Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive296) (bot |
PunjabCinema07 (talk | contribs) →Gurbaksh Chahal: new section |
||
Line 474:
::The problem is that the article says that he is a "fraudster" and a lot of sources say that. I searched for the definition of fraudster and I found [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fraudster this] "someone who commits the <u>crime</u> of fraud". A lot of sources call him fraudster. So should the word "fraudster" in the lead be removed and replaced by accused of fraud?.--[[User:SharabSalam|SharʿabSalam▼]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 00:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:Wohl is many unmentionable things, but until he's convicted in a court of law, he's entitled to a presumption of innocence like everyone else, and should not be described as a criminal until and unless he's found or pleads guilty to a crime. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 01:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
== Gurbaksh Chahal ==
[[Gurbaksh Chahal]] is a well known entrepreneur, author, and philanthropist who also had a domestic violence dispute from many years ago. Many of the wikipedia editors that have been trolling this page have continued to only highlight this negative dispute while deleting all other accomplishment. From his early life, awards, written works, notable career achievements, accomplishments, and philanthropy have all been removed with the singular focus of this article to be regarding his domestic dispute including placing it in the lead sentence of his page. I would encourage editors and administrators to look at the last few vandalized edits made from November 24, 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurbaksh_Chahal&oldid=928084378 and compare it to the edits made today to the article. As you can see the article was shrunk in half with the focus toward his domestic dispute and is dangerously libellous. I am not asking anyone to white wash this article, but requesting support from administrators to write this in the same light other notable biographies of living persons are written.
|
Revision as of 03:25, 23 January 2020
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:
| ||
I need help with a sourcing issue on Cenk Uygur. I introduced an edit in the Political Views section that lists his current political views, and then source each political view with a YouTube video showing Uygur expressing the political view on his show The Young Turks. The edit has been repeatedly reverted by one user claiming there is a sourcing issue, leaving the comment "Entirely sourced to Young Turks YouTube, which is controlled by subject and lacks independent sourcing." In response I reference WP:BLPSPS which states "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Ultimately my argument is that when citing a person's political views, a video of the person expressing their political views is a reliable source. This appears to be backed up by WP:BLPSPS. Independent sourcing in this case doesn't seem necessary to me because the section is on Uygur's personal opinions, not what other people think his opinions are.
Here is a diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cenk_Uygur&diff=934340944&oldid=931464513. Can anyone provide their input? Cacash refund (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've left feedback on the article talk page. IMO given the level of stuff you're covering, you really need some secondary sourcing to keep it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
You need secondary sourcing, not Cenk's own words. You want to avoid fluff and spin that Cenk might introduce. We also don't want to list every single political position he's ever taken on every issue (that's what his personal campaign site is about), rather only what is notable. How do we determine what is notable? It would be what secondary sources discuss. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Harizotoh9 What about what secondary sources consider important questions to ask him regarding his views, as in an interview or debate? My take is if a news anchor or debate moderator asks him something, his answer is given the notability you refer to because the news anchor is an independent reliable source doing research in real time, if you will. Is it necessary for Uygur to state his views in an interview and then at a later point in time for another secondary source to analyze his views in order for his answer to be notable? Cacash refund (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:DUE, content must be significant or noteworthy enough to include in an article (which is different from notability, as article content does not have to be notable itself, see WP:NOTEWORTHY). Interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources because they do not involve any analysis or discussion by an independent third-party. Secondary sources determine what is noteworthy, and primary sources have only limited value. However, you cannot add a bunch of liberal political views to the article sourced to primary sources, and then remove his previous conservative views because they are sourced to primary sources. That creates a biased article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- At the time that I gave new citations to the liberal views I believed them to be secondary sources, which is why I thought they were appropriate and the conservative ones weren't. To be honest I still don't know if what I think of as a secondary source necessarily is one after all this discussion. It seems even a direct quote is enough to sway what would otherwise be independent analysis into primary source territory. Cacash refund (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Generally, a source where Uygur or people close to him are expressing his views would be a primary source, while sources where unrelated people are discussing or analyzing his views are secondary sources. WP:PSTS provides a few lists of examples in the "notes" section that are helpful. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- At the time that I gave new citations to the liberal views I believed them to be secondary sources, which is why I thought they were appropriate and the conservative ones weren't. To be honest I still don't know if what I think of as a secondary source necessarily is one after all this discussion. It seems even a direct quote is enough to sway what would otherwise be independent analysis into primary source territory. Cacash refund (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:DUE, content must be significant or noteworthy enough to include in an article (which is different from notability, as article content does not have to be notable itself, see WP:NOTEWORTHY). Interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources because they do not involve any analysis or discussion by an independent third-party. Secondary sources determine what is noteworthy, and primary sources have only limited value. However, you cannot add a bunch of liberal political views to the article sourced to primary sources, and then remove his previous conservative views because they are sourced to primary sources. That creates a biased article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: About "touting his support for single-payer healthcare", a quote from the BLP as of today: Is it only me, or is this out of line? My idea of neutral would be "supporting single-payer healthcare" with a wikilink. The HuffPost reference contains no "tout", but I can't tell if it is the red or yellow RS/P variety, maybe an attribution to Jessica Schulberg would help (8 uses in the article namespace). The other The Santa Clarita Valley Signal source also contains no "tout". Both sources are not wikilinked in their references, NOTTIKTOK. –84.46.52.170 (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- I made the edit, replacing "touting his support for" with "supporting" in the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Can a candidate’s self-published site be used as a source for information about themselves in their BLP as long as the 5 criteria in WP:ABOUTSELF are met? There has been disagreement among editors on this point. Humanengr (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- If primary sources are disputed, e.g., "alternative facts" about the age, you could need a better source or a rough consensus. She uploaded a "Merry Christmas" video on YouTube, remotely related to the "multireligious" topic.[1] –84.46.52.210 (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thx for that. Can you address this objection by one editor:
- ”The inclusion of the word ‘multireligious’ in the sentence ’Gabbard was raised in a multicultural and multireligious household’ needs to be justified by contemporaneous sources (of which there are none) and is not supported by WP:CS.”
- Humanengr (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting example. I guess you could argue it is to some extent " self-serving" per WP:ABOUTSELF. I'd be ok with it with a "According to Gabbard..." if there's no conflicting sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Humanengr, the cited reasoning is an irrelevant attempt to impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Xenagoras (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thx for that. Can you address this objection by one editor:
- Be specific. We don't use self-sourced info if it's disputed by rs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not 100% true. If the BLP is responding via SPS to claims laid out by RSes at them as attempting to refute them (whether right or wrong about that), it is probably appropriate to include the BLP's SPS briefly to stay neutral. (something like "The NYTimes accused Smith of being racist, but Smith refuted this in a following Twitter message." sourced to the NYTimes' and Smith's Twitter) On the other hand, where the controversy is started by a statement from a BLP on their SPS, and RSes dispute that, its likely better to frame it from the RS and not use the BLP's SPS to start. ("Smith's claims on being non-racist have been refuted by the NYTimes" only needs the NYtimes sourcing). This should not be taken as a rule, but that there is sometimes need to do so. What we do want to avoid are the self-serving claims, those that attract no coverage at all by RSes. Including those, outside of standard factual biographical material, would be unduly self-serving. --Masem (t) 17:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Masem, I think "self-serving" means WP:ADVOCACY. Xenagoras (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not 100% true. If the BLP is responding via SPS to claims laid out by RSes at them as attempting to refute them (whether right or wrong about that), it is probably appropriate to include the BLP's SPS briefly to stay neutral. (something like "The NYTimes accused Smith of being racist, but Smith refuted this in a following Twitter message." sourced to the NYTimes' and Smith's Twitter) On the other hand, where the controversy is started by a statement from a BLP on their SPS, and RSes dispute that, its likely better to frame it from the RS and not use the BLP's SPS to start. ("Smith's claims on being non-racist have been refuted by the NYTimes" only needs the NYtimes sourcing). This should not be taken as a rule, but that there is sometimes need to do so. What we do want to avoid are the self-serving claims, those that attract no coverage at all by RSes. Including those, outside of standard factual biographical material, would be unduly self-serving. --Masem (t) 17:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Original responder addressed the situation where there is dispute from RS on a fact in a self-published source about self. I'll open another request on the more specific point. Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- The shorter summary by Snooganssnoogans is clearer. I dislike the US-centric "fact finding" about religious views and ethnic roots on the wrong side of OR and BLPCAT in BLPs. For multireligious I couldn't tell if that's a proper adjective, from my "DEnglish" PoV it's a red link. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd watch out and avoid personal sites as they likely have spin and fluff. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:ABOUTSELF is clear on this matter. If a self-published source contains an exceptional claim, it requires multiple high-quality sources. In this case, an exceptional claim led to this discussion and the multiple high quality sources do not exist to support the claim. Samp4ngeles (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Being raised in a multi-religious household is not an exceptional claim. According to a 2016 Pew Research Center study "[T]he number of Americans raised in interfaith homes appears to be growing. Fully one-quarter of young adults in the Millennial generation (27%) say they were raised in a religiously mixed family."[2] Gabbard is from the Millenial cohort.
- If there were RS with specific fact allegations contradicting Gabbard, we could include both claims as indicated by Masem. But you have not yet identified any such specific statements from RS. Humanengr (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- At the moment the lede offers Hindu (given sources not checked, I believe it). The "Early life and education" section states "multicultural and multi-religious", but the given CBS source (text + video) doesn't support it (verification failed, or I need fresh coffee). While I trust that it's true, multi-religious is a red link, less elegant than your mixed, and not obviously relevant for this BLP. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Humanengr's explanation that being raised in a multi-religious household is not an exceptional claim. Xenagoras (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fresh coffee. That 2019 CBS source states: "She comes from a multicultural, multi-religious family and, as a practicing Hindu, was the first Hindu elected to Congress." From this 2012 NY Times News Service piece:
“I identify as a Hindu," Gabbard wrote in an email Thursday. “However, I am much more into spirituality than I am religious labels."
In that sense," she added,“I am a Hindu in the mold of the most famous Hindu, Mahatma Gandhi, who is my hero and role model."
Gabbard wrote that she "was raised in a multicultural, multiracial, mulitfaith family" that allowed her “to spend a lot of time studying and contemplating upon both the Bhagavad-Gita and the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament."
Today her spiritual practice is neither Catholic nor traditionally Hindu.
