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:
| ||
Stephen Wiggins
Stephen Wiggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This biography of a living person is being repeatedly edited to add material against policy. BLP policy: "include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability" This edit introduces a violation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Wiggins&diff=971497311&oldid=971022196
Slate Star Codex
- Slate Star Codex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Questions:
- Should the author's full name be published?
- How should a source published under the author's full name be cited, if the first answer is "no"?
- Should the author's full name be revdel'ed from the article or talk page, if the first answer is "no"?
For context and additional discussion on these points, see June/July discussion and July/August discussion.
Arguments for "yes" to question 1 include: the author's full name was published when one of the author's blog posts was re-published in a book; the author's full name appears in medical articles; and the author's full name has otherwise been used professionally. Arguments for "no" to question 1 include: the author has recently expressed the desire to halt publication of their full name; the author has otherwise consistently requested that their full name not be connected to their blog in published media, to the extent that previous publications that revealed the author's full name were taken down; and the author's full name otherwise fails the WP:BLPPRIVACY check.
Arguments for "full name" to question 2 include: WP:V requires citation information that is as accurate as possible. Arguments for "first name only" to question 2 include: the spirit of WP:V only requires as much information as readers need to easily locate the source, and the first-name-only citation includes adequate information for this purpose.
There has been relatively little discussion on question 3.
Pinging David Gerard, BrokenSegue, Ken Arromdee, TheBlueCanoe, Gavrielyosef, Gbear605, YechezkelZilber, Mo Billings, SkylabField, VQuakr, Scarpy, King of Hearts, GeneralNotability, and Barkeep49.
Enterprisey (talk!) 20:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Edit: "Subject" changed to "author" per below comment by Zareth. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Probably not / yes / as is. This has been discussed at length on the relevant talk page. BrokenSegue 22:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- For question 2, the first name citation does look weird, but why do we need a name at all? It is clear from context who wrote the article because of the quote that the chapter was taken from SSC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Because faking reference information is bad practice - it's an RS, the standard for use in Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Omitting something is not the same as faking information. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Bowdlerising it to the point where someone came along and thought it was literally an error - as actually happened - would, I think, count, even if you were to claim it was in a good cause - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Omitting something is not the same as faking information. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Because faking reference information is bad practice - it's an RS, the standard for use in Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- "consistently" is a highly questionable claim - for instance, a number of blog sources took down the name at his request when he took the site down in June. His full name has never been a secret, as demonstrated by his academic use of it in connection with the blog name, and I've followed this guy's work since 2010 and his real name has literally never been a secret. His new claims to have kept it a secret are factually incorrect.
- His name is used in connection with the blog only in a single RS - but it's an RS where he would have put it there himself, as professional academic work. And it's absolutely a solid RS for Wikipedia use, for noteworthiness of the blog, and for the fact that he has acted to publish his real name and its connection to the blog in recent times.
- Furthermore, I think you've phrased the question badly -
the subject's full name was published when one of the subject's blog posts was re-published in a book
is in passive voice, as if this is something that was done to him - and not something he did himself. - I would say: correctly credit the academic RS, which is important to the blog's notability, as faking RS references is really not a good Wikipedia practice; don't make it prominent in the body of the article.
- Do not further revdel - given the circumstances, the revdel's to date on article and talk have arguably been abuses of the deletion process. I appreciate BLP considerations erring on the side of caution, but this is getting silly.
- I've put {{not a ballot}} on this discussion, as this is an off-wiki cause celebre - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- I encouraged a discussion to be placed here at AN and encouraged Enterprisey, when he contacted me via email, to add an explicit question about revdel. I feel prepared to support whatever consensus the community arrives at. However, David has now said in a couple of places,
the revdel's to date on article and talk have arguably been abuses of the deletion process.
I stand by the 3 revision deletions I did and would welcome a discussion about whether they were an abuse of the tool at my talk page, ArbCom, on a relevent noticeboard but don't want to derail this forward looking discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)- Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were in bad faith; but I am of the opinion they should stop going forward (as I say above) - David Gerard (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is just a short rebuttal to a single point above, but you appear to be claiming that Alexander did not try at all to hide his full name until 2020. There is at least existence proof of the opposite from 2018 at [1]. In it Alexander mentions that he did not link to a journal article written by him because he did not want to share his real name. He has certainly not been perfect at maintaining secrecy, but he did at least try. Gbear605 (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Scott's concerns about the public linking of his full name to the blog are otherwise well-documented and uncontroversial. In addition to Gbear605's link, more examples are this 2019 blog post (search for "real name"), this 2017 blog post, and this 2013 discussion. Scott's awareness of the Streisand effect explains the lack of further examples. That aside, to repeat VQuakr from the talk page, the source is unambiguously identified – and can thus be "correctly credited" – even without its authorship information. Third, I stand by my revision deletions and, echoing Barkeep49, welcome further discussion on the subject. Finally, the documentation of {{not a ballot}} recommends against preemptive use and I have observed no evidence of external canvassing (besides the IP edit, and yet), but I will leave its applicability to this discussion up to others. Acknowledgement: the examples and Scott's justification come via the research efforts, which I appreciate, of some people in the SSC community. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- I said it was an off-wiki cause celebre, and you've just literally said
Acknowledgement: the examples and Scott's justification come via the research efforts, which I appreciate, of some people in the SSC community
- this is, in fact, a case for such a notice - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- I said it was an off-wiki cause celebre, and you've just literally said
- I encouraged a discussion to be placed here at AN and encouraged Enterprisey, when he contacted me via email, to add an explicit question about revdel. I feel prepared to support whatever consensus the community arrives at. However, David has now said in a couple of places,
- 2. Bad question. There is no reason to cite those articles at all. The only reason they were added was to force the issue (to put it charitably). They are only notable as evidence about the spread of his name. 98.114.54.138 (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- It helps to establish the blog's notability. Also, it was originally added with no source at all. BrokenSegue 14:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, resume padding may establish the notability of the author, but not the blog. No one notes those articles. When people note the blog, they don't note the existence of reprints. They don't care about such validation. Some people note the profession of the author, but never formal publication. 98.114.54.138 (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's literally the blog's academic credibility, in the article about the blog - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- The wikipedia article makes no explanation of why it cites the article, certainly not credibility. It does give other examples of academics citing the blog, which is a measure of academic credibility, but these are by academics in other fields who probably have no awareness of the republished articles. Since no one connects the articles to the blog, they do not contribute to its credibility. 98.114.54.138 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The wikipedia article makes no explanation of why it cites the article
It literally does - you're now making trivially false claims of fact in support of your position - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)- For everyone's information, the only thing that the article says is
A post from the blog, "No Time Like The Present for AI Safety Work", was reprinted as a chapter in The Technological Singularity: Managing the Journey.
. I can see why the anonymous user considered this to not be an explanation while you consider this to be an explanation. Given the three other citations in the paragraph, it's certainly not the only source establishing credibility. Al Gharbi 2018 and Campbell 2018 both provide academic credibility while Chivers 2019 establishes credibility in a non-academic source (a pop-science/philosophy book). Perhaps the article should still be included, but its removal would not change the article to show the blog as significantly less credible. Gbear605 (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- For everyone's information, the only thing that the article says is
- The wikipedia article makes no explanation of why it cites the article, certainly not credibility. It does give other examples of academics citing the blog, which is a measure of academic credibility, but these are by academics in other fields who probably have no awareness of the republished articles. Since no one connects the articles to the blog, they do not contribute to its credibility. 98.114.54.138 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's literally the blog's academic credibility, in the article about the blog - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, resume padding may establish the notability of the author, but not the blog. No one notes those articles. When people note the blog, they don't note the existence of reprints. They don't care about such validation. Some people note the profession of the author, but never formal publication. 98.114.54.138 (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- It helps to establish the blog's notability. Also, it was originally added with no source at all. BrokenSegue 14:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- The desire for privacy seems reasonable enough. Benjamin (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- I believe there is a disconnect here. If the privacy of the name is of paramount importance, we shouldn't be using a reference that has the full name. If we decide to use the reference anyway, we should follow standard practice and credit the author by their full name as published in the reference, not by first name or pseudonym or "Scoot S" (which is what's in there now). If the aim is to protect the identity of Scott Alexander, we aren't doing a good job and we are also giving people incorrect information about the reference. My position is either use the reference and give the correct information, or don't use the reference. Mo Billings (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- If this was removed, would it be the first time a relevant RS was removed from Wikipedia because a BLP subject put their name in it? I mean - you're seriously proposing removing the academic reference in which the author revealed his full name, because he (actively) chose to reveal his full name in it. This strikes me as bizarre - David Gerard (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- It strikes me as bizarre that we are pretending to be hiding his name but giving a shortened version of his name and providing a means of getting his full name in a couple of mouse clicks. It's a charade. Mo Billings (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's a compromise. Scott himself has said his interest is not in making his name unfindable (that is now impossible) but just harder to find. This is in keeping with that spirit. BrokenSegue 19:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think there is room for compromise with genuine privacy concerns. If this isn't about protecting someone's privacy but about "following the spirit" of making his name "harder to find" then you're changing my opinion towards including the reference with the full author name. Mo Billings (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's a compromise. Scott himself has said his interest is not in making his name unfindable (that is now impossible) but just harder to find. This is in keeping with that spirit. BrokenSegue 19:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- It strikes me as bizarre that we are pretending to be hiding his name but giving a shortened version of his name and providing a means of getting his full name in a couple of mouse clicks. It's a charade. Mo Billings (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- If this was removed, would it be the first time a relevant RS was removed from Wikipedia because a BLP subject put their name in it? I mean - you're seriously proposing removing the academic reference in which the author revealed his full name, because he (actively) chose to reveal his full name in it. This strikes me as bizarre - David Gerard (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- This looks like trying to put the genie back in the bottle at one remove. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- This would, I think, be an accurate characterisation - David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- It seems to me that his academically-published work is central to his notability and significance. I'd imagine the bar for removing it is pretty high. I wouldn't imagine that we should include his name in the main text of the article unless that NYT article actually comes out or something, but I think that removing it from the references list when anyone can find the information by just following the reference is a pretty extraordinary level of deference that would require some pretty extraordinary arguments to justify. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- The blog is known first for its importance and influence in the rationalist community. The book chapter reprint is comparatively unimportant; the article has other information on the blog's impact in academia, and I'm sure we could find more.
The discussion here shows a consensusI agree with those above saying that we either have a full citation or none at all. I think it's perfectly fine to leave it out. For the record, I agree that it would be nice to include all relevant sources, including the blog chapter reprint, if we could. But BLPPRIVACY is clear on the matter: no full name. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC); revised 20:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)- The academic work is a book from the LessWrong rationalist community, about topics promoted by said rationalist community, and used by said rationalist community to show its importance. If that's what the blog is known for, the reference is direct support for that.
- The blog is known first for its importance and influence in the rationalist community. The book chapter reprint is comparatively unimportant; the article has other information on the blog's impact in academia, and I'm sure we could find more.
- You launched this discussion with a question slanted to your preferred outcome, then sought off-wiki backers to support your preferred outcome, then questioned the presence of a notice as to off-wiki attempts to influence the outcome. At this point you're just pushing the subject's line repeatedly - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- It seems clear to me that the LessWrong community has a lot of interest in hyperintelligent AI. It also seems clear to me that Scott has an interest in this topic. However, I found no evidence that the book is influential in the LessWrong community. A search on LessWrong shows almost no mention of it (note that there is another book with a very similar title that gets more mention and that 'Technological Singularity' is a generic term that they regularly use). If there is no evidence that the book is influential or well-known in the LessWrong community, then by extension, the fact that a SSC article was reprinted in the book doesn't show that SSC is known by the LessWrong community for its writing on AI. Note that Gerard's claim goes far beyond what is actually written on the SSC page. I'm in favor of removing the sentence about the book, unless evidence can be provided that the book is notable. Aapjes (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- You launched this discussion with a question slanted to your preferred outcome, then sought off-wiki backers to support your preferred outcome, then questioned the presence of a notice as to off-wiki attempts to influence the outcome. At this point you're just pushing the subject's line repeatedly - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- BLPPrivacy seems to offer only two routes for including the name: where widely reliable sources cover it and where it can be inferred. It can't be inferred, because they specifically want it gone. We do not have have wide enough reliable sources including it to be crystally confident about the first. While the "genie in the bottle" complaints are interesting (and I don't know the level of historic attempts to seek privacy) I don't believe they're so relevant. BLPP doesn't offer a prior exposure route, and, at a minimum, in unclear cases we should default towards providing privacy, that is, remove the full name. I'd say some archiving is probably sufficient and a full OS is not needed, but I'm open to thoughts on that. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- It seems like a reasonable BLPPrivacy-compliant solution to omit both the surname and the chapter which uses it. Haukur (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- The purpose of citing the reference is for WP:V, and that can be accomplished without including the full last name in the citation (e.g. using Scott Alexander [Redacted] or Scott S. or something similar). We should try to respect Scott's preferred public name for the same reason we should respect whatever people want to be called in a WP:BLP article (preferred name, preferred pronouns, etc). I'm not sure why basic respect for someone is so controversial and it seems too many people are keen to say something like "look, I know this is how he prefers to be addressed in this context BUT OH MY GOD THE |last1= ATTRIBUTE WON'T CONTAIN HIS LAST NAME AS IT APPEARS ON HIS GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO BE JERKS AND INCLUDE IT, SORRY." Forgive me if that sounds like an awful awful excuse and if I have a difficult time understanding the reasoning there, if there is reasoning, because it looks like someone trying really really really hard to find a loophole to include his full legal name in the article. I'm sure we're all good faith editors here and that's not actually anyone's intention, but of I was ten years younger and representing New York's 14th congressional district, I believe the term I would use for that is "not a good look." - Scarpy (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Is the name sourced to The New York Times? That might change things. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, The New York Times has not published anything as of now. The only sources that I know of for the full name being linked with the blog are original research and an oblique connection in the republished blog post (the book lists Scott [Redacted] as the first author and that it was republished from Slate Star Codex). Gbear605 (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- In that case we should abstain from including the name I would say. Open to changing my view if there is better sourcing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, The New York Times has not published anything as of now. The only sources that I know of for the full name being linked with the blog are original research and an oblique connection in the republished blog post (the book lists Scott [Redacted] as the first author and that it was republished from Slate Star Codex). Gbear605 (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- The original question is flawed, since the person we are discussing is not the subject of the article. As far as I can tell, the person we are discussing is not notable enough on his own to have an independent article about him, so the first question I would have to ask myself is: Does using the full name add any value to the reader's understanding? In other words, is it necessary for the reader to know the full name in order to understand the article, or would it read just the same without it? If the answer to former is no and the latter is yes, then I would opt to leave it out.
