliable sources. Everything else is unimportant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- The current wording is not consistently supported. It's been explained above through many other sources that it isn't reflective or an accurate description. 2 of the four cited were opinion pieces and the others provided no actual substance. The current wording should not stand. It is shoehorning someone's opinion into a lede. Only Objective Truth (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've read the article, and the sources, and the talk page, and the discussion here, sorry I still beleive this is reliably sourced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- The current wording is not consistently supported. It's been explained above through many other sources that it isn't reflective or an accurate description. 2 of the four cited were opinion pieces and the others provided no actual substance. The current wording should not stand. It is shoehorning someone's opinion into a lede. Only Objective Truth (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Just to note closure requests are meant to be neutral, not a way to suggest that it should be closed in your favour. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German
Several users have tried to add the name of a suspect arrested in October of last year to the article Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German, and all edits have been removed almost immediately and told to discuss it on the talk page since it involves a living person.
Several arguments have been made as to why the suspect name should be included, but it keeps being removed, without counter arguments other than it is about a living person and consensus needs to be met before it can be included, as well as how outside countries handle the privacy of their suspects or people arrested.
When a suspect is arrested in a high profile unsolved murder, can editors include their name if it is also noted that they have pled not guilty, and their trial is ongoing, thus stating a neutral point of view and trying to include all relevant facts regarding the article without implying guilt on the suspects part?
Awshort (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Awshort Quoting from WP:BLPCRIME: "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Quoting further from WP:BLPNAME: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." Combining those two portions of the BLP policy, the name should be left out, unless there is 1) a compelling reason to include it and 2) consensus among editors that it is necessary to include. —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I am completely aware of BLPCRIME. The accused's name has been widely disseminated. On the talk page, I also made mention of only three examples where BLPCRIME was not followed - Nikolas Cruz, the Stoneman Douglas shooter, Killing of Walter Scott, & Charleston church shooting all of their names were added the day of the crimes occured.Grahaml35 (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- It seems like the inclusion of the suspect's name is based on local consensus. 2023 Half Moon Bay shootings lists the suspect's name. 2022 University of Idaho killings and Death of Tyre Nichols list the suspects' names, even in the lead paragraphs. If editors think the suspect's name should be included in the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German article, I recommend they start an RfC on that article's talk page. Some1 (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Are the following sources good for use in the article about this person, and also in 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh? I haven't used them in the article about the person so far, but some users objected to their inclusion into the article about the blockade, saying that they are libelous. However, this is the information that comes from international sources that are generally considered very reliable, such as The Financial Times, Time magazine, Der Spiegel, Eurasianet. The sources point to the fact that the arrival of this person to the region added to escalating tensions, or was one of the possible factors that led to the crisis. In addition, he is also widely viewed in Armenia, Azerbaijan and elswere as Russia's agent of influence sent to the region to advance Russia's interests, due to his close connections with Russia's elites. Please see below sources:
The Financial Times: The arrival of a Russian oligarch in the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh has added to escalating tensions in a volatile region where Moscow is struggling to maintain its influence. ... The oligarch was appointed as Nagorno-Karabakh's first minister by its president Arayik Harutyunyan last October. But analysts see his arrival as part of Moscow's attempt to reboot its regional leadership. ... Russian-Armenian Billionaire Ruben Vardanyan was appointed last autumn as first minister in the South Caucasus enclave, which is claimed by both Armenia and Azerbaijan, but his longstanding ties with the Moscow elite have aroused suspicions in both Yerevan and Baku.
Time magazine: Man from Moscow? But the standoff between the two sides has only worsened in recent weeks after an enigmatic Russian-Armenian oligarch, Ruben Vardanyan, announced he was moving to Nagorno-Karabakh in September. The Yerevan-born billionaire was initially coy about seeking political office but, two months later, was suddenly appointed State Minister of the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh, making him effectively the most powerful man in Stepanakert overnight. Since then, talks with Azerbaijan have broken down, with Aliyev accusing Vardanyan of having been “sent from Moscow with a very clear agenda.” Officials in Baku point to the fact that he has been sanctioned by Ukraine as proof of his close ties to the Russian state. Kyiv says his business interests “undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine.”
