→Matthew Whitaker, Ronald Mallett, WP:GUILT: final summary |
Tryptofish (talk | contribs) →Matthew Whitaker, Ronald Mallett, WP:GUILT: a brief opinion |
||
Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
#There were a dozen or so high profile members besides Whitaker on that same advisory board - all of whom are verifiable by the FTC documents - including [[Occupy Democrats]] founder Omar Rivero, [[Ronald Mallett]], Aileen Marty, an appointee to Obama's Advisory Council, [[Brian Mast]], and others. If we're going to include Whitaker, then we are obligated by NPOV to include the names of other notables - and that is where DUE applies, regardless of echo chamber coverage repeating a WSJ article or Miami New Times. Furthermore, DUE doesn't apply in this context because of GUILT. <p> |
#There were a dozen or so high profile members besides Whitaker on that same advisory board - all of whom are verifiable by the FTC documents - including [[Occupy Democrats]] founder Omar Rivero, [[Ronald Mallett]], Aileen Marty, an appointee to Obama's Advisory Council, [[Brian Mast]], and others. If we're going to include Whitaker, then we are obligated by NPOV to include the names of other notables - and that is where DUE applies, regardless of echo chamber coverage repeating a WSJ article or Miami New Times. Furthermore, DUE doesn't apply in this context because of GUILT. <p> |
||
#Citing WP:BLP based on "noteworthy and relevant" crumbles under the weight of SCANDAL, NOTNEWS & GUILT. Not one RS demonstrated a <u>"direct relationship between the '''conduct of the third parties and conduct of the subject'''</u>" - the news implied potential guilt based only on guilt by association. We also have the receiver's conclusion stating that Whitaker did not know, which corroborates Whitaker's denial. We already know, or should know that <u>an advisory board has no control or fiduciary responsibility and could not have prevented anything</u>. None of the members of that advisory board knew or could have prevented it. The proof is in the pudding. WP:GUILT takes precedent, but exclusion from the lead is supported even further by NOTNEWS & SCANDAL, and probably even POV fork. [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 14:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC) |
#Citing WP:BLP based on "noteworthy and relevant" crumbles under the weight of SCANDAL, NOTNEWS & GUILT. Not one RS demonstrated a <u>"direct relationship between the '''conduct of the third parties and conduct of the subject'''</u>" - the news implied potential guilt based only on guilt by association. We also have the receiver's conclusion stating that Whitaker did not know, which corroborates Whitaker's denial. We already know, or should know that <u>an advisory board has no control or fiduciary responsibility and could not have prevented anything</u>. None of the members of that advisory board knew or could have prevented it. The proof is in the pudding. WP:GUILT takes precedent, but exclusion from the lead is supported even further by NOTNEWS & SCANDAL, and probably even POV fork. [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 14:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
*I watchlist Atsme's and MastCell's talk pages, so that's how I became aware of these discussions, and today I decided to take a look. I don't claim to have examined everything, but I can give this much as feedback. It seems to me that the content decision should rest upon whether or not the available sourcing, taken as a whole, justifies naming Whitaker in the lead. If he is mentioned at all, it should be in terms of him being a particularly and notably prominent member of the advisory board, and should not imply in Wikipedia's voice, beyond that, that he was guilty of anything. The choice is between: (a) ''that'', and (b) leaving him out of the lead. (It kind of sounds to me, based on what other editors have said here, that (a) is workable, but I could be wrong about that.) But Rivero, Mallet, and others should ''not'' be listed in the lead beside him, unless any one of them has had equally prominent coverage in sources (which it appears they have not). It's a false equivalence to include a Democrat to balance out a Republican (or vice-versa), and doing so simply for balance would, in fact, be a BLP violation, and would be a false NPOV. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Category:Anti-Christian sentiment in the United States == |
== Category:Anti-Christian sentiment in the United States == |
Revision as of 20:15, 10 April 2021
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:
| ||
Simar khera
Simar khera article is about simar khera an Indian actor and singer.know for his work in Nagara punjabi film as main villein & his character of Sanghargupt in Vighnaharta Ganesha . Please don't delete the article eacuse it's real person, i'am new on Wikipedia so may be there are many mistakes I did during editing first but now you can check the Simar khera now it's proper updated and editied. Please dont delete it.. it's a humble request to you all.
Please check news in times of india — Preceding unsigned comment added by Team Sukhjas (talk • contribs) 05:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC) [1]
References
- Article deleted already, user blocked, nothing to do here anymore. Regards SoWhy 07:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Susan Gerbic
Susan Gerbic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I happened upon this article during a content dispute with its subject and its primary editor that left me dissatisfied with the latter's understanding of WP:V/WP:NPOV/WP:RS/WP:BLP. What I saw did not make me more satisfied. To spell out what I've happened upon here, this is a pretty nasty violation of WP:BLP (in particular WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSTYLE) and WP:COI that a number of established content editors (I noticed @Drmies and @David Fuchs) have tried to do something about but been ignored/steamrolled by the article's apparent...fans? I don't know if I'd say OWNers, but I want to say fans. Essentially, Gerbic is a Wikipedia editor (who self-discloses on her userpage) whose article is virtually entirely written by people in close editing relationships with her, working on the same niche projects and having startlingly close interaction charts. COI for articles about Wikipedians is always kind of a mess (hence their controversy), but I feel most of us can say this is well outside their established bounds, especially combined with the article's tone and style.
Per XTools, the article's three primary contributors are @Rp2006 (41.3% authorship, 37% edits, 33% added text), @Khamar (12.9% authorship, 33.8% edits, 37.3% added text, creator), and @Jerodlycett (7.2% authorship, 11.8% edits, 7.7% added text). Rp2006 has an interaction chart with the subject that looks like this, including talk page conversations, heavy editing in the same small WikiProjects, and significant indications of close connections such as editing in one another's userspace. Khamar appears not quite as close, but remains a heavy contributor in the same small projects and explicitly identifies with an editing "movement" created by the subject. Jerodlycett's chart is somewhere between the two, with less intense activity than Rp2006 (meaning 'closest is eleven minutes rather than 33 seconds') but the appearance of significant conversation and userspace editing. COI is quite clear-cut regarding Rp2006's behaviour, and to a lesser degree the other two -- someone with this close a connection to the subject, and to the subject's vocation/avocation, should not be writing the plurality/majority of her article.
I've taken this to BLPN rather than COIN because it's also quite a POV-y promotion of a BLP subject with significant policy violations. In particular, there are massive violations of BLPSPS throughout the article, with extensive Wordpress, Patheos, and "podcasts that don't appear to have some form of editorial control or reliability" cites. The tone is also seriously questionable, with extensive detail (often followed by lines of WP:CITEOVERKILL) about every minor event the subject has participated in and yet talk page posts bringing up less flattering facts that get brushed off with "if you want that in the article, put it in yourself". (This is particularly concerning in the context that the subject's claim to notability is creating a Wikipedia initiative to rewrite the tone of articles.) Those cites that aren't active BLPSPS violations are also strongly biased towards primary sourcing, in many cases posts written by or Youtube videos uploaded by the subject, or towards sources that appear to be of marginal reliability or stemming from advocacy sites. There's a smattering of RS coverage that gives the subject enough claim to notability an article that isn't a BLP vio could be written, but this is quite far from it. Vaticidalprophet 12:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- That article is not good. There is merit to this complaint. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Without getting into detail, I agree that there is merit. The article needs some major renovations from NPOV compliant editors. Atsme 💬 📧 16:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- I started by removing the individual sections of her critiques on different people. I feel that section, which was around half the article, was a bit undue, especially as many of the sections had quotes from sources talking about the person she was critiquing, rather than discussing her. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- This shouldn't be surprising if her notability is indeed as a skeptical activist? I would expect to learn how she goes about it if that's what the reliable sources are reporting on although the amount of detail that you removed was indeed overwhelming to the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
In 2012, Gerbic and Edward organized a protest against Sylvia Browne when she appeared at the Imperial Palace Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas on July 13 of that year. Joined by Benjamin Radford, Ross Blocher, Bob Blaskiewitz, Jay Diamond, and others, the group stood outside the venue and handed out leaflets describing cold-reading techniques and describing some of so-called psychic predictions Browne has made over the years that have been proven to be incorrect.[31][32][33]
All of that sourced to two blogs and a YouTube video. Self-published and primary sources with a nice BLP violation at the end.In 2016, up-and-coming psychic Tyler Henry came to Gerbic's attention. Henry had a new television show on the E! Network, and Gerbic noticed that a Google search on the show or Henry resulted in a return of mostly favorable, uncritical articles. In what she called Operation Tater Tot,[40] Gerbic enlisted well-known skeptical activists to write about Henry, and provide an alternate point of view that would balance the uncritical perception being presented by the media services.[8]
with the two sources being blogs written by the article subject. I maintain that the wholesale removal of that section was warranted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)- Indeed if everything is only supported by BLPSPS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- This shouldn't be surprising if her notability is indeed as a skeptical activist? I would expect to learn how she goes about it if that's what the reliable sources are reporting on although the amount of detail that you removed was indeed overwhelming to the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- The overarching issue here from my understanding basically relates to a large chunk of skeptic stuff on Wikipedia, not just Gerbic's article, unfortunately. Gerbic runs an off-wiki Wikipedia editing group. It's a massive potential COI and votestacking issue, and one that has led to a lot of primary or questionable sources being used in these articles (which is why I tagged Gerbic's article, but it's undoubtably a systemic issue.) Leaving aside the clear primary source (blogs, podcasts, etc) that are used in Gerbic and other articles, I raised an issue at RSN about how a lot of the "journals" these people run don't seem to meet reliable source criteria either. The end result is that these people's articles—and perhaps, more crucially, their stated opponents—are sourced to very borderline sources. At the very least, it's an undue weight issue giving these organizations more heft than their appearances in reliable sources would demonstrate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I find most incredulous about this -- that an article for someone whose stated goal is to rewrite the tone of mostly-BLP articles has such a tone-deaf one herself, and what exactly that says for the goal. The RSN and moreso the RSN linked from it are interesting (and unsurprising) reading. Both the object stuff here at BLPN and the dispute that led me to discover this article (in which Rp2006 removed sources for being non-English or non-FUTON and said he'd never needed to use such a source in twenty articles -- as an apparent point of pride, or at least non-embarrassment) have left me quite significantly concerned about the understanding of sources amongst these "GSoW" people. Vaticidalprophet 19:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- I concur with this concern. After Morbidthoughts post above I looked at the history of the article to provide examples of what I removed, which led me to looking at some of the articles linked from her's. I've found huge swaths of content with statements like
Despite the scientific skeptic consensus that mediumship is a con,[30][31]
sourced to a Skeptoid blog article about Gerbic and a YouTube video of a podcast. The criticism in Thomas John Flanagan continues, covering multiple "stings" by Gerbic and associates and even including a picture of Gerbic. All these sections lack reliable secondary sourcing, instead relying on blogs and Gerbic's own writings. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC) - Vaticidal, have you notified the users you mentioned since you are discussing their COIs here? COIN would normally require this. Also, the previous discussion at COIN.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- The primary contributors to the article have been pinged above. Feel free to ping any more individuals you think would be worth noting -- I don't exactly have a membership roll to hand, so if there are any obvious missing names I won't know them. Vaticidalprophet 18:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- You should notify Gerbic too. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's so much easier to be snarky and condescending to me talking behind my back like I've been reading here and on various other talk pages. Why bother actually speaking to me, you know in a conversation like adults? But I guess I better step in here now before one of you does something really stupid like say "she's only a girl" or something equally dumb. So let's just move on from that. Let me be crystal clear, if Susan Gerbic really cared about the Susan Gerbic Wikipedia page it would have been rewritten years ago ... correctly and my team would have descended on anyone making changes like rabid space monkeys. Let's stop tiptoeing around pretending that I care all that much about it. It is far too big, stuffy and just a mess and has been for years. Many editors have inserted this and that into the page changing the tone as they add and remove. What needs to be done is one editor with some skill at writing a really good biography should start at the beginning and completely rewrite it in one voice. I've been watching it get chopped at and then leave a message with a hint of snark. Leave a note on talk that you are going to completely rewrite it, transfer it into your sandbox and go at it. Chop and cut and delete and write it correctly, just do it in one voice and not this haphazard way it's being done now. Just reading comments like this one "an article for someone whose stated goal is to rewrite the tone of mostly-BLP articles has such a tone-deaf one herself" HELLO there - make up your mind - do you want us to edit the page or stay away from the page? And obviously you know nothing about GSoW because we don't "mostly" write BLP articles. Here is another snarky bit "amongst these "GSoW" people" I'll have you know that many of the editors you are working with Vaticidalprophet right now on other pages are GSoW and you seem quite happy with the work they are doing. So maybe you should think about your tone and remember we are all here on Wikipedia with one goal. Stop with the snark and remember that we should have each other's backs. Sgerbic (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- You should notify Gerbic too. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- The primary contributors to the article have been pinged above. Feel free to ping any more individuals you think would be worth noting -- I don't exactly have a membership roll to hand, so if there are any obvious missing names I won't know them. Vaticidalprophet 18:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- I concur with this concern. After Morbidthoughts post above I looked at the history of the article to provide examples of what I removed, which led me to looking at some of the articles linked from her's. I've found huge swaths of content with statements like
