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: |
Teal Swan and Barbara Snow
Hello, I concern regarding one source used on pages for Teal Swan and Barbara Snow (therapist) Here is the source:
The source has been mostly used on Barbara Snow's page and this is the only source for creating an entire section. My concern is that while there is no consensus regarding Gizmodo on controversial topics, it is still used for sensational and controversial information placed on Wikipedia. There are other concerns too, which I listed below (copied from my prior correspondence with another editor but we haven't reached consensus):
- The source is a podcast with the information presented as a show with the focus on "sensationalism".
https://gizmodo.com/weve-launched-an-investigative-podcast-about-a-controve-1826416613
- It is not understood how the information leaked about the relationship of Teal Swan and Barbara Snow (if there was any sort of information, which I honestly doubt) based on the fact that the relation between a psychologist and a client is confidential:
- https://www.apa.org/topics/ethics/confidentiality
Couldn't it be the case of a leaked information about the client without her consent? Even if it is a small chance that it is, doesn't violate Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons?
- Finally, please, check this table of sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Here is on Gizmodo: There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements.
Since this source of Gizmodo topic is a radio show with a lot of controversial topics, don't you think it is unethical to use that source without adding more reliable ones? To me it looks like Gizmodo publishes this type of shows to attract more public with "sensationalism". I can't see how it is a proper source for Wikipedia if there is no consensus.
I also believe that it might be a violation on WP: BLP Teal Swan. Other concern, is that while the topic is controversial, only one no-consensus source used for information, which is mostly sensational. There is a need for a second objective opinion of other editors to review the source. --Onetimememorial (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- The information has been removed and should not be reinstated without consensus to do so. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Strongly Support Inclusion It is not at all controversial that Barbara Snow was Teal Swan's therapist. Could you elaborate on which statement you feel is controversial specifically? Gizmodo interviewed Teal Swan directly, and from Swan's own mouth she confirms unabashedly that her therapist was Barbara Snow. Gizmodo covering controversial topics does not make it unreliable. The New York Times also covers controversial topics. Teal Swan is a pop culture phenomenon. I disagree that the coverage by Gizmodo is sensationalist. Controversial and sensationalist are not the same thing. Snow and her relationship with Swan are an important part of both their stories, and should be mentioned. Epachamo (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Both Swan and Snow are controversial figures. Further, what was removed was well beyond confirming a patient-therapy relationship.[1] Interviewing Swan does not verify things on Snow's end. This issue needs coverage by multiple reliable sources under WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:REDFLAG, and Gizmodo is not one of them for controversial topics per WP:RSP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- The assertion made that Gizmodo is getting information from leaked sources is ridiculous, since Gizmodo says where they get their information. It is from publicly available records, from interviews with Swan herself and from a statement by Barbara Snow in their podcast. You can read the primary sources that Gizmodo used right here. Gizmodo did a fair job summarizing the points. Gizmodo being discounted because they cover controversial topics is also a bit ridiculous. The New York Times also covers controversial topics. Referring to Gizmodo as "sensationalist" is ad hominem. Do you have a source that says that Gizmodo is sensationalist? This independent site found that while Gizmodo leans left, its factual reporting is "high". It is I am befuddled that putting this paragraph is considered controversial. Onetimememorial has yet to list what "information" is specifically found controversial and in need of multiple sources. On WP:RSP, it clearly does NOT say that Gizmodo can't be used for controversial statements, it just says that there is no consensus on whether or not it should be. Once Morbidthoughts, or Onetimememorial can articulate what they find controversial, then I recommend going to WP:RSP and asking the community if Gizmodo is a valid source for whatever specific thing is considered controversial. Epachamo (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything about leaked sources. Reread WP:PUBLICFIGURE again, " If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."! Not only do I not believe that Gizmodo is an RS for these matters (allegations of sexual abuse and the ensuing investigation that looked into Snow's history) because of WP:RSP, you haven't supplied any other RS to even establish this incident should be given any WP:WEIGHT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The assertion made that Gizmodo is getting information from leaked sources is ridiculous, since Gizmodo says where they get their information. It is from publicly available records, from interviews with Swan herself and from a statement by Barbara Snow in their podcast. You can read the primary sources that Gizmodo used right here. Gizmodo did a fair job summarizing the points. Gizmodo being discounted because they cover controversial topics is also a bit ridiculous. The New York Times also covers controversial topics. Referring to Gizmodo as "sensationalist" is ad hominem. Do you have a source that says that Gizmodo is sensationalist? This independent site found that while Gizmodo leans left, its factual reporting is "high". It is I am befuddled that putting this paragraph is considered controversial. Onetimememorial has yet to list what "information" is specifically found controversial and in need of multiple sources. On WP:RSP, it clearly does NOT say that Gizmodo can't be used for controversial statements, it just says that there is no consensus on whether or not it should be. Once Morbidthoughts, or Onetimememorial can articulate what they find controversial, then I recommend going to WP:RSP and asking the community if Gizmodo is a valid source for whatever specific thing is considered controversial. Epachamo (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Morbidthoughts: YOU didn't say anything about leaked sources, but the original poster did, and was who I was responding to. It is pretty clear from reading both your and Onetimememorial's comments that neither of you bothered to even look at the source in question, so I'm unclear how you are making the judgement on how much weight should be given or whether it is reliable. Re-read WP:RSP and you will see that it never says that Gizmodo is NOT a reliable source, just that consensus hasn't been established. And for heaven sake, I beg once again, please, oh please, state what specific item you find controversial. Is it just the allegations of sexual abuse and ensuing investigation that looked into Snow's history? Then why are we blanking the entire section? Epachamo (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Naw, I looked at the source. The WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS is on you to make sure everything complies with our policies, including obtaining consensus. Two editors have already given you their opinion that the disputed material doesn't. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Morbidthoughts: YOU didn't say anything about leaked sources, but the original poster did, and was who I was responding to. It is pretty clear from reading both your and Onetimememorial's comments that neither of you bothered to even look at the source in question, so I'm unclear how you are making the judgement on how much weight should be given or whether it is reliable. Re-read WP:RSP and you will see that it never says that Gizmodo is NOT a reliable source, just that consensus hasn't been established. And for heaven sake, I beg once again, please, oh please, state what specific item you find controversial. Is it just the allegations of sexual abuse and ensuing investigation that looked into Snow's history? Then why are we blanking the entire section? Epachamo (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is not the number of editors, but the strength of the argument that matters on Wikipedia (see [[WP:NHC]). Could I please ask you to tell me which statements you find controversial? Do you find this statement controversial: "Swan said of Snow, "I still consider her to be one of the best psychologists that I have been to. ... When I started telling her the stories about what was going on with me and childhood, she literally just started crying. It was actually the first time I had a therapist cry." Any objections to adding it back in? Epachamo (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I object as to why any of those statements should be given weight. We can keep going around in circles, but you haven't obtained consensus. You want to get more opinions about this, start a WP:RFC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- If a number of editors agree with an argument, and you're alone on the other side of the argument, perhaps you should consider that it is you who are incorrect? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't intend to pile on here, but yes. Given the fact that we're dealing with people who tend to be controversial in and of themselves, I think we need to be extra cautious when it comes to BLP policy, and what we have here for the claims advanced doesn't meet that bar for me. Happy Friday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is not the number of editors, but the strength of the argument that matters on Wikipedia (see [[WP:NHC]). Could I please ask you to tell me which statements you find controversial? Do you find this statement controversial: "Swan said of Snow, "I still consider her to be one of the best psychologists that I have been to. ... When I started telling her the stories about what was going on with me and childhood, she literally just started crying. It was actually the first time I had a therapist cry." Any objections to adding it back in? Epachamo (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Teal Swan article itself
