Starship.paint (talk | contribs) |
→RfC of possible interest: new section |
||
Line 605: | Line 605: | ||
:Do you mean [[Jessica Sanchez]]? I can’t see that you’ve ever edited that article. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 07:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC) |
:Do you mean [[Jessica Sanchez]]? I can’t see that you’ve ever edited that article. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 07:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
== RfC of possible interest == |
|||
A [[Talk:Bill_Shorten#RfC:_Rape_allegation|request for comment]] regarding a rape allegation against Bill Shorten, an Australian politician, may be of interest to editors on this noticeboard as the dispute relates to BLP policies. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:37, 21 June 2019
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:
| ||
Arvin Vohra
- Arvin Vohra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are several incomplete or out of context quotes on this page, which is the page for the potential Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 2020. Examples:
1. Rather that quoting the original person, quotes are coming from people quoting the person. The original quotes are easily accessible in the articles referenced on the page. I have fixed one of these, but there seem to be quite a few. 2. Opening sentences of satirical articles are placed as if serious, without including relevent information of the rest of the article. 3. Relevant information missing, literally including political views! Why are a candidate's political positions missing? These are easily available through project votesmart and other sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.195.214 (talk) 02:29, March 17, 2019 (UTC)
RfC: Category:Climate change deniers
(I don't know where this should go, but I went with this board because it relates to the BLP policy.) Category:Climate change deniers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) In December 2015, this category was deleted as a result of a CfD and a parallel discussion at BLPN (Archive 231). There was consensus to delete the category on grounds of being "contentious", but was this decision appropriate? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Depends on what you mean, its clearly true it is conscientious, but that (in and off itself) should not be grounds for deletion. The problem would be inclusion, and that maybe grounds for deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Having waded through much of the prior discussion, the only valid difficulty in having such a category AFAI can see, is the name. This is one of those situations (like pro-life/pro-choice) where the commonname is unfortunately somewhat 'loaded'. I obviously agree with Slater above that inclusion criteria need to be clear and might be difficult to enforce, but that in itself is not a reason to NOT have the category.Pincrete (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- When I started the BLP discussion I put a notification on all affected BLPs and pinged all participants in the CfD, and I explained what event had caused me to start it. The BLP participants were Peter Gulutzan MastCell Masem N-HH Prhartcom RevelationDirect JBL NorthBySouthBaranof TPX KarasuGamma M.boli Niteshift36 Milowent Anythingyouwant JRPG Jonathan A Jones alanyst Bonewah Zaereth Jess Bluerasberry Ssscienccce Marcocapelle agr Collect Softlavender Ryk72 AusLondonder Govindaharihari Sphilbrick Guy Macon Mangoe The Anome. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for pinging me. I suppose this is related tangentially to post-1932 American Politics, from which I am indefinitely topic-banned by User:NeilN (who has not been around to respond to my unbanning request at his user talk), but I do stick with what I said before about this category, FWIW. Cheers! Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Opposed to "denier" category. Denier is often flung as an insult, it sounds like the person is being accused of having a psychological problem, i.e. in denial. That makes it a BLP issue. The other problem is that there is no clear definition, you can find people with opinions all over the map labeled "deniers." Bjørn Lomborg for example appears in somebody's list of Top 10 Climate Deniers. What he denies are the economic benefits and urgency of addressing climate change. In my own practice I've stopped using the term except for a few unambiguous cases, since "denier" too often means somebody who fails the speaker's purity test. Thanks for the ping, Peter Gulutzan, and thank you for being a fair-minded and generous-spirited person in Wikipedia discussion. M.boli (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support restoration but it would be very recommendable to add "activist" or something similar that stresses the definingness of the characteristic. So Category:Climate change denial activists or Category:Climate change scepticism activists. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Your suggested "activist" has caused me to re-think my opposition. The inclusion criterion–what people would have in common–would be opposition to addressing climate change. I still don't like the "denier" label, but you have have captured a crisper definition of what would make this a useful category. M.boli (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose anything with "denier" in it. It is a term invented by the opposition specifically to imply that it is like Holocaust denial. Using a loaded category that the proponents of a position use is nothing new; both "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" were chosen to imply that the opposition is against choice or against life -- and we use the more neutral and descriptive Anti-abortion movement and Abortion-rights movements. Climate change denial is not only loaded, but it is a term used only by detractors. Nobody calls themselves or their group Anti-life, Anti-choice or Climate change denial. (Strange that we disambiguate Anti-life as a pejorative term, but Anti-choice redirects to Anti-abortion movement. Seems a bit POV to me.) Oddly enough, Holocaust denial is used by many holocaust deniers, who see it as an accurate description based upon them (correctly, in their view) denying that Hitler killed millions of Jews. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Actually very few holocaust deniers self-describe thus (as the page will confirm). 'Historical revisionists', 'truth-tellers' or simply 'historians' is how they self-describe. It's a detail, but the idea that we can't categorise people by terms used by their critics is not borne out. There are other good reasons for using something other than the rather crude term 'denier' IMO though. Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- I should point out that in some places Holocaust denial is a crime, and the fact that many holocaust deniers have in fact lost libel actions about being called a holocaust denier. The courts (in many cases) have said these people are holocaust deniers.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Actually very few holocaust deniers self-describe thus (as the page will confirm). 'Historical revisionists', 'truth-tellers' or simply 'historians' is how they self-describe. It's a detail, but the idea that we can't categorise people by terms used by their critics is not borne out. There are other good reasons for using something other than the rather crude term 'denier' IMO though. Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support restoring - the term is used extensively by sources, hence not "POV". Of course whether or not it is included in a particular article can be POV. That does not make the term unencyclopedic or not useful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not getting involved in this again. —烏Γ (kaw) │ 09:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose "Denier" is a pejorative term, not merely descriptive, and open to interpretation. Our article on Climate change denial defines it as "... part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions." That is very broad and subjective. Who decides what doubt is unwarranted, for example? Are people who say it may already be too late then to be labeled climate change deniers based on the last prong of the definition? In addition we do not have a good way to cite sources for inclusion in a category, and BLP demands strong sourcing for controversial claims. And who is important enough to be included? Does the category cover every politician who has a Wikipedia article and is on record as expressing doubt about the reality of human-induced warming or has opposed measures to stop it? That might include most members of the U.S. Republican party and quite a few on the growing European right. That would make the category too broad to be useful. The decision to remove this category was correct and should stand.--agr (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support in principle I recognise the sentiments of those who object to the word 'denier', despite it being a commonly used term - however it shouldn't be beyond us to find a) a more neutral descriptor b) to establish objective criteria for inclusion and c) as with all cats, inclusion criteria should include that this is a significant defining feature of the individual, which is covered in the text of the article in some depth. I endorse that this would be a useful cat and am somewhat surprised that it was deleted.Pincrete (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I never thought this category was a BLP concern worth much consideration. If someone is of the opinion that climate change does not exist, why would this category addition be considered anything but simply descriptive, if not positive? The primary reason we fret about this is not because of the use of the term denier, but because we think it labels such people as having significant deficits in knowledge and/or cognitive abilities. Surely we can come up with something like Category:Flat Earth proponents that would get consensus?--Milowent • hasspoken 13:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is that you can spend all day searching and fail to find a single peeson who is labeled a climate change denier and is of the opinion that climate change does not exist. You will instead find the following (listed in order from most unreasonable and unscientific to most reasonable and scientific)
- [1] Conspiracy theorists who think all climate scientists are lying (but who, in general, accept that the climate changes from natural causes).
- [2] People who don't deny the existence of climate change but believe that the magnitude is smaller than the climate scientists say it is.
- [3] People who don't deny the existence or magnitude of climate change but believe that human activity is a smaller factor than the climate scientists say it is.
- [4] People who don't deny the existence or magnitude of climate change or how big a factor human activity is but believe that it is beneficial instead of being harmful.
- [5] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that we are on the brink of a naturally-caused ice age prevented only by human-caused warming.
- [6] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that geoengineering can reverse human-caused climate change.
- [7] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that humans can adapt to changing climate.
- [8] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that the computer simulations are flawed. Pretty much everyone agrees that previous computer simulations made predictions that turned out to be wildly wrong. People in category 8 believe that the same is true about current simulations. Climate scientists say that they have fixed the problems and the simulations are now accurate. But of course they said that the last time too.
- [9] People who don't deny [see list above] and accept the climate change simulations but reject the economic simulations -- again pointing out that no economic simulation has ever been able to successfully predict the future economy.
- [10] People who don't deny [see list above] but doubt that increasing the size and power of the government is the solution, arguing that those with the most money generally get the government to do what they want done.
- [11] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for North America and Europe to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on Asia, India, Africa, and South America
- [11] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for the US to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the world.
- [13] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for California to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the country or the rest of the world.
- [14] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for Los Angeles to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the state, country or world.
- All of the above views are regularly called "climate change denial" in the popular press. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think you have strengthened Marcocapelle (talk · contribs)'s point above. The common thread is do nothing about climate change. A category tying them all together could have utility. (Your assertion about not finding any flat-out deniers is wacky however.) M.boli (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- They also often switch from one of those positions to the next when too many people see that the first one is untenable. This is because they only care about doing nothing about climate change and not about the reason for doing nothing - it is only a pretend reason anyway. The underlying cause is market fundamentalism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Guy Macon, there are gradiations like this all over wikipedia regarding categories. Climate change is not unique. We are tying to create categories that help our readers, and no category is perfect. Indeed I just found out about and wrote Orlando Ferguson after chiming in here earlier with my reference to Category:Flat Earth proponents. Doctor Ferguson (who was not really a doctor) did NOT believe the earth was completely flat, instead, he thought there was some elevation change topping out at the north pole, and that the earth was SQUARE. But I still put him in Category:Flat Earth proponents and he definitely should be there. Here, if the consensus of mainstream news reporting is that someone is a climate change denier, some category seems appropriate, because it can help our readers. Nuance can be shown in article content. Indeed, it can be the case that someone falling in your category [14] (the "most reasonable" in your hierarchy) is just making an argument to support his general opposition to any intervention steps, although he actually believes like US President Trump that China invented global warming as a hoax. [1]. But if some comedian makes a random joke about global warming one day, that doesn't merit inclusion.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Orlando Ferguson died over a century ago. The category we are dealing with primarily involves living people and, under BLP, our standards are much higher. Indeed, dealing with people who expressed doubts 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago about humans causing global warming and then died presents yet another problem. The further back you go, the less certain the science was. Are they all deniers?--agr (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think you have strengthened Marcocapelle (talk · contribs)'s point above. The common thread is do nothing about climate change. A category tying them all together could have utility. (Your assertion about not finding any flat-out deniers is wacky however.) M.boli (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. As I just tried explaining to an editor who can't seem to grasp the issue....... Aside from the word "denier" being loaded with implications, it's not really accurate. For example, I have a userbox that says I am skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. According to him, I'm a "climate change denier". Skeptic means I am not convinced and have doubts. Not denial, doubts. And Anthropogenic means man-made, not all. Do I deny that there is climate change? No. Do I have doubts that it is primarily manmade? I do. But labels like "climate change denier", regardless of how many media sources recklessly use the term, is not necessarily accurate. As an encyclopedia, I think we should strive for accuracy. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The whole problem with categories that include WP:LABEL language is that we cannot provide a source at the category page as required by BLP. Yes, on the main page of a categorized BLP that should be sourced, but we're still using labeled language, so factual inclusion may not be there, just the perception from a few members of the press or the person's peers. We should not have these types of categories where inclusion is based on a subjective evaluation of the person by other sources. --Masem (t) 13:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I was a significant contributor to both discussions above, which I suggest people read, and I haven't changed my mind. I don't like BLP categories which are controversial or can be considered as derogatory, and I especially don't like them when the criteria for inclusion seemed to be subjective, ill-defined and poorly implemented. For example the orginal list included a "lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change" and also included a minor UKIP politician where the sole reference in support of the categorisation was some retweets (not even tweets) an account in his name had made. As far as I can tell the whole category seemed to be little more than a list of individuals whom some editors didn't like. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose "denier" label support other neutral categorization to be decided Wikipedia has challenges tagging people who support fringe ideas. This proposal is similar to many others I have seen. We look for third-party verification of these things, which is a bias of Wikipedia which has benefits and drawbacks. I like that Wikipedia maintains its quality control; I regret that we do not have good systems for helping researchers identify obvious information like "who has published a paper confirming a certain concept". The longer term solution to this problem that I see is modeling this kind of issue in Wikidata, probably through the meta:WikiCite project. There are maybe 500 people who have contributed significantly to that project and many more would do more if it were more developed. I think there is community consensus within that project that people want to be able to query Wikidata to generate lists of things like who affirms or rejects various positions in publication. Lists like this are likely to become part of Wikidata culture because that project has so much more power to quickly verify these claims than Wikipedia. I like that Wikidata makes it relatively easy for people to enrich data for such purposes; I regret that we currently lack training materials and that anyone wanting to do this will have to be patient and persistent as they ask questions to human for support in an environment without sufficient documentation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Support restoration (until a more neutral term is found). Understanding that the term Denier may be used subjectively, Climate change denier is a useful descriptive category when applied correctly and it is a term that is used extensively by reputable third-party sources. Until such time that a more clearly objective neutral name for the category is chosen the category and its title Climate change denier should be restored. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC) (~ add I think I have a problem in that I dont see the label as 'pejorative' as others do here, i just considered it as a environmental position.)
- Alternative suggestion. Since one mother category would be Category:Climate change skepticism and denial, why not call it Category:Climate change skeptics and denialists? That way, it would also contain scientists who rejected the concept before there was a consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Since the opposition seems to be based on the perception that the category itself is "perjorative", surely there is some title that won't be seen that way? Perhaps Category:People who've decided humans had a good run.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose As the title is obviously pejorative in nature, and intended to be so, and is not a self-ascribed attribute to those who would be in such a group, it violates several policies and guidelines. Sort of like having a category for "Self-Hating Gnarphists" or "Gnarphist Nazi-Fascists" or the like. Collect (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- oppose Since this is a pejorative label, it's a problem (as I said last time) that it tends to be stuck on anyone who deviates from a certain political orthodoxy, even if they agree with the core thesis of anthropogenic climate change. It's not a clear binary like "did a certain even occur" is. I doubt the will of the community to police the category even if it is very narrowly construed. Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. SemiHypercube 16:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Alternative suggestion: {{Category:Climate action skeptics}} The criterion would be opposition to addressing global warming, as described by the scientific consensus. It doesn't sound pejorative, it seems to cover most of the varieties without arguing who is in and who is out. This category would apply to people where that is a substantial part of what makes them notable. -- M.boli (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- As I said 3 years ago, I tend to agree with Masem that this probably shouldn't be a category (under any name). --JBL (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose My two cents: From a neuropsychological standpoint, categorization is a natural reaction. It's really hard-wired into the brains of any animal with an amygdala, and in particular, occurs in the area here the amygdala connects to the hippocampus. This area acts like a filter of information based upon emotional saliency, before storing it as memories in the hippocampus. No information is cognized (comes into consciousness) until it passes through this area for filtering. The purpose of it is manifold, but primarily it serves as a form of file-compression (not too unlike compressing a computer file) for faster processing and easier storage. For example, when you drive through a forest, you could not possibly remember every single tree along the way. Only those things that grab your attention --that have some importance or significance (salience) to you-- are committed to memory. Everything else is erased and simply stored as generic categories, ie: spruce tress or birch trees, etc... The processes in your brain which determine what is salient and what is not are your emotions, thus what you commit to memory depends solely upon whether it invokes an emotional response or not, and therefore this area of the brain is also our emotional center.