- Yeah, that's what I find most incredulous about this -- that an article for someone whose stated goal is to rewrite the tone of mostly-BLP articles has such a tone-deaf one herself, and what exactly that says for the goal. The RSN and moreso the RSN linked from it are interesting (and unsurprising) reading. Both the object stuff here at BLPN and the dispute that led me to discover this article (in which Rp2006 removed sources for being non-English or non-FUTON and said he'd never needed to use such a source in twenty articles -- as an apparent point of pride, or at least non-embarrassment) have left me quite significantly concerned about the understanding of sources amongst these "GSoW" people. Vaticidalprophet 19:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Is it inconceivable that I could have genuinely missed the comment about pinging you? I don't check my watchlist every minute, and BLPN is quite active. My concerns regarding this article and the broader conduct I've observed in GSoW-related issues are quite unrelated to your gender and I'm concerned that your first response here is to come to accusations of misogyny. There are multiple people involved in this conversation, some of who have been editing your BLP and some of who have not; I have not, because I work on quite a lot of articles already, one of which is actively undergoing a quite heavy GA review, and am beginning a major rewrite of a sizable cross-section of medical articles that's likely going to have a lot of my content creation time for a while. @ScottishFinnishRadish (who I hesitate to ping on account of they probably won't miss this, but nonetheless, just in case) has been doing most of the content work, plus a little from @JPxG, and both can speak for themselves on what they think of the article and of the broader issue. As for the rest of your comments, I sure can't speak for the broad project, but the majority of the individual articles I've discovered were GSoW-related were BLPs, so I'm focused on the degree to which the project interacts with BLP creation specifically. ScottishFinnishRadish has made some broader comments about GSoW sourcing as applies to both BLP and non-BLP articles. At any rate, none of my concerns with this project are intended as insults on individuals, and I am sure this is just as true for SFR, JPxG, or David Fuchs as it is for me. Vaticidalprophet 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- And yet, no one has said “I will take responsibility for fixing this page.” You all enjoy complaining about it and removing bits that leave unlinked reference errors but you haven’t actually improved it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.185.103.20 (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- "Shut up and do the work"? How polite. Several people have been working to trim the article of cruft, and indeed of unlinked reference errors. I suspect there would be more enthusiasm to work on such a project if it didn't result in both the article subject talking about how in a perfect world her team would descend on people making unapproved changes like "rabid space monkeys" and IPs coming out of the woodwork to get aggro. Vaticidalprophet 04:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- @197.185.103.20: Complaining about complaining? I've got half a mind to complain about that. jp×g 19:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@Sgerbic, unrelated to above, but is the "space monkey" reference with the explanation that the GSoW members are everywhere and no one even realizes it a reference to Project Mayhem? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Someday when I retire from retirement I need to watch/read Fight Club. No idea what the reference you mean means but I am aware that we are not to discuss it. Sgerbic (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@Sgerbic: I agree that it would be messed-up if, hypothetically, someone were to make such disparaging remarks toward you. As for the process of rewriting an article, I think there are a few different schools of thought. Doing an entire rewrite in one large edit is certainly acceptable, but I often choose to make a series of smaller edits to a page, especially if I expect them to be contentious. One huge diff with a bunch of material getting changed can rile people up. While you're certainly entitled to disagree with this, I don't know what we stand to gain from arguing over what method is used to clean up the mess: if we agree that there is a mess and that it needs to be cleaned up, what's the difference? jp×g 19:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- The difference is that when the page has been rewritten, it is done and only changed as needed in smaller edits. You are probably not aware of the GSoW project but one of our goals is to make the page readable and told in one voice (meaning writing style) so that theoretically the reader starts at the lead and reads to the bottom of the article and clicks on the citations and other hyperlinks, feeling when done that they have learned something new. As I said before, the fact that we all agree that the Susan Gerbic Wikipedia page is a mess means that GSoW have not really bothered with it, I surely haven't - (note to self - take new photo and upload to WMC). We have just published page number 1,707 today and they are written this way. Us here in this conversation are all editors, with various degree of experience and skill - with the same goals (I hope). The way I look at it, first person to see the cat barf upon waking up is the one responsible for cleaning it up. You don't get a free pass to put a sign next to it and say "someone else deal with this".Sgerbic (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've only been moderately following this discussion, so I don;t have any thoughts formulated on the article at hand yet. Just from your description here, I can't tell if your setting yourself up for a Sisyphean task or a Quixotic one. Either way, it seems your making it a lot harder than it needs to be. It's hardly necessary to rewrite an entire article just to fix problems of grammar, style, cohesion, and flow. That's the easy part. The hard part is doing all the necessary research and trying to assemble all of the necessary info in the first place. The rest is just the common changing and rearranging that any writer has to do once the initial draft is complete. That's very much of what I do here. I always try to preserve the work of other people whenever possible, because people are often very proud of their work (good or bad), and if anything they've written is at all salvageable, I make a concerted effort to retain it. But the tings you are talking about is just basic clean-up work, and that is really the easy part. I rarely see a need to rewrite an entire article from scratch just to correct flow issues. Zaereth (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- The analogy of the cat barf on the carpet falls apart when we look at Wikipedia as more of a public space full of volunteers doing the upkeep. I think a better analogy would be a park with lawns, statues, monuments, walkways and the like. There are hoards of people who do nothing but walk around and pick up dog poop, but if they see a damaged statue they lack the tools or the motivation to repair it. To expect every person to be able to do something as huge as entirely rewriting an article is a tough ask. I've been spending most of my time handling edit requests, participating in AfDs and some noticeboards. I'm ill-equipped to rewrite an entire article, but more than capable of removing a large section of text that is only supported by primary or poor sourcing so that's what I did. I picked up the rubble from the damaged statue and right now User:SlimVirgin is rebuilding and repairing the statue. I feel that is how it should work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- So I guess we just wait to see what SlimVirgin comes up with. I've moving on from this conversation. Ping me if you think I really need to be a part of this conversation. Enjoy! Sgerbic (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just noting that I'm not committing to a complete rewrite. I'm editing it a little and I may or may not continue. SarahSV (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry if I implied that you were taking on a full rewrite. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have the sneaking suspicion that if I completely rewrote the article, we'd be right back in this thread a week later with me being accused of COI editing. Vaticidalprophet 21:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hence, the Sisyphean task comment. If there is anyone on Wikipedia I would trust to do an outstanding job, it's Sarah. I have nothing but the utmost respect for her. But we're all volunteers here, so this is how it works. People just do what little they can on whatever interests them. If anyone thinks making a bio coherent and understandable to the general population is difficult, try doing the same to a technical or scientific article. Those are the real challenges, and in my view the more important articles. But then again, they're rarely controversial. Either way, once an article gets into a good state, I find it rarely gets edited much by people who lack the proper knowledge and skills, because nobody wants to look like an idiot. In most cases, we just have to wait until that special person comes along with a desire to take it to completion.
- The analogy of the cat barf on the carpet falls apart when we look at Wikipedia as more of a public space full of volunteers doing the upkeep. I think a better analogy would be a park with lawns, statues, monuments, walkways and the like. There are hoards of people who do nothing but walk around and pick up dog poop, but if they see a damaged statue they lack the tools or the motivation to repair it. To expect every person to be able to do something as huge as entirely rewriting an article is a tough ask. I've been spending most of my time handling edit requests, participating in AfDs and some noticeboards. I'm ill-equipped to rewrite an entire article, but more than capable of removing a large section of text that is only supported by primary or poor sourcing so that's what I did. I picked up the rubble from the damaged statue and right now User:SlimVirgin is rebuilding and repairing the statue. I feel that is how it should work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- By the way, I don't think anyone is really being snarky here, or trying to hurt anyone's feelings. I simply see an easier way than complete rewrites, so I hope my comments helped. All of us occasionally get too deep into our original logic to step back and look at the problem objectively, and there's no shame in getting a second or third opinion, so I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- As someone who brought a controversial scientific article to GA...you're telling me. They're difficult articles to write, which really is exactly why I'm so concerned about the sourcing here. Imprinted brain hypothesis was in an awful state for a decade, a glowing endorsement of a claim both unsubstantiated and actively insulting, and plenty of people passed by without seeing anything wrong. I had to tear out about three-quarters of it, and I had to walk the closest of tightropes to make it actually NPOV, fair, and balanced -- endless lines of
The unsubstantiated and fake pseudoscience[blog][youtube][podcast]
are bad even if you're right. Writing with the active goal of "I'm going to use these pre-selected advocacy sources to debunk everything" is a misunderstanding of what it really means to write articles on these topics and to correctly, cautiously present them. Vaticidalprophet 21:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- As someone who brought a controversial scientific article to GA...you're telling me. They're difficult articles to write, which really is exactly why I'm so concerned about the sourcing here. Imprinted brain hypothesis was in an awful state for a decade, a glowing endorsement of a claim both unsubstantiated and actively insulting, and plenty of people passed by without seeing anything wrong. I had to tear out about three-quarters of it, and I had to walk the closest of tightropes to make it actually NPOV, fair, and balanced -- endless lines of
- By the way, I don't think anyone is really being snarky here, or trying to hurt anyone's feelings. I simply see an easier way than complete rewrites, so I hope my comments helped. All of us occasionally get too deep into our original logic to step back and look at the problem objectively, and there's no shame in getting a second or third opinion, so I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
World Patent Marketing was a start-up company, only in business for about 3 years. Anybody can do the research and learn that these types of companies are not miracle workers, and that it requires a minimum of 2 to 3 years from submission of an invention to get it patented & marketed, and even then, there are no guarantees the invention will sell. The question is not about the process, or about good business practice vs mistreating clients; rather, it is about WP:GUILT because that company chose some high profile people to serve on their advisory board, including scientist Ronald Mallett, Omar Rivero, founder of Occupy Democrats, and Matthew Whitaker who was acting US Attorney General for a short 3 mos (Nov 2018 - Feb 2019) after he served as an advisor to the start-up along with several other high profile people described as Obama advisors, scientists, US attorneys, etc. The problem is that, regardless of whether the company was forced to shut down by the FTC within 3 years of opening their doors, or that they agreed to make restitution to clients without admitting guilt, or whether they were indeed scam artists - it is not our job as editors to do anything beyond stating facts. We should also be compliant with WP:GUILT relative to the BLPs, and therein lies the problem. I added Omar Rivero to the lead because for some reason, only Whitaker was singled out for the lead. My edit was reverted but Whitaker's name remains - none of the others are mentioned. That is a clear indication of WP:GUILT. I actually oppose any of the names being included because the company itself is not notable, except for its choice of advisory board, some of whom weren't even aware they named initially. Why smear the names of those high profile people when none of them were mentioned in the FTC case or found guilty in any way? I have nominated the article for AfD because other than the political angle that has been attempted, there is absolutely nothing encyclopedic about that company - it fails in numerous ways. Just because the news covers an incident, it is not an adequate reason to include it in our encyclopedia. What I'm seeing is a BLP vio, and that all mention of WPM in the BLPs and vice versa should be removed. Further reasons for its failure to pass GNG are provided in the AfD. Atsme 💬 📧 17:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- For Whitaker there was significant coverage with respect to him and WPM. (see WP:WELLKNOWN). He was, after all, the Acting Attorney General, and that's a critical legal post for one day, let alone three months. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, it takes a good three years just to hear back from the patent office, and then like 98% of the time they are going to reject it. It's almost like a little game they play, probably just to see what you will say upon appeal. (Yes, you can and should appeal, in case they don't tell you that.) My advice is, stay away from companies like this or those looking to buy your gold. Go hire yourself a good patent lawyer who is bound by the ethical practices set by that profession.