“My attempts to work for the welfare of others and the planet is the core of my spiritual practice," Gabbard wrote. “Also, every morning I take time to remember my relationship with God through the practice of yoga meditation and reading verses from the Bhagavad-Gita. From the perspective of the Bhagavad-Gita, the spiritual path as I have described here is known as karma yoga and bhakti yoga."- I should add that as a cite. Humanengr (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe "multi-faith" is a better term. Gabbard has used that as well. Also see https://www.tulsi2020.com/about/about-tulsi-gabbard-my-spiritual-path. Humanengr (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, admittedly I'm rather paranoid with ethnic/religious info (example), but I have no problem with the Gabbard BLP or her Christmas + similar personal videos, not everything on her channel is self-serving campaigning. Apologies to Masem, a good place for my reply to Humanegr was occupied in an edit conflict, feel free to move this to a better place. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Given she is running for election, anything from her campaign site should be taken as self-serving, and should not be used unless confirmed by a third-party RS. --Masem (t) 03:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not including her campaign page as a cite, but you can see it is consistent with the material going back 8 years (and it elaborates more detail to show context). There are no RS that say she did not have a multi-faith upbringing. If there were, I would include both as conflicting claims per your earlier direction. I was mentioning the campaign page as an example of 'multi-faith' in lieu of 'multi-religious'. Humanengr (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Masem's assessment. Gabbard used the "multi-cultural, multi-religious" and/or "multi-faith" language at least twice during her 2012 campaign, as noted in the sources Humanengr mentions, which would have been self-serving and would have dispelled talk about her upbringing in the Science of Identity Foundation -- something that was local knowledge at the time. Broad claims by Humanengr about the number of Americans raised in interfaith homes do not apply specifically here and give no insight into Gabbard's religious practice in her early life. Furthermore, the sources from 2012 that Humanengr has dug up rely solely on statements from Gabbard herself and make no mention of her Science of Identity Foundation upbringing and therefore indicate a biased and self-serving nature. Beyond Gabbard's own words, there has been no secondary or tertiary analysis indicating a multireligious/multifaith upbringing. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- The text that you yourself inserted into the Science of Identity Foundation article stated: "Butler has said of the SIF philosophy of Bhakti yoga, 'It does not conflict with Christianity, with Islam, with any bona fide religious system.'"[1] There is no contradiction between that statement and Gabbard's description of having a multifaith upbringing. The meditation practices taught through the SIF are not incompatible with the way the Gabbards have described elements of both Hinduism and Christianity being present in their home.
- You are doing OR on other people's private religious beliefs. Ignoring the fact that 'cult' is the first of the MOS MOS:words to watch, you declared your opinion as: “It would be accurate to describe SIF as either a cult-like Hare Krishna splinter group (see [3]) or a fringe yogic sect, primarily due to its virulently homophobic and Islamophic teachings” to which Ronz, responded: “Samp4ngeles, regarding cult-like, fringe , and virulently homophobic and Islamophic: No. I fail to see how those are verified by the source you indicate, let alone represent a neutral presentation of the best sources.”
- Yet you are continuing to push the 'cult' identification about SIF and Gabbard. Note that, per the WP Cult article, Catherine Wessinger (Professor of the History of Religions at Loyola University New Orleans) "has stated that the word 'cult' represents just as much prejudice and antagonism as racial slurs or derogatory words for women and homosexuals. She has argued that it is important for people to become aware of the bigotry conveyed by the word, drawing attention to the way it dehumanises the group's members and their children."
- It is inappropriate and offensive for WP to be used to push this 'cult-obsessed' agenda. Humanengr (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is not OR -- it's just checking for RS. The 2012 article plainly says that the claims come from an e-mail Gabbard sent. And again, you're speaking in generalities with regard to Science of Identity Foundation not conflicting with Christianity, etc., while ignoring the the lack of secondary sources discussing Gabbard's actual religious practice in early life. And I have no idea how what you have just written about cults relates to this discussion, but these are baseless claims you are making about me pushing some sort of agenda and I ask you to be WP:CIVIL and take them down. Samp4ngeles (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, such material can be used. WP:BLPSELFPUB applies. Xenagoras (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
For those interested in bigoted attacks that Gabbard has faced regarding her private religious beliefs, see the sources cited here. Humanengr (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is really grasping at straws. The Gabbards aren't mentioned anywhere in that article, and Gabbard was one year old when this article was written. I am providing a URL for anyone to read the actual article: https://staradvertiser.newspapers.com/image/276169995/ Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Remotely related, I stumbled over "figures like Tulsi Gabbard" on another biography with a seven months old BLP/N info. –84.46.52.152 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Christensen, John (November 23, 1982). "Chris Butler: About this guru business". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. p. B-1.
Mark Kostabi
Mark Kostabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bringing this here for review, an IP editor and a new user with one edit have both removed this content, with edit summaries of falsely sourced paragraph that is libelous and harmful
and the new user claiming poorly sourced content which is misleading, harmful and libellous
. I reverted both editors. I maintain the content is a significant life event for a BLP, reliably sourced, NPOV, he's well known, and has received sustained coverage through the years, 1991, 2004, 2010, 2012, 2018. Mentioned in this book as well. And the original article (June 1989) is still online, The Art Of The Hype, with a paid subscription. Should this content be removed or is it compliant with our WP:BLP policy? Left a note on the new user's talk page about this discussion. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there. My primary trouble is that you replaced the content prior to coming here, such disputed content would be better left out rather than replaced if discussion is needed regarding BLP concerns. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't notice until today that this was already brought to this noticeboard. In addition to Isaidnoway reverting Lower Manhattan Art History Society (talk · contribs), Cullen328 and I also reverted this editor. Looking at the material, it can't simply be described as tabloid journalism. The book source is right there. It's my opinion that some material on this matter should be included in the article. That stated, per WP:LABEL, it is perhaps worth changing "homophobic remarks" to "remarks that were characterized as homophobic." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Govindaharihari, in that if a person is unsure about BLP compliance, enough to come here for advice, then they should probably err on the side of caution and leave it out until they're assured it's ok to restore it.
- That said, the warring editor is incorrect. Page Six of the New York Post may well be an unreliable source, I don't know nor does it matter. We don't use that as a source. But it was apparently reported by the Villager, the Washington Post, the book, etc., and those are reliable sources. The retraction of the apology is properly attributed to the Page Six article. Nearly all of that is direct quotes of the subject, and nearly all the opinions are his. I also agree with Flyer22 that we should probably not say "homophobic remarks" in Wikipedia's voice, because that is a judgment call, but at the very least we should attribute it to the source. And really, the same could be said for "significant backlash". Personally, I think that first sentence is rather redundant and we'd lose nothing if it were removed. Everything needed for the reader to make those same judgments is found below, so I would just nix that sentence. Zaereth (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers
The editor Peter Gulutzan has since at least November 2018 repeatedly removed reliably sourced content on climate change denial / fringe rhetoric on BLPs by claiming that there is a BLP violation in covering inaccuracies made by prominent climate change deniers:
- Myron Ebell[4] (removal of content sourced to Climate Feedback)
- Guus Berkhout[5] (removal of content sourced to Climate Feedback)
- Joanne Nova[6][7] (removal of content sourced to peer-reviewed publications, Science magazine, PolitiFact, National Geographic, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning InsideClimate News)
- Ian Plimer[8] (removal of Climate Feedback)
There is a consensus on the reliability of Climate Feedback, which the RSP list[9] describes as "a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements." It's starting to get tiresome to deal with these reverts of RS content, so I'd just like to get confirmation here that there is no BLP violation involved in adding reliably sourced content about the accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Have you discussed the issue with the editor on the various talk pages? I think we need to be very careful with a claim like that one removed from the Ebell article. The claim in question,
"Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC.""
is true so long as there is one example of it being true. Absent the context in which it was made we shouldn't include such statements in Wikipedia voice. Such a definitive statement should include a link to the original claim as well as an attributed explanation to why the claim is wrong. I didn't review the other examples but this first one certainly doesn't support the view that Peter Gulutzan's edits are problematic. Springee (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)- Thank you. In fact Snooganssnoogans did start a thread on the Myron Ebell talk page, I hope that editors will look at my reply there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Taking the points in order:
- (Ebell) On 30 November 2018 Snooganssnoogans started a thread on the Myron Ebell talk page beginning with the incorrect assertion that I had had said climatefeedback.org is not a Reliable Source. In fact I had said no such thing, I had said "Not compliant with WP:BLPSPS and WP:WELLKNOWN.", and on 30 November 2018 I replied on that thread with a full explanation about the cited author/editor, to which Snooganssnoogans did not reply. On 2 December 2018 -- without pinging me and without discussing my actual objections -- Snooganssnoogans started a thread on WP:RSN and got 2 editors to agree (one editor did not) that in general climatefeedback looked like an RS. On 3 December 2018 another editor re-inserted the contentious material in the BLP. I asked if others had opinions (nobody did), and I did nothing further. Would anyone like to finally address what I said?
- (Berkhout) Once again, a WP:RSN thread Factcheck from climatefeedback.org as a source at Guus Berkhout. I participated, others disagreed, the material in question was re-inserted in the Guus Berkhout BLP, I did nothing further.
- (Nova) Snooganssnoogans points to this edit by me on 12 September 2019 and claims it was about various wonderful publications -- which is false, as anyone who looks at the edit can see. The cited source was cup.columbia.edu, my edit summary was "Removed "Nova is known for promoting fringe views on climate science". Cited source refutes some statements in her guide, but does not say she is known for that. Poorly sourced material." Nobody disputed that (as far as I can tell), it was a fact that the cited source didn't say it, and the statement has not been re-inserted.
- (Plimer) In this case my edit summary was "Additional source is not compliant with WP:BLPSPS, and also unnecessary, there is already a cite." i.e. I made no change to the content, so this doesn't fit with Snooganssnoogans's opening sentence that I "repeatedly removed sourced content". (In fact not only did I not remove sourced content in this case, I didn't "repeatedly" remove in other cases.) I believe it could be discussed on the appropriate talk page, and wonder what's wrong with that.
- (consensus) I refer Snooganssnoogans to the essay don't quote essays or proposals as if they were policy. More seriously, the reference to WP:RSP (which most charitably can be described as having "limited status" the same as an essay) should not be brought into a discussion as if people who are referring to WP:BLPSPS (which is a part of a real policy) need to bow to it. In this case, I looked deeper at the claim that "most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source" and found that it was added by one of the 3 or 4 editors who thought it was not self-published, as opposed to 3 or 4 who thought it was. If someone wants to establish a consensus whether Climate Feedback meets WP:BLPSPS requirements, let's have a talk specifically about that (which as far as I know has never happened) and let's have it on the relevant page which is WP:BLPN (which as far as I know has never happened).
