Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard | ||
---|---|---|
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III.
Additional notes:
| ||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below: |
Jovan Hutton Pulitzer
- Draft:J Hutton Pulitzer
- J. Hutton Pulitzer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jovan Hutton Pulitzer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As far as I recall, most of the previous versions of the article on the CueCat guy were self-promotion. However, he is now involved in the Arizona GOP's efforts to invent election fraud - he has been covered on and off for over twenty years, but there are significant new mentions today. Does this draft pass muster? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Guy, I'm afraid it reads as a hatchet job at the moment. "Failed treasure hunter" for example seems unnecessary even if it is sourced; we don't need to adopt the language of his political opponents and a local newspaper. He's probably notable and the sources are generally not kind to him, but we can write more conservatively and pad out his biographical details. You've not got his original full name as Jeffry Jovan Philyaw, for example, and his time on The Curse of Oak Island is missing. I guess you saw this recent hagiography? I think we can tack a middle path.
- Here's some more sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. As a bonus, here’s his old website:[8] Fences&Windows 23:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fences and windows, it is what the RS call him. And it's kind of hard to wrote a flattering biography of someone who is mainly known as a grifter. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not asking you to flatter him, just don't write like a tabloid journalist. See WP:BLPSTYLE. Fences&Windows 14:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- I added more sources and detail. Guy, have you got any comments or edits before I move it live? Fences&Windows 13:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fences and windows, no, I think you have done a great job, thanks much. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fences and windows, it is what the RS call him. And it's kind of hard to wrote a flattering biography of someone who is mainly known as a grifter. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I just have to add an observation made by many: how did they not call the CueCat something along the lines of "the CatScanner"? This world deserves a better class of failed tchotchkes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- CatScanner would've been good, but possibly not able to be trademarked. Fences&Windows 19:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Jeffrey Tucker
Reposting. The subsection [9] contains controversial claims supported with three weak citations. One (from reason.com) is a third-hand repetition of statements from an anonymous blog. Another, from economist.com, quotes someone telling office gossip that he heard about another organization. The third from spectator.org, cites a comment box. Am I right in thinking that these are all not RS? If this material does not belong in the article, can the article be protected to stop repeated attempts to add it, and can the claims be removed from edit history? This sourcing dispute has run for years. Bistropha (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- There's nothing about Tucker in Ron Paul newsletters, which raises the question of whether his involvement is that central. One source used doesn't mention Tucker, so I've removed it. I've merged the sub-section into the existing mention and removed the lead discussion, which was totally undue. Fences&Windows 00:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. I hope an admin can also settle the sourcing issues. (1) The Economist [10] and Reason [11] both cited a blog by Wendy McElroy [12], which cited the anonymous site Rightwatch. This can't be RS since it involves user-generated content and an anonymous source. (2) They both also cite Timothy Virkkala either directly or through his blog [13], in which he says what a co-worker told him at the office regarding the Ron Paul newsletters. This involves material "heard through the grapevine". (WP:SOAP, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPGOSSIP) Neither McElroy nor Virkkala make any claim that Tucker was responsible for the offensive content in the newsletters, but the effect of putting these statements in Tucker's WP article is to insinuate it. If this is all inappropriate material, can an administrator protect the page once that material is removed? Bistropha (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am an admin and I'll be happy to remove the content and protect the page under BLP if we reach consensus to do so. Zaereth and Nil Einne, you're regulars here and I think your input would be helpful. We've already cut down a discussion of Ron Paul's controversial newsletters in Jeffrey Tucker's bio. Is the sourcing reliable enough to mention it at all? See the thread above. Fences&Windows 23:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. I hope an admin can also settle the sourcing issues. (1) The Economist [10] and Reason [11] both cited a blog by Wendy McElroy [12], which cited the anonymous site Rightwatch. This can't be RS since it involves user-generated content and an anonymous source. (2) They both also cite Timothy Virkkala either directly or through his blog [13], in which he says what a co-worker told him at the office regarding the Ron Paul newsletters. This involves material "heard through the grapevine". (WP:SOAP, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPGOSSIP) Neither McElroy nor Virkkala make any claim that Tucker was responsible for the offensive content in the newsletters, but the effect of putting these statements in Tucker's WP article is to insinuate it. If this is all inappropriate material, can an administrator protect the page once that material is removed? Bistropha (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- I most certainly wouldn't rely on blogs for info of this nature. I wasn't able to look up the Reason article. The servers on my work computer find it to be a threat, for whatever reason. I had a similar problem with The Economist, in that they want my email address and I don't want to give it to them. For me, though, this looks like a whole lot of speculation without any real evidence to speak of, and I would want to see some very good sourcing before including any of this. I'm not sure if that was any help. Zaereth (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Under WP:NEWSBLOG, The Economist's blogs are probably reliable. The sources are at https://web.archive.org/web/20180921112025/https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2008/01/11/the-rockwell-files and https://web.archive.org/web/20190510180617/https://reason.com/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter/ Fences&Windows 19:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Zaereth and Fences&Windows for digging into this case. Normally, material published in The Economist or Reason has a presumption of RS. In this case, the sources they cite seem problematic for the reasons I indicated above. (1) There are claims that trace back to an anonymous website. Do they become RS because an intermediate blog repeated them? That doesn't seem likely. (2) There are claims from a person who attributes his information to office co-workers. This seems like gossip or "grapevine" communication. Also, (3) pointing out that Tucker had a student job working on the newsletters seems to be guilt-by-association, given that nobody claims he had any responsibility for the offensive content. Is that UNDUE? Bistropha (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Currently in the article this claim is attributed to two sources: Timothy Virkkala and "numerous" anonymous sources the Economist spoke to, so the sources weren't just uncritically parroting a blog. It's not guilt-by-association because the claim is that he directly worked on the newsletters. I've reduced the word count so 55 words of 734 of those total article prose (7.5%) are dedicated to this issue, to avoid undue attention. If this isn't sufficient, maybe an RfC would be useful? Fences&Windows 12:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Can you check that point, please? It appears that Reason spoke with Virkkala, but the Economist piece doesn't say that they interviewed him or "numerous veterans of the libertarian movement". Instead, The Economist piece cites Virkkala's blog and Wendy McElroy's blog respectively. Bistropha (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks to Fences&Windows for the links. With these ones, I had no problem reading the Reason article, and that appears to be a very reliable source. However, it only gives a very short mention of Tucker's involvement, and the only thing we know for sure is that he admitted to being an editor. The Economist link didn't work for me. I could read it for about 5 seconds and then it disappeared and was replaced with a 404 error. The first thing I would look for is if it is a good piece of true journalism or an op/ed column. Reliable sources are allowed to cite and discuss blogs, especially if those blogs are from involved parties, and we can give the source's interpretation and analysis of those blogs, but that all depends on context and I can't make any determination until I can read it. I do think weight was a huge problem, given the level of coverage (most of it is about Rockwell that I've seen so far), and F&W was right to trim it down greatly. Zaereth (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Can you check that point, please? It appears that Reason spoke with Virkkala, but the Economist piece doesn't say that they interviewed him or "numerous veterans of the libertarian movement". Instead, The Economist piece cites Virkkala's blog and Wendy McElroy's blog respectively. Bistropha (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Currently in the article this claim is attributed to two sources: Timothy Virkkala and "numerous" anonymous sources the Economist spoke to, so the sources weren't just uncritically parroting a blog. It's not guilt-by-association because the claim is that he directly worked on the newsletters. I've reduced the word count so 55 words of 734 of those total article prose (7.5%) are dedicated to this issue, to avoid undue attention. If this isn't sufficient, maybe an RfC would be useful? Fences&Windows 12:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Zaereth and Fences&Windows for digging into this case. Normally, material published in The Economist or Reason has a presumption of RS. In this case, the sources they cite seem problematic for the reasons I indicated above. (1) There are claims that trace back to an anonymous website. Do they become RS because an intermediate blog repeated them? That doesn't seem likely. (2) There are claims from a person who attributes his information to office co-workers. This seems like gossip or "grapevine" communication. Also, (3) pointing out that Tucker had a student job working on the newsletters seems to be guilt-by-association, given that nobody claims he had any responsibility for the offensive content. Is that UNDUE? Bistropha (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Under WP:NEWSBLOG, The Economist's blogs are probably reliable. The sources are at https://web.archive.org/web/20180921112025/https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2008/01/11/the-rockwell-files and https://web.archive.org/web/20190510180617/https://reason.com/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter/ Fences&Windows 19:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I most certainly wouldn't rely on blogs for info of this nature. I wasn't able to look up the Reason article. The servers on my work computer find it to be a threat, for whatever reason. I had a similar problem with The Economist, in that they want my email address and I don't want to give it to them. For me, though, this looks like a whole lot of speculation without any real evidence to speak of, and I would want to see some very good sourcing before including any of this. I'm not sure if that was any help. Zaereth (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Gina Carano
Gina Carano ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The IP editor 46.97.170.112 persistently makes non-neutral and potentially libelous remarks on the talk page of the Gina Carano article. Some examples include calling Gina Carano an "alt right propaganda figure", claiming that she "had a history of spreading trumpist conspiracy theories", and saying "...being called "racist" and "bootlicker" don't appear to be inappropriate as criticism in her case." Thank you, — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 01:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- They are definitely not neutral, but they are also statements of opinion about the subject that argues why the content should be included. I don't agree with those arguments unless they are actually arguing that is why reliable sources are covering her. Does it violate WP:BLPTALK enough to stricken? I don't think so. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Morbidthoughts, [14] How about this? They're not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support them. It's just complaints and insults about a BLP. This is hardly the worst, but it was fairly recent in the history and so easy to find ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Their category arguments may be meritless but it is still "related to making content choices". Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Morbidthoughts, [14] How about this? They're not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support them. It's just complaints and insults about a BLP. This is hardly the worst, but it was fairly recent in the history and so easy to find ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I've seen this IP acting tendentiously before on the Jordan Peterson talk page and other controversial articles. If calling a BLP a "Nazi supervillain" [15], or a "far-right grifter" [16] are not BLP vios, then I don't know what is. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Uhhh, context? They're stating his opinion on a content inclusion discussion about a source that compared Peterson to the Red Skull, a nazi supervillain. Perhaps 46.97.170.112's opinions on Shapiro was informed by this article[17]? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Where does that source call Shapiro a "far-right grifter"? The IP made the same comment in this edit summary, where this time they refer to both Coleman Hughes and Shapiro as "far-right grifters." What are BLP violations in your opinion? I normally consider unsourced rants about how terrible the subject is a BLP vio. Would you say these rants are acceptable?:
- "She was an MMA fighter who lost her only match against a real opponent. Other than that, she had some bit roles because hollywood feels some obligation to give her a job despite the fact that she cannot act."[18]
- "Gina Carano has a history of making dumb political takes on social media abd hurting Disney's PR. Fans have been calling for Gina Carano's firing over her ignorant tweets."[19]
- "Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs, as insane and nonsensical as they are, to be of any relevance, outside the usual far right echochambers."[20] Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sources do not have to explicitly say "far-right grifter" for an editor to form the opinion that Carano is a far-right grifter. Look at the first sentence of WP:BLPTALK very carefully and the examples you cited are all responses about assigning proper WP:WEIGHT AKA "related to making content choice". They may be IDONTLIKEIT or ILIKEIT arguments but they should not be stricken or refactored. What is the end game here? If you want the ip blocked because of this pattern, then go and complain at ANI. The disparaging Trumpism comments are strikingly familiar to Tenebrae even. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that all of these comments constitute BLP violations. The comment, "She was an MMA fighter who lost her only match against a real opponent. Other than that, she had some bit roles because hollywood feels some obligation to give her a job despite the fact that she cannot act." was removed by the user Sangdeboeuf, who brought up the issue at User talk:46.97.170.112. The "far-right grifters" comment was brought up on that talk page as disparaging of BLP subjects. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 19:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC) (updated 19:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)) (updated 19:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC))
- Wow, looking at their /24 range, they have an even longer history of blatant BLP attacks and POV pushing.:
- Calling a BLP a "white supremacist" in mainspace without a source [21]
- "Volokh is a right wing hack. Of course he's going to read it in a way that makes his side and his people look good."[22]
- " Gina is C-list actress with no talent, who got the role out of pitty by Favreau whom she put into a difficult situation, playing a replaceable supporting character"[23]
- " The fact that Gina Carano's idiotic beliefs are shared by half of americans, is exactly why the rest of the world sees americans as stupid"[24]
- " Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame." [25]
- "Not only is Musk not a scientist, his dangerous lies about COVID-19 has proven that he's a science-denier."[26]
- "None of these nameless idiots are notable enough to deserve even the slightest mention."[27]
- "Sanger isn't anyone important. He's just some chud who had ties with wikipedias founders at one point, yet his fellow trumptards are using him like he was an authoritative source on all things wikipedia, when he's little more than a parasite, trying to use the works of pthers to become relevant.his opinion on wikipedia, couldn't matter any less."[28]
- "Barr's opinion is of course bullshit"[29] Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, looking at their /24 range, they have an even longer history of blatant BLP attacks and POV pushing.:
- Where does that source call Shapiro a "far-right grifter"? The IP made the same comment in this edit summary, where this time they refer to both Coleman Hughes and Shapiro as "far-right grifters." What are BLP violations in your opinion? I normally consider unsourced rants about how terrible the subject is a BLP vio. Would you say these rants are acceptable?:
- There may be issues with the article in question but I think the issues being raised here are editor behavior, not so much BLP related to content. Springee (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your point is a good one, and Morbidthoughts' opinion seems to be largely similar. I must admit, I did not fully understand the purpose of this noticeboard and how it contrasts with ANI when I started this discussion. This is probably not the right place for this discussion, as it is about editor behavior rather than a problem with a BLP. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 21:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: What do you think, wrong noticeboard? — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 21:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC) (updated 21:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC))
- Angry Red Hammer Guy, if you're looking for some admin action against the IP, then ANI would probably be the place to go. The IP has been alerted to DS, so AE may be acceptable too. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will now remove the template on the Gina Carano talkpage that says that it is being discussed here. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 22:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Angry Red Hammer Guy, if you're looking for some admin action against the IP, then ANI would probably be the place to go. The IP has been alerted to DS, so AE may be acceptable too. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#46.97.170.0/24. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Calling a Palestinian-Israeli musician's music "anti-Semitic" when RS say it's satirical
There's a BLP-related dispute on the Ami Horowitz article. The editor User:The Kingfisher (who was temporarily banned for running the sockpuppet User:UberVegan) is removing reliable sources that describe a Palestinian-Israeli rapper Tamer Nafar's music as "satirical", opting instead to state in Wikipedia's voice that the rapper's music is "anti-Semitic" (which is only sourced to op-eds and local US news outlets). As far as I can tell, RS characterize the song as satirical, not unequivocally anti-semitic:
- Two Times of Israel articles characterize the song as satirical.[30][31]
- A peer-reviewed in-depth study of the song similarly describes it as satirical[32]
- The Jewish Telegraphic Agency calls it a "joking song"[33]
This is the edit in question.[34] This is one of many problems on the Ami Horowitz article, which has primarily been written by The Kingfisher. A lot of content is sourced to op-eds and small local news outlets that lend undue credence to the videos produced by Ami Horowitz, a right-wing James O'Keefe-style provocateur who came to prominence a few years ago for making false claims about immigrants in Sweden. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Besmirching the reputation of an editor
- For the record, with this post, Snooganssnoogans attempted to muddy the water by announcing that I was banned as a sockpuppet. Although technically accurate, what they didn't mention is that originally, I was wrongly blocked for being a sockpuppet, and because I so wanted to edit Wikipedia, I created another account. After a few years, ARBCOM, in a very rare move, investigated and confirmed that I was wrongly accused of being a sockpuppet:
- Email from ARBCOM to The Kingfisher
- Dec 28, 2020, 11:46 AM
- Hi The Kingfisher,
- The Arbitration Committee has resolved to grant your appeal.
- We do not consider you to be a reincarnation/sockpuppet of NoCal100. Accordingly, I have unblocked both The Kingfisher and UberVegan. Please pick one of these accounts to edit with; while you are under no restrictions, such as a one-account restriction, it is best practice to use one account (note the legitimate/illegitimate uses of alternate accounts at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry).
- For the Arbitration Committee,
- Maxim
- The Kingfisher (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Of course there can be discussion on how it should be worded, but based on the plethora of reliable sources below stating that the song was anti-Semitic, I believe that there should be a WP:BOOMERANG for Snooganssnoogans for bringing this complaint. This is simply a talk page issue. (I can supply more RSs if needed, there are many more.)