- I find it highly unlikely that AFD will succeed, given the amount of coverage this has in RSs. However, at the same time we do have quite a few questionable sources and primary sources too. You really need to go into AFD with the ammunition to shoot down all the sources, because many there lean toward "keep" as a default position, and it's hard to sell bad writing, tone, or even BLP issues over there.
- This article reads like a news article rather than an encyclopedia article, and when combined with some of the sourcing I see, at first glance, I would be on the lookout for OR and synth. What I would be very careful of is making any direct statement or implication that is not found in the sources. For example, the Whitaker article seems to do a fairly good job of making it known that he was just on an advisory board, and really had nothing to do with the day to day operations of this firm (although I'm not sure just how involved he was and if we're giving this due weight in his article). The company article makes it seem more as if he was at the center of it all, which really doesn't make sense, since that is not what a panel of experts does. So I think it needs some toning down, and, while we kinda have to mention how his name was used to allegedly intimidate people, we also need to make his side clear, that he was never aware of this happening. Zaereth (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Zaereth - I agree with everything you said. It was a start-up company, so how could any of the advisory board member be aware? Advisory boards don't have any financial liability and their suggestions are NON-BINDING. Media spins for baitclick, and in this case it is quite obvious considering there was no evidence to indicate that he or any other advisory board member was aware of what the company was doing, which is why none of them were named in the case by the FTC. We need to put politics aside and comply with NPOV and GUILT. Atsme 💬 📧 20:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- This article reads like a news article rather than an encyclopedia article, and when combined with some of the sourcing I see, at first glance, I would be on the lookout for OR and synth. What I would be very careful of is making any direct statement or implication that is not found in the sources. For example, the Whitaker article seems to do a fairly good job of making it known that he was just on an advisory board, and really had nothing to do with the day to day operations of this firm (although I'm not sure just how involved he was and if we're giving this due weight in his article). The company article makes it seem more as if he was at the center of it all, which really doesn't make sense, since that is not what a panel of experts does. So I think it needs some toning down, and, while we kinda have to mention how his name was used to allegedly intimidate people, we also need to make his side clear, that he was never aware of this happening. Zaereth (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I admit, I haven't had time to look at all the sources, being covered in grease and grime and hydraulic oil, but so far I haven't seen it verified that everyone listed as being on this panel was really on this panel. Whitaker sure was, or at least he agreed to be and even did some promo work, but a company that would do what this one is accused of wouldn't be beyond faking a panel of experts. Of course, I may have missed something, but I think what people really want to know is who was running this operation. That might be a BLPCRIME problem at this point (I don't know), although I doubt it would ever go that far.
- One of the huge problems of our times, not just with the US but globally, is the corporate model. Many of these entities are more wealthy and powerful than nations, yet they are --required by law-- to behave like a sociopath, putting the profits and (for lack of a better word) greed of the shareholders above all else. When something goes wrong, as it invariably does with sociopaths, the entity takes on all the blame and punishment, and none of the people involved ever feel any repercussions (especially the shareholders, being twice removed). It's a crazy way to do things, but it goes back a long time. (For example, the American Revolutionary War had more in reality to do with the East India Trading Co. than it did with King George.)
- So what I see in this particular case is a bunch of people who were named as an advisory panel of experts, in company ads, promos, and brochures, who are now being used as the only faces of what is probably being treated legally as the faceless entity; the corporation. That's what it looks like to me, anyhow, and I think we need to be very careful in just how we word this. Zaereth (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- The sources make clear Whitaker was personally involved in responding to claimants (as shown in FTC documents) so his mention in the lead is appropriate. The company wasn't just trading on his name. Fences&Windows 12:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- "Personally involved"? No, not personally. Fences and windows, your inclusion of a primary source raises a big red flag, and I found it rather disconcerting. Did you take the time to review the items at the link you provided? For example, the first two audio recordings: the first was a message to Whitaker, and the 2nd was Whitaker's response and willingness to be cooperative. He also advised the caller that as of September he was no longer active on that advisory board. I also read the document that lists all the advisory board members: World Patent Marketing's Advisory Board includes: (i) Dr. Aileen M. Marty, a Navy veteran, infectious disease specialist, and member of President Obama's Advisory Council to Combat Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria; (ii) Brian Mast, a veteran of the United States Army, Joint Special Operations Command, and candidate for the US House of Representatives in Florida's 18th District; {iii} Pascal Bida Koyagabele, a Presidential Candidate for the Central African Republic; (iv) Nitzan Nuriel, a retired Israeli Brigadier General who received an Honorary Citation from the United States Congress for his contributions to world Security and counterterrorism; (v} Richard Paul Sulaka II, Deputy Public Works Commissioner of Macomb County, Michigan; and {vi} Matthew G. Whitaker, Esq., a former United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa and Executive Director of The Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust (FACT), a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting accountability, ethics and transparency in government. Is there a particular document that you believe supports the position that Whitaker was guilty of something? What is your point exactly - and please, whatever it is you're trying to prove, keep in mind that it must be compliant with WP:GUILT. You might also want to refresh your memory about WP:NOTNEWS, which is something I deal with on regular basis as a NPP reviewer/trainer and article creator. It clearly states (my bold underline as it applies in this case): Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Under News reports it further states: While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... I'm not going to argue over the inclusion of WPM if it is properly presented from a NPOV without BLP & WP:GUILT violations. I accept what DGG and BD2412 decided relative to draftify because the article, as it stands now, is a coatrack. The facts must be stated accurately, without media speculation, innuendos, and biased opinions - the case has been finalized by the FTC, and the bottomline is that Whitaker was cleared of any wrong-doing. To present it as anything other than that is unacceptable. If we can't get this resolved here, perhaps we can get it resolved with a bit more clarity at ARCA since WP:GUILT was one of the principal findings in a prior ArbCom case. Recent edits at WPM have restored Whitaker in the lead which is noncompliance with WP:GUILT. Atsme 💬 📧 19:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Patent Marketing closed as keep. As I said there, "many reliable sources have prominently discussed Whitaker's role at WPM, including that he was aware of and involved in responding to complaints (e.g.Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, Slate, ABC News)." We need to discuss Whitaker's role because the sources do and at no point does the article say he is guilty of a criminal offence. Fences&Windows 20:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- "Personally involved"? No, not personally. Fences and windows, your inclusion of a primary source raises a big red flag, and I found it rather disconcerting. Did you take the time to review the items at the link you provided? For example, the first two audio recordings: the first was a message to Whitaker, and the 2nd was Whitaker's response and willingness to be cooperative. He also advised the caller that as of September he was no longer active on that advisory board. I also read the document that lists all the advisory board members: World Patent Marketing's Advisory Board includes: (i) Dr. Aileen M. Marty, a Navy veteran, infectious disease specialist, and member of President Obama's Advisory Council to Combat Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria; (ii) Brian Mast, a veteran of the United States Army, Joint Special Operations Command, and candidate for the US House of Representatives in Florida's 18th District; {iii} Pascal Bida Koyagabele, a Presidential Candidate for the Central African Republic; (iv) Nitzan Nuriel, a retired Israeli Brigadier General who received an Honorary Citation from the United States Congress for his contributions to world Security and counterterrorism; (v} Richard Paul Sulaka II, Deputy Public Works Commissioner of Macomb County, Michigan; and {vi} Matthew G. Whitaker, Esq., a former United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa and Executive Director of The Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust (FACT), a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting accountability, ethics and transparency in government. Is there a particular document that you believe supports the position that Whitaker was guilty of something? What is your point exactly - and please, whatever it is you're trying to prove, keep in mind that it must be compliant with WP:GUILT. You might also want to refresh your memory about WP:NOTNEWS, which is something I deal with on regular basis as a NPP reviewer/trainer and article creator. It clearly states (my bold underline as it applies in this case): Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Under News reports it further states: While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... I'm not going to argue over the inclusion of WPM if it is properly presented from a NPOV without BLP & WP:GUILT violations. I accept what DGG and BD2412 decided relative to draftify because the article, as it stands now, is a coatrack. The facts must be stated accurately, without media speculation, innuendos, and biased opinions - the case has been finalized by the FTC, and the bottomline is that Whitaker was cleared of any wrong-doing. To present it as anything other than that is unacceptable. If we can't get this resolved here, perhaps we can get it resolved with a bit more clarity at ARCA since WP:GUILT was one of the principal findings in a prior ArbCom case. Recent edits at WPM have restored Whitaker in the lead which is noncompliance with WP:GUILT. Atsme 💬 📧 19:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- By way of trying to check whether mentioning any individuals is WP:DUE, I asked Google News for information about the company (search string:
"World Patent Marketing"
). I then checked the first ten results. They were a mix of obviously normal news sources that editors widely consider to be reliable, such as NPR and Politico, and some that I've never heard of before. The articles were dated in 2017, 2018, and 2020, showing sustained coverage. Here's what I found:- Seven of the first ten articles mention Whitaker in the headline. (Remember, I searched only for the company's name, not for Whitaker's name.)
- All of the first ten articles mention Whitaker in the body of the article.
- Two of the first ten articles mention Ronald Mallet. Zero mention Omar Rivero.
- The first ten articles about the company aren't necessarily the full story, but from where I'm sitting, it appears to me that it would be appropriate to mention Whitaker in the lead, and inappropriate to mention these other two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
First a reminder to everyone that per WP:RSPS Forbes contributor articles are treated as WP:SPS unless they are published in print. They therefore cannot be use for any claims concerning living persons per WP:BLPSPS. Note the article being an "editors' pick" is largely irrelevant, see WP:RSN#Forbes.com contributors yet again - editors' pick. If the author is a subject matter expert they potentially could be use for other content, but IMO we really should just replace [2].
In the mean time, I have removed one paragraph concerning Whitaker as it did rely on this SPS [3].
I did find this NYT article which partly mentions the content [4], but not all and it's complicated. According to the NYT, Cooper is the one who drafted the email Whitaker sent. Further the customer was "apparently" a disgruntled former employee of Cooper from a different business. I don't think we can ignore this detail, the NYT clearly thought it significant enough to mention and I can see why.
It provides context to the dispute with this particular customer as they weren't simply a customer but someone where it's likely there was already animosity between Cooper and the customer. (Remembering this is the article about WPM not Whitaker.) And if we explain that we also have to explain how Cooper drafted the email and Whitaker sent it. Yet this seems a lot of detail so frankly it seems better just to not go there at all. Also while I don't know for sure, I suspect "apparently" means the NYT did not try to verify the connection, it's just something they gathered from the emails.
- I am responding to a diff request made by MastCell relative to my post on his UTP, wherein I asked him to provide input here. He asked again on my UTP, so I provided the diffs below:
- March 20, 2021, I removed a BLP vio per WP:GUILT from the lead
- March 21, 2021 Gandydancer reverted (WP;GUILT does not apply here--this is clearly well-supported by numerous references) <— what is "well-supported", his guilt?