Laurence Broers, one of top experts on South Caucasus, for Der Spiegel: The fact that this blockade is taking place now might have to do with the leadership change in Nagorno-Karabakh itself, in particular with Ruben Vardanyan taking office as minister of state of the de-facto republic in November. This Russian-Armenian businessman appears to be close to the power elite in Russia. In the fall, Vardanjan made a surprise announcement that he was giving up his Russian citizenship and moving to Nagorno-Karabakh. Many in Azerbaijan see him as a Russian puppet, someone who intends to advance the transformation of Nagorno-Karabakh into a Russian protectorate along the lines of South Ossetia and, in the longer term, possibly also challenge the current leadership in Armenia.
Eurasianet, like the Financial Times, dedicated a whole article to Vardanyan and his appearance in Karabakh.
And suspicions about Vardanyan’s agenda are fueled by the fact that he doesn’t have a natural political constituency in Armenia or Karabakh, Giragosian said. “Vardanyan has been out of Armenia since 1985, with no local power base and marginal political standing or status,” he said. “Despite his impressive philanthropy in Armenia, Vardanyan is still a product of Moscow, as the source of his wealth and as the center of his influence. And even his record as a Russian businessman is seriously tainted by his involvement in a criminal money laundering enterprise on behalf of Putin-affiliated interests and individuals.”
I addition, he was questioned on BBC HARDtalk by Stephen Sackur about his connections to the Russian governments, etc. Here's transcript: [5], video: [6], BBC news report: [7]
I would like to ask the wider Wikipedia community for an advice if the above sources could be considered libelous, if they could be used in aforementioned Wikipedia articles, and in which form? Thanks. Grandmaster 20:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I feel like some context is missing here. This isn't about Vardanyan's wiki article, the discussion on 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh talk page happened after a particular edit. Point being, among majority RS, Vardanyan is not the reason for the blockade neither he's a significant contributing factor for the occurrence of the blockade (in fact, majority RS don't even mention Vardanyan in the context of blockade), and to add/edit/suggest that he is would be a violation WP:undue and WP:libel.
- What overwhelming majority of RS report is Nagorno-Karabakh dispute and Azerbaijan's desire to speed up the resolution of the Karabakh conflict and other contentious issues in its favor as the reasons for 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (just a couple of RS, more in the article: [97], [98], [99]). Additional details can be found on talk discussion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- This was removed on claims of libel: [8] Therefore I would like to ask the community to look into whether the sources that I cited above are libelous. Also, I would appreciate opinions on whether the information about Vardanyan's possible role in the crisis is undue. Grandmaster 23:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I believe that the larger issue of adding Vardanyan as a "reason/factor" in the blockade article when he isn't even mentioned in context of blockade among overwhelming majority RS would indeed be violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:LIBEL. Even the so-called "activists" claimed (and highly doubted) version is allegations of "illegal" gold mining [9]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- @ZaniGiovanni This is a BLP discussion board, and the question for the larger Wikipedia community is whether information about Vardanyan supported by a number of credible sources is libelous or not. Please refrain from writing anything unrelated to the BLP here. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 04:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- This issue is complex and requires some background, which I have provided in my comment below. You can't expect people to discuss this BLP issue without understanding what is actually happening here. @Grandmaster didn't even explain what the overarching article is about before writing his lengthy comments about the "Arrival of Ruben Vardanyan" subsection. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm stating the obvious here but providing context is important if not essential, and the article discussion revolved mostly around WP:UNDUE to begin with: I wrote what are the more precise issues firstly per article talk discussion, I (and others on talk) did state that violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:LIBEL are the larger concerns in this case. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- This was removed on claims of libel: [8] Therefore I would like to ask the community to look into whether the sources that I cited above are libelous. Also, I would appreciate opinions on whether the information about Vardanyan's possible role in the crisis is undue. Grandmaster 23:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Background information on the conflict
|
---|
|
Suspect's name in the URL of sources/references
I made a recent addition [10] to the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German, but was reverted by Dumuzid [11] who said "apologies, but I think you should get consensus before naming the suspect, even in URLs" Note: I didn't name the suspect in the content I added, so the revert by the user is due to the suspect's name being in the URL.
