→Cathy Areu: note about another discussion |
Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 323: | Line 323: | ||
Input welcome.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 05:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC) |
Input welcome.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 05:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
:Personally Chodakiewicz should be left out of Gross' biography but is probably useable on articles related to the holocaust law. The 'Lex Gross' should be mentioned (briefly) as Gross was a significant catalyst for it - that is unescapable - but it should really be no more than a paragraph with most of the information at the relevant articles. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 09:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC) |
:Personally Chodakiewicz should be left out of Gross' biography but is probably useable on articles related to the holocaust law. The 'Lex Gross' should be mentioned (briefly) as Gross was a significant catalyst for it - that is unescapable - but it should really be no more than a paragraph with most of the information at the relevant articles. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 09:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
In a typical fashion Icewhiz misrepresents the situation, presenting it in a one sided skewed manner (by, for example, peppering this request with unneeded and unencyclopedic adjectives like "esteemed", "groundbreaking" - even if a source can be found to that effect there's no reason to believe that these aren't cherry picked) and also engages in inappropriate [[WP:FORUM|forum shopping]] - most of these questions aren't BLP issues but simple WP:DUE issues. |
|||
Broadly, Icewhiz is trying to portray what are very controversial views of Jan Gross as "mainstream" and any kind of criticism as fringe. The thing is that Gross' statements and publications have received criticism from the entire political spectrum, from the left to the right. What Icewhiz is attempting to do is to hide any kind of criticism from the left (because it doesn't fit the artificial narrative he's trying to construct) and at the same time to either smear with attacks or "generalize" the criticism from the right (by either including a host of BLP violating attacks on authors critical of Gross, or by removing their specific qualifications, for example, the fact that Chodakiewicz is a historian). |
|||
As to the specific, in turn: |
|||
* Chodakiewicz - let's save that for last° |
|||
* "anti-semitic attacks on Gross" - while there certainly were such (it would be a miracle if these hadn't occurred given the subject matter) the statement Icewhiz wishes to include is extremely vague and it dishonestly suggests that ALL criticism of Gross were motivated by anti-semitism. This is strange, since the Chief Rabbi of Poland, as well as politicians and scholars of Jewish background (like Smolar) were also highly critical of Gross. Basically this is a classic case of [[WP:CPUSH]]. |
|||
* Regarding how to describe Gross' arrest and expulsion in 1968, I'm not sure why this is a BLP issue. The major point of dispute seems to be the adjective "vicious" and whether Gross "escaped" Poland. While the anti-semitic campaign carried out by the Communist Party in 1968 can certainly be described as "vicious" this is non-encyclopedic language and it's not clear what it's suppose to convey (people subject to the campaign lost their jobs and were more or less forced to emigrate, due to lack of economic support). The word "escaped" however is clearly inaccurate; Gross was forced to leave, not escaped. |
|||
* ''"Include the statement, on Polish radio, by the president of a NGO "'' <-- this is a quite weaselly and dishonest way of portraying who we're talking about: [[Aleksander Smolar]], head of the most prestigious and liberal think tank in Poland, the [[Stefan Batory Institute]]. Smolar himself, like Gross, was subject to persecution during the 1968 anti-semitic campaign, probably more so (Gross was mostly persecuted for taking part in student protests, Smolar for taking part in student protests AND for being Jewish). Smolar has impeccable leftist credentials, is a highly respect former democratic and human rights activist, has served as adviser to several Polish prime ministers (liberal and left wing ones) and is head of or on the board of several prestigious institutes. True, he never got his PhD... because he was arrested and kicked out of the university by the communists! Smolar's criticism of Gross is very inconvenient for the fake narrative that Icewhiz is trying so hard to construct because he can't easily be dismissed as a "right wing" or a "nationalist" (sic) critic. Smolar is a very notable and well respect person and should definitely be included to ensure [[WP:BALANCE]]. What this has to do with BLP is beyond me. |
|||
* Regarding the "Lex Gross" thing - I guess some people like to call it that, and there's been an attempt to basically "hash tag it". Personally I think it's a bit of an artificial campaign but I guess there might be enough sources which are trying to spread the use of that meme to include it. I'm ambivalent. |
|||
* Leociak's statement is just plain ol' taken out of context and cherry picked. What does this have to do with BLP? Like I said, this is just forum shopping by Icewhiz, who has been unable to obtain consensus on talk or in other venues so he's trying to find a place where he can maybe get some support. |
|||
* Ok [[Marek Jan Chodakiewicz]]. This one's a bit difficult. Over the years Chodakiewicz has emerged as one of Gross' principal critics. He is extensively published, a specialist in this exact topic area and a professional historian who's served on the [[United States Holocaust Memorial Council]]. There's been a lot of back and forth between him and Gross, his supporters and Gross' supporters, with various accusations of "anti-Polonism" and "anti-Semitism" flying around. Like Gross, he's definitely very controversial though given his record of mainstream publications, by no means "fringe". And yes, some of the attacks on him have been picked up by some tertiary sources which don't really orient themselves in the general debate. Overall personally I disagree of most of what Chodakiewicz writes (he gets some details correct but I think the general picture he tries to paint is as distorted as the one presented by Gross, just in the other direction - they sorta deserve each other honestly) but I regard him as notable enough so as to be included - it wouldn't make sense to have an article on a controversial writer without mentioning his most well known critic. However, as I've already indicated, I do think Chodakiewicz's mention should be kept to a minimum; a single sentence noting that Chodakiewicz has been critical of Gross is sufficient (readers can click on the relevant article and find out more). And again, this isn't a BLP issue but a simple [[WP:BALANCE]] issue.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 13:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Cathy Areu == |
== Cathy Areu == |
Revision as of 13:48, 3 June 2018
Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. | ||
---|---|---|
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.
Additional notes:
| ||
Mike Lester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Since at least 2010, various IPs and new editors have been trying to add/delete material regarding an alleged arrest, and a cartoon Mike Lester created about Barack Obama[1]. In the past I've removed them as BLP violations, but an experienced editor has now restored the edits, so I thought it would be better to bring the issue here. I know nothing of Lester or the veracity of claims being made, and would prefer to take the article off my watchlist if possible. Jayjg (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- The assault is reliably sourced, the cartoon controversy not so much, I would say. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Using 'Legacy' for still active living entertainers
I recently got into a dispute at Madonna (entertainer) over the use of the term 'Legacy' instead of 'Impact' as a section title in the BLP. I tried to quote consensus from a previous discussion at Talk:Rihanna#RfC about exactly the same issue. I argued there that dictionaries generally define 'legacy' as something inherited from the past. I was informed that consensus at Rihanna has nothing to do with the article on Madonna.[2]
Hence I'ld like to establish consensus here for BLPs in general. Please let me know if this is not the right forum.
RfC: Use of the term 'Legacy'
Should the term 'Legacy' be used for the contributions and impact of living entertainers, personalities, etc, who are still active in their field?
- A: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for anyone who has a significant impact.
- B: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for people who have not been active for some time.
- C: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for people who have passed away.