- (March 21, 2021), "fraudulent" was removed from the lead by BD2412; Note:- we don't use "headlines" in press releases - this is an encyclopedia. We report the facts, for example: The proposed settlement order resolves charges the FTC brought last year, alleging that Cooper and his companies deceived consumers and suppressed complaints about them using threats, intimidation, and gag clauses. A federal court subsequently halted the Florida-based scheme and froze its assets pending litigation. Notice the word "alleged".
- (April 2, 2021) "fraudulent" was restored by MastCell. Note: FTC headline: FTC alleges company’s practices are “patently” deceptive If the FTC is "alleging", how can we state it as fact in WikiVoice in the lead?
- I added Omar Rivero's name as another advisory board member for the sake of NPOV in the lead because I believe that adding only Whitaker's name is noncompliant with NPOV & GUILT. There were several other high profile members on that advisory board, all easily verifiable in the FTC docs. The company circulated several press releases that could be cited depending on context, unless inclusion is noncompliant with GUILT per MastCell's edit summary for removing board names: "potentially contentious/harmful material about living people." What makes it potentially contentious/harmful??
- Smartse reverted Omar Rivero's name from the lead, but left Whitaker's name. His edit summary: (it's massively undue including this in the lead when the only source is a press release) What I'm seeing is an obvious misunderstanding of NPOV. Also, context determines a source's reliability for inclusion of material. Omar was quoted saying something for a press release that was cited to a press release. I'm ok with removing all quoted statements, but it's either OR or POV if we choose to use only Whitaker's and no one else's on that same board.
- MastCell tweaked the edit a bit, and found no issue with Omar being reverted or Whitaker remaining in the lead;
- MastCell removed the names of board members: (→Advisory board: rm per WP:BLP; high-quality independent reliable sources are required for potentially contentious/harmful material about living people; the website and press releases of a fraudulent company are NOT independent reliable sources; this is a BLP action) BLP action - he made it clear that it was contentious/harmful material except for everyone but Whitaker. WP:GUILT?
- MastCell removed more names: (→Advisory board: rm WP:BLP violation; need high-quality independent reliable sources for this material; do not restore without appropriate sourcing)
- MastCell cited a source: (→Advisory board: add ref for quote and statement) <--Is this NPOV editing?
- MastCell cited a primary source (→Business model: not a great source) <-- he has no problem citing sources for material he wants to keep
- I removed Whitaker's name, (Remove per NPOV & WP:GUILT - if you want to include advisory board members, do it in the body text - there are several high profile members that should be named, none of which belong in the lead, but if they are to be included, then include at least 3 of the individuals.)
I think it's rather obvious that NPOV & GUILT are at issue here, and that the article needs revamping. I'm certainly open to discussion with those who believe that I'm off-base in my evaluation. I'm certainly not perfect. Atsme 💬 📧 05:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV is clear: we achieve neutrality by accurately reflecting the content, emphases, and weight of reliable sources. WP:BLP is very clear: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Multiple reliable third-party sources link Whitaker to WPM (in fact, Whitaker's role is arguably the most heavily-reported aspect of WPM). In contrast, few or no reliable third-party sources link Omar Rivero to WPM—the effort to include him seems to rely on press releases and Facebook pages for a fraudulent company, which clearly violates WP:BLP. So to treat Whitaker's and Rivero's cases as if they were comparable shows deep ignorance of available sources and/or site policy.
As for the specific diffs, I am at a loss for what underlies Atsme's aspersions. She cites this edit, asking: Is this NPOV editing? Since the edit in question simply consists of replacing a broken ref tag with a full citation to a reliable source, I guess my answer is... yes? And WTF? Likewise, Atsme's summary of this edit is a deceptive misrepresentation. I didn't cite any new source in that edit; I simply removed a citation to DemocracyNow!, which is clearly an inappropriate source for a BLP.
So leaving aside these unfounded personal aspersions, we're left with the need to follow reliable third-party sources, which link Whitaker to WPM. If high-quality sources link other people to WPM, then we should mention them. If high-quality sources don't, then we don't. This is Wikipedia 101. MastCell Talk 18:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- The issue with citing Wellknown, is that wellknown presumes the allegation satisfies WP: Synth (as in there is a source for the allegation itself). The problem with this content which I think Atsme is getting at with Guilt is that there's an implied conclusion of wrongdoing on the part of Whitaker by the way we are selecting and presenting sources. This is an WP: IMPARTIAL and WP: SYNTH violation. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. There is no "synth" involved, because reliable sources clearly and directly connect Whitaker to WPM. There is also no "implied conclusion of wrongdoing"—we do, or should, state explicitly that Whitaker has not been charged with any crime nor any civil action in connection to WPM. Again, WP:BLP—a foundational policy—states very clearly that "if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." We don't suppress material simply because a reader somewhere might reach a conclusion that you don't want them to reach. It's still not clear what would justify hiding this relevant, amply sourced material from the reader, in violation of WP:BLP. MastCell Talk 20:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- The synth isn't that sources connect Whitaker to WPM. The synth is the implication that Whitaker did something wrong. The way the section is covered we are implying wrongdoing, while no source is explicitly stating out wrongdoing. That is a synth and impartial violation. If we are providing material that implies a conclusion not presented in any of the sources we are violating synth, synth policy clearly states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" note the word imply. We need to be careful to not write the section to imply wrongdoing without a source that outright alleges wrongdoing. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Look, I have thought about your position and have tried again and again to come up with something to show that I cannot agree with you. But MastCell has said it quite well already and I have nothing to change or nothing to add to his words. Gandydancer (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Kyohi, Whitaker has not been charged with any criminal wrongdoing, and no one is pretending or implying otherwise. As to whether anything he did was "wrong", our job is to be honest with the reader and present relevant, reliably sourced facts, so that they can form their own conclusions. You believe he did nothing "wrong" in his association with the WPM fraud, but you don't get to suppress sources and manipulate our coverage to coerce readers to your preferred conclusion. MastCell Talk 00:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm reading through this, and ignoring the Vanity Fair source for the moment, the issue is not the factuality of the information (that Whitaker worked for this firm and later was this position) but its location in the lede (that is, it is a tone issue), barring any other issue. If it was a statement in the body, among other people that were involved with the firm, it wouldn't be a problem. But it's being pulled out into the lede. Given that it is unusual information to see about a company , and that it is the only other person mentioned in the lede besides the founder, its appearance there is basically focusing a massive spotlight on that. And after the prior sentences talk about the firm being fraudulent, this implicitly gives the impression that Whitaker was implicit in that, assigning guilt. If the lede was revised that the first sentence mentioned nothing about the company's fraudulent activities, then mentioned Whitaker, then mentioned "The firm was found to be engaging in fraudulent deals..." as the last sentence, that is better as it removes some of that spotlighting/implicit guilt, though it is still odd for this one factoid to be focused on in the lede. The same sentence can likely exist somewhere in the body, but in better context would not trigger any immediate implicit guilt.
- Now, the source issue also comes into play and that leads to me to find "barring any other issue" is in play. That VF article supporting it is not great - it is clearly written in an opinionated style. So as soon as I go looking for a better, less opinionated one, I get this from ABC News, as well as some of the latter sources in the article that tells me there's definitely something important to say about this firm, Whitaker, and Whitaker's appointment as acting AG. Given what I'm reading, the better way to phrase that would be something like "Further details about the firm's fraudulent activities came to light following its former advisory board member, Matthew Whitaker, being named at acting AG to the Trump administration in late 2018." In that phrasing, the guilt remains on the firm itself, and while that's implying Whitaker knew of its fraudulent activities, that's also the general tone of the factual articles on the situation (but without the opinionated approach of the VF article), but importantly, it establishes why we're bringing up this person in the lede - WPM would likely be a footnote in history without the fact that Whitaker had ties to it. --Masem (t) 00:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's also unusual for 70% of the headlines about the company to mention one person, and for 100% of the articles about the company to mention that same member of an advisory board – and 80% of the time, only that one member. Even though that's "unusual", that's what I found in this case. That unusual emphasis by the sources suggests that it actually would be WP:UNDUE to downplay Whitaker (e.g., by making his name only be one among many or buried in the body).
- I agree that we want to avoid assigning guilt to him, but I do think we need to find a way to mention his name in the lede. Your suggested sentence ("Further details about the firm's fraudulent activities came to light following its former advisory board member, Matthew Whitaker, being named at acting AG...") might work, assuming that there is a source that explicitly makes a claim about the timing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think you get at what I discovered in reading the sources: there is definitely a tie of importance between Whitaker and this firm that came about due to him being named Assc. AG, that's readily documented and that we can't avoid per UNDUE. The way the sentence that was being used to introduce Whitaker, however, didn't make this clear and just introduced him, and not why his story is relevant to the firm, which made it look like we were throwing shade at his guilt at being associated with it. A bit of rewording as I suggested to better explain the nature of how this connection was made relavant would help significantly, and that can be documented readily. It's basically a different tone issue to get the wording right. --Masem (t) 03:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- The synth isn't that sources connect Whitaker to WPM. The synth is the implication that Whitaker did something wrong. The way the section is covered we are implying wrongdoing, while no source is explicitly stating out wrongdoing. That is a synth and impartial violation. If we are providing material that implies a conclusion not presented in any of the sources we are violating synth, synth policy clearly states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" note the word imply. We need to be careful to not write the section to imply wrongdoing without a source that outright alleges wrongdoing. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. There is no "synth" involved, because reliable sources clearly and directly connect Whitaker to WPM. There is also no "implied conclusion of wrongdoing"—we do, or should, state explicitly that Whitaker has not been charged with any crime nor any civil action in connection to WPM. Again, WP:BLP—a foundational policy—states very clearly that "if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." We don't suppress material simply because a reader somewhere might reach a conclusion that you don't want them to reach. It's still not clear what would justify hiding this relevant, amply sourced material from the reader, in violation of WP:BLP. MastCell Talk 20:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- The issue with citing Wellknown, is that wellknown presumes the allegation satisfies WP: Synth (as in there is a source for the allegation itself). The problem with this content which I think Atsme is getting at with Guilt is that there's an implied conclusion of wrongdoing on the part of Whitaker by the way we are selecting and presenting sources. This is an WP: IMPARTIAL and WP: SYNTH violation. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Consider this my final summary now that I've had a chance to read the comments. Inclusion of any of the advisory board members in the lead of that article is noncompliant with WP:GUILT and various other policies. It is perfectly acceptable to summarize in the lead that WPM boasted about their advisory board which comprised notable people, and then in the body text, we have a section that provides accurate, well-sourced information about the advisory board and their responses. The obvious reasons media focused on Whitaker include (1) clickbait (2) if appointed AG he was expected to recuse himself from any investigations involving WPM, and (3) the Democrats highly publicized concerns that he would dismiss the Mueller investigation. None of that rises to inclusion based on the following:
- UNDUE (my bold underline): For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Whitaker's involvement with WPM has been disproportionately portrayed by news media, and does not belong in the lead anymore than any other member who served on that same board, regardless of news coverage - newsworthy and worthy of encyclopedic inclusion are two different things. Also keep WP:SCANDAL in mind because it supersedes the argument to include Whitaker in the lead: Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. The draftify arguments in the AFD further support that position.
- The article is about the company; it is not about Whitaker - he was not named in the FTC complaint, and neither were any of the others which further supports the concern of GUILT.