Is there a policy/guideline prohibiting the use of sources that contain the suspect's name in URLs? Some1 (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- See the section above re the 2022 pregnancy, where there was lengthy discussion of using URLs with the suspects name in them. Masem (t) 00:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- The closure of that section says
No consensus, but a proposal from me 5. URLs containing the suspect's name...
JeffUK's proposal seems decent... should there be a community-wide RfC regarding this issue so that guidance could potentially be added to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? Some1 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- The closure of that section says
- Just WP:BLPCRIME really, and please see the heading just three up from this one. Should consensus go against me on this, no worries, but since it is a BLP issue (even in URLs, by my lights), I think consensus should be demonstrated before inclusion. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Given the number of articles that name the suspect on a Google search of the crime, I would say the url is not an issue as only WP:BLPCRIME applies, provided the source has usable information and isn't inckuded for the sake of the url. Inclusion in the article itself is more debatable as currently a search for only the suspect's name does not place the crime in the search results, which would likely change if they are named here especially if a redirect was also created. Slywriter (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just because the name may be widely disseminated across the news doesn't mean for our purpose of non-notable individuals that we necessarily should include the name, particularly if no arrest or charges filed against the person. We have a stronger standard for BLP aspects than the media. Masem (t) 01:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I would not consider the 2022 pregnancy case a precedent to be generally cited when deciding on suspect names in urls. The specific factors in the (very rough) community consensus there included It seems like the first factor is not at play here, and I'm not sure about the second. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- concern that mention of the suspect's name would make it easier to identify the living child victim
- the ease of finding sources that did not name the suspect but still supported the relevant info
Wikipedia's core purpose is to enhance people's access to information/knowledge. Why are some editors intent on finding ways to work against that purpose? This business of worrying about what's in a url -- it's completely bizarre. The edit added content that did not name a suspect, and yet the edit was reverted because the name was in the url?? That's the problem, despite the name itself being included in the source article (but nonetheless omitted from our own content)? This is a sufficient reason to prevent someone from adding the content?
@Some1: the answer to your question Is there a policy/guideline prohibiting the use of sources that contain the suspect's name in URLs?
is: no, there's no such policy/guideline, and it would be absurd if we adopted one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with @Nomoskedasticity, as well as this quote by @LovelyLillith
- "At this point, it is literally almost impossible to put current references into the article without the arrested suspect’s name being mentioned in the titles, as well as the fact that there is international attention on this case (The Sun and Independent.co.uk are two examples) using his name. We are not stating he is guilty, but what we ARE doing at this point is going to extremes in contorting ourselves to omit other pertinent information in order to hide his name, which makes (as stated by another) one of the most highly-read sites in the world look ridiculous now."
- In an ongoing murder investigation, and subsequent court trial, there is a very strong chance that reliable sources will cover the trial and include the suspects name in their urls to help with the SEO rankings. Should those be left out because they mention a name within the url, or should the contributor have to search for a possibly non-reliable source in order to appease people regarding the name? This honestly makes no sense.
- I'll use an example. The New York Times covers the trial, and has 'suspect-name-in-court.html'. It should be avoided because the suspects name is in it, even though it's a respected source? Wikipedia gives more weight to a reliable source than a podcast, so it should be linked to.
- The only thing even remotely close to addressing this is this
- "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles". from Wikipedia:External links
- @Masem you said the following
- Just because the name may be widely disseminated across the news doesn't mean for our purpose of non-notable individuals that we necessarily should include the name, particularly if no arrest or charges filed against the person.
- The person being discussed was arrested, and charges were filed at the end of October. If the link in question is regarding their court case/them appearing in court, it is nearly impossible to avoid their name being in the url, as stated above.
- Awshort (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- In response to the comment above that suggests coverage in The Sun should influence content here - WP:THESUN
was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject.
I have been thinking about how to approach this particular article, which does not appear to cover a notable WP:EVENT - Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a vehicle for sensationalism, and with the limited depth of RS coverage available, BLP policy compliance does not seem possible at this time. - It seems best to wait to publish anything about this nonpublic figure until a conviction is secured. Wikipedia is not everything, and it is not news.