- The purpose of categorization is to allow us to focus on the details which are important to us while discarding all of the info that we feel is unimportant, so it doesn't bog us down in the moment. That's what makes it so useful but also what makes it so dangerous. The same processes that cause us to categorize plants and animals into different taxonomical groups is exactly the same thing we use to categorize people. Thus, the emotional center of the brain is also the area where racial or other forms of hatred, prejudices and stereotypes form (all forms of categorization). When you can reduce something as complex as people to a simple label or title, it causes others to ignore all of the information involved and treat the individual as having all the characteristics placed upon that label. This is what makes it an extremely effective propaganda tool, because it turns a discussion into an us against them thing, rather than a collaboration or healthy debate of ideas, by creating an "in-group" in which "we" are all complex and individuals, and an "out-group" where "they" are all the same and (predominantly) bad. That's the way it has been used since the dawn of history to incite hatred or violence against others, from Babylon to the Romans to the Nazis to todays modern-world of political hatred.
- We need to be really --extremely-- careful when categorizing people. Categories can be a great and very useful thing, when used properly, but they can be a terrible tool for both the nefarious and those with nothing more than good intentions, alike. This is one of those categories that is made to be divisive and does more harm to the debate than good. Zaereth (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural Oppose The CFD conversation on this topic was extensive and had a large group of editors with different viewpoints, including those that came as a result of tags from biography discussion pages. While I respectfully disagree with the outcome (I favored renaming to be more neutral) the process lead to a reasonable outcome and I don't see anything that has changed recently to suggest a differnet consensus. If anyone feels the CFD was closed improperly, the right path is at WP:DRV. Thank you for tagging me to provide input; much appreciated! RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose As much as I think true climate change deniers should be identified as such, I don’t like the concept of pigeon-holing beliefs into binary categories. O3000 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support restoring. I missed the original debate. After reading it and giving it some thought, I'd have voted keep. It's an identifiable and notable stance, just like Holocaust denial, and with potential to kill even more people. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support restoring I know I am fighting a rising tide (see what I did there?), but let's get back to talking about sources: if Reuters (or another RS) describes someone as a Climate change denier (using those exact words), we can categorize them as that too (though WP:DEFINING still applies). If there is not a source that says that, putting a person in the category constitutes original research. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Bad Rfc the OP didn't give a good reason for starting it. My opinion is in the prior BLP discussion. If nobody objects I will ask tomorrow for a formal close, "by an administrator" since an administrator closed the last one and this is like an appeal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Update: I asked today for a close by an administrator. I added earlier a DoNotArchiveUntil 14 August. Information for closer: I have just noticed that the OP pointed to the wrong version of the BLP discussion, where it was closed, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Frankopan family : 'Doimi de Lupis's name claiming'
WP:NPOV Section has very negative bias, multiple defamatory opinions presented as fact, some possibly defamatory claims about the family not sourced at all.
Negative bias: "the family falsely presents itself" / "members of de Lupis family managed to get presented [to the Pope] not by their original name yet as Frankopans" (it was their legal name at the time)
No source: "Louis Doimi de Lupis together with his wife and children eventually started to use the title of Prince"..."which is a royal title that only the heir apparent of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine could illegitimately claim" (stating that there are online sites where they are referred to as Prince or Princess is not proof they themselves were using the titles)
Opinion: "trying to save the reputation of his family name, Louis's cousin Mirko denounced" (assumes that the family's reputation was destroyed by the using of the name, not a fact) / the family "influenced with false information the publishing of a book with the intention to distort history about these two families" (possibly defamatory opinion, their intentions cannot be established as fact)
Also, section is repetitive and overly long - a brief, NPOV description of the controversy would suffice, instead of what currently reads as a lengthy hit piece on the family. User keeps reverting all efforts to make the article more neutral and remove unsourced claims.
Same user has also repeatedly removed the one sourced quote from a member of the Frankopan family - from Doimi de Lupis' son, Peter Frankopan - about the name controversy, as it gives the other side of the issue: "We were given the name Frangipani by the Pope in 1425. Then in 1671, the other branch of the family had their heads cut off. We lived in Dalmatia, along the coast, minding our own business. We always had the same name."Gapper, John (April 19, 2019). "Silk Roads author Peter Frankopan: 'We're in trouble in the long term'". Financial Times. Retrieved May 29, 2019. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- See also this post from last year--Auric talk 21:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you - the biased editing in violation of WP:NPOV has been going on for a long time on all of the Frankopan family pages - this one and the three for individual members of the family, Peter Frankopan, Ingrid Detter de Frankopan and Lady Nicholas Windsor, so I guess it's not surprising that there have been previous reports about it. All attempts to improve the articles to a NPOV are reverted by a single user. For the moment, work by several editors has improved the three individual pages and that user is concentrating their efforts on this Frankopan family page.
- Part of the problem is that since the sources they use for their edits (when they use them at all) are almost all in Croatian, it is difficult for most editors of this English-language Wikipeda to evaluate how reliable those sources are or if they even say what the article attributes to them. But regardless, the article has a strong negative and biased tone and states possibly defamatory opinions as fact. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting, both Saluspopuli and now Lilipo25 are claiming and advocating the same thing, which is against what's written at the section, supported by reliable sources, as well as facts. By the way, Saluspopuli disruptive edit and removal was on two occasions ([2], [3]) reverted back by editor and admin because the information is "very heavily documented". The editor Lilipo25 was also extensively answered at the talk page as well, proving his claims are mostly false.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- At no time did you "prove" that any claims were false - or that your opinions were supported by "facts" - in the Talk, Miki. You merely continued insisting you were right and edit warring while doing it, so I opened this page so other unbiased editors could review the article instead of continuing to pointlessly argue with you. Please allow them to do so. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Also, I just looked at User:Saluspopuli's edit that you linked yourself, and they didn't say any of the things I have said at all - they argued with you over the title of the section, which I have not disputed, and then blanked it, which I have never done (Also, the person who reverted their blanking does not in fact appear to be an Admin, and they only said that Saluspopuli shouldn't have blanked the entire section because "much" of it was sourced, and told the two of you to take it to the Talk page, so that appears to not be an accurate characterization of your dispute with Saluspopuli). If you are implying we are the same person using sock accounts - and I have not encountered them before now, for the record, and have no other accounts nor ever have- I would caution you to be careful, as that edges toward a personal attack.Lilipo25 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Almost all the complaints at the talk page were proved point by point, with the extensive quotation of RS, to be completely false. This is an example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, not to mention that editor is making psychological projection as is constantly insisting that his personal point of view is right while not substantiating it with any RS, not to mention it is completely contradicted by all the RS. The editor Lilipo25 is not getting the point by describing the Salupopuli's extensive removal of the content merely as "argument over the title of the section", he also falsely claimed that he did not do such an extensive removal ([4]), and the previous editor tediously pushed the false family agenda also ignoring to get the point, from that we are not dealing with "living members of the Frankopan Family" to Lilipo25 it's only "adoption of name", to claiming that information is "not adequately resourced and refers to tabloid gossip", "disparaging newspaper articles", "offensive and irrelevant remarks". I did not imply these users are related merely that we already dealt with such unsubstantiated and false criticism, also, I was not present at all during the Saluspopuli's case, which is ironically another false claim. However, that's not even the last one as the first revert back was by an admin, while the second by an editor who did not claim at all "that Saluspopuli shouldn't have blanked the entire section", that's another his example of not getting the point.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Miki, I am not going to continue this pointless tit-for-tat with you here - that isn't what this page is for. I will tell you again to stop the WP:PERSONAL. I do not believe you are qualified to evaluate and diagnose my psychological state based upon disagreeing with me on a Wikipedia article, and that is highly inappropriate.
- Almost all the complaints at the talk page were proved point by point, with the extensive quotation of RS, to be completely false. This is an example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, not to mention that editor is making psychological projection as is constantly insisting that his personal point of view is right while not substantiating it with any RS, not to mention it is completely contradicted by all the RS. The editor Lilipo25 is not getting the point by describing the Salupopuli's extensive removal of the content merely as "argument over the title of the section", he also falsely claimed that he did not do such an extensive removal ([4]), and the previous editor tediously pushed the false family agenda also ignoring to get the point, from that we are not dealing with "living members of the Frankopan Family" to Lilipo25 it's only "adoption of name", to claiming that information is "not adequately resourced and refers to tabloid gossip", "disparaging newspaper articles", "offensive and irrelevant remarks". I did not imply these users are related merely that we already dealt with such unsubstantiated and false criticism, also, I was not present at all during the Saluspopuli's case, which is ironically another false claim. However, that's not even the last one as the first revert back was by an admin, while the second by an editor who did not claim at all "that Saluspopuli shouldn't have blanked the entire section", that's another his example of not getting the point.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Also, I just looked at User:Saluspopuli's edit that you linked yourself, and they didn't say any of the things I have said at all - they argued with you over the title of the section, which I have not disputed, and then blanked it, which I have never done (Also, the person who reverted their blanking does not in fact appear to be an Admin, and they only said that Saluspopuli shouldn't have blanked the entire section because "much" of it was sourced, and told the two of you to take it to the Talk page, so that appears to not be an accurate characterization of your dispute with Saluspopuli). If you are implying we are the same person using sock accounts - and I have not encountered them before now, for the record, and have no other accounts nor ever have- I would caution you to be careful, as that edges toward a personal attack.Lilipo25 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- (I only looked at Saluspopuli's part of the revisions you linked - I mistakenly assumed you were referring to a dispute you had with them because you said that we both say the same things. I don't know why we need to be upset over what another user said to someone else before either of us was around if that's the case, but it really doesn't seem worth arguing about either way).
- This section is for one purpose only: to ask the Wikipedia community to look over the current article and judge whether or not it violates WP:NPOV, so let's allow that to happen. I will just say that the article specifically names and makes claims about Ingrid Detter de Frankopan and Peter Frankopan, both of whom are Living Persons and members of the Frankopan Family, which is the subject (and title) of the article currently at question. Please allow other Wikipedia editors to read the article and the Talk page if they wish and evaluate it now. I promise right now that I will abide by whatever consensus is arrived at and I hope you will do the same, and we don't need to argue with each other about it at all any more, okay? Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, is this some funny game for you? Are you deliberately distorting what other editors have to say or do you have a problem with understanding? How can you "allow" something to happen or "disallowing" others basic things such as to read the article and talk page? Are you aware of how much pointless nonsense you write? You are constantly writing about the editors and not the content, constantly misinterpreting, misunderstanding, making misassumptions, not listening to what other editors have to say, you began and continued this "pointless tit-for-tat", you have been told several times to stop the PERSONAL, although it cannot be correctly categorized as such. You have been noted several times to start a dispute resolution. Also, they are not "living members of the Frankopan family" as they are Doimi de Lupis family members falsely claiming to be Frankopan's. I will not waste any more time replying here.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- If you want a dispute resolution started, then just start one already. I don't know why you keep ordering me to start one when you are perfectly capable of doing it yourself if that's what you want. In the meantime, I will ask yet again that you stop the personal attacks. And I am not debating whether or not they are descendants of the original Frankopans here - merely pointing out that the article makes claims about Living Persons and therefore comes under WP:BLP. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, is this some funny game for you? Are you deliberately distorting what other editors have to say or do you have a problem with understanding? How can you "allow" something to happen or "disallowing" others basic things such as to read the article and talk page? Are you aware of how much pointless nonsense you write? You are constantly writing about the editors and not the content, constantly misinterpreting, misunderstanding, making misassumptions, not listening to what other editors have to say, you began and continued this "pointless tit-for-tat", you have been told several times to stop the PERSONAL, although it cannot be correctly categorized as such. You have been noted several times to start a dispute resolution. Also, they are not "living members of the Frankopan family" as they are Doimi de Lupis family members falsely claiming to be Frankopan's. I will not waste any more time replying here.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- This section is for one purpose only: to ask the Wikipedia community to look over the current article and judge whether or not it violates WP:NPOV, so let's allow that to happen. I will just say that the article specifically names and makes claims about Ingrid Detter de Frankopan and Peter Frankopan, both of whom are Living Persons and members of the Frankopan Family, which is the subject (and title) of the article currently at question. Please allow other Wikipedia editors to read the article and the Talk page if they wish and evaluate it now. I promise right now that I will abide by whatever consensus is arrived at and I hope you will do the same, and we don't need to argue with each other about it at all any more, okay? Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Does anybody other than the same two of us who were already in disagreement over this article have time to go take a look at this section and give an opinion here on whether or not it meets WP:NPOV? It would be much appreciated, as the two of us are never going to reach a consensus alone and this will end up archived without anything useful having been achieved. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- My honest (although largely unhelpful) response is as follows. I spent about five minutes trying to even understand what the nature of the dispute here is, and those five minutes were enough to tell me that I would need to invest a lot of hours (and probably learn Croatian) to have anything resembling a coherent opinion on this issue. There are clearly very strong views here, but to someone not extremely well versed in the topic, the debate is completely incomprehensible. I would imagine other editors have come to a similar conclusion. Sorry I can't be of more help, but I thought some feedback is better than none. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Does anybody other than the same two of us who were already in disagreement over this article have time to go take a look at this section and give an opinion here on whether or not it meets WP:NPOV? It would be much appreciated, as the two of us are never going to reach a consensus alone and this will end up archived without anything useful having been achieved. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for looking at it, @BubbaJoe123456. You did more than anyone else has even attempted, and it is appreciated. I understand the problem with the Croatian - since almost all the sources are in Croatian, it's all but impossible to verify if they say what the article claims. The dispute is largely over the tone of the article, but I can see where people would run into trouble without knowing any background. Thanks again. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- @BubbaJoe123456: I already verified with quotes in the article's talk page.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for looking at it, @BubbaJoe123456. You did more than anyone else has even attempted, and it is appreciated. I understand the problem with the Croatian - since almost all the sources are in Croatian, it's all but impossible to verify if they say what the article claims. The dispute is largely over the tone of the article, but I can see where people would run into trouble without knowing any background. Thanks again. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- The issue, Miki, is whether or not the sources actually say what you yourself have written in the article (for example, that Ingrid Frankopan had the "intention to distort history" by using the name Frankopan - something that can only be verifiable if Ingrid herself has at some time said or written something to the effect of "I use the name in order to distort history", since there's no other possible way for anyone to know what her 'intentions' were). You have not "verified" this (or any of the many other biased statements you wrote in the article) in any way. You have not provided a quote from any source that shows Ingrid Frankopan stating that was her intention, therefore it can only be someone else's opinion of why she did it and thus cannot be stated as a fact; that's defamation.