- Common sense and sound editorial judgement tell us that the media utilized Whitaker's political affiliation in the manner I described above during a rather brief period of news media feeding frenzy. The timing could not have been more convenient considering the concerns expressed by House Democrats re: his appointment potentially ending the Mueller investigation - that simply didn't happen. Liken it to our coverage of Hunter Biden and Burisma or his dealings in China; except for the fact that Biden is still under investigation so it's not a closed book, unlike the FTC investigation of Whitaker who was cleared. We need to maintain consistency in our handling of public figure scandals and GUILT issues, so take a look at how we handled the Biden incident because many of the same policy issues apply here as well - BLP, NOTNEWS, SCANDAL, etc. The BBC recently reported on April 7, 2021 stating that "Hunter resigned from the board of BHR in April 2020, but still held his 10% stake in BHR as of July this year, according to the company report." Whitaker had no connection to WPM that included fiduciary responsibility, much less enforceable decision making as an actual member of the company's board of directors. His activity was limited to suggestions as a member of the advisory board, nothing more. When arguing DUE, please keep the latter in mind:
- WP:NOTNEWS, clearly states that most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, especially when considering today's media conglomerates. We are still dealing with BLPs, public figure or not, and the way this article is written is unambiguously noncompliant with GUILT, as well as SCANDAL because it focuses only on Whitaker: Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person..
- There were a dozen or so high profile members besides Whitaker on that same advisory board - all of whom are verifiable by the FTC documents - including Occupy Democrats founder Omar Rivero, Ronald Mallett, Aileen Marty, an appointee to Obama's Advisory Council, Brian Mast, and others. If we're going to include Whitaker, then we are obligated by NPOV to include the names of other notables - and that is where DUE applies, regardless of echo chamber coverage repeating a WSJ article or Miami New Times. Furthermore, DUE doesn't apply in this context because of GUILT.
- Citing WP:BLP based on "noteworthy and relevant" crumbles under the weight of SCANDAL, NOTNEWS & GUILT. Not one RS demonstrated a "direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and conduct of the subject" - the news implied potential guilt based only on guilt by association. We also have the receiver's conclusion stating that Whitaker did not know, which corroborates Whitaker's denial. We already know, or should know that an advisory board has no control or fiduciary responsibility and could not have prevented anything. None of the members of that advisory board knew or could have prevented it. The proof is in the pudding. WP:GUILT takes precedent, but exclusion from the lead is supported even further by NOTNEWS & SCANDAL, and probably even POV fork. Atsme 💬 📧 14:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- I watchlist Atsme's and MastCell's talk pages, so that's how I became aware of these discussions, and today I decided to take a look. I don't claim to have examined everything, but I can give this much as feedback. It seems to me that the content decision should rest upon whether or not the available sourcing, taken as a whole, justifies naming Whitaker in the lead. If he is mentioned at all, it should be in terms of him being a particularly and notably prominent member of the advisory board, and should not imply in Wikipedia's voice, beyond that, that he was guilty of anything. The choice is between: (a) that, and (b) leaving him out of the lead. (It kind of sounds to me, based on what other editors have said here, that (a) is workable, but I could be wrong about that.) But Rivero, Mallet, and others should not be listed in the lead beside him, unless any one of them has had equally prominent coverage in sources (which it appears they have not). It's a false equivalence to include a Democrat to balance out a Republican (or vice-versa), and doing so simply for balance would, in fact, be a BLP violation, and would be a false NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Category:Anti-Christian sentiment in the United States
- Category:Anti-Christian sentiment in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Seth Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I was surprised to find this category include both Atomwaffen Division and a living podcaster Seth Andrews. Not to mention a mass murderer, and incidents of arson and shootings. Does this lumping of atheist activists with criminal acts and neo Nazis follow guidelines? ☆ Bri (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- that does seem a bit sus, yeah. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- If the sourcing exists for them to be in the category it doesn't seem odd. I imagine there are plenty of categories that contain both good people and bad people. Category:19th-century American Episcopalians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) contains both John Wilkes Booth and Jessie Benton Frémont. Doesn't seem that out of place to see similar things arising elsewhere. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- For some reason, Category:Anti-Christian sentiment doesn't have the barring of groups and individuals from the category that Category:Antisemitism and Category:Anti-Islam sentiment have. This seems an imbalance, which is probably best addressed by adding the bar to the Christian category rather than removing it from the other two. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- If those categories bar having people and groups then I agree that the same should be true for Category:Anti-Christian sentiment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- There's longstanding consensus (since this 2011 discussion) to exclude biographies from "bias categories" such as Category:Racism and Category:Sexism (though we do include people in more specific, concrete subcategories such as Category:Ku Klux Klan members.) The recently created Category:People involved in anti-Protestantism is currently at CfD, likely to be deleted. I suggest categorising Mr. Andrews in Category:Critics of Christianity and/or Category:Critics of religions. Cheers, gnu57 13:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, Anderson admits to being an atheist and former Christian but whether that makes him "anti" anything escapes me. Has he proclaimed that he is anti-Christian or is it an assumption that because he is atheist he is anti-Christian? I did a search at his BLP for "anti" and nothing came up. Just because one doesn't believe in something doesn't automatically make them "anti". As for the prefixes neo, anti and alt, that particular category appears to be a catch-all considering alt-right is also categorized there, yet the lead of alt-right itself states: The term is ill-defined, having been used in different ways by various self-described "alt-rightists", media commentators, and academics. Groups which have been identified as alt-right also espouse white supremacism, white separatism, right-wing populism, anti-immigration, racism, anti-communism, anti-Zionism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, antifeminism, homophobia, and Islamophobia. Anti-Christian is not even mentioned in the article. Something needs to change because when an encyclopedia miscategorizes things...it actually appears to be a product of incompetence and/or bias rather than knowledge. Atsme 💬 📧 13:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed. I could criticize the tenets of various Christian beliefs today, that I myself was raised with, but that doesn't make me hate my family who still believe those. No longer thinking that Yahweh actually exists also doesn't make me an antisemite. This reminds me of claims that acknowledging that Ayurveda is pseudoscience is "anti-Hindu sentiment" (and BTW, I love Karnatic music)... In relation to this particular user who added the category above, also see the same here with antisemitism. Msiehta is of course "atheisM" inverted and has been proselitizing on user talk pages. They have never received the BLP ds/alert so I'll issue one with a mention of WP:BLPRS. —PaleoNeonate – 22:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Seth Andrews#Views on religion quotes him as saying "I am an enemy of religion." That presumably counts as evidence of him self-identifying as being anti-Christianity, anti-Islam, anti-Hinduism, and anti-any other religion you can think of.
- However, I'm not sure that a reader, upon visiting such a category page, would actually expect to find many individuals named. Maybe Madalyn Murray O'Hair, but I think they would instead expect to find mostly things like court cases about School prayer or Ten Commandments#United States debate over display on public property or the Mount Soledad Cross. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed. I could criticize the tenets of various Christian beliefs today, that I myself was raised with, but that doesn't make me hate my family who still believe those. No longer thinking that Yahweh actually exists also doesn't make me an antisemite. This reminds me of claims that acknowledging that Ayurveda is pseudoscience is "anti-Hindu sentiment" (and BTW, I love Karnatic music)... In relation to this particular user who added the category above, also see the same here with antisemitism. Msiehta is of course "atheisM" inverted and has been proselitizing on user talk pages. They have never received the BLP ds/alert so I'll issue one with a mention of WP:BLPRS. —PaleoNeonate – 22:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
That category seems to be pretty vague and subjective. If someone is catholic, an protestant, Hindu, Jewish, etc seems pretty straight forward and easy to define. How does one define if someone is part of the "anti-christian sentiment"? Does that mean they're a critic of religion? If so just say that. If they are part of an official faction or ethnicity or organization, just state that. As such, the category can probably put up for discussion at WP:CFDHarizotoh9 (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Sarah Kennedy
I hope I'm in the right place as the problems with this article are part of wider concerns about irresponsible editing by User:WelshDragon18. If you look at this thread, the editor has been seriously challenged by Jkaharper, Knuthove and myself about undue negligence and the promotion of rumour and hearsay as fact. Having already been warned about falsely claiming that Linda Henry had died in 2019, the editor has recently done the same thing with Sarah Kennedy. In the latter case, as you can see from the research done by Jkaharper, the issue has been raised on another site and could have caused undue distress to the lady and her family.
Those are the more serious examples of WelshDragon18's negligence, misconduct and irresponsible behaviour. There have been several other issues which, in general, relate to deliberate ignorance of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BLP, etc. The attitude of this person seems very much a case of doing whatever they want to do and never mind anyone else or the implications for WP. It has been suggested on the forum site found by Jkaharper that WelshDragon18 is a troll, which may be so, although I am inclined to wonder if we should instead be considering WP:CIR.
Whatever the cause, the effect is completely unacceptable and the editor deserves to be permanently blocked. Twice now, they have claimed to have inside information about the death of a well known person and published it on this site without any reliable source as verification. In the case of Sarah Kennedy, the editor claims to be one of a select few who are privy to the fact of her death and says, quite ludicrously, that "the family simply wish for the news to remain private for now". So what does the editor do? Reports the "news" on the site which is the number one result for Google searches.