- I would greatly appreciate a confirmation that Snooganssnoogans's points are without merit, because Snooganssnoogans has used the same points to accuse me of "tendentious editing". Regrettably an administrator (Bishonen) after 11 minutes agreed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Credit: The statement about "most editors" was made by Newslinger, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- "The cited source was cup.columbia.edu". Just to be clear: this is a Columbia University Press book published by a recognized expert in the field of climate science. This kind of misrepresentation, one among many, amounts to WP:TE at this point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone who looks will see that I did not say there was anything wrong with Columbia, I said the cited source did not support the statement in the Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- (Question to all) Is Climatefeedback something should be treated like the Politifact? I don't recall the exact location but I think people recently concluded that Politifact should be treated as something similar to a think tank. Their opinions are often cited by others and often have WEIGHT. However, it was also felt that they aren't a source in and of themselves. Thus if Politifac says "Senator X was wrong..." that doesn't establish WEIGHT for inclusion. Weight would be established if CNN says, "According to Politifact, Senator X was wrong...". I think discussions around the SPLC have reached similar conclusions. If that same thinking applies to Climatefeedback then I think the Ebell content, as inserted way back in the day, didn't establish WEIGHT for inclusion. Stating a living person was "wrong" is something negative about them and thus the typical BLP concerns apply. That doesn't mean it shouldn't make it into the article but we really should be careful that we aren't over simplifying what might be a more complex claim. In general I would be uncomfortable with statements like the one in the Ebell article since it looks like a random sentence thrown in to discredit the person rather than true explanation of what is almost certainly a more complex position/claim by Ebell. - Disclaimer, prior to my responses here I was not familiar with Ebell. Springee (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Describing WP:RS/P as some kind of WP:ESSAY doesn't match the effects of, e.g., "deprecated" on not logged-in users, for examples see WT:WHITELIST, WT:RSN, and WT:AFC. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- What I actually said was: most charitably can be described as having "limited status" the same as an essay. That charitable description is the WP:SUPPLEMENTAL guideline: "In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Describing WP:RS/P as some kind of WP:ESSAY doesn't match the effects of, e.g., "deprecated" on not logged-in users, for examples see WT:WHITELIST, WT:RSN, and WT:AFC. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Springee, I don't think that's a good summary of the consensus on Politifact. Here's the recent RFC [10] and an earlier one [11]. The consensus to me reads that Politifact is a reliable source for factual claims, equivalent to a high quality news source. The only exception is that their specific truth ratings of a statement ("True", "Mostly False", "Pants on Fire", etc), and any kind of analysis of percentage of false statements should be attributed as an opinion. Just wanted to note that, I don't really have an opinion on Climate Feedback Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nobody expects the spanish inquisition here: The Hill in a "Politifact fail" video on YouTube four days ago. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- RRC, you are correct. It was the opinion part that editors felt needed to be cited by others in order to establish WEIGHT. Do we think that is the same case here? If CF says Jane Doe made a false claim [here], should that statement have WEIGHT by itself or does that claim need other sources to establish weight? Also, should we just quote the high level claim or should the details be included. Again, I'm concerned about what look like random, negative statements without context. In general I think labeling people as climate deniers is problematic given the extremely political nature of the public debate. Springee (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Springee, I don't think that's a good summary of the consensus on Politifact. Here's the recent RFC [10] and an earlier one [11]. The consensus to me reads that Politifact is a reliable source for factual claims, equivalent to a high quality news source. The only exception is that their specific truth ratings of a statement ("True", "Mostly False", "Pants on Fire", etc), and any kind of analysis of percentage of false statements should be attributed as an opinion. Just wanted to note that, I don't really have an opinion on Climate Feedback Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Peter_Gulutzan here. As I understand, we are supposed to present all views of reliable sources in proportion... and for bios immediately remove poorly sourced contentious material.
- ClimateFeedback should be treated as an opinion blog site with recognition that the opinions come from credentialed academics (if verified). It carries some weight, but it's not the "supreme court" of climate change sources.
- My search for Myron Ebel at Duck Duck Go says most sources call him a director of a center at an institute, or head of the transition team, etc. Calling him a "denier" is a derogatory term, and cherry picking a particular source is not neutrally representing more than one source(s) available.
- Even the particular cited source (6 above) does not call Ebel a "denier."
- The source's opinions should be attributed as such, if you want to describe claims as "false" based on them.
- Factual accuracy and editing of material on Climate Feedback site: I spot checked this article looking at links to bios. Martin Singh's bio link gives a 404. This is a negative indicator regarding editing and reliability.
-- Yae4 (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Yae4: but if you searched for "Martin Singh, Postdoctoral Research fellow, Harvard University:' you would have found this. He is now at Monash University[12] which is probably why the link no longer exists. So the fact that page was removed is not a comment on the Climate Feedback site. The site has been discussed at WP:RSN[13] - people can read the entire short discussion, but here's the first two comments:
- "An editor[14] insists that Climatefeedback.org is a self-published source run by nobodies and that we can't use it as a source for statements such as "Myron Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC." Climate scientists note that past climate models have accurately predicted subsequent rates of global warming."[15] Climatefeedback.org has been cited favorably recently by sources such as Deutsche Welle,[16] Columbia Journalism Review[17], Axios[18], and the Guardian which referred to climatefeedback.org as "a highly respected and influential resource"[19]. It would be good if the RS noticeboard could clarify once and for all whether this source, which other RS cite and describe favorably and which rely on assessments by actual experts, can be used as a RS, so that editors who want to scrub this source and related content from the pages of prominent climate change deniers will stop doing so (or conversely, be allowed to do so). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- "Hard to argue against Deutsche Welle, Columbia Journalism Review, Axios, and the Guardian. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- "*Generally reliable. With published editorial and advisory teams, a clear methodology ([20] [21]), and multiple endorsements from established reliable sources, Climate Feedback appears to have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required of a generally reliable source. — Newslinger talk 10:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)" Doug Weller talk
- None of that is relevant to the specific objections I made about the Myron Ebell cite, and I never said that climatefeedback.org is run by nobodies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan: I have no idea why you are telling me this as I thought it was obviously a response to the post above mine by Yae4 Doug Weller talk 16:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: It was about me as well, you quoted from the WP:RSN thread that I'd mentioned, starring Snooganssnoogans's claim re what I'd said, and I have no idea why. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans, The fact that Singh's listing is out of date since around January 2017, or 3 years ago, and he reviewed 2 articles in 2019, including November, but they didn't update his info' is no reflection on their editorial performance or factual accuracy? With all due respect, I disagree. It's not a huge error, but it's an indicator; big errors start with small ones. His comments also struck me as being much too long, as compared with others, which is why I clicked. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- ^This is a strange criticism of a RS. This well-regarded fact-checking website comprised entirely of recognized experts is unreliable because one author did not update his author bio on the website (moving from a postdoc to a tenure-track job) and because his comments are long. You do realize that author bios are usually written by the authors themselves? This applies to the author bios in peer-reviewed academic publications, as well as the folks who write op-eds for RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not here to exchange snarky insults. I stand by my original, concise list of comments above. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- To clarify my last comment ^, I did not see all your edits of your previous comment until after I replied.
- So it might be good to review Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_own_comments: "even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes."
- Also, referring to the heading here and at User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan#Tendentious_editing_on_climate_change_topics a review of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages: "Keep headings neutral" also seems appropriate. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans has accused me of tendentious editing at least four times (15:38 11 January, 16:00 11 January, 03:55 15 January, 14:19 15 January), and if that's accepted then Snooganssnoogans's request is taken care of. Incidentally Snooganssnoogans's claim "comprised entirely of recognized experts" is not an opinion I could agree with. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- ^This is a strange criticism of a RS. This well-regarded fact-checking website comprised entirely of recognized experts is unreliable because one author did not update his author bio on the website (moving from a postdoc to a tenure-track job) and because his comments are long. You do realize that author bios are usually written by the authors themselves? This applies to the author bios in peer-reviewed academic publications, as well as the folks who write op-eds for RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Reliable. We are in a situation analogous to that with alternative medicine: the specialists who critique climate change denial typically do so in venues dedicated to the subject of denialism, because denialism itself is not a live controversy within the field. You don't publish papers in professional climate literature saying that $RANDOMDENIALIST is wrong because (a) it's obvious and (b) it does not advance the field of climate science. So we have a number of venues, of which this is one, where specialists gather to critique a specific aspect of pseudoscience. Obviously that critique necessarily personalises things (X is wrong to say Y is hard to discuss without naming X as the source of Y). That means we have to be careful not to slip into hyperbole, but the content linked above, doesn't do that. The only thing I would do is WP:ATT everything. Guy (help!) 15:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Include. Climate Feedback (RSP entry) is not a self-published source, just as the similar Science-Based Medicine (RSP entry) was determined not to be self-published in a 2019 RfC. InsideClimate News won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2013, and is not self-published because it has a sizable editorial team. The guideline on fringe theories makes it clear that
"When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views."
Climate change denial is contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change, and is a fringe theory because it"departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field"
. In-text attribution is appropriate in some cases, and I would reword some of the text to focus the criticism on the people's claims, and not the people themselves. — Newslinger talk 01:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I made five points on a talk page post, one of which was about InsideClimate News, I've withdrawn it. It's disputed whether Snooganssnoogans's edits have always met WP:BLP requirements, and whether Snooganssnoogans's requests or accusations are laudable, but not (as far as I can tell) whether pseudoscientific views should be pushed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- You've made some reasonable points, so I've taken a closer look at each of the edits listed in Snooganssnoogans's first comment in this discussion:
- Myron Ebell (Special:Diff/871394198): The text in the article is consistent with the the Climate Feedback fact check, but in-text attribution of Climate Feedback would be appropriate, and the text should also state the year Ebell made the statement (2018). Something like
'In a 2018 Newsnight interview, Ebell stated that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC", which was described as "factually inaccurate" by Climate Feedback.'
would be fully BLP-compliant. It doesn't look like Ebell responded to the fact check. - Guus Berkhout (Special:Diff/919740851): This looks fine to me, since I don't consider Climate Feedback self-published, as explained in my previous comment. The text includes Climate Feedback's negative evaluation of the letter, but doesn't describe Berkhout or the other signatories with negative terms. However, the text could use some copyediting, and there's a typo in "scienctists".
- Joanne Nova (Special:Diff/929091011, Special:Diff/915352813, Talk:Joanne Nova § A recent edit)
- I agree that "known primarily for promoting pseudoscientific views on climate change and the harms of smoking" should not be used to describe the Heartland Institute, since Powell's book does not directly say that. The main article might have more supporting sources, but I'm not sure if they're relevant in the article on Nova. Alternative phrasing, such as
"a think tank that opposed the Kyoto Protocol"
, would be better-supported and more relevant. - "The book argues that temperatures have not increased" is imprecise, as Nova's handbook states that
"the world has not warmed since 2001"
. The text should add"since 2001"
. - National Geographic is one of the sources used for the text
"The book promotes the myth that there is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more will not have an impact on temperatures."