- I have tried to explain repeatedly that if you want to include someone's opinion, you have to say it in such a way that makes it clear it is their opinion (i.e., "Joe Smith, writing in the Croatian Daily Sun, accused Ingrid of attempting to distort history by taking the surname Frankopan", NOT "Ingrid Frankopan took the name in order to distort history"). In addition, you can't write things in the article like "it's possible to find online sites where they are styled as Prince and Princess" and then insist that this is the same thing as you having "sourced" the statement that they themselves have publicly claimed the titles of Prince and Princess.
- These have been the issues from the beginning and they are still the issues. Nothing has changed. The article remains biased and defamatory, and the issue is so convoluted due to all the sources being in Croatian that we can't even get another opinion on it to try to reach consensus. Despite your edit-warring reverting (that you falsely call "bold editing"). I have held off from making any changes to the article for weeks in hope that some other editors would be willing to review it. But that is apparently not going to happen, and we are right back where we started.Lilipo25 (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- No, we are not "right back where we started" and it is pointless to continue the discussion when you got the quotes and still don't want to accept them as verification.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Even though said quotes are translated and provided by you to back up your own writing in the article, I would happily accept them as verification if they verified the opinions you have written in the article as fact. Your own translations show that they do not.. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm in the same boat as BubbaJoe. I really have no clue what this dispute is about. What I can say is that it most certainly is possible to know another's intentions without having them state them. It's even possible to know their intention when they themselves do not. See theory of mind. A subject's own words are often the most unreliable source about their true intentions. For example, to prove a killing was murder, a prosecutor must be able to prove intent to commit murder. More often than not, the accused is not going to step up and admit their true intentions. Actions really do speak a million times louder.
That said, I don't know if that helps or not because I don't know what this is all about. It's like walking into the middle of a dispute on particle physics having no background info in the subject at all. My suggestion, when you bring something to a forum like this, pretend you're speaking to a bunch of people who know absolutely nothing about this subject. Start at the beginning, and as briefly as possible, try to lay out exactly what the problem is (specifically, what part of BLP policy is being violated, by what, and how), and what your proposed solution is. Otherwise, we can't help you, and you'd be better just taking this to the article's talk page to work it out there. Zaereth (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Zaereth, for looking at this! It is very much appreciated to have another voice in the debate. My reasoning on the "intentions" is simply that we know she took the name. but we cannot know that she did it with "the intention to distort history", as that makes an assumption about her thoughts that there is no way for us to know. There needs to be some kind of evidence that this was her specific intention in order to say something so negative about a Living Person (and there is none); otherwise, it approaches defamation.
- I did try to lay out the specific problems with the negative tone of the article at the start of this section. The dispute over the page really isn't about the use of the Frankopan name: that the current family changed their name to Frankopan in Great Britain in 2000 is established fact on which we agree. It's about the bias of the article not meeting WP:NPOV. Opinions like Ingrid wanted to "distort history" or the cousin criticized the taking of the name Frankopan "in an attempt to save the reputation of the family name" (assumes that the family's reputation was ruined by the taking of the name Frankopan). Things like saying they "managed to get themselves presented to the Pope" as Frankopans instead of saying the more neutral "They were presented to the Pope as Ingrid and Louis Frankopan" - the tone implies duplicity (at this point they had legally changed their name to Frankopan in Great Britain, where they have lived for 70 years, so it was their actual name). All attempts to insert a neutral tone to the article are reverted by Miki.
- Recently, the most prominent member of the current Frankopan family, Peter Frankopan, was directly questioned about the name controversy (by a journalist from the Financial Times) for the first time, and his response is the only evidence we have giving the family's side of the whole controversy: "We were given the name Frangipani by the Pope in 1425. Then in 1671, the other branch of the family had their heads cut off. We lived in Dalmatia, along the coast, minding our own business. We always had the same name."[1] Miki deletes the quote every time it is put in and instead cuts it to a brief and incomplete 'paraphrase' buried in the second half of a sentence criticizing the family; there's no reason for this except to bias the article.
- So I know the history seems convoluted, but the main issue is really just the negative tone of the article not being NPOV. Thank you again for looking at it. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. We should definitely avoid language that implies something not directly said, such as "managed to get themselves". This is what is called editorializing. I still don't know what a name has to do with distorting history. We can't say, in Wikipedia's voice, that anyone intended to distort history, because that would be OR and a judgment call on our part. What we can do is quote or paraphrase experts in the field who may hold that opinion, but we'd need to attribute it to them, and then make an effort to find opposing views to maintain balance. We can definitely give the family's side too, but all of this needs very reliable sources. Zaereth (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Zaereth, these things are directly said in RS, it is already attributed, authored by an academic, published in top Croatian scientific journal. There is no "only evidence" in Peter "Frankopan" quote as we already know his family "side of the whole controversy" while the information he gave in the quote is the history of the Frankopan family, with which his family does not have any genealogical and historical connection, except a false claim to the Frankopan family name, identity and history. It is pointless for citation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Miki, for what feels like the thousandth time, writing something in Wikipedia's voice as a fact and attaching a source to the end is not enough when what you wrote is someone's OPINION. You did not make clear that it is someone's opinion in the text: you wrote it as a fact. You have made a bunch of other editorializing comments, as well, such as claiming that "Louis Doimi de Lupis together with his wife and children eventually started to use the title of Prince" - nowhere at all do you source Louis or his wife or children ever directly having claimed themselves to be princes (or princesses); all you show is that they were sometimes called that by other people, and the opinion of someone else that they are behind it. That is not enough to support that statement as a fact. And you editorialize with negative language throughout the article, saying things like "they managed to get presented (to the Pope) not by their original name yet as Frankopans". That is bias.
- Zaereth, these things are directly said in RS, it is already attributed, authored by an academic, published in top Croatian scientific journal. There is no "only evidence" in Peter "Frankopan" quote as we already know his family "side of the whole controversy" while the information he gave in the quote is the history of the Frankopan family, with which his family does not have any genealogical and historical connection, except a false claim to the Frankopan family name, identity and history. It is pointless for citation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. We should definitely avoid language that implies something not directly said, such as "managed to get themselves". This is what is called editorializing. I still don't know what a name has to do with distorting history. We can't say, in Wikipedia's voice, that anyone intended to distort history, because that would be OR and a judgment call on our part. What we can do is quote or paraphrase experts in the field who may hold that opinion, but we'd need to attribute it to them, and then make an effort to find opposing views to maintain balance. We can definitely give the family's side too, but all of this needs very reliable sources. Zaereth (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- You removed the one quote from a current Frankopan on the issue - which absolutely belongs in the article - because it does not fit the very negative image of the family you are painting. You can't just decide that it is "pointless" to show both sides. Again, that is bias.
- Another problem with the article is that the sentence structure, grammar and syntax are very, very poorly written - in some places, so much so that it is nearly impossible to tell precisely what you are trying to say. I recognize that English is not your first language (and more and more, I wonder if that has something to do with why you seem unable to grasp the difference between editorializing and NPOV, or between citing someone's opinion as fact and writing it as a clear opinion given by the source). But I can't even fix that, because you revert every edit immediately. This article is such a convoluted mess that it is nearly impossible to get anyone else to even look at it. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Lilipo25, I am going to ask you a few questions on which you need to give a clear answer: 1) Is in the article written "Accoding to Ivan Mirnik..."? 2) How many RS in the English language are cited which show the Doimi de Lupis members titled themselves as "prince or princess (of Croatia)"? 3) What is the context of information of the quote by Peter Frankopan? Is this information about the Frankopan family or Doimi de Lupis family? As well, explain what is true and what is wrong in The Daily Telegraph quote from 1997 "Jessica's fiance went by the name Peter de Lupis. Then, suddenly, while he was at university, his family emerged as descendants of the noble House of Frankopan, previously believed extinct in the 19th century. Count Peter, as he became, then rapidly discovered he was Prince Peter Frankopan of Croatia, a member of that war-torn republic's old royal family"? 4) Did I give you quotes of RS on the talk page which prove this is not my "editorializing"? If you want different wording then give an example at the talk page, but constantly writing one and the same comments which contradict the RS or trying to disruptively blank almost the whole section as you have previously done ([5]) are just a waste of time.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Why does the link on the source for that Daily Telegraph quote just go to the Wikipedia article about the newspaper, and why does a Google search for an article with that title come up empty? Also, why does a quote from the Telegraph - an English newspaper - have a sentence in it like "Count Peter, as he became, then rapidly discovered he was Prince Peter Frankopan of Croatia", which sounds as if it were written by someone who is not quite fluent in English? Do you understand that even if that quote is real, it does not show Peter Frankopan calling himself a Prince or saying that's his title, and so you still can't use it to prove he styled himself that? Do you understand the difference between writing "The earth is flat" and writing "NBA player Kyrie Irving said in 2017 that the earth is flat"? Do you see that there is a difference in tone between these two sentences: "Susan took the last cookie" and "Intending to deprive others of the share they were entitled to have, Susan managed to get the last cookie for herself"? Do you recognize that since the article is about the current family's use of the Frankopan name, a quote by the most prominent member of that family about their use of the name is relevant? Do you get why it is circular logic making no sense at all to write an entire Wikipedia article on the controversy over this family's use of a name in which you depict only the viewpoint that they are not Frankopans, and then say that you can't include the family's own statements about their use of the name because they aren't really Frankopans and it's an article about the Frankopans? Lilipo25 (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Saying "it does now show Peter Frankopan calling himself..." is intentionally misrepresenting what's written in the RS, making a strawman to invalidate reliable and verifiable information. Do you dare to say that Peter is not calling himself as a Prince when he titled himself as "Prince Peter Frankopan of Croatia" in his own wedding ([6], pg. 41)? The source, The Daily Telegraph (1997), was previously already used in the article, you cannot find it online because it is from a newspaper, it is archived, you can check it in the library. Saying the "article is about the current family's use of the Frankopan name ... circular logic ...", raises the questions 5) Do you understand a difference between an article and a section? Is the article about the Frankopan or Doimi de Lupis family? Is it already included information about the family's own statements? Give a clear answer. You did not give clear answers to the previous questions, actually, exactly the opposite. Please answer them because it is important as the things you are saying show you do not have a basic knowledge and understanding of the topic at all nor about the editing policy of Wikipedia. Do you understand that?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have no way of checking the verifiability of that booklet due to it being in Croatian and my not speaking Croatian, but since it isn't the source you cited for that information in the article anyway, it doesn't matter. You must have accessed this Daily Telegraph article in order to quote it - are you saying that you copied down the quote in the library? I am still unclear why the language sounds so odd, coming from an English-language newspaper (sorry to say that I can't "find it in the library" as my local libraries don't carry the Telegraph). If you can verify that the Telegraph said it was on his wedding invitation, then it would absolutely be acceptable to say in the article "The invitations to Peter Frankopan's 1997 wedding stated his name as 'Prince Peter Frankopan'". You cannot say that the whole family "styled themselves as princes and princesses" using that as the source, as it doesn't prove that, and it's important to state it in a neutral POV and stick only to the facts. That you cannot seem to do this makes it quite clear that you are the one with difficulty understanding the editing policy of Wikipedia.
