Cyphoidbomb (talk | contribs) →Anurag Kashyap: Adjust |
Jtbobwaysf (talk | contribs) →Imelda Marcos: cmt |
||
Line 727: | Line 727: | ||
::: I would like to add that [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] has been slowly and creepingly deleting citations from the article for no valid reason, labeling them as "dribble" "nonsense", "junk", etc, possibly to the point of slow whitewashing of the subject by removing citation evidence of the article subject's actions from Wikipedia. Instead of fixing citation formats (harvard citations), he has chosen to just delete them wholesale, breaking and orphaning various citations across on multiple instances, and despite concerns being voiced on the talk page about his behavior on breaking citations, he has continued to do so until his last few edits. He has been disruptively editing the article for the past few months and has also been engaging in edit warring with several editors. -[[User:Object404|Object404]] ([[User talk:Object404|talk]]) 11:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC) |
::: I would like to add that [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] has been slowly and creepingly deleting citations from the article for no valid reason, labeling them as "dribble" "nonsense", "junk", etc, possibly to the point of slow whitewashing of the subject by removing citation evidence of the article subject's actions from Wikipedia. Instead of fixing citation formats (harvard citations), he has chosen to just delete them wholesale, breaking and orphaning various citations across on multiple instances, and despite concerns being voiced on the talk page about his behavior on breaking citations, he has continued to do so until his last few edits. He has been disruptively editing the article for the past few months and has also been engaging in edit warring with several editors. -[[User:Object404|Object404]] ([[User talk:Object404|talk]]) 11:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::: I am also not certain yet as [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] has been avoiding answering my question on whether he actually read 3 extremely rare books used as citations on the article before deleting their citations by labeling them as "failed verifcation". If he had not read the books and deleted the citations, this is extremely dishonest and disruptive behavior on his part worse than vandalism, and I believe said user should be sanctioned. -[[User:Object404|Object404]] ([[User talk:Object404|talk]]) 11:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC) |
:::: I am also not certain yet as [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] has been avoiding answering my question on whether he actually read 3 extremely rare books used as citations on the article before deleting their citations by labeling them as "failed verifcation". If he had not read the books and deleted the citations, this is extremely dishonest and disruptive behavior on his part worse than vandalism, and I believe said user should be sanctioned. -[[User:Object404|Object404]] ([[User talk:Object404|talk]]) 11:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::Good the discussion has been moved here, rather than on the talk page where it gets less attention. I dont have any particular interest or affinity to this article subject, other than that I have noticed it is subject to POV pushing. You have admitted the books are "extremely rare" and thus they would not be RS for this promo content, given we have good sources saying the article subject has a net worth of ~$20M. Why are you pushing inclusion of this promotional content? [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 16:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Andrés Manuel López Obrador == |
== Andrés Manuel López Obrador == |
Revision as of 16:12, 20 September 2020
Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. | ||
---|---|---|
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.
Additional notes:
| ||
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.
Stefan Molyneux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article about Stefan Molyneux is an evident libel. Locking the article after accusing a living person of such a terrible thing as being a racist and supernacist without any proof other than links to op-ed articles (proving opinion/commentary and not reporting on news) is just horrible.
THe bias of this article makes me question the veracity and authenticity of other "facts" on wikipedia.
When did you go down this political spirall? Such a waste. I can't believe that I financially supported you in the past. What a waste of my money and time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.105.44 (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- @89.143.105.44: Just having a quick look at the article in question and the sources for the claims of white supremacy and nationalism, it looks like they're supported by reliable sources. Only one of the eleven sources is an opinion piece, and even then, it's attributed in-text (
Molyneux is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement by Politico and The Washington Post...
) per our in-text attribution guidelines. They're extraordinary claims, but they're absolutely appropriate, referenced, and justified. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC) - Of course there's no way OP could be the one politically spiraling, surely it's everyone else. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Should we be oversimplifying him? If he said "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority" why wouldn't that warrant inclusion in the article? The conclusion here seems to be in opposition to even allowing Molyneux to speak in his own voice in his own article articulating that "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority". Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Stefan Molyneux is notable for being a far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, former YouTuber and podcaster who promotes conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and white supremacist views. That's not "oversimplifying him", that's saying why he is notable. Maybe he once built a 1/720 scale model of Oz out of balsa wood and makes delightful pettifors. That's not what he's notable for. Heck, maybe Meryl Streep was once a remarkably bad wine steward. She's still an American actress, particularly known for her versatility and accents. That's not an oversimplification of Streep. It's a standard part of the lede in a biography, answering the question: "Why is this person notable?" Molyneux is notable for far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and white supremacist views. We've been through this with you repeatedly. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- SummerPhDv2.0—the source says
Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority."
I have never suggested placement of this in"the lede"
. The question is: should this be included in the body of the article? Bus stop (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- SummerPhDv2.0—the source says
- Establishing why a person is notable in their lede is important, but BLP further requires a neutral and dispassionate tone and impartiality first and foremost, and this may mean that what someone is notable for may not be in that first sentence or the first phrase of the first sentence of the lede if that doesn't provide a neutral and impartial start to the article, which is a problem for Molyneux, as identified last time he was brought up. In addition to all those being subjective labels and those requiring some type of distancing from factual terms in wikivoice (save for perhaps "white nationalist" which was identified as a term he self-identified as). Our article remains in violation of core BLP and NPOV policy at this point because it fails to start with an impartial tone. Once once that first step of introducing the person impartially and factually (eg NO LABELS), the rest is fair game as long as standard BLP practices are followed. It should lead "Steven Molyneux is a Canadian writer, YouTuber, and podcaster who is widely considered to hold far-right, white nationalist and supremacist views and known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, and eugenics." Nothing is lost in terms of his notability, but it is worded in a far more neutral and impartial manner. (obviously leave the sourcing where it is).
- It needs to be stressed, again, while we as a general group of editors may loathe the far right and the people there, and agree with the media that they are far from bastions of any reasonable good, we are still writing them neutrally in an encyclopedia and cannot let that "right great wrongs" philosophy take over here. We clearly need to capture the widely-shared views across multiple media sources when they label people like this far-right/etc., per UNDUE/WEIGHT, but we need to avoid cherry-picking which should be reviewed (one or two sourced do not justify the use of a label even if we feel it must be applied, for example). We need to look at the larger picture and not find every fault that can be included. For example, what is the point of Molyneux interviewing Damore? And I just saw a Twitter source used here, which is inpermissible per BLPSPS. I mean, I'm sure most of the rest of the article can be cleaned up and reads what I would say is indicative of Molyneux, no question; the OP claim that this is libel is absolutely nonsensical as it reflects pretty well what is out there in the media's representation of him which we are going to follow -- BUT we have to be better and more neutral and impartial than the media in how we work with that media and that requires just a bit more care. It doesn't mean to whitewash the article of the "negative" stuff, but again, make sure that if labels are being used they are widely used and use appropriate inline attribution or wording to take out of wikivoice, summarize rather than document every point and look for themes, and try to put personal distrust and loathing of such people aside when working on these articles. A good quality article for Molyneux will still come out making him appear like a person that society frowns upon, but our write up will at least start as impartial as possible to that point and let the reader make that decision, if done right.
- And to Bus Stop's point, the fact we're ignoring any statements from Molyneux published in reliable sources is also not-neutral. 'HOWEVER This is not meant to say that you remove the media stance, as that's far too UNDUE to not include. You need to put his words in their somewhere to make it neutral. That is, just because Molyneux says he is not X does not mean we don't mention that most of the media says he is X, that would be against UNDUE. Instead we'd say something akin to "Molyneux is widely considered to be X by most journalists due to this-and-that. Molyneux said he is not X because of this-other-thing." (likely in the body, doubt that would be lede material). --Masem (t) 06:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, I didn't suggest
"remov[ing] the media stance"
. His opinion on"racial superiority/inferiority"
is worthy of inclusion. The reader should be apprised of Molyneux's stated opinion on"racial superiority/inferiority"
. We don't have to come up with a reason why this is worthy of inclusion. It is intrinsically interesting and relevant to the article as a whole because"racial superiority/inferiority"
is a subject addressed by those commentators who have opinions on Molyneux. Bus stop (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)- Molyneux denying what he is notable for doesn't really matter. Mark Dice similarly complains that he's not a conspiracy theorist and all cranks insist that they're the real scientists. If they want to turn those labels into "former," then they need to specifically refute their ideas that have lead reliable sources to conclude Molyneux is a white nationalist and Dice is a conspiracy theorist. And as has been discussed before, Molyneux looked at white nationalism in Poland and said that it works and he's no longer skeptical of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Its not about changing those labels but following NPOV, inserting what the person has said about themselves, with due WEIGHT, to counter what the media has said about them, keeping in mind that labels are subjective terms. If we know there are reliable sources that outline a person's own stance and we're failing to include even a sentence as a minimum, that's a problem. Now Molyneux, it sounds like he's waived a bit, I wouldn't know exactly where one would begin since I have seen in the last discussion a self-claim of support of white nationalism, but then you have this Guardian article as well. We shouldn't be ignoring these, but figuring out how to incorporate these in the body as necessary NPOV counterpoints. --Masem (t) 13:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Molyneux denying what he is notable for doesn't really matter. Mark Dice similarly complains that he's not a conspiracy theorist and all cranks insist that they're the real scientists. If they want to turn those labels into "former," then they need to specifically refute their ideas that have lead reliable sources to conclude Molyneux is a white nationalist and Dice is a conspiracy theorist. And as has been discussed before, Molyneux looked at white nationalism in Poland and said that it works and he's no longer skeptical of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, I didn't suggest
- Ian.thomson—why wouldn't we include that Molyneux says he is not a racist? Because it is not on topic? You are arguing that racism is
"what he is notable for"
. So, material related to his very reason for notability should be omitted—do I understand you correctly? Wouldn't that fall under the heading of selective omission? Bus stop (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC) - I don't have an opinion on the Molyneux article but I want to support what Masem is saying here. A Wikipedia article shouldn't read like the intent was to persuade a reader who had never heard of the subject that the subject is good/bad/nice/mean. Also, I think Masem's lead sentence structure of "objective facts" followed by "subjective labels, assessments etc" is something that should be damn near required for subjects like this. Also, once again support for including the subject's self published replies/responses to negative (or positive) claims about them/things they have said/done. When there are two sides to a story we need to make sure it's clear there were two sides. That sometimes means we need to give a bit of space for a explanation along with the refutation. So if X is accused on publishing a racist idea we can say X refutes the accusation because Y and Z.. Springee (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ian.thomson—why wouldn't we include that Molyneux says he is not a racist? Because it is not on topic? You are arguing that racism is
- Springee—you say
"So if X is accused on publishing a racist idea we can say X refutes the accusation because Y and Z"
. What if there is no"Y and Z"
available? Molyneux has simply said "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority". And Ian.thomson is arguing" If they want to turn those labels into 'former,' then they need to specifically refute their ideas that have lead reliable sources to conclude Molyneux is a white nationalist"
. I would argue that specific refutation is not required. That is a concocted criterion. The main criteria for inclusion are relevancy and sourcing. The statement "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority" is clearly relevant. Everyone agrees the subject is noted for being a racist. And the material is reliably sourced, to The Guardian. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)- I'm not familiar enough with the details of the Molyneux story to say what should be done in this case. However, in a general case I was trying to emphasize that when "Y and Z" are available we include them. A while back I was involved with this [[1]] where ExxonMobil published a report that refuted an LA Times article. The question was should we just say EM refuted the accusations or should we include some of EM's specific counter claims/evidence? It doesn't always mean much when we read a simple denial. It's a bit like the kid with paint on his hands standing next to the fresh graffiti saying "didn't do it". Anyway, if we don't have "Y and Z" then I guess you should still include the denial as it was clearly a response to the accusation. Springee (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Springee—you say
- Yes, because we are not only concerned with whether he is a racist or not. Preternatural focus on that question represents a simplification of the article. We are addressing all aspects of the subject of the article. We are not preternaturally focussed on whether he is a racist or not. Bus stop (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly say he is a white supremacist. That you have extracted one sentence from his sourced statements is trivial. Pick any American President from the past 20 years and you can dig out one sentence that makes it sound like the predicted the current pandemic or believe it is caused by reptilian aliens. Your insistence that you have found the key sentence about the subject -- and every independent reliable source has chosen to ignore it -- does not push it past WP:WEIGHT.
- Proportionate to the coverage it has received in independent reliable sources, your single sentence in one source -- despite it supporting your POV -- is trivial. If you would like to start pulling out individual quotes from him to add to the article, let's add "I don’t view humanity as a single species", "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the f--- up", "blacks are collectively less intelligent", "You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people", and a whole bunch more. Why wouldn't they warrant inclusion in the article (other than not fitting your theory that the notably white supremacist Molyneux isn't a white supremacist)? - SummerPhDv2.0 19:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of how many independent reliable sources say X is a label, the use of a label is still a subjective assessment that cannot be treated as fact (only that lots of sources use it) and has to be treated subjectively. And that given that is a direct statement against the person, not including any sourced statement that person has made in their defense when that label has been applied to them is inappropriate per NPOV. This doesn't mean we have to dwell in any depth into any details of his philosophy at all , unless that itself was the subject of sourced discussion; without sources, that would be UNDUE. Nor do we need to given equal coverage of their defense, but there needs to be at least something when Molyneux has specifically spoken in defense to what critics have said about him. That part is the key driver, as to avoid picking out when we would otherwise pull random statements Molyneux has otherwise said of himself. --Masem (t) 19:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- I love this logic. Adolf Hitler said once that he loved Jews, so we need to dedicate equal weight to that, and have to be very careful about calling him an anti-semite. Jorm (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing evidence that Godwin's law hasn't been repealed. But I'm not sure how BLP applies to someone who died ~75 years ago. Also, it ignores the meat of Masem's argument sandwich. But score one for following the law. Springee (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I love this logic. Adolf Hitler said once that he loved Jews, so we need to dedicate equal weight to that, and have to be very careful about calling him an anti-semite. Jorm (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of how many independent reliable sources say X is a label, the use of a label is still a subjective assessment that cannot be treated as fact (only that lots of sources use it) and has to be treated subjectively. And that given that is a direct statement against the person, not including any sourced statement that person has made in their defense when that label has been applied to them is inappropriate per NPOV. This doesn't mean we have to dwell in any depth into any details of his philosophy at all , unless that itself was the subject of sourced discussion; without sources, that would be UNDUE. Nor do we need to given equal coverage of their defense, but there needs to be at least something when Molyneux has specifically spoken in defense to what critics have said about him. That part is the key driver, as to avoid picking out when we would otherwise pull random statements Molyneux has otherwise said of himself. --Masem (t) 19:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, because we are not only concerned with whether he is a racist or not. Preternatural focus on that question represents a simplification of the article. We are addressing all aspects of the subject of the article. We are not preternaturally focussed on whether he is a racist or not. Bus stop (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Quoting Molyneux in one sentence is not providing
"equal weight"
, Jorm. Additionally, there is only one "self". Molyneux's opinion of "himself" is unlike any other person or organization's opinion of Molyneux. Molyneux's opinion of himself is quintessentially unique. It can't be compared to anyone else's opinion on the nature of Molyneux. It is hard to find a reason to omit Molyneux's opinion on what virtually all in a discussion such as this or in a discussion on the article Talk page agree is Molyneux's reason for notability—namely that he is a racist. So let's recapitulate—the argument for omitting this material is that it is entirely on-topic and unique. That doesn't sound like a very strong argument for omitting this material, but it sounds like an excellent argument for including the quote from Molyneux saying "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." Bus stop (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC) - If Hitler actually once said that he loved Jews, that absolutely seems like something which belongs in his article. It already mentions an associate from his Vienna years who claims he was not an anti-Semite at this time. As for the "anti-Semite" label, did Hitler ever deny that he was an anti-Semite? If so I would include that too. It would be very interesting and relevant information for understanding how the Holocaust happened.--Clevera (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Quoting Molyneux in one sentence is not providing
- Clevera—I would just add to what you said the following. You say
"It would be very interesting and relevant information for understanding how the Holocaust happened"
. I would add that it would also be interesting and relevant information for understanding the subject of the biography. What is being lost in the shuffle is that the Molyneux article is a biography. We want to understand Stefan Molyneux. The aim of a biography is the development of an understanding of the human being that is the subject of the biography. Here is Molyneux interviewing Tommy Sotomayor. Would any reasonable person derive from this interview that Molyneux is an unalloyed racist? This interview took place after the deaths of Rayshard Brooks and George Floyd. This interview was on YouTube before YouTube banned Molyneux. (Now this interview is on BitChute.) In my opinion this is an entirely constructive interview. I don't think anyone would derive from this interview that Molyneux is racist. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)- No, we do not aim to "understand" Molyneux. Wikipedia aims to summarize what independent reliable sources say about him. They unanimously say he is a white supremacist. They do not discuss the ONE SENTENCE you want to include. It is one sentence from a primary source. Your desire to cast doubt on Molyneux being a white supremacist -- the unambiguous, unanimous assessment of all of the independent reliable sources -- does not create WP:WEIGHT for its inclusion. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- The media - the court of public opinion - is not an objective determination of someone's ideological, religious, political, or other belief system. Period. The only person that can make that assessment is the person themselves. The only thing the media can do is assess what the person says and does and make the assertion - often as fact in their words - that the person is such-and-such an value-laden label. Or a superlative in their field, or similar positive or negative assessments. We can accept that a majority if near unaminity of sources do this, but we are still neutral and impartial and have to write these statements with the usual caution and attribution, and recognizing that absolutely ignoring any statement a living person has made directly in their defense is not neutral presentation of this. This is in no way equal weight (that would be asking for the same volume of coverage), but simply stating as appropriate for UNDUE with respect to BLP and NPOV. We absolutely are not free to ignore a BLP's statements in counterpoint to criticisms against them just because the volume of the media far outweigh him, because that immediately takes the side of the court of public opinion. Remember, we don't know if that side is right or not, which is part of the problem here: media and labels doesn't mean they are correct. They may be morally considered correct, but keep in mind, we know that this is a liberal bias and not necessary representative of the world's overall POV. (I mean, I will agree with their assess on people like Molyneux, BUT first and foremost, we are not here to repeat that bias) It's the "loudest" and thus the one we have to cover with the most depth but we have to make sure it is clear who is speaking that because it is not at all an point of objectivity.