LK (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Comments
- C Per especially definition 2 on M-W. It implies something the dead have left us, their long term impact. I'm not sure why the word is preferable to impact though - legacy sounds more flowery and value-laden to me. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- B to A - provided WP:RS refer to the person's legacy - per m-w definition 2 -
"something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past the legacy of the ancient philosophers The war left a legacy of pain and suffering."
- past does not mean dead - it could mean a movie star no longer or active or perhaps in the wane of their career. However, I think the question we should be asking is whether RSes refer to a person's legacy - if there are strong RSes that do, then it is possible to refer to a legacy. For sporting figures - one often discusses the "legacy" (in sports) following retirement - e.g. Joe Montana's legacy - gNews "Joe Montana" legacy. Heck - we even have Montana discussing the legacy un-retired Brady - [3]. And Brady's legacy has been discussed for the past few years by others - [4][5]. I don't think this a BLP issue - more of a question of avoiding puffery (for dead or alive subjects) - this is a term that should be used only the most clear cases (supported by strong RS).Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC) - A because it's WP-practice and I don't see it changing (personally I think you've left a a legacy when you're dead). Like Bob Dylan (FA), Art Spiegelman (GA), Barack Obama (FA). For some reason Oscar Wilde (GA) doesn't have one, but that's WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- B or C depending on the time frame implicitly stated. "Legacy" implies "something from the past" so should not be used for recent persons or acts. Collect (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- A makes no sense. How can you assess the legacy of someone who has not yet died? And why are we using the euphemism "passed away"? Guy (Help!) 13:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Consider John Major. Twenty years after he left office and went into mostly-retirement, can we not assess his legacy?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
-
- Very droll, Dr. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Lest we forget! Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- That was a not inconsiderably important initiative. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- I could go for some icecream. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- C (or B if they are never going to be active in that area again). Yes, we can assess the legacy of an ex-Prime Minister (who will never be such again) as the legacy of what he did whilst in power. Madonna, however, is still an entertainer, thus "Legacy" is not correct. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- A given how much impact those active can have (often lots). Lawrencekhoo, please stop with your absurd and completely unnecessary campaign to remove that from section titles of those who haven't retired or died. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- C' Makes the most sense, but an arguement could be made for B. A legacy should not apply to people who are still actively wroking in their field. AIRcorn (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- B and C though I would modify B to 'no longer active' (without the 'for some time' qualifier, which is vague and unnecessary). Especially in fields such as sports, where people retire very young, it is meaningful to speak of 'legacy' once they have 'left the field'. I'm sure sports writers are busy speculating about what Usain Bolt, S Williams, Ronaldo, Beckham, etc's legacy is - or will be - and the use of the term is meaningful, since their active lives in their professions are over/nearly over. This could be equally true of a figure like Obama, whose presidency might meaningfully be deemed to have left a legacy - though once again, as with the sports figures, the content is inevitably going to be speculation as to what that legacy will be. Using the term for a person still active in their profession is borderline 'puffery', since it implies we already know how they are going to be remembered. We aren't generally prescriptivists here on WP, but why use a term which is inaccurate, when other more accurate terms exist? The alternatives are even more readily understood - such as 'impact'. I presume of course that the use debated at this RfC is section headings and WP:VOICE text - not within quoted or paraphrased text itself, where we obviously would use the term used by the source(s). … … … "To evoke posterity is to weep on your own grave" - Though he doesn't mention other people's graves! Pincrete (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- C Some Wikipedia articles using the word wrong doesn't change the meaning of the word. Go with the commonly understood dictionary definition. Darx9url (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- What if sources use it "wrong"? Trump’s new effort to destroy Obama’s legacy is very dangerous, The Legacy and Lessons of Bob Dylan, Five readers offer their views on Madonna's legacy, her skill for reinvention and that new single. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- I see "Obama's legacy" used all the time. However, an encyclopedia needs to use different words in an article summing up a person's life. In the article on Obama it would be premature. The man is just fifty-something and may be active for another three or four decades. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- What if sources use it "wrong"? Trump’s new effort to destroy Obama’s legacy is very dangerous, The Legacy and Lessons of Bob Dylan, Five readers offer their views on Madonna's legacy, her skill for reinvention and that new single. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- C (Summoned by bot) While intended to be a compliment, the word implies that the article subject is either dead or as good as dead, per the definition "Something inherited from a predecessor; a heritage." If the person is still active in his field it even has BLP implications, implying the person is "over." There are so many wonderful words in the English language. Let's find a word other than "legacy" for living people. Coretheapple (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- A (Summoned by bot) you can have a legacy prior to croaking cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose codification of a brightline rule here: I don't often use this term (in fact, I think I may never have in my time on the project) but this feels like truly unnecessary policy WP:CREEP. This is clearly an editorial decision that needs to be made via WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and requires such a fact-specific analysis that any firm rule (even one of inclination) that is added to this [most bloated of all pages anywhere in project space] policy could never hope to address an approach good for every contingency, and will in fact only muddy the waters for the editors on individual articles. Some might say that this defaults my view to being closest to A, the broadest/most permissive interpretation, but I want to make it clear that I would not view that as terribly accurate; I don't think a specific one-size-fits all inclination towards any of the three options is appropriate here. Local editors familiar with the WP:Weight of the sources and the flow of the article are generally quite capable of puzzling out a pragmatic approach to questions like this, and BLP already constrains them (and clashes with other policies encouraging local consensus) quite enough as is.. Snow let's rap 09:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Can you given an opinion on whether this Legacy section in the article on Tom Cruise is appropriately named? And if not, what policy should be used to justify changing the name of the section? LK (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, reading through that section, I have to say that, were I an editor working on that article, I would definitely be urging against that header in that instance. But honestly, the section title is just the least of the problems with the section itself; it seems to be a random collection of tidbits that just didn't fit anywhere else in the article and were crammed together, without any connection, flow, or context tying together the handful of points of trivia--some of which arguably don't have enough WP:WEIGHT to be mentioned in the article in the first place. Clearly, this is an area which imputes a certain degree of subjectivity, but I can't say as those facts constitute much of anything that anyone would reasonably classify as "legacy". That said, this is an interpretation based on the current content in that section; I can very well imagine that enough has been said about Cruise's impact upon his industry that a legacy section might very well be appropriate for him, with better-suited content drawing upon the right sources. As to what policy should control here, I do see your implied argument that no policy is quite 100% on point. But even if the discussion might necessarily hinge on purely pragmatic arguments, I still think that in most cases the local editors can arrive at a rational solution in individual cases more expediently if they do not have to work around the proposed default rules here as a mandatory framework. Anyway, if nothing else, someone arguing against a legacy header in a case where they foudn it inappropriate would probably have at least WP:WEIGHT to draw upon; if anyone has a proper "legacy" then RS have probably described their notability in such terms, and provided some guideposts for which accomplishments/streams of influence qualify.