How much weight should the Gizmodo podcast be given in Teal Swan's article since everything about her seems to be of a fringe nature? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Teal's therapeutic journey is a significant part of every documentary produced about her, including ABC Idaho see about 1:01:00, Open Shadow, The Gateway, and The Deep End. It is a significant part of several of her own books including The Completion Process (starting page 11) and Shadows Before Dawn (starting on page 1). Without a doubt her therapeutic journey is an uncontroversially important part of her life and who she is by her own account, and has some weight. Right now, there is one sentence in the Teal Swan article, that is not controversial, that uses Gizmodo as a source. The Gateway podcast published by Gizmodo is widely discussed and cited. It is not some blog. Per WP:RSUW, "A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it." Here are some other sources that discuss the Gateway podcast: The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, Oprah Daily, Parade Magazine, Vulture, Refinery 29, Decider. This independent site found that while Gizmodo leans left, its factual reporting is "high". Epachamo (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just because a RS writes about or recommends a podcast does not make the podcast any more reliable than a tv show or movie that a RS recommends for viewing. Right now Gizmodo is cited for 6 sentences in that article. Five of them for fringe elements. Also, Refinery29 is an inappropriate source to put weight on. The point is exactly how much text should Wikipedia devote on this woman beyond what better sources like the BBC or Guardian do? I'll notify the fringe noticeboard to weigh in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, per WP:RSUW, "A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it." Given that we have reliable sources that recommend the Gizmodo article, what further evidence do you need that would establish that it is reliable? I will concede Refinery29 as an inappropriate source to establish weight. What sentences do you specifically find fringe? Let me know and I will find a further source to document it. Epachamo (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, you should review the part in RSUW explaining that it is an essay and neither policy nor guideline. Every sentence about Swan's background relying on her, a noted "clairvoyant" who claims she has ESP, and her family is fringe. I can't believe this is not obvious. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, per WP:RSUW, "A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it." Given that we have reliable sources that recommend the Gizmodo article, what further evidence do you need that would establish that it is reliable? I will concede Refinery29 as an inappropriate source to establish weight. What sentences do you specifically find fringe? Let me know and I will find a further source to document it. Epachamo (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just because a RS writes about or recommends a podcast does not make the podcast any more reliable than a tv show or movie that a RS recommends for viewing. Right now Gizmodo is cited for 6 sentences in that article. Five of them for fringe elements. Also, Refinery29 is an inappropriate source to put weight on. The point is exactly how much text should Wikipedia devote on this woman beyond what better sources like the BBC or Guardian do? I'll notify the fringe noticeboard to weigh in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, Morbidthoughts, given the fact that Gizmodo was used 6 times in one section and mostly for controversial statements, I'd cut it in half. It's been heavily used for some controversial statements in Swan's "Early life" section. I've also checked some other sources used for contentious information - you might be interested to double check my search:
- Gizmodo. The podcast used as almost a sole source for the first two contentious paragraphs.
- Idaho News 6 (currently reference 7) - the page is not found but in the archives it shows unknown source "Scrippsmedia".
- Reference 8: https://www.hayhouse.com/authorbio/teal-swan
The source is just mention and it doesn't look reliable to me as a short mention or promotional content. Is also seems to be used incorrectly in the section.
- Number 9 is a link to YouTube video in interview format. It longs for 2 hours. It might fail both as a reliable source as "an interview" and as "YouTube".
- Reference 10 seems to be more appropriate but it still refers to the contentious quote "According to her, she was born with extrasensory abilities such as clairvoyance, "clairsentience", and "clairaudience".[8] [10}.
‘’’In general, I’d re-evaluate the weight of the sources as they are clearly related to very contentious statements and controversial claims. Whether the information should removed or double verified with more reliable sources, I leave it for your discretion.’’’
‘’’The other sources Epachamo referred to:’’’
- The Guardian — the article is about the Gizmodo podcast itself; there is nothing confirming controversial statements on Wikipedia page of Teal Swan
- Los Angeles Times — about podcast only, no information on Teal Swan’s early life
- The same with Oprah Daily, Parade, Vulture — only short mentions of the podcast/documentary
- Refinery29 = is mostly about other topics related to Teal Swan and the source. Here is the closest I found, which hardly qualifies:
«Complicating her story even further: Swan claims she survived and escaped a cult herself as a young woman. In their investigative podcast, Brown and Glazer try to find the “gateway” into Swan’s world, to figure out this if this cultish figure is actually a threat, or a blessing, to her “Teal Tribe.”
- Decider is the only article that analyses and comments on Gizmodo podcast and Deep End documentary but it doesn’t look like an editorial opinion to me confirming all the controversial statements.
--Onetimememorial (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- FYI, Decider is not RS, being operated by the WP:NYPOST. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing it, then it is one source less for use, I guess and it is currently in use. Overall, the "Early life" still seems problematic to me as it is full of Swan's own statements about herself or some sources that cover rather contentious information about her early childhood. I believe it all needs additional verification. All other sections look more or less fine.Onetimememorial (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Paul Pelosi
Paul Pelosi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a unique situation involving WP:PUBLICFIGURE. A person who is now a public figure, Paul Pelosi, was charged with a crime way back in 1957, when he was not a public figure. The event was reported at the time in just one local newspaper, the San Francisco Examiner. My attempt to add this information to the Palosi article has been reverted because WP:PUBLICFIGURE asks for "multiple reliable third-party sources". In the past week, after Pelosi was charged with another driving offense, the 1957 charge was unearthed, and was widely reported in conservative media, most of which are blacklisted at WP:RSP. Mainstream media did not report it, perhaps because Paul is married to Nancy Pelosi. The incident happened--way back in 1957--when it was just another car accident involving a teenager. Do we follow common sense and exempt this one from the strict requirements of WP:PUBLICFIGURE? Your input at Talk:Paul Pelosi#David Pelosi would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see no reason given why should ignore PUBLICFIGURE. Common sense is often a euphemism for want, but rarely a reason for need. If it's not widely covered then there would appear to be little public interest, so I would say no. If nothing else, due weight would apply, in which case, for a public figure, there should still be substantial coverage. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is covered by NY Post.[2] Instead of looking for only mainstream friendly-outlets, I think we should instead focus on checking if the information is false. If there is no source disputing the information then it needs to be included. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. If there's no coverage in mainstream sources then it's not WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish there was mainstream coverage at the time.