- Again, consider any other person that is well beloved, well disliked, or the like where there is a clear matter of subjectivity in that assessment - excluding the new "far right" ppl (and the Godwin test has already been brought up so that's fair game), select these at random, and you're hardly find a case where they are written in a manner that puts the subjective assessment in a factual voice, but instead will always put it in some type of attribution. It is really really hard to find cases of vetted articles that are as poorly written in terms of wikivoice treatment towards subjectively labels as BLPs like Molyneux and other new far-right figures. Again, I have zero love for these people but we also have a responsibility to be objective first and foremost to them like we have for ever more hatred figures in our past. --Masem (t) 22:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, we do not aim to "understand" Molyneux. Wikipedia aims to summarize what independent reliable sources say about him. They unanimously say he is a white supremacist. They do not discuss the ONE SENTENCE you want to include. It is one sentence from a primary source. Your desire to cast doubt on Molyneux being a white supremacist -- the unambiguous, unanimous assessment of all of the independent reliable sources -- does not create WP:WEIGHT for its inclusion. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Clevera—I would just add to what you said the following. You say
- Jorm—did Adolf Hitler ever say that he
"loved Jews"
? You say"I love this logic. Adolf Hitler said once that he loved Jews, so we need to dedicate equal weight to that, and have to be very careful about calling him an anti-semite."
The question being addressed here is not whether we can call someone something. We are not discussing for instance whether we can call Molyneux racist. That is already in the article in abundance and it is not being considered for removal. What we are discussing is whether or not we can include the quote from Molyneux saying "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." If you are going to weigh in please try to address the specific question. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)- Yes, we are still discussing whether or not to ignore WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLPPRIMARY to include the one sentence that none of the sources discuss in any way. As I said, there are a dozen other quotes mentioned but not discussed in sources that I think are of similar importance in understanding the white supremacist we are discussing. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Jorm—did Adolf Hitler ever say that he
- SummerPhDv2.0—I am suggesting including this Molyneux quote: "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." You refer to
"a dozen other quotes"
. You have not suggested any other quotes. The article Talk page is littered with you insisting that Molyneux's notability rests primarily on his being a racist. The quote that I am suggesting for inclusion is relevant, as it addresses Molyneux's view on"racial superiority/inferiority"
. You mistakenly reference[my] desire to cast doubt on Molyneux being a white supremacist
when my main interest is in writing a well-rounded biography. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- SummerPhDv2.0—I am suggesting including this Molyneux quote: "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." You refer to
- What in WP:WEIGHT makes you think this quote should not be included? This page Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves says that Molyneux's statement is acceptable as a source. Your weight article says "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Surely Molyneux counts as a prominent adherent of this view? Should Wikipedia really be the sort of place where reliable sources which say bad things about someone are cited, but the person isn't allowed a word in their own defense because that would give "undue weight"? This practice would appear to violate NPOV in a BLP.--Clevera (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- I want to add that Bus stop's quote is not just any quote of Molyneux's. If you go to Molyneux's website [2], the very most prominent link on the homepage is labeled: “What I Believe” Find out the truth! And under the "Race" section he clearly states: I do not believe that any race is “superior” or “inferior.” So this is not some statement that he made offhand. This is his very official, very public position statement. Earlier you mentioned a few other individual quotes from Molyneux which form the basis of the statements made about him in reliable sources. Molyneux has a page on his website explaining how he feels he was misrepresented in some of these quotes: [3] I started watching one of the videos, and it does seem as though he was unfairly (and egregiously!) misrepresented in at least one instance. Notably, this "I don't view humanity as a single species" quote was not Molyneux's official/public position statement on race, but rather an offhand remark he made in one of his many podcasts which appears to have been taken out of context (was originally made in the context of discussing crimes for which Molyneux feels there is no restitution, a discussion that didn't touch on race at all!)--Clevera (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Something to be cautious about that comes with this: We do want to avoid including BLPSPS statements that are self-serving. We know the press has called out Molyneux's views on race, but no one had ever reported on his counter statement (such as the Guardian piece). Now including what Molyneux has written on his website which doesn't necessary appear to be in challenge to any specific piece of criticism about his view on race would be appropriate as that can be seen as self-serving. If it were the case that he wrote "Many have written that I am a white supremacist, but really I think ... " then that's a bit more valid to include because now at least that's in response to the criticism he's getting and cannot be argued as self-serving. But we prefer what we see by the Guardian here when we have an independent third-party that's actually gone to source a quote directly from the person (not pulled from existing writings) as in response, and thus that can't be seen as a self-serving facet. We absolutely need to concern this "Self-serving" facet when considering NPOV and creating a false balance and that is a line that could be overstepped here for Molyneux, absolutely, but I don't see the addition of one sentence sourced to the Guardian being anything close to that. --Masem (t) 18:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Molyneux is an intelligent person who refuses to abide by the conventions of identity politics. That is not necessarily racist. Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- You have made your opinion of Molyneux very clear. The article, however, is meant to summarize what independent reliable sources say about him. They all say -- all of them -- that he is a white supremacist. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I am familiar with your opinion of Molyneux: that all of the independent reliable sources which regularly and repeatedly say Molyneux is a white supremacist who promotes white nationalism with racist pseudoscience, well, they're all wrong in your opinion. Molyneux, however is verifiably a white supremacist who promotes white nationalism with racist pseudoscience. That you found one sentence from a primary source (the subject of the article) that is not discussed by any sources puts that one sentence in the same boat as hundreds of other sentences. Why should we not include the one where he says he believes the different races are not the same species? How about where he confidnently tells us that Blacks are naturually more criminal and less intelligent? Other than your wanting to present the white supremacist Molyneux in a better light, why should we not include those?
- I am sorry, but independent reliable sources do not say what you want them to say. All of them regularly and repeatedly define Molyneux as being not only a white supremacist, but being notable because he is a white supremacist, spreads racist pseudoscience and promotes white nationalism. None of the sources discuss this as even a reasonable question. There is absolutely no discussion in sources that show any doubt. None of the sources discuss your one sentence. As far as sourced information go, the possibility that Molyneux is not a white supremacist is limited to ONE person: Molyneux (and that's only by interpreting that one isolated sentence in the most favorable way possible. Per WP:WEIGHT "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all... For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." There are a hell of a lot of flat Earthers in independent reliable sources. Molyneux is a minority of ONE. His self-serving view of himself is the very definition of "the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority". - SummerPhDv2.0 03:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, SummerPhDv2.0, of course I didn't say
"all of the independent reliable sources which regularly and repeatedly say Molyneux is a white supremacist who promotes white nationalism with racist pseudoscience, well, they're all wrong"
. You said that; I did not say that. Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, SummerPhDv2.0, of course I didn't say
Can an admin please close this thread? The original BLP question has now repeatedly devolved into Bus stop openly promoting (banned) white supremacist videos and race realist talking points in an effort to argue that Stefan Molyneux is not a racist. At best this discussion now belongs on the article talk page. JoelleJay (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- JoelleJay—you are merely conceding that there is not any reason that the Molyneux article should not include the reliably sourced quote from the subject of the article saying "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." I can only conclude that if you had a reason that this should be omitted from the article you would have presented that reason by now. Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Break (Stefan Molyneux)
But Molyneux is a figure who dares to mention Blacks and Jews in a tone of voice that doesn't march in lockstep with prevailing norms.
Are you fucking serious? JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)- "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." From WP:CIVIL.--Clevera (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Given the context of the article and this thread, where Molyneux's notability as a racist white supremacist is utterly unquestioned even by you, do you really not see what the problems are with
But Molyneux is a figure who dares to mention Blacks and Jews in a tone of voice that doesn't march in lockstep with prevailing norms.
andMolyneux is an intelligent person who refuses to abide by the conventions of identity politics. That is not necessarily racist.
? Those statements are wholly irrelevant to whatever argument you have with v2.0|SummerPhD, David Gerard, and Ian.thomson about whether to include an off-hand denial Molyneux made once; you are just explicitly defending his racist views here. JoelleJay (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Molyneux is a figure who dares to mention Blacks and Jews in a tone of voice that doesn't march in lockstep with prevailing norms
-- And there's an explanation for that that you've been rejecting.Molyneux is an intelligent person who refuses to abide by the conventions of identity politics
-- Describing him as rejecting identity politics when he says that white nationalism works in Poland would rather suggest that he rejects the legitimacy of the non-white identity politics. Again, there's an explanation for that. These arguments are pretty parallel to "look, he likes the freedom of swinging axes around (can't the gun control nuts respect anyone's right to defend themselves?) and stupid people just have a habit of getting in his way, but he's not an axe-murderer." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Given the context of the article and this thread, where Molyneux's notability as a racist white supremacist is utterly unquestioned even by you, do you really not see what the problems are with
- Ian.thomson, JoelleJay—the purpose of a biography on Wikipedia is not to compartmentalize, dismiss, and demonize. As Clevera aptly says
"I started watching one of the videos, and it does seem as though he was unfairly (and egregiously!) misrepresented in at least one instance."
That has been my experience as well. I find it interesting that many black people (Tommy Sotomayor) agree with Molyneux on many points. It is not necessarily racist for instance to opine that black people in the United States may not be disproportionately targeted by police. Unlike charges of racism, statistics on actions, such as shootings, taken by police against various ethnicities, can actually be objectively analyzed. It is also not at all inconceivable that Molyneux has evolved over time. We all do. The question is why would we not include the quote that "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority"? Bus stop (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ian.thomson, JoelleJay—the purpose of a biography on Wikipedia is not to compartmentalize, dismiss, and demonize. As Clevera aptly says
- I think you're eliding the key issue here. We know that citogenesis is a thing. Having watched that video on Molyneux's website, it appears to me that he's been egregiously misrepresented in at least one instance ("I don't view humanity as a single species") in both this discussion and his Wikipedia page. (Will you please watch the first video on this page and tell me if it seems like a misrepresentation to you?) It seems plausible to me that this is a case of circular reporting/citogenesis: His Wikipedia article has this quote of his which was clearly taken out of context, journalists read his Wikipedia article and go "Oh, a white nationalist", and now we've got sources 2-5 in the article referring to him as a white nationalist/white supremacist on the basis of almost no supporting evidence in terms of specific things he has said (if you look at sources 2 through 5, they don't offer any quotes of Molyneux's that are especially damning).
- He's "notable" on the basis of being a white nationalist/white supremacist in the sense that there are widely read articles which describe him that way. That doesn't mean it is a fair characterization. I'm not familiar with Molyneux's work and frankly I'm not all that interested in becoming familiar with it. Given my limited knowledge of its specifics, I have a high level of uncertainty about his ideology, ranging all the way from "he wants to exterminate people who don't look like him" to "he's a politically incorrect egalitarian who has been repeatedly taken out of context". If the latter, I certainly wouldn't want his Wikipedia page to treat him as the former, because that gives the real bad guys a bigger forest to hide in / a larger supply of useful idiots who have officially been identified with them in the public eye.
- But this is all besides the point in a sense. The question we're examining is whether it's appropriate to note the fact that he denies these allegations on his Wikipedia page. I'm unsure whether the citogenesis question affects my answer to this--even if there was no doubt in my mind that he was a thoroughly despicable individual, it still seems appropriate to note that "Molyneux officially denies despicableness" on his Wikipedia page. After all, this seems to be the entire reason he is notable, it seems like an obvious omission to neglect his official denial.--Clevera (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Masem here, 100%. As usual, I find their reasoning very logical and astute, and in this case I agree. Now I don't know the first thing about the subject, although I find that the way the terms "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" are used, it often comes off more as racial slurs than any well-defined term that one can objectively label a person as (I'm not even sure they have real meanings), but that's beside the point. A person's own statements in defense of themselves is extremely important in any event. Of course it's not necessary to go into some big diatribe in their defense, but a brief quote or short summary is very relevant and made due by the addition of the allegations, crimes, labels, or whatever. It is necessary to maintain balance and neutrality, and just by including the info on ... whatever, it opens the door.
As an example, recently someone at Mary Kay Latourneau insisted on adding her defense that she didn't know sex with a child was illegal. Now that's an idiotic statement if I ever heard one, and some would argue that it doesn't deserve any mention in the article. But it does tell us something about the subject (either she's lying or stupid beyond belief), and it very much should be mentioned in the article. What does Molyneau's statement tell us? Well, that's up to the reader to decide, but everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves, and that is very much relevant to an article about them, and necessary to maintain balance and neutrality. Zaereth (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- That any editor feels the universal assessment of independent reliable sources is "against" the subject is immaterial. NPOV demands that we objectively report what independent reliable sources say, not that we present positives/neutrals to offset negatives when absolutely no independent reliable sources provide those supposed positives. All of the independent reliable sources say Molyneux is notable as a white supremacist. ZERO independent reliable sources cast ANY doubt on that assessment. The question here is whether Wikipedia should attempt to contradict the universal assessment of reliable sources by fishing ONE UNDISCUSSED SENTENCE from the subject out of hundreds of pages of his statements based on some of our assessments that "Sources say Molyneux is a white supremecist[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12], but Wikipedia editor 'Bus stop' found this one sentence that they believe might mean he isn't.[13]"
- This is a primary source. IF the one isolated sentence means what you believe it means, it is the very definition of a minority viewpoint: one person's single sentence. See WP:WEIGHT. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Clearly, no one is asking for that type of statement, and you're making an illogical step here. And the Guardian by no means is a primary source here.
- Again to stress the most fundamental point: Wikipedia cannot say anyone or any group is a label in wikivoice, period. A label is a subjective term, Wikipedia cannot speak to that as fact, no matter how many sources back that up. Doesn't matter if there are hundreds of RSs that use the label on a person or group, it is still a label and by definition a term we cannot use in wikvoice as fact when covering the media. But we can capture the fact that numerous sources consider a person or a group as a label, and there's ways to do that being clear it is widely used and without have to have a bazillion sources after the statement, which are beyond the scope of what to discuss here. Even when we have self-identification of a label, we should make it clear it is self-identified.
- Now, on that point, because we know it is subjective and that's how the media views him, and that it is a very negative view of him, if we know he has commented in response to that criticism (particularly if it is in RSes), it is absolutely necessary to briefly mention this per NPOV. Again, this is because a label cannot be treated as a fact as the argument above starts. It would be far different if this were some "dietician" offering a crazy diet that every medical expert said didn't work per MEDRS (something actually factual rather than subjective) while this dietician continued to insist it was true. That's where FRINGE would coming into play. But when we are talking labels, there is no firm objective basis for when they apply, and thus it is fair game for those being labeled to be able to deny those labels, and if we can source that, we should. We don't have to go any further than that, and we certainly don't need to go into "unsolicited" defenses either.
- This is at no point contradiction at all. This simply adding one sentence or so after presenting the rational from the bulk of the other sources so that its understood where the arguments sit and the reader then can decide for themselves. A paragraph in the body of an BLP may go like "Molyneux is widely considered a white nationalist by numerous publications. <two or three sentences with source quotes here to explain why from these RSes consider Molyneux a white supremacist.> Molyneux denies he is a white supremacist because <reason>." Written like this, are we denying the media assessment? Absolutely not. It clearly gives it more weight compared to Molyneux's stance. So no, there is absolutely no attempt to contradict the sources. --Masem (t) 05:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- This:
- "Wikipedia cannot say anyone or any group is a label in wikivoice, period. A label is a subjective term, Wikipedia cannot speak to that as fact, no matter how many sources back that up. Doesn't matter if there are hundreds of RSs that use the label on a person or group, it is still a label and by definition a term we cannot use in wikvoice as fact when covering the media."
- is utterly wrong.
- The word "doctor" is a label. Does that mean we can never call anyone a "doctor" in wikivoice? The word "swimmer" is a label. Does that mean we can never call anyone a "swimmer" in wikivoice? This is absurd.
- The objection here is to "labels with a negative connotation". But there's absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy which says we cannot use "labels with negative connotation" to refer to people if these "labels" are well sourced.
- If a label is non-controversial, as reflected by reliable, mainstream, sources, we can most certainly state it in Wikivoice. Show me where a policy says otherwise. Volunteer Marek 06:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Uh, no. That's not what anyone is saying, but a good example of false equivalence. The difference is between a subjective label and an objective one. "Doctor" and "swimmer" are objective labels. Schizophrenic or obsessive compulsive are objective labels, when given by a qualified psychiatrist. Labels with either negative or positive connotations are subjective. The very concept of what is "good" or "bad" is subjective, as it's all in the eyes of the beholder. No one here, as far as I can tell, said "don't use those labels", rather just attribute them to someone other than Wikipedia, and if the subject says otherwise, include their denial. I don't see what is so difficult about that. (Not to mention it actually makes the labels a million times more believable that way, and much less believable the other way. It's really very simple; tell people I'm an asshole and it's like, "yeah, whatever...", but show them that I'm an asshole in RSs, and it's like, "wow, I guess he really is an asshole". It's called "giving credence", so I'm not sure why the fierce stance against it unless people are either hoping making him look better than he really is, or Wikipedia look newspaperish, or are simply too narrow in focus to realize stating it in wikivoice will have the opposite effect as intended.) Zaereth (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. "Swimmer" is as much of an "subjective" label as "white supremacist". Labels with negative or positive connotations are not inherently subjective. "Murderer" being one example. The concept of what is good and bad is... yeah that's getting too philosophical and anyway, irrelevant. Anyway, there's absolutely no Wikipedia policy which says we cannot use a "label" in Wikivoice, and there's absolutely no Wikipedia policy which states that we must take a subject's word as gospel truth (white supremacists claim they're not white supremacist for PR reasons all the time), especially in cases where they're contradicted by reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 07:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- And btw, Masem didn't even distinguish between "subjective" and "objective" labels, so um, yeah, that's exactly what "someone" was saying and there is no false equivalence here. Volunteer Marek 07:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Then let's use exactly what WP:LABEL calls them: "value-laden labels". While I would argue that something like "swimmer" would be a profession or career (something very objective and easily proven out), and something like "murderer" would be applied only in the case of a conviction in a trial but otherwise still objective once that was determined, most of the others, like "racist", etc. are still based on subjective assessment of what a person does to understand their values. It is something impossible to prove unless self-stated by the person itself, and because these are value-based, the exact definition also depends who you talk to, making them double edged swords. For all purposes, when I have said "labels" above, assume I'm talking the specific value-laden labels that LABEL cautions about. (I have spoken on distinguishing between things like profession and labels in the past, this is not new). --Masem (t) 13:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Uh, no. That's not what anyone is saying, but a good example of false equivalence. The difference is between a subjective label and an objective one. "Doctor" and "swimmer" are objective labels. Schizophrenic or obsessive compulsive are objective labels, when given by a qualified psychiatrist. Labels with either negative or positive connotations are subjective. The very concept of what is "good" or "bad" is subjective, as it's all in the eyes of the beholder. No one here, as far as I can tell, said "don't use those labels", rather just attribute them to someone other than Wikipedia, and if the subject says otherwise, include their denial. I don't see what is so difficult about that. (Not to mention it actually makes the labels a million times more believable that way, and much less believable the other way. It's really very simple; tell people I'm an asshole and it's like, "yeah, whatever...", but show them that I'm an asshole in RSs, and it's like, "wow, I guess he really is an asshole". It's called "giving credence", so I'm not sure why the fierce stance against it unless people are either hoping making him look better than he really is, or Wikipedia look newspaperish, or are simply too narrow in focus to realize stating it in wikivoice will have the opposite effect as intended.) Zaereth (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- A white supremacist is (objectively) "a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races."[4] A racist is a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.[5]. If reputable sources refer to a subject as a "white supremacist", then it is because they have concluded that based on their investigation of the subject's public remarks, comments, writing, speeches, and actions. That's what journalists do. If a person is a white supremacist, then they are obviously also a racist, by definition. It is not our role to moderate reputable sources. WP:YESPOV provides the necessary guidance. Folks should sop obsessing over WP:LABEL which is simply style advice so that editors don't inappropriately use value-laden labels. - MrX 🖋 12:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- "Because they have concluded" is still not an objective answer here to dealing with value-added labels, especially with today's form of journalism. Just because there dictionary definitions doesn't mean every journalist and analysis is using the same exact level of when someone's values flip from "white nationalist" to "white supremacist", because that's a massive grey line. This is why these are still subjective labels, that they are contentious by their nature, even if they are not contested in the media when used on people like Molyneux, and Wikipedia cannot go around repeating them as fact. That's exactly what YESPOV says. The only way we (the world) can judge a person as a white supremacist (or most of these other labels) factually is well-after their death in context of the rest of the world at that time, from an academic view that no longer is wavering or changing from that period, and even then that can still be subject to new ideas. Basically, any use of a contentious term, label or not, always needs to be presented outside of wikivoice, with some type of attribution, and can't be stated as fact. --Masem (t) 13:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sources have to be evaluated in context and on their individual merits. I'm not sure I know what "subjective label" is, but it seems to imply that it's impossible for reasoning people to evaluate a subjects's views against a standard of what those views commonly represent. I don't consider that a valid position. It is debatable whether "white supremacist" is even a value-laden label. (Maybe they prefer to be called "differently equal based on color"?) If a descriptor like "white supremacist" is seriously contested among reliable sources, then of course we can't use in in Wikipedia's voice, but there is no inherent prohibition simply because the descriptor is associated with repugnant values. Among other things, WP:NOTCENSORED comes to mind. I also disagree that somebody has to be long dead to finally be recognized as a white supremacist or racist. We are an online encyclopedia after all. - MrX 🖋 17:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- The definition above from M-W is likely a nice "core" area of what white supremacy is, I agree with that. And there are certainly actions and statements that assessed objectively to be equated to white supremacy (eg being a KKK member for example). But the exact bounds of a person themselves a white supremacist is, today, is very much unclear because it requires knowing what they actually believe (which you cannot know at all unless you are that person), and that the bounds change depending on who you area (eg the SPLC tends to play a bit faster and looser than perhaps the NYTimes). The only thing the press can do is say that the total sum of the actions and behavior of a person likely makes them a white supremacist in their stance, so they will call them that. Until we can read people's minds and know if they consider themselves, objectively, to be a white supremacist, this is always going to be a subjective evaluation based on observation and not something that is done in a more "scientific" manner one can do in the area of fringe/pseudoscience.