- Can you given an opinion on whether this Legacy section in the article on Tom Cruise is appropriately named? And if not, what policy should be used to justify changing the name of the section? LK (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- In any event, that is, of course, a very separate and more specific question than the one being asked in this discussion. FYI, even if you get an endorsement for this proposal (and I hope the need will be rethought before this goes much farther, but even if you do...) you are still going to need to re-introduce it at the talk page for the policy to be changed, and probably also publicize it via WP:VPP, WP:CD, or another central community space, per the usual approach to modifying policy pages. But maybe I am unaware of a habit of BLP-policy changes to originate here before moving to the talk page? Snow let's rap 07:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not proposing any changes to policy or guideline about this issue. I do agree that adding something as trivial as this to a policy page would be policy creep. I'm just trying to establish community consensus that in most cases, it would be in appropriate to use "legacy" to describe the impact of people still active in their field. LK (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- In any event, that is, of course, a very separate and more specific question than the one being asked in this discussion. FYI, even if you get an endorsement for this proposal (and I hope the need will be rethought before this goes much farther, but even if you do...) you are still going to need to re-introduce it at the talk page for the policy to be changed, and probably also publicize it via WP:VPP, WP:CD, or another central community space, per the usual approach to modifying policy pages. But maybe I am unaware of a habit of BLP-policy changes to originate here before moving to the talk page? Snow let's rap 07:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
Ponnapula Sanjeeva Prasad
Ponnapula Sanjeeva Prasad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This article has some clear cut BLP violation, consider clearing the violations out. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Please describe or, even better, copy the BLP violation(s) here so we can evaluate them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Duane Arnold
Duane Arnold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article contains factual errors that I have been prevented from correcting as well as possibly violating the BLP policy as stated below. The article as currently written contains speculation and bias while minimizing notable achievement.
Arnold is not a public figure and there is potential here for harm to his person and reputation. Another editor noted; "Based on these observations, it's my belief that there is a possibility that the article is being used for attack purposes falls under WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E which "applies to individuals who are not public figures...editors must consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction," as well as limiting the information concerning individuals notable for one event.:"Phoenixpreacher (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)PhoenixpreacherPhoenixpreacher (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Properly sourced bias is expressly allowed per NPOV, but speculation and allegations for WP:NOTPUBLICFIGUREs must meet a higher standard for inclusion than for WP:PUBLICFIGUREs. That doesn't mean negative information can't be included. Just make sure it's from very RS and not mere gossip. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
As another editor noted "A reading of the basic facts about the article lends it the appearance of being created specifically to notify readers about the subject's perceived misdeeds. Indeed, for many years, the references were allowed to say just that, without being held accountable to Wikipedia's usual safeguards against using articles for attack purposes." There are factual inaccuracies in the article as I have noted as well.Phoenixpreacher (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- The sourcing is Times Higher Education and The Independent, to very good sources. This was quite high profile - in fact without this incident I doubt we'd have heard of him. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Dean Goss
Brewster McCloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I finally got around to watching the movie "Brewster McCloud" yesterday, and then I looked up the movie on Wikipedia. I can firmly state that the person credited in the movie "Brewster McCloud" named Dean Goss is definitely not the Dean Goss who actually played the role. The Dean Goss in the movie was not a California DJ as stated on Wikipedia, but was the owner/operator/emcee of a dinner theater in Houston, where the film was shot. Also he was a lot older than 21, which would have been the age of the California DJ named Dean Goss in 1970 when the film was shot(I would guess he was 40ish). Also, he was very close to morbidly obese, and a look at the movie verifies that fact. My authority? None whatsoever, but I lived in Houston, and I remember when the film was shot, and how much fanfare Dean Goss got. I also attended Dean Goss's dinner theater in the 60s and 70s, and I remember him being quite proud of his role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.121.5 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- You appear to be quite right, and this seems to confirm it. Not for the first time, IMDB is incorrect. I have unlinked Goss's name from the Brewster McCloud article. Actually, based on that news story, it looks like this Dean Goss might even be notable themselves. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
John F. Kelly
- John F. Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recent attempts to mis-characterize a senior White House advisor's actions on immigration. Whether well-intended or disruptive, they may need further attention. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Nobody seems to be discussing this on the Talk page. Try that. I rolled back to a version sourced to WSJ, which is better than Politico or the other competing sources quoted. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Stephanie Adams
I’m concerned about text using the term murder–suicide in article Stephanie Adams, a recently deceased person. Quite likely it was a murder-suicide, and I realize that murder-suicide is not a legal term. However, murder is a crime and there has been no trial, no admission of guilt, and no suicide note. People uses the term in its headline, but not in the text. The text uses the term homicide, which is not necessarily a crime.[6]. The New York Daily News only uses the word homicide.[7] The New York Post calls it murder-suicide, but doesn’t source the claim. [8] Although these sources can be RS, none of them are top resources and BLPs require more stringent use of sources. As this is a BLP, and the incident is recent, and there have been no court rulings, perhaps we should err on the side of caution and use the term homicide. WP:BLPSTYLE In the meantime, I’ve added "alleged". Thoughts? O3000 (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- People has the words in the first paragraph cited to "officials". this attributes to a New York City Medical Examiner. I think it's justified, but attribution (eg "The death was ruled a murder-suicide by the city's medical examiner.") can't hurt. --Masem (t) 17:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- The concerns you outlined above are not a reason to call the ME's finding an "allegation", as you did here. General Ization Talk 17:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- To be fair to 03000, none of the three sources given identify "murder-suicide" coming from the ME, just "officials". The one source I provide above (a local NY news station) does state that. There's a fair reason to make sure the claim is coming from a person in the right authority to make the claim. --Masem (t) 17:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the May 21 People article used murder-suicide. But, in the May 22 People article, they called it murder-suicide, but said the examiner called it a homicide.[9] The Daily Beast said the medical examiner ruled it a homicide.[10] Newsweek said the examiner called it homicide. [11] Fox News reported the examiner called it a homicide, but may have copied this from the Daily News which used homicide. NBC News New York reported that the examiner called it homicide. O3000 (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- To be fair to 03000, none of the three sources given identify "murder-suicide" coming from the ME, just "officials". The one source I provide above (a local NY news station) does state that. There's a fair reason to make sure the claim is coming from a person in the right authority to make the claim. --Masem (t) 17:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Under the legal definition of homicide in New York state, homicide is indeed necessarily a crime; it applies to any one of a list of crimes, of which murder is one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Homicide can be a crime. Your cite is to a list of crimes. Self-defense and accidental death can be legal homicides and would not be in that list. Careful with WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- My cite is to the legal definition of murder within New York state. Self-defense and accidental death would not be "legal homicide" within the legal definition of homicide in the relevant state. So if the concern about using the term "murder" is that it connotes an illegal act, then we need be careful about the term "homicide", as it can be used to connote an illegal act under the law. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Homicide can be a crime. Your cite is to a list of crimes. Self-defense and accidental death can be legal homicides and would not be in that list. Careful with WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I’ve provided six cites that say the official statement from the New York Medical Examiner ruled it a homicide. Of course, some of the less than stellar sources tend to use more eye-catching terms. As per WP:BLPSTYLE, Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources (but keep in mind that depictions of recent events may be unbalanced)
. On top of that, NPOV calls for the preponderance of sources, and they say homicide. No, I’m not going to shop fora. In my mind, NPOV overrides RS as NPOV calls for a preponderance of RS. And BLP overrides as it calls for care, Particularly when it relates to WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. The medical examiner used the word homicide. Let us, as an encyclopedia, use the same word that the medical examiner used as opposed to a couple of “breaking news” outlets. O3000 (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- And we have three sources (thanks to Masem for the third) calling the deaths a murder-suicide, two of them in their own voice and Masem’s attributing it to the NYC Medical Examiner. I’m not opposed to using attribution in the article. While it may be “in your mind” that the NPOV calls for the preponderance of sources, that is not how the WP:NPOV policy is written. In fact, it says nothing of the sort, so excuse me when I say your interpretation is a bit of a stretch. NPOV and BLPSTYLE caution us about using a balanced tone. The term “murder-suicide” is no more inflammatory than using “suicide” and “homicide”. Well respected publications use the term all the time. Indeed, the Washington Post which had an article about this very same incident said
Investigators have yet to determine whether it was a murder-suicide or an accident
, which is pretty solid evidence they don’t have a problem with the phrase in general. Additionally WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE is probably not applicable here. Adams was either a public figure, or at the least a limited public figure. Being a model and a Playboy centerfold, and the sheer number of articles written about her in various NYC gossip magazines, press conferences held, etc. supports this notion. Finally, I don’t think BLP is applicable in this instance. Adams is dead. BLP may be applicable per WP:BDP which states: (emphasis added)The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.