- [3]
- also a article from the San Francisco Examiner Basedosaurus (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- The sensational headlines from that front page of the San Mateo Times don't give me the utmost confidence that it should be any more citable than the NY Post. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. If there's no coverage in mainstream sources then it's not WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is covered by NY Post.[2] Instead of looking for only mainstream friendly-outlets, I think we should instead focus on checking if the information is false. If there is no source disputing the information then it needs to be included. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- This edit[4] is troubling in that it attributes blame to Pelosi when the sources and courts haven't. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yea, the sourcing needs to be quite a bit better, otherwise it is giving undue weight to a half-century old happening. Laura_Bush#Early_life_and_career covers the former first lady's vehicle incident that also resulted in a death, but that was touched on by several prominent reliable sources at the time of her husband's candidacy. Zaathras (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Zaathras Laura Bush is more of a can be considered Public Figure than Paul Pelosi.Most people would know who the First Lady or potential First lady is compared to who the husband of the Speaker of the house is,so of course there would be more coverage. Basedosaurus (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yea, the sourcing needs to be quite a bit better, otherwise it is giving undue weight to a half-century old happening. Laura_Bush#Early_life_and_career covers the former first lady's vehicle incident that also resulted in a death, but that was touched on by several prominent reliable sources at the time of her husband's candidacy. Zaathras (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Magnolia677@Morbidthoughts I agree the wording of this edit needs to be changed. It should instead say something along the lines of "Pelosi was charged with Misdemeanor Manslaughter after the death of his brother during a car crash in which he was in control of the vehicle". Basedosaurus (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I still have reservations on whether Paul Pelosi should be evaluated as WP:PUBLICFIGURE, mainly for who he is married to, instead of WP:NPF given that the NY Times reported that he has "typically avoided the spotlight".[5] At this point, I don't believe the legal aspect of the crash should be mentioned under WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- So you believe it should only be mentioned that his brother died in a crash that he was also in?correct? Basedosaurus (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is probably the most that should be put into the article given the available RS that has been presented. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- So, Paul Pelosi was charged with a misdemeanor offense in 1957, which is not a half a century ago but actually 65 years ago? It was a family tragedy but was he convicted? I see no evidence of that. What I see is the unreliable Daily Mail and the unreliable New York Post doing their very best to bring negative attention to a terrible accident that happened 65 years ago, because they hate Paul Pelosi's current wife Nancy Pelosi. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is probably the most that should be put into the article given the available RS that has been presented. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- So you believe it should only be mentioned that his brother died in a crash that he was also in?correct? Basedosaurus (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I still have reservations on whether Paul Pelosi should be evaluated as WP:PUBLICFIGURE, mainly for who he is married to, instead of WP:NPF given that the NY Times reported that he has "typically avoided the spotlight".[5] At this point, I don't believe the legal aspect of the crash should be mentioned under WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Magnolia677@Morbidthoughts I agree the wording of this edit needs to be changed. It should instead say something along the lines of "Pelosi was charged with Misdemeanor Manslaughter after the death of his brother during a car crash in which he was in control of the vehicle". Basedosaurus (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- That sounds about right. I guess I should have looked at the article first, but I was commenting solely on the nature of the original question. How is it we're calling this person a public figure? That term has a very specific legal definition, which is people of celebrity status or similar. I would expect an article on one to be much longer and contain more than a dozen or so sources. Notability is not inherited nor passed on through marriage, and the more I look at this, the more it seems like the typical mob-mentality where going after someone's family to get at them seems like the thing to do. To me, that's reprehensible, but I guess at least it's not the children this time, as it often is the case with politics. Since PUBLICFIGURE doesn't seem to even come into play here, I would say leave it out unless we can show that BLPCRIME is satisfied. I would also say the same about the 2022 DUI charge. If there is no conviction, then we shouldn't have it in the article. Zaereth (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Zaereth The idea you have stated of no conviction no article would mean a substantial amount of Wikipedia would be deleted.It would need to be applied evenly to all BLP's. Basedosaurus (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Basedosaurus, please feel free to remove mentions of all 65 year old misdemeanor accusations that did not result in convictions from any biography of a living person that you can find. Please read WP: BLP in its entirety and take it seriously. 05:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Zaereth The idea you have stated of no conviction no article would mean a substantial amount of Wikipedia would be deleted.It would need to be applied evenly to all BLP's. Basedosaurus (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- The articles used are not from the daily mail or NYP.They are from the time of the incident. Basedosaurus (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- On the narrow question of whether he was convicted, the answer seems to be "no". At least, according to the deprecated source The Sun [6], he was cited at the scene but exonerated by the coroner's jury. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- That sounds about right. I guess I should have looked at the article first, but I was commenting solely on the nature of the original question. How is it we're calling this person a public figure? That term has a very specific legal definition, which is people of celebrity status or similar. I would expect an article on one to be much longer and contain more than a dozen or so sources. Notability is not inherited nor passed on through marriage, and the more I look at this, the more it seems like the typical mob-mentality where going after someone's family to get at them seems like the thing to do. To me, that's reprehensible, but I guess at least it's not the children this time, as it often is the case with politics. Since PUBLICFIGURE doesn't seem to even come into play here, I would say leave it out unless we can show that BLPCRIME is satisfied. I would also say the same about the 2022 DUI charge. If there is no conviction, then we shouldn't have it in the article. Zaereth (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Please note that I have rewritten the text of this edit, and provided three reliable sources. Please see Talk:Paul Pelosi#David Pelosi. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- How did you find and review the content from the Pacific Drug Review and the Nancy Pelosi book? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have updated the sources with an OCLC number and ISBN number, respectively, to make the sources reasonably available. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- You can not WP:FORUMSHOP and rely simply on the discussion at the article talk page to insert your edits.[7] Multiple editors in this thread have questioned inclusion based on WP:DUE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE,WP:NPF, and WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have updated the sources with an OCLC number and ISBN number, respectively, to make the sources reasonably available. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree based mostly on BLPCRIME. This is obviously a low-profile individual, who has purposely avoided the spotlight despite being married to a high-profile person. There is no indication whatsoever that PUBLICFIGURE even comes into play here. A public figure includes most politicians, plus people like celebrities such as Charlie Sheen, Tom Cruise, or Kim Kardashian. Public figures by law do not have the same expectations of privacy as low-profile people, and Wikipedia follows this standard. You can usually tell if a person is a public figure by the sheer number of sources out there on them, and their articles on Wikipedia tend to be quite long. There are cases where low-profile people have become public figures for nothing more than the crimes they committed, but these are people like Charles Manson or Mary Kay Letourneau, but if you look at the sheer number of sources out there covering them, then we would be remiss in not covering them as well. That is nowhere near the case here. Not by a long shot.