I am informing the editor of this report and will also post notices advising Jkaharper and Knuthove that they have been mentioned here. Please let me know if you need me to provide further evidence or if you have any other questions with which I may be able to help. Do please note that we have tried to resolve the issues at the editor's talk page without recourse to ANI but the sort of responses we received include this and this. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- So in short this is an editor who has a track record of falsely claiming living people have died? GiantSnowman 18:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, twice. I don't know if there have been other instances but surely once is one too many. They have been warned numerous times about adding unsourced information and, in fact, once by yourself. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- At least three times - because as you remind me I warned them for this edit adding an unsourced date of death to a BLP. My own research later found a precise date of death that matched, but not fully, and that's not the point. In the absence of a very good explanation from @WelshDragon18: I suggest an indef block. GiantSnowman 18:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, twice. I don't know if there have been other instances but surely once is one too many. They have been warned numerous times about adding unsourced information and, in fact, once by yourself. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- WelshDragon18 also has a long history of changing information without explanation or source, or actively against the existing sources. For example these two edits I confronted him with [5], [6]. His reply was that "most of these so called "disruptive" edits have been done by mistake, as you can see I reverted them straight away as soon as I realised." As we can all see, he did not revert them at all. Going through my contributions, I see I have reverted 33 cases of unexplained, unsourced changes by WelshDragon18. Mostly on BLP articles. For example: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. A lot of these are very slight changes in dates or numbers, that might be subtle vandalism. Looking through his recent edits, he is still doing this, e.g. [15], [16] and [17]. It is very clear to me that WelshDragon18 either will not learn or is not inclined to constructively edit Wikipedia, and his negative subtle changes far outweigh any beneficial editing. Knuthove (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes there is a very good explanation so I think I should be given the chance first. WelshDragon18 (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Also I helped JkaHarper earlier by contributing to his centenarians list. Funny how that isn't mentioned or appreciated WelshDragon18 (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- The sad part of this is that you do make some beneficial edits. However, as I stated above, your unsourced, deceptive, seemingly vandalous edits are far more damaging than your other edits are helpful. You are not given license to vandalize by also making some constructive contributions. Knuthove (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- That isn't me who keeps that list @WelshDragon18:. It's another user called Tommieboi who you must have me confused with. Anyway... putting all of the minor edits aside, which are a mixture of semi-constructive and disruptive editing, the bigger picture here is definitely the violations on BLP articles. This has been flagged to you numerous times judging from your talk page. It simply isn't acceptable to kill people off in their bios then say "whoops I heard a rumour but it turned out to be wrong" or "she is actually dead but her family want privacy" afterwards. There is a serious risk of causing harm, which is why death details must always be sourced. I was quite willing to let this slide on several occasions in the past, but given that you've continued to do this, and been pretty unapologetic about it when confronted, suggests to me that a ban on editing is the best route for now. --Jkaharper (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- @WelshDragon18 - After checking the diffs Knuthove presented you better give a far better explanation about your edits, right now your edits should be interpreted as in its majority disruptive and GiantSnowmans suggestion to block you from further editing seems more than appropriate. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I would say that the beneficial edits add minor value only and are completely outweighed by the irresponsible and disruptive ones. This person always has "a good explanation" for their actions – e.g., somebody told them but was wrong. We never see these good explanations, of course, so we are left with wilful and, indeed, harmful edits for which no good reason has been provided. The only option left is to block the account and then repair the damage, apologise where necessary and be more diligent about unsourced death dates in future. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@WelshDragon18: I'd like to hear this "very good explanation". In response, I would like to draw your attention to the message that appears when you edit articles on living people : "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." Saying that someone is dead without evidence is absolutely libellous and putting libel in Wikipedia is unacceptable and worthy of a block if repeated. Do you really think Radio 2 would not run an appropriate tribute for Sarah Kennedy if she'd actually died? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that if you look at their talk page this has been an issue for years, but has been just low key enough to continue vandalizing. Also, reading their comment below, I think I'm personally out of good faith. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed you can - my daughter also uses this account and is the perpetrator of these disruptive edits, I have given her a very stern talking to so this will cease from now on. I understand this could have caused damage to Wikipedia's reputation and I'm very upset about this as I enjoy contributing. Sadly it seems everyone has already turned against me but there we have it. I didn't want her to get in trouble as she is only 14 and so lovely. WelshDragon18 (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous, and strengthens my belief that WelshDragon18 might be one of the most successful trolls I have seen. Always right on the border of genuine mistake or sloppy editing, and with slow enough pace and enough positive edits to never draw enough attention to actually get blocked. Most vandals I've known don't have that kind of patience, though that might be biased. Now, WelshDragon18 has almost 2500 edits. How do we remove his disruptive changes? I am somewhat new to this, so I hope there is a better way than having to go through them all manually. Knuthove (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- FTR, I would not support a blanket revert on his edits. Most are constructive minor edits and the majority of the disruptive ones have already been spotted and reverted. I've just gone through the last 2 months of his edits – yes there were some which went unnoticed (usually when the current version of the article in question is actually an edit by the user), but we're easily talking about 9 to 1 here. Any violations of Wiki policy seem to have been picked up and changed. If other users are happy with it, I'll happily volunteer going through the rest of the edits myself when I get time (likely next week), and revert any minor disruptive edits I spot. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- I absolutely wasn't suggesting a blanket revert. I also find mostly benign edits, but a one to nine ratio would give 277 malicious changes, and finding them in the haystack of 2,200 non-malicious edits is not a task I look forward to. If you want to do it Jkaharper, you'll have my thanks and my admiration for your work ethic. Knuthove (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- @WelshDragon18: so you're saying your daughter started using your account 3 years ago when she was ~11 and you only now just noticed? Can you explain why previous times when confronted you've said stuff like [18] '
most of these so called "disruptive" edits have been done by mistake
'. Are you saying that was your daughter as well? Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC) - I have indef blocked WelshDragon18 as NOTHERE. Fences&Windows 14:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Fences and windows, I was wondering whether I should have blocked after they admitted their account was compromised - still, as somebody else has done it, I guess I was thinking along the right lines. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Because there is nothing 14 year olds are more fascinated by than radio announcers who retired when they were three. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Dad, what's radio? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Because there is nothing 14 year olds are more fascinated by than radio announcers who retired when they were three. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Fences and windows, I was wondering whether I should have blocked after they admitted their account was compromised - still, as somebody else has done it, I guess I was thinking along the right lines. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ahh, the old Chewbacca defense. Never gets old. Reminds me of the whole Tenebrae fiasco. It's sad that otherwise good users have to be blocked, but the "Wookies on Endor" is never a good reaction to poignant questions. If someone is repeatedly making BLP vios this egregious, then it doesn't really matter what other good they did. Zaereth (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
other than lack of referencing, content is not necessarily problematic in what it states about subject, bibliography should probably be trimmed per WP:NOTCV, any views on ho to tackle this article? Acousmana (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm interested in him. With modern philosophers it's often hard to find sources outside their own work and interviews of them. I think some allowances need to be made (WP:ACADEMIC/WP:AUTHOR and WP:SPS) for how specialized the field and how small the relevant qualified critics. I would err on the side of keeping content. I created the page for Keith Frankish and hope to do one for Phillip Goff (Philosopher) and I'm coming up against this issue. Goff is getting a fair amount of attention amongst philosophers but there are very few good sources. Metzinger is well respected. Excuse my rant, but there is an unfortunate bias towards fringe thinkers who get press over those who are influential amongst the actual professionals and their students. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Non-primary sources should be added to confirm notability and give some context to his work. I haven't edited bibliographies before but my sense is that the list can be condensed. Not sure which entries are non-notable but text like "All three volumes can be purchased for 78 Euros" needs to go. I also don't see much value in having separate entries for an eBook edition (MOS:WORKS shows how to combine on a single line). - Wikmoz (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Vernon Coleman
Vernon Coleman This article has been the subject of a deletion discussion in april 2020 and there are several archives of Talk page discussion. I have proposed a rewrite of the lead (Lede) , the main body of the article also requires attention to return it to an encyclopedic standard. I have added a proposed new Lede on the talk page, and I am seeking assistance from the wider editor community to address the current problems in the entry. RogerGLewis (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Please note that the above user has previously been banned for continuously attempting to push for edits to paint Vernon Coleman in a favorable light. His suggested 'encyclopedic standard' involves removing large amounts of criticism of the subject. MrEarlGray (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Vernon Coleman is a disgraced former doctor whose books include titles such as "Vaccines Are Dangerous - And Don't Work", and "Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe And Effective Is Lying". A news story titled "Warning issued as 'dangerous anti-vax' leaflets posted through doors in Luton" notes that [t]he leaflets claim to tell the "truth about vaccines" using information from Dr Vernon Coleman, a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaccination activist. Dundee Evening Telegraph also mentions a similar incident: "The leaflets appeared through doors and letterboxes in Perth earlier this week and were titled “19 truths your government won’t tell you about Covid-19”, quoting Dr Vernon Coleman, a discredited former doctor and conspiracy theorist.". The Daily Record calls him "a conspiracy theorist, anti-vaccination activist and AIDS denialist".
- The OP appears to seriously argue that the author and self-publisher of "Vaccines Are Dangerous - And Don't Work", and "Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe And Effective Is Lying" is not anti-vaccine. That dog don't hunt. The OP is one of a succession of accounts with little or no other history on Wikipedia, who have chosen to come here and advance Coleman's off-wiki campaign to whitewash this article. The problem is not with the article, it is with the real world, which fails to reflect the reality Coleman holds inside his mind. And as far as I can tell, reading around, his biggest problem is that people read the Wikipedia article and then don't buy his books.
- Good. That is Wikipedia doing what it should do. A reader of one of our articles should be able to tell the difference between a Brave Maverick™ and a crank. And let's be in no doubt that anyone who writes a book called "Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe And Effective Is Lying", is a crank. And a dangerous one at that. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- ScottishFinnishRadish proposed a very reasonable rewrite that maintains the critical assessment while improving readability (and WP:NPOV). Reading through the talk page, it seems the anti-vaccination statement was removed because it's not mentioned in the article body. It could be restored immediatly after being added to the body. It seems like a good solution is within reach. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- A solution does indeed seem in reach, thank you Wikmoz.78.69.176.146 (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- It does strike me that after saying "He is most notable for his AIDS denialism, pseudoscientific medicine and COVID-19 conspiracy theories." it might be a little redundant to add that " Coleman's medical claims have been widely discredited and described as pseudoscientific". Two "pseuscientific"s are no stronger than one. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- A solution does indeed seem in reach, thank you Wikmoz.78.69.176.146 (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- ScottishFinnishRadish proposed a very reasonable rewrite that maintains the critical assessment while improving readability (and WP:NPOV). Reading through the talk page, it seems the anti-vaccination statement was removed because it's not mentioned in the article body. It could be restored immediatly after being added to the body. It seems like a good solution is within reach. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Doug Barrowman
Doug Barrowman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Single-purpose user SeonaMillar repeatedly engaging in disruptive editing by adding their content back into the lead paragraph of this BLP. Content dispute has been going on since last September despite the input of two other editors on talk. The user's material is poorly written, poorly referenced (uses tabloid newspapers and parliamentary records) and some of their citations do not even mention the subject.
Appears as though the user is engaging in WP:ADVOCACY and their lead paragraph violates NPOV by giving undue weight to a specific controversy, essentially suggesting that the subject is responsible for seven people committing suicide. This content also already appears on the page in more neutral wording. That's without mentioning the lead is very long and doesn't summarise the article well.
Does the earlier revision here violate BLP?
ScepticalChymist (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support removal from the lead. The subject matter is relevant but it would be better if some of the tabloid sources were replaced with WP:RS. Seems like the content under Knox Group is fair and neutral and should remain. Including in the lead is WP:UNDUE. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Jay Penske
Please note: Footnote 20 in this Biography appears to reference a Charitable Contribution to the Library of America which was made by the subjects parents in honor of the subjects paternal grandfather, who shares the name Jay. The biography implies the subject made the contribution, but the footnote reference contains no information supporting this assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.161.176 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've removed the content. For future reference, uncontroversial edits can be made by anyone (just state your reasoning in the edit note) or suggest the edit on the topic's talk page. - Wikmoz (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
John Serry Jr.
John Serry Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article seems to be watched over by the subject himself, who has a habit of leaving lengthy edit summaries (#1 includes a legal threat). It looks like the article is low-key enough to have gone unnoticed for a while but I assume something needs to be done, although I'm not sure what exactly, so I'm just leaving this here for somebody more experienced if that's alright? EditorInTheRye (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I had some time this morning to delve into the help pages to work out what to do, and I think I have it all covered now :) EditorInTheRye (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Wolfgang Schirmacher
Wolfgang Schirmacher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Article reads:
"Schirmacher has taught philosophy at the University of Hamburg, is a former Core Faculty Member of the Media Studies Graduate Program, New School for Social Research, and Director of International Relations, Philosophy and Technology Studies Center, Polytechnic University of New York."
German Wikipedia states that W.S. had teaching assignments only at New School for Social Research and Polytech University of New York; it does not mention any teaching at University of Hamburg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:c0:df1a:2900:694b:584a:2c68:61a0 (talk • contribs) 2021-04-02T23:06:17 (UTC)
- From the European Graduate School via Google: "Schirmacher was born in Dresden, Germany, in 1944, and emigrated to West Germany in 1957. He began his academic career at the University of Hamburg and the Hochschule der Bundeswehr (the University of the Armed Forces), where he taught methods of social research." Do you believe the claim to be inaccurate? - Wikmoz (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- what none of these bios mentions is the actual basic informations: what degrees did he get when, in chronological order, and what exact teaching positions didi he hold, in chronological order. That's the info that's is needed. They and we are summarizing in vague terms what can be much more simply described as straight listings of facts. (I usual usually mention 2 teaching positions, but I actually taught in 2 additional ones as a grad student or postdoc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 2021-04-05T04:02:53 (UTC)
Andrew Yang
Page is under a lot of attacks. Many using slurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAT7OPS (talk • contribs) 22:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- This appears to be a request for page protection, not something for this noticeboard. It also appears to be factually incorrect. Andrew Yang has had two IP edits reverted in the past week and neither involved "slurs" (one was vandalism and the other was about punctuation). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
He's currently involved in some online fitness youtubers over some of his fitness claims. An IP user keeps inserting a long "controversy" section, citing those youtube vlogs. Thing is, reliable sources have not covered this controversy at all, and it hasn't risen above online fitness youtube so far. It does not matter if these are right or wrong, it's that no reliable sources cover any controversy, thus it's inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, especially a BLP. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Content removed per WP:NOR. I could see it being restored as literally a single sentence under the Fitness section if there's eventually WP:SECONDARY coverage. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
No reliable source has really covered it, but it does seem that he really does make odd claims about health. For instance, he does seem to claim he only sleeps for 2 hours a day.