- In this article, it appears to be the headlines of the sources that introduce BLP violations into the article, and these should be removed for now, until a conviction is secured. A draft could be developed in the meantime that includes the 'breaking news' with urls/references that name this defendant. Beccaynr (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- In response to the comment above that suggests coverage in The Sun should influence content here - WP:THESUN
- See the list of RS coverage below about the case:
Articles from The New York Times, CNN, Time, People, The Independent, ABC News, Rolling Stones, USA Today, Associated Press
|
---|
- New York Times - CNN - Time - People - The Independent (a UK site)
- ABC News
- Rolling Stones - Washington Post - USA Today - Associated Press |
- From the answer I was given above, there's no policy or guideline prohibiting the use of sources/references that contains the suspect's name in the URL. Maybe editors should start a community-wide RfC about this topic in general to see if there should be a policy about this or not. Similar issues (suspect's name being in the URL) might come up in the future on different articles, so it would be nice if there's something 'official' that editors can point or refer to. Some1 (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- For this article, the issue appears to be naming a nonpublic figure accused of crime in the source headlines, not the url. It is the headline that adds the nonpublic figure's name to the article, in the references section. In this article, there are sources that do not include the name in the headline, so there does not appear to be a compelling reason to use sources that add the nonpublic figure's name to the article via the headline in the citation. Beccaynr (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- The name was both in the sources' headlines and URLs. If it weren't in the headlines, the user would've still reverted based on the URLs (since they said "even in URLs" in their edit summary). Anyway, after the revert, I've added what I wanted to add to that article using sources that do not include the suspect's name in the sources' headlines and/or URLs. Since we're on the topic of sources' headlines, is there a policy/guideline prohibiting the use of sources that contain the suspect's name in the sources' headlines/titles? If not, maybe that hypothetical RfC (not about this specific article, but in general) can cover both the issues of the suspect's name being in the sources' headlines and URLs. Some1 (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC) add a sentence, Some1 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, in this day and age, I feel like having the name prominently included in a URL is about as bad as a headline, since one need not even click through to see it, and I still think Beccanyr's basic reasoning above is where I land -- when it's not necessary, it should be avoided. If there were no suitable replacements, I would think differently, but I believe here there are. All that said, happy to go with consensus, of course, and an overarching RfC might not be a bad idea. Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Should there be specific language about this (suspect's name being in the sources' headlines and/or URLs) in WP:BLPCRIME itself so that editors who encounter the same issues elsewhere on other articles have something to reference? Some1 (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I started a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Clarification_on_'material' Some1 (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, in this day and age, I feel like having the name prominently included in a URL is about as bad as a headline, since one need not even click through to see it, and I still think Beccanyr's basic reasoning above is where I land -- when it's not necessary, it should be avoided. If there were no suitable replacements, I would think differently, but I believe here there are. All that said, happy to go with consensus, of course, and an overarching RfC might not be a bad idea. Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- The name was both in the sources' headlines and URLs. If it weren't in the headlines, the user would've still reverted based on the URLs (since they said "even in URLs" in their edit summary). Anyway, after the revert, I've added what I wanted to add to that article using sources that do not include the suspect's name in the sources' headlines and/or URLs. Since we're on the topic of sources' headlines, is there a policy/guideline prohibiting the use of sources that contain the suspect's name in the sources' headlines/titles? If not, maybe that hypothetical RfC (not about this specific article, but in general) can cover both the issues of the suspect's name being in the sources' headlines and URLs. Some1 (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC) add a sentence, Some1 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- For this article, the issue appears to be naming a nonpublic figure accused of crime in the source headlines, not the url. It is the headline that adds the nonpublic figure's name to the article, in the references section. In this article, there are sources that do not include the name in the headline, so there does not appear to be a compelling reason to use sources that add the nonpublic figure's name to the article via the headline in the citation. Beccaynr (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Beccaynr As stated on the Talk page, The Sun (as well as Independent.co.uk) was mentioned to demonstrate the fact that this case has been published internationally, therefore making it beyond just regional interest. I also know that The Daily Mail (another unreliable, yet international, source) has published news about it, and news.co.au has, too. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is helpful to note there is sensationalized coverage of this case, which per WP:SENSATIONAL, weighs against inclusion. Beccaynr (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, there is some sensationalized coverage, as often happens in unusual crime cases. However, there are reliable sources such as the New Zealand Herald and the Toronto Star which demonstrate the case has international interest. I’m mentioning all of these to help establish notability for the case, as it had been questioned. LovelyLillith (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Notability is assessed according to the WP:EVENT guideline, which includes guidance on how to avoid exclusion per WP:NOTNEWS policy, including the existence of an effect, and more than a broad scope of coverage, as well as a need for in-depth coverage and a caution about sensationalized coverage. This case seems to clearly have interest to editors, but the request to add coverage according to the guideline and related policy to support notability (via a notability tag placed on the article) was removed, and a nondescriptive list of news sources was added to the article Talk page and this discussion, without a substantial discussion of how the sources relate to WP:EVENT notability. That being said, I do think the article has been improved, but occasional reports about case updates do not appear to transform the suspect into a public figure for the purposes of WP:BLPCRIME policy, so I continue to think caution is warranted with regard to material that includes their name. Beccaynr (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, there is some sensationalized coverage, as often happens in unusual crime cases. However, there are reliable sources such as the New Zealand Herald and the Toronto Star which demonstrate the case has international interest. I’m mentioning all of these to help establish notability for the case, as it had been questioned. LovelyLillith (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is helpful to note there is sensationalized coverage of this case, which per WP:SENSATIONAL, weighs against inclusion. Beccaynr (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- From the answer I was given above, there's no policy or guideline prohibiting the use of sources/references that contains the suspect's name in the URL. Maybe editors should start a community-wide RfC about this topic in general to see if there should be a policy about this or not. Similar issues (suspect's name being in the URL) might come up in the future on different articles, so it would be nice if there's something 'official' that editors can point or refer to. Some1 (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the latest developments are vital to the article but it would be nice to include them (WP:NOTNEWS and all). This article (is it ok to link this here? if not feel free to remove it and replace with [This People article] or whatever) does not mention the name of the arrested suspect in either the title or URL, couldn't that be used by anyone's standards in this discussion? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Roger Chamberlain
Roger Chamberlain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The information in the article about Roger Chamberlain probably needs to be updated. An editor claiming to be the article subject has challenged material by removing it, and a part of the removal appears to be reasonable if, for example, https://www.mnsenaterepublicans.com/chamberlain-thank-you/ is not a fake website. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- wow what a great and totally balanced encyclopedia article about i'm guessing a politician? Its probably crappy journalism when liking a tweet is newsworthy, and Wikipedia just loves amplifying crap. Am I to believe that there is no reliable coverage of his political career, just gossipy controversies? BLPs must not give disproportionatecoverage to scandals or recent events. WP:PROPORTION and WP:BLPBALANCE must be followed at all times for BLPs meaning Wikipedians need to actually do a goodfaith search for sources spanning the whole career of the subject, not just tack on the first juicy scandals on page 1 of Google. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Arno Schmidt, Austrian born chef apprenticed 1946 to 1949 in Bad Gastein, an Austrian Spa. After passing the mandatory government examination Arno worked in many countries, including the Grand Hotel Royal in Stockholm Sweden, the Beau Rivage Hotel in Geneva and three years in Casa Langer, a Caterer in Bogota, Colombia. He arrived 1959 as permanent resident and found employment as Chef Poissonier at the venerable Hotel St. Regis when it was still privately owned by Mrs. Astor. Appointments as Executive followed quickly culminating as Executive Chef at The Waldorf – Astoria Hotel 1969 to 1979.
He started writing a monthly newsletter called: “Notes from the Chef’s Desk” which eventually resulted as a book with the same name. More books followed including The Banquet Business and the Chef’s Book of Quantities, Yields and Sizes, Chatting about The Waldorf – Astoria and his biography “Peeking Behind the Wallpaper”. His interest in culinary education led to Board Member membership of the Culinary Institute of America and appointment as Trustee Emeritus. He also lectured as Adjunct Professor at NYU other colleges and cruise lines.
After leaving The Waldorf – Astoria Hotel Arno Schmidt was hired by Mrs. Helmsley as Food and beverage Director to organize and open the Harley Hotel on 42nd Street between Third and Second Avenue. Appointment as Food and Beverage Director from 1984 to 1986 at the venerable The Plaza Hotel followed, From there on he worked as independent consultant with the Kitchen Design Company Henry Grossbard and worked on numerous projects including the Jewish Museum and the Guggenheim in NYC and the yet to be built Guggenheim in Abu Dabi.