- US Dept. of Education: "The University does not dispute that the artist identified in the complaint made offensive, anti-Semitic comments during his performance at the Conference."
- ABC NEWS: "...a rapper's anti-Semitic message last month at an event held at UNC-Chapel Hill."
- Chapelboro.com "INTERIM UNC CHANCELLOR KEVIN GUSKIEWICZ RESPONDS TO ANTI-SEMITIC SONG AT CAMPUS EVENT"
- Carolina Journal "Anti-Semitic comments at event sponsored by UNC-Duke group fuel conflict over campus speech"
- AP News "...complaints about a March conference featuring a rapper accused of anti-Jewish bias."
- JNS "Video depicts rapper performing anti-Semitic song as part of Gaza conference at UNC"
- Inside Higher Education "ZOA said the complaint related to a performance of an anti-Semitic song"
- Brandeis Center "Weeks after this musical diatribe, UNC’s Interim Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz acknowledged that members of the community are “heartbroken and deeply offended” by the “disturbing and hateful language” of the performance."
- ADL " We are appalled by the video of Tamer Nafar’s performance at the Duke-UNC Consortium for Middle East Studies conference where he mocks Jews and anti-Semitism and, most disturbingly, successfully engages the audience to do so as well. This type of conduct has no place on the campuses of Duke or UNC. We are encouraged by the positive statements released by Duke and UNC leadership condemning the performance and anti-Semitism, but there must be a more formal review of how an official university sponsored event opened the door to such troubling conduct."
- Alumni.unc.edu "... critics said the rapper used anti-Semitic language as part of his presentation."
- NBC NEWS "...included a rapper who performed a "brazenly anti-Semitic song," Holding said in an April 15 letter."
- FOX NEWS " He also alleged that a rapper performed a brazenly anti-Semitic song at the conference."
- CBS: "Reportedly, speakers and panelists distorted facts and misrepresented the complex situation in Gaza. A video recently surfaced depicting the main musical performer, rapper Tamer Nafar, singing a brazenly anti-semitic song,” the letter reads."
- The Jewish Journal: " The conference featured a performance by the Palestinian rapper Tamer Nafar that was condemned as anti-Semitic."
- National Review: "Critics accused the artist of anti-Semitic references in a song..."
- The Kingfisher (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- This may, in fact, be a talk page issue, but WP:BOOMERANG does not apply to noticeboard posts like this, and the edit summaries you've been leaving read almost hysterically. I haven't had the chance to go through the whole argument yet, but from a cursory glance, it looks like you're POV pushing a possible BLP vio. Most of those sources cite the personal opinions of people who aren't experts on anti-semitism, and as such, can't be used to call anything anti-semitism in wikivoice. I mean, Biden is accused of being a socialist by far more people than this artist, but we don't call him one in wikivoice for a reason. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just to be clear Kingfisher most of the quotes you just pulled do not state that the "song was anti-Semitic" and even fewer make that statement in their own voice. Lets keep our assertions factual please (especially if we wish to wield a certain curved wooden Australian hunting implement). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- With the exception of "ABC 11" (not "ABC News") and the "Carolina Journal", don't all the other sources attribute the anti-Semitism charge to critics? I'm perfectly fine with stating in Wiki voice that someone or something is anti-Semitic, racist, anti-Muslim etc. if that's how RS report, but it seems like the high-quality sources that are specifically about the song and the performance characterize it as a satirical song and attribute the anti-Semitism charge to critics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are some that specifically state "anti-Semitic song" and they are backed by other WP:DUCK. Regardless, as I said, this is a talk page issue on how this should be phrased. Just to be clear, MPants, I did not refer to the rapper as an anti-Semite or even anti-Semitic. The song. Can you please show me policy that states that an RS with a quote of a person, that that person must first be proved to be an expert on a subject? That said, the chancellor of the university isn't good enough? Or ZOA? The Kingfisher (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear, MPants, I did not refer to the rapper as an anti-Semite or even anti-Semitic. The song.
I apologize if my comment read as an accusation that you were calling the artist that. However, while calling an artist's songs "anti-Semitic" is not the same as calling the artist that, it's still a contentious claim about a BLP. At the very least, it logically follows that the BLP in question engaged in an anti-semitic act (the performance of the song), and it contradicts the sources Snoogassnoogas provided.Can you please show me policy that states that an RS with a quote of a person, that that person must first be proved to be an expert on a subject?
WP:ASSERT makes it quite clear that we should never write an opinion in wikivoice, and WP:NEWSORG makes it quite clear that expert opinions carry more weight (IMO, enough to assert opinions widely held by experts as facts).That said, the chancellor of the university isn't good enough?
Not to assert his claims as facts, no. Not unless they are non-self-serving claims about the university, or claims about his field of expertise. The ADL link you provided is quite arguably an expert opinion, but the ADL has a tendency to use the term rather loosely, so I'd want confirmation from another expert source.- To be clear, I don't have a problem with phrasing like "...has been called anti-Semitic...", but the phrasing "...is anti-Semitic..." is a problem for me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are some that specifically state "anti-Semitic song" and they are backed by other WP:DUCK. Regardless, as I said, this is a talk page issue on how this should be phrased. Just to be clear, MPants, I did not refer to the rapper as an anti-Semite or even anti-Semitic. The song. Can you please show me policy that states that an RS with a quote of a person, that that person must first be proved to be an expert on a subject? That said, the chancellor of the university isn't good enough? Or ZOA? The Kingfisher (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand why The Kingfisher is making this about Snooganssnoogans. This is as good place as any to let the larger community know about this dispute. The talk page of the article is limited. I'd never heard of Horowitz (or Nafar) so I would not have come across this were it not for this notice. I also find it puzzling that Kingfisher provided no links in their Teahouse complaint. You can't get a wider debate without links, unless burying this issue was the intent. It seems there's more than one editor not in agreement with Kingfisher, judging by the edit summaries and having looked at all the references, I'm inclined to go with Snooganssnoogans on this. Wikipedia cannot declare, in the Wikipedia voice, that a song is antisemitic. What can be done is state that there are critics who characterize it as such. Wikipedia (and its editors) are supposed to be neutral. Most of the references provided by Kingfisher are opinion pieces or simple reporting of the controversy. As a whole, it's unconvincing (and WP:UNDUE). I am not opposed to mentioning that there are critics who label the song as such, backed by the more substantive references. But it must be tempered with the sources that state that the song is satire. I don't believe on artificial balance (nor does Wikipedia policy). We don't give equal weight to Holocaust deniers, for example. In this case, a balance is needed as there is a small but loud contingent in the right wing media that make the claim and there is strong sourcing stating the song is satire. As for the other issue in the Horowitz article, the notability of the various videos, again we can only go by sources and in contentious subjects, we need solid references. The depth and breadth of sources provided by Kingfisher is lacking and we don't need to mention every single video Horowitz has made, except in passing, unless there are substantial sources about the video. In this case, it seems most of the solid sources are about Horowitz's deceptive use of editing to make highly misleading videos. We can talk about that and we can mention that Horowitz has supporters but we can't go into great detail about every video, per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTE. freshacconci (✉) 16:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- There were comments about "deceptive use of editing" on one video, which Horowitz denied. That was mentioned. However, wouldn't calling him a deceptive editor or raising the question on every video be UNDUE and possibly BLP? The slant here also seems to be because he is right of center. I just have the feeling that if he were doing this from the Left, the responses would not be so harsh. Maybe I'm wrong. The Kingfisher (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- You are, in fact, wrong. freshacconci (✉) 17:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- There were comments about "deceptive use of editing" on one video, which Horowitz denied. That was mentioned. However, wouldn't calling him a deceptive editor or raising the question on every video be UNDUE and possibly BLP? The slant here also seems to be because he is right of center. I just have the feeling that if he were doing this from the Left, the responses would not be so harsh. Maybe I'm wrong. The Kingfisher (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I can't access the academic journal article [35] for some reason (working on that now), but based on these Times of Israel sources [36][37], Snooganssnoogans is absolutely correct that this edit [38] is a BLP violation. The Times of Israel describes a
satirical performance by Arab Israeli rapper
Tamer Nafar and notes,
The [UNC] conference featured a performance by the Arab Israeli rapper Tamer Nafar. Edited clips of Nafar singing his joke song “Mama, I Fell in Love with a Jew” at the conference were posted on social media.
- Both TOI articles describe various people calling Nafar's song anti-semitic, and other people disputing that characterization. In this context, saying that his song and/or performance was antisemitic in Wikivoice is absolutely wrong. Really, if the issue is to be discussed, any allegation of antisemitism needs to be attributed, and a countering view also needs to be provided and attributed. -Darouet (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, this makes sense. My intent was obviously not BLP and that's why I said it was a simple talk discussion. The Kingfisher (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- +1 to Darouet's analysis and conclusion. I wholeheartedly concur. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the discussion. My first time on this page. Maybe I shouldn't be a stranger. The Kingfisher (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- You said there was a plethora of reliable sources that say the song was anti-Semitic, then provided sources that only say that claim was made. Making false claims is disruptive to Wikipedia since articles should be reliably sourced and you are taking time away from people who could otherwise be engaged with improving the article. If you are looking for an online forum where you can argue that the subject is anti-Semitic, this isn't the place. TFD (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- A) You seem to be late to the party and are simply rehashing observations already made of which I was educated, and B) I'm not the one who brought this here. I said from the beginning that this could have been resolved on the talk page. The Kingfisher (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- You said there was a plethora of reliable sources that say the song was anti-Semitic, then provided sources that only say that claim was made. Making false claims is disruptive to Wikipedia since articles should be reliably sourced and you are taking time away from people who could otherwise be engaged with improving the article. If you are looking for an online forum where you can argue that the subject is anti-Semitic, this isn't the place. TFD (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the discussion. My first time on this page. Maybe I shouldn't be a stranger. The Kingfisher (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Matt Mondanile
Matt Mondanile ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch courtesy links Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I think people are vehemently placing in tabloid journalism about Matt Mondanile to bully him. This information needs to be removed. It is completely unnecessary to his life.
- The content looks well sourced and neutrally worded. I think the controversy section could probably be condensed to a single paragraph and still provide the pertinent information, but it's not a BLP violation, or bullying. The article subject has even taken responsibility for the reported actions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
NACADEMIC
According to WP:NACADEMIC we can have a "biography" of an academic with no reliable independent sources at all, based on publication count. That seems... unwise. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- One of the clarifications of NACADEMIC relating to its Criteria 1 says Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. The way I read it, NACAD goes out of its way to avoid a case of presumed notability by straight-up publication count unless that itself is notable by other reliable sources. --Masem (t) 14:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Masem, the way I see it at AfD, editors assert the exact opposite, alas. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Guy, you are conflating two different things, reliability and independence. We cannot have any kind of biography without reliable sources, per WP:V and WP:BLP among others. But the requirements of independence of sourcing and of having depth in individual sources rather than through a multiplicity of smaller sources are both something extra, used for sourcing-based notability (like GNG) but not necessary for accomplishment-based notability (like PROF or NPOL) because if we can reliably verify that they have the accomplishments deemed sufficient to pass, then independence does not add anything to that verification. Also, although newcomers to academic AfDs sometimes attempt arguments based on number of publications rather than on impact of those publications, those arguments are quickly shot down by the regulars, so your argument that "editors assert that" misleads by failing to point out that those assertions are not what guides the typical outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Moreover, WP:PROF has explicit qualifications for how sources that don't meet the independence gold standard can be used. For example,
Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details
(emphasis added). This boils down to saying that we can, e.g., use a statement from the university where somebody works to verify the date they were hired. Likewise,For documenting that a person has been elected member or fellow (but not for a judgement of whether or not that membership/fellowship is prestigious), publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source.
XOR'easter (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC) - Some independence is 100% required by WP:V. The NPROF criteria should be leading to that (not to the more narrower GNG) I can see the case that an extremely well-cited author (ignorant of any other sourcing that might be out there) - somewhere there would likely be some independent sourcing now or that will be written in the future to talk about how well-cited that person is to meet WP:V. There's a threshold for that that we can use for a criteria in NPROF. But its clear that simply just having a large body of papers is not sufficient as NPROF explains, and having a limited number of citations from that body is also not sufficient. I'd be expecting citation counts in the thousands here if we're going to allow this go as an allowable criteria, as getting a few hundred cites on a body of papers is not too hard nowadays (I have papers out there myself and am close, and I *know* I clearly would fail NPROF). We do allow the implication that WP:V-meeting sourcing will come about, but the criteria should meet that, and NPROF is written to support that, but AFD seems not be responding that way. --Masem (t) 23:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Moreover, WP:PROF has explicit qualifications for how sources that don't meet the independence gold standard can be used. For example,
- Guy, you are conflating two different things, reliability and independence. We cannot have any kind of biography without reliable sources, per WP:V and WP:BLP among others. But the requirements of independence of sourcing and of having depth in individual sources rather than through a multiplicity of smaller sources are both something extra, used for sourcing-based notability (like GNG) but not necessary for accomplishment-based notability (like PROF or NPOL) because if we can reliably verify that they have the accomplishments deemed sufficient to pass, then independence does not add anything to that verification. Also, although newcomers to academic AfDs sometimes attempt arguments based on number of publications rather than on impact of those publications, those arguments are quickly shot down by the regulars, so your argument that "editors assert that" misleads by failing to point out that those assertions are not what guides the typical outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Masem, the way I see it at AfD, editors assert the exact opposite, alas. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- The problem I often see at AFD is more one of raw inclusionism vs. deletionism. (Do you remember when that was a thing?) It tends to be a hangout for those who seem to prefer quantity over quality, and tend to go into these discussion with the idea of heroically saving articles rather than looking at the situation from a quality-writing standpoint.
- For me, I've never given much thought to all these special notability guidelines. It's usually just a way to circumvent the real policies, and is quite a lot of instruction creep. The question I would ask myself for any person is: is there enough, reliably sourced, biographical information on this person to create a decent biography that is at the very least a c-class article?
- There is an inherent danger in using only primary sources. In many instances, these are difficult if not impossible for the lay-person to interpret, meaning you need to be an expert to verify it. They are often devoid of any real biographic information, thus articles become pseudo-biographies about the person's ideas or theories rather than the person themselves. That, or they end up reading more like resumes. Perhaps I just have a higher set of standards, but I personally think we need some, because unless people have been widely noticed by the secondary sources then to me they're still private citizens with all the rights to privacy as any other schmo. Zaereth (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Gergely Karácsony
Gergely Karácsony ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The biography of Gergely Karácsony said that Karácsony "only speakes Hungarian". Seems like a weird thing to mention, even if properly sourced, which does not seem to be the case.
- The first source seems to attribute the claim that Karácsony does not speak English to a Facebook post by Balázs Fürjes, a member of Viktor Orbán's administration. And Karácsony is anti-Orbán. I didn't find much proof that Newsbeezer is a reputable source.
- The second source consists of a quote by Fürjes. Same Facebook post again.
- The third source is a column by "Charlemagne". I can't remember off the top of my head, who writes "Charlemagne" for The Economist, but the column does not seem to verify the claim.
- The last source again quotes Fürjes in verbatim. Magyar Nemzet's only contibution independent of Fürjes is asserting that Karácsony used an interpreter when interviewed by The Economist.
In short, the claim that "He only speakes Hungarian."