- It would be a different matter is he was notable on his own right, but unless his name has been published in a multitude of high quality sources, or unless there is a very good reason for publishing his name as demonstrated by at least one source --making it clear that the name itself is absolutely necessary for understanding the article-- then I would simply leave it out.
- As for the other questions, I guess that depends on how the source is being used. Arguments here say the source is needed to show the notability of the blog, but if that is really the case, then can the blog really be that notable if it cannot handle the loss of a primary source? That doesn't seem to wash. Is the source being used to support some info --about the blog-- being used in the article, or is it just to show that he wrote a book? If the latter, then I would say omit the source. If the former, then use it cautiously. I'd probably just use the first initials, but the real last name, since that is what is needed for someone to look it up. We may not be able to hide the connection, but that doesn't mean we need to make it obvious.
- All in all, I would always prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to matters of privacy, and from what I've read here I don't see any overriding public need to know. Zaereth (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- "Subject" changed to "author", thanks for pointing that out. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- no/no/no. Once we aren't into revealing his name, questions 2 and 3 are moot. The concept of using backdoors to publish information that is not supposed to be published is disingenuous in my view. Not publishing a detail = not publishing it. Not looking for multiple backdoors and shorthands for it. This also implied purging all the histories that infringed on earlier decisions about the above Jazi Zilber (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- YechezkelZilber, question 3 is only relevant if we answer no to question 1. It is what is the correct way to enforce that. A person could definitely be no to q1 and q3 viewing revel as too extreme a remedy but that doesn't seem to be what you are saying. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Late here, but not late enough not to respond. Sometimes I get the impression in this discussion that people have OCD to put in every bit of information they can find and in addition want to spite Scott for demanding something that contradicts their OCD. Arguments like "there's no room for compromise with genuine privacy concerns" in the context of Scott only wanting to make his name harder to find are absurd. People aren't efficient robots trying to optimize their every action, so the fact that Scott isn't making his name literally unfindable doesn't mean he can't have privacy concerns.
- Furthermore, this argument ignores the *way* in which Scott believes his name will harm him; he doesn't want people who only know his name (such as patients, employers, etc.) to connect it to the blog--not people who know about the blog connecting it to his name. The fact that his name appears in an obscure place that is not prominent in Google does not implicate the former problem, so it doesn't show that his privacy concern isn't genuine, nor does it show that leaving the name out won't solve his privacy concerns.
- I also agree with the point that the article is about the blog, not about Scott, and knowing his real name doesn't help you understand anything about the blog. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- BLPPRIVACY seems pretty clear. The full name should not be published. --Yair rand (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- BLP gives a strong presumption of privacy and prevention of harm. The connection between the name and blog will probably always exist on the internet, but we won't be a part of promoting it. The source is fine without the name in the reference. VQuakr (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- 'The Technological Singularity' has zero reviews on Amazon and 2 ratings on Goodreads. It is extremely non-notable. I suggest removing the link altogether. If an article from SSC would be republished on the blog of a not very notable person, that wouldn't be written about either, would it? Above, I see several people claim that this book should be included to prove that SSC has academic credibility or notability, but the very fact that this claim seems to hinge on one book that appears to have very limited popularity suggests that people are claiming more than they have evidence for and are grasping at straws. Aapjes (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to have Wikipedia honor his desire to keep his (semi-private) last name out of the article, as he's not a public figure under that name and wishes to compartmentalize his personal/professional life from his blogging and commentary. On the other hand, Wikipedia is hardly a paragon of consistency in this area; its articles on Jason Scott and Lauren Alaina (two other people who are better known under a first-and-middle-name "pen/stage name" than their full birth name) have the "real" last names in them. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Dtobias, I would not say that someone who has deliberately gone out of their way to keep their name private can be compared to people who use alternate names. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
There's a potentially defamatory headline that Yung "terrorized" an interviewer stemming from a blog. To be clear, Yung did not plead guilty to terrorism. I consulted his plea agreement and that word is nowhere to be found.[1] I request permission to change that verb to "cyberstalked." Leave the poor kid, alone. He made a mistake, did his time, it's time to move on.
On a separate note, I wonder if cyberstalking should be merged with legal career to conserve space and memory...
LexisNexisWest (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I tried to update Yung's bio to give more context into the legal issues raised, but even sourced changes were repeatedly censored by another editor.[2] In my humble opinion, the "why" of the case is just as important as the other questions of who, what when, and where and ought to be a fair subject of an encyclopedia entry. Many cases are reported in encyclopedias before they are ultimately successfully resolved in the litigants favor. And the matters raised here are not insubstantial or unworthy of mention. I am respectfully requesting that the primary-sourced changes be added back to the article.
LexisNexisWest (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
References
- @LexisNexisWest: As "another editor" who reverted these changes, I will explain to this audience as I did to you on your user talk page (here and here) as well as on the article talk page (here). The section of the article that was edited was titled "Legal career", which was highly misleading. To clarify, Yung studied law (sources are unclear as to whether he actually ever graduated law school), but his entire "legal career" consists of appearing pro se at his appeal of his cyberstalking conviction. The section consisted largely of Yung's own arguments presented at appeal, which is hardly in keeping with neutrality. The "headline" in question (which uses the word "terrorizing") refers to the title of one of the citations used in describing Yung's cyberstalking conviction. To be clear, the Wikipedia article does not use the word "terrorizing" other than as the title of the cited article. Your opinion about whether the "why" of Yung's case is relevant do not come into play here: Wikipedia does not deal in original research (including judgments about which cases are interesting or notable). If Yung's appeal ends up creating some legal precedent, and getting written up by independent sources, then we can include that information, presented neutrally. Regarding your comment about merging the "Legal career" and "Cyberstalking" sections, let me point out that:
- Saving memory is not really a consideration at Wikipedia. Since every past version of the page is saved, every edit (whether increasing or decreasing the current size of the page) adds to the total Wikipedia database size. The Wikimedia engineers are quite adept at handling this, so we need not worry about it.
- There no longer is a "Legal career" section to merge; it has been removed since the "Legal career" section consisted solely to present Yung's defense, which I will reiterate was a violation of neutrality.
- -- WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Should the arrest of a notable person be in the lead of their BLP -> Steve Bannon
This question relates to the recent arrest of Steve Bannon on charges of defrauding investorsdonors related to raising money for a boarder wall. [[2]]. Given the recent nature of the arrest and the limited information at this time, should this information be in the article lead? Springee (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I trust everyone understands that the fundraising purported to be for a border wall and not a wall inside a boarding house. <grin> wbm1058 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- My view is no, this is currently UNDUE for the lead. This is a serious, negative allegation made against a BLP subject while the long term impact on Bannon is unclear. The charges of defrauding thousands are serious but that doesn't mean they will stick. Given these are serious, negative allegations I think BLP dictates we should proceed with caution. Consider a case where the allegations against Bannon are found to be without merit. If we could foresee that outcome would we agree to include this content in the lead? If the charges stick I can see adding the conviction to the lead but we aren't there yet. My concern is that the material is being promoted to the lead not because it would normally merit inclusion but because Bannon is controversial and this is negative information about a disliked BLP subject. Springee (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- It is not the key fact of his notability (the crime is getting much attention because it's Bannon, rather than the other way around), so it should not be in the opening sentence, but this is apt to be key to discussion of Bannon for a while to come, so it should be in the introduction. (This will change if he is convicted, in which case his criminal activities become a part of his career description.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Springee, there's not limited information. This isn't a plane crash and we are awaiting the results of the NTSB investigation. He was not arrested based on "limited information". The charge relates to the core of his notability above the notabiity of thousands of other ideologue polemecist personalities. Yes it's DUE and amply-sourced for the lead. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Three experienced editors have already informed Springee that including this in the lead is appropriate, and now two more. The allegation is not that Bannon defrauded investors; It's that he defrauded donors. - MrX 🖋 16:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is a meritless claim. I'm also an experienced editor. Regardless of donors vs investors (corrected based on your comment), this is a allegation, not proof. Springee (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, what is a meritless claim? I never said that you were not an experienced editor if that's what you're referring to. - MrX 🖋 17:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- You used an argumentum ad populum to suggest my POV was wrong. Springee (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- On wikipedia we call "ad populum" CONSENSUS. Volunteer Marek 21:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- You used an argumentum ad populum to suggest my POV was wrong. Springee (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, what is a meritless claim? I never said that you were not an experienced editor if that's what you're referring to. - MrX 🖋 17:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is a meritless claim. I'm also an experienced editor. Regardless of donors vs investors (corrected based on your comment), this is a allegation, not proof. Springee (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- The global media attention to this issue makes it suitable for a brief mention in the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed with Nat Gertler, the information about his arrest definitely belongs in the article lead - I could find you twenty sources talking about it, so it's definitely due - but it doesn't belong in the opening sentence because it isn't what he is most notable for. Obviously Wikipedia shouldn't call him guilty until either the courts rule that way or he pleads guilty, but the charges definitely are an important piece of information about Bannon. Gbear605 (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am no fan of Bannon, but this strikes me as a case of too much, too quick. I certainly think it belongs in the article, but in the lead seems a bit too much like "breaking news" to me. My opinion (for the little it is worth) is let things settle a bit and then see where we are. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- No. Too much too soon. Too much: there is not enough meat in the article to warrant inclusion (it's undue); too soon: is the ink even dry on the indictment? (NOTNEWS) I do not understand the rush. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, per Drmie's explanation. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- There are two completely different questions being asked: the one in the section title, and the one the OP asks in their first post. The question asked in the title, on the general concept of whether arrests should be mentioned in the lead of an article, is "It depends" and "That's a matter to be determined on a case-by-case basis for every article, because there's too many variables to make any general pronouncement." On the matter of the Bannon article specifically, I generally agree with Gbear605, Nomoskedasticity, et. al., that the matter has enough to merit a mention in the lead, however I would also think that we need to expand the text about the arrest in the body first. The proportions in the lead should roughly (not always exactly) match the proportions in the body, and right now theres two lines of text in the whole article about the arrest. The coverage of the event in the world is such that we should have more coverage in the article about it. The lead issue is ancillary to our article being insufficient in the first place, in that it barely mentions it. --Jayron32 16:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Jayron32, you are right and I probably should have separated by two questions a bit. In cases like this I often want to know if there is a policy/guideline that helps editors decide more than just "well not enough weight". As for this specific case, yes, lot's of coverage but also very RECENT. The sources are all saying the same things and repeating the allegations. We don't know much beyond that. I agree that the article level coverage should drive what makes it to the lead. Springee (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- At least it's in the body. The number of times I find something in the lead which isn't mention in the body, often years laters, is sad. Nil Einne (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Not in the lead, for now. If he's convicted, it might belong in the lead. If it gets ongoing major coverage, it might belong in the lead. But this is by no means one of the most important things readers need to understand about Steve Bannon. —valereee (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Not in the lead (not leade) yet. If there is a conviction, it will likely be lead-worthy. At this point, it's an allegation. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy does not have any such requirement. A federal grand jury indictment is not like being arrested for jaywalking. In other words, it's not "just an allegation". It's a really big deal. - MrX 🖋 17:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- There's no hard policy, but in general, when someone is accused (and only accused without either conviction or acquittal) of a significant crime, whether to mention it at all will depend on a number of factors that relate to BLP, but these are... touchy-feely factors and not written down for the most part. But there definitely would be consideration of weight of who or what the charge is - a federal criminal charge (fraud) is something you can't quite ignore due to WEIGHT, compared to a civil lawsuit that may be claiming sexual harassment, for example, where we'd weight more on the BLP factors. --Masem (t) 17:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Mr. X, if I had argued that there was a policy requirement, then your rebuttal might have been more meaningful. Important or not, it IS an allegation. (BTW, I didn't say "just an allegation". When you add words to the quote, it is no longer a quote). If and when he is convicted, then it will no longer be an allegation. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- There's no hard policy, but in general, when someone is accused (and only accused without either conviction or acquittal) of a significant crime, whether to mention it at all will depend on a number of factors that relate to BLP, but these are... touchy-feely factors and not written down for the most part. But there definitely would be consideration of weight of who or what the charge is - a federal criminal charge (fraud) is something you can't quite ignore due to WEIGHT, compared to a civil lawsuit that may be claiming sexual harassment, for example, where we'd weight more on the BLP factors. --Masem (t) 17:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy does not have any such requirement. A federal grand jury indictment is not like being arrested for jaywalking. In other words, it's not "just an allegation". It's a really big deal. - MrX 🖋 17:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- It depends. Clearly, minor arrests, such as say drunk driving, small drug possession, etc. totally unrelated to the person's career, obviously not. On the other hand, we're talking about Bannon here, where a major portion of why he was notable was involvement with Trump and fund raising here, and the fact that the arrests (or more specifically, charges made against him) are related to that seem inappropriate to bury away from the lede. As long as the wording is careful to simply say that they are charges, not convictions or proof of guilt/etc., it would reasonable to include. But to generalize, this would have to be something significantly related to the person's career or notability. Inclusion should be considered exceptional but not inpermissible to be decided case by case. Also, if it just an arrest without any named charges, that I would be careful about. The importance is the charges, that implies a legal case that will be brought against the person --Masem (t) 17:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Not lead worthy at present. We are NOT NEWS and per RECENTISM.--MONGO (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Odd to think the question might not be influenced by the question of whom was arrested. If the person is in the encyclopedia for being a movie star or scientist, being arrested is much less interesting than for someone prominent in politics, such as Bannon or, say, Siarhei Tsikhanouski. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Given the breadth and tone of coverage, it belongs in the lead, yeah. The key to recentism is that we shouldn't place undue weight on recent events; but we do still give them the weight appropriate to them - we don't discount something that seems clearly significant solely because it is recent. It is difficult to imagine a sequence of events where this ceases to be an important part of his bio. If it somehow turns out to be nothing we can remove it later, but right now we have to go with what seems to be most likely based on what we know, and that leans overwhelmingly towards this being significant. (Although it is probably obvious, I will add - since people keep mentioning that he's a BLP - that WP:BLPCRIME does not apply because Bannon is very obviously a public figure, ie. it's difficult to argue that including it here could harm his reputation when it was instantly plastered across the entire worldwide news. WP:BLP is about avoiding stuff that could harm the article's subject; reporting on the bare existence of an arrest that clearly occurred, is widely-reported, and affects a public figure has no real possibility of harming them.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is an argument for inclusion in the article, not an argument for the lead. Given the size of the article and the size of the section on the arrest, at the moment it makes no sense for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Let me note that we may be tumbling over some cross definitions here. Some folks seem to be treating the entire introduction as the "lead", but "lead" or "lede" is defined as "the opening sentence or paragraph of a news article, summarizing the most important aspects of the story." Our introductions are often longer than a single paragraph, as is the case with Steve Bannon... where his arrest is currently not in that opening paragraph, but it is in the introduction, as the seventeenth and final sentence. That seems appropriate to me, as it is a piece of information that people will want to have on the subject in summary, even if it's only a few sentences in the body of the article (just as we note in the introduction -- in fact, then generally in the lead -- if someone is dead or retired, even if their death or retirement gets only a single sentence in the rest of the article.) My view would likely be different if the arrest were not related to his source of notability - had it been, say, a DUI charge - but the charge is really of him abusing his position as a conservative cause promoter. It ties closely to his source of notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nat, per WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section the lead is everything above the table of contents, not just the first paragraph. Per MOS,
The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.