The magazine links to a UT News piece, which refers to a"myth"
that consists of two claims: the CO2 saturation claim, and the water vapor claim. Nova made the first claim in her handbook, but was silent on the second claim. I'm undecided on whether this is a potent enough counterargument to justify excluding"myth"
from the text. There is probably some way to rephrase this unambiguously. - 'Her blog is described as "skeptical" of climate science.' isn't well-supported, since the cited NPR opinion piece doesn't explicitly mention Nova, but
"a number of active bloggers"
. - There were other changes in those edits. No comment on these changes, since I didn't examine them yet.
- I agree that "known primarily for promoting pseudoscientific views on climate change and the harms of smoking" should not be used to describe the Heartland Institute, since Powell's book does not directly say that. The main article might have more supporting sources, but I'm not sure if they're relevant in the article on Nova. Alternative phrasing, such as
- Ian Plimer (Special:Diff/935260217): As I don't consider Climate Feedback self-published, I would keep the citation. The article text is unaffected.
- Myron Ebell (Special:Diff/871394198): The text in the article is consistent with the the Climate Feedback fact check, but in-text attribution of Climate Feedback would be appropriate, and the text should also state the year Ebell made the statement (2018). Something like
- — Newslinger talk 10:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- This thread isn't about whether to insert that material (it already is inserted). It's about Snooganssnoogans's request. (Update: I removed some unnecessary words in that last sentence before there was a reply.) I want to discuss the edits, but does anyone object if we do so on separate threads? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Seeing no objection, I added a thread related to the first accusation, my revert on Myron Ebell. I'd like to do one at a time. I think that "what should be in the Myron Ebell article" belongs better in that thread, and "should the Snooganssnoogans request be supported" belongs in this one. Some people have suggested that there should have been attribution (meaning there was an WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV violation too?), but I didn't bring that in because it is part of the WP:NPOV policy not the WP:BLP policy. And, as stated, I regard talk about WP:RS guideline as unnecessary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- This thread isn't about whether to insert that material (it already is inserted). It's about Snooganssnoogans's request. (Update: I removed some unnecessary words in that last sentence before there was a reply.) I want to discuss the edits, but does anyone object if we do so on separate threads? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- You've made some reasonable points, so I've taken a closer look at each of the edits listed in Snooganssnoogans's first comment in this discussion:
- I made five points on a talk page post, one of which was about InsideClimate News, I've withdrawn it. It's disputed whether Snooganssnoogans's edits have always met WP:BLP requirements, and whether Snooganssnoogans's requests or accusations are laudable, but not (as far as I can tell) whether pseudoscientific views should be pushed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Adding a couple more observations about Climate Feedback (aka Science Feedback and Health Feedback): It's a little early to claim good "reputation" for accuracy when they only had the notability tag removed last April related to Facebook, and a few months later were censured for a review of a video on Facebook: "The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories."[22] -- Yae4 (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
List of YouTubers
Some expert input about the Stefan Molyneux entry on the List of YouTubers could be helpful, a "discussion" (not really) on the Talk page was inconclusive. –84.46.53.207 (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Stefan Molyneux substantially uses YouTube. For instance: "One of the alt-right’s biggest YouTube stars — Stefan Molyneux — is Canadian, but you’d never know it, because he talks almost exclusively about U.S. issues." Bus stop (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, the OP proposing "remove" blanked the talk page section after my reply, and I interpret that and your reply as "keep". The BLP issue is the characterization as an Anarcho-capitalist podcaster, writer, and public speaker. Known for his advocacy of libertarianism, anti-feminism, and support for Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the alt-right, is that as it should be based on the BLP?
And is BLP/N suited to discuss a blpo=yes list issue? –84.46.53.255 (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)- Frankly, that list is an utter mess, with very few sources, so it's entirely possible someone make take a hatchet to it one day. I'm not planning to do so myself. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but the entries with sources—or red/no wikilinks—are actually the worst. It's one of those simple "bring wikilink + rationale per list rules, get entry" lists. Minor issue, I still haven't figured out what the rules are, who does the cleanup, etc. Not planning to volunteer, the unprotected blpo List of sex symbols with "known to be not good enough" rules is more fun for IPs with a cleanup mission. –84.46.53.255 (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well I didn't notice we had red links or black entries (no links). I've remove all except for those where the channel or whatever was a blue link, or where they were part of a group where at least one was a blue link. Probably some of those I kept should be removed as well, e.g. Ewan Gotfryd who's work doesn't seem to get key mention in any of those links. Likewise where people are part of a group and one of them is a blue link. (Frankly, I think in at least some of these, the blue link probably came about in questionable circumstances.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but the entries with sources—or red/no wikilinks—are actually the worst. It's one of those simple "bring wikilink + rationale per list rules, get entry" lists. Minor issue, I still haven't figured out what the rules are, who does the cleanup, etc. Not planning to volunteer, the unprotected blpo List of sex symbols with "known to be not good enough" rules is more fun for IPs with a cleanup mission. –84.46.53.255 (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Frankly, that list is an utter mess, with very few sources, so it's entirely possible someone make take a hatchet to it one day. I'm not planning to do so myself. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, the OP proposing "remove" blanked the talk page section after my reply, and I interpret that and your reply as "keep". The BLP issue is the characterization as an Anarcho-capitalist podcaster, writer, and public speaker. Known for his advocacy of libertarianism, anti-feminism, and support for Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the alt-right, is that as it should be based on the BLP?
Michael McCain
"As CEO of Maple Leaf Foods, McCain's handling of the 2008 listeria outbreak with frank and open communications made him a role model for crisis management.[[23]]"
This is overly promotional content with a dead source. According to policy, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Statement should be changed to reflect a more neutral tone, or at the very least have a verifiable source.
Bleepenvoy (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Removed the promotional line. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Disagree it was promotion. The Globe and Mail is a reputable paper, so a comment like this in his obit in that paper is not really promotion. As for being a dead link, a quick Wayback visit and edit added the archive there. Editors should be always checking archive.org for replacing dead links. If that source wasn't recoverable that way, I would agree the removal was fine. --Masem (t) 00:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Also found one academic paper reviewing the crisis management, as well as the fact the Canadian press named him business newsperson of that year for the handling. Definitely a notable facet of this person. --Masem (t) 00:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I would ask that the "role model for crisis management" bit be placed in quotes as it's still the opinion of a publication. So long as it's sourced and not stated as fact I have no further qualms with it. Bleepenvoy (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's on the border of needing quotes. There are likely more sources that can back that up, as the event and aftermath towards McCain's leadership and honest seems very well documented. --Masem (t) 06:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- In the interest of maintaining a neutral, disinterested tone, I attempted to incorporate that sentiment without stating it as fact. Bleepenvoy (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:COISOURCE having a lot of trouble considering the widespread conflicts of interest that exist here. Talk:Michael McCain expands on my concerns. I don't think it would be responsible or objective to relay potential PR intervention without expanding on these potential conflicts, and that seems beyond the scope of the article. I think it's best to be cautious here for the sake of being a neutral source.Bleepenvoy (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- In the interest of maintaining a neutral, disinterested tone, I attempted to incorporate that sentiment without stating it as fact. Bleepenvoy (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's on the border of needing quotes. There are likely more sources that can back that up, as the event and aftermath towards McCain's leadership and honest seems very well documented. --Masem (t) 06:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I would ask that the "role model for crisis management" bit be placed in quotes as it's still the opinion of a publication. So long as it's sourced and not stated as fact I have no further qualms with it. Bleepenvoy (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note that per Wikipedia:Link rot, you should not generally remove content simply because the link is dead. This applies even if you looked for an archive and cannot find one. You should normally only do so if you have genuine doubts that the source verifies the content. If you cannot find a replacement link, it's generally best to simply keep the citation intact and leave it for someone else to deal with. This example actually perfectly illustrates why. Even if the source was not on archive.org, it is on archive.is which is no longer banned for their historic spamming [24]. More importantly "a reputable paper", let's remember that the paper part is still true. The Globe and Mail remains a physical newspaper. Considering the significance of the person, I think it's quite likely that either this exact story, or a very similar one was published in the actual newspaper. We have the author and date and title, so it's easily possible that we already have enough for a citation to the physical newspaper. We do not require sources are online, so even if this is only cited to the physical newspaper, that's perfectly fine. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Also found one academic paper reviewing the crisis management, as well as the fact the Canadian press named him business newsperson of that year for the handling. Definitely a notable facet of this person. --Masem (t) 00:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Disagree it was promotion. The Globe and Mail is a reputable paper, so a comment like this in his obit in that paper is not really promotion. As for being a dead link, a quick Wayback visit and edit added the archive there. Editors should be always checking archive.org for replacing dead links. If that source wasn't recoverable that way, I would agree the removal was fine. --Masem (t) 00:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Bleepenvoy, here are the cites given for this small paragraph.
- CBC (you appear to accept this one)
- Globe and Mail (you consider COI through board members, it appears Masem and Nil Einne disagree with you)
- Case study in the peer-reviewed Public Communication Review journal. (you dislike "research performed by the PR firm")
- The Conversation ("serves only as promotional language")
- canada gov report that you call 'Weatherill' (you like, but I can't tell what is or might be used)
It appears you have strong opinion that there should be no review of this event, just given as a date and fact. But there's significant coverage that it has been used as a case study. Deciding Globe and Mail is in the bag for him is quite the stretch. The article in The Conversation isn't "only promotional", it's complimentary, which isn't the same thing. The Public Communication Review study has been referenced in 48 books. It seems this is strong personal bias on your part, not true criticism of the sources. tedder (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- For clarity, I didn't actually intend to comment on the use of Globe and Mail. That said while I don't know that much about the Globe and Mail, my understanding is Masem is correct and it's a reputable Canadian paper and therefore I'd consider excluding it simply because of board members questionable. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm OK with leaving the positive stuff in so long as the potential COIs are enumerated and they're rounded out with opinions from independent sources. Bleepenvoy (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- For clarity, I didn't actually intend to comment on the use of Globe and Mail. That said while I don't know that much about the Globe and Mail, my understanding is Masem is correct and it's a reputable Canadian paper and therefore I'd consider excluding it simply because of board members questionable. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- If there's any question, there's coverage of McCain's handling of the crisis from Financial Times (paywall), Wall Street Journal, Global News, and that's just 3 pages into a dated Google News search. There is clear "respect" for how McCain handled the recall crisis at the company, so calling it "promotional" in that regard makes no sense. --Masem (t) 17:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Reece Webb-Foster
Please review the edits of @Luke Mills1996: at Reece Webb-Foster - he claims to be the subject's brother and makes edits every once-in-a-while which go against RS in the article. GiantSnowman 20:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- There’s literally a link saying he plays for Droylsden and all edits are right and you can drop the “ he claims “ bullshit because I am. Who are you to make edits about a member of my family when you don’t even know him or anyone from my family? Read the article mr Wikipedia page editor on a power trip and stop spreading the wrong information about my brother! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Mills1996 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- And here’s the link proving I’m right about who he plays for. Stop lying on my brothers page.