– in my view – is poorly sourced and should be removed. Even if verifiable, this would be irrelevant trivia if not put into proper context. Politrukki (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- An IP user returned the statement to the article, so I reverted it again, and directed them to the article talk page. I agree that the sourcing for the claim is thin at best, and, even if it were strong, it's not clear why it's worth including it... BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree too, even if the sourcing were strong, I don't see any reason to include that in a BLP, let alone its lede. The information was, for what it matters, added on 11 May, presumably by the same dynamic IP user, and I daresay I should have looked at the history more deeply and restored the clean version at that time itself. JavaHurricane 07:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Craig Murray
Craig Murray ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is some disagreement going on with the Craig Murray BLP article, involving a very small number of editors, that I think might benefit from more eyes. Specifically, there is an argument over a neutral way of describing him in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Bobfrombrockley, good luck with that. He is regarded as a saint by those who worship Assange. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Rose Namajunas
Concerning this diff:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rose_Namajunas&diff=1022576334&oldid=1022470184
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rose_Namajunas&diff=1022470184&oldid=1022437672
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rose_Namajunas&diff=1022246417&oldid=1022183516
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rose_Namajunas&diff=1022183516&oldid=1022172074
To insinuate that somebody is a racist (and including a phrase like "critized by some as being racist" does exactly that) requires strong evidence. The given sources do not provide that evidence, they just vaguely reference "some people". But just that "some people" make claims somewhere on the internet cannot be sufficient reason to include such a serious and potentially libellous accusation. (I would argue that the claims would have to be made by reasonably relevant journalists, bloggers etc. in order to consider to mention them in a BLP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.10.86.25 (talk • contribs) 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that entire section is like all those rasslin articles--full of gossip and silly stuff, all blown out of proportion and with lousy sourcing. So I suppose you could say "potentially libelous", but what would be better would be just cut all that sh*t out of the article, and leave only the little bits verified by CBS or whatever. Or cut that too. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- According to Whitney Davis from the Internet of 2019 (formerly with CBS), "CBS Has A White Problem", so maybe stick with NBC (peacock symbols are still colourful, sensitive and inviting to me, dammit!) InedibleHulk (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
2021 storming of the United States Capitol
In the article 2021 storming of the United States Capitol multiple instances refer to the incident as an insurrection or there were insurrectionists. Such as "To gain access, several of the insurrectionists scaled the west wall." These labels appear to violate BLPCRIME, since insurrection is a crime clearly documented in https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383. In that specific instance of people scaling a wall, not one person has been indicted, charged, convicted of the crime of insurrection.Yousef Raz (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Yousef Raz: that isn't a BLP violation; it isn't attributable to any identifiable individual as discussed at WP:BLPGROUP. This has already been explained to you on the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Who are the insurrectionist that the article mentions that scaled a wall?Yousef Raz (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- And "rioters" is equally bad, because just like insurrection riot is a crime too. You agree that referring to living people climbing a wall is not consistent with BLPCRIME?Yousef Raz (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Some rioters climbed a wall" is not a BLP vio when we are referring to a large enough group that the description cannot be ascribed to any individual. "Person X, Y, and Z are rioters who climbed a wall" would be a BLP vio. VQuakr (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Of course it does. You are labeling living people rioters, yet those living people are not rioters until they are convicted of the crime of riot.Yousef Raz (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Some rioters climbed a wall" is not a BLP vio when we are referring to a large enough group that the description cannot be ascribed to any individual. "Person X, Y, and Z are rioters who climbed a wall" would be a BLP vio. VQuakr (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sigh. Yousef Raz is hurting their claims here. No, it's not technically a BLP violation to refer to the entirety of the people as "insurrectionists". Yes, it violates other policies and multiple consensuses on that page have determined that we shouldn't be using the term "insurrectionists" for other reasons. Yet, their fixation on BLP has caused the discussion to derail. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- it violates other policies and multiple consensuses on that page have determined that we shouldn't be using the term "insurrectionists" for other reasons this, of course, isn't true, and your repetition of the claim won't make it so. VQuakr (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- The article already uses the term "rioters" for these people. It is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications than to avoid tedious repetition by employing another term such as "insurrectionist." Compare to WP:SAID. Terjen (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- In that article, the label insurrectionist is applied to a very large group of people, implicating no named, individual persons. Reliable sources describe the group as insurrectionist. Those two facts alone are sufficient to say there are no BLP issues here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: Does "several" qualify as a "very large group"? Yousef Raz (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Several" probably refers to a small group. Regarding small groups, WP:BLPGROUP says:
In this case, would any Wikipedia readers connect the "several" to the individuals? Are we using high-quality sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.
- "To gain access, several of the insurrectionists scaled the west wall." is in the article.Yousef Raz (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- And that statement is cited to a high-quality source. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "To gain access, several of the insurrectionists scaled the west wall." is in the article.Yousef Raz (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Several" probably refers to a small group. Regarding small groups, WP:BLPGROUP says:
- @Firefangledfeathers: Does "several" qualify as a "very large group"? Yousef Raz (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here's a question: Are there any RSes who insist that the Jan 6 riot was not an act of insurrection?
- I don't mean RSes that simply don't call it that, but RSes that says "It was not insurrection." If not, then this is, by definition, not a contentious claim, and so BLP doesn't give a shit if we make it. If there are, then we need to be careful that the vast preponderance of RSes call it that (in relation to those who insist it's not that, not in relation to those that make no statement on the matter) before we can say it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- The issue with RS stating its not something is like proving a negative. If it was an insurrection, and there's video footage that details numerous people's action prior during and after, then why has the US Attorney not charged a single person with the charge of Insurrection?Yousef Raz (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. There's plenty of RSes out there arguing that X is not a case of Y, in almost any topic. Unless, of course, the preponderance of RSes all consider X to be a Y. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Given that there is a legal facet and fallout about what an insurrection is (just as there is a legal aspect around what terrorism is), we really need to be careful with the use of that term coming from the media only and not from a body with legal authority to charge people with that. eg saying "John Q Smith was a participant of the insurrection of the Capitol" can be problematic since that could read that Smith did something illegal. That said, it should also be apparent that in talking broad strokes about the event and the group of people w/o any names, that the media describing the event as an insurrection are not necessarily trying claim the legal meaning but the broader non-legal meaning of a non-peaceful uprising. "Riot" is likely a better term as there's far less legal weight on that term. --Masem (t) 03:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- And really, as a wholly separate matter, a source survey should be done. Claiming "how many sources claim it was not an insurrection" is not the right way, as you're preloading landing on that term. We're several months away so you can look through reliable sources now looking back on the event, and start collecting the terms used of which I assume will include "insurrection", "riot" and more. Don't just cherry pick, but figure out "insurrection" has a sufficiently high use over other terms to be the descriptor. IF that is not the case, then we shouldn't be using that term. (a quick and dirty survey using Gnews, from 4/1/21, gets me 14 pages of hits with "insurrection" and only 13 pages with "riots" so it is likely the case, but this should be properly proven out and nailed down on talk pages). --Masem (t) 04:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia calling it an insurrection is not a legal basis for anything, and since WP is not a legal work, anyone interpreting a legal statement from a WP article is causing their own problems. That's not something we need to worry about.
- But the standard I've always used and seen for what constitutes a "contentious claim" has always been "is it contentious in the sources?" This is because any other standard boils down to WP:OR. So if there's no disagreement in the sources, we have absolutely no business pretending there is. That being said, if only 2 out 30 possible sources call it that and none disagree, it's perfectly reasonable to prefer whatever is the more common term. However, if the gHits you got below are representative, then it seems like the sources use the terms "insurrection" and "riot" pretty interchangeably, in which case, our article ought to do so, as well, by calling it a "riot" when referencing a "riot" source, and an "insurrection" when referencing an "insurrection" source. And if we find a couple of right-wing RSes calling it a "protest", then go ahead and call it a "protest" when referencing those sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Right, I'm just saying that if there is doubt that it should be called an "insurrection" over any other term (in representing the broad picture), a source survey absolutely should be done and documented on the talk page to put the matter to rest - this also should help to identify the best top tier RSes sources so that (ideally) you only need to source the NYTimes, BBC, etc. for that. I've seen enough cases of editors cherry picking a few sources for terms they'd prefer to use to force those terms as principle descriptions when the source survey proves otherwise, that the documentation of the source survey (and thus a way to point to it if challenged in the future) should be a standard practice. In this specific case, as you say, my gnews rough search would suggest there shouldn't be a problem to prove "insurrection" is interchangable with "riot" in this case (when describing the event outside the BLP issue). --Masem (t) 05:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- On the legal basis aspect, this is the BLP factor, specific BLPCRIME. We cannot assign criminality, or even imply to someone that hasn't been convicted of such. That's why understanding that if we're talking about a specific person or a narrow enough group of people that would make them identifyable that were involved with the Capitol events, using the word "insurrection" in that context can be potentially read as assigning criminality to them since that one meaning of "insurrection" is a federal crime in the US, and such statements could be read in WP voice that we're saying they were guilty of that crime. We have a stronger responsibility to avoid that connotation than the media due to our BLP policy. There are probably ways to word the event on Jan 6 as an "insurrection" (as to follow sources from above) in the content of a named invidual or identifyable group that avoids the legal/criminal implication, though my mind can't come up with one. But a statement like "John Q. Smith was present at the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection." is problematic for these reasons. Perhaps "John Q. Smith was present at the storming of the Jan 6. Capitol, which has been likened to an insurrection by pundits." (which both takes it out of wikivoice and out of the legal connotation). --Masem (t) 05:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- The source survey is, indeed, the way to go. And as I said, there's a way forward even if there's no clear preferred term.
- I agree about not calling any individual person an "insurrectionist" unless and until they're convicted of the crime.
- In fact, I don't believe the article should use the term "insurrectionists" to refer to the people, except in attributed quotes, even though I'll tell you right now that I have no doubt in my own mind that each and every one of them is, in fact, an insurrectionist, and I further have rather strong feelings about how traitors should be dealt with. But that's a matter for the courts, not WP. In this case, the accuracy of the information we present about them is not changed by whether or not we identify them as insurrectionists. In the future, it might, but by then, there will have been convictions or acquittals we can look to to inform our opinion.
- But I do prefer to call the event and "insurrection" because whether or not it was is an important detail, (provided there aren't a significant number of RRSes saying "This was not an insurrection.") ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- My caution, and its only a caution, about calling the event absent BLP issues an "insurrection" on the basis of "no souring exists that says 'it was not an insurrection'" is that's still preloading want of the term, and will steer future discussion in the wrong way. The absence of sources that do not use the work "insurrection" and opting to use a term like "riot" is important to know. It's what leads to cherry picking just a few RS sources to justify inclusion of a label or other term under claims of UNDUE, when in reality that may be the minority or fringe position. A source survey without presumed results to know the range of terms that had be used and what are the most common as to know what to use safely in Wikioice and to make sure one is not cherry picking may be a bit of extra work but also good documentation that you did the homework to justify everything. (Now, if you're saying "how many sources are calling the event 'not an insurrection/riot/attack or other related term implying a violent revolt' and pretend that was a peaceful demonstration within their rights", yeah, that's different.) --Masem (t) 12:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- The issue with RS stating its not something is like proving a negative. If it was an insurrection, and there's video footage that details numerous people's action prior during and after, then why has the US Attorney not charged a single person with the charge of Insurrection?Yousef Raz (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Masem: I agree, there is no legal basis to calling this an insurrection or the people involved insurrectionists. I can't stress enough that zero people have been indicted/charged for the charge of insurrection, and there is enormous amounts of evidence. Pundits, politicians, and journalists can loosely use these terms. In this forum, these legal terms shouldn't be loosely used.Yousef Raz (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's not quite what I said. We absolutely should not call any named individual as an insurrectionist if they have not been convicted of that yet, and directly connecting their name to the term "insurrection" is a BLP issue we should avoid. But if we are talking about the broad group without any specificity of any individuals or sub-groups of those, and there is a sufficient number of sources that call it an "insurrection" in the broad, non-legal term, then this is less a problem and one that is not as restricted from a BLP standpoint. If I had my personal leeway, I would absolutely select "riot" in describing the event when talking about the group as a whole, which is less legal-heavy burdened than "insurrection" but at this scale, that's a consensus-based call that should be based on a strong sampling of sources to make sure what is the most appropriate term --Masem (t) 04:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- What takes preference BLPGROUP or RS? "To gain access, several of the insurrectionists scaled the west wall." is not well sourced. The article has no named author, it merely states "Story by The Atlantic Editors". Its basically a blurb. Both www.allsides.com, mediabiasfactcheck.com both indicate The Atlantic as left leaning bias. The Atlantic is a great source for facts but objective people should read through the editorializing.Yousef Raz (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Since BLPGROUP and RS aren't in conflict in this case, your question is moot. VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- But they do. "To gain access, several of the insurrectionists scaled the west wall." does anyone believe that "several" is a large group? Is that well source. It appears to not be. Is wikipedia is not an echo chamber for editorialized comments that are not based in fact. The sources are stating opinions. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on facts. No one calling this an insurrection is a legal authority. The authority is a jury and to a lesser extent the US Attorney, and neither has.Yousef Raz (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- No one calling this an insurrection is a legal authority. That isn't a standard based on any of our policies; it is one you've made up and it's getting as much respect as it deserves. Size of the group is irrelevant; the key aspect is whether an individual is being identified or is identifiable from the article content. VQuakr (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- But they do. "To gain access, several of the insurrectionists scaled the west wall." does anyone believe that "several" is a large group? Is that well source. It appears to not be. Is wikipedia is not an echo chamber for editorialized comments that are not based in fact. The sources are stating opinions. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on facts. No one calling this an insurrection is a legal authority. The authority is a jury and to a lesser extent the US Attorney, and neither has.Yousef Raz (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Since BLPGROUP and RS aren't in conflict in this case, your question is moot. VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yousef Raz, Ha ha ha ha ha! Oh wait, you're serious.
- Yes, it was an insurrection.
- But the people who did it are not insurrectionists until they are convicted. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- The House of Representatives called it an insurrection. They're kind of a big deal in legal circles. Mcfnord (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Bunch of go-getters down in the legislative department, anyway. That subcircle knows a thing or two about writing laws, but is totally powerless to apply or interpret them, especially ones written back in analog pirate days. You want legal opinion and argument that matters, see a judge. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Fiona Graham
Wanaka Gym court case
This part does not have anything to do with Fiona Graham's experience as a geisha and it does not fit the page. If it is necessary to use this section, one must record the full story. Here it stops at 2015. In the link I have provided, you can see that the case continues after 2015.
http://theoldgymwanaka.net/other.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by JapanHistoryLady (talk • contribs) 02:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @JapanHistoryLady: I think your chances of getting any changes to the article go down every time you start a new sockpuppet. Especially when you offer nonsense as evidence. We sometimes have problems when there is a new development in a case, but sources don't mention it so I checked out your website to see if that was a problem. But that was a mistake, your own website doesn't show that. There has been no real development since 2015. All your website actually says is that you lost the house, which frankly no one really cares about and claims you are dealing with lawyers for an appeal or new case or something. For BLP reasons I have to temper my response, but I will say good luck, since my it seems like you'll need it. If you appeal succeeds, then we can consider changing the article. Until then bugger off and stop socking. The lame rants on your website about how everyone is evil are as boring as most of your comments on Wikipedia, and not something that would ever result in a change to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
This is Fiona Graham. You have been accusing me of being a sock puppet for a decade now! You have no proof at all of me ever doing that so please respond properly to the people who make sensible posts here. The problem with the Wanaka Gym stuff is that someone has failed to include the court cases that I won in 2003 - the Ombudsman's report is there on the website, in 2005, in 2006, against the DBH and in Civil Court and only includes a single court case that I didn't. Since including the entire 20 years of court cases and which are not yet concluded doesn't make any sense, and since only including a court case I lost is unreasonable and unfair and an issue for the Living Person's Notice Board, you shouldn't include it at all. If you want to include it then please include every single case that I won. The real issue here on this board is why you have such an agenda to harm a living person by including only negative content and deleting anything positive.
For BLP editors can someone please help with the fact that a small number of Wikipedia editors remove all positive or recent content from my page, only keeping old or negative content? Any person trying to add positive content is labelled a sock puppet without any proof and the content they add is removed. The most recent article cited on the page is Scott Swann recent television program. Every sentence added from that program is also deleted. Ineffable Bookkeeper is the worst of the recent ones, along with Ravensfire. And the one above. What can I do about constant nonstop accusation of sock puppetry. Surely editors have to actually have some kind of proof before they damage living persons by removing all positive content from their page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:31C5:BDC3:AF2:967F (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I cannot find independent, reliable secondary sources to support Graham's claims - absent such sources the claims cannot be included. The Old Wanaka Gym link in the original post cannot be used per WP:ABOUTSELF since it is self-serving and involves claims about third parties. Maybe we could compromise and include it as an external link? As evidence of my search for sources, I found an unsuccessful complaint about a newspaper relating to this case[39] and a 2010 advert for short-term lets at the property in "backpacker style" accommodation.[40] Fences&Windows 22:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Fiona Graham: You cannot possible verify 15 years of court cases and you can possibly put a single piece of that history in there and have it be a fair reflection. So the only fair and correct thing to do is remove it. Whoever wrote the above, by the way, may be a student, but is not a student of mine. Once again, you editors are assuming that anything positive on my page is connected to me, but it is not. My students are learning that Wikipedia, which they assume to reliable, is actually incredibly biassed and unfair, and controlled by people who have the most time to spend on it! This is a very good lesson of them to learn. And it is also a pity. Wikipedia would be a wonderful thing if it wasn't for editors like the ones who constantly remove valid information from my page for no reason.