- Saying "it does now show Peter Frankopan calling himself..." is intentionally misrepresenting what's written in the RS, making a strawman to invalidate reliable and verifiable information. Do you dare to say that Peter is not calling himself as a Prince when he titled himself as "Prince Peter Frankopan of Croatia" in his own wedding ([6], pg. 41)? The source, The Daily Telegraph (1997), was previously already used in the article, you cannot find it online because it is from a newspaper, it is archived, you can check it in the library. Saying the "article is about the current family's use of the Frankopan name ... circular logic ...", raises the questions 5) Do you understand a difference between an article and a section? Is the article about the Frankopan or Doimi de Lupis family? Is it already included information about the family's own statements? Give a clear answer. You did not give clear answers to the previous questions, actually, exactly the opposite. Please answer them because it is important as the things you are saying show you do not have a basic knowledge and understanding of the topic at all nor about the editing policy of Wikipedia. Do you understand that?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Why does the link on the source for that Daily Telegraph quote just go to the Wikipedia article about the newspaper, and why does a Google search for an article with that title come up empty? Also, why does a quote from the Telegraph - an English newspaper - have a sentence in it like "Count Peter, as he became, then rapidly discovered he was Prince Peter Frankopan of Croatia", which sounds as if it were written by someone who is not quite fluent in English? Do you understand that even if that quote is real, it does not show Peter Frankopan calling himself a Prince or saying that's his title, and so you still can't use it to prove he styled himself that? Do you understand the difference between writing "The earth is flat" and writing "NBA player Kyrie Irving said in 2017 that the earth is flat"? Do you see that there is a difference in tone between these two sentences: "Susan took the last cookie" and "Intending to deprive others of the share they were entitled to have, Susan managed to get the last cookie for herself"? Do you recognize that since the article is about the current family's use of the Frankopan name, a quote by the most prominent member of that family about their use of the name is relevant? Do you get why it is circular logic making no sense at all to write an entire Wikipedia article on the controversy over this family's use of a name in which you depict only the viewpoint that they are not Frankopans, and then say that you can't include the family's own statements about their use of the name because they aren't really Frankopans and it's an article about the Frankopans? Lilipo25 (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Lilipo25, I am going to ask you a few questions on which you need to give a clear answer: 1) Is in the article written "Accoding to Ivan Mirnik..."? 2) How many RS in the English language are cited which show the Doimi de Lupis members titled themselves as "prince or princess (of Croatia)"? 3) What is the context of information of the quote by Peter Frankopan? Is this information about the Frankopan family or Doimi de Lupis family? As well, explain what is true and what is wrong in The Daily Telegraph quote from 1997 "Jessica's fiance went by the name Peter de Lupis. Then, suddenly, while he was at university, his family emerged as descendants of the noble House of Frankopan, previously believed extinct in the 19th century. Count Peter, as he became, then rapidly discovered he was Prince Peter Frankopan of Croatia, a member of that war-torn republic's old royal family"? 4) Did I give you quotes of RS on the talk page which prove this is not my "editorializing"? If you want different wording then give an example at the talk page, but constantly writing one and the same comments which contradict the RS or trying to disruptively blank almost the whole section as you have previously done ([5]) are just a waste of time.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Another problem with the article is that the sentence structure, grammar and syntax are very, very poorly written - in some places, so much so that it is nearly impossible to tell precisely what you are trying to say. I recognize that English is not your first language (and more and more, I wonder if that has something to do with why you seem unable to grasp the difference between editorializing and NPOV, or between citing someone's opinion as fact and writing it as a clear opinion given by the source). But I can't even fix that, because you revert every edit immediately. This article is such a convoluted mess that it is nearly impossible to get anyone else to even look at it. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I do understand the difference between an article and a section, and I should have used the word "section" but my point still stands: you are using circular logic by saying that in a very lengthy section which you have written entirely about this family's use of the name Frankopan, you can't include a quote from one of the very family members using the name - ABOUT their use of the name - because he is only using the name and therefore isn't a real Frankopan. Do you understand that? Lilipo25 (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editors at George Pell have been re-adding questionable, contentious material to the article after I removed it. They do not seem to respect WP:BLP. The disagreement started here. There is a group of editors that want to keep defamitory information based upon their own opinions rather than well published sources. - Fartherred (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- The reference from Reuters [7] clearly states that Pell is a convicted child sex offender. The assertion is neither contentious nor questionable, it is a fact. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- The expression "convicted child sex offender" is also published by ABC News, news.com.au, 7 News, 9 News, Financial Review and SBS News. It is factual and impeccably sourced. WWGB (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The fact that the assertion that George Pell is a sex offender is contentious and questionable is shown by its being contested on appeal as discussed here in the supporting published information I cited in my edit of George Pell. The fact that the prosecutor had nothing to say to some objections and that David Marr is quoted as referring to the proceedings as a trainwreck (sic) indicate that it is questionable from the same source. What Hughesdarren supports by his reference from Reuters is that many people have been convinced by published reports of the conviction. That does not make the conviction any more reliable. It is still based upon the testimony of one man claiming to have been a victim. Bret Walker found 13 reasons why there should have been reasonable of Pell committing the alleged crime. There have been men on death row for years because a jury convicted them of murder and they were freed by the Innocence Project. As Wikipedia records the Innocence Project exonerated 362 people of serious crimes by January 2019. Continuing to point out that many people have been swayed by the testimony of one man, including the jurors does not make that one man's testimony true. It is still questionable and contentious. No matter how many people have been convinced by questionable statements, no matter how many times their being convinced is reported as sensational news the fact of guilt or innocence is still contentious - Fartherred (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing contentious about Pell's guilt, a verdict which remains fact unless overturned on appeal. It seems that you are endeavouring to conduct your own "appeal" on the pages of Wikipedia. That is not how the law works. Pell remains a "convicted child sex offender" unless overturned by due process. WWGB (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- What seems to confuse WWGB is that an innocent man can be wrongly convicted. If an innocent man is found guilty of a sex offence then he is guilty of criminal sex offence but he is not a sex offender and has never been one. When a man is innocent he remains innocent if he is wrongly convicted. That is why the innocent people can be freed by the Innocence Project. If George Pell's conviction were not contentious then there would not be an appeal with Bret Walker contending that George Pell should not have been convicted. Where does WWGB get the absurd notion that simple conviction can turn an innocent man into a sex offender? Did he just make that up? Hughesdarren and GiantSnowman agreeing with him does not make WWGB any better as a source of information - Fartherred (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Fartherred: please WP:DROPTHESTICK. GiantSnowman 13:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- What seems to confuse WWGB is that an innocent man can be wrongly convicted. If an innocent man is found guilty of a sex offence then he is guilty of criminal sex offence but he is not a sex offender and has never been one. When a man is innocent he remains innocent if he is wrongly convicted. That is why the innocent people can be freed by the Innocence Project. If George Pell's conviction were not contentious then there would not be an appeal with Bret Walker contending that George Pell should not have been convicted. Where does WWGB get the absurd notion that simple conviction can turn an innocent man into a sex offender? Did he just make that up? Hughesdarren and GiantSnowman agreeing with him does not make WWGB any better as a source of information - Fartherred (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with WWGB, Should Pell be found not guilty on appeal then maybe the lede statement could be edited to reflect this. Until then the statement that a Pell is a convicted child sex offender is a well supported statement of fact. The only person that seems to find it at all questionable and contentious is Fartherred. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
GiantSnowman wants me to drop the stick but this argument is not to be decided by a number of editors just agreeing with some absurd notion. Hughesdarren claims that I am the only person that seems to find sex offender status at all questionable or contentious. Bret Walker is a person that finds it questionable and contentious. Until the appeal is settled it is a question that is not settled. How much simpler can I put it that the matter is questionable? The WP:BLP states that "...the possibility of causing harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". There is no exception made for causing harm to Catholic Cardinals. Callous indifference to harming Cardinal Pell is what WP:BLP is trying to prevent. Please consider that policy. - Fartherred (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- "this argument is not to be decided by a number of editors" - no, that's precisely how we sort things. WP:CONSENSUS. GiantSnowman 14:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- In WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion The title of the policy page tells it all. Verifiable facts from reliable sources and statements of policy should matter more than the number of editors. There should be time to get all of the pertinent considerations aired. - Fartherred (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
While certainly a convicted child sex offender is 100% truth, its forced inclusion in the first sentence of the lede is a violation of the impartialness aspect of BLP. Not that this isn't lede material, it's just not lede sentence material if the person was significantly notable for other things as well. Forcing it in to the first sentence creates a tone that this is going to be a "negative sounding" article, which we cannot write as under BLP or NPOV. --Masem (t) 13:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I have no objection to moving the point of contention out of the lead, but would still object to calling a man definitely guilty while the case is still in appeal. - Fartherred (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, frankly, I think it's completely accurate to say that he is best known for being a senior cleric convicted of child-sex offences. You might not think that is 'fair', or you might think that it is, but it's not really in question that it's true. I don't really see how it fails to be 'impartial' either. -- Begoon 14:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- The problem with putting it in the lede sentence, giving it seemingly equal weight to his past work in the clergy, is that we don't know with hindsight how he will be remembered in the long term. We know prior to the arrest that Pell had some respectable work in the clergy so that is certainly what he was notable for in the long term, but we are far too soon to say that this conviction is as important. --Masem (t) 15:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- "it's completely accurate to say that he is best known for being a senior cleric convicted of child-sex offences" is spot-on. GiantSnowman 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Is that the long-term view? We have no idea, and we won't know for several years. That's definitely the view this moment, but WP avoids writing for the moment and looks to the long-term coverage per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. --Masem (t) 14:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- "it's completely accurate to say that he is best known for being a senior cleric convicted of child-sex offences" is spot-on. GiantSnowman 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- The problem with putting it in the lede sentence, giving it seemingly equal weight to his past work in the clergy, is that we don't know with hindsight how he will be remembered in the long term. We know prior to the arrest that Pell had some respectable work in the clergy so that is certainly what he was notable for in the long term, but we are far too soon to say that this conviction is as important. --Masem (t) 15:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
What the REUTERS piece actually documents is not Cardinal Pells guilt but the harm that can be caused by people piling on to a heap of condemnation when an accusation is made. People who knew nothing but news reports about the incident and nothing about Cardinal Pell other than that he is a cardinal suddenly were sure that he deserves to have his name erased. I can understand people thinking that the name Pell is now associated with sexual abuse but people should think if many of the complaints against him came to naught this last one might too and be prepared to restore the name. The CNN article suggests that the complainant's knowledge of the interior of the sacristy indicated his truthfulness but he could have gained that knowledge being there with anyone other than Pell and at thirty years of age you cannot say that he must exhibit childhood truthfullness by being incapable of the mentally difficult task of lying. - Fartherred (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- The simple fact is that he IS a convicted child sex offender. You may believe that the conviction was in error, but at Wikipedia we rely on what's stated in Reliable Sources, and they completely support that characterization. If his appeal is successful, then the article will clearly need to change to reflect that, but absent that, it's entirely appropriate and accurate to keep it as it is. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. GiantSnowman 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @BubbaJoe123456's assertion is neither simple nor factual. The articleCardinal Pell back in prison while judges consider appeal @CNN contains an assertion that Bret Walker SC, representing Cardinal Pell, gave 13 reasons why the jurors should have been reasonably in doubt of the guilt of Cardinal Pell. These 13 reasons should not have all slipped by the judge, the barrister for the crown and Cardinal Pell's defense. It is possible that this case never should have gone to trial but three senior appeals judges had to look at the case on appeal. The 13 reasons were "stated in Reliable" text from CNN. This text does not "completely support that characterization" that George Pell is a sex offender. WWGB has still not responded to the question I asked at 13:13 hours above, "Where does WWGB get the absurd notion that simple conviction can turn and innocent man into a sex offender?" Well, BubbaJoe, do you want to take a stab at describing the source of this notion that your assertion relies upon? - Fartherred (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with GiantSnowman and BubbaJoe. He is a convicted child sex offender. The fact that he is appealing his case does not change that. And while you didn't ask me, I'll take a stab at answering your question anyway: A "sex offender" is someone who has been convicted of a sex crime. Therefore, by its very definition, being convicted has turned a man into one. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Lilipo25 A handy way to win an argument is to make up a definition that makes you right "by its very definition" and then just stick to that definition. The tactic is not very helpful for communication because it results in two opposing sides effectively talking in different languages and not listening to each other. I define a sex offender as one who violates a sex law. By my definition it is possible for a person who is not a sex offender to be wrongfully convicted of violating a sex law and still not be a sex offender. By your sort of definition those wrongfully convicted of murder would have been turned into murderers and when some of those were freed by the Innocence_ Project they would have been transformed again into innocent men. More people than just Lilipo, WWGB and GiantSnowman use the magical transformation definition but I suggest it is neither helpful nor universal. It does not seem to come from a dictionary as a source but is saved from being original research by its status as common knowledge. Even though many elements of common knowledge contradict each other, we cannot communicate without it. - Fartherred (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with GiantSnowman and BubbaJoe. He is a convicted child sex offender. The fact that he is appealing his case does not change that. And while you didn't ask me, I'll take a stab at answering your question anyway: A "sex offender" is someone who has been convicted of a sex crime. Therefore, by its very definition, being convicted has turned a man into one. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Fartherred So you're criticizing me for "making up a definition that makes [me] right" in your first sentence, and then in your third sentence, you make up a definition that does exactly that for yourself, even saying "I define a sex offender as..." and "By my definition...". Interesting tactic.
- But I'm sorry to tell you that you're wrong: I didn't make it up, and it does indeed "come from a dictionary as a source" - two dictionaries, in fact. I checked both the most widely-used dictionary in the United States, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and the most widely-used dictionary in the United Kingdom, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary, in order to get it. Here's how the Merriam-Webster defines "sex offender":
- sex offender noun
- Definition of sex offender
- person who has been convicted of a crime involving sex
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex%20offender
- But I'm sorry to tell you that you're wrong: I didn't make it up, and it does indeed "come from a dictionary as a source" - two dictionaries, in fact. I checked both the most widely-used dictionary in the United States, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and the most widely-used dictionary in the United Kingdom, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary, in order to get it. Here's how the Merriam-Webster defines "sex offender":
- And here's how the Oxford Learner's Dictionary defines it:
- sex offender noun
- BrE /ˈseks əfendə(r)/
- a person who has been found guilty of illegal sexual acts
- https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/sex-offender
- And here's how the Oxford Learner's Dictionary defines it:
- And there you have it - not a "magical transformation definition" at all. Just a plain old common dictionary definition, I'm afraid.Lilipo25 (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well my plain old Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, ELEVENTH EDITION (c)2007 contains no definition for sex-offender as a hyphenated pair of words. It defines offend as "to violate a law or rule". One is forced to add to the definition by adding the meaning of the suffix and the word "sex" if one is to come up with a definition for "sex-offender" by my plain old dictionary. That is how I came up with the definition for sex-offender as "one who violates a sex law". I intended it as the tactic of the plain honest truth. I recognize that the internet dictionary definition for sex-offender has been in use by some people for some time. That should be how the definition got reported by the internet dictionary. We must live with the consequences of people using that definition. I looked up murderer on Merriam-Webster.com and it at least agrees with my plain old paper dictionary. It is "one who murders". I had not anticipated that such definitions would be available to me on line without buying the service. The internet definition of sex-offender might qualify as plain but I doubt that it is old. We are faced with the prospect of it being possible for someone to be both a sex-offender and perfectly innocent of committing any sex offence at the same time since Innocence Project demonstrated that people can be perfectly innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. - Fartherred (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- And there you have it - not a "magical transformation definition" at all. Just a plain old common dictionary definition, I'm afraid.Lilipo25 (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Firsty, I am confused about why you think that "sex offender" is hyphenated. It isn't, either in common use or in either of the two dictionaries that I just gave the links for (or, I would guess, any other dictionary).And secondly, if you click again on that first link to the Merriam-Webster definition and look at it, you will see this directly below the definition:
- First Known Use of sex offender
- 1911, in the meaning defined above
- So that makes it clear that this definition of "sex offender" is indeed old. I don't know when it was first included in the M-W dictionary, but as I don't have a hard copy of the Eleventh Edition on hand to check, I am unable to verify your statement that it isn't in there one way or the other and will have to take your word for it. At any rate, it was in use under this definition over a hundred years ago, well before the internet was even a glimmer in Al Gore's eye. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The portion of child victims that know the offender is greater than 90%. The two share some established relationship.[2]
The portion of child abusers that are part of the child's family or closely associated with the family is greater than 70%.[3] Pell was new to his position as archbishop, trying to meet people. It is very unlikely he was well known to the accuser. The headline grabbing news is often about an allegation of clerical abuse of a child or children. There is some reason behind this. Clergy who put forward rules against sexual impropriety are expected to model propriety. Sexual assaults from decades ago occurred in a social climate in which it was usual to hush up such crimes. Whether this was thought to be for the good of the child or not it happened and the Catholic church as part of this social climate hushed up sex offenses. Now they pay for it with clerical crimes being dug up from decades past even for dead priests. This keeps plentiful fodder for sensationalist news. With clerical abuse in the news so often many people get the idea that clerics are the main perpetrators. This sort of attitude could easily contribute to an innocent man being found guilty. If the jury is actually in error in Pell's case, then Wikipedia is contributing to the problem in letting an innocent cleric be presented as a sex offender. I want the article on Pell to hold off on naming Pell a sex offender until the appeal is decided and published to avoid what seems to me as harmfully distorted news. Sorry, I have forgotten how to format references in discussion. - Fartherred (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Gapper, John (April 19, 2019). "Silk Roads author Peter Frankopan: 'We're in trouble in the long term'". Financial Times. Retrieved May 29, 2019.