Springee (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- NatGertler, my opinion is w/re the paragraphs above the TOC —valereee (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nat, per WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section the lead is everything above the table of contents, not just the first paragraph. Per MOS,
- I think the WP:WEIGHT for a lead mention is there. It shouldn't be in the first paragraph, let alone sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- It seems pretty clear that Bannon's arrest and criminal indictment will be a notable part of his biography in the long term, regardless of the ultimate legal outcome or whether he is acquitted or convicted. (I mean, if he's arrested and then the case falls apart and he's acquitted, that will be at least as notable as if he's convicted, right?). Since the lead is supposed to summarize all relevant aspects of the biography, it is therefore appropriate to mention the arrest in the lead. MastCell Talk 19:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, this almost inherently gets longer. The dropping of charges, the conviction, the finding of not-guilty, or the pardon, any of these will add to the material that's there. About the only path to not adding substantially to its length is if he dies of natural charges before any of those occur. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with others that it is not WP:LEAD materiel for this article, at this time. I don't buy that it is summary of his whole life as opposed to gotcha-factoid, which may or may not matter in the long run. Per BLPSTYLE we are to be cautious and conservative about recent matters and per BLPCRIME, we are suppose to presume innocence -- in around 2 to 5 years should his innocence hold or the court decides it's almost like a traffic ticket, the lead of the article will look absurdly un-cautious if it's there, and so it is today. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- What life? This is not Albert Schweiter. Nelson Mandela? Eisenhower? If Ike had run over a cat or even a little old lady with his Jeep, it might not go in the lead. But this arrest goes to the core of Bannon's notability. It's our best unbiased representation of RS weight today that this needs a sentence in the lead telling readers that he was charged. If things change and it turns out it was really parking tickets and not conspiracies to commit money laundering, defraud a hundred thousand donors out of tens of millions of $$, etc. Well, then we'll update the article. SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- How does this go to the core of his notability? He was notable long before this indictment, before working for Trump etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- It would have been more helpful if you'd given me a rebuttal or counterexample. Being a naval officer, a 2-year finance grunt, etc. are commonplace. Being a founding board member of a fringy publication the same. Being the chief driver of Democrat Trump's hard pivot to the alt-right and CEO of his miracle Presidential campaign, top White House advisor -- those are what he is and will be known for. Getting arrested for belying all his deeply held beliefs and anti-immigrant agenda in a scam that turns out to show he's using all this "ideology" to enrich himself and fatten up like a yankee Onassis in the polluted Long Island Sound? That's quite something. It more or less destroys whatever dignity attached to the narrative of his Notability. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- How does this go to the core of his notability? He was notable long before this indictment, before working for Trump etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- What life? This is not Albert Schweiter. Nelson Mandela? Eisenhower? If Ike had run over a cat or even a little old lady with his Jeep, it might not go in the lead. But this arrest goes to the core of Bannon's notability. It's our best unbiased representation of RS weight today that this needs a sentence in the lead telling readers that he was charged. If things change and it turns out it was really parking tickets and not conspiracies to commit money laundering, defraud a hundred thousand donors out of tens of millions of $$, etc. Well, then we'll update the article. SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- The mere fact that the article on Bannon was written in 2013, long before Trump declared candidacy, before he worked for Trump, before this legal issue, is evidence that this issue is not the core to his notability. The notion that guy has an article for 7 years and you claim that this is now what his notability is based on is absurd. Numerous experienced editors, including admins, edited that article, so if his notability had been in question, I'm pretty confident the issue would have been raised.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I try to steer clear of anything political, so I'm going to answer this in the general sense. I think people seem to get too caught up in the notion that one aspect or another is the most important thing, and therefore must be first and most prominent. I try to look at these things as if we were talking about any other article, like a scientific or technical article. It is well sourced that breaking a mirror may cause 7 years of bad luck, at least, that's the legend anyhow. If these things are important to you, then it would likely seem that the first sentence should begin by explaining this incredibly important piece of information. But the first thing a reader needs to know, before they can understand any of that, is what a mirror is. What a mirror is not. What it does. How it works, and what it's used for. In comparison, the mythology associated with them, albeit very interesting and goes back to prehistoric times, well it's really not all that important in the entire scope of things, regardless of our personal feelings or how much coverage it has gotten.
- Coverage is a good measure for determining weight, but placement is something more akin to "assembly order" found in construction or mechanics. You have to crawl before you can walk, and similarly, you have to answer questions of what, where, and when before getting into matters of who, how, and why for it to flow and be coherent. This is just as true for living persons as it is for potential energy, welding, or vergence.
- In general, for something like this,I would first determine it's weight and placement in the body. Upon determining just how much space to give it, and where it should fit in within the entire scope of the body, then I would go back to the lede, and use the body as a reference to determine the placement and weight given in the lede.
- The lede, in encyclopedic writing, refers to the short synopsis given at the beginning of the article, and that's really all it should be, just a very brief synopsis of the entire article (I like to think of it as being somewhat of a scale model) --the shorter; the better. If you can whittle it down to a single paragraph, perfect! If it's a complex subject, that may require two or three paragraphs, but I would avoid any more than that. (For very complex subjects, like alloys or fighter maneuvers, I prefer a very short lede written at a sixth grade level, then a longer introduction section (5 to 7 paragraphs) written at a tenth grade level, whereas the intro is really just an expanded lede. But I digress, as that isn't very suitable for biographical articles.)
- Honey is an example of a well written article and the perfect example of how a good lede should look. I really see no difference in this aspect between these types of article and bios, yes, even including political articles. It may seem very important to want to put someone's crimes or accusations in the lede, and even try to cram it into the very first sentence, but unless that person is like Charles Manson and the crime is all he is known for, it sticks out like a sore thumb and just looks ridiculous and amateurish, especially in political articles, like that child yelling, "Look at me! Mom! Look at me!" while the adults are having a conversation.
- The point is that, even discussing the lede is pointless until we first determine its weight and placement in the body --it's putting the cart before the horse-- and that there is a certain order of importance that information has, that has to do with coherence and comprehensibility and has nothing to do with our personal feelings about what is most important to us at the time. Zaereth (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Very well put, Zaereth. In fact, you have been consistent in your position about leads (ledes) and BLPs, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate your thoughtful responses because they align with good practices and ethics in journalism. I was so impressed with your critical thinking skills that I added one of your BLP discussions with Jimbo Wales in the header of my user TP. Atsme Talk 📧 20:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- We don't use lede's. We use leads. You are making an argument for something our MOS disallows. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- And what in your mind is the difference? "Lede" is the spelling people in the writing profession use simply to avoid confusion between the various meaning associated with the word "lead", for example, if working on the article about the metal lead, or electrical leads, plumbing leads, etc. It is simply the Middle English spelling of the word "lead". That's like saying, "We drive automobiles, we don't drive cars"; a distinction without a difference. Zaereth (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should actually read the MOS, especially the part that says "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." This isn't car/automobiles, it's a difference in style. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I might also add that, in all my years at Wikipedia, I'll admit I've never once bothered to read the MOS. I don't recommend that for everyone, but I've read the Chicago Manual of Style and Reuters Manual of Style, and I've been well versed in encyclopedic writing among many others since before there was an internet, let alone a Wikipedia. That made it very easy for me to begin here, starting with the flashtube article, which was in horrendous condition when I found it. An encyclopedia is written in a very formal style and needs to be very coherent and informative across a wide range of ages and backgrounds and intelligence levels, and that's something to always keep in mind, because when you stray from that formality it really stands out. Zaereth (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, since WP doesn't use the Chicago or Reuters MOS (I'm more AP myself), I'm not sure how relevant they are to this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Zaereth, trust me, you haven't missed anything. Use British-style quotations and sentence case in the headers. That's about it. Lev!vich 23:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- And what in your mind is the difference? "Lede" is the spelling people in the writing profession use simply to avoid confusion between the various meaning associated with the word "lead", for example, if working on the article about the metal lead, or electrical leads, plumbing leads, etc. It is simply the Middle English spelling of the word "lead". That's like saying, "We drive automobiles, we don't drive cars"; a distinction without a difference. Zaereth (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- No. It should not at this time be in the lede at all: per WP:RECENTISM Maineartists (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- What if he dies? Is that RECENTISM too? SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's not a fair comparison. Death is a finite storyline, whereas this is evolving and fresh off the press. petrarchan47คุก 19:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- What if he dies? Is that RECENTISM too? SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Too soon for the Lede, though it will likely be added in time. As Zaereth notes above, adding this to the Lede now is "putting the cart before the horse". In full, the account of Bannon's arrest in the body of his BLP is one sentence:
Bannon was arrested by US Postal Inspectors off the coast of Connecticut, on board Guo Wengui's luxury yacht Lady May; later that day, he pleaded not guilty to the charges.
petrarchan47คุก 19:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- There are, of course, two paragraphs on the fraud indictment and the charges. Mentioning his arrest in the introduction is not just mentioning the arrest, but the fact that he has been charged with a crime. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Include: now a defining characteristic of the subject's biography. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Include. Notable event which has garnered nationwide press coverage. It's certainly notable enough to be in the lead. It involves large sums of money, and a host of criminal charges. The "We Build The Wall" non-profit crowdfunding project has it's own article on Wikipedia, and a ton of notable coverage. The whitewashing of Steve Bannon's article is not supported by the utter deluge of news articles on the topic, it belongs in the lead, if for no other reason than its historical importance as yet another example of the greed and avarice which underpins the Trump Administration and the people it associates with. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- That depends. There are several criteria for inclusion. The lede should be a summary of the contents, but each inclusion should be WP:DUE - WP:WEIGHT applies. If there is enough material in the body to summarise and if the fact of the arrest will be long-term facet of the reasons for notability of that person, then inclusion is warranted. So - someone arrested for, say, a DUI and no other charges - don't include. A prominent polemicist with connections to the U.S. President, with an arrest for an alleged federal crime, gaining international attention and which will result in a lengthy and prominent trial? Include. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Look, Bannon was arrested. He's under indictment. He is currently free on $5 million bail (if he weren't rich, he'd be in jail right now) and is awaiting trial on federal criminal charges. If someone reads the lead (which, recall, must stand alone as a complete summary of the article subject and isn't informed of any of that, then we've failed the reader and violated our basic responsibilities in a pretty major way. MastCell Talk 18:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- I would include the indictment but not the arrest. At the moment it is an important part of his story and will certainly occupy his time for the foreseeable future. Most readers coming to the article today are probably looking to find out more about him because of the accusations. We should therefore mention them. It would probably be best to give details about the case in a separate article if one has not been created already. TFD (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the arrest itself is implicit in the indictment. - MrX 🖋 19:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is what I was trying to get to; the arrest is really not the "thing" but the indictment or the charges named against the person that should be taken relative to the person's overall notability. And in the case of Bannon, that they are federal charges and that this seems very much rather connected to his notability make it prime lede material.
- A second way to look at it: obviously if he is found guilty, this is still lede material; if he is found innocent, I still would think this becomes part of his notability and thus something in the lede, though maybe not presented as "arrested and charged for..." but "was named by found innocent in fraud charges related to the border wall", once those are figured out. --Masem (t) 19:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
MrX has taken it upon themselves to decide that consensus has been reached and added the material to the lead. I think it would be best if we allowed an independent editor to decide if consensus has been achieved. Else this just opens things up for a back and forth. Springee (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- The indictment should be mentioned briefly, late in the lead section. At this point, the vast majority of sourced information we have in the way of understanding the notability and details of the life of Steve Bannon, both in the world and in our article, pertains to events prior to the indictment. Vadder (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- It definitely belongs in the lede. There is just no state of the future where this does not remain a significant part of his biography (even if he's acquitted). It's not like people get federally indicted all the time. Well, ok, Trump advisors and campaign managers do, but the standard is notable people in general. Volunteer Marek 21:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I believe the recent nature of the arrest and the limited information at this time
are irrelevant because his indictment by the SDNY for major federal felonies will never go away with the passage of time. I can't help but wonder if this matter would be debatable for even a moment if it involved, say, Valerie Jarrett. soibangla (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- It appears there's more to this story considering the following from the BBC: That this indictment comes out of the Southern District of New York, the federal prosecutorial office that has handled other high-profile cases involving Trump associates, will stir greater interest in the indictment. The district was itself the source of recent controversy when Attorney General Bill Barr abruptly fired its head, Geoffrey Berman. We need to wait, and see some evidence. It looks to me like SDNY thinks they have a "gotcha" situation because there were promises that the money for the wall would go directly to the construction, but some of those players were covering their expenses with it. I will not take either side at their word - corroborate it first - and I certainly don't trust some of the breaking news based on recent experiences. The big scoop is Kevin Clinesmith and far more important in the grand scheme because it appears the lid is about to blow off that pressure cooker. Atsme Talk 📧 22:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- As I explained on Talk, we don't need to know at this time what might be going on behind the scenes. We have enough facts to make it leadworthy. If subsequent reports reveal more, we can add it then. And the Clinesmith matter is trivial and relates to a minor player (Page) in the grand scheme of everything that has happened, but I fully understand the political strategy of some to vastly exaggerate its importance to divert attention from the 16-ton pink elephant in the room. It has no bearing on this matter. soibangla (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- It appears there's more to this story considering the following from the BBC: That this indictment comes out of the Southern District of New York, the federal prosecutorial office that has handled other high-profile cases involving Trump associates, will stir greater interest in the indictment. The district was itself the source of recent controversy when Attorney General Bill Barr abruptly fired its head, Geoffrey Berman. We need to wait, and see some evidence. It looks to me like SDNY thinks they have a "gotcha" situation because there were promises that the money for the wall would go directly to the construction, but some of those players were covering their expenses with it. I will not take either side at their word - corroborate it first - and I certainly don't trust some of the breaking news based on recent experiences. The big scoop is Kevin Clinesmith and far more important in the grand scheme because it appears the lid is about to blow off that pressure cooker. Atsme Talk 📧 22:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with TFD and Masem. It should be included in the lede. Though unless found guilty, not in the first paragraph. starship.paint (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- It probably belongs in the lead, but not in the opening paragraph let along sentence. Ravensfire (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- It should be in the lead. An indictment of this sort is not issued without hearing evidence. It's a major enough issue that it seems worthy of being in the lead to me. Fearless lede'r (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC) — Fearless lede'r (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- If (for example) it's a young actor who has one too many drinks and gets arrested for fighting a paparazzi, then no. Those kind of events are regular and not worth mentioning in the lede, but should be mentioned elsewhere. If it's somebody whose career is ended/defined by their criminal exploits (Harvey Weinstein et al) then yes, it should be in the lede. GiantSnowman 20:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- It should be in the lead section. The criminal charges against Bannon concern how he has supported himself (the Wikipedia article makes clear that he has no regular business or source of income), and that's fundamental to any biography. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
This article is about a living person and public figure (BLP), and clearly violates Wikipedia's policies regarding living persons:
The article was writeen by an opponent of the subject and is not objective nor impartial. Has NON-NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW, DEFAMATORY, unbalanced tone mostly CRIMINALIZING (impliying the person is a "MASS MURDERER"); the article is about a "person ACCUSED OF A CRIME", has poor Verifiability, uses attack pages, misuse of primary sources, replicates PARTISAN gossips published in local media, uses contentious sources and content, relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards, ONLY TELLS THE SIDE OF THE PEOPLE WHO CALL HIM A "MASS MURDERER" WHILE OMITTING MOST OF THE SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENTS OR POSITIVE SOURCES given that pejorative sources are at best controversial, uses VICTIMIZATION of the article's subject without definitive sources or proofs (implying he's a "MASS MURDERER"), LACK OF MULTIPLE RELIABLE THIRD PARTY SOURCES for the contentious material.