- The one question which again nobody seem to be bothered to answer is: why does it need to be in the article. Wanting something is not the same as needing it, and my suspicion is that people want it for political reasons. Keep in mind that I personally cannot stand Nancy Pelosi, and would love nothing more than to see her voted out of office, but I would never go after her family as a way to make her seem guilty by association, which is what I suspect is going on here. (That's one of the main reasons I stuck around Wikipedia and BLPN all these years, because I was shocked at how people went after Sarah Palin's children during he 2008 election. That kind of tactic is just horrible.) That or something similar is usually the case when people can't say why the article needs such info (or rather, why they want such info in the article), because there must be a reason but saying it out loud will sound terrible. Instead the argument for inclusion is always one of "because we can" rather than why we should. Zaereth (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello. In addition to the recent NY Post and Daily Mail reporting, the crash was covered in multiple contemporary reports, and mentioned in subsequent books, including Nancy Pelosi's herself (although obliquely). The Pacific Drug Review was a West Coast pharmacy trade journal that probably covered the event due to the father being a noteworthy druggist. The biography by Susan Page substantiates the "conservative media" articles, including that a coroner's jury cleared Paul of blame. See below:
- "College Student Dies in Skyline Crash". San Mateo Times. February 22, 1957.
- "Youth Killed in Crash; Neck Brace Blamed". San Francisco Examiner. February 23, 1957. p. 4.
- "S.F. Youth Killed as Sports Car Crashes". San Francisco Chronicle. February 23, 1957. p. 4.
- "David J. Pelosi". Pacific Drug Review. 69: 40. 1957. OCLC 1084928151.
- Pelosi, Nancy (2008). Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters. New York: Anchor Books. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-385-52586-2.
Faith has always been important to the Pelosi family and would be a source of strength to them when they lost a son, "dear David" as Nana called him, who died in an automobile accident in 1957, and much later two granddaughters who died in a tragic fire.
- Page, Susan (2021). Madam Speaker: Nancy Pelosi and the Lessons of Power. Grand Central Publishing. pp. 94–94. ISBN 9781538750711.
- There is no doubt the event is verifiable and covered in reliable sources. Whether it belongs in an encyclopedia is up for debate. If included, it should be presented conservatively, succinctly, and without sensationalism or undue emphasis on minor aspects of the event. Mention of the loss of a brother would help clarify the early life (the article does not even yet mention his brother Ron Pelosi in prose). It should not be juxtaposed with the subsequent DUI in 2022 or ottherwise construed to imply that Pelosi is a particularly reckless person. 63.155.44.196 (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure how the Pacific Drug Review even came up in the search for sources (JSTOR? Google? PUBMED?) and whether it (an obituary?) should be given any more weight than the local news articles that might fall under NOTNEWS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- A snippet of it comes up if you search Google Books, same as the Susan Page book, which displays several pages on Google Books (the search term "David John Pelosi" allows more text to be seen, although it might vary regionally or in different browsers). It would be a different matter if Pacific Drug Review was the only source reporting it (and I can't verify if it mentions Paul by name or not), but it adds weight along with the others. 63.155.44.196 (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- It does matter whether PDR verifies Paul's role in a PUBLICFIGURE or DUE analysis. Editors should not be citing to things that don't directly verify what is being asserted per WP:BURDEN and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- A snippet of it comes up if you search Google Books, same as the Susan Page book, which displays several pages on Google Books (the search term "David John Pelosi" allows more text to be seen, although it might vary regionally or in different browsers). It would be a different matter if Pacific Drug Review was the only source reporting it (and I can't verify if it mentions Paul by name or not), but it adds weight along with the others. 63.155.44.196 (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure how the Pacific Drug Review even came up in the search for sources (JSTOR? Google? PUBMED?) and whether it (an obituary?) should be given any more weight than the local news articles that might fall under NOTNEWS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
New in depth NYT piece just dropped. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/fashion/news/nancy-pelosis-napa-wealthy-friends-and-a-husbands-damaged-porsche.html I'm out of free NYT views for the month, but the Twitter blurb on it says The recent arrest of Paul Pelosi, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, in Napa Valley has shone a light on their lavish California life. It has also refocused attention on his troubled driving record, including a crash when he was 16 that left his brother dead.
– Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Glad to see The New York Times reporting on this. It's a bit odd that a drunk driving charge was ok to add to the article, but a manslaughter charge was questioned. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Hu Xuntian
This article appears to be pretty wildly NPOV. This composer's work came up in a discussion elsewhere and someone noted that his Wikipedia page reads as though he wrote it himself, with lines such as:
- creator of a new musical language
- In 2003, he composed Images in Sound, which was humanity's first gift of primordial music to all species of the natural world
- In 2008, he produced Ehe Chant, the first work of Preconsciousness Music in human history.
While these things are, I suppose, strictly possible, to this (very much musically literate) editor it reads as pretty overwhelmingly congratulatory. Jemiller226 (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: He Xuntian. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Vivian Kubrick
In Vivian Kubrick, the entire "Social media activity" section is sourced to The Daily Beast. Based on Beccaynr's suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivian Kubrick, I'm starting a discussion here rather than just remove it myself. As noted in WP:DAILYBEAST, Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons
. It seems like claims of association with fringe groups, for which I haven't been able to find any backup in WP:RS, is exactly what TDB shouldn't be used for. The other statement in that section, regarding the subject's suspended Twitter account, is sourced to a Twitter announcement which doesn't even verify that the account in question is Kubrick's. That @ViKu1111 is indeed Vivian Kubrick is a reasonable guess, but we don't do reasonable guesses about controversial statements in WP:BLPs. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose use of the Daily Beast for this section. My hesitation for removing the section was based on the edit history of the article and my observation of challenges to previous attempts to remove it. However, the DB article is written in a sensationalist style, makes other poorly-sourced claims, admits it is unaware of the authorship of the posts and appears to have failed to preserve them. When I attempted to check the characterizations made by the Daily Beast, I followed links from its article and found the account suspended. Removal of the source and content based on this source seems well within the particular caution expressed at WP:DAILYBEAST, so I support the removal of the entire section, including because I have not been able to find other sources (beyond churnalism, and possibly a Le Monde article noted in the AfD that I have not been able to fully access) at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say removing it and opening a talk page section detailing the concerns is the right call. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with immediate removal and notification/justification on the talk page also. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because this is a BLP, I immediately removed the section and left a note on the article Talk page: Talk:Vivian_Kubrick#Removal_of_content_per_WP:BLP. Thank you all, Beccaynr (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Vincent Phillip Muñoz
Based on Wikipedia's "notability" criteria, I don't think Vincent Phillip Muñoz merits their own page.
Their academic achievements (one peer-reviewed book) are far less significant than those of far more qualified and well known academics who do not have Wikipedia pages (and who probably shouldn't). The same applies to the (single) award Munoz has received: APSA's Hubert Morken Award. This award is given out every year. APSA's most prestigious award is the James Madison Award, which is only given once every 3 years and which "honors an American political scientist who has made a distinguished scholarly contribution to political science." See: https://www.apsanet.org/PROGRAMS/APSA-Awards/James-Madison-Award. Munoz did not get this award.