Fiona Graham: I find it very weird that on the one hand someone using your IPv6 64 said they never edit Wikipedia, despite also teaching people how to Wikipedia. [41] But then above you say you've been accused of being a sockpuppet for 10 years which is very weird for someone who never edits Wikipedia. We should never, and I'm fairly sure have never, said anything about sockpuppetry on your article, so how does someone who doesn't edit know about that? This is something only someone who edits Wikipedia is likely to know. Checking out talk pages as a non editor once or twice may happen, but checking out talk pages often enough to be aware of such accusations over 10 years is fairly unusual. Further someone using your IPv6 64 made this very self serving edit to the geisha page [42] which is very weird for someone who does not edit Wikipedia.
Anyway while I don't feel comfortable telling you what you should teach your students, I will say that from my experience here, one thing editors do need to understand is how to handle a conflict of interest. Any student of yours has a conflict of interest which means they should refrain from editing any article related to you directly. This is both the Fiona Graham article but also any parts of the geisha article that affect you especially those relating to non Japanese geisha. (Other areas of conflict could arise. E.g. stuff related to the Wānaka council's zoning regulations.) They can propose changes on the article talk page but if they do so, they should declare their conflict of interest. Unfortunately it's clear this has often not happened. It would be a great benefit to everyone if this editing with an undeclared conflict of interest, often direct editing where possible, does not occur every few month.
As I said, I don't feel comfortable telling you what to teach, but this clearly includes it being a great benefit to any student editors if they learnt not to fail so badly in handling a COI. On a more personal level, I only learnt about this maybe 2 years ago. But despite that, I've found any proposals relating to Fiona Graham generally terrible enough that even if a student editor declared their COI and restricted themselves to proposals, I still don't think they are helping anyone.
I can't speak for others but frankly, I can't really be bothered dealing with such crappy proposals made by students of a subject. However, I can understand why subjects themselves may make such terrible suggestions for change. I often still can't help them, but I'm much more willing to look more carefully at what they're saying. In that vein, I will have a look and see if I can find any sources discussion the ombudsman issue.
I do stand by my point above. From your own website, there's been nothing since 2015 that is of interest to our article which was what the editor above mentioned. You are now saying that some of our earlier coverage is lacking, which is a different issue. As Fences & Windows said, it's unlikely we can directly use anything from your website. We also cannot generally directly use trial transcripts or verdicts, nor reports from an ombudsman. If there are reliable secondary sources which mention such details, then we may be able to mention them. unfortunately your website doesn't list any but I'll have a quick look and see if I can find anything.
= Fiona Graham: So many crazy arguments above! Many people edit my page and some of them write to me to tell me that they tried to remove incorrect information or add new validly sourced information but it was removed. Why would you assume my students would have anything to do with adding anything not relating to geisha? They are only adding valid information from reliable sources. The NZ issues cannot possibly be represented fairly unless you include 15 years worth of material and if you are not going to do that you should remove the current information because it is only a tiny piece of it and unfair to include it. It is local news only, it is many years old, it is an ongoing situation that can harm a living person's life and it has nothing to do with the reason I am on Wikipedia, and therefore should be removed.
Boss Hog
This article Boss Hog may contain one or more mistakes about this post-punk band's first show. It states that Boss Hogg formed in 1989, and that singer Jon Spencer performed all of that first show nude! It also mentions that the band performed an early show as a last minute addition to a high profile show at CBGBs. I am a photographer who took pictures of Boss Hogg playing such a show, opening for Rapeman at CBGBs, in September 1988. Spencer was fully clothed. If this is helpful I can provide the photos and a picture of my contemporary notes on the photos....best, Pat BlashillRoland154 (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- It looks from a quick glance like someone saw a source where he was said to have peformed some shows naked, and thought that meant he performed that show naked. I can't go look through it right now (the source seems to be a podcast/audio interview and I have considerations for those), but I've cut it from the article for now pending further discussion. Vaticidalprophet 08:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC).
Thank you! I have now found another source that claims singer Cristina Martinez played the first show naked! I'm more interested in trying top find out if the date the band formed was sometime in 1989, which would mean the notes I took back then are wrong. I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia, so what sort of source would be considered acceptable? Would it have to be a magazine or newspaper article from back in the day? best, ----Pat Blashill Roland154
Frances Okeke
Draft:Frances Okeke ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The page with this title has been in draft for months. Please could someone figure out what is wrong with the page? What is wrong?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolendu (talk • contribs) 06:26, May 15, 2021 (UTC)
- @Nicolendu:, articles do not automatically pass from Draft status to the main space. They need to be submitted as the Articles for Creation process defines or moved manually. This article was created in main space by Iceone2000 last August but was moved into draft by GSS this January over copyright and quality concerns. I have now added an AfC submission template so that it can go through that process. There is another template below that which indicates concerns over the Manual of Style and I would also encourage better sourcing. Feel free to edit the draft to improve it. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Eggishorn Thank you. Will do as suggested.
Grover Furr
Grover Furr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Stalinist professor Grover Furr has what I believe is a clearly-wrong view of the Katyn massacre. However, several users are attempting to describe Furr as a "historical negationist" or "denier," when there are apparently no reliable sources which describe him as one. More eyes are needed on the article, particularly with regards to BLP provisions which require high-quality sourcing for potentially-defamatory claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Infobox professional wrestler
The underlying issue came to my attention at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Dave Bautista. The issue was the birthplace and the height of a former professional wrestler. The birthplace issue was resolved and my concern is with the associated height (and weight) issues, which apply to many professional wrestler BLPs. Discussion of this issue is ongoing at Talk:Dave Bautista#Birth place error and at User talk:InedibleHulk#Dave Bautista and User talk: Cullen328#Is seeming a bit taller harmful to a BLP in Batista's position?. It seems that this template allows display of "Billed height" and "Billed weight" parameters, which are routinely cited to web pages controlled by the WWE or other professional wrestling businesses, which are pretty much the opposite of reliable sources, since they routinely exaggerate height, weight and every other fact about their performers. So, living people have false heights and weights cited to sources known to lie constantly. Professional wrestling is an entertainment subculture built around the concept of kayfabe, which means that people who make their living from professional wrestling are expected to lie constantly and consistently about personalities, backgrounds, rivalries, heights and weights. That's an interesting sociological phenomenon but it cannot possibly be acceptable to present this type of "in universe" content in a neutral encyclopedia, cited to sources that all sane people know are unreliable. When were unreliable sources ever acceptable in a BLP? Well, back in the Wild West days of fourteen plus years ago when the BLP policy hadn't yet been written, and this policy violating template was created. The problem emerged only when the representative of a living person called the matter to our attention. I think that we need firm consensus that professional wrestling articles are not exempt from Wikipedia's core content policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, and that all unreliable sources and any content cited to unreliable sources should be removed promptly from professional wrestling articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- In short, I just maintain that these are the correct billed heights and weights, per a reliable primary source for such fiction, regardless of whether they're inaccurate elsewise (or "out of universe", if you will). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Are you arguing, InedibleHulk, that Wikipedia ought to present false information cited to unreliable sources in BLPs because the template adds the weasel word "billed"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- More that "billed" is not a weasel word. It's a helpful qualifier. Like how it suggests Dick the Bruiser wasn't really The Crusher's cousin. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk, WP:KAYFABE is not a policy. WP:BLP is. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Irrelevant as ever, STOP PINGING ME WITH YOUR FARFETCHED STORYLINES. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Are you arguing, InedibleHulk, that Wikipedia ought to present false information cited to unreliable sources in BLPs because the template adds the weasel word "billed"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Those links are an interesting read, but unfortunately don't clear up for sure the bit of most interest to me here, which is "does the subject, talking through his representative, want those heights in the article?". It's an interesting conundrum, as it's explicitly a work of fiction but interacts a bit with BLP policy. Because it's explicitly marked as fiction and as an in-universe situation, I'm inclined to concur that it's abstractly appropriate, but some of the linked conversations imply the subject has requested it'd be removed. In that case, I'd be inclined to comply with that as well treating it as any other BLP issue, but I can't tell for sure. Vaticidalprophet 06:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Vaticidalprophet, these are not articles about fictional characters that we are talking about, who are forever and ever controlled by professional wrestling. Instead, these are biographies of living people who had lives before pro wrestling and after pro wrestling. It is well known thst many pro wrestlers also have careers in other professional sports, or as actors and or even politicians. What other type of actor has fictitious personal information from their fictional roles inserted into infoboxes of their biographies? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- To its credit, the PW infobox makes pretty clear it's only providing bullshit particular to the life during wrestling, often featuring handy debut and retirement years. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Vaticidalprophet, these are not articles about fictional characters that we are talking about, who are forever and ever controlled by professional wrestling. Instead, these are biographies of living people who had lives before pro wrestling and after pro wrestling. It is well known thst many pro wrestlers also have careers in other professional sports, or as actors and or even politicians. What other type of actor has fictitious personal information from their fictional roles inserted into infoboxes of their biographies? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am a non-fan of wrestling—don't hate it, just into other stuff—but I know enough to be aware of the fiction involved. However, I would never have assumed that the height and weight info presented in an encyclopedia article was fictional, especially in the infobox (where I generally look for uncontroversial basic facts). "Billed" to me does not signify that the information being presented is known, or highly suspected to be, completely fabricated. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's not completely fabricated, typically within three inches and fifty pounds of the unhidable truth, and always higher, unless it's Little Spike Dudley. Anyway, yes. Any time you see "billed" and it's not about money or birds, be very suspicious, all of you outsiders! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- From what I can tell there is no actual problem here. They appear to be clearly labels as billed height, weight, and from. Perhaps we could put some clarification in there on what billed means? But that sounds like a sky is blue situation. PackMecEng (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Cullen, what you call "lying", the rest of us call "acting". I'm all for not using kayfabe or other in-universe sourcing, but suggestion that wrestlers are immoral (lying) because they're portraying characters for entertainment purposes is a bit "get off my lawn"-ish. Billed height and weight is a routine statistic for a pro wrestler, just like any other athlete. Not listing a billed height/weight because it's not the person's actually height/weight is like not listing a stage name because it's not the person's real name. Identify it for what it is, but don't omit it. And lay off hating on pro wrestling; it's just another form of entertainment. There are far more liars in Washington than the WWE. Levivich harass/hound 19:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Staley, Hendrix, Cobain, Cornell and Vedder don't have a single straightforward lyric between them, and The Space Needle was always anything but, but they still give the people what they want. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk: it took me a day but I found a single straightforward lyric between them: "Mary". Each one of them sang a song about her (popular lady). (Ok, Chris called her "Maria" but same difference.) Levivich harass/hound 14:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- In the wholly original words of Joey Styles, oh my God! I guess "grunge" wasn't an illusion. One of these days, you'll make sergeant for stuff like this! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk: it took me a day but I found a single straightforward lyric between them: "Mary". Each one of them sang a song about her (popular lady). (Ok, Chris called her "Maria" but same difference.) Levivich harass/hound 14:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Levivich, I am a little bit surprised and very disappointed that you think that is OK to use unreliable sources to add false information to BLPs. As is well known, Paul David Hewson's stage name is Bono and that is explained clearly in the first sentence of the article, and in countless reliable sources. But Dave Bautista is not 6'-6" tall, and I fail to see how throwing "billed" into the mix makes it OK when the underlying source is unreliable. As for other athletes, is there any other sport that churns out obvious falsehoods about its athletes? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Staley, Hendrix, Cobain, Cornell and Vedder don't have a single straightforward lyric between them, and The Space Needle was always anything but, but they still give the people what they want. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- If anyone was wondering if Batista and WWE are still actively in cahoots, zombies just this Sunday night replaced lumberjacks in a lumberjack match, sacrificing all the dignity this great sport had left to cross-promote somebody's latest vanity project. Yes folks, zombies. Congratulations Dave, Zack Snyder and NBC, you've forced this longtime loyal loser to leave town. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
As an editor who primarily focuses on professional wrestling articles, I have some insight to provide. As you all know, professional wrestling is a strange universe and performing art form. Unlike other forms of entertainment such as cinema and novels, the line is frequently blurred between characters, fiction, and reality due to the nature of kayfabe interacting frequently with the real world. The infobox we speak of is not necessarily the main biographical information infobox, but rather a sub infobox entitled "professional wrestling information", which states quick facts both kayfabe (billed from/billed height) and actual information (trained by, debut, retired, etc). For instance, a wrestler may be born in one city (listed in primary infobox) but might be billed as being from another city or even a fictional place (such as "Wherever he damn well pleases" or "From the bottom of the sea" or "From Gotham") as part of his persona. Such information is considered to be important identifying characteristics of their character relevant for professional wrestling coverage on Wikipedia, and tends to be included because of the promotion saying so (whether online or during ring announcements during a wrestler's entrance). The heights might be accurate or they might be exaggerated as a part of a character as dictated by a professional wrestling company such as WWE in order to make their character appear to be more credible of a threat. It is long acknowledged that the heights stated by the company might be exaggerated, and therefore statements of actual heights and weights are likely from unreliable sources, and in such a case, listing the exaggerated height from a reliable primary source is acceptable due to the nature of kayfabe listing "professional wrestling information" and the way kayfabe interacts with reality. For instance, Adam Cole is billed as being 6'0, but is widely and infamously rumored in the wrestling community to be much shorter due to things like pictures taken with fans who are shorter than 6'0 being of comparable height to Cole. Additionally, I can compare this to a phenomenon seen in actual sports competition. Until the NBA banned this practice, coaches, players, and basketball player development executives in the NBA are known to bump up (or even down) players listed heights by a few inches in order to justify marketing them to play a certain position normally played by taller or shorter players. For instance, Kobe Bryant was listed as 6'6 despite being 6'4 to better justify him being a shooting guard and Kevin Durant listed himself as 6'9 despite being 6'10 (or alternatively 7'0 in shoes) in order for him to play small forward rather than as center. In sports, height is important to list for various reasons, and teams sometimes state a wrong height for their personal benefit. However, it still is sourced as accurate for purposes of biography, as it comes from authoritative bodies. In regards to wrestling, it does not constitute a violation of BLP due to the height never implying to be accurate, and professional wrestling articles look at kayfabe from an outside point of view, such as when explaining storylines and listing billed height. In sports it's listed height, in professional wrestling it's billed height. Slightly different terms but same concept, for slightly different reasons but for very similar purposes intended to benefit the involved parties. Maybe I'd recommend making it more clear that the height is of the character and not of the actual person somehow? Because clearly it doesn't intend to deceive. It strives to accurately reflect the wrestling character as it is presented. Due to the nature of kayfabe these billed heights of the characters that the wrestling promotions promote sometimes gets misconstrued as promoting false information regarding the actual persons itself. DrewieStewie (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @DrewieStewie: has it right. Billed height is not real height. Billed weight is not real weight. We are not claiming these are their real height and weights, we clearly say it's billed. WWE is reliable for billed heights, not real heights. starship.paint (exalt) 11:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yup, all sports have stats issues like this, eg [43] [44]. Pro wrestling is sports entertainment like Harlem Globetrotters, though, so their billed stats aren't deceptive, unlike basketball and baseball players, whose stats are supposed to be real. But that's why it's "billed height" for pro wrestling, and "listed height" for other athletes, as opposed to just "height". Hence why "billed" and "listed" aren't weasel words, they're key qualifiers. Levivich harass/hound 15:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
As others have said above, I see no issue with us including "in-universe" billed height. There is no claim on our part that these are meant to be realistic, and I certainly don't agree with the idea that the use of the word "billed" qualifies as WP:WEASEL. Now, if OP wanted to add an "actual height" field I don't think I'd oppose it, but I certainly don't think that kayfabe billed heights and weights are in any way a BLP violation. — Czello 12:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also, just wait until this noticeboard discovers that one wrestler has
Allegedly well over 400 lb
as his billed weight... — Czello 12:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree with those above that at no pin to are we claiming these billed heights and weights are the living person's actual figures, and that's made plainly clear by the "billed" being included on the parameter. Gotta remember, these articles are as much about the kayfabe character (or succession thereof for those who have had long careers) as the real-world person. oknazevad (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, I don't know why we even have a weight and height section within infoboxes. These are rarely defining characteristics; even people known for their size (Rey Mysterio vs Andre the Giant for example) make it very clear within their articles how big they are. Andre's fluctuating weight is very clear, and the "wrestling numbers" debate is always pretty much made up to emphasise things. It should be something in the professional wrestling persona section in the prose if it is important. Weights are more important for boxers who have weight classes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would argue that billed height and weight are key stats for a pro wrestler (also for other athletes). For example, Andre's 7'4" 520lbs billed height and weight are a prominent part of Shepard Fairey's Andre the Giant Has a Posse (even though it's not actual height and weight). Levivich harass/hound 13:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree that as long as it is clear that we're talking "billed" or other delineation as to state that this is not what "reality" is saying but what the wrestling promotional material is saying, that's fine. (I'd preferably like to see a color bar above that information as to break where everything below it is the "billed" personality and everything above it is from the infobox person proper, but the proper labels help to avoid that as a necessity). --Masem (t) 15:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's already like that, see Dave Bautista. Levivich harass/hound 15:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not really a wresting fan, though I'm familiar with the tropes and jargon. My initial impression is that the billed height and weight are the sorts of information many people might come to WP looking for, and as such, we have at least some interest in providing that information.