- ^ California Megan's Law Website
- ^ Sexual Abuse: Surviving the Pain
- Sorry. this is a combination of original research (see WP:No original research) and personal opinion (see WP:Neutral point of view) and therefore violates two out of three of Wikipedia's core content policies. It cannot be considered when editing a Wikipedia article. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The assertion that sexual abusers of children are mostly members of their own family or familiar persons is well documented. I gave reference. The assertion that Pell was not likely well known by the accuser would qualify as "original research" in the Wikipedia jargon. It can not be published as an article. Here in discussion it is just a statement that people can find more or less convincing for whatever point might be supported. The assertion that clerical sexual abuse is more prominently reported in news sources than family member sexual abuse is a fact that I could support with citations if I were to do an extraordinary amount of work but it can be stated here in discussion with the assumption that readers of this material do not need the citations to know that it is a fact. Discussions on ANI are not limited to statements supported by citation. We should just be factual and stick to the point. - Fartherred (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry. this is a combination of original research (see WP:No original research) and personal opinion (see WP:Neutral point of view) and therefore violates two out of three of Wikipedia's core content policies. It cannot be considered when editing a Wikipedia article. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware that the assertion is documented - you misunderstand. You are doing research into percentages of sexual abusers who are related to their victims to try to prove here your assertion that Pell is likely not guilty of the crime of which he has been convicted. That is original research that cannot be used to determine the editing of a Wikipedia article - it does not relate directly to Pell or his case. It isn't up to you to argue his innocence through research and statistics about sexual abuse in general. That violates the WP:No original research core content policy. You have no idea how well-known he was to the accuser, and again, you are trying to prove his innocence with conjecture about the closeness of their relationship. It is never up to Wikipedia editors to try to prove guilt or innocence of those convicted of crimes. That is not being "factual" or "sticking to the point" at all; we are here (and this is the BPL Noticeboard, not ANI, btw) to discuss what can be included in the article, and nothing derived from your personal opinions or from original research can, so it's all pointless to argue it. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I have no objection to Pell’s status as a convicted child sex offender being accurately and impartially explained in the body of the article. I also have no objection to that fact being summarised in the lede. However, I object to it being mentioned in the first sentence in the lede, for two reasons. Firstly, Pell’s notability and his contribution to society are historically and primarily related to his roles in the church so these roles should constitute the first sentence. Secondly, Pell has appealed his conviction on the grounds of unreasonableness; the Appeal has been heard by three judges of the Appeal Court. We wait to hear their verdicts. The appeal process is a legitimate part of the criminal justice process so Wikipedia should give due deference to it by refraining from using the first sentence to proclaim Pell’s guilt while that guilt is being assessed by a Court.
- If the Appeal Court rejects Pell’s appeal, it may then be appropriate to promote Pell’s conviction to the first sentence of the lede, but that is something we can discuss if, and when, Pell’s appeal is rejected. Dolphin (t) 01:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I would like to help the closing admin. If everyone has had their say, write that User:Fartherred is topic banned for two years from articles that deal with sexual assault or the legal response to sexual assault. Warn User:Fartherred that if the behavior is repeated results could be more severe. Take the usual steps to close an ANI and go on with you day. - Fartherred (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a compromise - until the appeal result is announced - is to change the wording to "... an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church who was convicted of child sex offences and is currently appealing that conviction". This is undeniably true (he has been convicted) - and would be true even if the conviction is overturned in future. We can revert to the current wording if the appeal fails, or reword if it is successful. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Very many convicted criminals are appealing their sentences, it doesn't mean much and isn't particularly worthy of mention anywhere in the lead. On the other hand I agree with removing this from the very first sentence of the lead. For example Idi Amin is known for his crimes but they are not clearly mentioned until the end of the lead. This may be incorrect in the Idi Amin article (I think it should be in the first paragraph of the lead because it's what he is known for), but there should be some consistency in this sort of thing. In both cases, I think the first few sentences should clearly describe what the person is best known for, flattering or not. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- The Idi Amin article and the George Pell article are both biographical Wikipedia articles. So, there is some reason for comparing the two. However the fit is not perfect. The Idi Amin article does not qualify for WP:BLP considerations because Idi Amin is dead. I've seen no evidence of anyone suggesting that Idi Amin shares no guilt for the atrocities in which it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of Ugandans died. Many people are not convinced by the jury conviction of Cardinal Pell and have contributed to his legal defense to reverse what they see as injustice as indicated in THE Catholic Weekly - Fartherred (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- You have highlighted there the big problem that must be mentioned, and I'm brave enough to do it. The Catholic Weekly, and most of those questioning Pell's guilt, can never be considered objective observers here. Their support for Pell is going to based on faith and religious love, not logic. So it is irrelevant that those people question the jury conviction. On this matter, that journal can certainly never be considered a reliable, independent source. Please stop wasting our time telling us what religious people believe about someone they have been repeatedly told to obey from the day they were born. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- @HiLo48: What are your grounds for writing “most of those questioning Pell’s guilt can never be considered objective observers here”? Do you have some objective position or evidence that supports this extraordinary statement? If not, surely it is just vulgar original research. Dolphin (t) 14:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- You have highlighted there the big problem that must be mentioned, and I'm brave enough to do it. The Catholic Weekly, and most of those questioning Pell's guilt, can never be considered objective observers here. Their support for Pell is going to based on faith and religious love, not logic. So it is irrelevant that those people question the jury conviction. On this matter, that journal can certainly never be considered a reliable, independent source. Please stop wasting our time telling us what religious people believe about someone they have been repeatedly told to obey from the day they were born. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- The Idi Amin article and the George Pell article are both biographical Wikipedia articles. So, there is some reason for comparing the two. However the fit is not perfect. The Idi Amin article does not qualify for WP:BLP considerations because Idi Amin is dead. I've seen no evidence of anyone suggesting that Idi Amin shares no guilt for the atrocities in which it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of Ugandans died. Many people are not convinced by the jury conviction of Cardinal Pell and have contributed to his legal defense to reverse what they see as injustice as indicated in THE Catholic Weekly - Fartherred (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Some atheists might maintain that religious people are all biased and only atheists can be objective. Religious people might disagree. We cannot, on this page, settle the question of whether or not religion is an inescapable cause of bias and we should not try. The prosecutor and the defense in the case are certainly biased, each for the job they are paid to do. If the jury has made a mistake, it won't be the first time. It should be reported that there is disagreement. - Fartherred (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- I do not argue that Pell is innocent, only that there are people that do argue that case. I do not argue that those questioning Pell's guilt should "be considered objective observers", only that there existence is reported by reliable sources. The Guardian reported here that advertisements for donations to Cardinal Pell's legal fund are placed by the Sydney archdiocese. - Fartherred (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- @HiLo48: makes an argument that is a distortion of Wikipedia policy. WP:Reliable_sources states: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." So, in order to best represent differing views, including significant non-majority views, the biased publications of opposing organizations can be reliable sources. They are reliable in reporting their own biased views. - Fartherred (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Fartherred: Of course Idi Amin is dead, I was pointing out that the primary reference to the bad things he is known for is left until after a discussion of the rest of the major points - which you could argue bolsters your case because Idi Amin is under looser standards than a BLP. On the other hand if the bulk of
primaryreliable sources (about either Amin or Pell) are about the crimes I think it is hard to justify leaving it until the very end. Perhaps the second sentence, or just after the main context has been established. And if a person has been convicted of a crime is appealing and there is disagreement about the guilt, there needs to be equal coverage in mainstream reliable sources as of the allegations and conviction to justify including this in the same place of the lead. This is both a WP:DUE and WP:RS issue as well as WP:LEAD. Anyway, if Idi Amin is handled as deferentially or light-handedly as it is due to policy reasons, that only helps your argument. Notwithstanding, I propose the following:George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church. He was convicted on 11 December 2018 of sexual offenses against juvenile boys in the 1990s. [...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
Pell lodged an appeal against his conviction on three grounds, including a claim that the jury verdict was unreasonable. The appeal was heard on 5–6 June 2019 and judgement has been reserved; meanwhile, Pell remains in prison.
- With the mention of the conviction being the second sentence, and the appeal of the conviction being the last paragraph of the lead, since it is the most recent and deserves to stand out on its own. If there is significant RS coverage of doubts about his guilt there could be a brief mention in that last paragraph, but only very brief I would say. Any more details discussion can be left for the body of the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Fartherred: Of course Idi Amin is dead, I was pointing out that the primary reference to the bad things he is known for is left until after a discussion of the rest of the major points - which you could argue bolsters your case because Idi Amin is under looser standards than a BLP. On the other hand if the bulk of
- There is considerable cause for doubting Cardinal Pell's guilt in the matter of alleged abuse of choir boys. The first jury could not come to a unanimous decision.[1] The jury is considered independent.
- About the appeal, David Marr referred to the prosecutor as often having nothing to say in response to a judge's question. He referred to events in general as a "trainwreck". Monsignor Charles Portelli had testified to being with Cardinal Pell at the time the crime is supposed to have taken place. Cardinal Pell's legal defender said that the jury should have accepted Portelli's testimony as cause for reasonable doubt in the face of the sole witness of the alleged victim to the contrary. Cardinal Pell said that the accusations were merely imagined. At his sentencing hearing, written character reference from former Australian Prime Minister John Howard referred to Cardinal Pell's "exemplary character". Altogether Pell's defense led by Bret walker offered 13 reasons for doubting guilt so the jury should not have been beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt.[2] The prosecutors lack of answers for the judge is not a good sign for the prosecution.
- - Fartherred (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Wow. Despite Fartherred‘s lengthy and comprehensive original research I’m convinced that “convicted child sex offender” should be prominently placed at the very top of the article with no mention that he is appealing the judgement, unless the appeal is victorious. This fact of his life is quite surprising given his career as a trusted religious figure, and shouldn’t be hidden in any way. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
This has now been talked over extensively, and despite a great deal of original research by Fartherred arguing his innocence, Pell remains a convicted child sex offender and that is most likely at least partly why most people have heard of him. I see no reason to mitigate those facts in the article because of an appeal. Almost all felony convictions are appealed - if it's successful, it can then be added to the article. I would leave the description of him as a convicted child sex offender in the opening paragraph. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- The abc.net.au source above did not put forward the idea that the first jury failing to come to a verdict was sign that the appeal might be successful. However the CNN piece definitely did put forward that the performance of Pell's defense was impressive in the appeal and the prosecution was faltering. That is well documented from a reliable source, not original research. If you look at the George Pell article talk page, you can see that the reason that it was deleted from the article was that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. - Fartherred (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Please, Fartherred, enough. You have made your argument about his innocence over and over, using a ton of original research. Multiple editors have told you that none of that can be used to edit the article, and everyone else has reached a consensus that as he is a convicted child sex offender, that should stay in the article and the information about the appeal can be added if he wins it. At some point, you just have to accept it. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Not only is Pell a "convicted child sex offender", he's also a convicted child sex offender who is now in custody having been sentenced to six years in prison. You can't find any dictionary that gives a conclusion quite as clear as that. I'd suggest this thread should be closed now and a new one opened, if necessary, after the decision on his appeal has been announced. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Should "perpetrator" be used to describe someone acquitted of an offense?
Our articles on two recent high-profile police shootings in the U.S. state of Minnesota are the subject. In one, Justine Damond, the officer was convicted of an offense and is referred to as the "perpetrator"; in the other, Shooting of Philando Castile, the officer was charged and acquitted. The question is whether "perpetrator" should be used to refer to the latter officer. I have started a discussion at Talk:Shooting of Philando Castile#"Police", or "perpetrator", or "accused"?. Third opinion(s) would be appreciated. Kablammo (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. "Perpetrator" and "Accused" have two different implications, consequently two different uses. Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I can see no circumstances where someone acquitted of a charge could be described as a perpetrator. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- This one strikes me as a bit difficult; while I would agree that 'perpetrator' carries the connotation that the act in question was wrongful, 'accused' rings wrong to me (unless heavily qualified) for a case such as Mr. Castile. That is because there is no doubt that the act was committed nor as to by whom it was committed--the question, rather, is whether it was justified. I could actually make arguments for why either word is, strictly linguistically, appropriate. Having said that, it would be my instinct to try to avoid both terms. You're welcome for being totally unhelpful! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I take it the real issue is that section heading? Dumuzid (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. Kablammo (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- To "perpetrate" is "to be guilty of a crime", or other "shocking acts", according to multiple English dictionaries. Certainly, even when there is no dispute as to who shot whom, to refer to the accused as a perpetrator is to imply the shooting was criminal. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I support use of "accused". Meatsgains(talk) 01:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- For me, I would simply use the officer's name for that section, I think, though I understand I may be drastically outvoted. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- To "perpetrate" is "to be guilty of a crime", or other "shocking acts", according to multiple English dictionaries. Certainly, even when there is no dispute as to who shot whom, to refer to the accused as a perpetrator is to imply the shooting was criminal. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. Kablammo (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I take it the real issue is that section heading? Dumuzid (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Definitely do not use perpetrator. Legally dangerous. Moriori (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I also agree that if the subject is acquitted it does not make sense to choose perpetrator, The change of the section title to "accused" by Kablammo solves the problem. I would have chosen "shooter" as a section title as I think it better describes what the sources say and does not carry a connotation in either direction towards a criminal intent. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Using perpetrator if the person was acquitted implies we have some special knowledge that they were guilty but evaded conviction.--Auric talk 10:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I would avoid both perpetrator (since it certainly implies wrongdoing) and accused (which implies that the act was wrong, but whether the individual committed the act is in doubt). Neither apply in the Castile case. There's no doubt the officer shot him (ruling out accused), but a jury has ruled that there was insufficient evidence to deem the shooting a crime (ruling out perpetrator).— Preceding unsigned comment added by BubbaJoe123456 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe another possibility would be "suspect"? But I agree that perpetrator seems inadequate. —PaleoNeonate – 14:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- If already acquitted, he's no longer a suspect. He's not a perpetrator either. If the shooting itself is not disputed (the legal dispute being over whether the shooting was criminal or not) - then "shooter" could be used, but it does have a negative connotation (usually criminal or terrorist). Police or police officer is probably the only one without a value judgement. Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Icewhiz, Police or police officer seems like the best choice for the section title. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- What about "shooter"? That seems nonjudgmental and just a factual description, such as "victim". Having one section as "victim" and another as "police officer" seems strangely inconsistent to me. I think "victim" and "shooter" or instead "citizen" and "police officer" would make more sense. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Should absolutely not be "victim" or "perpetrator", this may be accurate characterizations but they are opinions and not in line with Wikipedia's practice of court decisions defining the fact of guilt. "Deceased" or "citizen" and "police officer" work. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- "Victim" has nothing to do with guilt. It is a simple statement of fact that someone has been harmed. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Some points: if you want to get technical, "perpetrator" just means "person who does something". A person who plants a garden is a garden perpetrator. It is true that the word is virtually always used in a negative sense, so it strongly implies a bad action. According to dictionary.com, it doesn't necessarily mean criminal tho: "Who perpetrated this so-called comedy?" is given as a usage example. Shooting a person for no good reason, even if a court decides it's not a criminal act, is still a bad thing to do. Technical acquittal notwithstanding, I think most every disinterested and informed person -- the man on the Clapham omnibus -- would conclude that shooting Philando Castile was not an act of charity, helpful to Castile, or a non-bad act in any other way. Right? Anyone here who thinks the shooter is a hero is invited to speak up.