His long industry involvement led to numerous awards including Silver Plate 1984. Judge at the Culinary Salon organized by the Societé Culinaire Philanthropique and Team Manager Manager for the Chaine des Rôtisseurs Culinary Team to the Culinary Olympics 1988. He was President of the local Chapter of the American Culinary Federation ICA/ACF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:DF00:15F5:FC91:3E7:4A1D:ACD9 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Jenna Haze
There is an ongoing request for comment at Talk:Jenna Haze#RfC on date of birth. Interested editors are welcome to join the discussion there. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
This is was brought up by an IP editor at WP:VPM. The date of death in the article currently is the 29th, while the reference we have (posted 31st) says he died on Tuesday, which would be today the 31st. The article was changed (31st -> 29th) by an editor quoting a facebook post. It would at least appear that the correct date is the 29th, but I can't find any reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just to update the reference used in the article (from stuff) now say that his death was announced on Tuesday, rather than he died on Tuesday. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- For clarity which ref says he died on Tuesday? The only reliable source for his death I see is [14] and the current version of that doesn't mention any date of his death. It only mentions comments on Tuesday. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- BTW I've returned the article to the earlier state which didn't give an exact date of death. Nil Einne (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- The article previously stated that he had died on Tuesday, it's since been updated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I have tried to put some balance on this page but I am at a loss. People keep reinserting contentious claims with bad sources or things that the sources simply do not say. Can we get more editors eyes on this? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Tagging @Daniel Case --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- The wholesale reversion immediately after the protection expired also removed huge amount of reliably cited content I added. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I am not sure how this works, but I think an SPI is warranted here. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- The wholesale reversion immediately after the protection expired also removed huge amount of reliably cited content I added. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm on a phone and don't have time to deal with it right now but that article *desperately* needs dispassionate eyes from experienced editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
For the interested
TikTok User Claims He Uploads the Worst Photos Ever Taken of Celebrities to Their Wikipedias
Could potentially be counter to the spirit of BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, this guy isn't actually uploading them to Wikipedia and may or may not even be an editor. Rather, he's the owner of this flickr profile where he takes pictures of himself with celebrities. Most of the images featured in his TikTok video are from this flickr page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- This TikToker appears to be full of baloney. None of the photos shown in the clip mentioned appear to be uploaded by the same user at Commons. Perhaps he has tried to enter existing photos in infoboxes. Or he may be ironically or "meta" commenting on the existence of terrible photos of celebrities, which do exist on Commons, and too often find themselves in Infoboxes under the misguided idea that any available picture of someone, no matter how blurry or unrepresentative, is better than no picture at all (as if Googling someone was impossible and Wikipedia is the only resource on Earth!). That is a BLP issue that has been discussed before. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Zealkeyz
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Zealkeyz (Eustace Chinaza Ekeh) Born Dec 22 1995,is a Nigerian talented Afro Beat/Hip hop Singer,Stage performer and Music Composer,from Imo State Nigeria,he has many hits to his credit, The multi talented Iceboy Zealkeyz is also the C.E.O of Dash-Out Music Entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zealkeyz iceboy (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- This noticeboard is for dealing with possible violations of WP:BLP not for proposing BLP articles. Please refer to WP:NMUSIC for information on that. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Paul Bernardo
Paul Bernardo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article, which I came across through reviewing pending changes, is about a serial killer. In the state I found it large sections of lurid detail about some of the murders Bernardo committed were entirely unsourced, as was a long list of rape victims. I've hacked out big chunks of the most serious BLP violations, but the article is still woefully undersourced and needs a lot of work. I suspect that much of what I removed could be sourced, but I really don't have the stomach for researching serious violent crime, frankly, so I am bringing it here in the hope that somebody is willing to take it on. Wham2001 (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Nithyananda
Can we receive some guidance regarding edits to the Nithyananda page
I am referring to the following edits by @Kashmiri :
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nithyananda&oldid=1137092052
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nithyananda&oldid=1137092133