- I think the concern over presenting false information is valid (I'm not quite sure what I think of the concerns over the BLP's consent for this info), and as such, I think a good question is whether or not the word "billed" is sufficient to convey clearly that the presented information is fictional. I lean towards "no", and would suggest appending the word "Character's" to make it more clear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- No problem with the Billed weight/height, since it's an important aspect for a pro wrestler and billed means "in-universe". Reading the template, I tought there was a "real weight/height", parameter. Maybe, we can 1, change billed to a better word. 2, include a real weight/height parameter. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Mjolnerpants for the most part, except that "billed" alone may not be enough to convey that the info is from the fictional universe. I see a lot of arguments that "billed" is somehow specific to pro-wrestling, and that people will just automatically know the difference, but I disagree on that point. We should write it so that it's clear to the total outsider that this info may be fictional. (I say may, because I've seen some of these guys up close, like the Undertaker, and that guy is huge!) For example, if I look up "billed" in the dictionary, the only definition I find that fits is: "to declare or describe officially; proclaim". While I know that "officially" in this context means from the fiction world, I think we could do a better job of making that known in an article that is supposed to be about the actor rather than the character, especiall if putting in an infobox. Zaereth (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe advertised or promoted height and weight could work.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Think billed as. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Now, the infobox for Dave Bautista is in the ridiculous state of having two heights listed. There is his actual height of 6'-4" cited to an actual reliable source, Sports Illustrated, and then there is "billed height" of 6'-6", cited to this unreliable piece of garbage. When did it become acceptable to use glaringly unreliable sources in multiple BLPs under any circumstances? I simply do not understand the reasoning of other editors here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- It seems like everyone is largely in agreement here that it is acceptable and even that the WWE site is a RS for billed information about a wrestler. There is some talk about possibly calling it something other than billed, but not really any disagreement on the concept. PackMecEng (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think we'd definitely have to go with something other than billed, as it clearly causes confusion. In the bruhaha that started this, it was a journalist doing an interview who got the height from Wikipedia which brought the issue to the attention of the article subject. It also still seems odd, since we're putting the information of a character someone plays in their infobox as fact. We don't add Billed species Cat to Beverley Knight's article just because she's been billed as a character that is a cat. It's especially an issue for cross-over stars, like Bautista as they probably have many more people looking for information regarding them based on their film roles rather than their wrestling role. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- It seems like everyone is largely in agreement here that it is acceptable and even that the WWE site is a RS for billed information about a wrestler. There is some talk about possibly calling it something other than billed, but not really any disagreement on the concept. PackMecEng (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Now, the infobox for Dave Bautista is in the ridiculous state of having two heights listed. There is his actual height of 6'-4" cited to an actual reliable source, Sports Illustrated, and then there is "billed height" of 6'-6", cited to this unreliable piece of garbage. When did it become acceptable to use glaringly unreliable sources in multiple BLPs under any circumstances? I simply do not understand the reasoning of other editors here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Cullen 328 seems to be confused about the word "unreliable". Nobody is claiming that the information is accurate. But billed height, weight, and hometown are defining characteristics of wrestlers--just watch the introduction to absolutely every match. For what it's worth, McFarland's Biographical Dictionary of Professional Wrestling states that he is 6'6" and 325 pounds. Anyhow, I don't see the problem here. There is an actual height in the infobox and a billed height below. If a reliable source could be given for actual weight, I'm sure that could be added as well. 13:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- It should also be mentioned that aside from exceptions related to other professions I listed below responding to Jim, not every wrestling biography is affected by this, as aside from the most recently deceased, deceased wrestlers aren't covered by BLP and as such, the professional wrestling billed heights would still take precedent regardless with less concerns than those raised about living subjects. Still though, for the reasons I've stated elsewhere on this thread, this doesn't violate BLP, and almost everybodu agrees. DrewieStewie (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Proposal - change "billed height/weight/from" to "character's height/weight/hometown"
- 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.
Per @Cullen328, Firefangledfeathers, and Zaereth: - it is not apparent that "billed" sufficiently conveys the fictional aspect of height / weight / hometown being advertised by the pro-wrestling company. As such, I would like to formally propose MjolnirPants' idea that we edit Template:Infobox professional wrestler's display, changing (1) "Billed height" to "Character's height", changing (2) "Billed weight" to "Character's weight", and changing "Billed from" to "Character's hometown". This will better inform readers that this is not the actual height / weight / hometown of these professional wrestlers. starship.paint (exalt) 02:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Notified WT:PW. Ping @InedibleHulk, JzG, Vaticidalprophet, PackMecEng, Levivich, Oknazevad, DrewieStewie, Czello, Lee Vilenski, Masem, and HHH Pedrigree:, other participants of above discussion. starship.paint (exalt) 02:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not entirely sold Some wrestlers happen to be the same size as their characters, advertising isn't always working us. I'd rather outsiders wise up to the idea of promotion, billing and stagecraft. But better than outright obliviation. This could get seriously confusing for wrestlers with a variety of characters, of course. Especially the rare cases where one is taller. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Unneeded. As noted above, "billed" is clearly in the sense of "billed as", and is sufficiently clear. I think Cullen is letting his personal disdain cloud his judgement, to be honest. Refering to the promotion's website as "unreliable garbage" when its being cited for the figure they use as their billed height is utterly wrongheaded and misguided. Of course the primary source for a statement of fact like that is reliable. oknazevad (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Okay with whatever happens with height and weight. "Billed from" is fine though. DrewieStewie (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose This parameter is an invitation to use spectacularly unreliable sources in BLPs, and on principle, I must insist that WP:BLP must be followed, and that policy says, " Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (emphasis added) Please, please, fellow editors, take a long, hard look at this source now actually used in a BLP, and ask yourself if it meets that policy standard. It is crystal clear to me that this is not a reliable source and that this source and any like it should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone in a BLP. Many editors are arguing, much to my bewilderment, that this type of garbage source is OK in a BLP, because everyone knows that professional wrestling is built on a culture of kayfabe lying. I reject that. We cannot allow that type of thinking to infect this encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: Not unreliable. WWE owns the character Batista, Dave Bautista portrays said character. Reliable information about their character. Doesn't violate BLP as the information is accurate about their own character. Their article provides information about the real person and the character as is standard for professional wrestling articles. It is important to make that disambiguation. These wrestlers characters are what they are notable for, so information about the character is going to be the predominant focus of the article. Therefore not BLP violation. Their real height can be displayed too if sufficiently noted by a reliable sources and is otherwise relevant and notable. Usually these billed heights reflect those stated in the last wrestling promotion they have worked for. Batista's real height is also notable for his acting career, his one MMA match, and for his fitness enthusiasm, so it is worthy of mention as well. Inaccurate heights that belong to the character are expected in pro wrestler biographies due to the nature of the business and the fact that they are playing characters with such attributes. Their kayfabe height doesn't stick with them if they embark on another trade. For instance, wrestlers who might also dabble in bodybuilding (Lex Luger), basketball (Dennis Rodman), football (Pat McAfee), and MMA/other martial arts/boxing (Bobby Lashley) might have their real heights on their articles too as part of their other professions. (for reference though, Batista still has ties with WWE, as he is supposed to be inducted in the WWE Hall of Fame whenever the next chance arises.)DrewieStewie (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- If it's a character that someone else owns that a performer has just played then why is it in their infobox? We don't take Douglas Rain's infobox and add the in-universe information about HAL 9000 to their personal article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: It's because the area is especially grey due to a wrestling character interacting far more closely with reality than other forms of entertainment. The separation between actor and character is far more ambiguous. Usually for a film, both the character and person are separate, notable entities. However, many wrestling characters are exclusively known for their characters with their person being almost entirely synonymous with their wrestling fame and little separation between the two, unlike film and TV characters. Batista is in a smaller but somewhat significant minority in the industry where due to his acting career and MMA match, his person is much more clearly notable and separable from his wrestling character. DrewieStewie (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- If it's a character that someone else owns that a performer has just played then why is it in their infobox? We don't take Douglas Rain's infobox and add the in-universe information about HAL 9000 to their personal article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: Not unreliable. WWE owns the character Batista, Dave Bautista portrays said character. Reliable information about their character. Doesn't violate BLP as the information is accurate about their own character. Their article provides information about the real person and the character as is standard for professional wrestling articles. It is important to make that disambiguation. These wrestlers characters are what they are notable for, so information about the character is going to be the predominant focus of the article. Therefore not BLP violation. Their real height can be displayed too if sufficiently noted by a reliable sources and is otherwise relevant and notable. Usually these billed heights reflect those stated in the last wrestling promotion they have worked for. Batista's real height is also notable for his acting career, his one MMA match, and for his fitness enthusiasm, so it is worthy of mention as well. Inaccurate heights that belong to the character are expected in pro wrestler biographies due to the nature of the business and the fact that they are playing characters with such attributes. Their kayfabe height doesn't stick with them if they embark on another trade. For instance, wrestlers who might also dabble in bodybuilding (Lex Luger), basketball (Dennis Rodman), football (Pat McAfee), and MMA/other martial arts/boxing (Bobby Lashley) might have their real heights on their articles too as part of their other professions. (for reference though, Batista still has ties with WWE, as he is supposed to be inducted in the WWE Hall of Fame whenever the next chance arises.)DrewieStewie (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak support, but unconvinced of the need. I essentially concur with Oknazevad on the situation here, and I have high respect for Cullen and am unhappy to be against him. Still, it's a fairly simple fix that can clarify the relationship between the character and the actor. Vaticidalprophet 03:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Vaticidalprophet, so you are going on the record in support of using stunningly, shockingly, glaringly unreliable sources in BLPs? Interesting. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- This isn't a question of reliability, it's a question of due weight - and it seems like in this case it is due weight to include these loosely-reality-based statistics. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have BLPN watchlisted -- there's no need to ping me here, especially as I work on multiple projects and a ping may distract me from significant work on another. This conversation really troubles and dismays me, and I strongly considered just not !voting except that I feel it might be the only way to possibly meet a compromise between your position and all the other positions discussed here. I'm deeply upset that I'm being accused of, essentially, being evil, for trying to fit a compromise solution between that of someone I have high respect for and that of every single other participant here. I respect your position, I agree with a lot of your position, I hold you in high esteem as one of the single best editors on the site, I feel absolutely awful and dismayed and upset that you're considering me such a horrible person, and I want to find a solution that both you and the consensus can agree with. Vaticidalprophet 05:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I will not ping you again, Vaticidalprophet. I like being pinged when people respond to my points, but now I know that you don't like to be pinged. I do not think that you or any other editor who disagrees with me are "evil" or "horrible" but rather I consider your current position incorrect on this specific BLP policy issue. I hope to win you over. I have read many thoughtful responses to my position, but as I see it, none have addressed the fundamental issue of why it is OK to use unreliable sources in pro wrestler BLPs. I put forward a specific WWE source about Dave Bautista that I asked other editors to analyze for reliability and so far I have been ignored. I consider that source a steaming pile of tripe, consisting of lie after lie after lie. Read the Sports Illustrated souce for his actual height to see the impact that these lies have on people's careers after trying to leave the WWE. If an encyclopedia put forward a reference as a reliable source that called you heinous and claimed that three homicides had occurred on your parent's front lawn, how would you feel? Would you respond that it is OK because that crap is actually a highly reliable source? Are people bound to WWE lies for life? I would like to hear a sentence by sentence analysis explaining why that WWE bio is instead actually an example of the "high quality sources" that BLP policy demands, even for pro wrestler biographies. Or are wrestlers exempt? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I understand that you feel a lot of distress about this, but it would probably be a better use of your time to discuss it with the people opposing this as "the current parameters are completely fine", because I honestly find this a stressful enough conversation to consider unwatching the noticeboard, and there are a lot more parties here who both disagree with you and don't think a compromise position is necessary than my "try to make both sides happy" stance. Vaticidalprophet 07:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Cullen, I think you might be slightly over-reacting to this. These aren't "lies", any more than saying "Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father" is a lie. The "weight/height/hometown" parameters don't claim to factually represent the real life person: the template itself even explicitly calls it kayfabe. However, as I said elsewhere, if you wanted to argue that an "actual weight" parameter is added in addition to the billed weight, I think that'd be reasonable. — Czello 07:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Czello, the problem with the "it's no different than saying X about character Y" is that these articles combine the real person and the wrestling persona, and are generally written with an in-universe slant. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: Which is why it's made clear by the use of the word "billed", as McPhail says a couple of comments below. And as I say, the template also explicitly calls it kayfabe just to make it more certain. — Czello 11:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Only the word "billed" is not clear, which is what started this whole thing. Also how many readers will check the template page? In the past 20 days the high is 19 page views. The lowest for Bautista's page in the same time frame is 5927. Clearly no one is actually looking at the template, nor should we expect them to look at the template to find out the information is make-believe. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't agree, I think it is very clear -- this is what they're billed as. Literally, it's saying "this is the weight that WWE/AEW/NJPW/whoever say they are. I don't think there's an implication here that this is meant to be real. — Czello 12:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- User talk:Jmmeisner#"WWE takes some liberties" shows that it's clearly not as cut and dry as that. People are taking that information and republishing it as fact because "billed" doesn't mean "a faked number specific to pro wrestling" anywhere except for on a Wikipedia template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't agree, I think it is very clear -- this is what they're billed as. Literally, it's saying "this is the weight that WWE/AEW/NJPW/whoever say they are. I don't think there's an implication here that this is meant to be real. — Czello 12:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Only the word "billed" is not clear, which is what started this whole thing. Also how many readers will check the template page? In the past 20 days the high is 19 page views. The lowest for Bautista's page in the same time frame is 5927. Clearly no one is actually looking at the template, nor should we expect them to look at the template to find out the information is make-believe. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: Which is why it's made clear by the use of the word "billed", as McPhail says a couple of comments below. And as I say, the template also explicitly calls it kayfabe just to make it more certain. — Czello 11:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I will not ping you again, Vaticidalprophet. I like being pinged when people respond to my points, but now I know that you don't like to be pinged. I do not think that you or any other editor who disagrees with me are "evil" or "horrible" but rather I consider your current position incorrect on this specific BLP policy issue. I hope to win you over. I have read many thoughtful responses to my position, but as I see it, none have addressed the fundamental issue of why it is OK to use unreliable sources in pro wrestler BLPs. I put forward a specific WWE source about Dave Bautista that I asked other editors to analyze for reliability and so far I have been ignored. I consider that source a steaming pile of tripe, consisting of lie after lie after lie. Read the Sports Illustrated souce for his actual height to see the impact that these lies have on people's careers after trying to leave the WWE. If an encyclopedia put forward a reference as a reliable source that called you heinous and claimed that three homicides had occurred on your parent's front lawn, how would you feel? Would you respond that it is OK because that crap is actually a highly reliable source? Are people bound to WWE lies for life? I would like to hear a sentence by sentence analysis explaining why that WWE bio is instead actually an example of the "high quality sources" that BLP policy demands, even for pro wrestler biographies. Or are wrestlers exempt? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Vaticidalprophet, so you are going on the record in support of using stunningly, shockingly, glaringly unreliable sources in BLPs? Interesting. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - professional wrestlers don't play characters - the technical word is "gimmick". I don't really see what we gain from changing to character, other than annoy a lot of people. Still not sold it is required info for the infobox, rather than just prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not convinced by the need to change this at all. It's pretty self explanatory what we mean by this, and the template page even explicitly calls it kayfabe. — Czello 06:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose WP:AINT. People know that "billed" means its not their actual height/weight. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. "Billed" in this context means exactly what it says: the height/weight by which the performer is "advertise{d} by a bill or public notice". We aren't saying Batista etc *is* a certain height, we are saying he is *billed* as being that height. Ipso facto, the entity carrying out the advertising/billing is a reliable source for this information. Note we used to also include "real" heights and weights in Infoboxes which is a terrible idea given how difficult this is to source accurately. Note further that the information in question sits safely in the "Professional wrestling career" section of the infobox. McPhail (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose As usual, we have an admin busying themselves by taking an absolutely minor occurrence and making a really big deal out of it. As was the case with that RFC several years ago, no meaningful (only cosmetic) changes will result and long-standing problems with our coverage of professional wrestling will remain in place. I wish I could explain in more detail, but it's necessary to get ready for work. The proposal as it's developing borders on WP:CREEP. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note - this proposal was not instigated by an administrator. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nor did this proposal's instigator take "an absolutely minor occurrence" and make "a really big deal out of it". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - No need for clunky rephrasing of a common and widely understood term. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think as long as the section of a BLP's infobox that is devoted to their wrestling persona is clearly distinguished and separated from all the other facts that otherwise apply to the BLP, as well as given secondary weight to the facts, as the current infobox does, and that the labelling is clear that this is a billing and not meant to be read as "real-world factual" then no change is needed. If anything, perhaps a tooltip atop the "billed" labels to indicate something "this may not reflect their real height/weight" for those that are unsure. (Arguably, the way the infobox is all set up, I think there's some need of WP:CIR to be considered that the templates goes out of its way to be clear that those aren't to be read as the factual heights or weights). --Masem (t) 14:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per the others above. "Billed" is a term of art used by RSes, and we're an encyclopedia, we should follow them. It's the correct term. Not opposed to an explanatory tooltip tho. Levivich harass/hound 16:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Proposal: change "billed height/weight/from" to "Kayfabe height/weight/hometown"
I see that the information is something that readers may want, but I also see that it's easy for readers, and editors, to have no idea that "billed" means "make believe" in the context of the height and weight. I propose that we change it to Kayfabe weight, Kayfabe height, and Kayfabe hometown. Kayfabe is a strange enough word where if you don't know what it means you'll at least hover over the wikilink and see In professional wrestling, kayfabe /ˈkeɪfeɪb/ (also called work or worked), as a noun, is the portrayal of staged events within the industry as "real" or "true"
. It is far less likely than "billed" to be mistaken for real life and we can wikilink directly to the article that explains the concept to non-wrestling fans who may be looking at these articles.