- "Victim" has nothing to do with guilt. It is a simple statement of fact that someone has been harmed. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Should absolutely not be "victim" or "perpetrator", this may be accurate characterizations but they are opinions and not in line with Wikipedia's practice of court decisions defining the fact of guilt. "Deceased" or "citizen" and "police officer" work. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- What about "shooter"? That seems nonjudgmental and just a factual description, such as "victim". Having one section as "victim" and another as "police officer" seems strangely inconsistent to me. I think "victim" and "shooter" or instead "citizen" and "police officer" would make more sense. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Icewhiz, Police or police officer seems like the best choice for the section title. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- If already acquitted, he's no longer a suspect. He's not a perpetrator either. If the shooting itself is not disputed (the legal dispute being over whether the shooting was criminal or not) - then "shooter" could be used, but it does have a negative connotation (usually criminal or terrorist). Police or police officer is probably the only one without a value judgement. Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe another possibility would be "suspect"? But I agree that perpetrator seems inadequate. —PaleoNeonate – 14:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Now, in almost all cases, we don't want to use terms that strongly imply bad actions, if we can avoid it. In almost all cases, but not necessarily in absolutely all cases. We don't want to try to fool the reader by implying that something isn't true that is. Is this case an exception. Hmm. Maybe. Let's think of some examples.
- Claus von Stauffenberg was certainly guilty of treason and murder (he tried to kill the chancellor, and did kill three people), and was convicted of this. We don't use terms that imply to the reader that he was a bad guy, tho. And there are a lot of people who have been convicted of crimes who weren't actually guilty of anything -- either by mistake, by "mistake" due to egregious racism, or just flat out on purpose (Grigory Zinoviev etc. etc.) And a lot of people who have been acquitted of crimes who were actually guilty (e.g. [famous person] who was acquitted because the state botched the prosecution, not because he didn't actually do it).
- So, just as we often ignore the technical legal name of an entity (per Wikipedia:Official names) in order to better inform the reader, , we can also ignore the the technical legal standing of an entity in order to better inform the reader. We are not beholden to the judgement of courts, which are human institutions which get things wrong often enough. What a court decides is worth reporting, and its a data point in how we're going to present the subject; a data point, but not the only data point. We don't have to pretend to be morons, or mislead the reader, just because a court makes a mistake.
- So, it's really a question of where are the margins, and does this case fall outside the margin of our usual rubric of not implying that technically-innocent people are bad actors? Yeah in my book it does. If the person in question doesn't want to be described as a "perpetrator" or "shooter" he might have considered not going around shooting people. Herostratus (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Way off. It's a fact he's a "shooter" but "perpetrator" needs something to back it up. Especially as a BLP. If you can find WP:RSs using "perpetrator" to describe him after the conviction then maybe you have an argument. WP:LABELing Castile a "victim" is also injecting an opinion in a contentious topic, in an article covered by WP:BLP, but it is much less contentious because it is fair to say he was the victim of a shooting, but the problem is it implies (along with "perpetrator") that he is the victim of a crime. Maybe we should just leave out the headings altogether? —DIYeditor (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- So, it's really a question of where are the margins, and does this case fall outside the margin of our usual rubric of not implying that technically-innocent people are bad actors? Yeah in my book it does. If the person in question doesn't want to be described as a "perpetrator" or "shooter" he might have considered not going around shooting people. Herostratus (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree that 'accused' is better than 'perpetrator'. GiantSnowman 14:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- "Perpetrator", from the Latin origin, means "person who did it", regardless of whether that action was good or bad, but when it crossed over to English it immediately took on the connotation of mal-intent, eg: "the person who meant to do a malicious thing" (as in "pointing the finger"). No one in history has ever perpetrated a garden, although if you tend to it and keep going you'd be its perpetuator. "Perpetrator" is used almost exclusively in the field of law enforcement to denote a person who intentionally committed a criminal act. Therefore, it's wholly inappropriate in this context. It's all about intent. (A person who commits murder is a perpetrator, but not someone who commits manslaughter.)
- "Victim" on the other hand, has a whole slew of meanings and connotations. You can be a crime victim or an accident victim. "Victim" can be a psychological representation of the self, or an outward representation of the foolhardiness of others. (Literally, the antonym is "victor".) As such, it doesn't automatically carry the same connotation of a criminal act, as does "perpetrator" or "transgressor", and is wholly appropriate in this context.
- I agree that "police officer" is an odd choice of section heading. "Accused" only fits before a trial. The section heading should briefly symbolize what the section is about, in the most precise yet concise way possible. At this point in the article, we obviously know it's about a shooting, so we already know there must be a victim and a shooter. The term "shooter" also does not imply a criminal act, since it only describes someone shooting a gun (eg: maybe criminal, or police, military, good Samaritan, etc.; we know there's a gun, and someone has to be on each end). It is factually the most correct term under the circumstances. The connotations are not good, but we're not here to give an overly sweetened glaze over the facts. We should just use the most accurate term and let the connotations be what they are. Unfortunately, there is no single word that means "one who caused an accident". If this were a car wreck, then the sections should be "victim" and "driver", but as it's a shooting, then "shooter" seems the obvious choice. Zaereth (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
If this were a car wreck, then the sections should be "victim" and "driver", but as it's a shooting, then "shooter" seems the obvious choice.
That makes total sense, but I still do not see that subsection headings are even necessary there. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, please let me break this down into points. From a BLP standpoint, I see no problem with the section headings as either "victim" and "police officer" or "victim" and "shooter", nor do I see a problem with removing the headings altogether. However, I do see a big problem with the term "perpetrator".
- Form writing standpoint, "police officer" just looks weird. I'm expecting to read about a first-responder or something, not the person involved in the incident.
- From a purely writing standpoint, I'd avoid "perpetrator" in this and, really, any other article. Leave the Latin legal-jargon to the cops and lawyers and use more-accurate descriptions where ever possible.
- From both a BLP standpoint and a writing standpoint, what we've done here is create two mini-biographies within this article about what are essentially non-notable, private citizens, save their involvement in this one incident. One of those happens to be a mini-BLP. I seriously question the need to know all of this personal info about these people with the exception of how it relates to the incident. How long the officer was on the force is relevant, but why is where he went to school or who his friends are relevant to the story? Same with the victim. I think it'd be better to whittle it down to the essentials and then weave that into the text of the incident which this article is really about. Zaereth (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The article states that Kellen Winslow II was convicted of rape on June 10, 2019. This is incorrect. He was convicted of indecent exposure, but not rape. This is a libelous claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.71.4 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The USA today article used as a source explicitly states he was found guilty of rape and two other lesser charges. Is this incorrect? Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- As does the Guardian - a source we would usually consider reliable. Although I am unsure on the 'convicted' part only because he hasnt been sentenced yet. Someone more conversant with US law could probably provide more info. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The statement is correct. "Convicted" means the jury has found him guilty of the crime. Sentencing is just the determination of the punishment. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ah I see. I only brought it up because in some jurisdictions (Italy I believe is one) technically they are not fully convicted until all appeals are exhausted. Either way its reliably sourced he has been found guilty of rape. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Under the US system, if the jury convicts you, you're considered convicted. An appeals court can overturn that conviction, in which case you're no longer convicted. If someone's been convicted, but is currently appealing, we often express it in WP articles as something along the lines of "Smith was convicted of aggravated aardvark molestation in January 2019, but is currently appealing the conviction." BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think in pretty much all common law countries a conviction is considered valid until overturned or otherwise dismissed in some way. That said, it is IMO important to mention any appeal especially any initial appeals. While common, they are also a key part of the process. For some more minor crimes in some jurisdictions it's not uncommon a person can get bail while on appeal, rather than serving their sentence. Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Under the US system, if the jury convicts you, you're considered convicted. An appeals court can overturn that conviction, in which case you're no longer convicted. If someone's been convicted, but is currently appealing, we often express it in WP articles as something along the lines of "Smith was convicted of aggravated aardvark molestation in January 2019, but is currently appealing the conviction." BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ah I see. I only brought it up because in some jurisdictions (Italy I believe is one) technically they are not fully convicted until all appeals are exhausted. Either way its reliably sourced he has been found guilty of rape. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The statement is correct. "Convicted" means the jury has found him guilty of the crime. Sentencing is just the determination of the punishment. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Byron Case
Byron Case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There's been some claims made at Talk:Byron Case#Possible COI editing that supporters of Case might be editing the article to ensure in a manner that tries to WP:ADVOCATE on his behalf. At the same time, a recent contributor to the article has declared they are related to one of Case's victims and is only editing in response to what they percieve to be COI editing by Case's supporters. Looking at the article, there does seem to be (at least in a layout sense) what amounts to really two sub-articles: one about Case the writer and one about Case the convicted murder. Part of the problem might be finding a proper balance between the two. Right now, the bibliography section seems quite large and a bit WP:UNDO and might over shadow the content about the "other" Case. I'm also a bit concerned about the "External links" and the "Freebyronchase" website linked in the main infobox since they all appear to be either advocating for or against Case.
Anyway, I'm wondering if some others might take a look at this and see if they are of the same opinion. The article was moved to the mainspace by it's creator here; so, it never got reviewed by AfC. It's not clear (at least to me) whether Case's Wikipedia notability primarily is derived from WP:NAUTHOR or WP:CRIMINAL which makes it a bit tricky to figure how to achieve a proper balance between the two. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC); {Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to remove "to ensure" which accidentally left in while copyediting. -- 06:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)]
- The article needs a major revision. Many parts are unsourced, others references are non RS and most of the content is referenced by primary sources I have removed the bibliography section as its only sources were the publications themselves with no independent coverage by reliable sources to give indication of their notability. I will continue latter, but it needs a lot of work so extra eyes would be welcome. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- The biography section reads like a PR piece and is primarily sourced to a non RS advocacy sire for the subject. It's neither an RS nor is it self published so it can't be used on a BLP for even basic information. On my way to work right now, none of it's so bad it needs immediate removal that I would risk it on my phone, but it does need to be excised or sourced to an RS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Crystallizedcarbon and Only in death for taking a look. Any opinion on the external links and infobox link? What type of article do you think this is: one about a notable author who later on got convicted of a crime or one about a criminal who later on gained some notability as an author? To me, it appears to me to be more of a case of the former than the latter which makes it seem as if the content about the crime should come first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- No opinion on that, mainly because I'm on a bus, but also until the unreliable sources are weeded out it's difficult to say what is the primary notability driver, and I just havnt taken a close enough look at it yet. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- The content of the article should be based on the coverage of the subject by secondary reliable sources which in this case is not much. I have done an extensive removal of content sourced by blogs and primary sources. I have taken care of the most obvious problems but the article can be further improved. I have added some citation needed tags and will be watching the article. I have also removed the blog link from the infobox as it does not seem like a personal page of the subject. I left the first two blogs about the case (for and against) in the external links section as I don't have a clear criteria on whether they meet WP:EL. I have removed the other two. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Crystallizedcarbon I may noted that I absolutely agree with the postion that the article needs a review. In the way, how it is looking now it definetly needs more reliable sources to be inserted in and of course some other inputs in terms of further improvements related to the reducing to the bibliography section which is for my taste is too extensive, adding some citations, etc. --IuliusRRR (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- The content of the article should be based on the coverage of the subject by secondary reliable sources which in this case is not much. I have done an extensive removal of content sourced by blogs and primary sources. I have taken care of the most obvious problems but the article can be further improved. I have added some citation needed tags and will be watching the article. I have also removed the blog link from the infobox as it does not seem like a personal page of the subject. I left the first two blogs about the case (for and against) in the external links section as I don't have a clear criteria on whether they meet WP:EL. I have removed the other two. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- No opinion on that, mainly because I'm on a bus, but also until the unreliable sources are weeded out it's difficult to say what is the primary notability driver, and I just havnt taken a close enough look at it yet. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Crystallizedcarbon and Only in death for taking a look. Any opinion on the external links and infobox link? What type of article do you think this is: one about a notable author who later on got convicted of a crime or one about a criminal who later on gained some notability as an author? To me, it appears to me to be more of a case of the former than the latter which makes it seem as if the content about the crime should come first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- The biography section reads like a PR piece and is primarily sourced to a non RS advocacy sire for the subject. It's neither an RS nor is it self published so it can't be used on a BLP for even basic information. On my way to work right now, none of it's so bad it needs immediate removal that I would risk it on my phone, but it does need to be excised or sourced to an RS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Sukavich Rangsitpol
- Sukavich Rangsitpol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Posts about this article were recently posted here by WP:LTA socks, but it's my turn to post one. My involvement was detecting and reporting socks at WP:SPI (SPI page) and reverting edits per WP:BE (including some IP addresses). The article is semiprotected and a mostly sleeping account recently removed the contested material (I didn't file a report, it may or may not be the same editor, pinging Bbb23 who has recently handled the case). Apart from TLAs, there seems to be no recent discussion at the article's talk page so I thought a notification here may useful. The contested material is supported by a book published by ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute which mentions a controversy. My impression is that the source may be reliable, but I also don't have an opinion on if the material is due. If the material remains, the article may need more watchers; if not, the LTA may be happy and finally move on. Eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 13:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- (comment moved here from my talk page) (User Talk:PaleoNeonate):
* I strongly believe that, as a citizen of the world, any person has the right to learn
- and should be entitled to have access to education according to their competency and needs.
- It is essential that the government provide educational services that respond to the people’s needs.
- Education, therefore, has to be organized in such a way that people from all walks of life can participate in educational activities at levels and times of their preference.
- With regard to the learning society, as I mentioned earlier, optimistically, people from all walks of life should be able to have equal access to education according to their needs and potentials.
- All sort of boundaries, be their gender, age, socio-economic status, physical or mental disabilities have to be eliminated.
Reference "Asia-Pacific Regional Consultation on Adult Education, Jomtien, Thailand, 16-18 September 1996: His Excellency Sukavich Rangsitpol Speech page53-56". Unesdoc.unesco.org. Retrieved 6June 2019.
I study about History, Politician, Book, Culture and everything in Thailand, but I never heard about this. That book is unreliable reference, because we have speech of Sukavich in UNESCO Sources which reliable more than these.
In Thailand, We had many LGBT and this is never problem. comment added by Yosakrai (talk • contribs) 16:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Yosakrai (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- I commented on the article's talk page; comment is reproduced here: Looking at the material, it seems to be well-sourced (relevant book pages here), and got coverage in the Bangkok Post (the leading Thai English-language newspaper) at the time. The link provided above to a UNESCO speech has several problems. First, it's a primary source. Second, we can't say "because he said gender shouldn't be a boundary, he wouldn't support a policy deemed homophobic." That's OR. Finally, looking at the substance of the issue, the statement from the speech isn't actually entirely incompatible, since the speech was talking about gender being a barrier, while the ban was regarding homosexual and transgender students. So, I don't see any BLP issue with including the material. The question I have is a WP:UNDUE issue. Honestly, I'm not nearly familiar enough with Thai politics over the past thirty years to have a good read on whether this is a significant part of his notability, or just a footnote. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I do not think it is undue: First, only one and a half sentence in an article of five paragraphs deals with the Rajabhat/LGBT conflict. And second, this seems to be one of the few, if not the only context where Sukavich is mentioned in English-language academic sources. So it is definitely notable enough to be mentioned in this article. And the mention could hardly be briefer than it currently is. It does not take a disproportionate part of the article. --RJFF (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- The following seems to be the other one , that Sukavich is mentioned in English-language academic sources.