- And just because there is "no contest" to a label in reliable sources doesn't make it a contentious label (these are two different facets). This not only applies to negative value-laden ones but to positive ones, and we'd take the same steps to avoid wikivoice there as well. Tom Hanks may be considered one of the greatest actors in the world with no contest against that point, but we aren't going to say "Hanks is the greatest actor" in wikivoice, we'd say it as "Hanks is considered one of the greatest actors." Any value-laden label that is subject must be presumed to be contentious, positive or negative, in terms of applying YESPOV. Just because that contentious isn't found in sources doesn't mean we ignore it. And if we specifically want to question "white supremacy" as a label, it should be obvious that people try to deny being one as a fact that it is a contentious label. (Maybe not Molyneux here). This is not hard.
- And there's no censorship here. Not one thing said here is saying to omit any information that is coming from the sources, but simply to write it outside of wikivoice and give better attribution. We still can say "Molyneux is widely considered to be a white supremacist." rather than "Molyneux is a white supremacist", tagging that statement with just a few high quality RSes that make that stance (I'm assuming a NYTimes, BBC, and others can be used here), followed by key reasons why the media say that he is, and further followed by his counterclaim that Bus Stop has point out. That's it, all the same information, simply presented out of wikivoice fact. Its not that hard, its not denying anything the media has said, it still lays thick on the fact that Molyneux is not liked at all by the press for his views, stuff that we definitely cannot ignore per UNDUE, but all stated with the impartial and neutral nature that policy requires.
- (I am precluding that behind all these, a source analysis has been done to see how many times labels like "white supremacy", "far right" etc have been used when speaking of Molyneux in general, and that they come up more than a few times (~20% or more, given the nature of reporting), such that these are not cherry-picked terms. My own 2 minutes in GNews suggests they aren't cherry picked , that is, they DO apply here, but I mean, this really should be documented on the talk page in the first point. Just grabbing two or three sources to show that in the article is not good in the long term, it should be affirmed in talk page and then set in the article, so that you can always point to the talk page analysis of why that's the case if the argument ever came up again.) --Masem (t) 17:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sources have to be evaluated in context and on their individual merits. I'm not sure I know what "subjective label" is, but it seems to imply that it's impossible for reasoning people to evaluate a subjects's views against a standard of what those views commonly represent. I don't consider that a valid position. It is debatable whether "white supremacist" is even a value-laden label. (Maybe they prefer to be called "differently equal based on color"?) If a descriptor like "white supremacist" is seriously contested among reliable sources, then of course we can't use in in Wikipedia's voice, but there is no inherent prohibition simply because the descriptor is associated with repugnant values. Among other things, WP:NOTCENSORED comes to mind. I also disagree that somebody has to be long dead to finally be recognized as a white supremacist or racist. We are an online encyclopedia after all. - MrX 🖋 17:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- "Because they have concluded" is still not an objective answer here to dealing with value-added labels, especially with today's form of journalism. Just because there dictionary definitions doesn't mean every journalist and analysis is using the same exact level of when someone's values flip from "white nationalist" to "white supremacist", because that's a massive grey line. This is why these are still subjective labels, that they are contentious by their nature, even if they are not contested in the media when used on people like Molyneux, and Wikipedia cannot go around repeating them as fact. That's exactly what YESPOV says. The only way we (the world) can judge a person as a white supremacist (or most of these other labels) factually is well-after their death in context of the rest of the world at that time, from an academic view that no longer is wavering or changing from that period, and even then that can still be subject to new ideas. Basically, any use of a contentious term, label or not, always needs to be presented outside of wikivoice, with some type of attribution, and can't be stated as fact. --Masem (t) 13:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- SummerPhDv2.0—you say
"but Wikipedia editor 'Bus stop' found this one sentence that they believe might mean he isn't"
. Both points are incorrect. Let's start with the second point. I don't"believe might mean he isn't"
. Have you ever heard of "nuance"? Have you ever heard of "contradiction"? Have you ever heard the term "multi-faceted"? We are not trying to write a cogent story. That would be creative writing. This, by contrast, is an encyclopedia. All the pieces do not have to fit together. We are compiling information on a human being. The criteria for doing so include "relevance" and "reliable sourcing". I am not particularly concerned with whether Molyneux is or isn't "racist". In fact, it is a stupid question. "Racist" is an "abstract concept". It is like "beauty", which famously is "in the eye of the beholder", or as Baseball Bugs has famously said, is in the eye of the beer holder. Some may call Molyneux racist and some may not. You also say"'Bus stop' found this one sentence"
. No, I didn't. The section is initiated by someone called Fzimmerman. That can be seen in the section called Is "The Guardian" OK?, the first sentence of which reads:I found this in "The Guardian" [1]: "Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: 'I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority.'" Will this be acceptable to insert into the article?
Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)- Your intent, as you have made very clear is to cast doubt on the universal assessment of the independent reliable sources: Molyneux is a white supremacist. The source does not say that. You believe that and intend to add the material to add that "nuance". Yes, Molyneux's statement about himself is a primary source. Yes, one sentence from the subject that supports your "nuance" is well below the WP:WEIGHT line. Yes, we have hundreds of similarly sourced statements from the subject that we could add to support the "nuance" that Molyneux wants an all-white country because he feels other "races" are not human beings. Molyneux is verifiably a white supremacist who uses pseudo-scientific racist nonsense to support his desires for an all-white country, supported by his white supremacist magazine, published by his white supremacist publisher, funded by his white nationalist foundation. That you feel he isn't a white supremacist, supported by your interpretation of ONE SENTENCE from a primary source is not a significant opinion. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- The Guardian article in question: [6], in which it appears that Molyneux was specifically asked by the Guardian to comment on a statement made by Naomi Seibt, his reply, reported by the Guardian, is not a primary source. If he said that on his blog or Twitter, yes, it would be. But not as processed through the Guardian, because the Guardian has framed how this quote came about and the nature of Molyneux's stance - aka the transformative element of a secondary source. Even if they didn't do that, the Guardian is an independent source, removing it from being a self-serving SPS use of Molyneux's own words, which would be a problem. So this is a bogus argument against this inclusion. The Guardian article is nearly a perfect setup for why we'd want to include his explainaition against the numerous sources and reasons already there (including the SPLC's) of why he is considered a white supremacist. And its one of the higher quality RSes by WP's eyes, so again, failing to include this seems really non-sensical and trying to hide something. --Masem (t) 18:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your intent, as you have made very clear is to cast doubt on the universal assessment of the independent reliable sources: Molyneux is a white supremacist. The source does not say that. You believe that and intend to add the material to add that "nuance". Yes, Molyneux's statement about himself is a primary source. Yes, one sentence from the subject that supports your "nuance" is well below the WP:WEIGHT line. Yes, we have hundreds of similarly sourced statements from the subject that we could add to support the "nuance" that Molyneux wants an all-white country because he feels other "races" are not human beings. Molyneux is verifiably a white supremacist who uses pseudo-scientific racist nonsense to support his desires for an all-white country, supported by his white supremacist magazine, published by his white supremacist publisher, funded by his white nationalist foundation. That you feel he isn't a white supremacist, supported by your interpretation of ONE SENTENCE from a primary source is not a significant opinion. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- SummerPhDv2.0—you say
- See, here is what I don't get. Your position, while it is clearly obvious you are very passionate about, how on Earth do you think his statement actually helps him look better? Trust me, it doesn't. Just like Letourneau's statement I referenced above only makes her look worse, the same is true for Molyneux's statement. It tells us actually quite a lot about the subject, because if you really want to understand someone, it's necessary to gage not only their actions, but also their reactions, which tells so much more. Pay close attention to what they say and twice as much to what they're not saying. That's why your position makes absolutely no sense to me, because it seems to contradict your goals, so perhaps you could please explain? Zaereth (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- My
"intent"
has never been to"cast doubt on the universal assessment of the independent reliable sources [that] Molyneux is a white supremacist"
. (You are saying"Your intent, as you have made very clear is to cast doubt on the universal assessment of the independent reliable sources: Molyneux is a white supremacist."
) You don't seem to understand, SummerPhDv2.0, that this is a biography. It is not solely focussed on the question you insist on addressing. A biography explores all aspects of a human subject. We are not focussed on answering the question of whether Molyneux really is a racist or not. 100 out of a 100 sources external to Molyneux himself could assert that Molyneux is a racist and we still would insert in the article "Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: 'I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority.'" We are committed to fleshing out the human subject at the heart of the biography. If this person says that they "have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority" then we include that in the article in the interests of the readers who might want to know the sort of person that is the subject of this biography. The main criteria we have to be concerned with are "relevancy" and "reliable sourcing" and I think those 2 criteria are both met. Bus stop (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)- Your intent is to include ONE SENTENCE because you feel there is some "nuance" in it. That nuance, you now insist, is not about whether or not Molyneux is a racist. (You insist on calling it "racism". ALL of the sources say he is a white nationalist, which some racists feel is an important distinction.) Whatever. We are also missing the "nuances" embodied in his well-sourced statements that not all of "humanity" is the same species, "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the f--- up!" (Which species? He didn't specify...), "blacks are collectively less intelligent", "You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people", "the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia", "collectively ethnicities tend to act differently,...they tend to have different rates of criminality", "the American blacks and blacks around the world have truly shockingly high levels of criminality", "dysfunctional early childhood experiences, which are all run by women", "if I lived in a society of [only] white people then the giant fly swatter of ‘shut up whitey, you’re racist’ could never be used against me", etc. I'm guessing you will want to include all of these, to make sure we touch on all of the "nuanced" aspects of Molyneux: his beliefs that some races are not human beings, women are the cause of all childhood trauma, the defensive aspects of the Nazi's Final Solution, etc. These are all similar in origin to your one sentence and are certainly relevant, given this whole question of whether or not the far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and white supremacist views is a ... gulp ... racist. That is nuance we need to include, right? Hell no. Wikipedia does NOT pick ONE individual sentence from ONE source quoting the subject to include in the article. If we did, articles on Donald Trump, Barak Obama, etc. would be in even worse shape then they are now. Which ONE sentence from ONE source (without discussion of the sentence) would YOU include about any given politician? And the idiot troll on the other side of the political divide: what sentence would THEY include? - SummerPhDv2.0 20:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- That is absolutely not what Bus Stop (nor myself) is saying. Have you read the Guardian article? They actually set out a strong argument around Molyneux being called a white supremacist, and his counterclaim within that frame. It's far more than one random quote from a random source. It is no way nuanced, and instead, I'd argue the rational to not include it is nuanced at this point. Yes, you can throw every piece of evidence to show that there's a preponderance of facts that suggest Molyneux is a white supremacist. We have sources that point this out, we have that in the article already, that's not going anywhere. To add that Molyneux refutes this, even though we've listed all this evidence, is no way a nuanced thing nor does it refute all that prior evidence. It just will leave the reader going "huh, there's all this, but he says he isn't, huh what am I to believe?" That we don't include it knowing it exists and present in a reliable source is the problem as that's purposely being not neutral on a BLP.
- Seriously, one needs to step back, strip away their emotional and ideological take here, and remember we're writing a neutral encyclopedia. We are not writing a hit piece on people that the media have decided are "bad", which is nearly always the problem with discussions around these articles, in that editors want to start "But this is a bad person , the media has shown this is a bad person, so we have to write them as a bad person". (not singling out SummerPhD here, this has happened way too many times in the past) We don't even write on convicted criminals or hated figures in history that way. We are an impartial encyclopedia and while we have to make sure our article properly reflects the weight of the media opinion of a person, it does not mean all the neutrality and impartiality coverage goes out the window. If you want to write that way, then maybe Wikipedia isn't the right place for writing here. Again, I'm not speaking at all of burying anything coverage the media has made, but just writing it with the proper use of attribution and wikivoice, and making sure we're staying impartial and neutral, and not like we're starting with "this is a bad person". Done right, the article will still show that Molyneux is a figure very much distrusted by the media and should absolutely be known to be considered to be racist and a white supremacist, because that is why he's notable, but the tone will be far less confrontation in wikivoice, and will make sure, where appropriate Molyneux's side is given, which at this point is literally one sentence based on the Guardian article. --Masem (t) 21:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Saying of that Guardian article
They actually set out a strong argument around Molyneux being called a white supremacist
is literally false. The article doesn't do any such thing - it just quotes Molyneux talking about himself. - You don't appear to be able to assess sources very well - perhaps consider if
If you want to write that way, then maybe Wikipedia isn't the right place for writing here
- David Gerard (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)- There are a handful of paragraphs before and after that one line that establish context (eg why his name comes up this article that is actually about Naobi Seibt as she name-drops him, what the SPLC says of him and then gives his counterpoint.) To quote specifically: In another YouTube interview describing her embrace of “views that were outside the mainstream”, Seibt referred to the Canadian alt-right internet activist Stefan Molyneux as an “inspiration”. (break) Molyneux has been described as an “alleged cult leader who amplifies scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacism” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors extremism and white supremacy. (break) Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: “I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority.” (break) In 2019, Molyneaux said: “I’ve always been skeptical of the ideas of white nationalism, of identitarianism, and white identity. However, I am an empiricist, and I could not help but notice that I could have peaceful, free, easy, civilized and safe discussions in what is, essentially, an all-white country.” It is perhaps not the most in depth analysis but that is explains why his is called a white supremacist by the SPLC, his counterpoint to the Guardian, and a previous statement he made. Those were picked by the Guardian, not him, so that's selected press picks which avoids self-promotion or self-serving aspects, which would be a concern if we were pulling from a SPS blog. So, no, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the first short sentence quote ("I have always...") as one additional sentence to provide the necessary counterpoint on the article. --Masem (t) 00:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Saying of that Guardian article
- Your intent is to include ONE SENTENCE because you feel there is some "nuance" in it. That nuance, you now insist, is not about whether or not Molyneux is a racist. (You insist on calling it "racism". ALL of the sources say he is a white nationalist, which some racists feel is an important distinction.) Whatever. We are also missing the "nuances" embodied in his well-sourced statements that not all of "humanity" is the same species, "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the f--- up!" (Which species? He didn't specify...), "blacks are collectively less intelligent", "You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people", "the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia", "collectively ethnicities tend to act differently,...they tend to have different rates of criminality", "the American blacks and blacks around the world have truly shockingly high levels of criminality", "dysfunctional early childhood experiences, which are all run by women", "if I lived in a society of [only] white people then the giant fly swatter of ‘shut up whitey, you’re racist’ could never be used against me", etc. I'm guessing you will want to include all of these, to make sure we touch on all of the "nuanced" aspects of Molyneux: his beliefs that some races are not human beings, women are the cause of all childhood trauma, the defensive aspects of the Nazi's Final Solution, etc. These are all similar in origin to your one sentence and are certainly relevant, given this whole question of whether or not the far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and white supremacist views is a ... gulp ... racist. That is nuance we need to include, right? Hell no. Wikipedia does NOT pick ONE individual sentence from ONE source quoting the subject to include in the article. If we did, articles on Donald Trump, Barak Obama, etc. would be in even worse shape then they are now. Which ONE sentence from ONE source (without discussion of the sentence) would YOU include about any given politician? And the idiot troll on the other side of the political divide: what sentence would THEY include? - SummerPhDv2.0 20:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- My
- David Gerard—the Guardian article repeatedly refers to Molyneux as a "white nationalist". I think Masem simply typed "white supremacist" when they should have typed "white nationalist". Bus stop (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you are trying to claim that "white nationalist" versus "white supremacist" is a difference of substance rather than dissembling hair-splitting from exactly the same bunch of people, then you're not arguing in good faith - David Gerard (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- David Gerard—I think you make a fairly valid point. I would tend to agree that there is a degree of similarity between the sentiments embodied in the terms "white nationalism" and "white supremacism". Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Statements by lawyers of a WP:SUSPECT : assertions or arguments?