- https://www.footballdatabase.eu/en/player/details/243924-reece-foster — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Mills1996 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Luke Mills1996, if you have a conflict of interest because you are related to the article subject, then you should probably be using the article's talk page (Talk:Reece Webb-Foster) rather than directly editing his page, especially if you are making edits that have been contested by other editors. Others have already directed you to WP:COI. You should also read WP:CIVILITY, which is the Wikipedia policy on how to properly interact with others in a respectful and considerate manner. Note that editors here cannot simply take your word for any fact on here. We have to be guided by the reliable sources, and if they contain incorrect information, then the article's talk page is the appropriate place to resolve those types of concerns. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wally's right. We have no way of knowing who you really are, but for argument's sake I will assume you are who you say. It still doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter if you are the subject himself, we need reliable sources to back up your claim.
- From what I can tell, Steeton, Haworth, and Keighley are all part of the City of Bradford; something like Hollywood and Beverly Hills are to LA. This stat site says Keighley, while others simply say Bradford. Several newspapers and magazines like this article from the Keighley News say Haworth (it's even in the title of the article in this one). If you are indeed his brother, then you should have access to sources which contradict this info. If this is a mistake, then you and your brother should take that up with the sources and have them run a correction. Only then can we change the info. Zaereth (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging @Luke Mills1996: for consideration of the above comments. GiantSnowman 20:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, Steeton, Haworth, and Keighley are all part of the City of Bradford; something like Hollywood and Beverly Hills are to LA. This stat site says Keighley, while others simply say Bradford. Several newspapers and magazines like this article from the Keighley News say Haworth (it's even in the title of the article in this one). If you are indeed his brother, then you should have access to sources which contradict this info. If this is a mistake, then you and your brother should take that up with the sources and have them run a correction. Only then can we change the info. Zaereth (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've updated the talk page with your COI and this BLP/N info. Simplified, nobody cares if you are an enthusiast, brother or "himself", everything works. And of course you can fix obvious nonsense and vandalism. However, with a WP:COI, you cannot add facts only you know, if reliable sources are wrong you have to accept it, or suggest your evidence on the talk page, where others can check if that's good or boils down to your say-so. –84.46.53.30 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with you for the most part, 84.46..., with the exception that the subject just has to accept mistakes made by reliable sources. However, Wikipedia is not the place to correct them. While the brother has no standing, the subject most certainly can and should contact the offending newspaper, magazine, or stat website and request that they print a retraction or make a correction. Any good RS will want to correct their mistakes publicly. Once that's done then all anyone has to do is bring a copy to the talk page and we can correct it here. But the only one with the power to make that happen is the subject.
- I have a feeling that Mr. Mills may be taking this a bit too literally. I've never been to Bradford, but let's just hypothesize that my parents live in Haworth, but for some reason I happen to be born a few miles away at the hospital in Steeton. Maybe it's the nearest hospital, I don't know. But I never lived in Steeton a day in my life. Would I be Steeton-born or Haworth born? And the bigger question, does it really matter? If I come from Mountain View, Stuckagain, or Spenard, am I not still from Anchorage? As a possible compromise, perhaps we could just say Bradford and leave it at that? And the one question burning in everyone's minds, is GiantSnowman bigger than Snowzilla (snowman)? Zaereth (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
This article states that Norman Shelter was born in 1931 and served in World War II, but that is impossible, he would not have been 18 until 1949, four years after the war ended. Either he was not born in 1931 or he served in the Korean war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.222.76 (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- If ever I saw a candidate for WP:Articles for deletion it's this one. The only sources are music academy schedules and advertisements. And a quick google search yields no reliable sources. There's no way to verify any of this, nor to establish notability. Zaereth (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Change to BLP policy to allow omission of identifying details when a BLP is in danger of physical harm
Following an ANI discussion on protecting the identity of the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower, I've proposed a change to BLP policy to allow for the omission of identifying details when a BLP is in danger of physical harm. I'm putting it up here to elicit further comments from interested editors: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proposed changes.
Thanks. François Robere (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NOTATABLOID is useful here. Not a tabloid & not a newspaper. Potential harm far outweighs any benefits. Bleepenvoy (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Jay Maynard
Jay Maynard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Discospinster constantly reverting sourced material from Jay Maynard article without comment, even as far as to remove the edits from the system entirely. Refuses to address the reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.50.12.149 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- It is being reverted because it's not referenced by an independent reliable source. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- What's unreliable about the source? The source *is the work being referenced*. It's no less reliable than wikipedia edit history.136.50.12.149 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Delhi gang rape
- 2012 Delhi gang rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Talk page discussion thread Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape#Naming the juvenile convict
I would like BLPN contributors to share their opinion on the dispute, whether Wikipedia Article should name the "unnamed" Juvenile convict in this case.
- Past consensus among several editors is to not name the juvenile accused.
WP:BLPNAME Policy is very clear on this.
|
---|
|
the name of the juvenile has not been officially revealed in a public forum and has been kept confidential since the the law necessitates that a juvenile’s identity is not to be disclosed. The name thus floating on social media is mere speculation. Source - AltNews.in (A fact checker site)
- based on above quote from Altnews, clearly it is inappropriate to use an unconfirmed name in the Wikipedia article.
- There are real life based security risks of using this name, on the subject who completed his sentencing in 2015 and was released, and others with this name. As seen in the Altnews article above, there have been open public calls to harm the subject or others with this name. Any young man with that unconfirmed name is a target who can be lynched by mobs in India and that is a very big and possible risk. Especially since there are frequent cases of mob lynching happening in India.
- Reliable sources just refer to him as "the juvenile convict" or "juvenile" and IMHO that is what wikipedia should also be using. Naming him will be violation of Wikipedia's policies WP:BLPNAME that prohibit the naming in such a case.
- So considering all these reasons, IMHO there are strong reasons for not adding this name into the article, but Binksternet disagrees. thoughts ?
DBigXrayᗙ 18:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Publishing this individual's (alleged) name in these circumstances would absolutely be contrary to WP:BLP. It should not be done. MPS1992 (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Do no harm. –84.46.53.192 (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly I disagree. India Today published the name in December 2012, and Moscow-based Lenta.ru published the name the next month in January 2013. Some prominent people referred to the name explicitly since then, for instance the actress Raveena Tandon in a 2017 interview, and retired Lieutenant General P.C. Katosh in a 2019 op-ed piece. India.com published a piece in May 2017 naming him and discussing his current situation, and the fact-checking website Altnews.in debunked a photograph meme about the rapist but acknowledged through a link to the initial India Today piece that his name had already been published in December 2012. The fact-checking website addressed only one of the several memes on social media that have named the rapist who was prosecuted as a juvenile.
- As far as I know, the WP:BLPNAME policy has never applied to those who share the same name as someone who has appeared in the news. The privacy of the person who is actually involved in the story is what the policy covers. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- We generally do try to avoid naming minors in such that were non-notable before the crime, and where they only may have gotten BLP1E-type coverage from the event, regardless of how widespread the rest of the media give the name. Case in point: we do not name the student at the center of the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation despite his name easily found by a google search. Same principle here. And I would definitely think BLP, which goes on the lines of "do no harm", would recognize that if there are reports of people with the same name getting death threats or other harassment (and this is not an isolated case, in today's world where doxxing is common), then we should take caution and not get any other individuals in trouble, or at least minimize the impact WP had on that. --Masem (t) 06:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "applied to those who share the same name as someone who has appeared in the news. The privacy of the person who is actually involved in the story is what the policy covers". We aren't going to be publishing the names of random people who share the same name as the convicted juvenile rapist, unless they're somehow a key part of the story. But they aren't and indeed the vigilantism isn't even mentioned at the moment AFAICT. The fact that the juvenile is apparently going under a new name, doesn't change the exclusion of publishing his name based on the limited number of sources which mention it. And by sources, we of course mean reliable secondary sources, no Twitter mentions or whatever.
While I don't have hard stats, probably the most common cases of BLPNAME we deal with here are naming family members particularly children of notable individuals. (To be clear, I don't mean people who are notable for crimes. Just random celebrities and the like.) We do normally exclude such names even if they appear in one or 2 reliable sources. We also get a fair few cases where the victim has been named by one or two sources, again we exclude such mentions if they're limited. We may exclude them even in some cases where it's more widespread but we need to do so for other reasons. (Kobe Bryant sexual assault case may be one such case.) We also often get cases involving those who have chosen to use a pseudonym especially those acted in adult films and similar although frankly most of these cases are terrible and involve primary sources like court cases, trademark documents or other clearly non RS/WP:BLPPRIMARY violations that we don't even need to touch on BLPNAME.
It's probably true we don't deal with many cases of excluding a convicted defendants name here but this is because most commonly either it's widely published or there is no reliable secondary source. Especially for very high profile cases involving a significant offense. (Again primary sources and other non reliable sources are irrelevant, no matter if there is no doubt of their accuracy.) I think the circumstances of this case namely that it involves someone seen as a minor in the jurisdiction they were charged in and so they were not named for that reason, but that a small number of reliable sources were willing to publish the name anyway, probably arises in part because of how extremely high profile it is and this isn't something we deal with a lot.
The most similar case I can think of off hand is Murder of Grace Millane however that situation is only expected to be temporary. (There are other permanent name suppression cases in NZ, but there are normally no RS coverage of the name. And those tend to be minor crimes as more major crimes will only involve permanent suppression if it's necessary to protect a victim i.e. where the victim was a spouse or child.) I also expect there's cases case where the alleged victim of a sexual crime was later convicted for making a false statement or something and where they have been named by one or two sources, but not by most. And I'm fairly sure there are some cases involving fairly low profile crimes or things which may not even be crimes, and of course cases which didn't result in convictions, which we cover for some reason where the name has been excluded even though it was published in RS although of course additional considerations (namely how to handle the BLPCRIME issue) arise in such cases. (While eventually the decision was made to include the names of both parties, there was extensive discussion on what to do with either party for Columbia University rape controversy and Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight).)