UNESCO-ACEID ,His Excellency Mr. Sukavich Rangsitpol laid out his plans for education in Thailand. According to John Cogan (Professor of Education, University of Minnesota, USA) and R. Derricot in ‘‘Citizenship for the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Education’’, Rangsitpol saw education as “the instrument for human development, creating peace for mankind and national security”.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8Gt9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=New+aspirations+for+education+in+Thailand.+Towards+educational+excellence+by+the+year+2007&source=bl&ots=22hG_N5FUo&sig=RIpoqeZDgX2NiNtiiblApGVmkiM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi88Y_UrMbQAhUMLcAKHcnKC3IQ6AEIJzAD#v=onepage&q=New%20aspirations%20for%20education%20in%20Thailand.%20Towards%20educational%20excellence%20by%20the%20year%202007&f=falsehttps://books.google.com/books/about/Citizenship_for_the_21st_Century.html?id=8Gt9AwAAQBAJ
International Conference in 1996 entitled ‘‘New aspirations for education in Thailand. Towards educational excellence by the year 2007,’‘USA, International Business Publications (2008-03-03). Thailand Education System and Policy Handbook. Int'l Business Publications. ISBN 9781433068485. {{cite book}}
: |first=
has generic name (help)
USA), Cogan, John (Professor of Education, University of Minnesota; Derricott, R. (2014-05-01). Citizenship for the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Education. Routledge. ISBN 9781134730261.{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
WP:UNDUE in a WP:BLP
This here (comment here from talk page) Yosakrai (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The original story
On 26 December 1996, in a report in the Bangkok Post, the Rajabat Institute Council, the collective governing body of all of Thailand's colleges, declared that it would bar homosexuals from enrolling in any of its teacher training schools, the idea of Deputy Education Minister Suraporn Danaitangtrakul.[41] The announcement was strongly criticised by human rights groups and many others, who urged the repeal of the policy. On 25 January 1997, Danaitangtrakul proposed that the Institute set new criteria to bar people with "improper personalities", but not specific groups such as homosexuals.
Talk page
- At my request the talk page was semi-protected earlier because of IP address disruption. However, this seems to still occur with the above account. Yosakrai: If this persists I will have to report you for disruptive editing. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Universal Medicine
- Universal Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article about a cult is constantly subject to single-purpose account editing. Recently I've seen conflicts about the inclusion/substraction of names, so that could have BLP implications. It would be nice if more editors could watchlist and/or audit those confusing changes. Thank you, —PaleoNeonate – 09:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- The article is such a mess, I don't even know where to start... GiantSnowman 10:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Multiple WP:SPA accounts and identical edit summaries in some of their contributions make me suspect socking. I agree with GiantSnowman. Is a big mess. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- I wonder if it's worth getting an admin (with more time than me!) to fully protect and clean up the article. GiantSnowman 10:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- And we now have two accounts on the talk page confirming that they were the same person but also claiming to have done and reverted defamatory edits... —PaleoNeonate – 12:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- The accounts have not done so explicitly, but pretty much so. Both accounts are also asking to not let them do defamatory edits in the future. I could file a WP:SPI, but I think it would probably be best if someone with buttons and enough time takes a look at the whole thing. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- And we now have two accounts on the talk page confirming that they were the same person but also claiming to have done and reverted defamatory edits... —PaleoNeonate – 12:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- I wonder if it's worth getting an admin (with more time than me!) to fully protect and clean up the article. GiantSnowman 10:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Multiple WP:SPA accounts and identical edit summaries in some of their contributions make me suspect socking. I agree with GiantSnowman. Is a big mess. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Gaurav Solanki
There are 2 persons named Gaurav Solanki. Gaurav Solanki - This page title should be Gaurav Solanki (Boxer) because the other page is of the screenwriter and fiction writer Gaurav Solanki named as Gaurav Solanki (writer).
People's Mujahedin of Iran
According to The Intercept, Heshmat Alavi may have been a fake character and works under that name may have been created by a team in People's Mujahedin of Iran. Would this edit by JSH-alive be a violation of BLP? --Mhhossein talk 18:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- The Intercept is advocacy journalism and should not be considered a RS for anything. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- You would be better off asking at WP:RSN if you want to assess reliability. The intercept is not unreliable because it has an agenda/bias. It has an editorial board, publishes corrections and previously fired a journalist for cause. All signs of a reliable publication. Saying that - generally it should be attributed rather than stated as fact, and for a BLP you would usually want at least 2 sources reporting on the same issue for it to be notable enough to be included, as single-source controversial claims are either not notable, or too controversial to include just because one paper might be having a slow news day. Of course the other side is that news orgs that concentrate on specific areas are more likely to carry articles in those areas than more general mainstream organisations. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Gossip, innuendo and anonymous sources
Theodore Edgar McCarrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Diff showing disputed material
In the above diff, we have an anonymous source telling a reporter an allegation against the subject of a BLP article that he in turn heard from unnamed sources. Moreover, all the sources in the article are anonymous, and with one exception are never quoted referring to the article subject by name. All the quotes refer to "he" or "him". The one time the article subject's name is mentioned in a quote, the quote simply refers to "rumors" without specifying the nature of the rumors. This all seems like gossip and innuendo that is not appropriate for a BLP article. I think the entire paragraph should come out. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The news report given as a source for this paragraph seems to plainly violate WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." The quotations in the news report are almost entirely weasel words, and are 100% attributed to anonymous sources. -PluniaZ (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Melissa Ede
Melissa Ede (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yes this woman is dead, but the vandalism occurring (the individual was trans; IP vandals are changing pronouns) affects many other BLPs. I have blocked but more eyes welcome. GiantSnowman 10:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- WP:BDP recently dead - up to 2 years. So no editor should worry about removing anything that violates WP:BLP Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Alberto Cobo
Alberto Cobo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The real name is Manuel Alberto Cobo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grossepianist (talk • contribs) 08:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Abby Martin
Abby Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wikipedia article appears to be sourced from people who actively dislike Abby Martin. She is notable for being the RT journalist who with colleague Liz Wahl criticized the annexation of Crimea on air in 2014. The contrast with Wahl's bio is jarring. Since Martin apparently criticizes an entity she calls the "Corporate media," there will be a wealth of published 'hit piece' sources attacking her in turn, but they should not distort the article. Right now the article does not reflect a balanced tone or understanding, violating WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:PROPORTION and potentially WP:BLPCOI.PLawrence99cx (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- You say that the article "does not reflect a balanced tone or understanding, violating WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:PROPORTION and potentially WP:BLPCOI." But how so? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like MPS1992 went to work on the article after you posted here. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
John Christodoulou
This page contains inaccurate information as follows:
Some 'anonymous' person has added the “Controversies" section to John Christodoulou wikipedia entry which contains completely incorrect information.
Such as 'where Christodoulou's Marathon Estates was removed from controlling the site by the property tribunal in October 2016.' John Christodulou does not own or has ever owned Marathon Estates.
The word Controversies just by itself is a slur to Christodoulou as stated the information provided is incorrect.
Please remove this section as I thought Wikipedia deals in facts not people incorrect/false opinions. Interesting that the person who added this has posted anonymously so they can't be that certain that the information that they added is correct.
Regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by DuvellsCat (talk • contribs) 05:41, June 18, 2019 (UTC)
- If you would like other editors to consider the merits of this content in the John Christodoulou article, why remove it six minutes after posting about it here? Now restored to allow others to comment. Edwardx (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Mark Bourrie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Article is under page protection, is being stripped of content and re-worked by one Wikipedia editor to turn the page into attack piece. Comments by this editor show agenda-pushing and POV. Artice violates Wikipedia rules regarding biographies of living persons and neutrality. Much of the material on the talk page also violates BLP policies. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:99F7:DB71:6772:B707 (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Your report is a bit short on details and evidence, though, wouldn't you say? El_C 18:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note that the IP above claims to be Mark Bourrie [8]. Voceditenore (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I am Mark Bourrie. No secret there. I am asking you to look at the edits, the edit summaries and the talk page. This is the route suggested to me by Wikipedia's legal couynsel. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:99F7:DB71:6772:B707 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, speaking for myself, I'm rather busy. So I would need you to do a bit of the leg work yourself by compiling the evidence (in the form of diffs). Good luck. El_C 18:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps one of your colleagues can find the time. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:99F7:DB71:6772:B707 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps. Good luck, again. El_C 18:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- I believe this is in response to my edits. I've certainly stripped out a lot of fluff, redundancy, and puffery, and tightened it. And improved the references. The article needed a lot of work. I'm sure others can improve it more. But how is anything I've done made this an attack piece? I've barely added other than a word here or there. Note that Mark Bourrie used to edit as User:Mark Bourrie but was renamed to User:Ceraurus and remained blocked by Arbcom. In today's exchange at Talk:Mark Bourrie they confirmed they did the 2010 edit that was testified to by Mark Bourrie in the 2015/2016 Regina verus Duffy trial of Mike Duffy - confirming the 2015 media speculation that Mark Bourrie is recently banned User:Spoonkymonkey- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spoonkymonkey/Archive. Perhaps it's time to block IP's from editing that Talk page. Nfitz (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- I confirmed no such thing. And it seems outing is just fine at Wikipedia these days. So let's put all the cards on the table. Just who am II talking to?
As for the entry, what was stripped out? My National Magazine Award. Everything positive about my books. My academic publications. The high-end magazines I wrote for. What was added? Scolding commentary from a blog, quoting a professor who knew absolutely nothing about the facts of the Duffy case. I wasn't doing Parliamentary reporting in 2010, I was writing Fog of War and teaching. I had a press gallery membership because I needed it to use the Library of Parliament. I certainly wasn't writing about the Senate. See the link I posted on the talk page. Material has been removed to downplay anything important I've ever done and added to make it look like the sum to total of 35 years of writing and scholarship is unimportant compared to the Duffy experience, which I never sought out. BLP policy is about fairness, not tailoring an entry to demean the subject in the public's eye. This editing is clearky bad-faith work meant to punish. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:99F7:DB71:6772:B707 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- I did not add any commentary from anyone. If that is there, that was in the article months ago. There was very little about the books that was sourced, or was sourced to your own articles ... or the books themselves. You need third-party sources that say great things about your books - but avoid WP:Puffery. Better yet follow WP:Best practices for editors with close associations and don't edit articles about you. The exception in reverting vandalism (I don't see any, personally) and enforcing the WP:BLP policy. If there's something in particular then you should point it out. Personally, I didn't touch the Duffy paragraph - someone expanded it today, apparently based on your concerns. Yeah, there should probably be a paragraph or so about the books ... the 9 paragraphs that were at removed appeared to be more promotional than anything else, and were redundant with the bibliography also listed .. there wasn't really any good references, other than the books themselves, and routine lists of books in print. There certainly need not be text describing every book! But really this is what this is about ... that there's not enough text about your books? Stop with the false claims. I've never even heard of you before I started on this article (though I surely saw and forgot your name reading coverage of the Duffy trial) - how can this be punishment for anything ... the article needed improving. Nfitz (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- The award - perhaps there should still be something there however the relatively recent source only lead to an error message. I'm not sure a 2015 nomination is notabale, and the only source listed was the awards website - there needs to be something else that's published mentioning the nominations. Though if these awards are notable,
shouldn't there be a Wikipedia page (perhaps there is, but it wasn't linked, and I didn't find it)there should be third-party sources? Also the 2008 Ontario Newspaper award is still in the article, but there needs to be a source for that too, as that may also not be notable. I'm not seeing a reference in the article to 2010, let alone Parliamentary reporting that year. Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)- I found a reference for the Ontario newspaper award, and the 1999 NMA, so I've edited that back in with references. Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Speaking of the IP's opening remark, the Mark Bourrie article is now under EC protection, which keeps IPs or anyone with fewer than 500 edits from editing. You can use the talk page to propose any changes. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I found a reference for the Ontario newspaper award, and the 1999 NMA, so I've edited that back in with references. Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I have been, to no avail. I am going to arbitration with this and asking for topic bans. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:246C:426A:63B5:209B (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- [Just passing by, have not studied the merits of the issue.] You'd want to go WP:ANI instead of actual ArbCom arbitration. ANI can issue topic bans. Be sure to have diffs ready showing documented instance of particular instances of bad acting. (Diffs show individual edits, they are obtained by reading the History and doing the compare-revisions thing, then copying the resulting URL.) Herostratus (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Mark Bourrie has apparently been editing his own article for a long time. His allegations are ridiculous. I happened to come across the matter yesterday and am already tired of all of the allegations and threats being thrown around. It seems like he just keeps coming back with new IPs and accounts. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I am now looking into this. El_C 13:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- El_C, et al., why on earth is this IP allowed to edit any page here? This IP (and variants) is evading the indefinite blocks on all of Bourne's serial sockpuppets: Ceraurus (renamed from User:Mark Bourrie), Marie Tessier, Isotelus, Arthur Ellis and likely many more, e.g. GoldLilydog. For background see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella#Socks of Arthur Ellis. He is causing serious disruption, both here and on Talk:Mark Bourrie, including attacking good faith editors with spurious accusations. His edits should be reverted on sight. Indefinite blocks apply to all pages on Wikipedia (apart from the blockee's own user talk page). If he has a problem with this article, he needs to follow the correct procedure in these cases and communicate via email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org. Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I was unaware. See my closing statement. El_C 15:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- El_C, et al., why on earth is this IP allowed to edit any page here? This IP (and variants) is evading the indefinite blocks on all of Bourne's serial sockpuppets: Ceraurus (renamed from User:Mark Bourrie), Marie Tessier, Isotelus, Arthur Ellis and likely many more, e.g. GoldLilydog. For background see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella#Socks of Arthur Ellis. He is causing serious disruption, both here and on Talk:Mark Bourrie, including attacking good faith editors with spurious accusations. His edits should be reverted on sight. Indefinite blocks apply to all pages on Wikipedia (apart from the blockee's own user talk page). If he has a problem with this article, he needs to follow the correct procedure in these cases and communicate via email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org. Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I am now looking into this. El_C 13:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Mark Bourrie has apparently been editing his own article for a long time. His allegations are ridiculous. I happened to come across the matter yesterday and am already tired of all of the allegations and threats being thrown around. It seems like he just keeps coming back with new IPs and accounts. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- [Just passing by, have not studied the merits of the issue.] You'd want to go WP:ANI instead of actual ArbCom arbitration. ANI can issue topic bans. Be sure to have diffs ready showing documented instance of particular instances of bad acting. (Diffs show individual edits, they are obtained by reading the History and doing the compare-revisions thing, then copying the resulting URL.) Herostratus (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
First, Voceditenors statement is conjecture and is inaccurate. Second, when I expressed my concern about the defamation posted on the talk page and creeping into the article, Wikipedia's counsel told me to hash it out on the talk page. I have tried to go this route. I acted in good faith. I tried to have a conversation about the entry, which has been diverted into fantasy talk about sock puppets. I will now go another route. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:246C:426A:63B5:209B (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Kyle Kashuv
Kyle Kashuv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The BLP on Kyle Kashuv suffers from a massive BLP problem. Kashuv, 18, is one of the survivors of the Parkland shooting and became known for disagreeing with his fellow survivors on gun gontrol issues.