“Andre Rush: Nooo, I usually go to bed at 1AM and wake at 3AM to mediate, then start my 2,222 push-ups,” came the reply. “I only sleep for two hours; I’m one of those exceptions to the rule.” Source. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Daniel Smokler
please address irrelevant and inaccurate information posted to Daniel Smokler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nouma4ever (talk • contribs) 01:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Removed per WP:LBL/WP:BLPREMOVE. In this case, the editor misrepresented the cited material. Further, being mentioned in an email fails WP:DUE and WP:BLPGOSSIP. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Kim Walker bassoonist
Kim Walker (bassoonist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The entire section of 'controversy' is defamatory in tone and content. The person who created the allegations, works at the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia and therefore created these articles which formed the basis of a law suit for 'unconscionable behavior'. The issues were proven to be unfounded and I was exonerated. To maintain this section on the wikipedia site contributes to ongoing libel, defamation and slander. The entire section should be removed as it is defamatory and libelous misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimwalker KWB (talk • contribs) 2021-04-06T18:56:32 (UTC)
(Copy and paste of the aforesaid section removed. Uncle G (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC))
- Hello there. Just to let you know, you're coming rather close to WP:Legal threats territory, which could get you blocked. Just be careful, because if you want to continue to participate and help improve the article, you'll need to be careful and try to work collaboratively.
That said, the article is terrible. It's very poorly written, and not encyclopedic at all. It reads like an autobiography, and judging by the history, it also seems very apparent to have been created and primarily edited by the article subject. Looking at the sources, they are all primary sources and even the subject's own, personal website used as sources. The whole article has a very promotional tone. The only reliable, secondary sources we have are the two from the Herald, which are about the plagiarism allegations.
My first thought was that this should go to WP:Articles for deletion, to be deleted as non-notable BLP1E, but a quick search through google news does indeed show a plethora of reliable sources that mention her, and why we're not using them is beyond me. As written, this article is in really bad shape, and, no offense, but if I were you I'd stick to music. Unfortunately, the problem with being notable is that your dirty laundry becomes fair game, and suddenly having a Wikipedia article doesn't seem like such a good idea anymore. But, as long as it is found in reliable, secondary sources like the Herald, then it becomes a part of the story that we are bound to include. WP:WEIGHT decides just how much space to give it, meaning we literally weigh the coverage in reliable, secondary sources, and apportion the info accordingly. Unfortunately, yet again, because this has been, and is getting, so much coverage --and in fact so much it is now becoming the nexus of your notability-- we cannot ignore that.
Keep in mind that a multi-million dollar lawsuit may help your pocket book, but is just like adding fuel to the fire when it comes to the notability issues I just mentioned. It's up to you how you want to handle it, but staying silent to the media is likely not the best way to get out in front of it and restore your reputation, but likely just the opposite. What you cannot do is use Wikipedia as your own personal website to try and do that. You need to read our WP:Conflict of interest policy, and start by following the rules here, and just hope and pray that the media doesn't get wind of this, because bad behavior on Wikipedia can earn you just as much ill-repute as it can out in the real world, so I would be very careful how you proceed in the future.
If anyone has the time and inclination, this is one of those cases where the entire article will likely need a complete rewrite. I see Tony has been involved with this in the past, so I'll ping him, in case he has any insights. Zaereth (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- For clarity the lawsuit was apparently filed in 2012. While legal cases can be slow at times, I'm fairly sure it's long over by now. This source [19] suggests it may have been quietly settled. Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's not really how the edit history reads. Here's a timeline.
- Special:Permalink/163179673 — Article created in 2007, mentions allegations.
- Special:Diff/220230523 — Allegations content removed in 2008 by Phil Bridger (talk · contribs).
- Special:Diff/288830091 — Allegations content re-added in 2009 by Bflatbeauty (talk · contribs).
- Special:Diff/373023587 — Allegations content removed in 2008 by Musiciansprofile (talk · contribs), reverted the same day because it was "unexplained".
- Special:Diff/386481348 — Rewritten by Harpdrum (talk · contribs) in 2011.
- Special:Diff/442924462 — Kwbassoon (talk · contribs) rewrites the entire article in 2011, including a complaint in the article that the Wikipedia article is part of the problem.
- Special:Diff/442931533 — Tony1 (talk · contribs) the next day tells the article subject not the write the article, ironically leaving the in-article complaint in the article.
- 2012 is the date of the lawsuit.
- Special:Diff/473479009 — The in-article complaint from the subject is blanked in 2012 by an IP address from Australia.
- Special:Diff/488339562 — Tony1 removes Kwbassoon's content 3 months later.
- Special:Diff/576971571 — Kwbassoon takes out the Controversy section entirely in 2013, in subsequent edits copies and pastes most of the 2011 text back in, gets reverted within half an hour, and pastes it back in a third time.
- Special:Diff/576996934 — Tony1 restores the prior version without the Controversy section the same day. Kwbassoon does some subsequent edits to put stuff back in.
- Special:Diff/614985214 — In 2014 an IP address from Australia puts the allegations back in.
- Special:Diff/620835592 — It is all taken out two months later by FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs).
- In 2015, Walker's own WWW site publishes an "agreed statement", apparently one outcome of the lawsuit.
- Special:Diff/650755987 — In 2015 Storeye (talk · contribs) puts the older Controversy section, not the 2014 text, back in. This stands for six years.
- Special:Diff/1016357234 — In 2021 Kimwalker KWB (talk · contribs) copies and pastes the text of the 2015 statement, and is reverted the same day.
- Kimwalker KWB also comes here, again copying and pasting the statement text and copying and pasting here the Controversy section that is supposedly "defamatory and libelous misinformation". I have blanked it. I'm not sure what motivates complaining that something should be blanked and copying and pasting it in the same edit (Special:Diff/1016356878) but it does not seem an at all sensible thing to do.
- It seems quite incorrect to state that the article has been written by its subject. It has been rewritten by its subject, and said rewrites have often not lasted even 1 day. And the lawsuit that Zaereth seems to think is on-going was over six years ago. Uncle G (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I may be wrong about who wrote it, as I only did a quick sweep of the history, but I still stand by my assessment of the writing. I don't recall ever stating anywhere that the lawsuit is ongoing, so that's an interesting interpretation. Of course, when talking directly to someone else, my comments are often not meant to be understood by the everyone else in the same way they are to the person I'm talking to.
- Currently, the stuff we have in the controversy section is the best-sourced stuff we have. That's a sad state of affairs, but it means it's very unlikely it will get deleted. What the subject needs to know is that adding more weight to it, no matter how much they want to get the whole story out there, that only gives it more prominence in the article, and I'm sure that she doesn't want this to be what she's mostly known for. The subject has more power than anyone to affect their notability, not from Wikipedia, but from the media we use as sources. That's simple PR advice I'm giving for free. What the subject can do best for Wikipedia is to gather up as many good, quality sources as she can, and bring them to the talk page, because most people are very aware of what has been written about them.
- Now, there are good sources out there on this person, and it would be wonderful if that right person came along who has the time, background knowledge, and motivation to fix these problems, and really build this article into the wonderful bio that it can be. While the info in the controversy section will likely stay, the section itself should go, and everything put into its proper sequence of events. I see no reason to wall it off in it's own section, which in itself creates an imbalance. Unfortunately, as much as I would like to help, the snow is starting to melt, the work is ramping up, and real life has to take precedence, so beyond giving this advice, that's about the extent of what I can do. Zaereth (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Whoever dragged out that block-because-legal-threat should take a chill pill. How often have I seen admins abuse it. Just deal with the issue at hand, and if it is out of proportion in the article, or not factual, or unsatisfactory in some other way, it should be modified. Tony (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I've whacked the article to remove any unsourced material, which took all of two minutes. The article has been tagged since 2011, which shows that tagging should only be done after making a sincere effort to fix a problem. Perhaps a proper article can be written now that the dodgy content has been removed. Jehochman Talk 02:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- That does read a lot better, although I saw no problem with the material in the controversy section ... except maybe weight. I was thinking more along the lines of building up the rest of the article rather than cutting the only secondary sources it had. While university profiles and campus news are certainly reliable sources, they are in fact primary sources, which leaves this article without a single, secondary source.
- I wasn't trying to be rude in my comment above, but I guess in hindsight it's a good indication that a person's true mood is easily observed in their connotations --even when they try to hide it-- and people react much more strongly to written connotations than to those same connotations if used in speech.
- My basic premise is that a quick search of google revealed many, good, secondary sources. I mean news, magazines, and actual books. There's at least the potential for a decent, start-class article here, otherwise I would have recommended it for AFD if it had only one secondary-sourced event and nothing else but primary sources. That would take all of two minutes as well. All I'm saying is that, while I think the troubles she had at Sydney should likely stay, the rest of this article has the potential to be so much more. But I typically only do that kind of work on articles in which I am very familiar with and have some direct expertise in the subject matter, so that's my two cents. Zaereth (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Lead images for BLPs
Following a discussion at Talk:Taeyeon § Lead image (again) and the one above it, there does not seem to be a local consensus as to whether higher-quality images should be favoured over more recent images for the lead. I am aware of the discussion that took place at MOS:IMAGES, but I feel that this is different in the sense that the RfC there were for cases where there were decades between the photos proposed. This appears to be a chronic problem for Korean celebrities, where many of the images used are low-quality but are a couple of years more recent. In that light, I would like to form a "broader" consensus on the issue. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Can you link to the discussion that took place at MOS:IMAGES? Personally, I think "more recent" is not necessarily a good thing. For example, if the subject is now retired and looks different than they did while they were at the peak of their of their notability, then a more recent picture might actually be worse than one at the height of their fame. What the best image for a given article is depends on the article, and on the choice of images, and will often be subjective, in other words we may not be able to make a general rule. --GRuban (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- GRuban, it's the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images § Request for Comment. I agree that we usually cannot make a general rule (there was a bit of concern about WP:CREEP at MOS), but I don't understand favouring a more recent photo when the difference is only a couple of years and nothing major has happened since (like a sex change etc). Sdrqaz (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I think this is something that needs to be decided on a case by case basis, and policy is written to allow for that, so let's look at this in the broader sense. Fist, I have to ask myself, what exactly is gained?
- GRuban, it's the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images § Request for Comment. I agree that we usually cannot make a general rule (there was a bit of concern about WP:CREEP at MOS), but I don't understand favouring a more recent photo when the difference is only a couple of years and nothing major has happened since (like a sex change etc). Sdrqaz (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- There is really not much difference between the two photos in terms of her physical appearance. Aside from some different clothes and moderate change in hairstyle, she looks pretty much the same in both, meaning she has not aged significantly or what have you. We're not facebook, so we generally prefer quality over whatever is most recent, and as GRuban points out, in many cases people want to see pics of notable people at the height of their notability. Thus, in this case we can really put the dates aside and just look at the quality of the photos.