The article also asserts that Munoz has a forthcoming book "in the summer or [sic] 2022," but provides no citation. How are we to verify this claim? Who knows this information about Munoz?
In short, if Munoz merits a page, then so do tens of thousands of other tenured academics in the United States with relatively minor achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carelesswhisper93 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- The logic of otherstuffdoesntexist is that there should be no barrier to entry for having an entry--i.e., it gives no positive guidance for what counts as meriting an entry, so in principle, every person (and thing, for that matter) in the world merits an entry. If I had my own private blog and posted on it, should there be a Wikipedia entry saying "X is a blogger who has y opinions [cite blog]," even if no one actually knows or cares about what I write in my blog? Carelesswhisper93 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would suggest reading up on WP:DELETE and then decide on your next course of action from there. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! Carelesswhisper93 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would suggest reading up on WP:DELETE and then decide on your next course of action from there. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- The logic of otherstuffdoesntexist is that there should be no barrier to entry for having an entry--i.e., it gives no positive guidance for what counts as meriting an entry, so in principle, every person (and thing, for that matter) in the world merits an entry. If I had my own private blog and posted on it, should there be a Wikipedia entry saying "X is a blogger who has y opinions [cite blog]," even if no one actually knows or cares about what I write in my blog? Carelesswhisper93 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Kevin M. Kruse
Hi all, just wanted to quickly note that Mr.HerbieHoover introduced this information at this article, wherein an accusation of plagiarism is made against the subject. While I believe Reason is generally reliable, given the hedging in the article itself and standard WP:BLP policy, I undid as not compliant, but I thought I would bring it here to see if perhaps people see things differently. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dumuzid; I went back and forth. Still, after examining the substance of the sourced materials, mainly primary sources, as well as the author's, Phillip Magness, reputation, I felt that this was pretty rock solid and worth adding. Happy for anyone else's input. Mr.HerbieHoover (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think that this is contentious enough that it should be thoroughly discussed at Talk:Kevin M. Kruse, and only added to the BLP when there is clear consensus to do so. Cullen328 (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough, Cullen. As the proponent here, Mr.HerbieHoover, I'll leave it up to you to get that started. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I read the Reason article, and I don't think it does any meaningful "hedging". The article's subheading is blunt: "His 2000 thesis on civil-rights-era Atlanta lifts passages from other people's work.". Could you elaborate on what you think is 'hedging'? Izzy Borden (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Bit of a moot point now, as there is clear current consensus to include. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with Cullen328 that we need a discussion at the Talk page first (though perhaps not for the same reasons). XOR'easter (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Where are you referring to? I don't see much of a consensus here or at the talk page... Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- When I made the consensus comment, I had removed the content, and three others had added, re-added, or edited the content. 3 v 1 strikes me as a rough consensus. But things certainly change across time. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Gotcha. No worries, I was just genuinely confused. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- When I made the consensus comment, I had removed the content, and three others had added, re-added, or edited the content. 3 v 1 strikes me as a rough consensus. But things certainly change across time. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Ron DeSantis
Troubles have arisen at the BLP for Ron DeSantis (governor of Florida). I made this edit after extensive discussion at talk page resulting in 3-1 consensus. Nevertheless, the "1" in the "3-1" consensus reverted. Rather than go to ANI or someplace like that, I thought it would be more friendly to come here and see if perhaps the 3 are wrong and the 1 is right (doubtful). The pertinent talk page section is here. In a nutshell, DeSantis made a statement about the power of state legislatures to regulate a presidential election, in particular the 2020 U.S. election. Then later on he issued a clarification. So, in keeping with WP:RSBREAKING, we cite reliable sources that addressed not just the initial statement, but also the later clarification. They are both reliable Florida sources, which is understandable given that Florida media pays more attention to DeSantis than media anywhere else. I am concerned that USER:SPECIFICO's revert has restored information that is blatantly contradictory to the cited sources, and am also concerned about this editor’s insistence on prevailing. The other two involved editors are User:Nemov and User:Marquardtika who both approved the edit that SPECIFICO reverted. The article is subject to post-1992 discretionary sanctions, with which SPECIFICO is familiar (as am I). Thanks in advance for any help/advice/guidance with this. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Was an RfC called there so you can get more editor involvement? It would also help if there were multiple sources that discussed this issue to confirm whether either version is actually WP:DUE. I don't see how the weight of a local news report should even be included when it weasily prefaces DeSantis intent with "seemingly suggested". How should that become a straight up *wikivoice* suggestion from DeSantis to whatever editors think he suggested? Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- We could certainly start an RFC if people here recommend it. I don’t think it should be necessary given the 3-1 consensus and the distortion of the cited sources that’s now happening. There are only two reliable sources that address the November 20 clarification by DeSantis and his aides, and we cite both of them. The author of one of them is a former deputy managing editor of the National Law Journal (links to the reporters’ biographies are provided at article talk). The reason why both sources use words like “apparently” and “seemingly” is probably because things seemed one way before the clarification, and another way after the clarification; I have not relied upon either of those parts of the cited sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Egads, that article is aweful. It's terribly bloated and hard to read through. I've seen books on quantum physics, written almost entirely in math, that was easier to parse than this. It's written like technical jargon that, for the reader to follow, they would need huge amounts of background knowledge of whatever the hell it's talking about most of the time.
- We could certainly start an RFC if people here recommend it. I don’t think it should be necessary given the 3-1 consensus and the distortion of the cited sources that’s now happening. There are only two reliable sources that address the November 20 clarification by DeSantis and his aides, and we cite both of them. The author of one of them is a former deputy managing editor of the National Law Journal (links to the reporters’ biographies are provided at article talk). The reason why both sources use words like “apparently” and “seemingly” is probably because things seemed one way before the clarification, and another way after the clarification; I have not relied upon either of those parts of the cited sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- For example, one of the disputed sentences is: "DeSantis openly supported Trump's legal disputes of the 2020 United States presidential election, suggesting state legislatures of states won by Joe Biden could revolt and select slates of presidential electors that would instead vote for Trump." Now, besides being a run-on sentence, what exactly is that supposed to mean? "Openly supported" is redundant, and gives a non-neutral tone, whereas "supported" will work just fine without the use of an adverb to make it seem like a bad thing. "Trump's legal disputes"? What legal disputes? Apparently, I'm supposed to bounce back and forth between a million wikilinks just to be able to follow what the heck this article is talking about. "State legislatures of states won by Joe Biden could revolt and select slates of presidential electors." Seriously? A tongue twister? That reads like patent nonsense. I mean, I'd like to help, but I have no idea what the dispute is even about, because there is no context and the article just assumes the reader knows what it's talking about. No offense, but your changes were no more coherent. Apparently, one would need a master's degree in Trumpology to be able to follow along with this article. To an outsider, like me, it's all just jargon and a much too-heavy reliance on wikilinks I'll never look at.