Their deaths while sad are neither contentious or questionable, therefore they can’t have “implications” on the deceased relatives. The purpose of BDP is not to prevent writing on sourced facts about the deceased just because it might make their successors uncomfortable or embarrassed, but to minimize any real world harm to them. Simply put, BDP does not apply here.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC) - And your assertion that the sources that use “murder-suicide” are “breaking news outlets” is completely without merit. Additionally, trying to shoehorn a consensus for your preferred text here is inappropriate. This board is for addressing possible BLP issues, not crafting content. The question at hand is whether or not using “murder-suicide” breaks BLP for this article.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- So, we have three sources (I only see 2 but will give you one) that say murder-suicide in article text, only one of which attributes this to the medical examiner, and six that say homicide. And as you point out, WaPo said they didn’t know if it was a murder-suicide. That makes seven that did not label it as such. So by my count, one of the ten sources said the medical examiner ruled this a murder-suicide. Why insist on murder-suicide?
The term “murder-suicide” is no more inflammatory than using “suicide” and “homicide”
Well, yes it is. Murder is a crime. Homicide may or may not be a crime. (Homicide Definition: To begin with, not all homicides are crimes.
[12].) All police shootings resulting in death are homicides. Frankly, I don’t understand why you are so adamant about ignoring the majority of RS and using a more contentious term. O3000 (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)- For the reasons I outlined above this is not a BLP issue. We have multiple reliable sources calling this a murder-suicide and attributed that to NYC. Why are you questioning my rationale? My arguments have remained the same the entire time. You keep moving the goal posts. Your first argument was that only an official, such as a judge can call this a murder-suicide. When that didn’t work, you switched tact. We’re writing an encyclopedia, not saving face. That man from Nantucket (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is a conflict in the RSes. Some call it homicide (with her death a suicide), some call it it "murder-suicide", which all point what the ME supposedly had said. It would be great if we could access the ME's statement directly (not one of these RSes is quoting it) to get what the ME said, but we don't have that luxury. When I read through sources, I think there's more weight when we call the infant's death a homicide and Adams' a suicide, rather than the "sloppy" murder-suicide that I think some RSes are simplify this too. There is enough of a distinction here between homicide and murder that we should use the less-offensive term (homocide) here until we have better, more consistent sourcing for "murder". --Masem (t) 15:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Your opinion aside (although not sure I agree with your characterization of a 7 yo boy an infant), I fail to see any violations of the BLP policy, which is what this board is for. Conversation should continue on the article talk page instead of here.That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did mean child. But in regards to homocide versus murder, there is a different that does reflect on BLP. Homocide would be that she was responsible for the boy's death, but may not have intended for him to die, whereas a murder would be that she intentionally killed him. That's a rather big difference, in that we aren't asserting she purposely killed the child. And barring any new information, we're not likely going to understand what she was thinking at the time of the incident, so homocide seems like the more appropriate term here between that and "murder". Again, best solution would be to get our hands on the ME's own report itself to eliminate the press's telephone game here, but that's not likely to happen. --Masem (t) 17:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- That’s a primary source and not usable.That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- The ME's report would be 100% usable. Primary sources are not unallowed on BLP, but they have to be used with care. The manner that someone died as ruled by an official in the legal position to make that call - the ME here - is fully allowable. But that is if we could get that report directly. --Masem (t) 19:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- She's not all that well known. More along the lines of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. So, we're not likely to see any more news stories. If she died a natural death, we wouldn't have seen so much coverage. O3000 (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not for the lack of trying if you examine the press clippings on her site. Certainly well known in the “Playboy community” and the NY newspaper gossip columns. Indeed she spoke to a cone such columnist the day before her death. A non public figure wouldn’t have dozens of articles in those pages.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- She's not all that well known. More along the lines of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. So, we're not likely to see any more news stories. If she died a natural death, we wouldn't have seen so much coverage. O3000 (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- The ME's report would be 100% usable. Primary sources are not unallowed on BLP, but they have to be used with care. The manner that someone died as ruled by an official in the legal position to make that call - the ME here - is fully allowable. But that is if we could get that report directly. --Masem (t) 19:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- That’s a primary source and not usable.That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did mean child. But in regards to homocide versus murder, there is a different that does reflect on BLP. Homocide would be that she was responsible for the boy's death, but may not have intended for him to die, whereas a murder would be that she intentionally killed him. That's a rather big difference, in that we aren't asserting she purposely killed the child. And barring any new information, we're not likely going to understand what she was thinking at the time of the incident, so homocide seems like the more appropriate term here between that and "murder". Again, best solution would be to get our hands on the ME's own report itself to eliminate the press's telephone game here, but that's not likely to happen. --Masem (t) 17:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Your opinion aside (although not sure I agree with your characterization of a 7 yo boy an infant), I fail to see any violations of the BLP policy, which is what this board is for. Conversation should continue on the article talk page instead of here.That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is a conflict in the RSes. Some call it homicide (with her death a suicide), some call it it "murder-suicide", which all point what the ME supposedly had said. It would be great if we could access the ME's statement directly (not one of these RSes is quoting it) to get what the ME said, but we don't have that luxury. When I read through sources, I think there's more weight when we call the infant's death a homicide and Adams' a suicide, rather than the "sloppy" murder-suicide that I think some RSes are simplify this too. There is enough of a distinction here between homicide and murder that we should use the less-offensive term (homocide) here until we have better, more consistent sourcing for "murder". --Masem (t) 15:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- For the reasons I outlined above this is not a BLP issue. We have multiple reliable sources calling this a murder-suicide and attributed that to NYC. Why are you questioning my rationale? My arguments have remained the same the entire time. You keep moving the goal posts. Your first argument was that only an official, such as a judge can call this a murder-suicide. When that didn’t work, you switched tact. We’re writing an encyclopedia, not saving face. That man from Nantucket (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- So, we have three sources (I only see 2 but will give you one) that say murder-suicide in article text, only one of which attributes this to the medical examiner, and six that say homicide. And as you point out, WaPo said they didn’t know if it was a murder-suicide. That makes seven that did not label it as such. So by my count, one of the ten sources said the medical examiner ruled this a murder-suicide. Why insist on murder-suicide?