The article is completely dominated by a "racial slurs" section which documents, to the most minor detail, allegations that Khashuv made racial remarks in a private chat when he was 16.
I tried to trim that down to the minimum necessary to understand the related political debate, but my change was reverted twice. My arguments on the talk page are ignored.
Also, one involved editor plastered my talk page with numerous ominous warnings about official sanctions. I have no idea if that is now considered standard practice, but I found it threatening.
I'd appreciate if someone uninvolved could have a critical look at it and enforce BLP where necessary. Wefa (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- The warnings about discretionary sanctions have nothing to do with your edits personally, they're meant to notify you that you're editing a contentious article with a potential minefield of issues.--Auric talk 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, a few things:
- Your claim that
My arguments on the talk page are ignored
is false. I responded 12 minutes after you posted to the TP. I was writing up another response when you filed this. And, it has only been an hour since you posted on the TP. - I placed discretionary sanctions warnings on your page because that’s standard practice. You didn’t bother to mention that I also said:”
Sorry about all the turquoise above. That article is under a lot of possible sanctions.
- There are nine WP articles of student activists from this event, out of 900 students in building 2. (Not sure which building he was in.) None of the dead students have articles. I wouldn’t say a murderer put him into the public arena, as it didn’t with the other students without articles. Meeting with Trump, Melanie, Justice Thomas, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senator Orrin Hatch, becoming director of high school outreach of the pro-Trump group Turning Point USA and giving speeches about gun rights are what put him in the spotlight. Otherwise, why would there be this article? So, if this article is to exist, we must document according to the preponderance of reliable sources. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. He was 16 when he made these comments, and he was 16 when he gained national prominence. This story is heavily covered by RS (even on the front page of The New York Times today) and there is really not that much else about him that rates an encyclopedia article. So, it appears to be DUE. I could be convinced otherwise, given a discussion that was a bit more congenial. O3000 (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- As you keep ignoring wp:blp and especially wp:undue even though I brought them up several times it is quite accurate to say you (and the other guy) ignore my arguments. Your post here confirms my impression - you essentially argue "the guy has it coming because he is a conservative". Why else would you bring up the fact he has met Justice Thomas or the First Lady. For the debate about the article those facts are completely irrelevant. Meeting Justice Thomas does not make you a public person. And for what its worth, of course Wikipedia is censored - you are supposed to fill that role as an editor. You are supposed to make well weighed decisions about what and what not to include, with how much text and in which form. The goal is to create a text that is essential truthful at its core as a whole and properly represents and explains the article's subject. All the rules we have only serve to get you to that result.
- as for your threatening, this is the first time i got plastered with a ton of official sounding warnings for the crime of editing an article. And I have edited pages on politics before. Your ominous battery of warnings seemed extremely alarming to me, and I am pretty convinced you intended to scare me away. Wefa (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- beyond that, we should keep debate on the article on that article's talk page. Wefa (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- 1 I did not threaten you. That is a false statement.
- 2 I did not ignore you. I responded in 12 minutes.
- 3 I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by: "the guy has it coming because he is a conservative". I never said anything remotely like this.
- 4. You are the one that brought the discussion here when it belongs on the TP.
- 5. I didn't just mention Thomas -- I gave a long list.
- 6 If this was ANI or AE I would advise a WP:BOOM for WP:BATTLEFIELD. Try to AGF. Attack mode never brings consensus.
- 7 I suggest you avoid controversial articles until you have more experience. O3000 (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Wefa not only did you remove important context from that section, you actually inserted false information. You wrote
"Kavhuv had made a number of racist comments in a private chat group among a hand full of friends"
. No, he actually wrote his racial and antisemitic slurs in a shared Google document. Also, "hand full of friends" is idiomatic. Such wording is best avoided in encyclopedic writing.- MrX 🖋 21:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)- I removed superfluous detail and replaced it with a short summary. None of the details in the article are "important context", and without proper understanding they are defamatory. That shared google doc IS shared among a few friends, thus private not public, and Kashuv actually spoke of a chat in his statement. Wefa (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- oh, and your allegations against me illustrate my concern quite well. Wefa (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- You plainly wrote "chat". That is not correct. It is false information. Also, Google documents can be private, shared amongst select users, or entirely public. While were at it, what source says
"They were published years later by someone opposed to his politics."
? The cited source actually wrote"Kashuv’s racist messages were shared with HuffPost by a former student and a current student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida."
, so again, it appears that you added something not verifiable. Tell me again why we're here?- MrX 🖋 21:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)- we are here because you insist on maintaining an article in a state that essentially defames a young man in violation of both WP:BLP and especially WP:UNDUE.
- as for your claims, read the existing article sources. This one clearly explains the the publication came from a classmate who found his politics "hypocrisy". And the NYT says "A few weeks ago, documents leaked showing that about two years ago, when he was 16, some months before the shootings, Kashuv wrote racist comments in text messages and on a collaborative Google doc.". I made a good faith effort to summarize that as "in a private chat".
- You may disagree on that. You may disagree on sources. But you reverted me without any explanation and brought nothing of that up in talk. Now you bring it up here. Why? And shouldn't we have this debate on the talk page? Wefa (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- You plainly wrote "chat". That is not correct. It is false information. Also, Google documents can be private, shared amongst select users, or entirely public. While were at it, what source says
- Your claim that
No BLP violation per PUBLICFIGURE, and also DUE. Kashuv is an activist who has given speeches about gun rights. He thus falls under BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE: 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.
The incident is well-documented, sources are below. The incident is relevant because he made the remarks, then he criticized Bill Nye for cursing, prompting his classmates to release the remarks to show hypocrisy. The incident is noteworthy due to the world ramifications for him. (1) Shortly after the screenshots were threatened to be posted, he resigned from his organization Turning Point USA. (2) He was forced to make a statement denouncing his own remarks. (3) He lost his place in Harvard University. starship.paint (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The incident is DUE because it fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources
. This incident caused him to have his first article that was actually focused on him as the main topic (as opposed to a passing mention) on the news agency [9] Reuters, the American [10] Bloomberg, the British [11] BBC News, the American [12] ABC News, the Australian [13] ABC News, and the Canadian [14] Toronto Star. starship.paint (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- And another author of the Kashuv article who claims everything is perfect. It is not - basically you joined the "he has it coming because he is conservative" line. The article is grossly disproportionate with the focus on this one issue. This is not getting fixed by constantly claiming the contrary. You insist on defining a person by a few lines he wrote in private in an attempt of humor at the age of 16. Kashuv is a teenager who was catapulted into the spotlight by being victim of a school shooting.
- and you bring up a straw man - I am not arguing for deletion of the issue, just for a proper summarization. So you arguing the matter belongs into the article is pointless; nobody claims otherwise. The point is that the mass of details is improper. Wefa (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest you stop making false accusations against other editors like:
you joined the "he has it coming because he is conservative".
This does not contribute to consensus building, and frankly, does not reflect well on you on a noticeboard with 3,230 page watchers. O3000 (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)- I see your point; please propose a better name for the issue. The list of people Kashuv met keeps coming up as an explanation for unrelated content decisions. My general approach to BLPs is that we should grant every subject the same benevolent respect and courtesy we afford any person we meet on the street. This seems to not apply here, and I find no explanation why. Wefa (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- If you look at the [Alex Jones TP], you will see that I and others are arguing against including of recent child porn stories. (And I am no fan of Jones.) That’s because there are actual problems with BLP and sourcing. Two editors added the claim that Kashuv is a racist last night, which I removed. We go by WP guidelines, not whether or not we like someone. We have explained why the text in this article fits those guidelines. O3000 (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I see your point; please propose a better name for the issue. The list of people Kashuv met keeps coming up as an explanation for unrelated content decisions. My general approach to BLPs is that we should grant every subject the same benevolent respect and courtesy we afford any person we meet on the street. This seems to not apply here, and I find no explanation why. Wefa (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Wefa:
basically you joined the "he has it coming because he is conservative" line.
- have I, or is this only in your mind? I'll think I would have done the same if it was liberal David Hogg (activist) who had said these comments, assuming the same coverage. starship.paint (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)You insist on defining a person by a few lines he wrote in private in an attempt of humor at the age of 16.
- have I, or is this only in your mind? If you think merely quoting Kashuv's words from the age of 16 defines Kashuv forever (as opposed to all his other actions), perhaps it's actually you that is the judgmental one? Al Franken and Donald Trump both have sexual misconduct allegations against them. Does that define them? I think not, they've done many other things in their lives. starship.paint (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC) I will afford Kashuv thesame benevolent respect and courtesy we afford any person we would meet on the street
who at the age of 16 posted "NIGGER" multiple times if that person is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. starship.paint (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Oh, and please don't treat Kashuv like the only thing he's done is survive a school shooting while being conservative (I'm sure many other Douglas students are similar, and they don't have articles here). He is politically active [15] here's a video of him giving a speech to the NRA. This is what separates him from the non-notable students - his activism making him a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. starship.paint (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)- No, student activism does not make you a public figure. Certainly not, or only with extensive qualifications, if you are a minor. Decades ago I was chair of what can be described as my university's equivalent of the College Republicans; in due course I also became vice chair of the respective state association. Does that make me a public figure? I very much doubt so. Just a vanilla citizen doing his part in the machinery of democracy.
- The same applies here; with the additional fact that we must make allowances for the fact that he was a minor, that we need to respect the fact that this was private conversation (no, he did not "post" this), and for the fact that we are basically incapable to recognize the humoristic component in this, as text only medium does not adequately transport what in a collaborative session with folks simultaneously working on a shared doc and talking to each other). None of this is accurately reflected in the article. Someone else may have overtly called him a Nazi, but you are doing exactly that in a veiled and insidious form by expanding and waffling on a few stupid lines of shit-talking that could easily be summarized in 10 words or so.
- I offered you a summary that reflects what happened (we can gladly debate the chat vs private google doc thing) but you reverted me twice without giving any reasonable argument here. Instead all of you keep adding to this thing, making it the by far largest paragraph and mealy 30% of the article. You even have phrases only based on hearsay - when even your source Buzzfeed only claims that a text message "reportedly" says X, you put that in the Wikipedia article.
- The clear purpose of this article is to cause harm. It shouldn't, we shouldn't, Wefa (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Wefa: - the text messages are based on screenshots, not hearsay. The content is only harmful if you cannot find it in your heart to forgive him for his past. He is a public figure, there's no denying it, when you are arguing with the sources themselves. Fox News:
a role model for young conservatives across the country ... a staunch defender of the Second Amendment
. Miami Herald:gained a national following as a counterweight to the March For Our Lives
. Associated Press:the most prominent conservative voice among the students
. Also the content is less than 25% of the body. starship.paint (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Wefa: - the text messages are based on screenshots, not hearsay. The content is only harmful if you cannot find it in your heart to forgive him for his past. He is a public figure, there's no denying it, when you are arguing with the sources themselves. Fox News:
- I suggest you stop making false accusations against other editors like:
- By my count here and on the article TP, it is six to one that there is no BLP vio. To save editor time, I suggest this be closed and referred back to the article TP instead of continuing two discussions, where it belonged in the first place. O3000 (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, it is three to one at this point (you, Mr X and Starship.paint - Auric did not comment on the article). And all three of you are active editors of the Kashuv article who are certainly not uninvolved. I came here to ask for an uninvolved third party's input. Wefa (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- It is obviously undue to expand to such an extent as it is on the page. We don't do that for anyone else. However, he is a conservative, so there's that. And that is the bottom line. For anyone else, we would just say that "he has made racial slurs, etc." we would never spell them out or go for three paragraphs. I don't think it would be a BLPVIO, but it is UNDUE. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- WP:UNDUE is based on prominence in reliable sources. He is most prominent in reliable sources on this issue, as I have demonstrated above. It’s not relevant to bring up other people, because other people’s incidents may have lower prominence in reliable sources. starship.paint (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Uninvolved opinion. Looking at the discussion I must agree mainly with the thoughtful points made by O3000 and MrX, and to an extent starship. There doesn’t seem to be any BLP violation, and I don’t see the racist content as being undue as it’s undoubtedly had a massive impact on his life. His own comments about the controversial comments seem to be already covered. The main thing I suggest is to get all of it out of the “Personal life” section, it seems very odd there. This and related issues can be handled on the talk page. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Which section then Gleeanon409? starship.paint (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint: I would make the main section be “Biography”, make “Shooting aftermath and activism” a subsection, move the entire racist comments section there as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- A bit of a problem Gleeanon409 - the whole article is actually his biography. So there wouldn’t be any other sections. Seems redundant to state a section on biography. starship.paint (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint: I’ve seen it done many times, the main section would usually be “Career”, but in cases “Biography” can successfully be the main container for all the rest. Technically “Shooting aftermath and activism” could cover anything that happened after the shooting, but that’s for others to decide. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- A bit of a problem Gleeanon409 - the whole article is actually his biography. So there wouldn’t be any other sections. Seems redundant to state a section on biography. starship.paint (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint: I would make the main section be “Biography”, make “Shooting aftermath and activism” a subsection, move the entire racist comments section there as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Which section then Gleeanon409? starship.paint (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Kyle Kashuv#A WP:DUE challenge - I invite editors to find other articles where Kashuv is a main subject of the article. starship.paint (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
People's Mujahedin of Iran (2)
I've been only able to find one source that claims a person (Ms Soltani) is being recruited by Iran as an agent:
According to Col. Leo McCloskey (former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf), Ms Soltani had been recruited by Iran as an agent of the Iranian government.
[1]
Is it a BLPvio to include this in the article if there is only one source making this claim? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
References
- This issue was discussed on RSN here. El_C 14:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I also don't see an issue if proper attribution is given. Multiple sources are not required. As far as the due weight concern, if other views are documented by reliable sources they can also be added, as well as clarifications of the relation if needed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
jesee sanchez
I'm fairly new to wikipedia so sorry if I am bringing this observation to the right place. I've been cited for writing edits because they came off as too biased or not factually relevant. The way this article is wrtten (especially the section about "american idol and on - glee" seemed not to adhere to those guidelines?
apologies again if I've wasted anyone's time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koriq (talk • contribs) 07:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Do you mean Jessica Sanchez? I can’t see that you’ve ever edited that article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
RfC of possible interest
A request for comment regarding a rape allegation against Bill Shorten, an Australian politician, may be of interest to editors on this noticeboard as the dispute relates to BLP policies. – Teratix ₵ 02:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)