- Support as proposer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
OpposeWeak oppose per WP:AINT: there seems to be the belief that people are getting confused by "billed" and believing it to be literal, but I don't think there's any indication this is the case. As McPhail said above:"Billed" in this context means exactly what it says: the height/weight by which the performer is "advertise{d} by a bill or public notice". We aren't saying Batista etc *is* a certain height, we are saying he is *billed* as being that height.
— Czello 12:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)- Czello, that kind of confusion is specifically what caused this discussion to happen. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think Cullen was ever under the impression that "billed height" was supposed to be literal. He even acknowledges the kayfabe nature of it in his opening post:
Professional wrestling is an entertainment subculture built around the concept of kayfabe, which means that people who make their living from professional wrestling are expected to lie constantly and consistently about personalities, backgrounds, rivalries, heights and weights. That's an interesting sociological phenomenon but it cannot possibly be acceptable to present this type of "in universe" content in a neutral encyclopedia, cited to sources that all sane people know are unreliable.
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think his issue is with the existence of kayfabe parameters in the infobox and how we source them -- not a confusion about whether or not they're real. — Czello 12:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)- Czello, my problem is with the use of glaringly unreliable and overtly promotional sources in biographies of living people. I hope that's clear now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: But they are reliable when we're talking about kayfabe weights. — Czello 06:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Czello, the source is packed with lies, tells a lie about his height, does not admit that it is a lie, and you call that a reliable source worthy of use on Wikipedia. Kayfabe is lying. Astonishing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: It's no more lying than presenting any other fictional information. The source just demonstrates what a character's height is, not the actor portraying the character. — Czello 16:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Czello, when describing fictional characters, Wikipedia articles ought to use reliable, independent, third party sources, not lying "in universe" promotional crap written to make more money for the WWE. And a BLP of a performer should be about the performer, and should not be a fake biography of their most famous role. Would we fill up Hal Holbrook with myths and legends about Mark Twain? Of course not. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: It's no more lying than presenting any other fictional information. The source just demonstrates what a character's height is, not the actor portraying the character. — Czello 16:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Czello, the source is packed with lies, tells a lie about his height, does not admit that it is a lie, and you call that a reliable source worthy of use on Wikipedia. Kayfabe is lying. Astonishing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: But they are reliable when we're talking about kayfabe weights. — Czello 06:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Czello, my problem is with the use of glaringly unreliable and overtly promotional sources in biographies of living people. I hope that's clear now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Czello, no, Dave Bautista's manager was under the impression that it was literal. here and here. There was also some discussion on the talk page of the article that got mangled. The information is being republished, and mistaken even for people involved in professional wrestling. This is because "billed" doesn't mean "make believe numbers" anywhere but on that single template on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh I see; apologies, I misinterpreted your point. Still, I think re-assessing the naming convention because of one manager's misinterpretation (someone who, honestly, should know better) is a tad unwarranted -- I do think "billed" is pretty self-explanatory when one considers that we're talking about a scripted form of entertainment. That said, I do acknowledge that this is an element of confusion that could be repeated: as such I've changed my vote from oppose to weak oppose. — Czello 13:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- They also pointed out that the incorrect height was being republished, so clearly journalists also don't know what is meant by the term "billed height." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Did he ever say he was Dave's manager, shoot or work? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here and
I would greatly appreciate some guidance in this process. I acknowledged from the beginning of my edit request that I work with Dave Bautista. In addition to that, I am his oldest childhood friend and am simply trying to correct an error in his birthplace. I'm not sure how doing that could raise any conflict of interest, but I would like to certify here that I am not being paid directly or indirectly to try to correct this error.
on COIN. Without doing any outing, the combination of those and access to the internet should clarify. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)- The IMDb page he offered seems to confirm he's an assistant and producer. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Check his Amazon Studios press writeup, has a bit more detail. This is also assuming good faith that this wasn't all an elaborate ruse to get Bautista's correct height in his wikipedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Or an elaborate ruse to get us buzzing about zombies and the men who pretend to "kill" them. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- OK, Amazon is clear, talent manager since '99. So during Batista's six and a half foot run. Probably why he admitted this height was "properly represented" in the article, as opposed to the false birthplace he mainly cared about fixing. Anyone can ping him instead of guessing, by the way. He's registered here. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Check his Amazon Studios press writeup, has a bit more detail. This is also assuming good faith that this wasn't all an elaborate ruse to get Bautista's correct height in his wikipedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- The IMDb page he offered seems to confirm he's an assistant and producer. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here and
- Did he ever say he was Dave's manager, shoot or work? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- They also pointed out that the incorrect height was being republished, so clearly journalists also don't know what is meant by the term "billed height." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh I see; apologies, I misinterpreted your point. Still, I think re-assessing the naming convention because of one manager's misinterpretation (someone who, honestly, should know better) is a tad unwarranted -- I do think "billed" is pretty self-explanatory when one considers that we're talking about a scripted form of entertainment. That said, I do acknowledge that this is an element of confusion that could be repeated: as such I've changed my vote from oppose to weak oppose. — Czello 13:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think Cullen was ever under the impression that "billed height" was supposed to be literal. He even acknowledges the kayfabe nature of it in his opening post:
- Same vote as above proposal DrewieStewie (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I should mention that weight and where you're from, regardless of real and fictional, are more subjective, can fluctuate, and aren't set in stone. Circumstances such as weight gain/loss and relocation are factors that can change that. In regards to billed weight, that can be an important characteristic in wrestling to determine whether a wrestler is eligible to compete in a cruiserweight, light heavyweight, or junior heavyweight division. DrewieStewie (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- It seems odd that you say on the one hand they are important characteristics in determining eligibility, but then on the other hand agree that they can be fictional numbers. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- ScottishFinnishRadish, that can be either storyline or legitimate in such a case. DrewieStewie (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- It seems odd that you say on the one hand they are important characteristics in determining eligibility, but then on the other hand agree that they can be fictional numbers. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - No need for clunky rephrasing of a common and widely understood term. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support per above as compromise solution, although it's unclear exactly how much appetite there is here for a compromise considering the apparent intractibility. While 'billed' is clear English to me, someone with absolutely no interest in wrestling, there's no harm and apparently some gain in going more specific. Vaticidalprophet 13:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support - we’re here to educate readers. Clearly some of us don’t understand the precious term. That’s fine. We’ll make it clearer to them in this way. starship.paint (exalt) 14:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Billed" is a common term, "kayfabe" is needlessly obscure. I can't see anyone having trouble with the phrase "[Wrestler] is billed as being seven foot tall". McPhail (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per above; billed is the term, it's not called "kayfabe height", that term would be an OR invention of ours. One person complaining about this (Bautista's representative) is not cause to change the template. The specific concern raised about this article have already been addressed (Bautista's infobox now lists both his actual and billed height). Levivich harass/hound 16:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose "billed" is common English. "Kayfabe" is fairly obscure industry WP:JARGON. oknazevad (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Billed height is already WP:JARGON since it's only used in professional wrestling. At least using kayfabe will make it clear its not discussing normal weight or height. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Billed height" is not only used in wrestling. Search Google Books for
"billed height" -wrestling
and you'll find books using the term in other contexts. Levivich harass/hound 17:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)- After applying a -WWE as well I started to see some results, less than 30,000. The fourth result is "What is the meaning of billed height?" A lot of these links are still wrestling related too, i.e. this absolute unit. It just doesn't seem to be that common a term. I will say that "kayfabe height" only gets 2000 results to "billed height"'s 47000, but that just shows that neither term is actually common.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, the term "billed" is very common outside of wrestling. "The Mars rover mission was billed as a success." "Wayne Gretzky was billed as the top hockey player of all time." It comes from the Latin bulla, meaning "an official decree" or "a sealed document". It's where terms like "billboard" come from, or "the actor got top billing in the play". The problem, as I see it, is that while this is the official wrestling weight/height/etc., it's only as official as the WWE itself is. Within the made-up universe, the stats are correct. As an example, if somewhere in Star Wars they gave Darth Vader's height as 6' 2", then that is the correct height regardless of the actor's true height. The problem, as I see it, is simply a one of distinguishing between the character in the made-up universe and the actor out in the real one. That said, it all seems like trivial, statistical data to me, but I know these things are important in sports as well. This isn't a real sport. Zaereth (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- The problem with your analysis, Zaereth, is that Gretzky is commonly described by many independent hockey experts as the best player in that sport, and several Mars rover missions were actually successful according to independent analysts of space exploration, whereas Bautista is not actually 6'-6" and is really 6'-4", according to actual reliable sources. Someone who learned the meaning of the word through examples such as yours would conclude that the billed height is accurate although it isn't. Another problem is that the cited source does not use the word "billed". It just straight up says that he is 6'-6", which emphasizes the inherent unreliability of the source for use in a BLP. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Cullen. That not the problem, but exactly the point I was trying to make. Look, the fictional source is the only reliable source for stats on the fictional character, wouldn't you agree? Anything less would be rank speculation. The thing is, we're not dealing with fictional characters here, however this is a case where the lines between the two are purposely blurred, like so-called reality TV. (That's why "kayfabe" is just sort of tongue-in-cheek Pig Latin for "be fake", but I would never recommend using Pig Latin as a heading.) We have the job of trying to sort that out. I don't know the best way to do that, but unless we come up with a way this will be an ongoing problem, because as long as the info exists people will invariably try to insert it into the article. Perhaps it is simply too much to put in an infobox, and needs to be explained in text. Perhaps, as is my opinion, it's just trivia that is not really encyclopedic in nature to begin with, but I'm not to hopeful of that position gaining any traction. What I do know is that we have the job of reporting on the fictional elements as well as the real life ones, and the bigger task of separating the two so that even a child can tell the difference at first glance. So what is the best way to accomplish that? I'll leave it all to you to decide, but I do agree that we can't make it even remotely seem like these numbers should be taken seriously. Zaereth (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, I would not agree, Zaereth. Wikipedia has plenty of articles about fictional characters ranging from Prince Hamlet to Darth Vader to Paul Bunyan, and maybe those articles could be improved, but none of them rely on flagrantly unreliable, promotional sources that never should be used on Wikipedia. If the lying concept of "billed height" and "billed weight" has any place on Wikipedia, it should be because actually reliable sources independent of WWE choose to cover it. Otherwise, relegate it to fan blogs and the like. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
If the lying concept of "billed height" and "billed weight" has any place on Wikipedia, it should be because actually reliable sources independent of WWE choose to cover it.