I noticed the following in the article on the Kenosha protests shooting, but it potentially occurs in any BLPCRIME public enough that a defense lawyer would speak to the press.
The question is: when a defense lawyer makes public statements on behalf of the client that are similar to arguments they might make in a trial (e.g., the client acted in self-defense, or was unaware of wrongdoing) is it fair or correct to write that the lawyer "argues" those things rather than "states" or "asserts" them?
I think it is not, as it departs from a position of neutrality by implicitly putting the accused in a position of "arguing", or having to argue, or being construed as arguing, their innocence outside the court, somehow conceding the legitimacy of the charges and then having to debate them, which reverses the burden of proof. Also, the lawyers generally state these claims as facts, they do not provide evidence or arguments before trial. For both reasons the Wikivoice for this should always be that the lawyer "stated" or "asserted" the claims. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'd wait until the trial during which the defendant's attorneys will argue an affirmative defense. Then, legally speaking, the defendant will have admitted to the prohibited acts. We can then say "he shot them". An interview with the defendant where he says it could also suffice. Until then, we use alleged. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Things stated at trial are correctly described as "argument" or "testimony". That's part of the reason I think those words should be avoided before the trial. Using them blurs the distinction between the trial and the public commentary. In the current Kenosha case, the article already contains the statement that both the prosecution and defense say such-and-such, as a substitute for making factual claims that such-and-such is true (and I think "he shot them" is part of the such-and-such that both sides agree on). For the things that are said only by one side, there is still the question of how to describe the public statements by the defense. They are often notable enough that excluding them from an article until trial is not a likely course of action.
- "Allege" in this context is typically used for accusations (such as prosecutorial misconduct), not merely statements unaccompanied by evidence. To describe the lawyer's statement as alleged or claimed has the same problem as using "argued": it frames the out-of-court events as a pseudo trial where the defendant is obligated to credit the charges and defend against them, and casts doubt on the statements made by the defense, when the very imminence of a trial makes it impossible for the defendant to provide any proof beforehand, even if they possess it. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- One thing at play is that from a MOS standpoint, we try to avoid flavoring language in writing in describing how people talk. We try to avoid saying anything but "a person said" or "a person stated", and do avoid things like "a person expressed" or "a person stressed". Now, when it comes to anything that is claimed, we should be clear it is a claim, and there we can use "a person claimed/asserted" but I would tend to agree that in that while "argue" could be taken to be the legal courtroom version, writing "their lawyer argued that..." could be taken as an emotional stance , and should be reworded. Alternatively, if the context was clearer; "Their lawyer said they had argued their case before the judge but could not get bail..." that's different, but that doesn't seem to be possible here. So I think the same rational sense here for avoiding the legal terms make sense as we'd avoid the emotional term for "argue" and just go with a factual "claimed" or "asserted" term at this time. --Masem (t) 14:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, but "claim" should also be avoided. Like "argue", it is a legal or quasilegal term, therefore potentially confusing or misleading, and it is also on the same spectrum of doubt-casting phrases like "allege", "argue" and "assert without evidence". All of them are technically true descriptions of things the defense tends to say before a trial, but they artificially place the defense and their statements in a position of being dubious or questioned or otherwise on trial outside of the actual trial. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
To summarize, since discussion seems to have ended: "said", "stated" and "asserted" are indisputably acceptable, Masem's comment suggests that MOS recommends only such terms, and for all other terms (like "alleged", "claimed", "argued", "stated without evidence", etc) it is either agreed on, or argued (so far without contradiction) that they have problems. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
There has been a slow-moving edit war on Daniel J. Bernstein concerning whether to mention that Jacob Appelbaum studies under him. I removed some clear-cut WP:SYNTH violations, but I think the mention of Appelbaum should be removed entirely; the only source for it is an offhand reference in an article about Appelbaum, not Bernstein. In any case, I would like someone to put it on their watchlist so the editor does not restore the obvious WP:SYNTH violations in a couple months once I forget about it. 76.11.103.158 (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is a single user battling against all attempts to remove. Including the Appelbaum material is particularly egregious because the supposed reason for keeping it was that (notwithstanding NOR and SYNTH) it tells us something about Bernstein, but professors are usually not involved in decisions on whether or not to disenroll students who are accused of outside wrongdoing. It's smearing Bernstein for decisions made by his employer.
- Conceivably Appelbaum belongs in the infobox under "students" if he is notable enough, but nothing else about him should be in the article. To the extent (which is probably zero) that there is a notable matter of Appelbaums continued enrollment it belongs on the Wikipedia page of the university, not Bernstein. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- The choice of graduate students is a major part of a professor's academic career, and for graduate students it's entirely up to the professor. The text in the page does not SYNTH a judgement or conclusion, but simply states that Appelbaum (who is notable enough to have a page) is a high-profile student of theirs, and mentions the timeline relating to what makes Appelbaum particularly notable (as explained in Appelbaum's page). There is even a "Notable students" section in the Infobox. The page should always elaborate on information in the Infobox.
- There is not just a single user reverting the removals: Dreamyshade, KMeyer, and me systematically reverted and kept asking for a Talk page discussion that never materialized. Rather, the removal keep coming from anonymous editors with limited contribution histories. Slartibartfast89 (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Only one of the cited sources even mentions Bernstein, and it's a minor point in an article about Appelbaum. This is an extremely clear violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. If the connection was worthy of note in Bernstein's article, you would be able to find at least one reliable source about Bernstein (not Appelbaum) that mentioned it. There are none.
- Also, Slartibartfast89 is, at best, a single-purpose account dedicated to pushing this particular issue. 76.11.103.158 (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is not just a single user reverting the removals: Dreamyshade, KMeyer, and me systematically reverted and kept asking for a Talk page discussion that never materialized. Rather, the removal keep coming from anonymous editors with limited contribution histories. Slartibartfast89 (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- I can't find anywhere in WP:BLP that says if a source does not mention the name of the subject of the BLP, that source cannot be used in that BLP. The most relevant part of WP:BLP is "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."
- Reviewing the sourcing for quality, the article from The Verge is a sufficient secondary source that clearly supports the associated part of the removed statement "Appelbaum's work continued there after several allegations of sexual abuse against Appelbaum in 2016." (The Verge says "Appelbaum’s presence in the public sphere has been severely curtailed but his career in information security continues — he is currently pursuing a Ph.D at the Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands, under Tanja Lange and celebrated cryptographer Daniel Bernstein.")
- The second part of the removed statement ("and after many other organizations ended their association with Appelbaum") has weaker sourcing. It combines primary sources (Freedom of the Press Foundation and Noisebridge statements) with secondary sources about other organizations/events and summarizes them all together, which is reaching toward WP:SYNTH. It should be removed unless somebody rewrites it to be more precisely based on secondary sourcing while still being relevant to the article.
- I've been editing a wide variety of articles for many years, and I believe it's important to evaluate comments and edits on their reasoning and basis in policy and guidelines, whether they're from anonymous editors, new editors, or editors who want to work on a particular subject. WP:SPA is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, you're correct that The Verge mentions Bernstein. But it does so only once, and not in a way that's critical of Bernstein or Lange. It's textbook synthesis to shoehorn content about Appelbaum into an article about Bernstein (or Lange), and it's misleading to make guilt-by-association insinuations that the sources don't actually make. With one mention in one source, it's arguable whether even once sentence is significant in the biographies of Bernstein or Lange, let alone multiple sentences. And that's even if we consider The Verge to be a reliable source for these claims. WP:RSP says
The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles
and we're discussing claims about academic programs and sexual predators. - If we're going to connect Appelbaum with Bernstein or Lange—and, by extension, criticize them—then we should really have multiple reliable sources that clearly and directly make those claims. Woodroar (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, you're correct that The Verge mentions Bernstein. But it does so only once, and not in a way that's critical of Bernstein or Lange. It's textbook synthesis to shoehorn content about Appelbaum into an article about Bernstein (or Lange), and it's misleading to make guilt-by-association insinuations that the sources don't actually make. With one mention in one source, it's arguable whether even once sentence is significant in the biographies of Bernstein or Lange, let alone multiple sentences. And that's even if we consider The Verge to be a reliable source for these claims. WP:RSP says
- I've been editing a wide variety of articles for many years, and I believe it's important to evaluate comments and edits on their reasoning and basis in policy and guidelines, whether they're from anonymous editors, new editors, or editors who want to work on a particular subject. WP:SPA is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- If we trim the removed content to the first part as I recommended, it's sourced to a specific statement relevant to Bernstein in the source article. It's not combining material from multiple sources or interpreting sources to create a new conclusion (which is what WP:SYNTH is about) -- instead, it's including a relevant piece of information about Bernstein from a reasonable secondary source. The content I recommend is not more or less critical of Bernstein than the source itself. The Verge is a reasonable source for articles related to technology, and this article is related to technology: Bernstein's and Appelbaum's work is technology work. The behavior of people in this field is part of the field, not separate from it. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- "relevant to Bernstein" is SYNTH, and the contortions (i.e., pushing every positive indicator and ignoring the obvious negative ones) that you and the other editor are going to in order to include it are POV. The one sentence from The Verge talks about several different entities (Appelbaum, infosec community, Bernstein/Lange, Eindhoven) but you choose to read it as "about" Bernstein the person, in some journalistic or biographic sense as though he were the target of the article or the sentence, or some narrative about him were being published. If there were sources unambiguously talking about Bernstein that mention this, it would be different.
- If we trim the removed content to the first part as I recommended, it's sourced to a specific statement relevant to Bernstein in the source article. It's not combining material from multiple sources or interpreting sources to create a new conclusion (which is what WP:SYNTH is about) -- instead, it's including a relevant piece of information about Bernstein from a reasonable secondary source. The content I recommend is not more or less critical of Bernstein than the source itself. The Verge is a reasonable source for articles related to technology, and this article is related to technology: Bernstein's and Appelbaum's work is technology work. The behavior of people in this field is part of the field, not separate from it. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Dwelling on Appelbaum beyond maybe a listing in the infobox as a student, is pushing a narrative that doesn't (at this time) appear in any RS, and could be false for any number of reasons. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The Verge is a reasonable source for articles related to technology, and this article is related to technology
. They are not RS for matters of academic governance, which is what they are being cited for. Nor did they seek comment from Bernstein, Lange or the university as they would have if they were suggesting this is notable or scandalous in relation to those three. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your view of RSes on a BLP seems strange, contrived and basically wrong - David Gerard (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- David Gerard, can you explain a bit? I agree with this, but it'd be very helpful to have more of a third perspective here. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- But we can't say "as of 2017..." in one sentence and then "Appelbaum's work continued..." in the next, because that implies he's still there today—or at least after 2017—which the source doesn't say. And
Appelbaum's work continued there after several allegations of sexual abuse against Appelbaum in 2016
creates a series of events that implies knowledge or approval from Bernstein and/or Lange, which the source also doesn't say. The sentence currently in the article (As of 2017, Jacob Appelbaum was pursuing a Ph.D. under Bernstein and Tanja Lange at the Eindhoven University of Technology
) is neutral, although I still think it's UNDUE. Anything more is making one connection in one sentence in one source do a lot of work, which is not only UNDUE but misrepresenting what the source actually says. Woodroar (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- But we can't say "as of 2017..." in one sentence and then "Appelbaum's work continued..." in the next, because that implies he's still there today—or at least after 2017—which the source doesn't say. And
"The choice of graduate students is a major part of a professor's academic career, and for graduate students it's entirely up to the professor"
is speculation, SYNTH, and is misleading. Appelbaum was already "chosen" and enrolled as Bernstein's graduate student when the accusations went public, so any decisions would have been not a matter of choosing an advisee but of disenrolling or "dis-advising" him, a completely different kettle of fish that may or may not be a professor's prerogative based solely on accusations about prior outside conduct. It isn't clear at all that Bernstein could or should have done anything based on those accusations, that doing or not doing says anything in particular about Bernstein, or that if he did want to take action and had the administrative power to do so, that he hasn't done so by now. Absolutely none of those things are in any RS that currently exists and there is no reason to operate as though any of them are true when editing the article. This is a very clear cut case of SYNTH, NOR, and NPOV violation and all the Appelbaum stuff should simply be removed until and unless the necessary RS materialize. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Another indication of how off-topic the Appelbaum material is in the article, is that all the different sentences debated for inclusion have someone or something other than Bernstein as the grammatical subject. It's an article about Bernstein and we can't even write the material in a form where it's literally about Bernstein without unnatural contortions. That's because the material in the (lone) source isn't particularly about Bernstein. The current content is just bizarre, a sentence about Appelbaum tacked onto an article about Bernstein where it sticks out and does not fit. There is no good way to rewrite it that focuses on Bernstein, other than to give the basic information "he had Appelbaum as a student", which might as well be limited to infobox-only if it is even notable enough to appear there. Infobox would avoid the problem that we have no source for Appelbaum's enrollment since 2016-17, whether he graduated and what degree he earned. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Richard Uihlein
Poster has been blocked as a sockpuppet trying to cleanse/whitewash the article. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whey77. Neutralitytalk 20:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
There is repeated insertion of a one-sided defamatory sentence in this BLP. The New York Times source, on the other hand, includes all 3 views: 1. the author’s opinion/judgement (anti-gay), 2. the facts (battle over transgender in girls’ locker rooms), and 3. the subject’s defense (“we value diversity..”) It is essential to include all points of view that are expressed in the reference (author judgement/facts/subject official position). “Neutrality” is repeatedly blocking users who bring Neutral Point of View and balance to the BLP. Here is my proposed fix (which he/she undid). My addition was the part in italics: According to The NY Times, Uihlein has often supported efforts in opposition to gay and transgender rights, citing an example of Uihlein supporting a school board candidate who fought a move allowing transgender students in girls’ locker rooms. Uihlein denied this characterization, stating in the same article “We value diversity in our community and at Uline.”[4] 2605:E000:1316:C889:5C35:948B:1B3F:540D (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC) |
This entry on BLP Noticeboard should not be hidden/collapsed, especially not by same person Neutrality who is directly involved in the content dispute. There is a valid NPOV problem which needs oversight here. Addressing NPOV is not "cleanse/whitewash" -- the proposed solution posted here on the noticeboard keeps the contentious content anyway, but just adds the other points of view: 99.7.151.39 (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- All - note that the IP address has previously been blocked for sockpuppetry. Neutralitytalk 22:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with 99.7.151.39. It is clear that the recent additions conflict with WP:BLPBALANCE WP:NPOV WP:BLPREMOVE WP:PUS. Furthermore, the new addition of Reference #8 doesn't belong; is an unreliable source:
- WP:PUS Forbes.com is a paid contributor content farm and "must never be used as third-party citations on statements relating to living persons."
For the record I am not a sockpuppet. Why is the consensus process censored?CaveWriting (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- The source was written by a Forbes staff member, not a contributor. See WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON. Woodroar (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Why is the Forbes journalist use of the term "far right" linked to a WP page where the lead section of "far right" is a description of Alt-Right extremists? Subject is not Alt-Right. See reference 7 and 8 in the linked Far right. There are words in the linked definition I don't even want to repeat here. Reading the entire Forbes article, the author means "staunch conservative" by that wording and not what is in the linked WP definition.
The original post to this noticeboard:
There is repeated insertion of a one-sided defamatory sentence in this BLP.
The New York Times source, on the other hand, includes all 3 views: 1. the author’s opinion/judgement (anti-gay), 2. the facts (battle over transgender in girls’ locker rooms), and 3. the subject’s defense (“we value diversity..”) It is essential to include all points of view that are expressed in the reference (author judgement/facts/subject official position). “Neutrality” is repeatedly blocking users who bring Neutral Point of View and balance to the BLP. Here is my proposed fix (which he/she undid). My addition was the part in italics: According to The NY Times, Uihlein has often supported efforts in opposition to gay and transgender rights, citing an example of Uihlein supporting a school board candidate who fought a move allowing transgender students in girls’ locker rooms. Uihlein denied this characterization, stating in the same article “We value diversity in our community and at Uline.”[4] 2605:E000:1316:C889:5C35:948B:1B3F:540D (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC) |
See WP:BLPBALANCE WP:NPOV WP:BLPREMOVE. CaveWriting (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Daniel Kellison
Daniel Kellison has an unfounded negative statement about the subject. It was added within the past week and I've tried removing but it keeps getting reverted. Most recent diff: Special:Diff/977650794/977712016. The reference link is to an article about the skits but the subject is not mentioned in the article at all. The statement seems irrelevant to the subject's bio without something verifiable.
Ian Lipkin
Ian Lipkin is a well known epidemiologist at Columbia University who has studied West Nile Virus, SARS, MERS and SARS-CoV-2. The latter has now made him a target. Over the past few months, there have been attempts to add a massive amount of material about SARS-CoV-2 and gain-of-function experiments to his article (recent diff). This material is poorly sourced (most of it is sourced to the audio of a podcast and to a YouTube video of an interview on Dr. Oz' show), and heavily synthesized. Various sources that do not mention Prof. Lipkin are juxtaposed with Lipkin's statements in order to try to prove that Lipkin was wrong, or worse, lying. Here is a typical example of one such passage:
In response to a question about masks on the Dr. Oz show, Lipkin said: "Well...ah..the...the really ...ah … the messaging that you're getting from WHO, CDC, and others suggests that... masks are not useful."[1] As Director of the Northeast Biodefense Center and the WHO Collaborating Center, Lipkin headed a key WHO advisory body.[2] Lipkin added that masks should be left for healthcare professionals and "emphasized" that the virus was less dangerous than the flu.[3] He was not wearing a mask or practicing social distancing whilst on the show. At the time, Lipkin was aware of what he calls a “compelling” 2003 WHO study “that showed that face masks... had a dramatic impact on community transmission”.[4]
Lipkin also related a conversation with a colleague in early-mid Feb 2020 who was conducting modelling that showed a spike in infections was likely to hit New York. “One of these people doing the modelling said ‘But you know, all we need to do is put people into facemasks and everybody can go back to work tomorrow.' I said ‘Absolutely not! That’s crazy!' First of all most people don’t know how to use facemasks... and secondly - uhm - we don’t really have any data to support that.”[5] However, there was ample data that showed masks do provide cheap, effective protection against the virus,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] including a hospital-based study during the 2003 SARS outbreak which found, "Wearing a mask can give a person dealing with SARS patients up to 13 times more protection compared with not wearing one."[6] Furthermore, George Gao, director-general of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, who Lipkin met with on his China trip and described as a “trusted”,[13] friend, contradicted Lipkin’s advice. In an interview with Science, Gao said not advising the public to wear masks in the U.S at the beginning of the outbreak was a “big mistake”.[14]
Another passage in this massive addition advances conspiracy theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2:
The Proximal Origins paper stated: "Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus" and presents "strong evidence" that SARS-nCoV-2 was the result of natural selection.[15] In an interview with India Today, Lipkin re-emphasized this point: "There is no evidence whatsoever that there was an effort to create anything of this sort. There is no evidence that there are animals in which it was passaged to create this problem."[16]
However, a 2008 paper published in Journal of Virology, titled Difference in Receptor Usage between SARS and SARS-Like Coronavirus of Bat Origin, did detail a purposeful manipulation of a bat virus (SL-CoV S). A 'gain-of-function' experiment was performed to make the virus more infectious to humans. They wrote: "A series of S chimeras was constructed by inserting different sequences of the SARS-CoV S into the SL-CoV S backbone." In terms of Ace2-binding, or enhancing the ability of the virus to infect human cells, the experiment was successful: "ACE2-binding activity of SL-CoVs was easily acquired by the replacement of a relatively small sequence segment of the S protein from the SARS-CoV S sequence." The paper concluded: "It remains to be seen whether a recombinant SL-CoV containing a CS protein (e.g., CS14-608) will be capable of infecting experimental animals and causing disease."[17] An additional paper from WIV scientists and Peter Daszak in 2016 detailed "the construction of WIV1 (a bat virus) mutants."[18] According to a co-author of Proximal origins, Edward C. Holmes, the closest known virus was RaTG13 (96.2% identical) which was held at WIV.[19]
I find these additions highly concerning from a WP:BLP perspective, and would appreciate more eyes on the article Ian Lipkin. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ timestamp 4:00 "Lipkin interview, Dr. Oz, Mar 12, 2020, timestamp 4:00".