- Bottom line, the entire article needs to be trimmed down to the important stuff and written to be coherent to the general reader who has no background knowledge of any of this. Zaereth (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a very horrible article. I am trying to go from top to bottom right now to make it at least NPOV, and then plan to upgrade the article. But I cannot even make progress on NPOV if I’m going to get crazy resistance. The sentence that I support is, “In November 2020, DeSantis commented about Trump's legal disputes involving the 2020 United States presidential election, suggesting that a state legislature has constitutional power to remedy a flagrant violation of law, in order to ‘make sure we have a fair count.’” It’s not Shakespeare, but it’s at least NPOV. That’s all I’m trying to accomplish right now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant, it's not obvious to me what the second source you are referring to that reports on what DeSantis suggested in the Fox interview. If the phrase following "suggesting" is in dispute, is what he suggested necessary to his biography? There is no dispute that he supported Trumps legal challenge to the election. Isn't that enough from a NPOV perspective? To answer the other question, a discussion between 4 editors does not have as much weight as say a discussion with more editors that a RfC could bring in even if it's the same ratio (say 3-1 versus 6-2). Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Bottom line, the entire article needs to be trimmed down to the important stuff and written to be coherent to the general reader who has no background knowledge of any of this. Zaereth (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Here’s the sentence I wrote that’s been reverted:
“ | In November 2020, DeSantis commented about Trump's legal disputes involving the 2020 United States presidential election, suggesting that a state legislature has constitutional power to remedy a flagrant violation of law, in order to “make sure we have a fair count.”[1][2] [1]Donovan, Evan. “DeSantis clarifies comment on Trump elector ‘remedies’ by Republican state legislatures”, WFLA-TV (20 Nov 2020). |
” |
I’ve only started editing this article recently, going top to bottom to make it NPOV, but for now preserving level of detail. Once I get through making it NPOV, then I hope to upgrade it, removing undue weight, inserting material from books, et cetera. It’s not so simple as saying DeSsntis supported Trump’s election challenge. He supported some aspects of it but not others. One of the things he never endorsed was the effort to get state legislatures to overturn the will of the voters. Hence the dispute here and now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think an RFC is probably a good idea, but I would focus on making things coherent, because I can't see how one can even talk about NPOV in something incoherent. It needs to make sense first. This is usually a problem I see in technical and scientific articles. When it comes to consensus, however, I think it's important to remember, it's not the counting of votes but the weighing of arguments. One good argument can beat a thousand logically invalid arguments. The good thing about RFC is that you can get some outsiders to evaluate those arguments without having a stake in the dispute. Zaereth (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- If I’m able to continue working on NPOV, then when I hit a roadblock like this then I can certainly try to make the material in question ultra-coherent before seeking outside comments. Coherence requires more work and more sourcing, and the funny thing is that once I succeed in making a paragraph NPOV then a lot of people lose interest in keeping that paragraph which doesn’t really belong in the article anyway (undue weight or whatever). Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think an RFC is probably a good idea, but I would focus on making things coherent, because I can't see how one can even talk about NPOV in something incoherent. It needs to make sense first. This is usually a problem I see in technical and scientific articles. When it comes to consensus, however, I think it's important to remember, it's not the counting of votes but the weighing of arguments. One good argument can beat a thousand logically invalid arguments. The good thing about RFC is that you can get some outsiders to evaluate those arguments without having a stake in the dispute. Zaereth (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I rewrote the material to be more coherent, which requires greater length. Here it is without the footnotes:
“ | During an interview on the The Laura Ingraham Show on November 5, 2020 DeSantis commented about alleged voter fraud in the 2020 United States presidential election; he said that Republican-controlled state legislatures should step in to influence the process by providing “remedies” if there are violations of election laws, “to make sure we have a fair count“. That statement by DeSantis on Ingraham’s show was interpreted by reporters such as Skyler Swisher of the South Florida Sun Sentinel as an effort to “override the popular vote”. DeSantis then clarified that he only meant state legislators should act pursuant to the Constitution “in the event of a flagrant violation of law.” In the first week of December, he encouraged Trump to "fight on” but conceded that time was running out. | ” |
So we’ll give this a try. If necessary, I’ll start an RFC. Thanks for the advice. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
It would be very helpful to have fresh eyes on the discussion at the article talk page. One of the problems with this text is that, as noted above, it is not strongly sourced. A stronger source and better contextualized account is given in the Politico coverage here for example. It would be constructive to survey the sources on this first, to determine whether it's noteworthy enough to warrant conclusion, and second to get more thorough treatment by adding respected journalists' accounts. Also, as I said on the article talk page, it's usually a red flag when there are politicians "clarifying" their remarks following adverse public reaction. WP does not need to treat such revisions as if they supplant or even modify the initial statement, unless RS present the walkbacks in that light. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- In keeping with WP:RSBREAKING, we would need to cite the reliable sources that addressed not just the initial statement, but also the later clarification. Another option would just be to leave this tempest out of the BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Sarah Godlewski
Lots of SPAs appearing lately to add negative material to Sarah Godlewski prior to a primary. Same issue is happening at Alex Lasry. More eyes would be good. Marquardtika (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Tried some cleanup at Lasry. Haven't looked in-depth at Godlewski yet, just the more recent disruptions.Slywriter (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is still significant negative but potentially due, so have left alone pending AfD.Slywriter (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I also attempted cleanup at Godlewski, including by reviewing sources to determine if the content accurately reflected the references. I have not yet reviewed the entire article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Slywriter and Beccaynr! Marquardtika (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Atakan Karazor
In this article tabloid newspapers like Bild and The Sun are used as source for serious allegations. --SeriousAuthor (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've removed some of the information for now. I expect there will be good sources available in due time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Lyudmyla Denisova
- [8] - Using weak sources and tendentious representation. My very best wishes (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Theo Fennell
The Theo Fennell is in bad shape. They appear notable at least looking at search results, but the article as it currently stand is effectively unsourced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Survived AfD in August 2020. Have added some refs and an infobox. Could still be better, but at least it is now okay. I am local, so may pop in one day with my camera. Edwardx (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Added some more and removed the tags. But he has just moved after 25 years. Not so local anymore, and the photos may have to wait... Edwardx (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Lauren Boebert