Rarely uses the words ALLEGED, ALLEGEDLY but implies the facts of which he is claimed to be "guilty" in fact happened; The article clearly perpetuates political, legal, social and personal DISPUTES harmful to the subject. Mostly presents the arguments of the opponents and as facts and mostly omits the arguments of the defense, forgets that everyone is presumed innocent until convicted and after having exhausted all legal appeals; uses VANDALISM, relatively well-sourced material mixed with poorly or not sourced contentious material, LACK OF SUFFICIENT EXPLANATORY INFORMATION about the ALLEGED crimes of which the subject is supposedly accused, so far all the judiciary proceedings against him have either been sentenced in his favor or are just beginning, CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
The article cannot stand as is and should be deleted.
The following are examples of some of the paragraphs and sentences in this article where Wikipedia's policies have been violated in several or all of the above:
Paragraph 2: "However, his role in the conflict was accompanied by large-scale alleged exactions: thousands of civilians were killed by the Colombian army (see "False positives" scandal) with almost total impunity, being investigated by the United Nations.[3] and millions of people have been victims of forced displacement". This violates all of the above of Wikipedia's policies, clearly states that Uribe and the Army killed thousands of civilians and that it is only their fault that millions of civilians were displaced, making no mention of the victims of the guerrillas (hundreds of thousands), and implies Uribe was a member of the paramilitary groups, with little or no proof but gossips in opposition local media.
Paragraph 2: "he was discharged of his function in February 1983, five months after his appointment, by Président Betancur for his alleged collaboration with drug traffickers" and cites as source an article in french from a person who does not have any first-hand, direct knowledge of the situation. Local media documents he resigned, not that he was discharged.
Paragraph 3: "On 4 August 2020, Uribe was placed under house arrest by Colombia's Supreme Court while it decides whether he should stand trial for bribery and witness tampering as part of ongoing judicial investigations". Makes no mention of the ongoing controversy and public scandal the Court's decision caused in Colombia, or of the pronouncements by different Heads of State and governments about the alleged irregularities in the proceedings or of the alleged violation of Uribe's rights. Fails to present both sides of the story.
Title "Internal Conflict", paragraph 1: "And by the end of his first term in office the AUC had other right-wing militias agree to disarm and go to jail under special sentences of seven years". Makes no mention that most of the sentences were extended, that most leaders are still in jail in 2020, and that some of the paramilitaries were extradited to the United States, much less cites reliable sources of this, giving the impression that Uribe favored the paramilitaries' impunity.
Title "Internal Conflcit", paragraph 8: "Credible reports indicate that some of the territories from which the military has ejected the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolutionarias de Colombia, FARC) are now under the control of paramilitary groups, which continue to carry out indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population." The link to the source, https://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2005/01/13/colomb9847.htm, is dead, and, in any case, the original source does not say what the article's author claims.
"To improve its results in the fight against guerilla warfare, the Colombian army carried out mass executions of civilians transformed into false positives. If exactions of this kind already existed, the phenomenon became widespread from 2002, encouraged by the bonuses paid to the soldiers and by quasi-absolute impunity". Makes definitive statements of things, at best, controversial. Again, the sources are articles in french from people who had no direct knowledge of what happened in Colombia, with clear accusations against Uribe, not founded on real, judicial evidence. Uribe was probed several times by the Colombian Courts and General Attorney Office, even during his period as president, and none found sound evidence of his personal involvement in the "False Positives" scandal. The article fails to present reality in a neutral manner.
"According to the CODHES human rights NGO, forced displacement during Uribe's term affected over 2.4 million Colombian nationals by the end of 2009". Based on partisan or unrealiable sources, the article directly blames Uribe for the displacements, and fails to mention the involvement of the guerrillas. This violates all of the above of Wikipedia's policies, clearly states that Uribe and the Army killed thousands of civilians and that it is only their fault that millions of civilians were displaced, making no mention of the victims of the guerrillas, and implies Uribe was a member of the paramilitary groups, with little or no proof but gossips in opposition local media.
Title "Wiretapping scandal", paragraph 4: "The magazine reported that information gathered by the DAS has been allegedly forwarded to paramilitaries, narcotraffickers and guerrillas". The source does not say that, does not point to Revista Semana, nor that Revista Semana says that, it is merely a list of opinion articles published in opposition media attacking Uribe, where his opponents depict him like a criminal. This statement violates all of the above of Wikipedia's policies.
Title "Wiretapping scandal", paragraph 6: "According to Reporters Without Borders, Colombia was demoted from 114th to 145th place between 2002 and 2010 on freedom of the press". The article cites no reliable source to make such a contentious claim. This statement depicts Uribe as a dictator and violates all of the above of Wikipedia's policies.
Title "socio-economic policy", paragraph 4: "Most direct critics have considered Uribe's administration neoliberal, and argued that it has not addressed the root causes of poverty and unemployment, because continued application of traditional trade and tax policies tend to benefit private and foreign investors over small owners and workers. Union and labor claim that many of the privatizations and liquidations have been done to please the IMF, the World Bank and multinational companies, and will hurt several national industries in the long run". The alleged source is a dead link and, in any case, does not say what the article claims. The article only presents the side of the detractors. The article violates all of the above of Wikipedia's policies.
Title "post-presidency and controversy", paragraph 2: the incident at Georgetown University. The article only cites the opponents side, and omits the positive comments from the advocates' side and even from the University, which clearly appear in the source at https://www.newsweek.com/appointment-colombian-ex-president-sparks-controversy-georgetown-74165
Title "post-presidency and controversy", paragraph 3: "In November 2010, while at the Georgetown campus, Uribe was served a criminal subpoena in the case Claudia Balcero Giraldo v. Drummond, regarding hundreds of civilians murdered by paramilitary forces loyal to Uribe". Fails to mention that Uribe was acquited and therefore was innocent of the alleged charges.
Title "Awards", paragraph 1: (election as El Gran Colombiano) "This decision was widely rejected and criticized by many academics, historians and journalists, even pointing out to possible influence peddling related to the result". The first source is a partisan one that only mentions a handful of academics and two or three jet-set people, only from the opposition side, leaving the claim that "many" academics and historians rejected the election, unsubstantiated. The second source at https://razonpublica.com/el-gran-colombiano-uribe-y-la-histeria-nacional/, is an unreliable, partisan source that even calls Uribe "chuzador" (wiretapper). The tone of this paragraph is clearly biased against Uribe and violates Wikipedia´s policies. Neither of the two poor sources mentions any "fraud" in the election.
Title "Senator of Colombia", paragraph 1: "Some of the legislation later drew criticism, in particular that which reduced the state's responsibility for social security". Citation needed, clearly shows the author's bias against Uribe.
Title "2002 presidential election": no sources whatsoever, much less trustworthy.
Title "Internal conflict", paragraph 11: no sources whatsoever, much less trustworthy.
And many other violations which would be too lengthy to describe in detail.
The article violates many or all of Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality, living persons, victimization, defamation, etc., cannot stand as is and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Critic1234567 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Critic1234567: I have done what I can, but I don't have enough knowledge or interest about the subject to help much. My best advice to you is WP:SOFIXIT and use the article talk page to engage other editors. - MrX 🖋 19:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
@Critic1234567: as an additional point, WP:dead links aren't as big a deal as you seem to think. They are a problem that needs to be dealt with but in general, the link being dead doesn't automatically invalidate the citation. Even for the case of BLPs, you should not generally automatically remove material just because the link is dead. In the event you cannot obtain access to a source preferably after making some reasonable effort and have good reasons to doubt that the source claims what we say it does, or to believe the source is not reliable, then it may be acceptable to remove it and the sourced material while awaiting confirmation from someone with access to the source. But this isn't different from other sources you cannot easily access, for example, obscure books; and to be clear you should generally be asking around for help finding the source rather than just silently removing it and the sourced material.
If you don't have sufficient reason to doubt the citation supports the text it's used for or that the source isn't reliable, the most you should normally do is try to repair it and tag it {{dead link}} if you fail. You can ask around in other places for help if you want to obtain access to verify the material but weren't able to yourself. Quite often links can be repaired simply by looking at archives sites. Other times, the source may still exist but have been moved somewhere else on the site. For anything published in physical newspapers and for sources like reports from HRW, the link itself isn't actually needed it just for convenience, you just need enough info in the citation so that someone can work out how to obtain access.
Somewhat proving the point, from your comments, it sounds like you have obtained access to at least 2 of the dead links since you mention that they don't support what our article says which is a concern but not because of the dead link. If what our article says is really not supported by the source which you have read, it would be acceptable to remove it for this reason but not because the link is dead. I'd note however that a source being onesided or biased, or only presenting the side of detractors doesn't necessarily completely invalidate it as an RS even for BLPs.
In rare cases if significant efforts has been made to fix the link, and no one has been able to and it's not believed you can obtain the source via other means, IMO it may be acceptable to remove it along with the cited content in BLPs. But you should talk to other editors first.
Potentially defamatory content at Jiah Khan
Abbasquadir has on three occasions[3][4][5] added potentially defamatory content about Indian actor Sooraj Pancholi at Jiah Khan. [self-redacted] After I reverted the first time, I opened a discussion about it, which the other editor didn't respond to immediately. They then resubmitted the content without consensus, I reverted it again, and they restored it again.
Short story: Jiah Khan killed herself and her suicide note attributes her poor relationship with Pancholi as a cause of her despair. Some terms like "rape" and "torture" are used. Quoting from the suicide note: "
"After all the pain, the rape, the abuse, the torture I have seen previously I didn't deserve this."
That's highly ambiguous phrasing that could be an accusation that Pancholi committed these acts, or it could also be interpreted in other ways, including that Khan experienced these things prior to her relationship with Pancholi. I don't know how anyone can say definitively that she was accusing Pancholi of rape and physical torture. Also, "torture" is vague. People often use the word as hyperbole, or to describe emotional turmoil.
The other source that Abbasquadir used, this, presents a quote, "I loved you and in return, I received abuses, rape, and physical torture"
which doesn't even seem to be in the suicide note. And the only discussion about newstracklive.com that I can find on RSN was here, but it's not a source I'm familiar with in Indian articles, and I edit lots of those.
Anyhow, based on that, I think it's egregiously bad to let this poorly-phrased content survive. I'm also concerned about Abbasquadir's defensive behaviour. Refusing to listen to experienced Wikipedians is not a great choice. At Talk:Sooraj Pancholi he pasted the entire suicide note text. I redacted it as a copyright violation, they restored it. And when Hut 8.5 left a warning on Abbasquadir's talk page, they removed it commenting "please discuss on article talkpage". So, they don't seem too receptive to feedback or warnings. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Self-redacted the potential defamatory content per the BLPN rules. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Please see the talk page, I did "ASK" the Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs) for a clarification, which the user FAILED to provide. Wonder why is all the exaggeration?
- What is this IF NOT WP:BULLYING?? Abbasquadir
- @Abbasquadir:, "What is this if not bullying?" This is a new user failing to understand they have been treated with great forbearance despite attempting to post material that violates US law and this project's policies. "Anyone can edit" does not mean "Anyone can edit at any time in any way they see fit." I advise you stop what you're doing and listen to the explanations you've received. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Here is the content :In her suicide note Jiah mentioned that Sooraj used to physically abuse and torture her everytime.[1][2]"
- Curious to understand the issue here. Abbasquadir (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- You asked for clarification 7 minutes after you added the content a third time. And what did you need clarification on? I wrote a clear rationale the first time I removed the content. What part of "potentially defamatory" and "highly ambiguous phrasing" was confusing to you? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "After rape Jiah Khan got her child aborted, boyfriend used to torture". News Track. 20 February 2020.
- ^ "Jiah Khan suicide case: This is what Jiah Khan's letter to Sooraj Pancholi read". India Today.
Question for information only: Is it possible to apply discretionary sanctions to Jiah Khan? Since she died in India after having appeared in Bollywood films, and remains controversial in that country, perhaps her page falls within the purview of discretionary sanctions for edits and pages relating to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, as authorized by WP:ARBCOM. If so, applying those sanctions would impose WP:1RR and require a user to wait 24 hours before reinstating a reverted edit. Such additional precautions would seem appropriate in this case. NedFausa (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- @NedFausa:, there is no need for squeezing this under ARBIP since BLP are already covered by authorized Discretionary Sanctions. If you need to, you can see the list of all authorized topic areas covered by DS here. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Eggishorn: What would you recommend here? This seems like a no-brainer to me that this content should be omitted because it is poorly written and interpretive and is potentially defamatory. Is this even considered a standard content dispute? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb:, a DS alert for Pakistan-india has already been left on Abbasquadir's talk page by Newslinger. I've left a note under your noticeboard alert to clarify that the same sanctions also cover BLP and the articles on the recently-dead. If they do anything else after that point that violates BLP (which I think any mention of the text of the notes certainly does) an uninvolved admin can take whatever measures they think necessary. I think they are intending to follow the rules but as a new user they are not yet aware of all the rules in this area. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- #1)Please note that I posted it on article Talkpage AND NOT MAIN article page, as I was not sure if posting it would be right per wiki norms.