Sooo, what does BLP/N say? And, I'm looking for an overall opinion. Many decisions cross multiple guidelines and I don't wish to bother folk on other boards. O3000 (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Just chiming in because people here seem to be unclear on what words mean, though I have no actual comment to how this dispute should be resolved. "Homicide" means "the killing of a person by another person". In US legal contexts, this word implies nothing about criminal liability, though it is commonly used in speech as a synonym for "murder". "Murder", on the other hand, means "the unlawful killing of a person by another person", which is necessarily a criminal act. This is why a medical examiner will rule a death a homicide and not a murder. He is saying that he has determined the person's death was caused by another person, but he is not issuing a factual statement to who caused that death, or whether they are guilty of any crime. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson
Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Mass additions to the personal life section, containing information about former relationships and allegations of domestic violence. Also addition of numerous citations to Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, as well as some OR/SYNTH. I have removed the additions, and I am trying to look through them and to re-add the pertinent information but I am not confident on what should or should not be included. Advice would be appreciated. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
If any of you can have a look at the discussion on the talk page, and the brief exchange that led to it, I'd appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Encyclopedic tone in Cher Lloyd
A sentence in the BLP for Cher Lloyd describes a "hair-pulling cat-fight" in her school years. I contend that this is inappropriate and unencyclopedic, given our mandate for a neutral tone in articles. @Eggishorn: disagrees, and appreciates the fact that these words have been cribbed directly from tabloid sources. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I will note that one citation here is the Daily Mail, which appears to be generally prohibited as a WP:RS, and the other source is the more obscure Birmingham Mail... 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've changed it to be more neutral in tone and to remove unnecessary detail (people can read this in the references if they wish). Neiltonks (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
BLP1E assessment requested: Anna Delvey
Hi there. I recently stumbled across a pretty detailed article in New York on a woman called Anna Sorokin aka Anna Delvey, who allegedly conned a number of NYC socialities out of a lot of money: [13]. There is a long story in Vanity Fair from April and going back, she does appear in party images going back to 2013. There's also some coverage from last year [14], [15], even some in Russian (GTranslated). Some sources I cannot access due to GDPR walls though. I was considering creating an article about her since there was definitely substantial coverage of her various business dealings, however, I'm not completely sure she doesn't fail WP:BLP1E if one considers the arrest and the related coverage as the "event". As such, before I do so, I would like to request a short assessment whether she fails BLP1E or not. Regards SoWhy 11:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Even if she is 1Eish (not passing firm judgement), it sounds like the criminal event passes WP:NCRIME - so at worst you could cover the criminal act(s) as a title- though I think this is beyond 1E (as it seems more than just the crime is covered - though it does appear gossipy). The more serious issue is WP:BLPCRIME as while Sorkin is in Rikers, it seems she hasn't been convicted as of yet.[16][17]Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Samantha Colley
Someone is repetitvely (and spitefully?) changing Samantha's age here on Wikipedia. She is in her late 20's. Someone keeps editing her age to read as 39.
I have corrected it several times now but someone keeps changing it back.
What can be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:2C3C:AE00:E05F:E7C:DBFA:741 (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- What reliable source is there to support either date of birth? GiantSnowman 12:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have found a NY Post source that shows an age for Samantha Colley of 28 on April 30, 2018. Will update the article accordingly. Edwardx (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I found this diff [18] and the next few, which seem to be based on this source: https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/samantha-colley.html It well may be that famousbirthdays.com is wrong, but it at least suggests the changes were not malicious.--agr (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have found a NY Post source that shows an age for Samantha Colley of 28 on April 30, 2018. Will update the article accordingly. Edwardx (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Valerie Jarrett
Fixed empty section header by IP editor 2600:387:1:811::85.
Hello, the article Valerie Jarrett is currently semi-protected due to vandalism. If you want to discuss any current concerns, please use the article's talkpage Talk:Valerie Jarrett first. See also WP:BLP for Wikipedia's requirements regarding biographies of living persons. GermanJoe (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Because [19]. Which we seriously do not need. Judicial Watch? Seriously? Set up by Larry Klayman, the dumbest lawyer on the planet not called Mat Staver. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
governor eric greitens
The very first sentence is disgusting - "is an American scumbag" - it is vile, crude and frankly low class. I thought more of your web site and must say will NEVER again donate any monies anymore. The obvious political bias is glaring. I used wiki for years for truthful non biased information. Again, I will NEVER your site or contribute to your filth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.137.7 (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- The IP appears to be a troll. The "disgusting" language does not currently appear in Eric Greitens, only in a few vandal contributions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- In other news, Greitens has resigned because he is, in fact, a scumbag. Guy (Help!) 07:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, no, we are going broke now, because some anonymous IP editor claims they won't donate $$$ anymore. I guess we are in big trouble. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- In other news, Greitens has resigned because he is, in fact, a scumbag. Guy (Help!) 07:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Chelsea Manning
Based on a couple of ambiguous Twitter posts, MagicatthemovieS is edit warring to restore an entire section of material that is based solely on conjecture. I don't see how guessing at an individual's mental state based on a couple Twitter posts has any place in a BLP. The edit summaries the editor used to restore the disputed content "Marylanders deserve to know if she's suicidal" and "the fragile mental state of someone running for office is not insignificant", in my opinion, appears biased and less than WP:NPOV. Could uninvolved editors with an eye to BLP-policy please keep an eye on the article to ensure that the BLP issues, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:TABLOID aren't repeated? --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I never said in the section I added on Manning's tweets that she was insane; I shouldn't have speculated about it in my edit summaries. Regardless of my missteps, the public deserves to know when a politician sends suicidal tweets.--MagicatthemovieS
- User:Ponyo the disputed section, Suicide concerns, is not as you falsely claim "based solely on conjecture." To the contrary, it includes three citations to WP:RS.