A search of Google Books yields Sisterhood of the Squared Circle (ECW Press), Historical Dictionary of Wrestling (Scarecrow Press), Biographical Dictionary of Professional Wrestling, 2d Ed. (McFarland & Company), and Legends of Pro Wrestling (Skyhorse Publishing), among others. Levivich harass/hound 04:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, I would not agree, Zaereth. Wikipedia has plenty of articles about fictional characters ranging from Prince Hamlet to Darth Vader to Paul Bunyan, and maybe those articles could be improved, but none of them rely on flagrantly unreliable, promotional sources that never should be used on Wikipedia. If the lying concept of "billed height" and "billed weight" has any place on Wikipedia, it should be because actually reliable sources independent of WWE choose to cover it. Otherwise, relegate it to fan blogs and the like. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Cullen. That not the problem, but exactly the point I was trying to make. Look, the fictional source is the only reliable source for stats on the fictional character, wouldn't you agree? Anything less would be rank speculation. The thing is, we're not dealing with fictional characters here, however this is a case where the lines between the two are purposely blurred, like so-called reality TV. (That's why "kayfabe" is just sort of tongue-in-cheek Pig Latin for "be fake", but I would never recommend using Pig Latin as a heading.) We have the job of trying to sort that out. I don't know the best way to do that, but unless we come up with a way this will be an ongoing problem, because as long as the info exists people will invariably try to insert it into the article. Perhaps it is simply too much to put in an infobox, and needs to be explained in text. Perhaps, as is my opinion, it's just trivia that is not really encyclopedic in nature to begin with, but I'm not to hopeful of that position gaining any traction. What I do know is that we have the job of reporting on the fictional elements as well as the real life ones, and the bigger task of separating the two so that even a child can tell the difference at first glance. So what is the best way to accomplish that? I'll leave it all to you to decide, but I do agree that we can't make it even remotely seem like these numbers should be taken seriously. Zaereth (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The problem with your analysis, Zaereth, is that Gretzky is commonly described by many independent hockey experts as the best player in that sport, and several Mars rover missions were actually successful according to independent analysts of space exploration, whereas Bautista is not actually 6'-6" and is really 6'-4", according to actual reliable sources. Someone who learned the meaning of the word through examples such as yours would conclude that the billed height is accurate although it isn't. Another problem is that the cited source does not use the word "billed". It just straight up says that he is 6'-6", which emphasizes the inherent unreliability of the source for use in a BLP. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- To add to that: "Billed as" means "advertised as". The verb "to bill" meaning "to advertise" is in the dictionaries: [45] [46]. MacMillan has an entry for bill as: "(be billed as something) to advertise or describe someone or something in a particular way, especially in order to make them sound interesting or important. Electric cars are being billed as the automobiles of the future." Similarly, Bautista was billed as 6'6", Andre the Giant was billed as 520lbs, etc. Levivich harass/hound 18:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- So here's the question: keeping in mind that we are talking about an article about the actor, not the character per se, how do we distinguish within the infobox that this is the character's billed stats? Could we put it in a section with the header "Character stats" or something of that nature? Maybe just write "WWE billed..." Perhaps we should just leave it out altogether, since it doesn't really add anything of importance? Should we simply have separate articles on the actors and characters? I don't diddle around with infoboxes much, and haven't watched wrestling since Hulk Hogan and the Undertaker were big names (I almost said King Kong Bundy or Leroy Brown, but I'm not that old), so I'm asking sincerely. What is the best way to include these terms yet still make it known to the total outsider or foreign reader that these are not necessarily real? Zaereth (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just a reminder, there's a whole world of wrestlers out there who were billed but never WWE-billed, and Bundy came back in 1994 after Hogan left (as did '60s star Nikolai Volkoff, everybody's got a price). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Zaereth, It's currently under "Professional Wrestling Career" and says "Billed Height" or billed whatever else. The problem is some readers won't know that "Billed Height" means "Made up height for wrestling promotion." Another issue is services that re-use Wikipedia's information. Google
the undertaker height
and marvel at how it feeds back incorrect information sourced to Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)- To me, that makes it sound more like something from the real world, whereas "character statistics" would be much more clear. But, like I said, this really isn't my forte. Even when I watched wrestling, is was only when there was nothing else on. For me, I always try to think about the newcomer, who knows nothing about these subjects. A big problem on Wikipedia is that we often write articles that are meant for others that have our same level of expertise, rather than writing them for the newcomer. It's a huge problem on scientific and technical articles. How do we distinguish in a single article between the general and the scientific meaning of glass, or phosphorescence? How do you separate the reality from the legends of Japanese swordsmithing. What do we do about all the confusion between moose and elk, or the confusing metallurgical terms used in tempering? The best way for newcomer is to simply explain it, use the terms as they are commonly understood by anyone with a dictionary and don't start trying to alter definitions, and immediately explain jargon that is not readily available outside of specific fields. How we do that all in an infobox is beyond me at this point, so I'm open to ideas. And that leads me back to my previous question. I think if you all put your heads together you ca come up with something. If it was easy to write, it wouldn't be easy to read. Zaereth (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's why I suggested using the word Kayfabe. It stands out as unusual to someone who doesn't already know what it means, and a simple click or hover-over explains to those not familiar with professional wrestling that it's all an act. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, to me that's an example of jargon that should be given a short, parenthetical explanation immediately after using it. One of my pet peeves is using wikilinks to explain a subject. It's incredibly frustrating to not be able to finish an article without bouncing around between a thousand other articles that don't adequately explain their subjects either. For the most part, though, this has the opposite effect as intended, in that people tend to gloss right over things they don't recognize or understand. In most cases it's like you don't even see it. The mind is funny like that. (See: User:Zaereth#Little boxes for more). For example, when Europeans first arrived in America, they met the Natives on the shore, but the Natives had no idea where they came from. The ships were right out there in the water, but the Natives never even noticed them even though looking right at them, until it was pointed out to them, because they simply had no context for what they were seeing. So, the point is, that unless jargon like this is explained right there, in mid-sentence, then it will be meaningless to most readers, who likely won't even see it, let alone click on a link. Zaereth (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's why I suggested using the word Kayfabe. It stands out as unusual to someone who doesn't already know what it means, and a simple click or hover-over explains to those not familiar with professional wrestling that it's all an act. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- To me, that makes it sound more like something from the real world, whereas "character statistics" would be much more clear. But, like I said, this really isn't my forte. Even when I watched wrestling, is was only when there was nothing else on. For me, I always try to think about the newcomer, who knows nothing about these subjects. A big problem on Wikipedia is that we often write articles that are meant for others that have our same level of expertise, rather than writing them for the newcomer. It's a huge problem on scientific and technical articles. How do we distinguish in a single article between the general and the scientific meaning of glass, or phosphorescence? How do you separate the reality from the legends of Japanese swordsmithing. What do we do about all the confusion between moose and elk, or the confusing metallurgical terms used in tempering? The best way for newcomer is to simply explain it, use the terms as they are commonly understood by anyone with a dictionary and don't start trying to alter definitions, and immediately explain jargon that is not readily available outside of specific fields. How we do that all in an infobox is beyond me at this point, so I'm open to ideas. And that leads me back to my previous question. I think if you all put your heads together you ca come up with something. If it was easy to write, it wouldn't be easy to read. Zaereth (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- So here's the question: keeping in mind that we are talking about an article about the actor, not the character per se, how do we distinguish within the infobox that this is the character's billed stats? Could we put it in a section with the header "Character stats" or something of that nature? Maybe just write "WWE billed..." Perhaps we should just leave it out altogether, since it doesn't really add anything of importance? Should we simply have separate articles on the actors and characters? I don't diddle around with infoboxes much, and haven't watched wrestling since Hulk Hogan and the Undertaker were big names (I almost said King Kong Bundy or Leroy Brown, but I'm not that old), so I'm asking sincerely. What is the best way to include these terms yet still make it known to the total outsider or foreign reader that these are not necessarily real? Zaereth (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, the term "billed" is very common outside of wrestling. "The Mars rover mission was billed as a success." "Wayne Gretzky was billed as the top hockey player of all time." It comes from the Latin bulla, meaning "an official decree" or "a sealed document". It's where terms like "billboard" come from, or "the actor got top billing in the play". The problem, as I see it, is that while this is the official wrestling weight/height/etc., it's only as official as the WWE itself is. Within the made-up universe, the stats are correct. As an example, if somewhere in Star Wars they gave Darth Vader's height as 6' 2", then that is the correct height regardless of the actor's true height. The problem, as I see it, is simply a one of distinguishing between the character in the made-up universe and the actor out in the real one. That said, it all seems like trivial, statistical data to me, but I know these things are important in sports as well. This isn't a real sport. Zaereth (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- After applying a -WWE as well I started to see some results, less than 30,000. The fourth result is "What is the meaning of billed height?" A lot of these links are still wrestling related too, i.e. this absolute unit. It just doesn't seem to be that common a term. I will say that "kayfabe height" only gets 2000 results to "billed height"'s 47000, but that just shows that neither term is actually common.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Billed height" is not only used in wrestling. Search Google Books for
- Billed height is already WP:JARGON since it's only used in professional wrestling. At least using kayfabe will make it clear its not discussing normal weight or height. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The word "Kayfabe" will be meaningless to most readers - anyone who isn't into the minutiae of American professional wrestling, or who doesn't spend far too much time hanging about noticeboards on Wikipedia reading about people arguing about American wrestling. Infoboxes in particular should be easy to understand without inside baseball (or inside WWE) knowledge.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- But we can wikilink Kayfabe and readers will understand that the height is just the made up number used for wrestling. Right now unless someone is familiar enough with wrestling, and to a lesser extent boxing and MMA, they'll have no idea that billed height is inherently unreliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Raymond Hoser
The entire page is libellous and completely false. What is vaguely true is so twisted as to be wholly the reverse of the reality. ICZN Ruled in favour of Hoser in 2021, but from reading this page, you'd think the reverse. Hoser WON all legal battles, sometimes on appeal, but from reading this page, you'd never know this. The page should be deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.90.238 (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Can you provide a source for your claims? I had a quick look at the article seems to reflect the sources. For example you claim that the "ICZN Ruled in favour of Hoser in 2021" but this source [47] "
The ICZN has just voted on the Spracklandus Case and Hoser's journal Australasian Journal of Herpetology (ICZN, 2021) and decided against a formal confirmation of availability of name and journal, but also against the suppression of the journal
" supports what our article says i.e. the ICZN neither clearly ruled in favour or against of Hoser's journal. Since Hoser won all legal battles, can you provide the sources establishing that Hoser managed to overturning the finding he intentionally allowed a snake to bite his daughter, and the fines imposed for violating his licence condition? This source about his successful appeal against the finding he was not a fit and proper person to hold the licence still treats the finding of getting a snake to bite his daughter as an established fact suggesting it wasn't overturned from that appeal [48]. (It doesn't mention the fine.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)- Even this extremely bombastic press release by Hoser [49], while making some fairly fantastical claims like "
Judge found that Raymond Hoser is a living legend!
" and "The Snakeman was also labelled the greatest conservationist and wildlife scientist in Australian history
" seems to support the snake bite thing. It doesn't seem to mention the fine, nor do other PRs of his claiming victory that I saw, suggesting to me the fine was never overturned. Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Even this extremely bombastic press release by Hoser [49], while making some fairly fantastical claims like "
- The ICZN did not rule in Hoser's favour, it simply stated that the case was not in its juristiction, same as the Wells and Wellington affair. Raymond Hoser is notorious among Australian herpetologists for his dodgy taxonomy. This 2013 Scientific American article gives a good overview. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Jojar S Dhinsa
There may be some significant issues regarding accuracy and verifiability of this article. --ℕ ℱ 21:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
MrBeast Controversies
Over the past week, an entire controversy section has been added to MrBeast's article. Most of this seems like WP:UNDUE and trvia, perhaps the "Allegations of workplace bullying" section is notable, but I'm not sure that listing so many random incidents is warranted—especially when there seem to be few (and often low-quality) sources on the topics. I'm not well versed on BLP issues so I thought I'd come here. Aza24 (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Brace Belden
Can I get some additional opinions at Talk:Brace_Belden#Nicknames? IP's like to add 10+ unsourced and offensive nicknames to this article's infobox, which I sometimes revert. But I'd like to generate a local consensus on the talk page before I revert again, apply for WP:RFPP, etc. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Suman Sahai
Subsection 'Plagiarism' potentially libelous as the citations do not work - the links lead to error messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyraryA (talk • contribs)
- The WebCitation links work for me. This is verified by LaborJournal and a statement from Heidelberg University. Fences&Windows 14:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Taika Waititi
An editor has been trying to include a marital separation between Taika Waititi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and his wife even after it was established that no reliable source has documented said separation. I have repeatedly removed it per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, but a discussion on how to incorporate the information into the article per subpar and/or unreliable sources is still taking place on Talk:Taika Waititi ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs). KyleJoantalk 01:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Waititi and Winstanley are separated, as verified by reliable sources including People magazine, Stuff, and the New Zealand Herald. Waititi is now apparently dating Rita Ora, although no one is trying to add that bit of gossip to the article. It would be odd to omit that he is separated from his wife when he is publicly dating someone else, though. That would be confusing to readers. See The Cut, Elle Australia, Grazia, Glamour UK, etc. Marquardtika (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
gurpal virdi
The dates do not make sense.....
"July 2015, Gurpal was acquitted at Southwark Crown Court on 31 July 2015 of any wrongdoing.[20] During the trial, Mr Virdi accused the Met of bringing the criminal case against him as part of a 17-year campaign to "hound" him out of the force.[21]
The case of Gurpal Virdi was subsequently picked up by Sir Peter Bottomley in 1998, notable as previously Member of Parliament and advocate at the time of the murder of Stephen Lawrence.[22] Bottomley requested that the Home Secretary, at that point Theresa May, review the case.[23] In March 2018 Bottomley submitted an Early Day Motion, calling for a parliamentary debate on the matter.[24]"
- Corrected it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Kiyan Prince
I removed some material from this article per WP:BLPRS and was instantly summarily reverted. I don't wanna get into an edit war even though I'm following policy. Help? 92.24.246.11 (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Now reliably sourced by Domersr. Thank you for flagging this up. It's alarming that this unsourced content was in the article since July 2007. Fences&Windows 14:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Domersr and Fences and windows: thank you both. It does seem to happen sometimes on articles that aren't BLPs themselves, but contain BLP material. I try and always remove anything I spot. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Kelsey Koelzer
Kelsey Koelzer is the first Black female hockey coach in NCAA history Ed Wright, who coached the University of Buffalo in 1970, was the first Black head coach in NCAA hockey history
https://www.nhl.com/news/color-of-hockey-wright-was-ncaa-pioneer-at-buffalo/c-317614338
When I wrote my initial story about Koelzer, the NCCAA stated that she was the first Black head coach. But their database doesn't go back as far as 1970. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgdouglas35 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Robert Kaplow
Please immediately delete the entire paragraph about The Watcher. It is libelous. It is malicious gossip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.238.31 (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Revdelled and the account responsible indef blocked. Thank you. It was removed but then reinstated and it remained for 8 months. Fences&Windows 00:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Uninvolved eyes needed to help resolve questions of WP:WEIGHT. I stopped editing the page because of one particular user and his personal flamethrower, and I suspect that other editors who recently stopped editing the page did the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Sherman Packard
This article may be being edited by a person close to the source. It's also been subject to a prolonged tiny edit war. Thanks for looking. H0n0r (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Basil Hassan
Basil Hassan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi, came across this cause of a search for wikilinks at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - I do not see any verifications in the sources for the accusations being described, the first source does not even mention its name - needs some eyes. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- the first two refs don't mention Basil Hasan,(they have now been removed) although the incidents are covered by the US state department terrorist designation ref. The first 4 lines of the article appear to be a direct copypaste of it. Curdle (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Murder of Zahid Mubarek
This article is full and I mean FULL of extremely negative information about a named person without appropriate citations. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The content is supported by the existing citations, though they were not cited inline. Robert Stewart was jailed for life for the murder. [50][51] Fences&Windows 12:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Toshihiro Nagoshi
I've removed content from Toshihiro Nagoshi's page crediting Nagoshi's involvement with various games due to the use of sources that have been established as unreliable in the WP:VG/S. I've also removed other content in the page for similar reasons and detailed the issue in the relevant talk page. Despite it being a clear violation of WP:V and, as far as I understand it, violating WP:BLP, it has been reverted twice - and without adjustments or changes to the disputed sources.
The first editor, who contributed about half of the items of contention, claims other developer pages being similarly lacking in proper citation/sourcing as an excuse for reversion. The second claims that removal of the content is a perversion of BLP guidelines because it 'applies to contentious or controversial material.' and that 'Nagoshi is not going to sue for defamation over Wikipedia stating he worked on some games and joined the board of Sega.' For my part, I don't see other pages failing to meet policy as an excuse. Additionally, I consider the information contentious -both as a result of the back and forth and inherently due to not meeting verifiability- and recognize the WP:BLP policy as being applicable regardless of the tone or potential consequences of the content's inclusion by way of the following portion:
"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
I'm not interested in dragging the matter out with a reversion back-and-forth or making an argument out of it, and I would really appreciate an administrator with greater understanding of these sorts of issues to help resolve the matter decisively before it gets to that. If I've misunderstood the policy in my application, I'd appreciate things being set straight, but my current understanding is that this is in fact a violation. Advice and resolution would be valuable, as they'd inform future steps I may take in the pursuit of preventing these issues in the future and clearing up the ones that are present where the pages/project of my interest is concerned.
Thank you very much for your time in advance. Fact Scanner (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Fact Scanner. Thank you for bringing this here. I'll start with BLP policy, and policy in general. There's a common misconception that BLP policy is the only thing that applies to bios, or that the policy is meant to deal with every issue that arises in a bio. Instead, I find it better to think of policy as being one, giant equation, where info must satisfy every part of that equation in order to be included. Verifiability is the first hurdle, then WP:RS, then WP:NPOV (which in itself are a bunch of hurdles), etc... BLP policy trumps all other policies, but it also works in accordance with those policies. They all modify and augment each other, giving them some flexibility to be able to fit different cases.
- BLP was ultimately created to protect our subjects, or any other living person, from very real harm that we may cause ourselves. It gives us a higher obligation to take all the other policies more seriously, but quite often the discussion should be about the relevant policies and BLP only in as much as it applies to those policies, rather than using BLP as a catch-all. Does that make sense? What you're describing is more of a problem that would be better handled at WP:RSN or even WP:NPOVN, because deep down those are the policies you should be focusing on.
- That said, the article is terrible. It reads like an autobiography and in many places has a very promotional tone; not like a resume but definitely like puffery. Many source are in Japanese, so I can't check them for reliability or accuracy myself, but it is odd to see things like one source being used a hundred different times throughout the text, and other telltale signs like that. It is definitely not encyclopedic as currently written.
- If you believe this is more of an editor problem (as in, a problem editor), then that's where you need an admin to get involved, in which case I'd recommend some place like WP:ANI for a quicker response. Admins can block problem users, or issue page protection, or a few other things at their disposal, but that's about the extent of the involvement they can do. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Zaereth. I appreciate the response and the time you've taken to detail some valuable fundamentals. I like the way you explain the interconnected relationship of the various portions of policy. I typically default to recommending users refer to WP:RS and WP:V when I find instances of unreliable sourcing or unverifiable information. I acknowledge and recognize verifiability as an essential aspect of ensuring claims and content suit the purpose of Wikipedia, alongside the various other policies and the helpful guidelines that make implementation intuitive and functional.
- Everything you've said definitely makes sense and is well explained. However, my issue with the implementation of the policies you've so kindly provided are secondary in terms of order priority despite being core and foundational issues in and of themselves. With BLP on top of the hierarchy, my more immediate concern is ensuring that the content that fails to adhere to the critical terms of that policy be removed before getting to the resolution of the policies that sit below it if you understand my thinking. In more conventional circumstances, I'd attach a template requesting more sources and make some edits where possible to make the content acceptable. In this situation, where WP:V and WP:NOR - and potentially WP:NPOV when considering the rest of the text as you've stated- are all effectively violated, it seems evident that ammendation should come after removal due to both the portion of the policy I quoted previously as well as the reinforcement established in WP:BLPRS. The issue is that it's simply being reinstated as it was.