- @Cyphoidbomb:, a DS alert for Pakistan-india has already been left on Abbasquadir's talk page by Newslinger. I've left a note under your noticeboard alert to clarify that the same sanctions also cover BLP and the articles on the recently-dead. If they do anything else after that point that violates BLP (which I think any mention of the text of the notes certainly does) an uninvolved admin can take whatever measures they think necessary. I think they are intending to follow the rules but as a new user they are not yet aware of all the rules in this area. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Eggishorn: What would you recommend here? This seems like a no-brainer to me that this content should be omitted because it is poorly written and interpretive and is potentially defamatory. Is this even considered a standard content dispute? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: Sir, your explanation makes sense to me,. exactly what I was talking about, give me a rational, explanation! which Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs) FAILED to provide. AND I DO UNDERSTAND what you said,and don't see a problem following it. I understand that rules and regulations of wikipedia because if which the content holds value. Good day.Abbasquadir (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Abbasquadir: Please stop misrepresenting the facts. There are TWO explanations Talk:Jiah Khan about the unsuitability of the potentially defamatory content you added to the article. TWO of them. Both explain that the content is poor written and potentially defamatory. The first goes into specific detail about how your poor interpretation of the vague wording in Khan's suicide note results in Wikipedia now asserting that Khan accused Pancholi of specific crimes. These were posted before you asked for clarification. I didn't clarify further, because it's obvious you never read either post, and rather than omit the content, as I urged on the talk page should be done, you restored it and now you're playing dumb and shifting the fault to me. Give me a break. This is all on you. Tangentially related: A copyright violation is a copyright violation. It doesn't matter if you post it in the article or on the talk page. If you republish someone's property without a legitimate argument of Fair Use or explicit permission to do so, it's a potential copyright violation. Both of these actions of yours are absolutely ridiculous, as are your responses to them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Hussain Haidry
1. This article or wiki page is Self promoting. Hussain Haidry is not a prominent person in India or anywhere. His presence is in twitter (has 21K followers) where he tweets against Hindus, RSS, BJP (Political party in power in India). 2. He promotes violence against Hindus and asking Muslims to murder them. Please see all his tweets and his twitter handle is @hussainhaidry. Hussain Haidry tweeted to incite violence by urging people to ‘show courage’ and ‘beat up’ the ‘upper caste’ Hindus, who according to him, are ruining the country. He had asked his people to go to each and every household in their respective colonies and hit all those voting for the BJP with chappals (slippers). 4. He wrote a poem asking for another 09/11 of killing people in India, by hijacking aeroplanes and hitting them against high rise buildings. He also tweeted about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankargb (talk • contribs) 00:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Shankargb, I agree that the article is self promoting and needs to be cleaned up, and I just removed several primary source citations. However, he seems to be notable, as shown by the mention in The Guardian, and the articles in the Hindustan Times and The Hindu. There are a number of other sources that seem to also prove notability, but I don't know how reliable they are, since I'm not familiar with Indian news sites.
- As for the other information, that isn't relevant for whether he should have an article. There are many people out there who have done horrible things who still have Wikipedia pages. If you think that information should be included, and you have reliable sources (not social media), then feel free to include it in the article!
- -Gbear605 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am quoting Hussain Haidry's own words, speeches, poems, tweets inciting violence. Are they (his own words and his own tweets) not credible evidence, though not published in newspapers? The Guardian, The Hindustan Times and The Hindu are all managed by Leftists, Communists, etc. who want to spread fake narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankargb (talk • contribs) 03:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Shankargb: We do require reliable secondary sources such as the Guardian, the Hindustan Times, the Hindu, regardless of whether they are "all managed by Leftists, Communists, etc. who want to spread fake narrative". If you cannot find such reliable secondary source coverage then whatever it is can't be significant. Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am disappointed that you are refusing to accept primary sources of evidences of Hussain Haidry's words of inciting violence. No wonder most people are losing faith in the neutrality of Wikipedia.My contention is that the article or wiki page is self promoting of Hussain Haidry and it does not deserve to be there.If Tom, Dick and Harry start creating Wikipedia pages in their names, then there will be 7 billion Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankargb (talk • contribs) 08:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Shankargb: our policy is the same whether the person is someone Hindu nationalists hate or love, so it's unclear how it makes us non-neutral. If you believe reliable secondary sources are not neutral, that's a problem with the world not with Wikipedia. We are here to create an encyclopaedia, not to right great wrongs with the world. We do indeed have problems with people who have a WP:COI trying to create articles on themselves directly or indirectly and it is true the creation of the Hussain Haidry article is interesting since it was by an editor who only ever did that Special:Contributions/Vinodkhare. While we have policies in place to try and stop this, it's not an easy area to deal with given our strong privacy policy and other factors. Often the most we can do is ensure all articles meet out WP:notability requirements and WP:NPOV policy etc. While I only had a quick look, there seem to be several sources in that article covering the subject including several after the apparent viral hit in 2017 (somewhat assuaging WP:BIO1E concerns) like the Asian Age one. And while The Hindu one is an interview, it is in a source generally considered a newspaper of record. All this makes me think it probably passed WP:GNG. Still if you understand our RS and notability guidelines and you've done the necessary work, you're welcome to nominate it for deletion if you disagree and let the community decide. IMO it would probably be better to try an improve the article e.g. fixing issues of tone. And if you can find any reliable secondary source coverage of these alleged controversies it's possible something could be added. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you meant from "Hindu nationalist" but I think you have a point with that I should better use WP:AFD for discussing the legibility of this subject and I will be analyzing sources whether they are good for notability or not. Thanks for your time. Shankargb (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Shankargb: you said "
I am disappointed that you are refusing to accept primary sources of evidences of Hussain Haidry's words of inciting violence. No wonder most people are losing faith in the neutrality of Wikipedia.
" However no explanation of why our refusal to accept primary sources makes us non neutral. Our refusal to accept primary sources in this fashion is universal. It doesn't matter if it's Hussain Haidry's alleged words inciting violence; or anything that someone e.g. from the BJP, tweets inciting violence against Muslims. There's nothing non neutral about it, it affects all parties equally. You may disagree whether it's a good policy, but that's a different point from claiming it's somehow non neutral. Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Shankargb: you said "
- I am not sure what you meant from "Hindu nationalist" but I think you have a point with that I should better use WP:AFD for discussing the legibility of this subject and I will be analyzing sources whether they are good for notability or not. Thanks for your time. Shankargb (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Shankargb: our policy is the same whether the person is someone Hindu nationalists hate or love, so it's unclear how it makes us non-neutral. If you believe reliable secondary sources are not neutral, that's a problem with the world not with Wikipedia. We are here to create an encyclopaedia, not to right great wrongs with the world. We do indeed have problems with people who have a WP:COI trying to create articles on themselves directly or indirectly and it is true the creation of the Hussain Haidry article is interesting since it was by an editor who only ever did that Special:Contributions/Vinodkhare. While we have policies in place to try and stop this, it's not an easy area to deal with given our strong privacy policy and other factors. Often the most we can do is ensure all articles meet out WP:notability requirements and WP:NPOV policy etc. While I only had a quick look, there seem to be several sources in that article covering the subject including several after the apparent viral hit in 2017 (somewhat assuaging WP:BIO1E concerns) like the Asian Age one. And while The Hindu one is an interview, it is in a source generally considered a newspaper of record. All this makes me think it probably passed WP:GNG. Still if you understand our RS and notability guidelines and you've done the necessary work, you're welcome to nominate it for deletion if you disagree and let the community decide. IMO it would probably be better to try an improve the article e.g. fixing issues of tone. And if you can find any reliable secondary source coverage of these alleged controversies it's possible something could be added. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Aziz Ansari
We need some BLP eyes on Aziz Ansari, where editors are repeatedly promoting UNDUE derogatory article text related to a brief internet/media controversy sparked by a woman who had a bad experience on a date with him in early 2018 and got her story published on a now-defunct website for adolescent and young adult women. SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Added to my watchlist. - MrX 🖋 15:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, editors are repeatedly removing well-sourced longstanding text based only on opinion. Ansari has never denied coercing her for sex. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I have other concerns about content on User/Article talk pages about the accuser of the subject, of sexual assault and/or misconduct (sources have used both words). One editor, SPECIFICO, has made comments about the (unnamed) accuser on public talk pages that I found concerning:
You are repeating yourself. Yes, the upshot is that she mischaracterizes the incident as assault. That is what the sources say.
Diff.The noteworthy incident was not the date -- which is like hundreds of thousands of such regrettable and regretted misunderstandings every week around the world. What garnered the brief attention in the blogosphere and a few press articles was the tenuous use of #MeToo narratives to describe the woman's having failed to extricate herself from an unwelcome situation before she got to tears. None of the commentary concludes that this woman impacted or damaged Ansari's "public profile". Nothing much happened. The noteworthy event was the woman's having held up her personal reactions to public scrutiny on the expectation that people would find them somehow similar to incidents of sexual misconduct. The public reaction was only that "bad conduct" is not "misconduct" and both she and Ansari were viewed as having bungled a rather innocuous interaction that left them both temporarily upset at having handled it poorly.
Diff.
I found two opinion commentators defending Aziz: an op-ed by the resigned NYT columnist Bari Weiss, here, and a transcript of an interview here. Both opinion commentators seem to suggest Ansari is not guilty of any wrongdoing. Per WP:RSO, neither of these are reliable sources for any information about the incident. They are strictly reliable for the opinion of the authors, period. The above user is rehashing these opinions as if they are fact, without attribution, and in their own words. I do not see any reliable sources suggesting the woman "bungled" the encounter or that what occurred was "innocuous." I explained this to the editor, and was dismissed.
I believe these are BLP vios for the accuser and that the comments should be struck. In my opinion, we as a community should not be casting doubt on public forums on the accounting of events of a sexual assault accuser (or the accused, for that matter) based on opinion pieces with no first-hand knowledge of the events, no involvement in any formal investigation, and who have not spoken to any of the persons involved. I'd appreciate some input here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO is also badly misrepresenting what's going on here. He suggests the allegations are sourced to a "now-defunct website." They were originally published in a defunct website, and subsequently covered by NPR Vice NBC USA Today The New York Times and The Washington Post and many others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I share the same concerns about SPECIFICO's public comments:
I have been editing [Aziz Ansari] since January 2018, when the woman first promoted this dubious, trivial internet controversy.
Diff. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)- SPECIFICO is clearly coming here to forum shop with their own opinions on the situation influencing their judgement. The characterisation of
a woman who had a bad experience on a date
is hardly the full picture. See the quotes Wikieditor19920 provides of SPECIFICO engaging in damaging and disregarding words towards a woman who has accused a man of non-consensual sexual activity. In any case, an event by itself is neither intrinsically significant nor intrinsically insignificant; it is the reliable source coverage of the event that makes it so. In this case the literature on this incident is very detailed relative to coverage of other aspects of Ansari's career. — Bilorv (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Bilorv I believe that SPECIFICO's comments about the accuser deserve more immediate attention and should be struck. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Would an administrator please help to enforce WP:ONUS to prevent an edit war? The Ansari sexual misconduct allegation is "one of the most polarised cases of the "Me Too" moment
"[1] (as illustrated on Saturday Night Live![6]), and many edits have been made after editors have repeatedly expressed that ONUS should be respected.[7] This is the stable version. Virtually every word of this section is disputed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Serisier, Tanya (2019). "A New Age of Believing Women? Judging Rape Narratives Online". Rape Narratives in Motion: 199–222. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-13852-3_9.
Susan McClary
The Susan McClary BLP has large sections of criticism, written in a very WP:ESSAY-like style, that are unsourced, or sourced to unreliable sources (e.g. Holocaust denying publishers). I noted the problem last week and removed some of the most problematic parts, but was reverted by User:Kosboot, despite WP:BLPREMOVE. Looking at the history of the article, I noticed that User:KidAd had a few weeks earlier removed that material and much more, and had been similarly reverted by User:Kosboot and another section reverted by User:Michael Bednarek. I've brought the issue here for review. Jayjg (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Jayjg, I specifically asked you to review the discussion on the article's talk page where several editors agreed that it should be reinstated. So rather than engage us, you come running over to this page to cry for help. All of the editors of that discussion are well-versed in musicological issues or are musicologists themselves and understand the literature and context of the issue. Either engage us, or move on to something else. - kosboot (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- User:Kosboot, the issue here is primarily of WP:BLP, and secondarily of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:ESSAY. Being "well-versed in musicological issues" does not guarantee that you are well-versed in Wikipedia policy, and the very brief discussion on the article's Talk: page does not address WP:BLP. This board, however, does. Have you read WP:BLPREMOVE? I recommend you do so now, if you have not done so already. Jayjg (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- By the way, it was for your benefit that I came to this board. As an alternative, I could have simply blocked you (per WP:BLPREMOVE), and then removed the material. Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Might as well chime in – thanks for the ping Jayjg. In April, I made a fairly bold edit here, which removed broad swaths of content that violated WP:NOTJOURNAL and WP:NOTESSAY. If you look at the diff, you will notice that I removed chunks of unsourced text about McClary's scholarship that was written like a college essay, CV, or university bio. I can see now that the text has been re-inserted. There is a very small discussion on the talk page that references a "substantial cut" (being my edit), but nothing that constitutes consensus. I will not that I was never pinged on the talk page, and therefor never participated in any content-related discussion. I will remind Kosboot that they must gain consensus per WP:ONUS to include the unsourced essay material. I will also restore the "essay-like" template to the page, as the problems have returned. KidAd talk 19:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Capitalization of "the" in a stage name
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.
More thoughts and opinions are needed regarding the capitalization of "the" in a solo musician's stage name, particularly The Weeknd's. Some1 (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This issue involves a BLP in regard to their name/stage name. The discussion initially began over at: Talk:The_Weeknd#the_Weekend
If a solo musician has “The” with a capital T in their stage name/alias/pseudonym, should the “The” be capitalized, especially in the lead sentence regarding their own stage name?
I’ll use The Weeknd as an example. Abel uses “The Weeknd” (with a capital T) as his stage name. People who are familiar with his music and works know this. If not, this is according to:
- His main website: https://www.theweeknd.com/news/weeknd-claims-1-spot-billboard-hot-100 ("GRAMMY® Award-winning diamond-certified Toronto R&B / Pop icon The Weeknd captures")
- His record label: http://www.republicrecords.com/artists/the-weeknd ("through an ambitious widescreen lens, The Weeknd quietly")
- His YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheWeeknd/about (“Abel adopted the stage name, "The Weeknd," after")
- His official Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/theweeknd/ (“The official Facebook Page for The Weeknd")
- Billboard: https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6737514/weeknd-rolling-stone-cover-story-5-things-we-learned (“Abel Tesfaye, aka The Weeknd, told Rolling Stone”)
The Weeknd's article has his stage name as "The Weeknd" with a capital T since 2011 (article was created in 2011). This is the long-standing status quo. Random time periods throughout the years: 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 all correctly capitalize his stage name as “The Weeknd” in the lead sentence.
Now, a couple editors are recently saying that the “the” should be lower-case, both in the stage name and in the body of the article. [8]
- Some are citing MOS:THEMUSIC. However, MOS:THEMUSIC includes directions for bands, not solo artists, which caused this recent discussion on its talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music#MOSTHEMUSIC_for_solo_artists and no clear directions.