{{cite web}}
: Check|url=
value (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ "W. Ian Lipkin, MD". Pathology. 2017-06-21. Retrieved 2020-09-11.
- ^ timestamp 4:10 "Lipkin interview on Dr. Oz show, Mar 12, 2020". Mar 12, 2020.
{{cite web}}
: Check|url=
value (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ "TWiV Special: Conversation with a COVID-19 patient, Ian Lipkin | This Week in Virology, Mar 28, 2020, timestamp 32:30". Retrieved 2020-09-11.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ "TWiV Special: Conversation with a COVID-19 patient, Ian Lipkin | This Week in Virology, Mar 28, 2020, timestamp 34:50". Retrieved 2020-09-11.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ a b Bhattacharya, Shaoni. "Face masks are best protection against SARS". New Scientist. Retrieved 2020-09-11.
- ^ MacIntyre, C. Raina; Cauchemez, Simon; Dwyer, Dominic E.; Seale, Holly; Cheung, Pamela; Browne, Gary; Fasher, Michael; Wood, James; Gao, Zhanhai; Booy, Robert; Ferguson, Neil. "Face Mask Use and Control of Respiratory Virus Transmission in Households - Volume 15, Number 2—February 2009 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC". doi:10.3201/eid1502.081167.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help) - ^ Sim, Shin Wei; Moey, Kirm Seng Peter; Tan, Ngiap Chuan (March 2014). "The use of facemasks to prevent respiratory infection: a literature review in the context of the Health Belief Model". Singapore Medical Journal. 55 (3): 160–167. doi:10.11622/smedj.2014037. ISSN 0037-5675. PMC 4293989. PMID 24664384.
- ^ "Virus Outbreak: Masks greatly limit spread: CECC - Taipei Times". www.taipeitimes.com. 2020-05-04. Retrieved 2020-09-11.
- ^ Esposito, Susanna; Principi, Nicola; Leung, Chi Chi; Migliori, Giovanni Battista (2020-01-01). "Universal use of face masks for success against COVID-19: evidence and implications for prevention policies". European Respiratory Journal. doi:10.1183/13993003.01260-2020. ISSN 0903-1936. PMID 32350103.
- ^ June 2020, Stephanie Pappas-Live Science Contributor 02. "Do face masks really reduce coronavirus spread?". livescience.com. Retrieved 2020-09-11.
{{cite web}}
:|first=
has generic name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ Howard, Jeremy. "Masks help stop the spread of coronavirus – the science is simple and I'm one of 100 experts urging governors to require public mask-wearing". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-09-11.
- ^ "TWiV Special: Conversation with a COVID-19 patient, Ian Lipkin | This Week in Virology, timestamp 28:00". Retrieved 2020-09-11.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ CohenMar. 27, Jon; 2020; Pm, 6:15 (2020-03-27). "Not wearing masks to protect against coronavirus is a 'big mistake,' top Chinese scientist says". Science | AAAS. Retrieved 2020-09-11.
{{cite web}}
:|last2=
has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Andersen 450–452
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Dr Ian Lipkin dismisses China lab theory, says virus came from bats not lab, timestamp 30:30". India Today. Retrieved 2020-06-04.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ Ren, Wuze; Qu, Xiuxia; Li, Wendong; Han, Zhenggang; Yu, Meng; Zhou, Peng; Zhang, Shu-Yi; Wang, Lin-Fa; Deng, Hongkui; Shi, Zhengli (2008-02-15). "Difference in Receptor Usage between Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Coronavirus and SARS-Like Coronavirus of Bat Origin". Journal of Virology. 82 (4): 1899–1907. doi:10.1128/JVI.01085-07. ISSN 0022-538X. PMC 2258702. PMID 18077725.
- ^ Zeng, Lei-Ping; Gao, Yu-Tao; Ge, Xing-Yi; Zhang, Qian; Peng, Cheng; Yang, Xing-Lou; Tan, Bing; Chen, Jing; Chmura, Aleksei A.; Daszak, Peter; Shi, Zheng-Li (2016-07-15). "Bat Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Like Coronavirus WIV1 Encodes an Extra Accessory Protein, ORFX, Involved in Modulation of the Host Immune Response". Journal of Virology. 90 (14): 6573–6582. doi:10.1128/JVI.03079-15. ISSN 0022-538X. PMC 4936131. PMID 27170748.
- ^ Weinland, Don; Manson, Katrina (2020-05-05). "How a Wuhan lab became embroiled in a global coronavirus blame game | Free to read". www.ft.com. Retrieved 2020-06-11.
Thucydides411 wrote: "This material is poorly sourced (most of it is sourced to the audio of a podcast and to a YouTube video of an interview on Dr. Oz' show), and heavily synthesized." That is simply not true. The material contains references from over 80 different sources. The interviews with Lipkin cited above account for two of these. The facts are, many of the sources, such as those relating to the Proximal Origins paper (co-authored by Lipkin), are from published academic writings such as Differences in Receptor Usage, a Nature article, a Science article, a Journal of Virology paper, comments from Prof. Ebright of Rutgers University’s Waksman Institute of Microbiology, and a paper titled Unique Features concerning the proximal origins of SARS-CoV-2. As for the offending podcast, it's a public broadcast interview with Lipkin providing a detailed account of his fact-finding mission to China and his controversial views on Chinese transparency, face masks, and Covid in general, to fellow Columbia professor, Vincent Racanellio. Direct quotes are used to avoid accusations of biased paraphrasing and present a 'straight-from-the-horses-mouth' account of the subject's views. I am happy to discuss specific points and work to condense certain sections and reach a compromise solution, but Thucydides411's unsubstantiated name-calling, wiping of referenced material, then refusal to answer specific questions as to why he wiped it, makes me question his motives here. Before the BangBefore the Bang (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've reverted a further attempt to restore this material. "Before the Bang"'s response fails to address the issue of synthesis. There's no way we're going to have so much material supported only by primary sources, especially when other editors perceive synthesis. 3RR warning issued. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Please remove Lalji Tandon as grandparent off Kushal Tandon’s page
I am the admin of Kushal Tandon page and he has requested for Lalji Tandon to be removed off his page as they are not related. This is false information and should urgently be removed. Please look a into this, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy299 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Amy299: I'm not sure what you mean by admin of the page. If you are referring to the page here, do understand pages here have no admins. If you mean the admin of a page somewhere else like on Facebook, you may want to read WP:COI. Anyway as far as I can tell, it was removed from our article nearly a month ago [7], so I'm not sure why you're still asking. (If it was ever in the Lalji Tandon page, it doesn't seem to have been recent. I even checked both Wikidata:Q6447877 and Wikidata:Q6480433 for good measure.) If you found the information on somewhere else like on the Google Knowledge Graph (when you search on Google), that's not something can do anything about. You should try contacting whoever is in charge of that page e.g. Google. As a final point although I'm not going to challenge the removal, a tweet from some third party is not a great source. And I'd note this source [8] claims that Kushal Tandon told a journalist that Lalji was his grandfather. (The claim has also spread elsewhere e.g. [9].) If this is untrue and Kushal never told a journalist this, it may be best if he asks the media involved to issue a retraction of this false story. If Kushal did tell a journalist that Lalji is his grandfather but he's now acknowledging it's untrue, it would probably help if he spoke to the media explaining why he told an untrue claim and try and convince them to issue a correction. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes I meant admin of his social media pages like twitter etc.
When you google his Wikipedia page it shows up on there before you click on the Wikipedia link also Kushal claims this has been quoted by Wiki only and not anywhere else regarding Lalji Tandon. What is the solution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy299 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Amy299: As I said, there is nothing whatsoever we can do about any other site other than make sure our information is correct. If you have a problem with what Google is showing on the Knowledge panel, you will need to contact Google. (Our article content can influence Google, but as always, it's a bit of a dark art, and we have no idea how Google decide's what information to show.) There are some suggestions above in this discussion #Jim White (journalist) especially if Kushnal himself wants to get involved. But ultimately the main point is there's no point commenting here.
Also again, putting this aside, India West and India.com and probably other sources have specifically claimed that Kushal told a journalist that Lalji Tandon is his grandfather. You can check out the links yourself [10] [11]. Feel free to forward them to Kushal Tandon if you have direct contact. If this is a made up story, IMO Kushal would do well to demand a retraction. It's one thing to get stuff wrong, a lot of entertainment news has very poor fact checking, it's another to make stuff up. On our side, we will generally stop using sources known to make stuff up, but it's hard for us to know when this is happening if it isn't publicised that it happened so if India West acknowledges this happens it will likely help as decide to avoid it's use.
There are a lot of other poor sources which simply make claim he's the grandfather [12] [13] especially when Lalji was sick and then passed away [14] [15] [16] which are I guess the more normal case of poor fact checking. Indeed AFAICT, the info was first added to our article in 2019, and a number of the sources predate that so while we may have had some role in spreading the misinformation, it seems our role was for once, probably somewhat limited.
I wrote the problems i saw to the talk page of the article, i hope this was not a mistake. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Gbear605 found out that this is no Wikipedia issue, but a google issue. IMHO this may end this ("my") notice talk. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a long term edit war over the subject's reported bisexuality. The single source, which I restored, looks pretty thin after all. I haven't been able to find much better. Either we need something WP:RELIABLE or omit the claim. Can anyone else find sources? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, well, if it is a single thin source according to BLP it would or should not have been replaced until other sources are available. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
In addition to the Interview Magazine source which includes this exchange:
"Tinkerbelle: Let's talk about women again. Do you like women who wear too much makeup?
Candy: How do you know he even likes women?
Tinkerbelle: I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Candy: You're the one that needs the benefit.
Ray: Why don't you ask me what sort of men I like?
Tinkerbelle: Do you like men too?
Ray: Mmm-hmm.
Candy: If you could be married to any movie star present today - in this room - no I mean who would your ideal date be?
Ray: Charlton Heston.
Candy: That's not bad. I like him." Interview Magazine, 1973
There is also an exchange regarding him having neither a preference for men or women in this Independent Article from 1994 as well. In addition to this he told his first wife that without her, he would "be queer" as referenced in "Indian Resonances in the British Invasion" by Jonathan Bellman as well as the Jon Savage biography on Davies. I think this is enough information to at the very least highlight in some regard. --Nobirdy (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Tony Schumacher
Tony Schumacher (drag racer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tony has not been married to Cara Schumacher in some years. He is currently engaged to Summer Penland and proposed to her on live tv at Indy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:D1C3:BC00:50D0:58E4:4DDC:76DE (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Our article makes no mention of his marital status. If you want to add this engagement, you are free to do so if you have a reliable source. (Note: "I saw the broadcast" is not a RS.) I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lars Monsen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Article says that his Canadian expedition was a thru-hike, which is was not. He took breaks to wait for appropriate weather for his kind of trip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.213.58.149 (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- To the extent that thru-hiking is a well-defined term at all (and even our article on the subject uses a loose definition), stops and breaks are not obvious departures. Nothing in the Lars Monsen article suggests this is an erroneous description. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Suella Braverman
Suella Braverman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A few more eyes on Suella Braverman would be appreciated: an IP is being over enthusiastic in adding lurid allegations, but I might be being over enthusiastic in removing them. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
To add to the fun, the IP is now vandalising other articles in apparent retaliation. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks to Materialscientist for dealing with the vandalism, but I would still appreciate third eyes on the original problem. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- The material as written is obviously inappropriate, and there is too much reliance on opinion sources. But the issues are real and the article definitely suffers from omission. Obviously having taken that view I should make efforts to remedy the situation, and over the next few days I hope to do that. Perhaps others will want to contribute along these lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- I blocked the IP and protected the page. Needs discussion before it is added back. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
John Alite
- John Alite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moved from WP:ANI
Hello dear
I am writing in regard to the Chronic and unruly behavior of User:Vaselineeeeeeee on my wiki page by one user
Here's my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Alite
The problem is with the word "informant" found at the introduction section of the page. It reads
John Edward Alite (born September 30, 1962), also known as Johnny Alletto, is an American former Gambino crime family associate, and later informant against the crime family and John A. "Junior" Gotti.
An enemy I have been fighting with for years has continued to engage the editor Vaselineeeeeeee to make sure that word informant is kept on the page.
I signed up on wikipedia.org and verified my account with the user name Johnaliteofficially just to address this issue. I can’t edit my page as it is against the wiki rules. I officially verified my wiki account via Wikimedia OTRS system to address this issue.
I requested an edit on my talk page to address this issue here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Alite#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_10_September_2020
But user: Vaselineeeeeeee rejected it despite the fact there are WP:RS sources that back up my claims.
Please, I never was an "informant" for FBI , I only did testify in 2008 after I was betrayed.
I was only referred to as a "star government witness" or simply a "witness". Here are WP:RS sources that back this up:
and
https://www.smh.com.au/world/exfriend-testifies-against-gotti-jnr-20090224-8g53.html
I was clearly referred to as "star government witness" or "witness" on both sources not an "informant" as Vaselineeeeeeee claims.
Other wiki editors have tried to address this issue after seeing my plea on the talk page.
Each time an editor changes the word "informant" to "star government witness" or any other word as seen in the WP:RS sources, "Vaselineeeeeeee" will revert it.
He reverted same edits 3 times within a 24 hour period on 11 September 2020.
Here’s the edit diffs
- [17] - Ist revert
- [18] – 2nd revert
- [19] – 3rd revert
Other editors have tried to reach out to "Vaselineeeeeeee" on my talk page, but he keeps reverting. I believe this is wrong and against wiki policy.
If you look at the history of the page, "Vaselineeeeeeee" has been reverting every single edit made by others.
This is indeed so worrisome to me. That word "informant" is a very big threat to me and my career. Enemies are using it against me simply because it is on my wikipedia page whereas it's all false.
I was never an informant. There are no WP:RS sources that called me an informant. The word "start government witness" and "informant" are two different stuff. They mean different things.
I have tried to reach a consensus on my talk page regarding this, but user Vaselineeeeeeee has continued to decline every attempt. He monitors my page and reverts edits as he likes.
I believe that my enemy whom I am fighting with has continued to use "Vaselineeeeeeee" to monitor the page and revert every single edit others make.
I don't really know how else to handle this. I am therefore reaching out to the wiki admin through this medium to help me deal with this issue.
I want the word "informant" at the intro section of my page changed to "star government witness" as seen in those WP:RS sources.
I'll be very glad to have this issue settled and please help me caution "Vaselineeeeeeee" to desist from reverting edits on my page arbitrarily.
Thanks
John AliteJohnaliteofficially (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- We don't cite wikis, and YouTube is only usable if the video was made and uploaded by a news agency to its own channel. Buzzfeed is not a particularly good source. See WP:Reliable sources for what we (and by extension, Vaselineeeeeeee) are looking for sourcing-wise. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 22:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- This inquiry is an absolute joke. I’ve already brought up the points for why your changes are problematic and am in no violations of any policies here. This is nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT from Mr. Alite who has chronically vandalized the article with no regard for our sourcing policy that he has consistently been pointed to, as well as no regard for WP:CONSENSUS, WP:STATUSQUO or WP:EUPHEMISM. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Strong disagree - Wikipedia policy seems pretty clear here that "witness" should be the preferred term, since it is most common and WP:BLP says that we should prioritize reducing harm. For more information, see my comment in Talk:John_Alite#John_Alite_according_to_sources_is_the_"star_government_witness"_not_an_"informant" Gbear605 (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Simply put, Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say. And reliable sources like the Tampa Bay Times, the Philadelpia Enquirer, Newsday, USA Today and The Guardian all call Alite an "informant" , so therefore Wikipedia will use that word too. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, I'd say BLP is the overriding policy compared to all those links. And if BLP concerns are raised, like
the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment
, it should really be removed until there's consensus for inclusion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)- ProcrastinatingReader, how is stating someone is an "informant" when reliable sources use that term causing the subject harm? We call BLPs sex offenders if they are charged and/or convicted of the offense and reliable sources call them as such. This is the case for Alite when it comes to calling him an informant. Now it is just a matter of preference to change it to "witness" which is not helpful. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 01:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Because this subject hasn't been convicted of being an informant? And we've got many top reliable sources using witness, making it an editorial decision on which term we use. But this is becoming a forked discussion, so I've replied over there more fully. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, you can't be convicted of being an informant—you just are one for the government if you agree to be one, which Alite did. I'm going to try to find sources stating this, hopefully some government ones, but if not I'll concede. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 01:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Finding sources saying it, especially government sources, doesn't help the case further. Per my comment there, we have The Times, The New York Times, NBC and Reuters, all top RS, using "witness" (or government witness). The fact that the label can be attributed to such RS, regardless of if other RS use a different label, means the label we choose to use on the article is purely editorial discretion. At that point the discussion isn't about sources but about our other content guidelines which help decide which label to use. I see BLP and the statements of the subject as being overriding, here. But even if that wasn't the case, the fact that top RS use a particular label should really be a guiding factor here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, you can't be convicted of being an informant—you just are one for the government if you agree to be one, which Alite did. I'm going to try to find sources stating this, hopefully some government ones, but if not I'll concede. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 01:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Because this subject hasn't been convicted of being an informant? And we've got many top reliable sources using witness, making it an editorial decision on which term we use. But this is becoming a forked discussion, so I've replied over there more fully. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader, how is stating someone is an "informant" when reliable sources use that term causing the subject harm? We call BLPs sex offenders if they are charged and/or convicted of the offense and reliable sources call them as such. This is the case for Alite when it comes to calling him an informant. Now it is just a matter of preference to change it to "witness" which is not helpful. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 01:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Strong disagree - Wikipedia policy seems pretty clear here that "witness" should be the preferred term, since it is most common and WP:BLP says that we should prioritize reducing harm. For more information, see my comment in Talk:John_Alite#John_Alite_according_to_sources_is_the_"star_government_witness"_not_an_"informant" Gbear605 (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- This inquiry is an absolute joke. I’ve already brought up the points for why your changes are problematic and am in no violations of any policies here. This is nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT from Mr. Alite who has chronically vandalized the article with no regard for our sourcing policy that he has consistently been pointed to, as well as no regard for WP:CONSENSUS, WP:STATUSQUO or WP:EUPHEMISM. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Found several other high quality sources that use "informant". With regards to using editorial discretion for which word to use, I do not buy for a second that this word "harms" the subject other than his own personal views.