Tapon Mahamud Jony
I am someone who is a big fan of a broadcast crew member 'Tapon Mahamud Jony' and I made an account on Wikipedia with his name. I have watched all of his interviews and attended his award-winning ceremonies. I once met him and told him about my interest to publish an article about himself and so I asked him to provide me some references where he was nominated for awards and achievements. Indeed it is an autobiography and all references are reliable. Please guide me on what changes are needed to publish this article about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapon Mahamud Jony (talk • contribs) 11:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Tapon Mahamud Jony: See this simple guide on how to write articles that won't be deleted. You need independent references by other people, not him. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Tapon Mahamud Jony: Since you aren't actually Tapon Mahamud Jony, I also suggest you ask for a rename per WP:REALNAME. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans inserted this: Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC." Climate scientists note that past climate models have accurately predict subsequent rates of global warming. I reverted. Guy re-inserted (citing an additional source that didn't mention the claim). Other people who commented specifically about the Myron Ebell edit or the revert: Springee, Yae4, Newslinger. Should the inserted text be in the article? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- No. I reverted Snooganssnoogans's edit here with the edit summary "Not compliant with WP:BLPSPS and WP:WELLKNOWN." The cite is to this post on a website named "Climate Feedback" by Scott Johnson -- not a climatologist, just an editor who has a Master of Science degree (so does Ebell, big deal). There is no evidence that the post was subject to any editorial control, which is natural, Johnson's the editor. All that Johnson has done is say Ebell made an inaccurate statement based on excerpts from comments of
threefour other people -- that do not mention Ebell at all. For each, Johnson says "This comment is taken from an evaluation of a similar claim." I concluded it's a self-published non-expert opinion, hence not compliant with WP:BLPSPS. As for WP:WELLKNOWN, I was referring to the words "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." I see no other sites that claim that Ebell said that and that it's false, so it's non-compliant with that too. Whether it also is non-compliant with WP:RS and WP:DUE looks probable but I didn't see a need to bring them up. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Additional details re the author: According to Climate Feedback Scott Kyle Johnson's title is "science editor" and he has a masters in hydrogeology from University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is a "geology instructor" for Coconino Community College, and also "part-time faculty" for Northern Arizona University Online. I am unaware of any scholarly articles. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. The comments above are deceptive and disingenuous in a way that has now become Peter Gulutzan's trademark when it comes to climate change-related content. The source is not a blog post or whatever by some random called "Scott Johnson" or whatever it is that Gulutzan is now suggesting. The source is Climate Feedback, an acclaimed and recognized fact-checking website, and the claim in question by Ebell is reviewed by four recognized experts in the field of climate science (the editor for the particular post is Scott Johnson). The claim made by Ebell is a typical climate change denier claim that Climate Feedback has reviewed before ("The rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC"), so the reviews by the four recognized experts are re-used reviews from similar statements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- The person who writes the summary is the editor (the method is described on the about page for Science Feedback). The only text that says anything at all about Ebell is the summary. Therefore the description of Ebell is by the editor, Scott Johnson. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Seriously? He said it on BBC Newsnight. How much more public does it have to be? Guy (help!) 23:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- No. Ebell did make the statement, at about 5:11 in the Youtube video linked to at Climate Feedback's "claim review" page. The Independent article does not contain the quote being discussed here, although it does have other quotes from the show. My web news searches did not find any other source with the statement.
- The statement has zero specifics - over what time period? which prediction out of hundreds or thousands that have been run? It is a statement that can be true or untrue depending on those details, which were not said.
- Climate Feedback is known, but hardly "acclaimed." An "independent" review contained several criticisms, including one instance of "non compliant" and several instances of "partially compliant" with the IFCN code of principles.[25][26][27] They also were investigated found to have used two reviewers who "had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards..."[28]
- So, we have a statement that was made on a show, an article criticizing the show for even having that guest (but not containing the quote), and only one source - a review website that has problems complying with their principles, and only re-ran an old set of criticisms of a statement that is so vague it could be true or false. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Given the dates and specific comments related to IPCC, it is not OR to determine that the comments in question in 2018 are related to this report "Global Warming of 1.5 ºC" Now yes, that's still a big report so its not easy to say specifically what model is being compared here, but we can clearly id what he was commenting on. --Masem (t) 01:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- We just don't really know. Maybe he refers to Figure 11.25 of the IPCC ar5 report, where the observations do indeed appear lower (i.e. slower rate of rise) than most predictions [29] (Thanks Judith Curry Climate Models for the Layman, p. 13). [30] But really, this is OR. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- There's more than enough detail in what he is stating in the video from BBC [31] to accurately ID it as the 2018 IPCC report. But you are right about which figure or date set within it he may be referring to to be able to be able to compare. He's also not giving any of his own date, just saying "the rate is actually lower than IPCC". --Masem (t) 03:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- We just don't really know. Maybe he refers to Figure 11.25 of the IPCC ar5 report, where the observations do indeed appear lower (i.e. slower rate of rise) than most predictions [29] (Thanks Judith Curry Climate Models for the Layman, p. 13). [30] But really, this is OR. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Given the dates and specific comments related to IPCC, it is not OR to determine that the comments in question in 2018 are related to this report "Global Warming of 1.5 ºC" Now yes, that's still a big report so its not easy to say specifically what model is being compared here, but we can clearly id what he was commenting on. --Masem (t) 01:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- You come here to emphasize how the website only partially complied with some of the ICFN's criteria after sifting through International Fact-Checking Network's assessments of Climate Feedback which are full of praise and which conclude that Climate Feedback should be accepted into the International Fact-Checking Network (and Climate Feedback is currently a verified member of the International Fact-Checking Network)? Per the IFCN, Climate Feedback had five instances of partial compliance. For comparison's sake, FactCheck.Org has four such instances[32], and the Associated Press FactChecker has five partial compliances and one non-compliance[33], yet these are indisputably RS. Furthermore, this quibbling over partial compliance is irrelevant: Climate Feedback was accepted into the International Fact-Checking Network, and it was showered in praise by the IFCN assessors. Your comment is incredibly misleading (come on, don't sift through primary sources that are full of praise and omit all the praise, and misleadingly tell everyone about the minor quibbling found in those primary sources) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comparisons. They are useful. I would expect a Climate/Health/Science Feedback's blog/site using credentialed "experts" to stand heads and shoulders above typical journalists, but they don't, which is disappointing. Yes, I am critical. With some exceptions, promotion at Wikipedia takes care of itself. I came here with relatively fresh eyes, and scanned the reviews. Yes there are positive things said, but "full of praise" and "showered in praise" are exaggerations. To my eyes, many or most of the positive compliments were offset by suggestions for improvements (which may be expected from reviewers). -- Yae4 (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Since I know little about the subject of the article I will offer just some general comments. First, it's not clear if this single sentence hanging out by itself is DUE in the article. The previous discussion established that it was reliably sourced but not it's WEIGHT. Typically if you have a long article and you have a single fact like this it's probably not DUE. If another article about the subject mentions this same fact/interview/claim then I think there is WEIGHT for inclusion. Really, how would excluding this single, by itself sentence change the reader's understanding of the Ebell? If it doesn't then it probably isn't due. Second, we need to avoid phrasing like "falsely claimed" as it can imply he knowingly lied. Is it possible Ebell was both sincere in intent but incorrectly read the data? Could his answer have been true if he was perhaps he was thinking of a different/older set of models/data? Do we know? As a personal example, I've talked cars with people who were incorrect yet sincere at the same time. They might be certain a particular car had a 6spd auto vs the 8spd it actually came with or that a particular feature was available in 2006 when the model first launched in 2008. That doesn't mean they are trying to lie or deceive. Describing their incorrect facts as "falsely claimed" could imply deception. I suspect we have all seen similar things happen on contentious talk pages. Someone (of course never me) thinks they are restoring long standing text but in fact are restoring a relatively recent edit. Both editors start a back and forth certain they are returning things to the consensus text. Both can't be right. If A describes B as "falsely claiming to have restored the consensus view" I can see B taking that as "B is knowingly lying". However, the phrase, "incorrectly claimed" or "mistakenly claimed" doesn't impugn B's integrity, only their understanding/knowledge of the facts. The policy debate end of climate change is certainly an area where there are a lot of passions and strong POVs. We really should make sure we pick very neutral language vs language that is technically neutral but still can be reasonably be interpreted as "we want to call this person a liar in Wiki voice". Springee (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, Ebell's answer could have been true if he was thinking of a different/older set of models/data -- and I think the older the better, if his point was that the IPCC had sometimes had models that didn't quite fit data over a long term. For example, Zeke Hausfather in a different blog (one that actually mentions the IPCC as opposed to the one that Scott Johnson picked) compared projections in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR) of 1990 with 2016, thus: "Despite a best estimate of climate sensitivity a tad lower than the 3C used today, the FAR overestimated the rate of warming between 1970 and 2016 by around 17% in their BAU [Business As Usual] scenario, showing 1C warming over that period vs 0.85C observed. This is mostly due to the projection of much higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations than has actually occurred." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Reproducing my comment from the previous discussion:
- Myron Ebell (Special:Diff/871394198): The text in the article is consistent with the the Climate Feedback fact check, but in-text attribution of Climate Feedback would be appropriate, and the text should also state the year Ebell made the statement (2018). Something like
'In a 2018 Newsnight interview, Ebell stated that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC", which was described as "factually inaccurate" by Climate Feedback.'
would be fully BLP-compliant. It doesn't look like Ebell responded to the fact check.
- Myron Ebell (Special:Diff/871394198): The text in the article is consistent with the the Climate Feedback fact check, but in-text attribution of Climate Feedback would be appropriate, and the text should also state the year Ebell made the statement (2018). Something like
- Did you watch the video? Ebell couldn't respond because they cut him off, and refused to let him say more to explain. This is similar to what is happening here at Wikipedia, at some articles and "discussions" BTW. And why would Ebell then bother to explain something that was only noticed at a review site that needs to increase their number of reviews (publish or perish)? Also, among the cricisms of Science/Climate/Health Feedback was some difficulty in commenting on reviews.
- Question: This source is used twice in Climate Feedback's article, apparently supporting credibility and accuracy. Isn't it a blog post ("blogposts" tag at bottom)? If so, this looks like a double standard here (as I was recently advised not to use NYTimes blogs as a source). [38] Plus, the author, Dana Nuccitelli, "has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis." "He has also blogged at The Guardian," Is this the kind of qualifications needed? (because I was recently informed being an engineer with 40 years experience was not). [39]
- I see that Snooganssnoogans added that Dana Nuccitelli quote re Climate Feedback 4 days after I had said how bad Scott Johnson's Climate Feedback post was. In a WP:BLPN discussion of Dana Nuccitelli's Guardian blog, four editors agreed that it can't be used for BLPs. But the Climate Feedback article is non-BLP so nothing can be done there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
This is again an astounding misrepresentation. You're falsely claiming that the Guardian article is a blogpost?[40] There's a "blogposts" tag at the bottom because the subject of the news article is literally climate denial "blogs". How could you possibly skip over the entire content of the article and find some tag at the bottom, and then come here to claim it's a blogpost? First, you misrepresent the IFCN's assessments of Climate Feedback, which were full of praise and which resulted in Climate Feedback being accepted into the IFCN. And now this? And days ago, you were adding Daily Caller content and climate change denial rubbish to the Climate Feedback page? Apparently, to you, Climate Feedback is not a RS even though it was accepted into the IFCN with open arms, and a Guardian news article is an unreliable blogpost (when it's obvious not), but a far-right conspiracy website like the Daily Caller and the climate change deniers at Accuracy in Media are? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Question: This source is used twice in Climate Feedback's article, apparently supporting credibility and accuracy. Isn't it a blog post ("blogposts" tag at bottom)? If so, this looks like a double standard here (as I was recently advised not to use NYTimes blogs as a source). [38] Plus, the author, Dana Nuccitelli, "has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis." "He has also blogged at The Guardian," Is this the kind of qualifications needed? (because I was recently informed being an engineer with 40 years experience was not). [39]
- I asked a question. For why, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Guardian: "Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article."