- Another argument is MOS:NICKNAMETHE, which states: “A leading "the" is not capitalized in a nickname, pseudonym, or other alias (except when the alias begins a sentence)” with a link in its sentence to MOS:THECAPS, which states: “however, some idiomatic expressions, including the titles of artistic and academic works, should be quoted exactly according to common usage.” The section lists The Hague and The Open Championship as examples of exceptions.
- Is The Weeknd an exception, since that's his stage name and is most commonly used with a capital T? Or is MOS:NICKNAMETHE the definitive guideline and MOS:THECAPS does not apply to The Weeknd (or any other solo-musicians)? One editor stated that MOS:THECAPS is guidance for titles of artistic works, but The Open Championship is listed as an example of an exception and I don't believe that that's an artistic work per se.
Abel uses “The Weeknd” with a capital T as his stage name. If Wikipedia decides to start off The Weeknd’s article with “Abel Makkonen Tesfaye (born February 16, 1990), known professionally as 'the Weeknd'” (with a lowercase t), not only is that giving readers inaccurate information, but is basically telling Abel that he doesn’t know the casing of his own stage name.
So how should this capitalization of "the" in regard to a stage name be handled? Some1 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- We have two policies that explicitly say we should lowercase "the" in both band names ( MOS:THEMUSIC) and aliases (MOS:NICKNAMETHE). The exceptions given at MOS:CAPS don't seem at all applicable here - none are people or musical acts - and I think Some1 is stretching to find a get-out clause. Popcornfud (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I wanted further community input and clarification from people with fresh eyes who haven't seen the discussion over at The Weeknd's talk page. You were involved in the discussion and the editor who tried to lowercase his stage name in the first place, so I'm not surprised you're against me opening this thread. Anyway, The Weeknd himself capitalizes "The" in his own stage name and we don't want to give readers inaccurate information or tell Abel himself how he should or should not capitalize his own stage name. Thanks for the WP:ASPERSIONS though. Some1 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. I agree with Popcornfud, but there is also a reason for that, so I'll explain it if you like. In most cases it's confusing to the reader, unless the "the" is at the beginning of a sentence. It's like hitting a speed bump in the middle of the text. You, like, hit this snag, and it's like, "What the hell just happened? Did we just start a new sentence?" Then you have to start the sentence all over again to really understand it, and this is a really big problem for non-native speakers of English. And there are certain cases where it's just better to leave it out entirely, for the sole purpose of making it flow more smoothly. The thing is, we don't take rules of style from our subjects. Most all of them use what is known as colloquial speech, which is fine for rather informal publications aimed at certain demographics, like newspapers and magazines, but an encyclopedia uses a very formal style, and these rules exist to make it very easy to read and understand across a wide range of people and demographics. It's all just to keep things very easy to read and understand, and make it flow smoothly. For more info, see the huge battle over the Beatles, listed at the top of the music guideline. Zaereth (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- The problem with this argument is that thousands of artists, musicians, bands etc capitalise "the" in their names. This is not unique to t/The Weeknd. If you think we are failing to reflect the correct name by not capitalising "the", then that's also true of countless other acts. In which case: what are you doing here? Clearly your disagreement is with the policies themselves. Popcornfud (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm mainly concerned about the capitalization of his stage name (a solo musician's stage name, not bands) in the lead sentence; the article (The Weeknd) currently has his stage name capitalized in the lead sentence, but lowercase in the body of the article, which I think is an acceptable compromise. Like I stated, his stage name is "The Weeknd" and not "the Weeknd", and certainly not "Weeknd", and we don't want this glaring inaccuracy to be the first thing readers see when they read The Weeknd's article. Some1 (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I personally don't know many solo-musicians with "The" in their stage name. An editor at the MOS:THEMUSIC talk page mentioned The Alchemist (musician) and from the looks of his article, he also has "The" capitalized. Some1 (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I wanted further community input and clarification from people with fresh eyes who haven't seen the discussion over at The Weeknd's talk page. You were involved in the discussion and the editor who tried to lowercase his stage name in the first place, so I'm not surprised you're against me opening this thread. Anyway, The Weeknd himself capitalizes "The" in his own stage name and we don't want to give readers inaccurate information or tell Abel himself how he should or should not capitalize his own stage name. Thanks for the WP:ASPERSIONS though. Some1 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- What do the majority of reliable sources use in their coverage? Ultimately, if "The" is being used as though it is part of the statename (so, for example you would never buy "a The Beatles album" but would go to "a The Weeknd concert") and not an article, and if reliable sources are reflecting that, our policy says to follow those reliable sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- His main website, his record label, YouTube channel, Facebook page, etc. (see the links provided in my original post above), Billboard (also listed above [9]), the Grammys [10], Canada's Walk of Fame [11]. Other articles: CBC [12], Complex [13], Variety [14], Toronto [15] to name a few. Some1 (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC) NME [16], The Verge [17], BBC [18], People [19], Entertainment Tonight [20], ABC [21] Some1 (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Some1 has repeatedly dropped the red herring argument of MOS:THECAPS which has no bearing on the question. Stop it. That guideline has nothing to do with musical artists.
- The two relevant guidelines are MOS:THEMUSIC which says we write the Beatles and not The Beatles in mid-sentence, and MOS:NICKNAMETHE which says we write the Edge is in U2 instead of The Edge is in U2. In both examples we are instructed to use sentence case.
- Of course there is a large body of literature using both methods. The ginormous discussion we had about the Beatles in 2012 showed a great many sources proving both sides of the argument. Eventually, Wikipedia was forced to choose one of the arguments, and we chose lower case. One of the more persuasive arguments was that everybody drops the "The" when it makes sense, for instance "Lennon and McCartney were the most prolific Beatles" or "ex-Beatle Lennon". Which made the The seem less critically important.
- For individuals such as the Edge and the Weeknd, and duos such as the Neptunes and the Veronicas, we might want to have a repeat of the big Request for Mediation of 2012, but focused on ones and twos instead of groups. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I already pointed out arguments in my original post regarding MOS:THEMUSIC, MOS:NICKNAMETHE, and MOS:THECAPS so I'm not going to repeat it here again, except briefly state that MOS:THEMUSIC has no guidelines for solo musicians, only bands (hence the talk page discussion on that article). And the relevant MOS:NICKNAMETHE sentence itself ("A leading "the" is not capitalized in a nickname, pseudonym, or other alias (except when the alias begins a sentence[e]):) links to MOS:THECAPS which lists exceptions, which is why I'm asking for clarification since The Open Championship is listed as an exception. And I'm not sure why you're using band name examples to compare to The Weeknd; I already get that we don't capitalize "the" in band names. We're talking about solo musicians here. And please don't ping me again, I'm already watching this page.
- Keeping "The Weeknd" capitalized in the lead sentence for his stage name (which is the correct way) and lowercase for the body of the article is an acceptable compromise to me (which is the way the current article is now).
- The only change editors are trying to make now to The Weeknd's article is to lowercase "The" in his stage name in the lead sentence. And lower-casing it would be inaccurate per my original post. Some1 (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- You are suggesting a capitalization style that nobody ever uses: Capitalizing The Weeknd in the first few paragraphs, then using lower case in the article body. There is not a style guide in the world choosing that method, including Wikipedia. Let's not re-invent the wheel here. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Some1 seems to be correct -- just as we would not make it lowercase for The Hague, when the word is consistently capitalized in reliable sources as part of the official name or title, we should not use a different style from reliable sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- We cap "The Hague" because everybody caps The Hague. It would be wrong not to, as evidenced by all sources agreeing. For the Weeknd, however, many sources don't cap "the"; so per MOS:CAPS generally, neither should we. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- His official stage name is "The Weeknd" with a capital T hence why his own website, his record label, YouTube channel, Facebook page, the Grammy's, Canada's Walk of Fame, Billboard (and other reliable sources) use "The Weeknd." The "The" in this case is not a definite article; it is part of his stage name. Capitalizing his stage name in the lead sentence but keeping it lowercase in the body of the article is a compromise. Some1 (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Such a "compromise" would be absurd and inconsistent. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- The WP:STATUSQUO [22] of the article was to both capitalize his stage name in the lead sentence and in the body of the article. Some1 (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, we are asking to stop doing that. Popcornfud (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- The WP:STATUSQUO [22] of the article was to both capitalize his stage name in the lead sentence and in the body of the article. Some1 (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Such a "compromise" would be absurd and inconsistent. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- His official stage name is "The Weeknd" with a capital T hence why his own website, his record label, YouTube channel, Facebook page, the Grammy's, Canada's Walk of Fame, Billboard (and other reliable sources) use "The Weeknd." The "The" in this case is not a definite article; it is part of his stage name. Capitalizing his stage name in the lead sentence but keeping it lowercase in the body of the article is a compromise. Some1 (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, Dicklyon, that's exactly my question. Because reliable sources consistently use capitalization when it comes to The Hague, we don't have to defer to our normal approach for "the," since our policy makes clear to defer to reliable sources. The same would be the case here -- if a strong majority of reliable secondary sources are treating The as though it is a title and not the article, our policy says to defer to them.
- We cap "The Hague" because everybody caps The Hague. It would be wrong not to, as evidenced by all sources agreeing. For the Weeknd, however, many sources don't cap "the"; so per MOS:CAPS generally, neither should we. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- What is not in question is that, like The Hague, the official title and primary sources capitalize. So the question is, what is the format reliable secondary sources generally prefer to use?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is a Wikipedia policy and applies in this case to prevent inaccuracies. Some1 (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's also one of the most fundamental concepts in Wikipedia. IAR may be entirely appropriate here. Also, calling other editors "scoundrels" is not particularly civil - let's comment on edits, not editors. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 07:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Use lower-case the, per MOS:THECAPS, MOS:NICKNAMETHE, MOS:THEMUSIC, which exist for a reason (specifically this one). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- How do secondary sources describe the subject when there is already an article before the name? So, for example, you would never say "the band covered a the Beatles song," so it is clear that "the" is simply an article in this case. Would a reliable source more commonly say "there is a Weeknd concert next week" or "there is a The Weeknd concert next week" ? If the latter, it is hard to argue we should be treating "the" like an article -- otherwise, it should be cut out entirely in those cases.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yaksar, all of this stuff was debated extensively in the 2012 Beatles debate. The outcome of that discussion was to use lowercase. Let's not rehash that debate here. Popcornfud (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is a separate question and a separate case. It's clear that with the Beatles, the is treated like an article. Is it with The Weeknd?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yaksar, all of this stuff was debated extensively in the 2012 Beatles debate. The outcome of that discussion was to use lowercase. Let's not rehash that debate here. Popcornfud (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. Per the policies. Popcornfud (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Again, what do reliable source treat it as? If they are more commonly treating The as a title rather than an article, hence my question, then our policy is to use that format. It doesn't matter what our policy says about "the" when it comes to The Hague, because reliable sources are clear in using the official title.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- The debate is whether the policies apply in this case, not what the policy says to do in cases when it does apply. As noted in MOS:THECAPS,
The capitalized "The" in The Hague is an exception because virtually all reliable sources consistently make this exception, and it is listed in major off-Wikipedia style guides and dictionaries as conventionally spelled this way.
- Thus, if "virtually all reliable sources consistently" refer to the artist as "The Weeknd" and not "the Weeknd", the policy does not apply. To resolve this, we need to consult the sources. Gbear605 (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Gbear605: Do "virtually all reliable sources consistently" uppercase it? The answer is no. Examples: The Guardian, the BBC, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, New York Times. Popcornfud (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Popcornfud, given that, I agree that the MOS:THECAPS applies and we should refer to him as "the Weeknd" throughout the article. Gbear605 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Primary sources - what Abel himself uses:
- His main website: [23] ("GRAMMY® Award-winning diamond-certified Toronto R&B / Pop icon The Weeknd captures")
- His record label: [24] ("through an ambitious widescreen lens, The Weeknd quietly")
- His YouTube channel: [25] (“Abel adopted the stage name, "The Weeknd," after")
- His official Facebook page: [26] (“The official Facebook Page for The Weeknd")
- Reliable secondary sources:
- Billboard (“Abel Tesfaye, aka The Weeknd, told Rolling Stone”), The Grammys, Canada's Walk of Fame ("Born Abel Tesfaye, The Weeknd..."), CBC ("Toronto's Abel Tesfaye, better known as The Weeknd..."), Complex, Variety, Toronto ("Scarborough native The Weeknd continues...), NME, The Verge ("debauched pop prince The Weeknd (aka Abel Tesfaye)"), BBC [27] ("According to tastemakers, The Weeknd - otherwise known as 22-year-old Toronto-based singer Abel Tesfaye"), People ("...Gomez and The Weeknd (née Abel Tesfaye)"), Entertainment Tonight, ABC - these are all taken from The Weeknd's reference list.
- Secondary sources aren't consistent with the capitalization though, most likely because people are used to spelling "the" lower-case, especially in prose. But Abel himself uses "The Weeknd" with a capital T as his stage name (not as an article) and secondary sources which I listed do too. Some1 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Some1, the guideline in MOS:THECAPS is that it is only an exception if
virtually all reliable sources consistently make this exception
. They do for The Hague, but they evidently don't for The Weeknd. Are you proposing that the guideline should be changed, do you think that they don't apply at all (but MOS:THECAPS applies to all articles), or do you think that The Weeknd still fits into this exception? Gbear605 (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)- The Open Championship is listed as an exception and says "a specific golf tournament conventionally styled this way." I think The Weeknd is an exception since his stage name is styled that way and conventionally used with a capital T.
- But this also goes back to accuracy though; The Weeknd himself uses "The Weeknd" with a capital T as his stage name per my sources listed above. Wouldn't it be misleading to readers if Wikipedia starts off the lead sentence of The Weeknd's article and say that he is professionally known as "the Weeknd" with a lowercase T? I think WP:IAR applies in this case. Some1 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Interestingly, The Open Championship is inconsistently referred to on the page as both "the Open" and "The Open". Gbear605 (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, I still think that within the text we should probably use lowercase where applicable, and save the uppercase for the beginning of sentences and such. However, I really don't see a problem, in this case, of capitalizing it in the very first mention, because, being in bold as it is, it doesn't create the same stumbling block as it likely would in other parts of the article. That said, I really don't see what the big deal is. Beyond the readability issue, does it really matter that much if it is lowercase?