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nithyananda&oldid=1137092554 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofoolie (talk • contribs) 00:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think they look good. It's a good idea to start out with what makes the person notable before covering allegations of crime. Per WP:BLPCRIME we should be careful not to treat people in a manner as if they are guilty if we don't have a conviction, and I think that indicates we shouldn't introduce people as if allegations of crime are one of the primary things they are notable for (especially if that isn't the case) if there isn't a conviction. I also think their edits mean the biography follows MOS:FIRSTBIO better Tristario (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
D. Whitfield
Was considering proposing an article, D. Whitfield for speedy deletion as I can find zero evidence this person ever existed (I tried Google, Google Books, and Newspapers.com, even social media platforms). I believe this article is one of two things – either it's completely made up (one of the sources links to an old Instagram profile with someone calling themselves "Danger Whitfield" – OR it is a historical figure who is so obscure that he simply does not merit a page. Can any other users find anything on this subject online? Thanks Jkaharper (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- The case that this article is a hoax is compelling, probably another one to add to the WP:HOAXLIST. Creator is a SPA who only created and edited this article back on 5 June 2015 and nothing else. I'd support a speedy hoax deletion nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Looks hoaxy to me based on incorrect reference details. Can go into more specifics if needed. I love that this is at BLPN. Technically allowable! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Now at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Whitfield. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I posted my newspapers.com sleuthing over there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
This is not a report of a violation (although there may be past revisions eligible for revision deletion), but a request for advice, particularly from editors with both BLP experience/expertise and able to read French well.
Laurent de Gourcuff was created on April 12, 2022 by Sulpyensid (who has not edited since May 2022). It was draftified on July 21, 2022 by Scope creep and has since been twice rejected at AfC, by Greenman on August 22 and by Bonadea on November 1, whose edit summary at the time included the following rationale: BLP contains unsourced, possibly defamatory claims (AGF and wait for sources)
, and in the rejection template itself they wrote: This is practically an attack page.
. I have since extensively rewritten it, starting on January 17 using primarily the best sources among those that were already cited, and twice more after further searches for sources. (I've also asked SashiRolls to cast an eye over my work—I consider my French good, but theirs is excellent—and they've pointed out / fixed a couple of things, but I take complete responsibility for the draft as it is now.) I consider the subject to easily pass GNG: there are multiple articles about him over the years, including the likes of Le Monde and Le Figaro. At this point I would normally re-mainspace the article.
However, I was alerted to its existence by an item in the January 16 Signpost, "Paris court orders Wikimedia Foundation to hand over user's data" (written by Jayen466 and JPxG), which was flagged the same day at the Wikipediocracy forum. Wikipediocracy has further treated the situation in its latest blog post, dated January 26: "Pardon My French (Court Case)". The WMF has lost a court case in France over the French version of the article, and has been ordered to submit personally identifying information about Sulpyensid, who used the same name to create that article on October 12, 2021. The English article was essentially a rough translation of that French article. The Wikipediocracy forum thread includes scathing remarks by "Midsize Jake" about it; my initial edit was because I considered it a BLP emergency, even in draft. On French Wikipedia, a previous article was deleted on notability grounds on July 28, 2011; on French Wikipedia, Sulpyensid is indefinitely blocked as a suspected sockpuppet; on French Wikipedia, the article has been little changed (SashiRolls drew my attention to a brave cutting-back that was reverted in early January), is festooned with tags, and there is a warning on the talk page advising extreme caution in view of the court case. So my question is, what should be done about our draft here on English Wikipedia, in view of the court case? In my opinion, the subject merits an article. Should the rewritten version be returned to mainspace? Yngvadottir (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- This is a redlink, so it would seem someone already took the initiative of dealing with it. Speaking of Mr. Midsize, he also mentions another borderline attack page at Cyrille Eldin from the same author, which I have draftified (although it should probably be deleted as well). jp×g 10:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- It may be worth looking through that user's list of created articles, if indeed they were banned from the French Wikipedia for creating attack pages. jp×g 10:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for draftifying the Eldin article; I had it on my list to look for sources to improve it. But our article on de Gourcuff is very much still around, in draft. My question is whether it should be re-mainspaced following my rewrite (and possible further changes). (And as I say at the outset, early versions may merit revision-deletion, as an attack page.) Yngvadottir (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Not until its independent reviewed. scope_creepTalk 11:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- For the record, these are (very bad) translations of articles on the French Wikipedia (Cyrille_Eldin and Laurent_de_Gourcuff) although the latter is flagged as problematic. Not necessarily attack pages. That said, an editor with the same username has been blocked on French Wikipedia since last March. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Not until its independent reviewed. scope_creepTalk 11:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- The user unmistakably relies on machine translations, and fails to edit them to an acceptable standard. Further, according to frWiki, it appears that User:Sulpyensid, User:Qatarina, User:MRCLD are the same as frWiki's "Albion~frwiki", who is the same as enWiki's User:AlexLevyOne (banned for... socking, 14 years ago). There's a long-term pattern, and I believe this needs to go to both CUs and ANI (though I have little experience with either). There are potentially dozens of socks that have been blocked on frWiki, that we haven't blocked, whose contributions we need to check. Just found another article: René Schérer (now cleaned up, needs revdel). DFlhb (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC); merged two of my replies 16:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for draftifying the Eldin article; I had it on my list to look for sources to improve it. But our article on de Gourcuff is very much still around, in draft. My question is whether it should be re-mainspaced following my rewrite (and possible further changes). (And as I say at the outset, early versions may merit revision-deletion, as an attack page.) Yngvadottir (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Some révision-deletion is likely also warranted on Élisabeth Lévy. The entry on Raymond de Geouffre de la Pradelle (who died in 2002) is also if not an attack page at least written as uncharitably as possible. The loaded prose I removed from Allary Éditions, Cyrille Eldrin, and Géraud de Geouffre de La Pradelle may not need rev-delling imo. It's worth being aware that Suplyensid / Albion's most recent socks have been blocked on fr.wp, but not here (as of yesterday). See Round and Rounder's comments on the Signpost story. The problem of course is not only the page creations... -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 11:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- The draft looks perfectly ready for mainspace to me, Yngvadottir. I am very confused and have no idea what Scope creep's comment left there is supposed to mean, as there are multiple ([15], [16], [17]) full length articles about the subject that are not interviews. Just because quotes from a person are included doesn't automatically make the source an interview. SilverserenC 02:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Silver seren. As I stated, I consider he easily passes GNG. I brought the issue here because he's successfully sued the WMF over the French article and so there's an extra requirement for delicacy / careful consideration before we again have an article on him in mainspace here on en. A rough consensus of editors here regarding the article from that perspective would seem advisable, although I have done my best to represent the sources in a balanced and fair way. (Perhaps I should note that while I've included as many English-language sources as possible, per good practice and for readers' benefit, those taken in isolation don't well represent either the depth or the breadth of the coverage on him. Also, I considered whether the article topic should be his company, instead, but most of the coverage is about him.) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that the subject is clearly notable and that the entry as currently written is fine. I also agree that it would do no harm to hide the previous attack page version of the entry. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 08:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Silver seren. As I stated, I consider he easily passes GNG. I brought the issue here because he's successfully sued the WMF over the French article and so there's an extra requirement for delicacy / careful consideration before we again have an article on him in mainspace here on en. A rough consensus of editors here regarding the article from that perspective would seem advisable, although I have done my best to represent the sources in a balanced and fair way. (Perhaps I should note that while I've included as many English-language sources as possible, per good practice and for readers' benefit, those taken in isolation don't well represent either the depth or the breadth of the coverage on him. Also, I considered whether the article topic should be his company, instead, but most of the coverage is about him.) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Sarah Leah Whitson
Sarah Leah Whitson is a former Human Rights Watch director for the Middle East/North Africa region as well as the present Executive Director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), a human rights organisation that will be familiar to Signpost readers from the recent reports on the two Wikipedians serving long jail sentences in Saudi Arabia (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/Special_report) – an issue that DAWN were the first to draw our attention to.
I would be grateful if editors could have a look at her biography. It seems overlong, repetitive and lopsided (there is a 2,500-word section just on Whitson's views about Israel and criticism of her views on Israel). Thanks, --Andreas JN466 18:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- There's way too much use of primary source material to describe her criticism of countries rather than secondary sources reporting on them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)