- I trust that uninvolved editors with an eye to BLP policy will at minimum examine the facts and not blindly accept your misrepresentations. KalHolmann (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Your first source states that she sent a couple of Tweets; it makes no mention of a suicide attempt. The second source also only mentions "concerning tweets" and again makes no mention of a suicide attempt. The last source, which is weak, is conjecture. At this time having an entire section titled "Suicide concerns" is WP:UNDUE. My request here was for outside editors who are adept at navigating tricky BLP-issues to provide input as to if the material should included at this time, and if so, how. WP:BLP is about getting it right through the use of the highest quality sources available not about getting it first because "the public deserves to know when a politician sends suicidal tweets" as MagicatthemovieS states above.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- User:Ponyo, Nicole Hensley's report in the New York Daily News, cited above and in the excised section, headlines: "Chelsea Manning 'safe' after tweeting alarming photo hinting at suicide." Hensley's lead states, "Chelsea Manning alarmed her friends Sunday night with a pair of since-deleted tweets in which she contemplated suicide." (Emphases added.) That is not conjecture. It is a duly referenced citation to WP:RS. Your disingenuousness in pretending this event in the life of Chelsea Manning is somehow not about suicide is transparently unconvincing. KalHolmann (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- KalHolmann, don't ascribe motives to me that don't exist. Calling me disingenuous is baseless and flat out wrong. I've edited here for over 10 years and have always put the interest of BLP subjects and upholding the policies protecting them ahead of rushing to get stories out for the sake of shoehorning breaking news into articles. The entire point of posting here is to foment discussion on how specific BLP topics should be handled. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- NYDN's reliability is marginal. Headlines are never reliable, especially on tabloids, as they are not written by the original journalist. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_218#New_York_Daily_News_unreliable? etc for more. Edwardx (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- User:Ponyo, Nicole Hensley's report in the New York Daily News, cited above and in the excised section, headlines: "Chelsea Manning 'safe' after tweeting alarming photo hinting at suicide." Hensley's lead states, "Chelsea Manning alarmed her friends Sunday night with a pair of since-deleted tweets in which she contemplated suicide." (Emphases added.) That is not conjecture. It is a duly referenced citation to WP:RS. Your disingenuousness in pretending this event in the life of Chelsea Manning is somehow not about suicide is transparently unconvincing. KalHolmann (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Your first source states that she sent a couple of Tweets; it makes no mention of a suicide attempt. The second source also only mentions "concerning tweets" and again makes no mention of a suicide attempt. The last source, which is weak, is conjecture. At this time having an entire section titled "Suicide concerns" is WP:UNDUE. My request here was for outside editors who are adept at navigating tricky BLP-issues to provide input as to if the material should included at this time, and if so, how. WP:BLP is about getting it right through the use of the highest quality sources available not about getting it first because "the public deserves to know when a politician sends suicidal tweets" as MagicatthemovieS states above.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/manning-friend-says-shes-safe-after-window-ledge-tweet/2018/05/28/a5804156-629b-11e8-81ca-bb14593acaa6_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:9081:F571:C597:F64 (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The following paragraph really needs to be removed from Mimis Plessas's article
"Prior to 1959 Plessas was a professor of chemistry at the Polytechnical in Athens. He received his PH.D. in a most interesting manner. He did it at Brown university by winning a piano competition. Much to the surprise of the judges, he asked for it to be in chemistry, not music."
The above not only sounds hilariously unlikely but the accusation that a university like Brown would issue chemistry degrees in unrelated music competitions clearly needs better evidence.
I suspect this may have been the link below is the source that this information was misinterpreted. http://www.andtheconductoris.eu/index.htm?http://www.eurovisionartists.nl/conductor/dir020.asp?ID=246 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgoulis (talk • contribs) 09:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Gossip about the British royal family in The Crown (TV series)
The Crown (TV series) contains tabloid-sourced gossip about six members of the British royal family, who are claimed to be fans of the TV show. The section suggests that the royal family endorses the TV show, and even contains a supposed quote from the Queen in which she expresses her approval. The source is The Daily Express, which was sanctioned 12 times for false claims in 2016 alone. There have been extensive discussions about the use of The Daily Express and similar tabloids across Wikipedia, and they have been effectively blacklisted. Yet, AlexTheWhovian insists on keeping the gossip in the article, with only a tag indicating that it may be (Redacted). Surtsicna (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, it should be removed. If it were an RS with a better reptutation, like the Telegraph, the same language including the disclaim could be included, but Daily Express is tabloid and cannot be considered factual. --Masem (t) 15:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- If it were the Telegraph or another reputable source, the disclaim would not even be needed. In fact, no disclaim should ever be need when it comes to living people. If there is no reliable source to back it up, it should be gone. Or am I misinterpreting the WP:BLP policy? Surtsicna (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've removed the paragraph, with an attempted pithy edsum. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agree that this is unacceptable sourcing for a claim about living people, and even if it were reliably sourced it would be trivia and gossip. I'll watchlist it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've removed the paragraph, with an attempted pithy edsum. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- If it were the Telegraph or another reputable source, the disclaim would not even be needed. In fact, no disclaim should ever be need when it comes to living people. If there is no reliable source to back it up, it should be gone. Or am I misinterpreting the WP:BLP policy? Surtsicna (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The Bedroom Philosopher: Article name change
The Bedroom Philosopher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greetings! I have recently listed a requested move discussion at The Bedroom Philosopher, a page which falls under BLP. Discussion and opinions are invited. Details: A user with a COI has asked that the page which is about them and titled under their pseudonym be renamed under their legal name. I'm seeking input on whether this is allowable. It is my understanding that these types of moves would be allowed only after a sufficient number of references mentioned the new name, and I believe that the references now speak mostly to the pseudonym. Any input would be greatly appreciated! .spintendo 18:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is a situation that we can use the OTRS to have the user confirm their identity to remove the question if this was a faked account or not. Past that point, whether the request should be heeded or not can depend on a lot of factors (here, this one seems fairly non-contested, even backed by RSes). --Masem (t) 18:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Arsham Parsi
There is an edit warring on Arsham Parsi going on with some libellous contents added by User:Effat.assar (e.g. Special:Diff/843639249). This happened in Persian Wikipedia too which made me protect the article there but I don't have admin access in here. Thanks Ladsgroupoverleg 19:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
A user called Mr SanRemo joined Wikipedia on 7 May 2018 and made one edit.
I undid this on 28 May 2018, when I saw it. The language used was potentially libellous and the reference given did not say what the user claimed it to say.
On 30 May 2018 Mr SanRemo undid my undo. I have not attempted to communicate with this user, as it appears they have joined Wikipedia solely to perpetuate this particular item of information.
I have again reverted the edit, and given reasons including the policy on living persons, my belief that the language used is inflammatory and potentially libellous, and that the reference given does not say what the user claims it to say.
I will be very surprised if this user does not revert my undo, and do not feel it appropriate that they should do so. Sophoife (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I left him a note, letting him know this has to be discussed, and if he adds the content again he'll be blocked. As to libel itself, the problem here is guilt by association. Lothar Heinrich did confess to providing riders with banned substances, but to mention this in Adam Hansen's article is coatracking at best. Unless a reliable source specifically talks about accusations that Heinrich helped Hansen dope, it has no place in the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you! I figured better to take the careful step than to get mired in a reversion war :) Sophoife (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Biography of Prince Harry
Focus on the facts: Articles are improved with facts that can be verified, not rumors or opinions.
I think the bio of Prince Harry should not include the paragraph speculating on his parentage. Wikipedia states as a core value that articles should focus on facts that can be verified, not rumors or opinions. The fact someone named in the rumor (not the person who's bio is being published) responded to it does not make it relevant or appropriate.
This is the section that should be removed: James Hewitt There were rumours that Harry is the son of James Hewitt, with whom his mother had an affair.[158] In response, Hewitt told the press that Harry had been born before the affair began.[158][159] Hewitt's 2002 statement read:[158][159]
There really is no possibility whatsoever that I am Harry's father. I can absolutely assure you that I am not. Admittedly the red hair is similar to mine and people say we look alike. I have never encouraged these comparisons and although I was with Diana for a long time I must state once and for all that I'm not Harry's father. When I met Diana, he was already a toddler.