- Interestingly, The Open Championship is inconsistently referred to on the page as both "the Open" and "The Open". Gbear605 (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Some1, the guideline in MOS:THECAPS is that it is only an exception if
- Gbear605: Do "virtually all reliable sources consistently" uppercase it? The answer is no. Examples: The Guardian, the BBC, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, New York Times. Popcornfud (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. Per the policies. Popcornfud (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Beyond that, this noticeboard is not really the best place for this discussion, as this has nothing to do with BLP violations. The best place would likely be the article's talk page, or DRN or RFC, or if you want to change the policy then at the policy's talk page. Zaereth (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Zaereth, the article currently has his stage name in the lead sentence with a capital "T", but with a lowercase "t" in the body of the article. I think it's an acceptable compromise. Would you support this? Some1 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- We will never, ever, ever use that style. Why? Because there is no precedent. It's your invention. Stop suggesting it. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see a big problem with doing it that way, so I would not object unless someone comes along with a good rationale why we shouldn't ... although I wouldn't call it ideal. I still don't understand why it is so important to you.
- Zaereth, the article currently has his stage name in the lead sentence with a capital "T", but with a lowercase "t" in the body of the article. I think it's an acceptable compromise. Would you support this? Some1 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Beyond that, this noticeboard is not really the best place for this discussion, as this has nothing to do with BLP violations. The best place would likely be the article's talk page, or DRN or RFC, or if you want to change the policy then at the policy's talk page. Zaereth (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Here's the thing. These conventions are not just something Wikipedia came up with, but they really go back to the proto languages that all make up English today. You find the same conventions in German and French and Swedish, and to some degree Latin (although Latin relies more on suffixes to do the job of things like articles and prepositions in English). For example, see Max von Stephanitz (Max of Stephanitz), who is referred to as von Stephanitz unless his name begins a sentence. There's a reason we never capitalize the small words, a reason that goes way back to the beginning. Zaereth (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that it's not ideal, but it's a compromise I guess. And it's important because we don't want to give readers inaccurate information regarding a BLP's stage name. I'll start an RfC on The Weeknd's talk page with definite Yes/No type questions, that way the RfC can settle this dispute and we can all move on. Some1 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well you keep saying that, but what does it mean? How are we giving inaccurate information? What am I missing here? There are good reasons for not doing it that way, but what is the reason we should? That's the thing I'm missing to tip the scales your way, and frankly I'm leaning the other way right now. As far as I can tell, the information is just the same either way, so it seems like much ado about nothing. I would suggest before you begin and RFC that you really take some time to think it through and give us a good reason why we should. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that it's not ideal, but it's a compromise I guess. And it's important because we don't want to give readers inaccurate information regarding a BLP's stage name. I'll start an RfC on The Weeknd's talk page with definite Yes/No type questions, that way the RfC can settle this dispute and we can all move on. Some1 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Here's the thing. These conventions are not just something Wikipedia came up with, but they really go back to the proto languages that all make up English today. You find the same conventions in German and French and Swedish, and to some degree Latin (although Latin relies more on suffixes to do the job of things like articles and prepositions in English). For example, see Max von Stephanitz (Max of Stephanitz), who is referred to as von Stephanitz unless his name begins a sentence. There's a reason we never capitalize the small words, a reason that goes way back to the beginning. Zaereth (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Use lowercase per the MOS. I was on the losing side of the Beatles debate, but since then I've realized I was wrong. It doesn't really matter how the artist himself styles his name on Instagram etc. -- Calidum 18:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Peter Gwargis
- Peter Gwargis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am having a dispute with new editor @Coolguy2525: who I feel has a nationalistic/POV agenda. On this article there is a source being used to cite his family background, which states (and I quote) "the teenager with the Iraqi-lineage" and his "parents are from Iraq’s Assyrian community". Coolguy however is repeatedly removing reference to Iraq. I believe it should stay in. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 09:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: It might be worth engaging with Coolguy2525 on the article's talk page before we end up with a fully-fledged edit war? Also, the core element here I think is using the sources: if the sources explicitly say "Gwargis is Iraqi-Assyrian" then a case could be made for including it, but if we're claiming he's Iraqi in terms of nationality (Coolguy2525 is right in saying that Iraq is a diverse place of different cultures) we can't just base it off his parents - that'd be original research. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 10:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: I think trying to hash this out on the article's talk page (and {{ping}}-ing them) is probably going to be the best course right now. At least other editors can give their inputs there and we can work towards an agreement. Just having a look at the SBS source though, it looks like the most we could say is that he is of Iraqi-lineage, but anything beyond that would be pushing it with original research again. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 10:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Here is now the most appropriate place, it will get wider input then the article talk page. As I said in the original post, the source says "the teenager with the Iraqi-lineage" and his "parents are from Iraq’s Assyrian community", so saying "His family Assyrians from Iraq" is accurate and supported by the source. Why are you seemingly OK with Coolguy's removal of the mention of Iraq? GiantSnowman 10:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- "His family Assyrians from Iraq" is incorrect sentence structure (note the missing "are" between family and Assyrians). Content in the article should focus on Gwargis himself, not his family, so the sentence could read
Gwargis was born in Australia to Assyrian parents from Iraq
- that is perfectly fine. My interpretation of what you were saying is that you wanted to say or imply that Gwargis himself is Iraqi ("Gwargis is an Assyrian Iraqi" etc), which isn't stated in the source. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 10:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- "His family Assyrians from Iraq" is incorrect sentence structure (note the missing "are" between family and Assyrians). Content in the article should focus on Gwargis himself, not his family, so the sentence could read
@ItsPugle: unsurprisingly @Coolguy2525: has returned and again removed references to Iraq... GiantSnowman 15:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: I've just left an edit warring warning on their talk page with a note to have a look here. Hopefully they follow the link and discuss their perspective on the changes if it's coming from a second haer6. For what it's worth, it might be best if you stop reverting their changes too; I'm just aware of the three revert rule and I would hate for you to get blocked. If they keep removing all references to his parents over the next couple of days though, if might be the sort of thing an administrator may need to get involved in. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- @ItsPugle and Gbear605: and he has reverted again, and this time also added in the Assyrian element to the lede, in violation of WP:MOSETHNICITY. I am not touching the article. He needs to be blocked as he clearly doesn't get it. GiantSnowman 16:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree that he should be blocked - he seems to mainly just be ignorant of Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. I agree that the lead needs to abide by WP:MOSETHNICITY, but there's no reason the article shouldn't say elsewhere that he's Assyrian. His parents being Assyrian means that he is Assyrian, and we don't need to cite that because it's obviously true. Gbear605 (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @ItsPugle and Gbear605: and he has reverted again, and this time also added in the Assyrian element to the lede, in violation of WP:MOSETHNICITY. I am not touching the article. He needs to be blocked as he clearly doesn't get it. GiantSnowman 16:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Don Colbert
The Don Colbert page says "he is a specialist in faith healing". This is false and offensive to a practicing MD.
I attempted to update this page with the official bio of Dr. Don Colbert on behalf of the Colbert Family but @Krelnik reverted my changes twice. I have attempted to work with @Krelnik since Friday to have the necessary libelous claims removed, but he has not done so. This content is inaccurate, hurting Dr. Colbert's medical practice, and offensive to the Colbert Family and needs to be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSP0421 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- @JSP0421: If you're trying to make an edit on behalf of the subject of the article, your best bet is to use {{request edit}} on the article's talk page as per Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. Ensuring Wikipedia's neutrality is really important, and as Krelnik has said, you'll need to request that a non-associated editor verifies and makes the edit (which is what {{request edit}} does). Just as a heads up, you'll also need to provide sources for any claims you make. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 12:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- @ItsPugle: We did discuss this on my personal talk page where I explained to JSP0421 some of the policies involved, including requesting an edit on an article's talk page. I did make one of their requested changes (removing the word "Pentecostal" which doesn't seem supported by the sources). But I don't understand the distinction about faith healing that is being made. Colbert's website is literally full of references to faith and its relationship to health and healing. See here, here, here and here. I gather there's some subtle distinction here but I'm not getting it. I would suggest that JSP0421, in their requested edit, suggest some replacement verbiage that still retains the fact that Colbert incorporates religion into his practice but removes the supposedly offensive language. --Krelnik (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Do RS call him a faith healer?Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any RS about him at all to be honest. The most independent thing I could find is an interview in which the writter calls him a "Healing Minister". The writer of that article/interview is a personal friend of Colbert's ("My friend Dr. Don Colbert is a Spirit-filled medical doctor") though, and the site itself is not reliable (and based off the citations on its article, not notable enough to have its own WP page anyways). ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 13:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
IP editors changing Aphex Twin
Attention, I tell that IP editors persistently changing English to Irish in Aphex Twin nationality so I want to give more attention to this notice. Someone know that IPs persistent changing English to Irish nationality that will impact WP:ENGVAR. I assume it is the violation of MOS:ETHNICITY because if it changed by IPs editors as Irish from English, that article automatically use Irish English instead British English. I note that IPs that change the nationality of the singer are:
110.137.186.235 (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've already requested page protection for this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Aphex_Twin
- I don't think it has ramifications for WP:ENGVAR. Popcornfud (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at the source used for Twin's nationality, it only calls him "British" not "English." Perhaps he is English and not Irish, but the source used doesn't prove that. Gbear605 (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Cress Williams - Biography - Racist Comments Displayed
Just above Mr. William's Filmography is the following sentence;
".....on series Hart of Dixie has face often reminds me of a gorilla. (Not choosing to be unkind),"
This article has been hacked.
Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:280:1070:1927:3B73:2FBE:C9B3 (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
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? Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Vandalism in my Page - J Gopikrishnan
Hi, I am J Gopikrishnan, a Journalist working 'The Pioneer' newspaper's Delhi Bureau, India. I am also a donor to Wikipedia There is a Wikipedia page about me : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Gopikrishnan .
On August 21, 2020 - multiple attempts of vandalism were done on my Wikipage and deleted many contents. Earlier on August 13 to August 15 many abusive contents were posted and after my alert you have rectified it on August 15. Now on August 21 lot of attempts from an anonymous handle deleted lot of contents. WikiPage History shows the multiple attacks by the handle.
Please maintain the statusquo as on March 12, 2020 Edited by your Editors. You may lock Editing in WikiPage for sometime by maintaining the March 12, 2020 statusquo.
Please do the needful.
warm regards
J Gopikrishnan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopikrishnan70 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Gopikrishnan70: Hey! Just having a look at your page, it looks like the edits made on the 21st are copyedit changes - they're procedural, non-editorial changes like removing vandalism, clarifying phrases or formatting citations. The version from 12 March would need a complete rewrite anyways, so I don't see much benefit in reverting to that version. There doesn't seem to be any significant issues with the edits since though - is there anything specific in the article which you think should be reviewed?
- Also, I'm not sure if you've already seen, but you may want to read Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy - there are certain limitations on how you should contribute to articles that you have a relationship to (such as articles about yourself or your work). You'll should also disclose your conflict of interest on your user page by adding
{{UserboxCOI|J. Gopikrishnan}}
to it. I've just added a disclosure on the article's talk page so other editors know you have an external relationship. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
[Chicks on the Right]
Why was the article taken down?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:900A:190B:D600:9818:F9AF:99C5:DF77 (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- It was the result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicks on the Right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Josh Hill (Footballer)
Wonder how people think this should be dealt with. Josh's current and former partner gave birth five days apart. Someone vandalized his page about this which alerted the media to the story. Daily Mail first covered it and then in turn, other outlets covered it. Josh is quoted in the articles. How do people think this should be reflected on his page, if at all? MaskedSinger (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Do you mean Josh Hill (footballer) not John Hill? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I do. My apologies. Corrected. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be any doubt about the truth of the situation as Josh has confirmed it. I had a look at how we have treated similar situations elsewhere.
- This is what we have written on the Boris Becker page: "Barbara left for Florida after being contacted by a woman claiming to be pregnant with Becker's child. In his autobiography, Becker stated that he admitted to his wife that he had a one-night stand with another woman while Barbara was pregnant with their second child". Also: "In February 2001, Becker acknowledged paternity of a daughter, Anna, with Russian waitress Angela Ermakova, after media reported that he had a child as a result of a sexual encounter in 1999. The episode allegedly took place at London's Nobu restaurant. He had allegedly been drinking following his loss to Pat Rafter in the fourth round of the 1999 Wimbledon Championships".
- The Evo Morales page contains this about a situation that is not confirmed: "On August 21, 2020, a new complaint, not involved with the previous one, was filed against Morales in another case of pedophilia and rape presumably committed by the former president in 2015". Notice the use of the word "presumably" rather than "allegedly".
- There doesn't appear to be any doubt about the truth of the situation as Josh has confirmed it. I had a look at how we have treated similar situations elsewhere.