"Informant" vs "witness" are virtually synonymsand one is not more "offensive" than the other in normal circumstances. See my comment at the talk page for more info. I would argue since there are also many sources that use "informant", which is the stable WP:Status quo, that should be used. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)- You are citing an essay. I'm citing a core policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- To me, "informant" and "witness" carry very different meanings -- and in fact U.S. Code treats them as distinct entities. "Informant" implies an individual is a) a criminal and b) knowingly obtaining confidential information from the accused on behalf of law enforcement during an investigation. "Witness" is a lot more neutral and implies the person is just providing testimony on events that occurred before they were approached by prosecutors. Since perception of "narcing" and duplicitousness can have very real repercussions on someone's life, and because there are multiple RS using "witness", I would suggest using that term instead. And anyway if they are "virtually synonyms" to User:Vaselineeeeeeee then there shouldn't be an issue with this substitution. JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- The two words are definitely not synonyms. An informant is someone who secretly gives information to law enforcement whereas a witness is someone who testifies in a court. The problem I see, without even going to the sources, is that our article describes him as doing the actions of a witness, not the actions of an informant.
- I think it's a fallacious argument to say we must always use the same words as found in sources. What we're supposed to do is read and understand the sources and then rewrite the information in our own words, or else we'd all be guilty of plagiarism. If some sources use one word and some use the other, then we have a duty to look past the words and see the entire meaning, put into the context of all sources, and use the most accurate description we can. In this instance --just from reading our article-- I see nothing that shows him doing the things an informant does. Instead, the actions I see are those of a witness.
- Now I don't plan to dig too deep into this, so I really don't know if he was an informant or not, but if he was I'd expect our article to demonstrate that, yet it does not. Zaereth (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- That's a fair assessment, thanks for the insight. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think that the attempt to create a rigid distinction between informant and witness in this (and similar) cases is a bit misplaced. It is not as if Alite was a bystander who happened to witness some criminal activity and voluntarily agreed to testify in the ensuing trial. He pled guilty to "two murders, four murder conspiracies, at least eight shootings, and two attempted shootings as well as armed home invasions and armed robberies" and admitted to beating about 100 people with a baseball bat, according to his BLP. At some point, he decided to break from the Mafia and testified in exchange for a very lenient sentence for his crimes, because the government came to the conclusion that he would be helpful in trying to convict "bigger fish". Prosecutors would never put a person like that on the stand without months of interviews and debriefings where the witness is expected to provide a vast amount of verifiable details about the ongoing criminal activity before being allowed to testify. A criminal informant is a participant in ongoing criminal activity who decides to provide detailed information to law enforcement agencies and sometimes to the courts. This is an entirely accurate description of John Alite. It is a pejorative only in criminal circles. Alite made the correct and moral choice when he agreed to be an informant and witness against the Gotti crime family. I understand that some unsavory people revile him for flipping to lawful behavior, but Wikipedia should report his role neutrally. In my view, he is both an informant and a star witness, and both are correct and neutral terms to describe him. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment Cullen. Those are also my thoughts but you articulated them much better. I went ahead and changed informant to government witness, which redirects there anyway, given being largely outnumbered, but if you think there’s still a case for informant, please comment at the talk page or revert me. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 04:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think that the attempt to create a rigid distinction between informant and witness in this (and similar) cases is a bit misplaced. It is not as if Alite was a bystander who happened to witness some criminal activity and voluntarily agreed to testify in the ensuing trial. He pled guilty to "two murders, four murder conspiracies, at least eight shootings, and two attempted shootings as well as armed home invasions and armed robberies" and admitted to beating about 100 people with a baseball bat, according to his BLP. At some point, he decided to break from the Mafia and testified in exchange for a very lenient sentence for his crimes, because the government came to the conclusion that he would be helpful in trying to convict "bigger fish". Prosecutors would never put a person like that on the stand without months of interviews and debriefings where the witness is expected to provide a vast amount of verifiable details about the ongoing criminal activity before being allowed to testify. A criminal informant is a participant in ongoing criminal activity who decides to provide detailed information to law enforcement agencies and sometimes to the courts. This is an entirely accurate description of John Alite. It is a pejorative only in criminal circles. Alite made the correct and moral choice when he agreed to be an informant and witness against the Gotti crime family. I understand that some unsavory people revile him for flipping to lawful behavior, but Wikipedia should report his role neutrally. In my view, he is both an informant and a star witness, and both are correct and neutral terms to describe him. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- That's a fair assessment, thanks for the insight. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Now I don't plan to dig too deep into this, so I really don't know if he was an informant or not, but if he was I'd expect our article to demonstrate that, yet it does not. Zaereth (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wow, I am relieved! I really thank you dear friends, User:ProcrastinatingReader, User:JoelleJay, User:Vaselineeeeeeee and others for this insight and help. Please, User:Vaselineeeeeeee, forgive me for rantings against you. I don't really understand how changes and edits are done on wikipedia. I was only feeling bad because sincerely, I never was an informant for FBI or Police, I did become a government witness and testify against my ex-friend. Thanks for the change.
- But it seems another editor by name User:Cullen328 has re-added the word 'Informant" again. Please this is threatening to me. They use this against me. I though, a consensus have been reached to use only "government witness". Please help address this again. Thanks Johnaliteofficially (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I did add back the word "informant" because it is used to describe you by many reliable sources such the Tampa Bay Times, the Philadelpia Enquirer, Newsday, USA Today and The Guardian all of which use the word "informant". I do not see any consensus to exclude that word. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with this view -- we have ample grounds for using this word. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- In this thread I count Estarosmārṭ, Guy, Schazjmd,Gbear605, User:Squared.Circle.Boxing, and ProcrastinatingReader advocating against "informant", and Vaselineeeeeeee and Cullen328 arguing for. Adding in the participants from this thread, we have myself and Zaereth against and A little blue Bori and Nomoskedasticity for. Given what Schazjmd said in the first thread, that only 3 out of 16 of the article's sources call him an informant with the rest of them using either "witness" or "testified against"; and given the dictionary and legal differences between the terms; there is actually a strong consensus to use "witness". JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to agree with JoelleJay's reasoning that witness is more neutral and more precise as it's not clear to me if RS established when Alite turned on Gambino while still conducting ongoing criminal activity. The article content focused on his testimony after he had already been convicted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I did add back the word "informant" because it is used to describe you by many reliable sources such the Tampa Bay Times, the Philadelpia Enquirer, Newsday, USA Today and The Guardian all of which use the word "informant". I do not see any consensus to exclude that word. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Agnivesh - treating the person as a permanent member of an organisation from where he was expelled 44 years ago
Agnivesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On Agnivesh, multiple editors are deliberately spreading misinformation that this recently dead person was a permanent member of an organisation called Arya Samaj even though he was expelled from that organization about 44 years ago. Thus living most of his life without being a member of this organisation. Review these two latest edits:
- calling him "an Arya Samaj leader" when he was expelled decades ago and attributing the expelling when no attribution is required for this undisputed and self-confessed (by the subject) fact.
- total censorship of the information from the lead that he was expelled from the organisation by using deceptive wording in the edit summary, just for spreading misinformation that he was part of Arya Samaj for his entire life. 122.170.146.220 (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is a fair degree of discussion on the article talk page. If it's undisputed he was expelled I would agree the lead should mention it. The problem seems to be there is some dispute. I don't really know much about Arya Samaj but it sounds like the leadership may be somewhat decentralised and therefore the concept of someone being 'expelled' is not actually that simple. Note that as a general comment, someone being expelled for most of their life doesn't mean there's no mention to merit the organisation in the lead. For example, even if Nigel Farage lives to 120 and never rejoins UKIP, it's likely that our article should mention his leadership role in it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Peter Vickery
The article "2006 Massachusetts Governor's Council Election" states that Peter Vickery lost the District 8 primary, which is correct. However, it links to the wrong Peter Vickery. The Peter Vickery who lost the primary is an Attorney in Amherst, Massachusetts, not a justice on the Supreme Court of Victoria. Asher Emrik (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Asher Emrik, September 13, 2020
- Thanks, fixed. In passing I doubt the article needs all these redlinks - very unlikely that all of these people would meet the notability criteria justifying separate articles. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing deletion discussion regarding the Jessica Yaniv that may be of interest to Wikipedia editors who watch the BLP noticeboard. Nblund talk 00:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Overall comment
The ‘controversies’ section makes numerous claims that are unsourced and inaccurate, which is not in keeping with your policy of verifiability The section is written in a malicious tone that is not in keeping with your policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. We note that Wikipedia says biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, that it is not Wikipedia’s job to be sensationalist, and that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who added the material.
Interest declared: I am head of media relations at the School and write on the School’s behalf.
Detailed comment
Covid-19 response
Unsourced claim. The opening sentence makes an unsourced claim: Students at Saïd Business School were unhappy with the Dean's response to the Covid-19 pandemic .
Unsourced claim. In the sentence beginning “98% of students believed the quality of education deteriorated” the 98% figure is unsourced. The School has accurate data on student evaluations and it does not substantiate this claim.
Unsourced claim. The line about ‘stonewalling demands for compensation’ is inaccurate: the School’s leadership did not stonewall demands for compensation, students were clearly told there would be no refunds, but their education would continue virtually.
Unsourced claim. The line about ‘generally lacking transparency in working with the students’ is an unsourced and vague claim.
Inaccuracy. The line about telling the student body to crowdfund online is a distortion: The School created a Service Corps as part of its Covid-19 response and supported students, through its media relations and fundraising team, to raise funds from donors so they could do voluntary work for non-profits. Indeed, recent media stories, profiling this initiative demonstrate this. See https://www.clearadmit.com/2020/09/fridays-from-the-frontline-oxford-mbas-build-back-better/ Also, as noted in one of the articles quoted, the Dean’s Response Fund, which supported this activity, was jump-started with a gift from the Dean.
“Cut and paste” Covid-19 course
Inaccurate/disputed claim. The entry says: On September 10th 2020, the business school, while under the authority of Peter Tufano was accused of taking advantage of a government scheme during the COVID-19 pandemic. This line is false - the programme in question was running before the pandemic. The School disputes the claim that it was ‘taking advantage’ of the government. There is no source for these claims - the link provided does not substantiate the claims.
Inaccurate claim. Creating a “major project leadership academy in response to Covid-19”. This is inaccurate. The Major Project Leadership Academy has been running since 2012.
False/disputed claim. The entry then says “The business school was taking advantage of a dire situation”. Again the School disputes the phrase ‘taking advantage of’. A ‘dire situation’ appears to be a reference to Covid-19, which would make this inaccurate.
The title of this part is inaccurate because of its reference to Covid-19.
Ties to violence on African continent
Unsourced claim. The entry refers to ‘prominent political figures associated with, or responsible for, violent oppression on the African continent’.
The link to the Cherwell article does not provide evidence that substantiates the claims made in the entry, including the serious allegation in relation to Professor Ncube.
Unsourced claim. The article says that Ncube has ‘defended and denied’ human rights violations. The link provided does not quote Professor Ncube directly but refers to a claim made by one of his critics.
We note that these claims do not appear on Professor Ncube’s own Wikipedia entry.
As a whole, we question the relevance of the ‘African continent” section to a disinterested article about the subject of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasilemak1973 (talk • contribs) 10:16, September 14, 2020 (UTC)
- @Nasilemak1973:, I have reverted the article to the June 29, 2020 version before most of the material objected to was added. I believe that this is mostly WP:UNDUE emphasis on issues that are about the school and not the individual. These edits attempted to tie these issues to the article subject when they are really are not -- as the school Dean, any news articles are going to quote him. I have asked that any restoration be preceded by discussion on the article talk page. If the editors that added this material engage in discussion, it would be appropriate for you as an editor with a declared interest in the article subject to participate there rather than editing it directly. Thank you for bringing this issue to attention. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The material objected to has now been restored without discussion on the article talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasilemak1973 (talk • contribs) 11:40, September 15, 2020 (UTC)
- @Nasilemak1973:, that material has already been removed again by the administrator Cullen328 and he has also semi-protected the article to prevent anonymous editors from editing it for a time. The restored material was visible for about four hours and the protection should run for a week. I am watching that page and I will respond in the future if I see similar attempts to restore without discussion. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Eggishorn:Thanks for giving this your attention. Nasilemak1973 (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Please have a look at Talk:José António Falcão, where Tggm has voiced concerns about the neutrality and verifiability of the biography. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
André Sogliuzzo
André Sogliuzzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm not sure what to do here. We have an IP editor adding a bunch of completely unsourced info, followed immediately by the subject of the article correcting it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- It’s a bit odd, I agree. The IP-added material reads like a C.V. and if it wasn’t for the edit from the supposed subject, I’d have thought it had been added by, or on behalf of, the subject! I might revert it all as a good faith but unsourced addition to a BLP. Neiltonks (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I recently set up a discussion about the possible deletion of this article, because the subject had requested it. The result of the discussion was a clear vote to keep the article. Prof. Webb is very disappointed and has asked me to find out to whom he can appeal on this matter. Would an administrator be prepared to enter into a correspondence directly with Prof. Webb and, if so, how should he go about getting in touch with that administrator? LynwoodF (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- There isn't really another process unless there is something clearly wrong with the article. Wikipedia works by community consensus, so when there is a community decision there are not a lot of channels left other than to try again later (if there were legal issues that would be a different problem, but this does not appear to be the case). However, as I understand it, the issue was that older version was deemed to be more appropriate, and he didn't like the current version. If I can better understand what he would prefer to have included, it might be possible to make those changes. - Bilby (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- I understand how he may feel. Personally, I wouldn't wish a Wikipedia article on my worst enemy. That's way too cruel. Therefore, I tend to be quite a bit more ruthless when it comes to deletion discussions, because my feeling is that, if there is not enough info out there to make a decent article about a person, then it simply doesn't deserve an article of its own. I mean, what is the point of creating an article that will never be anything more than a stub? In my mind, that means we should be able to find multiple sources of very high quality (like 30+), or at least a handful of sources that go into vast detail.
- However, there are a good number of Wikipedians that believe in striving for quantity over quality when it comes to creating or deleting articles, so getting an article deleted here is very difficult when there are any reliable, secondary sources at all, no matter how few or insignificant.
- The thing I would keep in mind is that consensus can always change, but it's up to you to convince others of your position to make that happen. My advice is to take some time, watch what goes on at places likeWP:AFD, and try to work out a better argument for deleting this article. Then, when you are ready, give it another shot. (But don't do it too quickly or you'll look desperate, and people may look upon that as you just didn't get the message). Consensus is not the end of the world, it just means it won't be as easy as you'd hoped. Zaereth (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Vazgen Manukyan
So for the last few days, User:Astghik Manukyan has drastically expanded the Vazgen Manukyan article, as well as at least its Armenian and Russian versions. My main issue is that this user has made almost no other edits. I already undid their edits (except for the ones made in the Russian page, which are still pending), but can you review what's going on? Saturdayopen (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Update: my undo of the Armenian version has been undone. Saturdayopen (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Saturdayopen:, having few other edits or even being an outright WP:SPA is not, in and of itself, a good reason for reverting. If an SPA is not violating the core content policies or the WP:COI policy, then there is no reason to revert. I suggest discussing any specific issues you may have on the talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Eggishorn: Have you seen the version last saved by User:Astghik Manukyan? Cause I got to be honest, it doesn't look good. Also, I have a strange feeling this person has a personal connection with the subject. Saturdayopen (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Saturdayopen:, having few other edits or even being an outright WP:SPA is not, in and of itself, a good reason for reverting. If an SPA is not violating the core content policies or the WP:COI policy, then there is no reason to revert. I suggest discussing any specific issues you may have on the talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear Saturdayopen, I am new editor on wiki, I can do mistakes, so need a lot of help. Could you please tell me what I am doing wrong on Vazgen Manukyan's page? All my sources are verified and I am going to add many other sources if needed. I will appreciate your help, since I am planning to edit many pages in wiki as I saw wrong facts about many events that took place in Armenia.
--Astghik Manukyan (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Astghik Manukyan: I gotta ask you something: are you related to Vazgen Manukyan? Because everything about this suggests that you are. Saturdayopen (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Saturdayopen Yes I am related. When I see wrong or not sufficient information about a person or events in wiki, and I have solid facts and sources to change or add information what should I do in that case? Astghik Manukyan (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Astghik Manukyan:, please see the Conflict of Interest policy. There is also a guide that will help you navigate working on an article about your relative. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Eggishorn Thanks!Astghik Manukyan (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Gianfranco Battisti - translated from the Italian version
Hi everyone, in July I submitted a translated version of the biography about the chief executive officer and general manager of Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane S.p.A. Gianfranco Battisti. Furthermore, I placed an AFC submission template at the top of the page.
Since some time has passed, and this is a translation of an article already approved in Italian, I'd be glad to have your opinion on the biography so that it can possibly be moved into the mainspace. What do you think?
Claudia Frattini (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I noticed that in my previous message a link to the biography is missing. Here is the page: Gianfranco Battisti
- Claudia Frattini (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pío López Obrador
Can some people take a look whether the material I and another editor are edit warring over constitutes a BLP violation or not? This is the edit in question. Fram (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- This editor's observation: The redacted implication isn't even guilt by association, it's possible involvement due to endemic corruption in the region. I did not find an edit by the contributor citing of any source even suggesting an accusation, credible or not. The Reuters link provided by the editor only undermines their case. Most generous interpretation: WP:SYNTH. Less generous: unsourced smear and innuendo. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- clearly nobody has re-read the article, which probably began life as a translation. This is part of Operation Car Wash and the Odebrecht scandals, which the OPs clearly haven't read at all. The article creator is a valued contributor to the pages about these scandals and should not be mocked. It is unclear to me why Chiapas was considered this important at the time, but I have added a dozen or so reliable sources about the transaction. These are in English, unlike the previous reliable sources, which were in Spanish and which they are therefore dismissing. This is why your translators keep quitting, Wikipedia.