The statement was seconded by one of Diana's police bodyguards, Ken Wharfe:[158][159]
The malicious rumours that still persist about the paternity of Prince Harry used to anger Diana greatly. The nonsense should be scotched here and now. Harry was born on 15 September 1984. Diana did not meet James until the summer of 1986, and the red hair, gossips so love to cite as proof is, of course, a Spencer trait.
I hope you will follow up on this. Thanks, Linda Storoz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:F94C:8E00:E133:79B9:3B31:E02E (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- This rumor has been well covered by reliable sources, and only the mainstream perspective is presented - namely, that there is no evidence to it. So it's not a violation of the biographies of living persons policy, and thus there is not much to discuss on this page. Whether it should be mentioned is an editorial matter that should be discussed on the article's talk page, so I would recommend you go there and seek comment. I see this section has been discussed several times before, usually getting limited participation, but there is consistently a consensus for something like what is there now to remain: Talk:Prince_Harry/Archive_3#Debunking_the_Hewitt_gossip, Talk:Prince_Harry/Archive_1#Paternity. Now that aside, I should note that the persistence of the rumors actually increases the likelihood that it will be considered relevant to the article. Specifically, the fact that these rumors have generated content from sources like the BBC, and official responses from those involved, just make it seem more relevant. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Doria_Ragland
hello. it is regarding the photo, there is some discussion on the talk. Talk:Doria_Ragland#photo It is a very poor photo indeed. It has been replaced as better than nothing, is that the blp standard? Govindaharihari (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is indeed a poor photo, but it does not seem to misportray her, to make her look ridiculous, or anything else that would be a BLP problem, in my opinion. MPS1992 (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Lorenzo Alejandro Laviosa Lopez
Found this on RC patrol, here it is before the last 3 edits: [[20]]
Would probably easily be deleted at an AFD, however, concerned about BLP issues, so brought it here. TantraYum (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Good catch. This has alternated between G10 and A7 for its entire history (which is only 50-odd edits). I have deleted it. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Nathan Larson
Nathan Larson (politician) and Nathan Larson (anarchist) both redirect to Virginia's 1st congressional district election, 2008. Since then he's served a prison term and is now a candidate for the House of Representatives, and considerable negative material is in the news about him: HuffPost; NY Daily News; Newsweek. All very recent. However WaPo, March 2017. (Edit: Also Colorado Springs Independent, 2015.) I'm not sure I'm up to writing the article, but someone is surely going to, so I would like to alert the wise heads here. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Eyes please: Tommy Robinson (activist)
I've fully protected this article for 12 hours to prevent it being restructured to put the subject's entire criminal record into one section under headings like "fraud". Strictly speaking, I'm not an uninvolved admin because I've been editing the article for the last few days, hence the request for more eyes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Christopher Kelly (historian)
Not neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.5.174 (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- The criticism was sourced only to a student's rant and a gossip column. I have removed it. Woodroar (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Joy Ann Reid
Joy Ann Reid has been under fire for blogposts from a decade-old blog. A champion of LGBT rights in recent years, Reid has apologized for homophobic (and other offensive) posts, some of which were revealed in 2017 and others in early 2018. The article covers this controversy, probably at too great length considering that Reid's previous supporters, including her employer MSNBC, still support her, while her previous antagonists, (supporters of Trump but also of Bernie Sanders) still oppose her. The article also covers her past claims (now apparently abandoned) that some posts were inserted by hackers.
Recently, BuzzFeed has begun to release, one blogpost at a time, more content from the old blog, hoping to launch new controversy. First, they noted that she had linked to some 9/11 truther stuff and suggested her readers take a look. Next day, they note that a post making fun of John McCain superimposed his head on a figure holding two handguns. BuzzFeed emphasizes (although Reid did not mention) that the anonymous torso was a mass killer.
My point, and I do have one, is that RS coverage of decade-old posts from Reid's blog deserve some mention in her article. On the other hand, despite the enthusiasm of her antagonists for any new scandal, these most recent stories seem trivial compared to the previous "homophobia scandal," which has expired. As you might expect, some editors want to see every allegation covered at length, turning the blogpost coverage into a COATRACK that dwarfs material about Reid's career. But, from WP:BALASP, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. 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." MSNBC continues to support Reid. How do others think we should handle a drip-drip-drip approach of her antagonists to seeking news cycle coverage of accusations of Reid that are closely related to previous accusationsthat are similarly based on very old blogposts?HouseOfChange (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- This editor^ has been vetoing every single addition, regardless of how extensively sourced it is, to the Joy Ann Reid page. The editor has simply declared that no content can be added unless the editor himself deems the content notable enough (the standards set by the editor is "If any of these "revelations" creates actual scandal, or a change in her job situation with MSNBC, or really anything beyond salivating eagerness from far left and right") rather than rely on WP:DUE. We're talking about content that has been covered by, what must be at this point, every single news outlet. For Reid's promotion of 9/11 conspiracy theories (one of many scandals), I noted to this editor that it had been covered by WaPo, CNN, Politico, the Hill, USA Today, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Buzzfeed News, the Daily Beast, Adweek, HuffPost, and the Columbia Journalism Review (some of the many RS that have covered this), with all of these sources describing it as a scandal with implications for Reid's career and her journalistic standing. I think this episode demonstrates yet again that Wikipedia has a serious problem with partisans (on both the left and the right) patrolling pages and preventing negative content from being added to articles. Rules need to be clearer that this kind of veto player behavior is unacceptable. The rules also need to protect editors who want to add content when the content is indisputably consistent with Wikipedia policy, because as it stands those editors are vulnerable to sanctions and/or have to waste time dealing with spurious vetoes and endless hurdles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Rockin' Rebel: Dead or alive?
Bit of a tussle between sources and doubt at Talk:Rockin' Rebel. Also a subplot about professional wrestling integrity versus police authority in America, and a marital murder mystery complicating what (I assume) would've otherwise been a straighforward reflection of the exact same reporters' reports, rather than a locked-down article. Strange case with potential for strange precedent, but a rather obscure celebrity, so I invite the board to ponder it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, June 3, 2018 (UTC)
Jan T. Gross
Jan T. Gross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Subject is an esteemed[21], Princeton (emeritus) professor, whose widely cited work is considered groundbreaking.[22] Coverage of the subject is fairly wide (and very wide for an academic) and is overwhelmingly positive with the exception of coverage and comments by some elements in Polish society as well as the present Polish government. The question is to what degree to include said criticism from within Poland, how to balance it if at all, and what weight in general to give these various aspects - the harsh rhetoric (as well as legislation and a slander of the Polish nation investigation (a crime in Poland - WP:BLPCRIME issue)) from within Poland, make this a BLP issue.
Neutral eyes on the article, in general, would be appreciated. At present the content dispute is on:
- general tone of the article.