- Yes I do. My apologies. Corrected. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- So there are precedents for including this type of information on a page. If it were to be included it should be done tastefully. Mentioning all children in a biography is standard but it doesn't seem necessary to highlight the sensational aspect of the story. Burrobert (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
CN Lester
CN_Lester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a non-binary person, but their article is indexed under "21st-century women singers" as well as their talk page claiming their page to be under the scope of "WikiProject Women in Music" "Unassessed Women in music articles" Unknown-importance Women in music articles" and "WikiProject Women in music articles". This indexing is incorrect and misgenders them and should be removed Meaningfulname (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Meaningfulname, I’ve removed the category. I’m not sure what procedure to go through for removing their page from the WikiProjects though - does it need to be discussed in those projects? Gbear605 (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! I am unsure as to how that would work either, hopefully someone with more wikipedia experience than me will be able to advise!Meaningfulname (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Please WP:REVDEL this defamatory edit by IP user 103.252.171.67. NedFausa (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I need to give a heads up about Morgan Poi, and also ask for a review on this board. I believe it's a violation of WP:DOB to add the full date of birth for this player - whilst his DOB is referenced in one source, I cannot see how it adds anything concrete to the article. I can actually see that his year of birth is important, given Rugby Union players have generally shorter careers, but I cannot see why it is germaine to the understanding of the player to the ordinary reader. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe that noting this politician's DOB serves the reader of the article in any way, and removed it per WP:DOB and WP:ONUS. Could we please have someone review? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- This user has a truly bizarre interpretation of WP:DOB. In this case (and in a number of other cases the user has been involved in), the date of birth is clearly available in a source directly linked to the subject, which explicitly means WP:DOB is not violated. A date of birth is a standard piece of biographical information when it is available, so it is nonsense to require WP:ONUS for every time someone wants to include one that is freely available. Extremely odd. Frickeg (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- If the consensus on this board is that I am wrong, I am happy to concede the point. However, I would like to ask what it is about someone's date of birth that is essential to articles about these particular biographies. It appears to me to be a sole appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I haven't yet seen any arguments aside from the fact that other articles have the DOB. Could it be that these articles are in the same boat and also shouldn't have the politician's full DOB? I don't know, and I'm not going specifically looking for violations, I only change articles as I read them. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. If a DOB is easily linked it should be added here. I think Chris seems to be editing a few other BLP articles in a similar way, which is a bit of a concern imo. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. The BLP rule is that the material is widely published by a number of reliable sources (plural). "Easily linked" is a terrible reason to include sensitive information. My concern is that we minimize any potential harm to the subjects we write about. I am genuinely curious about these cases, however. What is it about their DOB that is essential to the reader of their biography? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- sorry if I came across as not agf I felt I was. I also only support a exact dob if there is a good strong already publuished dob out there. I was just noting that the same is happening at multiple articles and that if there are objections then perhaps a requuest for comment is a good idea to see community interpretion of the policy is a good idea. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- First, the BLP rule is that the material is "widely published" or is published "by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". The ones you have been changing recently clearly satisfy this second requirement. But a DOB is a standard inclusion in biographies, not just on Wikipedia but generally. It is a basic biographical fact about a person. You might as well ask why a birthplace is important, or a person's marital status, or their maiden name. Where this is publicly available (an important point - it would never be appropriate to add this information if it was not reliably sourced), especially in a source directly linked to the subject, then this is appropriate information to include, as is explicitly stated in WP:DOB. Frickeg (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Right, so it is "sources", plural. Not in "a source". And as the DOB is one of the pieces of information that is used to verify someone's identity, I would consider this to be especially sensitive information. I refer to the DOB as this is singled out by the policy. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I do not believe WP:DOB is intended to be read as requiring multiple sources that satisfy this second criterion. Where our guidelines and policies require multiple sources, they explicitly state as much. You would not write "is published by a source linked to the subject ..." See, for example, WP:GNG. I do not see why we would need multiple sources in this second case. Frickeg (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the policy was very carefully worded, so I don't think we should second-guess it. When it comes to sensitive information, my rule is to apply WP:ONUS to ensure that the personal information is essential for the reader to understand the subject. I still haven't heard any reasonable arguments as to why the full date of birth is essential for any of these articles, aside from an argument that other articles have the information... which doesn't in any way explain why it is important to this article and just opens the question to "why do those articles need the full DOB?". - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree, the statement is not carefully worded, is a bit ambiguous, and is subject to interpretation. It says "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources". "Reliable sources" is plural because "full names and dates of birth" are plural—it is referring to multiple subjects, and not all birth dates on Wikipedia come from a single source. --Canley (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. I think an important policy like this shouldn't be ambiguous! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree, the statement is not carefully worded, is a bit ambiguous, and is subject to interpretation. It says "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources". "Reliable sources" is plural because "full names and dates of birth" are plural—it is referring to multiple subjects, and not all birth dates on Wikipedia come from a single source. --Canley (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the policy was very carefully worded, so I don't think we should second-guess it. When it comes to sensitive information, my rule is to apply WP:ONUS to ensure that the personal information is essential for the reader to understand the subject. I still haven't heard any reasonable arguments as to why the full date of birth is essential for any of these articles, aside from an argument that other articles have the information... which doesn't in any way explain why it is important to this article and just opens the question to "why do those articles need the full DOB?". - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I do not believe WP:DOB is intended to be read as requiring multiple sources that satisfy this second criterion. Where our guidelines and policies require multiple sources, they explicitly state as much. You would not write "is published by a source linked to the subject ..." See, for example, WP:GNG. I do not see why we would need multiple sources in this second case. Frickeg (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Right, so it is "sources", plural. Not in "a source". And as the DOB is one of the pieces of information that is used to verify someone's identity, I would consider this to be especially sensitive information. I refer to the DOB as this is singled out by the policy. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. The BLP rule is that the material is widely published by a number of reliable sources (plural). "Easily linked" is a terrible reason to include sensitive information. My concern is that we minimize any potential harm to the subjects we write about. I am genuinely curious about these cases, however. What is it about their DOB that is essential to the reader of their biography? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- No issue at all with inclusion of the DOB in this case: the subject (Sloan) has clearly provided such detail for a profile to his party to be widely published on their website. In general, date and place of birth are standard pieces of biographical information, which are frequently (but not always if the subject requests it be withheld) included in biographical dictionaries like Who's Who [in Australia], parliamentary profiles, and media articles—if this info doesn't "serve the reader" here, why do they include and publish it? The goal of minimising harm and protecting privacy of BLPs is admirable, but I think that focus and effort should be put on detecting, questioning and if necessary removing more borderline cases, such as birthday wishes on social media accounts. I think Chris's assertion that a single reference is not enough is wrong—my interpretation of the BLP rules is that they don't require multiple sources, just that those used be reliable. If it's such a broad-reaching concern that showing birth dates is unnecessary and harmful, then this is a much wider issue than Sloan or politicians in general and the consensus needs to be for a blanket site-wide ban on such details, and clearly that is not the case, nor is it likely to be. --Canley (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yup. [28] is good enough for including Sloanes DOB in his BLP. Article sourcing is crappy, but I guess it would be kept per WP:NPOL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This is a low-level issue, but some more eyes at Sidharth Shukla would be appreciated. I feel that it's been heavily edited by fans, and as such there is a strong emphasis on all his accomplishments and apparently nothing other than that. One issue that's been sticking in my craw for a while, is that he's said to have won the "World's Best Model" title at the Gladrags Manhunt Contest, but I can't find evidence that any other person has ever won this. So does that mean it's super-prestigious, or that it's just a random one-off award? Unfortunately I'm not aware of any clear guidelines on what sort of awards are permissible in biographies, and we have a major problem with award mills in Indian articles. Anyhow, more strong eyes would be helpful. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Cyphoidbomb, I think there are two different competitions. Going on the article, its claimed Runner up for the Gladrags Manhunt Contest, (picture gallery from Times of India from 2008 [29]and mentions of a winner from 1999 [30] and possibly something for a junior version? in 2015 [31]) and actual winner of the "Best Model in the World Contest" in Turkey, for which I found a website [32]...his name seems to be up there for 2004 winner. No idea how important either of them are, but according to it's website Best Model has been going since 1988, and does seem to have international contestants... Curdle (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Curdle: Thanks for finding this! I do notice the glaring lack of "Gladrags" anywhere on the site. And now I wonder if the award itself is notable. Before it seemed to have earned notability from being attached to Gladrags, but if it's not a Gladrags award is it its own entity? I notice Best Model of Turkey has a link to this site, but I don't see Sidharth Shukla's name on the page. Anyway, I feel a little more comfortable that it's at least been around for a while, so thanks for that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Cyphoidbomb If you scroll right down to the bottom of the page,[33] the Turkish Best Model has a list of previous winners - There is a Siddhart Ashlok Shukla listed for 2005. Most of the website is in Turkish, but there is a bit of English. hmm..long list of organisers and people "raised to the limelight" by the competition, none of whom seem familiar..we have articles for at least one though [Deniz Akkaya]. Curdle (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Curdle: Sorry, poor phrasing on my part. I meant that I didn't see Shukla's name on the Best Model of Turkey page. Oh well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Cyphoidbomb If you scroll right down to the bottom of the page,[33] the Turkish Best Model has a list of previous winners - There is a Siddhart Ashlok Shukla listed for 2005. Most of the website is in Turkish, but there is a bit of English. hmm..long list of organisers and people "raised to the limelight" by the competition, none of whom seem familiar..we have articles for at least one though [Deniz Akkaya]. Curdle (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Curdle: Thanks for finding this! I do notice the glaring lack of "Gladrags" anywhere on the site. And now I wonder if the award itself is notable. Before it seemed to have earned notability from being attached to Gladrags, but if it's not a Gladrags award is it its own entity? I notice Best Model of Turkey has a link to this site, but I don't see Sidharth Shukla's name on the page. Anyway, I feel a little more comfortable that it's at least been around for a while, so thanks for that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Original research and opinion being done by some editors labeling Jacob Wohl as a “fraudster” in both the introduction of the article and as an occupation. Jacob Wohl has not yet been convicted by any court (he has pled not guilty). Second, no source calls Jacob Wohl a “fraudster”. Material related to Jacob Wohl’s civil and criminal charges of course is reliable, but unsourced original research by Wikipedia editors directly labeling Jacob Wohl as a fraudster detracts from the article quality and sounds like some editors are utilizing Wikipedia as a political battleground by inserting blatant POV opinions that violate BLP (fraudster is not even an article on Wikipedia and some editors are redirecting fraudster to the Fraud article). 2604:2000:1483:C1E7:19F8:D4D5:8ECE:4C80 (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- There is a compromise solution published. 2604:2000:1483:C1E7:6568:A6B3:85EB:26AC (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- There is active discussion at Talk:Jacob Wohl#Fraudster that I'd invite anyone here to join, however 2604* is misrepresenting the fact that this is a well-sourced descriptor from multiple high-quality RSes. Furthermore the claim that their preferred version is a "compromise" is misleading, given there was no discussion between them and anyone else agreeing to it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Opinion does not count as reliable sources and does not override long standing policy at Wikipedia that says you cannot label someone as a criminal who has not been convicted. This is a major BLP violation against a Jewish-American. 2604:2000:1483:C1E7:911F:4017:FB86:6A4 (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- You haven't established that any of the sources cited are opinion. You can try to do so on the article talk page. Wohl has not been labeled a "criminal". - MrX 🖋 00:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Who says "fraudster" requires it to be criminal? Civil cases are not, and Wohl is involved in at least one resolved civil case for securities fraud, and pending another. Meanwhile whether he is "Jewish-American" or not is pretty much irrelevant for this argument unless you are suggesting he is being targeted for being "Jewish-American"? Which would require a reliable source in any case. Koncorde (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- To wit:
- Newsweek says "They also said they have seen little evidence that Wohl, a fraudster who conned investors out of money they put into his failed hedge fund, is responsible for their Twitter ban",
- HuffPo says "Jacob Wohl ― the 21-year-old securities fraudster behind an attempt to smear Robert Mueller last year"
- HuffPo links to USA Today profile that says "USA Today’s piece is particularly egregious because it acknowledges who Wohl is ― a self-described liar made famous in 2017 for having defrauded investors in Arizona as a teenager"
- Daily Beast says (for context of who the NFA are) "Wohl was investigated by the National Futures Association, a government-authorized financial regulator that looks for fraud and responds to investor complaints. NFA started looking into Wohl after they reviewed promotional material for his fledgling hedge fund, NeX Capital Management. A series of NeX videos were “unbalanced in their presentation of profit potential and risk of loss” for investors, the NFA claimed in a 2016 filing before its internal Business Conduct Committee, which rules on disciplinary issues (PDF). The NFA added that Wohl claimed to have acted as a fund manager before he or NeX were registered to do so."
- MarketWatch (unknown reliability) "Jacob Wohl — right-wing conspiracy theorist, Trump enthusiast, securities fraudster — reportedly tried to raise $1 million this spring by pitching investors on an idea for profiting from the manipulation of political betting websites."
- GQ says (links to DB article) "Now, several months removed from that hilarious failure and flush with a fresh infusion of walking-around cash from God knows where, the teenage hedge-fund fraudster turned professional Islamophobe has embarked on a new and exciting grift: making poorly produced Internet pseudo-documentaries about Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar."
- Vox says "Enter a grifter like Wohl, a failed teen hedge fund manager who faced investigation in several states and was eventually banned for life by the National Futures Association for fraud in 2017."
- Yahoo finance breaks down the 2017 case and action taken that pretty much everyone else is referring to.
- Salon just goes for broke with the headline "Notorious right-wing fraudster Jacob Wohl charged with felony" (Earlier article covering it here.
- Insider says "In 2017, The National Futures Association banned Wohl from membership for life. A few months later, the Arizona Corporation Committee ordered him and a business partner, Matthew Johnson, to pay a $5,000 penalty for committing securities fraud "in connection with two hedge funds and a house-flipping venture." The committee also ordered Wohl to pay $32,918 in restitution." Koncorde (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- To wit:
- Opinion does not count as reliable sources and does not override long standing policy at Wikipedia that says you cannot label someone as a criminal who has not been convicted. This is a major BLP violation against a Jewish-American. 2604:2000:1483:C1E7:911F:4017:FB86:6A4 (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Again, they are not opinion sources, as I have said in the conversation on the talk page (which you have still yet to reply to, despite continuing to edit war). I'm also not sure why you're edit warring "Jewish-American" in—Wohl is Jewish, yes, but I haven't seen sources describing him as "Jewish-American" nor is his religion prominently mentioned in any sourcing (besides The Forward, which mentions he's Jewish, and is itself a Jewish publication). GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Louis S. Bagger, harpsichordist and musicologist
Louis Sabin Bagger, born 10 Dec. 1926 (Detroit, Michigan, USA), is a distinguished harpsichordist and musicologist. He earned a BA from Yale University, with honors in Italian, and was a Fulbright scholar, University of Rome, in 1949. He earned an MFA from Princeton University. His undergraduate teachers included the composer Paul Hindemith. He studied harpsichord with Ralph Kirkpatrick and Gustav Leonhardt; organ with Weinrich, Noss, Vignanelli; piano with Loesser and Steurermann. He was on the music faculty of Brandeis University, 1966-1975; Artist in Residence, University of California at Davis, Spring, 1976; faculty member at the Manhattan School of Music, New York City, from 1976 (Music History & Musicology); solo recitalist, chamber music concerts & radio broadcasts, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Canada, US. Recordings: Vox, Musical Heritage (CPE Bach: Concerto in E flat; Concerto in C Minor), Monitor & Titanic. Notable recordings include Bach's Art of Fugue (Titanic) and Frescobaldi: Works for Harpsichord (2001, Titanic). As a scholar of C.P.E. Bach, he contributed editorial work as well as recordings. FlynnAW (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- What is your point? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC).
Dennis Spiegel
I am trying to include my official bio on my Wikipedia page. Someone is repeatedly removing my bio and reducing it to four lines. My thirty-year career is more than four lines.
I would like your assistance in rectifying this situation.
Thank you kindly, Dennis Spiegel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Spiegel (talk • contribs) 00:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, I am not an administrator, however I will discuss the issues with your edits. Firstly, it is not your page, Wikipedia is not a social media platform and it is not for promoting yourself. Secondly, your edits are completeley unsourced and since you are editing your own page and clearly promoting yourself, you are also violating WP:COI, this is only acceptable if reverting clear vandalism. You are also edit warring, you should have stopped adding your proposed content after it being reverted. You seem to have been reported at WP:AIV as well. Dylsss (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
How do I include actual, not self-promoting, but actual bio material on a page that is about me? I don't understand your processes but would be pleased to adhere to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Spiegel (talk • contribs) 01:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Since you are the person in the article, don't, if there is something you would like to add which would benefit the article, and there is a WP:RELIABLESOURCE to reference, then it would be a better idea to propose the change in the article talk page and have someone else review it. However, most of the content in your edit simply does not belong in an encyclopedia and is promotional in tone. If there is no reliable source to cite, then it should not be added at all. Dylsss (talk) 01:27, 30 August 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)
It looks as though someone with a WP:COI may be editing this page. Can an admin look into it? maybe notify the editor who seems to be only contributing to the page? At the very least a COI tag should be placed. Maineartists (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)