- Could an admin apply some of those "discretionary sanctions" I was warned about? I'm getting tired of these Ad_hominem attacks. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, my apologies. That appears to have been a mistake. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Could an admin apply some of those "discretionary sanctions" I was warned about? I'm getting tired of these Ad_hominem attacks. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Finally, "Sarphan Uzunoğlu wrote: They need to publish more often to meet IFCN's standards. Otherwise, methodologically and in terms of non-partisanship and transparency, they are a reliable organization who is recognized by many international news outlets and scientific actors. I suggest to accept them but give them feedbacks regarding regularity of their content publication regime." One could argue this "quote check" may have been done simply to "publish more often." I also agree using editors who are less qualified than the reviewers is questionable. Taking reviewers from a pool of volunteers also calls into question whether they actually have a "staff." -- Yae4 (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. We have a reliable source saying it, so we can quote that. Four top experts are quoted in the source as saying the opposite of what Ebell says. The credentials of the editor do not matter. If the source were a highly regarded newspaper quoting four top experts, would you complain that the journalist wo wrote the piece is not a top expert? Second-guessing the reliable source, speculating about who meant what, is also disingenious special pleading from PROFRINGE editors. Ebell's job is to claim that the climate experts are wrong, and that is exactly what he does here. Consequently, the experts say that he is wrong, and the experts are reliable sources published in a reliable source. This complaint has no leg to stand on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes - The cited sources are fine, and special pleading from well-known climate deniers should be, well, denied. Everyone knows what Myron Ebell is at this point and trying to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to agree with what Newslinger has said and suggested as text: its basically a better-wording issue to frame who said what, rather than to flatly say "falsely claimed" without any in-line attribution, given the slight bit of doubt over Climate Feedback. But otherwise the sourcing and statement are appropriate, the rewording takes the claim out of Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 17:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to disagree with what Newslinger has suggested as text: the words "factually inaccurate" should be attributed to the person who said them, Scott Johnson. It is normal when directly quoting somebody to say who the somebody is, as in the MOS:QUOTEPOV example. I believe that WP:BLP-violating text should be removed totally. But, since the attribution would imply agreement that Snooganssnoogans violated WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy by inserting "falsely" in Wikipedia voice, I realize this constitutes removal of the worst part of the inserted text. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Pauley Perrette
Need some assistance on whether this is considered part of WP:TWITTER (via WP:V) and thus added to the article or shouldn't be added at all. Since this is a BLP, I am coming to you all for guidance. A discussion has begun on the talk page of the article. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:27 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)
- It is a verified Twitter account, so little reason to question that it is a self-published claim and would be appropriate for BLP, if the Twitter message was more direct about that. The linked tweet is way too vague to make the claim, but I may be missing context here (clearly the replies to it are taking it as what is being claimed). That's the only issue I see, that right now we'd be engaging in OR to jump from that tweet alone to this claim. --Masem (t) 19:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- The twitter account descriptor also includes "Ace.", which at this point (lacking some sort of adjective like "guitar ace" or "World War I flying ace") isn't that much fuzzier than "gay" these days, so that's not particularly unclear. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- If that is the only context, I'd be extremely wary of it. It's clear from a quick google search she certainly falls outside "heterosexual", and she's been tied to asexual before, but I'd not 100% sure if that can be used, I'm not familiar with that use of "ace" (though clearly it exists, we document that), but I can see other ways for that statement to be taken too. I would think with her being a celebrity, we'll have an RS that will re-affirm that was the intent... --Masem (t) 19:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Asexuality is sometimes called ace (a phonetic shortening of "asexual")
(pulled from the first sentence of Asexuality#Definition,_identity_and_relationships). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:05 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)- Oh, I'm not disagreeing: this is the Occum's Razor reading. But BLP I feel requires something a bit more than Occum's. --Masem (t) 20:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- I wasn't arguing, I was just pointing out since there was some confusion on the usage of "ace". Again, I am willing to look for alternative sources and say she is current sitting on a dog house or in a Sopwith Camel pretending to be a World War I flying ace as NatGertler pointed out. We could just comment out the mention of this...for the moment, while we look for backup sources. So, when people go to add it in, they'll see it's there, but also see a note that we are looking for backup, reliable sources. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:18 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)
- Occam. Other than that, I reckon thhat more conventional and easier to interpret sources will be popping up soon, -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- I wasn't arguing, I was just pointing out since there was some confusion on the usage of "ace". Again, I am willing to look for alternative sources and say she is current sitting on a dog house or in a Sopwith Camel pretending to be a World War I flying ace as NatGertler pointed out. We could just comment out the mention of this...for the moment, while we look for backup sources. So, when people go to add it in, they'll see it's there, but also see a note that we are looking for backup, reliable sources. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:18 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not disagreeing: this is the Occum's Razor reading. But BLP I feel requires something a bit more than Occum's. --Masem (t) 20:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- If that is the only context, I'd be extremely wary of it. It's clear from a quick google search she certainly falls outside "heterosexual", and she's been tied to asexual before, but I'd not 100% sure if that can be used, I'm not familiar with that use of "ace" (though clearly it exists, we document that), but I can see other ways for that statement to be taken too. I would think with her being a celebrity, we'll have an RS that will re-affirm that was the intent... --Masem (t) 19:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- The twitter account descriptor also includes "Ace.", which at this point (lacking some sort of adjective like "guitar ace" or "World War I flying ace") isn't that much fuzzier than "gay" these days, so that's not particularly unclear. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I have full-protected the article for 24 hours as people are edit-warring over this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Could I please get someone to check the article Gabriel Matzneff I just created? I think it's fine, but I would like another set of eyes on it - I've largely just translated the lead section of the French article. Thanks! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Bit of a sticky wicket I'd say. I'm not sure if the subject passes WP:WELLKNOWN or not, which is something more saved for the Brad Pitts and Stephen Kings of the world, eg: people so famous that such a scandal would be reported everywhere. In cases of people who are not well-known, where coverage is out there is not widespread, WP:BLPCRIME applies, which says we should leave out criminal acts until/unless a conviction is upheld in a court of law.
- This may be more of a special case, if the bulk of the subject's notability is revolves around writing about the very act he's been accused of, and that the accusations come from a book published by another author, but we should need some very good sources to support all of this, and perhaps that would also involve getting more of the story. We also have to be very careful about how we phrase things. That's the problem with just copying the lede, because the lede is really supposed to be summary of the rest of the article, but I would really need more info on all aspects to be able to make an informed determination. Zaereth (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, however he has actually confirmed the allegation and he has written books that are literally about pursuing underage minors. Unfortunately, it’s hard to understand all his work. It is absolutely making headlines all over the world, and France is going through quite a bit of soul searching at the moment because of him. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- That may be the case, but the problem is that I can't tell that from reading the article. I would expect to see a lot more than 2 sources. Once again, that may just be a problem of copying the lede. Perhaps there are hundreds of sources in the body that weren't copied, I don't know. If he passes WELLKOWN I'd expect to see a lot about his career and works. There just isn't enough in the article at this point to be able to make that determination. Zaereth (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, should be resolved now. But at this point we aren’t talking about BLP, you are talking about notability, and any reasonable person should have worked out he is (perhaps was now?) considered one of France’s foremost intellectuals. That’s absolutely not in any doubt. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- No, I'm talking about WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:BLPCRIME, which are part of WP:BLP, although BLP also works in conjunction with all other policies. I had a few spare moments so I sat down and read the French article. I would say yes, he does pass WELLKNOWN. But we really need to move all of that info and sources here, so that the English readers will have the full story. Perhaps with a little less editorializing, and less of a novelesque writing-style and more of an encyclopedic one. But to comply with BLP that all should be accessible from the English article. Zaereth (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry I'll need to reread WP:BLP. Sorry about that. This is a direct translation of the French Wikipedia article. Can you highlight the editorialization in the French article? I didn't actually translate the rest of it, as I suspect this is where the editorialization is :-) Anyway, I think I've done all I can do for now. Thank you for your review, I'm happy for anyone to improve the article as they see fit. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- No, I'm talking about WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:BLPCRIME, which are part of WP:BLP, although BLP also works in conjunction with all other policies. I had a few spare moments so I sat down and read the French article. I would say yes, he does pass WELLKNOWN. But we really need to move all of that info and sources here, so that the English readers will have the full story. Perhaps with a little less editorializing, and less of a novelesque writing-style and more of an encyclopedic one. But to comply with BLP that all should be accessible from the English article. Zaereth (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, should be resolved now. But at this point we aren’t talking about BLP, you are talking about notability, and any reasonable person should have worked out he is (perhaps was now?) considered one of France’s foremost intellectuals. That’s absolutely not in any doubt. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- That may be the case, but the problem is that I can't tell that from reading the article. I would expect to see a lot more than 2 sources. Once again, that may just be a problem of copying the lede. Perhaps there are hundreds of sources in the body that weren't copied, I don't know. If he passes WELLKOWN I'd expect to see a lot about his career and works. There just isn't enough in the article at this point to be able to make that determination. Zaereth (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- No problem. Think of it as the difference between notable and celebrity. Let me get back to you on the specifics when I have more time. I can read French only because of my fascination with English etymology. They're about as similar as English is to Norse and Swedish, more so than it is to German, Spanish and Italian. But I am by no means fluent so it takes me a little longer, and easier if it's an archaic dialect. In general, from reading it I felt like Chris Hansen should be narrating it on an episode of Dateline, but I'll try to give some specific examples when I have more time. The article looks much better since you expanded it. There really is no question now that the info is appropriate to the subject. Zaereth (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Brian Evans (singer)
- Brian Evans (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has frequently been the target of socks and editors (often new) with an obvious WP:COI. Today, a new editor (and now an IP with threats) have been adding promotional material to the article. More eyes are needed. I cannot revert any more.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Found at the help desk, it's no BLPPROD, but apparently a BLP1E with various BLP policy violations not limited to do no harm (see #Delhi gang rape above.) –84.46.52.152 (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like a good candidate for speedy deletion, having a total of 6 sources consisting of 5 youtube videos and a book review that doesn't mention his name once. Aside from the rather novelesque writing, there are telltale signs that seem to indicate this may be an autobiography written by the subject himself. Zaereth (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Zaereth: Please note also that Tarraga and his associate Anna Brees (producer of two of the YouTube videos cited in the article) -- with in particular their wildly implausible allegations about Edward Heath -- have been comprehensively debunked by both Private Eye and the respected blogger Richard Bartholomew: see https://barthsnotes.com/2019/04/04/private-eye-explores-new-edward-heath-accuser/ . These people are conspiracy theorists who seem to think uncorroborated assertions on YouTube (which exercises no editorial control over content) constitute reliable sources. -- Alarics (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Zaereth: courtesy ping for awareness of the above comment from Alarics -- I believe that the ping from Alarics may not have worked for obscure technical reasons. MPS1992 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks MPS1992. I didn't see the ping, but I saw the comment. I don't even need to know all that, but it is useful background information. The article has no sources and is full of BLP vios, so many that it's easier to list the policies not violated. I am particularly concerned about the naming of so many different people in this mess. I was hoping an admin would come along and delete it. When I get more time I may try to put it up for AFD, unless someone else wants to do the honors (hint hint) but I'm literally running out the door right now. Zaereth (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
This page is in violation of large portions of the biographies of living persons policy.