- It is possible that the article should be merged into some other article, but the sources are there, these editors just don't like them, and they are trying to speedy delete because they don't know anything about this extremely documented set of scandals to understand the notability. These editors need someone to explain to them the Things May Be Notable About Which They Know Nothing.
- Please ping me if there are questions. I am not following the page.
- Also, these guys may be edit-warring. I am not edit warring and I have declined to edit war. I reverted a deletion of a completely factual comment and declined to revert his second removal of my attempt to explain this scandal to him. Elinruby (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: BLP removals are exempt from the edit warring rules. You were stating at the AfD that the person involved and their article shouldn't be deleted because of various scandals, "not to mention cartels". The sources in the article at the time didn't mention these scandals or cartels, and neither did you provide anything to support these connections. The sources you have added to the article, like this and this, again don't mention anything about cartels. You have now largely expanded the article, but the text you added shows clearly that there is no link alleged between the BLP subject and the cartels. You are adding WP:OR / WP:SYNTH by adding to the article a source about the cartels which doesn't even mention the BLP subject. Making such connections is not allowed in general on enwiki, and making such connections when related to crime and a BLP is definitely not allowed. Oh, and no one is trying to "speedy delete" anything, there is an AfD which takes some time and allows discussion and expansion of the article, within our policies. Fram (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is ridiculous that you were ranting about righting great wrongs etc etc on a topic about which you clearly knew nothing. It isn't libel if it's true. When videos exist and are widely reported in mainstream media, it is not a BLP issue to say that video exists. It isn't unsourced if it has reliable sources. If cartels are part of the context then cartels are part of the context. The article should never have been listed for AfD. You, yes you, should not revert people who are trying to explain the reliable reporting to you. I am more troubled by your utter refusal to consider reliable Spanish-language sources than I am about this specific article. If you don't want to read or evaluate sources in Spanish don't list articles about South American politics for AfD. Don't revert people who are trying to explain things to you and don't assume the context is derogatory for God's sake. Don't start noticeboard topics claiming that people are edit warring when you don't get your own way. I am busy but may yet take this to ANI, where you are apparently no stranger. I had absolutely no stake in this article when I first encountered it in the uncategorized queue and told you not to delete it, and this should not have been met with derision. Things, even important things, may indeed exist of which you know nothing. I have since recognized the original poster as an important contributor to Operation Car Wash. I hope he will not be discouraged from further translations by your ridiculous ethnocentrism. This sort of behaviour is a persistent and apparently systemic problem for Wikipedia translators; a translation from another wiki does not always meet the standards of en.wiki in the first thirty seconds of its existence, and the new article queue is plagued by the wilfully ignorant. Do not delete this article. That is all. Elinruby (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: BLP removals are exempt from the edit warring rules. You were stating at the AfD that the person involved and their article shouldn't be deleted because of various scandals, "not to mention cartels". The sources in the article at the time didn't mention these scandals or cartels, and neither did you provide anything to support these connections. The sources you have added to the article, like this and this, again don't mention anything about cartels. You have now largely expanded the article, but the text you added shows clearly that there is no link alleged between the BLP subject and the cartels. You are adding WP:OR / WP:SYNTH by adding to the article a source about the cartels which doesn't even mention the BLP subject. Making such connections is not allowed in general on enwiki, and making such connections when related to crime and a BLP is definitely not allowed. Oh, and no one is trying to "speedy delete" anything, there is an AfD which takes some time and allows discussion and expansion of the article, within our policies. Fram (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
for the click-impaired: the statement Fram (talk · contribs) so over-zealously objected to was that the article should be evaluated in the light of Operation Car Wash and the Odebrecht and cartel scandals. This statement is now thoroughly substantiated. The material about fuel theft should also be incorporated into the PEMEX article but is important context here. The article as currently written reflects an important context: The former head of PEMEX (Mexican oil) was arrested and will testify. The head of a cartel diverting oil from PEMEX was also arrested. The president alleged his predecessors were corrupt, and released a video. Two days later video emerges of his brother receiving a bundle of money. The video appears to be retaliation (although I do not have the article saying that) and also appears to genuine. This is highly notable. Elinruby (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Can some other editors here perhaps check the history of the AfD and then educate Elinruby about our WP:NPA policy. I have the impression that this doesn't really match what really happened (I didn't mention "righting great wrongs", I didn't revert anyone "trying to explain the reliable reporting to me" but someone adding unsourced allegations or implications, I have no idea where one reads my "utter refusal to consider reliable Spanish-language sources", "Don't start noticeboard topics claiming that people are edit warring when you don't get your own way." is actually completely wrong: starting a noticeboard discussion in case of an edit war is encouraged, to bring in outside perspective; "I first encountered it in the uncategorized queue and told you not to delete it, and this should not have been met with derision."??? "ridiculous ethnocentrism"???). Fram (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Starting a case on the drama boards is understandable (I may yet start one over your abusive editing practices). Saying that someone is edit warring because they object to an AfD listing is not. It is in fact itself a personal attack. I am done here. You do not have consensus to delete the article. You should either educate yourself on Latin American politics or avoid the topic. Elinruby (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- You add comments, I ask you to remove them, you don't, so I remove them[20], you readd them, and I remove them again[21]. So I stated here that we were edit warring (please reread what I wrote, I did include myself). No personal attack was involved. You are obviously free to raise this at some drama board, but I don't think you'll have any success with this angle. Fram (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Speak for yourself. *You* are edit-warring. I objected, as an uninvolved editor at that time, to your bizarre assumptions, in the proper place to do so. This is not a minor allegation by any measure, I have nothing against the dude, who appears to have been sandbagged, but the video is widely reported and and appears to be genuine. It is notable no matter what. A translation from another language ALWAYS has sources in that language, because it is a translation. Sources in another language may nonetheless be reliable, and it scares me that you do not know this. We add in the English language sources based on the translation. Good god. Elinruby (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Starting a case on the drama boards is understandable (I may yet start one over your abusive editing practices). Saying that someone is edit warring because they object to an AfD listing is not. It is in fact itself a personal attack. I am done here. You do not have consensus to delete the article. You should either educate yourself on Latin American politics or avoid the topic. Elinruby (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
All I can say is, wow. That article is terrible. It is certainly not a biography about a specific person. In fact, very little of the text is about this person at all. Instead, this article is about a current event under the guise of a biography. The whole thing reeks of synthesis, like someone has taken all these bits and pieces and assembled them into a collage of information to imply a conclusion not directly stated. I strongly support deleting it. I would say it's too newspaperish, but it's worse than that; it reads more like Unsolved Mysteries (ie: "Look, here are a bunch of unrelated events. Coincidence? I think not?) And that's just from reading the article. I haven't even gotten as far as the sources.
As for the edit in question, I think Fram was justified in deleting that. BLP policy is very strict, and applies to all spaces, including talk pages, user pages, and even deletion discussions. You either have to 1.) provide very good sources that say this outright (not one that merely imply it), or 2.) be very, very careful in how you phrase such statements.
A personal attack is when someone attacks another's person or their character. People use this phrase way too often to deflect what is often in reality justified criticism. It is not a personal attack to comment on someone's actions or point out flaws in the logic of their arguments. It is not a personal attack to point out edit warring, misbehavior, bad attitudes (although there is a fine line with that one), misunderstanding, competence, or other such matters that are related to their actions. Personal attacks themselves are just a method of deflection; a distraction from the real issues, and more often than not calling something a personal attack when it isn't is used for the exact same purpose.
All in all, I think this is a terrible article, and per BLPCRIME I don't think we should wait for the results of AFD before fixing this situation. I'd recommend speedying it as soon as possible, or at the very least doing a major gutting. Zaereth (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- You *should* get to the sources, because they are impeccable, even though I got tired and left some as barebones urls.. This is not some random conspiracy flight of fancy, dude. It is established fact and the sources do in fact frame this as an attack on his brother, the president of Mexico. Try it with the sources, buddy, and let's all take a deep breath. We *could* remove all mentions of the scandals and the cartels, sure, but *that* would potentially be libelous, because the cartels and the scandals are why the video was dug up, and covering the video without that context might be seen as an endorsement of the people who dug it up as a bit of political theater. You guys. The point of BLP is to avoid libel cases. The material Fram removed was me *defending* Pío, lol. I strongly suggest that you look at those sources that you are so sanctimoniously lecturing me about, and preferably also the wikilinks. This is part of a multinational corruption scandal and it should not be whitewashed.Elinruby (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- sorry not sorry that I seem a bit incensed but this is, let's see, maybe the sixth or seventh time someone has said we should gut it because you can't say that without sources, which is a very fine position to take when the current and previous presidents of Mexico are accusing one another of corruption. Except. There are fifteen or so references, which include the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Forbes, Voice of America, the Financial Times and a few Mexican newspapers. The video itself is on the Latinus YouTube channel. We are this many steps into this whole little hissy fit and I am nonetheless having to say that, because people are not freaking reading the links or the documentation. I have linked it to the appropriate section of the Car Wash developments pages. It would be good to look at these pages, ctwhich have a cast of hundreds, many of whom are politically connected figures like López. He is at this point famous as a figure in the Odebrecht proffer of evidence, but I have no objection if someone wants to add some more bio. In fact I would love to know what he was doing in Chiapas fifteen years ago with Moreno political contributions. But any referenced bio information would be fine. Elinruby (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- You *should* get to the sources, because they are impeccable, even though I got tired and left some as barebones urls.. This is not some random conspiracy flight of fancy, dude. It is established fact and the sources do in fact frame this as an attack on his brother, the president of Mexico. Try it with the sources, buddy, and let's all take a deep breath. We *could* remove all mentions of the scandals and the cartels, sure, but *that* would potentially be libelous, because the cartels and the scandals are why the video was dug up, and covering the video without that context might be seen as an endorsement of the people who dug it up as a bit of political theater. You guys. The point of BLP is to avoid libel cases. The material Fram removed was me *defending* Pío, lol. I strongly suggest that you look at those sources that you are so sanctimoniously lecturing me about, and preferably also the wikilinks. This is part of a multinational corruption scandal and it should not be whitewashed.Elinruby (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Zaereth. Any admins or uninvolved editors willing to take on the "speedying it as soon as possible, or at the very least doing a major gutting" Zaereth suggests? Fram (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Jerry Harris (television personality)
Jerry Harris was just arrested for allegedly soliciting pics and sex, including from minors.
What is appropriate from the lead I’m not sure, but it’s a very short article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
William Haseltine
William Haseltine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This biographyy is lacking in information. William Haseline's credentials are vague and should be more precise. Is William Haseltine a doctor? Did he complete a PhD degree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:4de0:d780:a5c9:b51c:2661:7a4c (talk • contribs) 02:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- The article says "He received ... a PhD in biophysics from Harvard University in 1973" in the "Early life and education" section. Based on the article, it sounds like he is not a medical doctor, but he has been a research professor and the founder of a number of bio-technical companies. The article says in the lead that he is "an American scientist, businessman, author, and philanthropist," which I think about covers it. Gbear605 (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Experienced editors invited to WP:Articles for deletion/Carl Haglund (real estate)
The AfD is on the last day of its second relist. The opinions of experienced editors on the question of notability would be helpful. Schazjmd (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Stephanie Pollack
This is a spin-out from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strala00. Could somebody with more BLP experience than I have please take a look at both Stephanie Pollack and Green Line Extension and see if there's anything that goes beyond properly sourced negative press into BLP-violation land? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, what we really need is for somebody to go through the history to see if there's anything bad enough to justify WP:REVDEL. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Category:American white supremacist politicians
Category:American white supremacist politicians
What should the criteria be for inclusion in this category? I am thinking multiple reliable sources that specifically call the politician a white supremacist? Otherwise it becomes a magnet for original research. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- The existence of this category is a violation of WP:BLPCAT. Value-ladened labels cannot be used to categorized living persons because you cannot source them properly nor objectively. --Masem (t) 05:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- To point out some relevant CFDs here Deletion of "far-right politicians" in 2006, and discussion of diffuse-only "Far-right politicians by nationality" in 2018 based on direct political party affiliation. I know we're talking "white supremacy" here which is not the same as "far right" for the purpose but keep in mind the discusses all are considered about the use of subjective labeling in cats, which even if its based on "this is all what the media says" we should not be using for categorization, versus more objective "they are part of said party, and said party is considered X" is at least fair; eg in this case, those that are known members of the KKK and that are politician would likely belong, but only via sub-categories and not directly under that category.
- Or in other words: Category:White supremacist politicians should really be at Category:White supremacist politicians by nationality, with subcats like Category:White supremacist politicians in the United States, Category:White supremacist politicians in the United Kingdom, etc. and then you would have, say in the US subcat, Category:Dixiecrats, and Category:National States' Rights Party politicians and so on (following the model set in the 2018 CFD) (on the presumption these groups are widely recognized as white supremacist, I haven't checked exactly but my recollection is that they are). But no bare person should be in the "Category:White supremacist politicians in (country)" category level as these are to be diffuse only due to the label issue. --Masem (t) 06:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I say we need a Category:People who accuse others of racism. (Except that it would be overpopulated.) Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- An objective standard can be defined through actions supporting or defending explicit policies of white supremacy. You can also include a few avowed white nationalists (like a certain Congresscritter). For notable living American politicians, there are a few fringe state legislators. Aside from neo-Nazis and clear-cut cases like David Duke, is the category useful and defining? For 20th-century and earlier politicians, the category can net many people. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- That's why its fair to put people in the category indirectly through their voluntary political affiliation like KKK politicians. And as the question was also asked at WT:CAT, one can also say that for activists, what they are objectively stated to activist-ize for is categorizable (like anti-abortion activists or pro-slavery activists); whether there are any "white supremacy activists" I'm not sure. But I do stress that I think it is far that while need to avoid placing people into value-laden label categories, placing them indirectly through groups that they have voluntarily included themselves in, and which the groups are either self-described or widely (read: not cherry-picked sources like one SPLC reference and that's it) recognized for the label is reasonably fair. KKK being about white supremacy and thus David Duke being effectively under the white supremacist politicians, check. Random GOP member, not so much. --Masem (t) 22:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Kill it, Salt it I agree with the concerns regarding how do you draw the line? If someone is a member of a group that openly declares they are white supremacists, sure. In any other case this is very problematic. Labels like "racist", "white supremacists" etc get thrown around for political gain all the time. People (Group A) can be for the same thing as a "bad group" without sympathizing with that group. Someone on the other side says "A is with bad group" thus A=bad group. This is just way too problematic. Springee (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Jessica Yaniv
An AFD may make this moot, but there is a problem of a user adding and re-adding sources that are deemed unreliable in order to make contentious claims. I have explained some concerns on the talk page. --Rob (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes it is moot Trivierr. Let's discuss your concerns on the talk page rather than you making threats prior to discussion. AFDs and made after resolution fails, not beforehand.CatCafe (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion about the correct use of BLPN
- Trivierr, please resolve your concerns on the talkpage, stop leaving "rude comments" (your words) on my talk page, and desist from creating "moot" (your word) AFDs prior to ANY discussion about your concerns. CatCafe (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- @CatCafe: if you have other problems with Rob, you should take that somewhere else. Rob did not say anything about rude comments, and nothing they said here can reasonably be considered rude. Rob also did not say anything about any AFD being moot here, let alone open a moot AFD here (which makes no sense). They simply pointed out that the issues here could become moot depending on the outcome of the AFD. This makes sense since if the AfD is closed as delete or merge/redirect, concern over the article content would be addressed. However Rob is also correct that as long as the article exists, we cannot allow BLP violations in it. This will include any information sources solely to sources which aren't reliable or which can't be used for BLPs per WP:RSPS. Any editor who persists in adding info sourced solely to such sources when a living person is involved is liable to be blocked. Note that the only AFD that seems relevant to this discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv. It looks like that was opened by User:Black Kite. This discussion is not an AfD. WP:AfD or "Articles for deletion" has a specific meaning here on Wikipedia and it most definitely does not cover this discussion, not even close. I suggest editors confused by what an AfD is may want to read the Wikipedia page. Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nil Einne I think you're getting it the wrong way around. If Trivierr has a problem with me they should have taken it somewhere else (i.e the pages talk page) not here. And for you're info this is the edit with Trivierr stating they had to delete after stating they were "being rude" here. And now I will say it to you, if you have a problem with me, then take it somewhere else (i.e the pages talk page). Move on. Thanks in advance. CatCafe (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- @CatCafe: your comments were made here so it was appropriate to address them here to prevent confusion, especially as a lot of editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia use this board. And it is also entirely appropriate to bring any edits which violate BLP here, indeed it's a core part of this board. And that seems to have been what Rob was trying to do, and was all this thread was about until you started bring up offtopic stuff. I did not look into detail into your edits since you seem to have self reverted. But if you did re-add info sourced entirely to unreliable sources or sources unsuitable for BLPs, then that was inappropriate and liable to lead to a block if continued, and bringing the matter to the attention of this noticeboard was, and I'm getting sick of saying this, entirely appropriate. I don't really give a flying flip what Rob did on your talk page, let me repeat for the last time it has zero to do with the noticeboard. I don't really give a flying flip what you do provided you don't violate BLP, and don't misuse this board to address problems you have that are unrelated to this board, AFAIK, I have no significant interaction with you before. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nil Einne are you ok? As I requested 'Move on' and let's close this storm in a teacup Trivierr created by overreacting 3 places at once. Thanks in advance. CatCafe (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- @CatCafe: Let me repeat one final time, adding or re-adding information that is not reliably sourced to a BLP, especially on contentious issues is not a storm in a teacup. It's a serious issue and editor's should not treat it lightly or think it's okay to do. Concerns over such issues are not an overreaction. Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- (EC) @CatCafe: BTW, it is rarely appropriate to discuss editor's behaviour on on "pages talk page" but which I assume you mean the talk page of a page or article. Such talk pages are intended for discussions over how to improve the page and so they should focus on the content not the behaviour. If you have problems with an editor's behaviour that generally belongs on the editor's talk page. If it's enough of a problem to warrant sanction, then it can be brought to an appropriate noticeboard i.e. the ANs, or maybe the arbcom ones. Even noticeboards like this often aren't well suited for discussion over an editor's behaviour (there are some exceptions like COIN and the copyvio board), often it's best if that is deferred to the editor talk page and the discussion here focuses on the content issues. As I said, the main reason I mentioned it despite that was to avoid confusion for new editors, so they wouldn't get the idea this is a suitable place to discuss such issues. Nil Einne (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nil Einne are you ok? If, as you say, this is not a place to discuss editors behaviour then maybe you can refrain from discussing editors behaviour here. And as you're "getting sick of saying this", then maybe you should stop saying it. Move on. CatCafe (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- @CatCafe: Unfortunately when editor's make inaccurate claims on noticeboards it is sometimes necessary to correct them, especially on noticeboards frequented by people unfamiliar with the norms of Wikipedia. I am fine with collapsing this entire discussion starting with and including your comment at 07:11, but otherwise I see no other choice but to ensure any confusion is corrected. This is especially the case for any suggestion that BLPN is not an appropriate place to bring up concerns over edits surrounding living persons, and even more so for any suggestion that BLP violations are a "storm in a teacup". Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nil Einne Move on. CatCafe (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- BTW, there's also the fact that you just delete any attempts to address issues with you directly, so the actual correct place for discussions over user behaviour is out the window anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- @CatCafe: Unfortunately when editor's make inaccurate claims on noticeboards it is sometimes necessary to correct them, especially on noticeboards frequented by people unfamiliar with the norms of Wikipedia. I am fine with collapsing this entire discussion starting with and including your comment at 07:11, but otherwise I see no other choice but to ensure any confusion is corrected. This is especially the case for any suggestion that BLPN is not an appropriate place to bring up concerns over edits surrounding living persons, and even more so for any suggestion that BLP violations are a "storm in a teacup". Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nil Einne are you ok? If, as you say, this is not a place to discuss editors behaviour then maybe you can refrain from discussing editors behaviour here. And as you're "getting sick of saying this", then maybe you should stop saying it. Move on. CatCafe (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nil Einne are you ok? As I requested 'Move on' and let's close this storm in a teacup Trivierr created by overreacting 3 places at once. Thanks in advance. CatCafe (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- @CatCafe: your comments were made here so it was appropriate to address them here to prevent confusion, especially as a lot of editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia use this board. And it is also entirely appropriate to bring any edits which violate BLP here, indeed it's a core part of this board. And that seems to have been what Rob was trying to do, and was all this thread was about until you started bring up offtopic stuff. I did not look into detail into your edits since you seem to have self reverted. But if you did re-add info sourced entirely to unreliable sources or sources unsuitable for BLPs, then that was inappropriate and liable to lead to a block if continued, and bringing the matter to the attention of this noticeboard was, and I'm getting sick of saying this, entirely appropriate. I don't really give a flying flip what Rob did on your talk page, let me repeat for the last time it has zero to do with the noticeboard. I don't really give a flying flip what you do provided you don't violate BLP, and don't misuse this board to address problems you have that are unrelated to this board, AFAIK, I have no significant interaction with you before. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nil Einne I think you're getting it the wrong way around. If Trivierr has a problem with me they should have taken it somewhere else (i.e the pages talk page) not here. And for you're info this is the edit with Trivierr stating they had to delete after stating they were "being rude" here. And now I will say it to you, if you have a problem with me, then take it somewhere else (i.e the pages talk page). Move on. Thanks in advance. CatCafe (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- @CatCafe: if you have other problems with Rob, you should take that somewhere else. Rob did not say anything about rude comments, and nothing they said here can reasonably be considered rude. Rob also did not say anything about any AFD being moot here, let alone open a moot AFD here (which makes no sense). They simply pointed out that the issues here could become moot depending on the outcome of the AFD. This makes sense since if the AfD is closed as delete or merge/redirect, concern over the article content would be addressed. However Rob is also correct that as long as the article exists, we cannot allow BLP violations in it. This will include any information sources solely to sources which aren't reliable or which can't be used for BLPs per WP:RSPS. Any editor who persists in adding info sourced solely to such sources when a living person is involved is liable to be blocked. Note that the only AFD that seems relevant to this discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv. It looks like that was opened by User:Black Kite. This discussion is not an AfD. WP:AfD or "Articles for deletion" has a specific meaning here on Wikipedia and it most definitely does not cover this discussion, not even close. I suggest editors confused by what an AfD is may want to read the Wikipedia page. Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Jules and Gédéon Naudet
Hello,
My name is Gedeon Naudet. I am one of the brother mentioned on this wikipedia page. I would like to add my wife name in the 'Personal life' category. The exact phrase to add would be the following: "Gedeon Naudet is married to Aude Coquatrix, with two children." Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much for all your work.