- WP:RSN is a valuable resource and I appreciate you pointing to it! In this particular circumstance, the relevant sources of contention have actually already undergone scrutiny and have been deemed unreliable on WP:VG/S through various instances of consensus, which is the instigating factor in the removal of this content: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced."
- I do believe it's a user problem in one case, but I want to see if that user shapes up their disregard for policy before putting them in that kind of spot, frankly. The second reversion however is what prompted me to come here, as that person suggests that my attempt to enforce the BLP represents a perversion of the policy. I don't see it that way, but I don't see that the back and forth that'd result from enforcing my removals will be productive or end decisively in this particular circumstance. That the content was put up was the first strike, that it was reverted was the second, and so on with the most recent one. I already put forth the case and the problems on that end, but these things seem as though they just get ignored, with some editors favoring whim over policy. I thought perhaps if I made a misinterpretation and that my actions were unnecessary due to it, that an administrator would likely be a good means of ensuring that I don't over-step in the matter. I'll definitely considerWP:ANI for these concerns if if comes down to it.
- Regardless, thank you again. Fact Scanner (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I do see your point. The thing is: you're not likely to get much of a reply here unless it is something we can call an egregious BLP violation, or one of those things that are in those very controversial grey areas.
- I see you've tried discussing on the talk page. Have you tried the editor's talk? At first I thought I was looking at a WP:SPA, but looking further, I think this is an editor that seems highly knowledgeable in the subject matter, but is running afoul of WP:NOR, in that they are editing mostly without sources, and are relying almost totally on their personal expertise. It seems that's been the pattern since 2004, and the lengthy edit summaries give a lot of the clues.
- So I think this is a case where you have someone who has been flying mostly under the radar, possibly due to their expertise, but probably hasn't given much of a thought to how to do it the right way. The first thing I would try to explain is the concept of WP:BRD. We encourage people to be bold, but when their bold edits get reverted, then it's up to them to discuss it and achieve consensus before reinstating the material. They also need to understand that the WP:BURDEN is on them to demonstrate why the info should be included. If they refuse to talk, or simply keep edit-warring the info in, then a slap on the wrist from an admin may just be the wake-up call they need.
- Looking at the article, I have to wonder is some conflict of interest is going on. There are things written in there that no one but the subject could possibly know, and other signs that make it read autobiographical. I agree that something needs to be addressed here, yet this editor probably has the potential to be a really good editor, so some care should be taken in handling the situation. This is more Masem's field of expertise, so perhaps he could lend a hand, or maybe even WP:NORN? (There's a noticeboard for nearly every policy.) Zaereth (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- At least with User:Indrian, I know they are very knowable in the early history of video games and so while we may have a problem with the best possible sourcing, the facts are likely right. And yes, most of the sources being removed are weak or poor sources, but there is a facet that if the material is not contentious (which does appear to be the case on a read through here), it is likely better to tag problems than to remove so that better sourcing can be found to replace it (eg: {{Unreliable source?}} would work here). Key again: this is not contentious information under BLP so outright removal is not required, but the demand for improved sourcing absolutely is. ---Masem (t) 22:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at the article, I have to wonder is some conflict of interest is going on. There are things written in there that no one but the subject could possibly know, and other signs that make it read autobiographical. I agree that something needs to be addressed here, yet this editor probably has the potential to be a really good editor, so some care should be taken in handling the situation. This is more Masem's field of expertise, so perhaps he could lend a hand, or maybe even WP:NORN? (There's a noticeboard for nearly every policy.) Zaereth (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I personally hold that the material is clearly contentious on basis of the back and forth, the non-self-evident nature of the claims, and inherently by way of the lack of sufficient sourcing. It is not malicious content, but it doesn't have to be according to this segment of the policy: "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable".
- Thanks for taking a look either way. I'd like to figure this out in as complete a manner as possible, as I want to pose changes for discussion on the VG project talk page in the future that can fascilitate cutting out the alarming amount of unsourced attributions and claims from developer pages and prevent them from getting to that point moving forward. Fact Scanner (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- In terms of how BLP works, "contentious" should not be seen as "contentious because I as an editor disagree with it" (otherwise that opens a lot of bad doors for editors to challenge anything they see as problematic) but what is contentious as it reflects on the rest of the world. For Nagoshi here, that he was a developer on many of the games listed here is far from contentious, but that fact should clearly have better sourcing than MobyGames which is equivalent to IMDB. The article would not make it to a GA with MobyGames, but it can survive fine with a MG ref for credits sourcing until a better one can be located. --Masem (t) 23:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I see it as contentious in those regards because, in practical terms, the rest of the world can not hold the specific games he's partaken in and the roles he's involved in as manifest or self-evident. The more objective alternative is recognizing the capacity for said content to be disputed within the constraints of what constitutes a reliable source. On top of this, the language used is explicitly "challenged or likely to be challenged", and it encompasses both questionable and neutral material to boot. I don't think it's just a matter of an editor disagreeing with something either, which is why I'm not arguing specifically or explicitly in terms of the fact that the material has actually been challenged alone.
- In terms of how BLP works, "contentious" should not be seen as "contentious because I as an editor disagree with it" (otherwise that opens a lot of bad doors for editors to challenge anything they see as problematic) but what is contentious as it reflects on the rest of the world. For Nagoshi here, that he was a developer on many of the games listed here is far from contentious, but that fact should clearly have better sourcing than MobyGames which is equivalent to IMDB. The article would not make it to a GA with MobyGames, but it can survive fine with a MG ref for credits sourcing until a better one can be located. --Masem (t) 23:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look either way. I'd like to figure this out in as complete a manner as possible, as I want to pose changes for discussion on the VG project talk page in the future that can fascilitate cutting out the alarming amount of unsourced attributions and claims from developer pages and prevent them from getting to that point moving forward. Fact Scanner (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- As an aside, it's also surprising to me that a source that's established as unreliable can be left as is until and if a proper source is found. In such a case, the matter may never be resolved and quality of the sources effectively become irrelevant to what information and claims are hosted on the page without consequence. Is there a time limit?Fact Scanner (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Again, I think you're taking a far more deeper read of "contentious" than we usually use for BLP or anywhere else. We're looking at the level of information being stated, how it comes across, and how readily the sourcing (or lack of sourcing) there would be for the type of statement. Acknowledging his roles in various games is nothing that is particularly odd, and something that typically could be identified by the primary work (the game itself), among other sources. If the claim was "Toshihiro Nagoshi is one of Japan's best video game developers." that would be contentious because that would be difficult to source since its a subjective statement, and without a good source, could be removed under BLP without question. The stuff that you removed has a good chance of easily being fixed by simply fixing the sourcing, which is usually a good sign of something that is not contentious. And remember that there is no deadline, so yes, some of these things will remind unfixed for a long time. Thats why on BLP we want contentious stuff removed, but stuff that is well outside contentious isn't that much of an issue in the long term. Look at any random celeb article and I would be you'd find most of their credits unsourced or sourced to IMDB (on average) and there the situation is worse, but we don't have people removing those, until a process like GA, or ITN/RD comes up.--Masem (t) 00:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- As an aside, it's also surprising to me that a source that's established as unreliable can be left as is until and if a proper source is found. In such a case, the matter may never be resolved and quality of the sources effectively become irrelevant to what information and claims are hosted on the page without consequence. Is there a time limit?Fact Scanner (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's not necessarily the case. There is no reason to just sit back and do nothing, but there are other policies that deal with this. The point is, it doesn't rise to the level of BLP violation, and is better handled in the context of these other policies, using the standard dispute resolution process. W have problems to deal with here that are potential to cause real harm to people, so we don't really have the time and manpower (or woman-power) to worry about every little issue. Other noticeboards are far better suited to something like this, that's all. There's a certain threshold before a problem becomes one of BLP vio. Zaereth (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Where the editor that's been around since 2004 is concerned, I have no experience with them or knowledge of their implementation of policy prior to this point, so I can't speak about them beyond their singular revert and I don't mean to imply anything of note regarding them outside of the act and the relevant edit summary. It's the other editor who made the initial revert that's the highlight of my secondary concerns. With them, the steps you've suggested have been taken with a message on their talk page earlier today as the most recent manner of engagement. We'll see if that results in anything fruitful.
- Regarding the tone of the page, a cursory look through the edit history makes it evident that neither has made a contribution to the prose in a notable way: the editor you're referring to has only made removals up until this particular situation and the other editor has only really added a good brunt of the listed content that's being contended.
- Thanks for referring another editor to take a look as well as the additional suggestion. Fact Scanner (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- And that brings me full circle. "Contentious" in this context means "controversial". So now you have the task of convincing everyone else why it is controversial. There may be something Masem and I are not seeing, but I tend to agree with his very eloquent answer. The mistake I often see people make here, though, is focusing solely on one line or another, and forgetting the bigger policy that it refers to or the spirit in which they were intended. I don't mean to imply that anyone is incompetent, but sometimes all of us occasionally get too deep into our original logic to step back and look at the forest rather than the individual trees. The line you quoted at the top is, at it's very root, is one of verifiability and NOR, which ultimately is one of RS. Does it rise to the level of BLP violation? I don't see how, but that's why I called upon Masem, because this is far my my field of study. Zaereth (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Zaereth, I have been here longer than you, and I can guarantee you I know policy at least as well, if not better, than you do too. This carefully hedged personal attack on your part is inappropriate. Possible single-purpose account or conflict of interest because I reverted what I felt was a misapplication of the BLP policy once on an article I have never substantively contributed to? Really? You took the time to scroll to the beginning of my edit history, yet apparently never checked out the edit history of this article to see that I have added exactly zero info to it over the years. And you also apparently had no interest in checking out my history thoroughly enough to see all the GA reviews I have done, all the FACs I have commented on, and the many, many discussions I have participated in at the Wikipedia Video Game Project (under the radar? uh, right...). Heck, I just last month took over a FAC nomination from an editor who had to leave that I am working on right now. And that does not even touch on all the lengthy talk page discussions I have participated in where sourcing and/or various Wikipedia policies were discussed. Not surprisingly, this inquiry, which I have no problem with seeing as it was well within Fact Scanner's right to make and they approached the matter logically and civilly even if I disagree with their interpretation, came to the same conclusion I did in reverting the removal while applying my years of experience on the project: that while the sourcing could be better, none of the material is controversial and since it does not require removal for BLP reasons its better to tag and improve the sourcing rather than remove the information outright. And wouldn't you know, we all came to that conclusion without needing a "slap on the wrist from an admin" to serve as a "wake-up call." That you apparently deliberately referred to me without making reference to my username so that this borderline personal attack would fly under MY radar only makes your actions look even worse. This is all to say, have a care before flinging accusations of maliciousness or even just plain ignorance when discussing your fellow editors. Indrian (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I never intended anything to be taken personally, and I apologize if it came off that way. I never said you were responsible for the article, nor that you are the one with a possible COI. Nor did I say you were an SPA. I said it looked that way at first glance, but that upon closer examination you just appear to have niche interests, like nearly all of us do, and seem quite the expert in your field. I'm sorry if you mistook my respect as disrespect. What I do not understand is why someone with such expertise would even bother with such low quality sources to begin with. Isn't it better just to do a good job to begin with? Seems easier to me, because you have to admit, this doesn't look too good. The simple fact is that not being adequately sourced is reason enough to delete the information, and the simple fix to this is to simply add a decent source, and any expert should have no problem doing just that. Zaereth (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. And I apologize if I attributed some statements as directed at me that were, in fact, not. The only identifying characteristic you used in your comment was "an editor since 2004," which I believe only applied to me in this instance, but if some of your comments were directed at another, I am sorry that I misinterpreted your statements. To your substantive point, I am not "bothering" with anything, as none of that material was added by me. The article is on my watchlist because I have removed material from it in the past, and I therefore noticed the BLP policy being misapplied. I then took steps to rectify that misapplication. It is not incumbent on me to improve this particular article, and I have no desire to do so. However, the appropriate thing for Fact Scanner to do here in my opinion was to tag the material and move on, so that someone else with an interest in improving the article could fix it later. It's as Masem said, articles on celebrities are often filled with dubious sources reporting accurate information such as credits, so while we do not want that sourcing to stand long term, we are doing no harm to the project to let it be in the meantime. Now, if someone has proof of an inaccuracy in any of the material, I will be the first to wipe it off the project, as I have done on many video game articles in the past. I hope that clarifies my part in this situation. Indrian (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, sometimes it's impossible to prove a negative, but I think we're on the same page now. I didn't dig too deep into the article history (nor yours, but I did more than look at the beginning). That's why it's best when coming to a board like this to be very specific about the problem. My main goal was to explain as nicely as I could why this doesn't rise to the level of BLP vio, but sorry if I threw you under the bus in the process. That wasn't my goal. Zaereth (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. And I apologize if I attributed some statements as directed at me that were, in fact, not. The only identifying characteristic you used in your comment was "an editor since 2004," which I believe only applied to me in this instance, but if some of your comments were directed at another, I am sorry that I misinterpreted your statements. To your substantive point, I am not "bothering" with anything, as none of that material was added by me. The article is on my watchlist because I have removed material from it in the past, and I therefore noticed the BLP policy being misapplied. I then took steps to rectify that misapplication. It is not incumbent on me to improve this particular article, and I have no desire to do so. However, the appropriate thing for Fact Scanner to do here in my opinion was to tag the material and move on, so that someone else with an interest in improving the article could fix it later. It's as Masem said, articles on celebrities are often filled with dubious sources reporting accurate information such as credits, so while we do not want that sourcing to stand long term, we are doing no harm to the project to let it be in the meantime. Now, if someone has proof of an inaccuracy in any of the material, I will be the first to wipe it off the project, as I have done on many video game articles in the past. I hope that clarifies my part in this situation. Indrian (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I never intended anything to be taken personally, and I apologize if it came off that way. I never said you were responsible for the article, nor that you are the one with a possible COI. Nor did I say you were an SPA. I said it looked that way at first glance, but that upon closer examination you just appear to have niche interests, like nearly all of us do, and seem quite the expert in your field. I'm sorry if you mistook my respect as disrespect. What I do not understand is why someone with such expertise would even bother with such low quality sources to begin with. Isn't it better just to do a good job to begin with? Seems easier to me, because you have to admit, this doesn't look too good. The simple fact is that not being adequately sourced is reason enough to delete the information, and the simple fix to this is to simply add a decent source, and any expert should have no problem doing just that. Zaereth (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Zaereth, I have been here longer than you, and I can guarantee you I know policy at least as well, if not better, than you do too. This carefully hedged personal attack on your part is inappropriate. Possible single-purpose account or conflict of interest because I reverted what I felt was a misapplication of the BLP policy once on an article I have never substantively contributed to? Really? You took the time to scroll to the beginning of my edit history, yet apparently never checked out the edit history of this article to see that I have added exactly zero info to it over the years. And you also apparently had no interest in checking out my history thoroughly enough to see all the GA reviews I have done, all the FACs I have commented on, and the many, many discussions I have participated in at the Wikipedia Video Game Project (under the radar? uh, right...). Heck, I just last month took over a FAC nomination from an editor who had to leave that I am working on right now. And that does not even touch on all the lengthy talk page discussions I have participated in where sourcing and/or various Wikipedia policies were discussed. Not surprisingly, this inquiry, which I have no problem with seeing as it was well within Fact Scanner's right to make and they approached the matter logically and civilly even if I disagree with their interpretation, came to the same conclusion I did in reverting the removal while applying my years of experience on the project: that while the sourcing could be better, none of the material is controversial and since it does not require removal for BLP reasons its better to tag and improve the sourcing rather than remove the information outright. And wouldn't you know, we all came to that conclusion without needing a "slap on the wrist from an admin" to serve as a "wake-up call." That you apparently deliberately referred to me without making reference to my username so that this borderline personal attack would fly under MY radar only makes your actions look even worse. This is all to say, have a care before flinging accusations of maliciousness or even just plain ignorance when discussing your fellow editors. Indrian (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- And that brings me full circle. "Contentious" in this context means "controversial". So now you have the task of convincing everyone else why it is controversial. There may be something Masem and I are not seeing, but I tend to agree with his very eloquent answer. The mistake I often see people make here, though, is focusing solely on one line or another, and forgetting the bigger policy that it refers to or the spirit in which they were intended. I don't mean to imply that anyone is incompetent, but sometimes all of us occasionally get too deep into our original logic to step back and look at the forest rather than the individual trees. The line you quoted at the top is, at it's very root, is one of verifiability and NOR, which ultimately is one of RS. Does it rise to the level of BLP violation? I don't see how, but that's why I called upon Masem, because this is far my my field of study. Zaereth (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)