- Chodakiewicz - a far-right activist (NewsweekSPLC 20092017) and historian whose work in general has been described as the "the most extreme spectrum in what is considered the contemporary mainstream ethno-nationalist school of history writing".[23] Chodakiewicz's work is cited to a very limited extent in an academic setting (per scholar - 19 citations vs. 725 for Gross's book) and many of those citations are coverage of the Jedwabne debate from a historiography/society/media angle in which the denial of the Polish role and the blaming of the victims (for their alleged conduct during Soviet rule) is covered. In terms of contents, at question is:
- Whether to include mention of anti-semitic ad-hominem attacks in Poland against Gross, noted in scholarly research on the Jedwabne debate. diff
- How to describe the circumstances of Gross's arrest in Poland in 1968 and subsequent forced departure in 1969.diff
- In 2015 Gross made a trivial observation that "Poles killed more Jews than Germans" in WWII (in an article about the treatment of refugees in Poland), for which he later provided numeric estimates (in line with research on the subject) - "Poles killed a maximum 30,000 Germans and between 100,000 to 200,000 Jews"[24]. This statement was strongly condemned by some elements in Polish society and by the present Polish government (who stripped an honor given to Gross in the past, opened a criminal investigation due to "publicly insulting the Polish nation" (carrying a 3 year prison sentence), and subsequently legislated the amendment widely known as "Lex Gross" or the "Polish Holocaust Law" which widens the scope of criminalization in regards to discussion of Poland's past and complicity with the Holocaust). Coverage outside of Poland, on this issue, has been mainly positive towards Gross and strongly critical of the Polish government actions. In particular, should we:
- Include the statement, on Polish radio, by the president of a NGO saying that the article was "primitive, disgusting and irresponsible".diff.
- Include the widely covered "Lex Gross". diff.
- Include a statement by historian Jacek Leociak (in an Associated Press piece, reprinted by several outlets) who said "The claim that Poles killed more Jews than Germans could be really right – and this is shocking news for the traditional thinking about Polish heroism during the war". diff
Input welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Personally Chodakiewicz should be left out of Gross' biography but is probably useable on articles related to the holocaust law. The 'Lex Gross' should be mentioned (briefly) as Gross was a significant catalyst for it - that is unescapable - but it should really be no more than a paragraph with most of the information at the relevant articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
In a typical fashion Icewhiz misrepresents the situation, presenting it in a one sided skewed manner (by, for example, peppering this request with unneeded and unencyclopedic adjectives like "esteemed", "groundbreaking" - even if a source can be found to that effect there's no reason to believe that these aren't cherry picked) and also engages in inappropriate forum shopping - most of these questions aren't BLP issues but simple WP:DUE issues.
Broadly, Icewhiz is trying to portray what are very controversial views of Jan Gross as "mainstream" and any kind of criticism as fringe. The thing is that Gross' statements and publications have received criticism from the entire political spectrum, from the left to the right. What Icewhiz is attempting to do is to hide any kind of criticism from the left (because it doesn't fit the artificial narrative he's trying to construct) and at the same time to either smear with attacks or "generalize" the criticism from the right (by either including a host of BLP violating attacks on authors critical of Gross, or by removing their specific qualifications, for example, the fact that Chodakiewicz is a historian).
As to the specific, in turn:
- Chodakiewicz - let's save that for last°
- "anti-semitic attacks on Gross" - while there certainly were such (it would be a miracle if these hadn't occurred given the subject matter) the statement Icewhiz wishes to include is extremely vague and it dishonestly suggests that ALL criticism of Gross were motivated by anti-semitism. This is strange, since the Chief Rabbi of Poland, as well as politicians and scholars of Jewish background (like Smolar) were also highly critical of Gross. Basically this is a classic case of WP:CPUSH.
- Regarding how to describe Gross' arrest and expulsion in 1968, I'm not sure why this is a BLP issue. The major point of dispute seems to be the adjective "vicious" and whether Gross "escaped" Poland. While the anti-semitic campaign carried out by the Communist Party in 1968 can certainly be described as "vicious" this is non-encyclopedic language and it's not clear what it's suppose to convey (people subject to the campaign lost their jobs and were more or less forced to emigrate, due to lack of economic support). The word "escaped" however is clearly inaccurate; Gross was forced to leave, not escaped.
- "Include the statement, on Polish radio, by the president of a NGO " <-- this is a quite weaselly and dishonest way of portraying who we're talking about: Aleksander Smolar, head of the most prestigious and liberal think tank in Poland, the Stefan Batory Institute. Smolar himself, like Gross, was subject to persecution during the 1968 anti-semitic campaign, probably more so (Gross was mostly persecuted for taking part in student protests, Smolar for taking part in student protests AND for being Jewish). Smolar has impeccable leftist credentials, is a highly respect former democratic and human rights activist, has served as adviser to several Polish prime ministers (liberal and left wing ones) and is head of or on the board of several prestigious institutes. True, he never got his PhD... because he was arrested and kicked out of the university by the communists! Smolar's criticism of Gross is very inconvenient for the fake narrative that Icewhiz is trying so hard to construct because he can't easily be dismissed as a "right wing" or a "nationalist" (sic) critic. Smolar is a very notable and well respect person and should definitely be included to ensure WP:BALANCE. What this has to do with BLP is beyond me.
- Regarding the "Lex Gross" thing - I guess some people like to call it that, and there's been an attempt to basically "hash tag it". Personally I think it's a bit of an artificial campaign but I guess there might be enough sources which are trying to spread the use of that meme to include it. I'm ambivalent.
- Leociak's statement is just plain ol' taken out of context and cherry picked. What does this have to do with BLP? Like I said, this is just forum shopping by Icewhiz, who has been unable to obtain consensus on talk or in other venues so he's trying to find a place where he can maybe get some support.
- Ok Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. This one's a bit difficult. Over the years Chodakiewicz has emerged as one of Gross' principal critics. He is extensively published, a specialist in this exact topic area and a professional historian who's served on the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. There's been a lot of back and forth between him and Gross, his supporters and Gross' supporters, with various accusations of "anti-Polonism" and "anti-Semitism" flying around. Like Gross, he's definitely very controversial though given his record of mainstream publications, by no means "fringe". And yes, some of the attacks on him have been picked up by some tertiary sources which don't really orient themselves in the general debate. Overall personally I disagree of most of what Chodakiewicz writes (he gets some details correct but I think the general picture he tries to paint is as distorted as the one presented by Gross, just in the other direction - they sorta deserve each other honestly) but I regard him as notable enough so as to be included - it wouldn't make sense to have an article on a controversial writer without mentioning his most well known critic. However, as I've already indicated, I do think Chodakiewicz's mention should be kept to a minimum; a single sentence noting that Chodakiewicz has been critical of Gross is sufficient (readers can click on the relevant article and find out more). And again, this isn't a BLP issue but a simple WP:BALANCE issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Cathy Areu
Cathy Areu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A problematic, poorly sourced BLP being edit-warred over by IPs and new accounts: Noyster (talk), 11:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Poorly sourced", indeed. OK, let me find some good insulated gloves, and I'll try grabbing that wire. - Donald Albury 13:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: another discussion about this issue was recently started at WP:ANI#Edit warring and BLP violations across several related articles. Woodroar (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)