Persistent BLPCRIME violations by Haunted Spy
- Haunted Spy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previously brought up at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive308#Billy Chemirmir. Problems since then, including one outstanding issue from that report.
- Samuel Legg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is described as a serial killer, categorised as so, and listed by Haunted Spy at List of serial killers in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) despite not even being convicted. The claim of
Found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed for life to Twin Valley Behavioral Health Center
added to the latter article is completely contradicted by the reference and Samuel Legg#Exposure, which say he's unfit to stand trial which is a different thing completely! Apparently new charges are sufficient for the victim total to be updated as fact. His guilt is also described as fact at Dr. No (serial killer)#Suspects, which sayslaw enforcement agencies were able to prove his guilt in four murders in Ohio and Illinois, the first of which he committed at age 20 in 1989
- Joaquin Rams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is categorised as a serial killer and listed by Haunted Spy at List of serial killers in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) despite only being convicted of one murder.
- Deangelo Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is categorised as a serial killer and numerous other criminal categories, with Deangelo Martin#Murders repeatedly stating as fact he committed serious offences, and listed by Haunted Spy at List of serial killers in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) despite currently being on trial. Why Haunted Spy couldn't have simply waited for the trial to end is anyone's guess.
Could someone fix the offending articles please?92.40.189.112 (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- First one contains BLP violations per [22]. I don't think it's intentional, the content was translated by the user and wasn't readded by him if it was removed later on. Serial killer / rapist accusations should be removed, but then the article wouldn't really make sense, and "notable for being accused of rape" seems like a violation in itself. He hasn't been convicted of anything but theft, and having an article for petty theft seems eh. So probably just deletion? Thoughts, others?
- I think the "suspected serial killer" stuff can be removed, since it's a living person not convicted of any others, but not 100% sure how we treat articles on murderers with suspected other murders?
- Should be deleted. I'll send it to AfD, unless an admin wants to invoke WP:BLPDELETE and delete it sooner than the 7 days. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I remove the cats from 2. Per WP:BLPCAT,
the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources.
I don't think a case is made then the article doesn't say or demonstrate that the person is a serial killer, as opposed to only being suspected of being a serial killer.IMO it may in very rare instances be okay to list a living person as a serial killer even if there was only a conviction of a single killing or no conviction, but this would need to be from sufficient reliable sources which clearly say the person is a serial killer rather than simply being suspected of it.
I have left the list for now since the entry does make clear the other ones are only suspected. It is theoretically possible that we could be renamed to be "list of serial killers and suspected serial killers" or something similar. In that case, I guess there could be merit to adding people only suspected although you'd need to be very carefully with the sourcing. Personally I feel if you try that, it will be thoroughly rejected by the community, still if anyone does want to go down that route, I'm not going to stop them. If no one feels there is merit to that, then yeah it should be removed IMO.
The article still uses the serial killer infobox but that may be fine assuming the sourcing for those other killings is sufficient. (I didn't check, if it's not the infobox is probably only a minor concern anyway.) As for the suspected stuff in general I don't know. Per WP:BLPCRIME mentioning crimes without a conviction is always tricky, and they aren't really a public figure which brings additional concerns. But assuming the subject is notable, it seems to be in part because they of this suspicion so it's a little weird if we don't mention it in any way.
- Re last sentence, I agree. Seems they’re only notable for the murders. Since not high profile, and not convicted, I don’t think we can edit the article in a way that makes it compliant with BLP policy and still have an article. I think deletion of it is the only option, really (this is for the 1st one). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I was mostly thinking of Rams/2. While his crime may have been horrific, the sourcing in the article suggests to me the subject isn't notable. At most the crime was, even that I'm not sure. The only thing which seems to push it in the direction of notability is the suggestion of looking into other crimes, but that was in 2012 and there doesn't seem to be any development on that front. So I feel it's probably the same. BTW I had a change of heart and removed the 2 living people from the list [23], where there's only 1 conviction. I left the ones who aren't living. This was Rams and John Getreu. If someone is able to convince the community to expand the scope to include people only suspected, fine, but they need to do that first. Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- This doesn't apply to any of those 3 examples, but some further thinking, the cases when it's may be okay to describe a living person as a serial killer even with only 1 or no convictions, are likely to be where there's a confession generally accepted as accurate but where the /other murders weren't pursued for some reason besides doubt or lack of evidence. I guess a particularly strong case would be where the killer revealed the locations of the bodies, perhaps in exchange for some degree of immunity (probably when they were already imprisoned for life). We will still need sources clearly saying they are a serial killer but these are examples where I could imagine it happening. I guess a more extreme case of 1 could arise, where the person cannot stand trial for mental competence reasons but where it's well accepted they were mentally competent at the time of the killings and that they murderer multiple people. These cases are likely to be very rare. I noticed that the list of article gives 2 different definitions. By the first definition, people with only 2 killings should be removed. The second FBI one would allow them. I think there are 2 living people with only 2, it looked like they had confessions too, partly what got me thinking about this. Nil Einne (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I was mostly thinking of Rams/2. While his crime may have been horrific, the sourcing in the article suggests to me the subject isn't notable. At most the crime was, even that I'm not sure. The only thing which seems to push it in the direction of notability is the suggestion of looking into other crimes, but that was in 2012 and there doesn't seem to be any development on that front. So I feel it's probably the same. BTW I had a change of heart and removed the 2 living people from the list [23], where there's only 1 conviction. I left the ones who aren't living. This was Rams and John Getreu. If someone is able to convince the community to expand the scope to include people only suspected, fine, but they need to do that first. Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Re last sentence, I agree. Seems they’re only notable for the murders. Since not high profile, and not convicted, I don’t think we can edit the article in a way that makes it compliant with BLP policy and still have an article. I think deletion of it is the only option, really (this is for the 1st one). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Wilfried Zaha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New IP user 2A01:4C8:1056:530D:15FD:163:746C:B5E posted a vulgar and defamatory accusation[24] against the BLP subject. It was duly reverted, but I request WP:REVDEL. NedFausa (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Imelda Marcos
Imelda Marcos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi, this article suffers from POV pushing, WP:RGW, and promotional-ism. Generally editors pushing that the article subject is very rich (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos#multibillion_fortune) or that the wealth she has obtained she did so "illegally" (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Ill-gotten_wealth). The lede is currently saying "illegally" in WIKIVOICE. Three separate sections on her wealth alone on the talk page right now. Also the article suffers from WP:TOOMUCH generally anchored by overuse of sources (sometimes books without page numbers or links to google books), for example overuse of biographies by Ellison, Poloton, and Pedrosa. Last the article has some reliance on old Harvard style citations (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Bibliography) that needs migration and I dont know how to do it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wow. Where to begin? "POV pushing": Imelda's excesses have been extensively documented in various forms of media and literature over the past several decades; the article generally already reflects this. "WP:RGW": this guidelines does not apply here. Avoiding RGW is about not using Wikipedia as a platform to start a crusade, but the crusade against Imelda has already been ongoing for several decades now and also documented; the article is simply reflecting that ongoing crusade and so WP:RGW does not apply. "links to google books": there is no Wikipedia requirement that books should be available in Google Books; please see the WP:SOURCEACCESS section of WP:V"
"Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access"
. "reliance on old Harvard style citations": this complaint is not at all relevant to this noticeboard. "overuse of biographies": this is a biographic article: how else are we going to write it if not by referencing existing biographies?! And overuse is only really a problem if the article is overly reliant on a single or few sources, but the article currently has 264 separate citations! —seav (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, this has gone far enough. The editor seems to believe that BLP just means the page should not say anything negative about Imelda Marcos. In apparent pursuit of this belief, the said editor has consistently:
- Deleted citations without consensus, branding any source which says anything negative about Imelda Marcos as “biased” and removing them without consensus, and without bothering to check if s/he has broken citations elsewhere in the article. S/he has in fact deleted so many references in such quick succession, without even the benefit of a “failed verification” tag, that it is now virtually impossible to verify which sources he deleted were in fact relevant.
- In an extreme case, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Proposed_revisions_in_the_lede where he has called Philippine courts, including the Supreme Court of the Philippines “likely a politically motivated court.” Do note that this wasn’t a case of WP:Primary; the sources in question included multiple major news outlet, both Philippine and international.
- He has apparently joined the assault against Philippine News Website Rappler, despite existing wiki consensus that it is generally reliable, with some exceptions.
- In another humorous example, he maligned the Philippine Star, one of the country’s most respected broadsheets, as a mere "Lifestyle Publication"
- Refused, despite persistent requests from other editors, to explain said deletions. Providing, instead, pejoratives such as “junk,” “dribble,” or “nonsense,” or vague dismissals like “not needed.” (A review of the talk page and of his edit descriptions will show this.)
- Campaigned for the outright noninclusion of topics such as the court-established “ill-gotten wealth” (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Ill-gotten_wealth), despite other editors warning that this would create WP:FALSEBALANCE
- Treats other editors with disdain, using language that is snarky, judgemental, scornful in violation of WP:Civility (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Wikipedia:Civility where he ignored the fact he has been called out for violating one of the five pillars of wikipedia), crying wp:bludgeon when he is called out, and refusing to use less offensive langauge.
- Deleted citations without consensus, branding any source which says anything negative about Imelda Marcos as “biased” and removing them without consensus, and without bothering to check if s/he has broken citations elsewhere in the article. S/he has in fact deleted so many references in such quick succession, without even the benefit of a “failed verification” tag, that it is now virtually impossible to verify which sources he deleted were in fact relevant.
- Alright, this has gone far enough. The editor seems to believe that BLP just means the page should not say anything negative about Imelda Marcos. In apparent pursuit of this belief, the said editor has consistently:
- I find myself close to concluding that the editor evidently believes that the only acceptable consensus is his personal - wp:false balance! - interpretation of BLP!
- POV pushing himself, but now accusing multiple other editors of doing the same!
- Granted, the page needs work. It needs a more systematic discussion of the 40+ civil and 30+ criminal cases against Imelda in the Philippines, plus the ones overseas. (Only 7 of which resulted in convictions); and in some cases there’s probably still some fancruft left despite efforts to find a more neutral tone.
- But let me address his points, just as user:seav has done.
- The illegality of those actions have been determined by the Swiss Federal Court, the Philippine Anti-graft court, and the Philippine Supreme court, all of whose decisions were covered by international and Philippine press, as cited.
- What "three sections on wealth"? Aside from a mention in the lead, there's only the mention of "Ill-Gotten Wealth" (which is Philippine courts' way of indirectly saying "plunder"). This despite the fact that it would be helpful to have a small separate section on her current net worth, which is a completely different topic.
- Do note that the Pedrosa and Polotan references are mostly used as reference for biographical details. I agree that they were once overused. But I've made an effort to reduce their use, and I do not think this is currently the case. Since I do not have no access to Ellison's text and have only read it once, I am unable to comment.
- It seems to me that Harvard style citations are still the norm for certain wiki articles, and they have some advantages, including the ability to provide specific quotations as needed for verification? But I don't use them myself so I do not have strong feelings about this, other than irritation at having to talk about it ad nauseum as if it were some sort of offense.
- But let me address his points, just as user:seav has done.
- I do not know what the next steps are for addressing the utterly boorish behavior. But I do believe it provides necessary context for this BLP discussion. - Chieharumachi (talk)
- I would like to add that Jtbobwaysf has been slowly and creepingly deleting citations from the article for no valid reason, labeling them as "dribble" "nonsense", "junk", etc, possibly to the point of slow whitewashing of the subject by removing citation evidence of the article subject's actions from Wikipedia. Instead of fixing citation formats (harvard citations), he has chosen to just delete them wholesale, breaking and orphaning various citations across on multiple instances, and despite concerns being voiced on the talk page about his behavior on breaking citations, he has continued to do so until his last few edits. He has been disruptively editing the article for the past few months and has also been engaging in edit warring with several editors. -Object404 (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am also not certain yet as Jtbobwaysf has been avoiding answering my question on whether he actually read 3 extremely rare books used as citations on the article before deleting their citations by labeling them as "failed verifcation". If he had not read the books and deleted the citations, this is extremely dishonest and disruptive behavior on his part worse than vandalism, and I believe said user should be sanctioned. -Object404 (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Good the discussion has been moved here, rather than on the talk page where it gets less attention. I dont have any particular interest or affinity to this article subject, other than that I have noticed it is subject to POV pushing. You have admitted the books are "extremely rare" and thus they would not be RS for this promo content, given we have good sources saying the article subject has a net worth of ~$20M. Why are you pushing inclusion of this promotional content? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am also not certain yet as Jtbobwaysf has been avoiding answering my question on whether he actually read 3 extremely rare books used as citations on the article before deleting their citations by labeling them as "failed verifcation". If he had not read the books and deleted the citations, this is extremely dishonest and disruptive behavior on his part worse than vandalism, and I believe said user should be sanctioned. -Object404 (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to add that Jtbobwaysf has been slowly and creepingly deleting citations from the article for no valid reason, labeling them as "dribble" "nonsense", "junk", etc, possibly to the point of slow whitewashing of the subject by removing citation evidence of the article subject's actions from Wikipedia. Instead of fixing citation formats (harvard citations), he has chosen to just delete them wholesale, breaking and orphaning various citations across on multiple instances, and despite concerns being voiced on the talk page about his behavior on breaking citations, he has continued to do so until his last few edits. He has been disruptively editing the article for the past few months and has also been engaging in edit warring with several editors. -Object404 (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Andrés Manuel López Obrador
Assistance is requested at the above article, which is currently pretty impenetrable. I am currently reading it for background and am wikifying along the way, but there are some issues of tone, as well. I am fixing some language awkwardnesses, but a review by a Spanish speaker would likely be beneficial as well. Elinruby (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
An actress recently accused Anurag Kashyap of sexual harrassment. So far editors have presented only one side of the issue: the accusation, without sufficient context. Would appreciate more eyes watchlisting this article, please. I've semi-protected it for the time being and removed the content until someone can give it the proper attention it needs. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The BLP Ariel Fernandez does not seem to portray the subject in a neutral light. Fernandez held a chaired professorship at Rice University and published well over 300 articles, books, patents, etc. He surely has done a bit more than being engaged by a predatory publisher. Four of his papers, dating back 10-15 years, seem to have been challenged almost a decade ago. Those four papers were never retracted. All that is hardly newsworthy, yet its mentioning takes up more space than the description of his lifetime work. Last week, editor JoJoAnthrax removed documented information from the page and added negative content. Another editor, DMacks, acts as gatekeeper. This person decides what goes or does not go, reverting edits as he sees fit. For instance, Fernandez’s NIH grants (fiercely competitive NIGMS R01’s with funding at 5-6%) were deemed “widespread”, not worthy of appearing in the BLP. Patents and research articles were regarded as not worthy either. I would propose to include information to convey a neutral view and volunteer to help as needed. BillSullivan (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)