For those who don't know, Lauren Boebert is a controversial person in U.S. politics. The newest development as of now is that American Muckrackers PAC, the group that released some damning material about Madison Cawthorn, leading to his defeat, has now gone after Boebert. They set up a website that has made BLP-violating claims against Boebert that I will not repeat here. I will, though, link this piece from The Daily Beast which points out how flimsy the accusation is. It had little to no WP:RS coverage at first, but now, we have this from Fox News saying that Boebert is suing the group. It may work out for her, or it may cause a Streisand effect. At what point would this become enough to add to the article in spite of the BLP concerns? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- There appears to now be mainstream coverage, here from the Denver Post [www.denverpost.com/2022/06/15/lauren-boebert-allegations/] for instance, I think at this point we say that Muckrakers made tenuous allegations but going into detail about what they were is unnecessary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- The accusations are extremely serious and they do not have enough evidence to be repeated in the Wikipedia at this time. My rule with accusations of this nature is that they must be posted by a source colored green over at WP:RSP, i.e. a WP:GREL level source. Two places that have reported them, Jezebel and BoingBoing are yellow (WP:MREL) sources there (colored yellow), and considering that both parroted these very serious accusations without verifying sources things we may need to downgrade those sources from yellow to red (WP:GUNREL). As per WP:FOXNEWS, since this is (or can reasonably be construed to be) a political discussion, Fox news is only WP:MREL, and we need a unambigiously WP:GREL source reporting on it before I would be comfortable adding the accusations to the Lauren Boebert article. For the record, I’m a moderate Democrat who usually votes blue, but sometimes votes for a moderate Republican. Samboy (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let time not Wikipedia decide if this is relevant.Slywriter (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes; we can afford to wait until reporting that unambiguously falls into the "generally reliable" category is available. XOR'easter (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- This falls under WP:BLPGOSSIP, and sources are not presenting these allegations as anywhere close to being true so they shouldn't be repeated on Wikipedia even if multiple RS start publishing them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Samboy. Until a few green lighted sources at WP:RSP report this we should not touch it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- The current consensus of mainstream press is calling the allegations less than credible, if not refuted. At this point, they don't have enough due weight to even be included in Wikipedia as allegations. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would be inclined to s-protect the page until the social media fever on this matter breaks. BD2412 T 03:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
We can, in my opinion, include the content at this point because of a Mother Jones article, who are WP:GREL. From that article: “The political action committee that helped bring down Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) has released a series of salacious and likely false accusations against Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.)” Samboy (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- If all we have in reliable sources is an article which describes them as
salacious and likely false accusations
, we should not include it for the reasons given at WP:BLPGOSSIP:Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself [...] whether the material is being presented as true
. Endwise (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing will be hurt or damaged or disrupted if we wait a few weeks to cover these allegations. If we start covering them right now, with the sources we have, however, I'll bet that a whole lot of disruption will occur as people start arguing over how to characterize them. Happy (Slap me) 12:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is basically my approach. The allegations seem so scurrilous and malicious (though of course time may prove my gut reaction incorrect) that I think even nodding to them in a non-specific way would be wrong. That said, there certainly is coverage in reliable sources, so I understand that argument. But for me--keep this stuff out entirely and reevaluate in time. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should touch this unless 2+ solid GRELs do. soibangla (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is my thinking. There is a point where even accusations that are described as unequivocally false in the sources have to be described even in a BLP, but that requirement is very high - generally I would say the key point is "has this played a significant role in the biography of the subject, to the point where the fact that the accusation was made can't reasonably be omitted despite its near-certain falsity?" That requires both high-quality sourcing and WP:SUSTAINED coverage, or an impact on the subject's life that is so clear as to be WP:BLUE (eg. a false accusation that clearly cost someone an election or the like.) Neither of that seems to be the case here. If we had an article about American Muckrackers PAC it would be more appropriate there if it gets covered at all, but even there we'd need extreme caution. --Aquillion (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- If sources agree these claims are false we should leave them out of the article. They may be DUE in an article about the group that made the claims but there is no reason to even remotely imply such a clearly problematic BLP claim against a subject. Springee (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The Deep End (2022 TV series)
The article has been consistently updated with the text that might violate WP:BLP, by user Thomasav. In both cases (having 15 years old Wikipedia account) the user brought ineligible sources for use on Wikipedia, including Twitter, Reddit, YouTube and tabloid spam. Also the information the user placed is highly controversial and is not even relevant for the page. I first tried to leave a list of publications for the user to get familiarized but he didn't seem to be listening. I suggest to protect more the page in question.
--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C4D1:80C2:DA91:3DA9 (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've removed the claims and given User:Thomasav a DS alert for BLP claims. Woodroar (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Audrey Cooper
Several statements in the article about WNYC editor-in-chief Audrey Cooper are highly biased, inaccurate and unsupported by sources, as well as other WIkipedia policy violations. They should be removed immediately as per WP:BLPN. I have carefully reviewed Wikipedia policy and described the problems in detail below, followed by a suggested replacement which I believe is accurate and meets the NPOV and Due criteria. Note: I have a personal connection to Cooper, so I have a conflict of interest.
In the fifth paragraph of Audrey Cooper, the second-fifth sentences now read:
As suggested by Tanzina Vega's departure,[1] Cooper has an unorthodox approach to managing what has been a tight-knit community venue. According to The New York Times, her appointment caused a "newsroom revolt" at WNYC by reporters who had requested a person of color be promoted to the position but instead got Cooper, "a white woman who lived in California [and] grew up in Kansas".[2] Cooper's dismissal of Fred Mogul, a longterm [sic] veteran staple of WNYC reporting, for what most of his colleagues believed to be Cooper's misunderstanding of news processing protocols, [3] suggests that Cooper was merely looking for an excuse and is possibly the best example of Cooper's agenda of emphasizing diversity before actual talent. Cooper's response appeared to be retaliatory after the publishing of the Times' article further revealing Cooper's managerial tendencies.[4]
- This first of these sentences should be removed because the cited article (or any source) does not say anything about Cooper’s management or leadership causing Vega to leave WNYC. In fact, Vega left after multiple human resources complaints about her: [9] There is also nothing in this source or the New York Times source in the following paragraph that says she “has an unorthodox approach to managing.”
- The second of these sentences is constructed to be biased and should be rephrased. The quote “newsroom revolt” does not appear in the New York Times. Furthermore, the phrase “instead they got” is a personal insult written in Wikipedia’s voice. WP:NPOV. The direct quotation at the end of the sentence is unneeded since the information is factual, not a POV, and a neutral paraphrase is always preferred. MOS:QUOTE It also omits Cooper’s credentials that contextualize why she was hired.
- The third of these sentences is unsupported by any of the given sources. The sources do not say most (or any) staffers believe Cooper misunderstood “newsroom protocols” and there’s no mention in any source that says Mogul’s firing was related to diversity initiatives. In fact, WNYC says Mogul was fired for plagiarism – copying an Associated Press paragraph, without attribution, into a website story. Please note that this account was written during the course of litigation filed by Mogul against Cooper and WNYC [10] which he has since abandoned. [11] (Please see Item 24, STIPULATION - DISCONTINUANCE (POST RJI)) The source used for Mogul’s accusations (twisted beyond recognition here) is based on his lawsuit. With the lawsuit abandoned, the contentious accusations concerning Cooper’s alleged treatment of Mogul “should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” WP:BLP
- The fourth of these sentences, saying Mogul’s firing (“Cooper’s response”) was a response to the New York Times article is not true on its face. Mogul was fired early February 2021 and The New York Times article appeared in May 2021.