Sources are nearly all tabloid journalism, which consists of defamatory and libelous information. Sources are negative, questionable and written/referenced by unqualified people. Removal of such sources has been unsuccessful - editing blocked by a bot.
The page serves the only purpose of harming the subject - achieved subtly through negative references.
NPOV is not consistent where the anonymous writer has given their opinion on the subjects career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceNerd1900 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- What tabloid journalism? The sources there seem to be NZ Herald, the ODT, RadioNZ, NZMA's journal, Science Media Centre, NZ Skeptic (which I'm not sure is an RS, especially for BLPs but can't reasonably be called a tabloid journalism source), www.cartwrightinquiry.com (which seems to be some sort of blog with uncertain editorial oversight so is unlikely to be an RS especially for BLPs but again doesn't seem to be tabloid journalism). None of these can reasonably be described by tabloid journalism, except for the crap NZ Herald regularly pulls from Daily Mail and similar sources like news.com.au. But although I didn't look at the stories, the fact these are local stories makes this very unlikely and I think they're also from before NZ Herald really did that. (Also I saw Chris Barton as one of the authors.) I mean okay, NZ Herald's own reporting can be a but questionable at times on some issues, but it's generally still far from tabloid journalism and especially in serious issues like "The Unfortunate Experiment" it's unlikely they were anything like that. (This doesn't mean their reporting would be perfect, but it's not accurate to describe it as tabloid journalism.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at the article, I think a big problem is the lack of any other real info about her work. The book she wrote received is likely what has received the most attention by far, still she is a Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand so I assume there is other stuff covered in WP:RS. Nil Einne (talk)
Pablo Lyle
The category in the Pablo Lyle Wikipedia biography is libellous and slanderous.
I tried to edit and now it has been locked...and its unedited. This is my edit...that includes their misintentions with more detailed information. Their short blurb appears to be nonfiction but its actually full of errors...and out of context and most importantly out of context with the video footage being used to make the accusations. Its biased and very onesided. Once again while being a short blurb of the incident it is libellous and slanderous and can be punishable in the court of law for writing a bad take on the incident.
The real,longer and uncut version: On April 2019, Lyle without consideration for his Miranda Rights may have admitted to punching 63-year-old Juan Ricardo Hernández (of Cuban origin) during a road rage incident where Juan Ricardo Hernandez leaves his automobile unattended about 5 cars behind Lyle and approaches and engages the chauffer of the automobile SUV (a family car) where Lyle was a passenger. They were at a Stop Light and major intersection in Miami, Florida. The victim was hospitalized and died four days after his road rage incident which engaged the passerbyes occupants of a family car/vehicle.[3] Lyle was charged with manslaughter after the man of mature aged died. He had been originally charged with battery before Hernandez died. There is a video of the road rage incident where the victim leaves his compact car unattended about 5 cars behind, he was obviously the driver of his compact car leaving his car unattended during a Stop Light at a Major Intersection. Juan Ricardo Hernandez then approaches enraged to engage the chauffer, Lyle and his children whom were passerbyes at a Major Stop Light Intersection. Juan Ricardo Hernandez engages the family whom were in a family car, an SUV stopped at a major intersection. Lyle's children were passengers in the car. Lyle in a dubiously sketchy video is perhaps then seen running to punch Hernandez. Miami is full of random violence and crime even in traffic like the Dominican Republic and various parts of Florida and the Caribean which all lead to massacres. Many intersections are really to be avoided and really its a Stop and Go at Your Own Risk Intersections Regime. Apparently, gangs are more adept at law and managing the courts than the courts themselves. Why would gangs want to own the streets and major intersections. The trial is still on going but may end soon. [4] If convicted of manslaughter, Lyle could face up to 15 years in prison.
There are many major criminal incidents in Miami against tourists. Many appear to be mock crimes or repetitions of tourists being mugged and with the Miami Yacht industry apparently some are lured into yachts and raped. Do notice the recent mass murder crimes against families in traffic even in Mexico in Sonora. A family on a rural road headed to Sonora was killed in an incident that took the lives of 3 female adults and 6 children from the LeBaron family, a Mormon American Family returning home. The survivors are the father Mr Baron and 3 children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6C0:C000:4A86:40CC:9574:69E2:B1C3 (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- There are so many problems with this I don't even know where to begin. First and foremost is that all of this needs to be sourced to reliable, secondary sources. BLP rules are very clear about that, especially when naming victims and other people. And while we do give a bit more latitude on talk pages, BLP rules apply here as well.
- This reads like a police report, with the exception of all the editorializing. By that I mean phrases like "without consideration", "may have admitted", "he was obviously", "enraged to engage", "dubiously sketchy", etc... These are not simple facts but conclusions on the part of the author. And even if we whittle it down to the "factual" stuff (by that I mean info that would be regarded as factual if verifiable, but lacking reliable sources it's just fiction) the info is way too detailed. All we really need is the gist of it; a summary. This is an encyclopedia, so we don't need a play-by-play.
- Then there is the matter of weight. By adding so much detail about this one incident, you're giving it a lot more weight than the rest of the article. Does his notability for this incident outweigh his notability as an actor? You should want to be very careful about giving so much weight to a single incident, especially in such a very short article.
- Finally, just by looking at the article, it does not look like the subject passes WP:WELLKNOWN. He may be an actor, but there is just so little coverage in the article that I seriously doubt he rises to the level of celebrity or public figure. As such, I believe WP:BLPCRIME applies, which says we should leave out everything about this incident unless/until a time comes that he is convicted in a court. Zaereth (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Lots o suppression, protection, looks like it has been sorted. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Natalie van Gogh
Hi. I wanted to get further clarification on this edit. I'm not saying it's a bad edit, but I'm not clear on the policy relating to this. The editor states it is per MOS:BIO, and I see this section. That states it should not go in the lead, but should it be in the article? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Jacob Wohl
Jacob Wohl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There's a dispute over whether to use Category:21st-century American criminals. I oppose it's usage until there's a reliable source to say he has been convicted of a criminal offense in a court of law. Another editor points to the fact that he's already categorized as Category:American fraudsters, which is a sub-cat of Category:American criminals by crime. I think there's sufficient sources to say he's been found to have defrauded people, and broken the law, and been penalized for doing so. But, I don't yet see a source to say he's been criminally convicted. It's my understanding, that with a BLP, we don't categorize somebody as a criminal, unless they are convicted of a crime, even if sources say that they committed an act, which is normally considered a crime (e.g. fraud). I think this case shows a flaw in how the categories are organized. I haven't found a source that clearly settles the issue either way (to definitively say he's been convicted, or he's never been convicted, of a crime). Maybe I missed a source, in which case, I would be happy to be proven wrong. --Rob (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I suspect that it is only a matter of time before he manages to get himself convicted of something, rendering the question moot in his instance, but I think that you are right to err on the side of caution in the meantime. Leaving Wohl's antics to one side, I think that you might also be right that there is a flaw in the category nesting. It seems that the US makes a distinction between civil and criminal fraud so that not all people found to have committed fraud would necessarily be criminals. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- While I happen to agree with you on the first point, that doesn't make the question moot—someone should not be categorized as a criminal without having actually been convicted of a crime, regardless of their propensity to brush up against the law. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- All I meant is that if he were convicted then he would no longer illustrate the potential problem with the category nesting as he would then belong in both categories, although potentially for separate reasons. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- While I happen to agree with you on the first point, that doesn't make the question moot—someone should not be categorized as a criminal without having actually been convicted of a crime, regardless of their propensity to brush up against the law. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I have the page on my watchlist since I've edited it quite a bit, and I'm baffled as to why Koavf keeps restoring the category. They are absolutely correct that American fraudsters is currently a subcategory of American criminals, but they have been informed that Wohl has not been convicted of a crime, so re-adding the category is miscategorization. I agree with Thivierr that the fraudsters category should remain, and given that Wohl is a prime example that not all fraudsters are convicted criminals, it should probably be recategorized. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- The problem is that the article says that he is a "fraudster" and a lot of sources say that. I searched for the definition of fraudster and I found this "someone who commits the crime of fraud". A lot of sources call him fraudster. So should the word "fraudster" in the lead be removed and replaced by accused of fraud?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wohl is many unmentionable things, but until he's convicted in a court of law, he's entitled to a presumption of innocence like everyone else, and should not be described as a criminal until and unless he's found or pleads guilty to a crime. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Gurbaksh Chahal
Gurbaksh Chahal is a well known entrepreneur, author, and philanthropist who also had a domestic violence dispute from many years ago. Many of the wikipedia editors that have been trolling this page have continued to only highlight this negative dispute while deleting all other accomplishment. From his early life, awards, written works, notable career achievements, accomplishments, and philanthropy have all been removed with the singular focus of this article to be regarding his domestic dispute including placing it in the lead sentence of his page. I would encourage editors and administrators to look at the last few vandalized edits made from November 24, 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurbaksh_Chahal&oldid=928084378 and compare it to the edits made today to the article. As you can see the article was shrunk in half with the focus toward his domestic dispute and is dangerously libellous. I am not asking anyone to white wash this article, but requesting support from administrators to write this in the same light other notable biographies of living persons are written.