- Image quality is one thing, because we usually want the sharpest pics we can get, but that becomes less of a factor when pictures are thumb sized, so thumb-size image quality is the best we really need to shoot for. Then there is portrait quality, in which a bit more of an artistic eye is needed. Someone one told me that the key to being a good photographer is taking lots of photos, and being able to pick out the few good ones. The better images are ones where the subject is in what you would expect of a good portrait. The background should be good, and provide the best contrast, it's best to be centered in the shot, with the subject looking directly at the camera if at all possible. Cute, flirtatious poses are fine for the body, although not typically ideal unless the subject is known for it, but a good portrait is always best for the lede. So I think all of these things need to be considered, but in this case I think age is a very small factor in that decision. Zaereth (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Noting that the "prime-of-career" images might often be subject to copyright, and our WP:NFCC has more leeway for first image -- so, if it's not the the first image, NFCC might prevent it from being in the article at all (although perhaps for someone like Carrie, if there is some in-article discussion of her distinctive 'look' in the original Star Wars, you might be able to get it in under NFCC). That aside, I think there is generally more encyclopedic value if we don't use "poor quality" images (indeed, if the only choice is a really poor amateur picture, we should consider none, at all). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Alanscottwalker: For what it's worth, I'm not looking to call for NFCC inclusion: these higher-quality photos are freely available on Commons. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that depends, if the commons are terrible amateur pictures, then . . . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Alanscottwalker: For what it's worth, I'm not looking to call for NFCC inclusion: these higher-quality photos are freely available on Commons. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Noting that the "prime-of-career" images might often be subject to copyright, and our WP:NFCC has more leeway for first image -- so, if it's not the the first image, NFCC might prevent it from being in the article at all (although perhaps for someone like Carrie, if there is some in-article discussion of her distinctive 'look' in the original Star Wars, you might be able to get it in under NFCC). That aside, I think there is generally more encyclopedic value if we don't use "poor quality" images (indeed, if the only choice is a really poor amateur picture, we should consider none, at all). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think this is all pretty much universal, not just restricted to bios. Whether it's Moose, Pressure measurement, or Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, the best quality portrait should be used in the lede wherever possible. Zaereth (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Right, but while for many things/persons there maybe many 'good' free images, for some, there may be only 'poor' free images. So, what to do then -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think we're back to case by case. Are we talking poor image quality? (Under/overexposed? Grainy? Blurry?) Does "poor" mean unflattering? Regardless of the subject, I don't think we should be going for that. I think a picture is good to have, but ultimately it needs to add something to the article. I'm by no means a photographer, and many of my images are not the best quality. I know sooner or later someone will likely come along with a better one, but they help explain the text. (Surprisingly, many of my pics have been used in everything from books to documentaries to scientific studies.) I don't think this is the place to try and make some sweeping change to policy, nor do I think policy either can nor should try to encompass every possibility. In this particular case, I would opt for the better portrait. Zaereth (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, there are several considerations: this, while it does not make the living person look particularly silly, imo (it more makes us look bad) is one situation. But I am also thinking of a famous deceased author, and there is a single commons image that looks rather ridiculous, imo, and I think it better to go without any than with that. (I'm not going to link it). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- In that case, I would agree; better no pic at all that a pic that looks silly, unflattering, or is so bad you can't even tell. To me, that seems to go without saying, like common sense. Unfortunately, common sense is rather uncommon. Honestly, it shouldn't make a difference if it's Mother Teresa or Aleister Crowley, a lede image should be the best portrait we can get of the subject, and if we can't at least have a decent one, then none at all is probably best. Zaereth (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, there are several considerations: this, while it does not make the living person look particularly silly, imo (it more makes us look bad) is one situation. But I am also thinking of a famous deceased author, and there is a single commons image that looks rather ridiculous, imo, and I think it better to go without any than with that. (I'm not going to link it). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think we're back to case by case. Are we talking poor image quality? (Under/overexposed? Grainy? Blurry?) Does "poor" mean unflattering? Regardless of the subject, I don't think we should be going for that. I think a picture is good to have, but ultimately it needs to add something to the article. I'm by no means a photographer, and many of my images are not the best quality. I know sooner or later someone will likely come along with a better one, but they help explain the text. (Surprisingly, many of my pics have been used in everything from books to documentaries to scientific studies.) I don't think this is the place to try and make some sweeping change to policy, nor do I think policy either can nor should try to encompass every possibility. In this particular case, I would opt for the better portrait. Zaereth (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Right, but while for many things/persons there maybe many 'good' free images, for some, there may be only 'poor' free images. So, what to do then -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think this is all pretty much universal, not just restricted to bios. Whether it's Moose, Pressure measurement, or Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, the best quality portrait should be used in the lede wherever possible. Zaereth (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Remember that a lead image is not required. If we have the issue of a poor quality but better representative of the person as known to the public, over a higher quality but poorer representation of the person, both otherwise free, neither is required in the lede but both can be used within the body. --Masem (t) 21:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think the bone of contention is whether the photo is a better/poor representation, Masem. For instance, Jimmy Carter uses his official portrait from 1977 as opposed to something more recent like File:Jimmy Carter at the LBJ Library02.jpg. That's understandable, given that his notability was derived from that time. But what's happening at the Korean singers is that more recent images are being used, even if the newer image has no improvement in displaying what they look like (see my previous comment about drastic changes in appearances) and decreases in image quality (greater blurriness, exposure etc). Sdrqaz (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Like I said, I would rate such factors as blurriness (image properties) on what the image looks like at standard, in-article size. There are a lot fewer pixels, so what's a little blurry at full size may be perfectly fine for article size. On the other hand, I would ask myself this: if these were pics of me, which one would I use for, say, my official, high-school yearbook? Which one looks like the better portrait? Zaereth (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think the bone of contention is whether the photo is a better/poor representation, Masem. For instance, Jimmy Carter uses his official portrait from 1977 as opposed to something more recent like File:Jimmy Carter at the LBJ Library02.jpg. That's understandable, given that his notability was derived from that time. But what's happening at the Korean singers is that more recent images are being used, even if the newer image has no improvement in displaying what they look like (see my previous comment about drastic changes in appearances) and decreases in image quality (greater blurriness, exposure etc). Sdrqaz (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Mohammed Jabbateh (Jungle Jabbah)
Mohammed_Jabbateh_(Jungle_Jabbah) contains a line that is out of place with the balance of the article, presents an obvious opinion and the reference, #14 in the article, nets a 404 error at https://frontpageafricaonline.com/. It is doubly suspicious that the only complimentary sentence in the article is to an article titled "FPA - Witnesses Tell Stories of Jabbateh Torture, Rape, Murder, Cannibalism in Bopolu" which would seem to not be the correct title for the claim made by that sentence; and an article of that import should remain in the African news repository. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.119.154.251 (talk • contribs)
- That wording was included in the first version in 2017. The source is available on the Internet Archive: [20]. The word "righteous" is a creative interpretation of what is said therein. Fences&Windows 12:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Gary Taubes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Gary Taubes is an award winning journalist and author who writes on nutrition. There is a line in the summary that states:
"Some of the views advocated by Taubes are inconsistent with known science surrounding obesity."
The source was a single researchers criticism of his book. I had changed it to reflect the weight of the source:
"George A. Bray, an American obesity researcher, believes that Taubes' views are inconsistent with known science surrounding obesity."
but it was reverted. An additional source, the blog of an internet doctor was just added.
It appears inappropriate for Wikipedia to weigh a blog and a book review as 'the opinion of the entire scientific community', and its especially important in the bio of a living person, where something that could be borderline libelous is said in Wikipedia's voice.
Your input on the phrase is appreciated. Thank you.Gsonnenf (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- This is about a fringe view and has been already raised at WP:FT/N, as well as being discussed at the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your participation. Lets also create space for non-fulltime Wikipedia editors to chime in over the next few weeks. Thank you. Gsonnenf (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ahh, the surest money makers are fad diets and workout programs without the work. From my own pov, as someone who has been mostly a carnivore for, well, all of my life, I've never put much stock in the science of it. There's too much government involvement, as in there's a big push by both growers and producers in the influence of what is scientifically considered healthy. One of the most interesting studies I ever saw was by a dietician, who actually travelled the world comparing different, regional diets and comparing those to local health-statistics. It was interesting to me, because her conclusion was that the healthiest people tended to be bush tribes in Africa, the Amazon, and Alaska. That's interesting to me, because the last is basically my diet.
- Thank you for your participation. Lets also create space for non-fulltime Wikipedia editors to chime in over the next few weeks. Thank you. Gsonnenf (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know what is best, and would never claim to know. It doesn't really matter to me. I do know today's doctors will someday be tomorrow's witch doctors, and the biggest fallacy in science is the belief that all current theories are absolute. People threatened Antoine Lavoisier for daring to speak out against the Phlogiston theory. Thomas Young was beaten up for claiming that light was a wave rather than a particle. Alfred Wegener was the laughing stock of the scientific community when he proposed the idea of plate tectonics. These may be mainstream science today, but were fringe theories one and all at the time of their inception.
- The point is, "fringe theory" is not some kind of insult. It simply means it's on the outer-edge of what is currently considered as accepted science. One could also equate this term with "cutting edge", but fringe also encompasses pseudoscience and pure bunk, as well as cutting-edge science. Thus, I see no BLP vio in this interpretation, especially coming from a very reliable source on the subject. I think even the subject would agree that his ideas are not mainstream, and I think he even makes of point of that in his books. Zaereth (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The qualification to the specific researcher in the lede is a huge red flag. Calling upon the opinion of the entire scientific community
seems nonsensiscal, but typical of the sophistry that comes from fringe promoters: I hope that's not the case here. Instead, it might help to point to the current state of biomedical knowledge on the subject matter, to see if we're straying from it rather than assume we are. --Hipal (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Barbara Nitke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Nitke) is peppered with bizarre and defamatory insertions that portray this artist’s work as exploitative of children. Her work does not involve children in any way. Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:6b40:6d00:758a:703e:9cd8:eafd (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry that such claims were missed and left in the article. I've deleted them and removed them from the page history. Thank you for raising it here. - Bilby (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The "as translator" section does not relate to this author (I have double-checked by emailing them) and I propose deleting it. Timetocheck (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- This looks uncontroversial so go ahead and do it. In future this sort of suggestion would probably be better made at Talk:Susan Price. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- The disagreement is about 2nd paragraph in section Political positions. Should his allegedly "nationalistic views" be described at all (the page is very big) and how much space should be dedicated to this? Here is - a typical edit. Is it improvement/neutral wording? The issue is also with properly summarizing sources, some of which are in Russian language and not necessarily RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
LowTierGod (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The page for this person is being used to purposefully defame and disparage the subject person. There is clear violation of BLP policy.
Many negative assertions were added to the page. Not only do the assertions violate BLP policy, there is also no reference provided for these assertions. Even in places where references are given, careful checking would reveal the sources do not actually support such assertions. In other words, fradulent references are being used to make defamatory assertions. These assertions are libelous in nature.
This subject person is known to have a large community of internet trolls targeting him. In fact, it is likely that the page was created with the purpose of defaming and disparaging this person. In fact, the subject person is not noteworthy enough to warrant a page on Wikipedia, and the page should perhaps be deleted.
There have been attempts to remove the poorly referenced (if any) assetions made on this page. But people keep on adding them back to the page. This is violation of BLP policy. The Talk page of this article has become quite active. I have posted in the Talk page and more details on the situation can be found there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortscircuit (talk • contribs) 20:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Shortscircuit: it looks like User:Cullen328 and others have fixed the article so these problems are largely resolved. Nil Einne (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: Yes, thankfully much of the article has been fixed by Cullen328. However, in the long term this article still requires attention in regards to BLP policy. I will just briefly relay here what I asked User:Cullen328 in the talk page.
- Right now, the article is semi-protected and is due to become unlocked in a couple of days. Considering how strongly certain users have protested about the removal of the unsourced assertions, and considering how certain users have already been asking for more (badly sourced/unfounded) assertions to be added... it is reasonable to expect that once the page is unlocked, there will be people continuously trying add such assertions back again. The reaction so far indicates these people are very insistent. What can be done to make sure these people do not make the same contentious assertions again in the long term?
- I reviewed the page again, and I do not think the subject of this page is even noteworthy enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. The subject is merely one of the thounsands of video gamers in the world.
- Shortscircuit (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
My first reaction is: "Wait, Low Tier God has a Wikipedia page?!". Looking at the sources, it seems he's only notable for the 2020 incident of being banned thus might fall under WP:ONEEVENT. Thus he is worthy of being included in a line or two in the page on the Evo tournament, but not really subject to a full page. If you were to just trim to the best most reliable sources, you'd be left with a stub. thus trying to fill in the page for a controversial figure like LTG would require either unsourced, or sourced to more less notable sources. It's a recipe for problems. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Siobhán Coady
Oversight requested of defamatory/libelous statements posted by most recent IP editor on this article. Second occurrence in recent weeks so I've also separately requested temp. page protection. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)