- Instead of focusing on unsourced analysis about Mogul, Wikipedia should reflect multiple news stories about WNYC’s union filing a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board that made allegations against Cooper and was later settled. For example, [12]
Here is a suggested replacement that I tried to write consistently with NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:VERIFY:
She was named Editor-in-Chief at WNYC Public Radio on June 11, 2020.[5] Her appointment was opposed by many WNYC staffers who had requested the new editor be a person of color who was knowledgeable about New York City and public radio.[6] Cooper, who is white, and most recently the editor-in-chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, had not worked in public radio before.[6] SAG-AFTRA filed a formal complaint with the National Labor Relations Board agains New York Public Radio alleging “unfair labor practices,” and 14 layoffs that the station said was a result of a large deficit, but which the union alleged was a “coordinated and aggressive campaign” against unionized staff and internal critics.[7][8] WNYC management reportedly said the strife with employees was more indicative of complaints by journalists throughout the industry rather than problems unique to WNYC.[9] The labor dispute between SAG-AFTRA and New York Public Radio was settled in February 2022, and included improved employee benefits and additional protections against retaliation.[10] Factchecknyc (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Here’s a recent article (March 2022) from the Columbia Journalism Review about Cooper and issues at WNYC: [13] I think any editors considering entirely following the COI editor’s request should consult this piece. Thriley (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've removed most of the paragraph since it was cited to WP:DAILYBEAST. The remainder can be presented more neutrally and she probably falls under WP:NPF. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Here’s a recent article (March 2022) from the Columbia Journalism Review about Cooper and issues at WNYC: [13] I think any editors considering entirely following the COI editor’s request should consult this piece. Thriley (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Tani, Maxwell (July 15, 2021). "WNYC 'The Takeaway' Host Tanzina Vega Leaves Amid Internal Tensions,". The Daily Beast. Retrieved August 3, 2021.
- ^ Bellafante, Ginia (July 3, 2020). "WNYC Employees Demanded Diversity. They Got Another White Boss". The New York Times. Retrieved August 4, 2020..
- ^ Montgomery, Blake (June 16, 2021). "Ex-WNYC Reporter Sues Station Over Firing for Plagiarism". The Daily Beast. Retrieved August 3, 2021.,
- ^ Tani, Maxwell (July 15, 2021). "WNYC Staffers Terrified of Editor-in-Chief's 'Vendettas". The Daily Beast. Retrieved August 3, 2021..
- ^ Bellafante, Ginia (July 3, 2020). "WNYC Employees Demanded Diversity. They Got Another White Boss". The New York Times. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
- ^ a b Bellafante, Ginia (July 3, 2020). "WNYC Employees Demanded Diversity. They Got Another White Boss". The New York Times. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
- ^ Fuster, Jeremy (23 May 2021). "WNYC Accused of 'Coordinated and Aggressive Campaign' Against Internal Critics in SAG-AFTRA Complain to NLRB". The Wrap. Retrieved 16 May 2022.
- ^ Tani, Maxwell (July 15, 2021). "WNYC Staffers Terrified of Editor-in-Chief's 'Vendettas'". The Daily Beast. Retrieved August 3, 2021.
- ^ Tani, Maxwell (July 15, 2021). "WNYC Staffers Terrified of Editor-in-Chief's 'Vendettas". The Daily Beast. Retrieved August 3, 2021.
- ^ Cho, Winston (25 February 2022). "SAG-AFTRA, New York Public Radio Settle Labor Dispute Over Layoffs, Alleged Surveillance". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 16 May 2022.
Michelle Paress
An anonymous account keeps inserting uncited information that she and her husband divorced. There's no media reports of it, nor mention of it on the husband's page. It may be true, but until there's a reputable source, it shouldn't go on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjml (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sjml, because the disruption has been going on for at least several months, I have semi-protected the article for a year. You can make such requests at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cullen328 (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Kajsa Ekis Ekman
The article of author Kajsa Ekis Ekman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) keeps on being vandalised by one user, User:AnnikaCarina who seems intent on smearing the subject. The tone is far from neutral, almost all space is dedicated to negative comments, it is claimed the author is writing for a suspect Norwegian website which only republishes old material by copy-paste, instead of stating what newspapers she actually writes for. After trying to encourage the person to adhere to standars of biographies of living persons it seems there is no use to talk. It is falsely claimed she is a Communist and a pro-Russia and anti-trans "frellance writer" when she is an author of several books who would probably not categorise herself in the above manner. A block or to protect the page seems needed. Guccibelucci (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've issued an edit warring warning to this person for more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. I did not issue a similar warning to you after confirming there were indeed BLP issues with original research (synthing of the sources), but I caution you against making any further reverts and letting other editors handle this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Yuliia Paievska
- Yuliia Paievska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This is a Ukrainian BLP recently in the news; I would appreciate more pagewatchers, and if anyone wants to review recent edits and take whatever action they think may be needed. Thanks. Levivich[block] 23:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
John Earle Sullivan
Is the use of a tweet here appropriate?[14] Doug Weller talk 19:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can't view the tweet, because things like twitter and youtube are blocked on the network I'm using. However, this often comes up here (especially in relation to birthdates) so my general view is that we should never use twitter for anything --ever-- especially BLPs. Tweets are far too open to interpretation, they are primary sources, and have no editorial oversight. I would treat videos from twitter the same way we would youtube. Don't use them. We're not reporters, and if RSs pick up the story and discuss a certain tweet or youtube video, then we have something we can use, but I think we should stay away from doing our own investigative reporting and interpretations. Zaereth (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, it is not a tweet by the subject to fall under the WP:ABOUTSELF exemption to WP:SPS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with all the above and have reverted the edit. ––FormalDude talk 02:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Scott A. Gordon
This wikipedia page is loaded with defamatory and libelous information that someone has "editorialized" articles into half-truths and inuendos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.222.216.210 (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, Scott A. Gordon accurately and neutrally summarizes reliable published news sources, and accordingly, the content cannot be
defamatory and libelous
. You need to be far more specific about your critique. Cullen328 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)- It does contain some pretty flagrant copyvio, [15]. I'd take a shot at removing it all right now, but trying to do complicated rewrites it's difficult for me on mobile. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Cullen328@ScottishFinnishRadish definitely. This edit in April by User:Updater500[16] (which also added an honorific) is copied from a 2019 source.[17]. There's material in the article added when created in May 2020 copied from another 2019 source.[18]. Doug Weller talk 10:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to rewrite that, but I don't have time right now to redo the prose. Should we just remove it all for now, and should pretty much the whole history of the article be revdel'd? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Cullen328@ScottishFinnishRadish definitely. This edit in April by User:Updater500[16] (which also added an honorific) is copied from a 2019 source.[17]. There's material in the article added when created in May 2020 copied from another 2019 source.[18]. Doug Weller talk 10:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- It does contain some pretty flagrant copyvio, [15]. I'd take a shot at removing it all right now, but trying to do complicated rewrites it's difficult for me on mobile. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)