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)
- @Morbidthoughts:It is fringe to say that ESP or clairvoyance are actual things. It is not fringe at all to say that Swan believes she is clairvoyant, or has ESP. Virtually every source confirms this. This is the mainstream viewpoint of Swan. She brings it up in virtually every interview. It is in all of her books. It is by no means fringe. Do you know of anyone that disputes that is what she believes? What leads you to believe these are fringe claims? I can see re-wording things to make that more clear. Epachamo (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I know a bunch of people who think she's a fraud and a pathological liar rather than crazy. A Salon article says she make a living off of scamming vulnerable individuals.[2] So yeah, they dispute what she actually believes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Morbidthoughts: Ok, I can agree with that. I would be onboard with phrasing it in such a way that it is what she says, not what she believes, and add the viewpoint of those who feel she is scamming people. Epachamo (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I know a bunch of people who think she's a fraud and a pathological liar rather than crazy. A Salon article says she make a living off of scamming vulnerable individuals.[2] So yeah, they dispute what she actually believes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Morbidthoughts:It is fringe to say that ESP or clairvoyance are actual things. It is not fringe at all to say that Swan believes she is clairvoyant, or has ESP. Virtually every source confirms this. This is the mainstream viewpoint of Swan. She brings it up in virtually every interview. It is in all of her books. It is by no means fringe. Do you know of anyone that disputes that is what she believes? What leads you to believe these are fringe claims? I can see re-wording things to make that more clear. Epachamo (talk) 04:32, 26 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)
- @Onetimememorial: Scripps Media is far from an "unknown source". Largoplazo (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
From WP:FRINGE, "the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in". Thus:
Controversial and Fringe | Not Controversial or Fringe |
---|---|
Swan was abused, raped and psychologically tortured from the age of six onwards by a family friend. | Swan has stated in numerous interviews that she was abused, raped and psychologically tortured from the age of six onwards by a family friend. |
Swan was the victim of ritualistic abuse by a satanic cult for over a decade. | Swan says she was the victim of ritualistic abuse by a satanic cult for over a decade. |
Swan was born with extrasensory abilities such as clairvoyance, "clairsentience", and "clairaudience" | According to her, she was born with extrasensory abilities such as clairvoyance, "clairsentience", and "clairaudience" |
By phrasing it as it is in the right column, it is something that both Swan and her detractors would absolutely agree on. It is not controversial. Epachamo (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- This reminds me of that old TV show Lost, because I have completely lost track of what this discussion is all about. The original question was about a podcast. I'll admit, I had no idea what a podcast even was, so I didn't bother trying to give an answer. But watching this, go on and on, I finally decided to take a listen.
- The answer is quite simply, no. It is no more a reliable source than would be Dateline, To Catch a Predator, Forensic Files, Dr. Phil, Ken Burns, or any other form of literary journalism. It's based on non-fictional accounts but delivered in a narrative, fictional style. The narrator is giving their own accounts, interpretations, and conclusions, literally filling in the blanks with this narrative story to draw the listener along. But we have no way of knowing how much is clipped together or edited out to make this narrative fit the desired purpose, which is to turn the subjects into characters and tug at the listener's emotions. A famous example of this is Walt Disney's documentary, White Wilderness, in which he convinced the world that lemmings in Alaska commit mass suicide. He simply wrote up this narrative and cut and edited thousands of hours of films of lemmings to fit his story. Now I'm not saying that this podcast or things like Dateline are that blatantly fabricated, but to tell a non-fiction story as if it were fiction, well, that requires taking some liberties and filling in some blanks with something to tie it all together for the listener to relate to emotionally. They're not real news, and one can easily tell the difference between them just by listening. They are entertainment. These types of documentaries and other forms of literary journalism should never be used as reliable sources.
- As to whatever all this other "fringe" discussion is about, I'm lost. I'd need diffs or something to know just what it is should be added or deleted or altered. Zaereth (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- What I ended up removing:[3]. Mostly the promotional claims of her fringe or extraordinary abilities and background from an unreliable narrator that was mostly sourced to this podcast and weaker sources like Salon.com and OZY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- More contested diffs.[4] Focus on her claims by citing to documentaries or her book. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Zaereth: Even Breitbart can be used as a source when presenting significant opinions, viewpoints, and commentary (see WP:RSP). Epachamo (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, so in looking at these diffs, my first question as an uninvolved reader is: "What is the point?" I mean, most of these changes in the first diff are things that would be of great interest to a psychoanalyst, but are just trivial, boring details in an encyclopedia article. I'll use the example of a Stephen King novel. King is a great writer, but all too often he goes on these incredibly detailed tangents into the character's backgrounds, in an attempt to give some phycological history of the subject. For the reader, it's like, wtf? What happened to the story? Then your eyes glaze over as you scan ahead 27 pages until the action starts up again.
- To break it down even further, the first change is about how she didn't fit in as a child and acted differently, and that it all had some profound yet unexplained effect on her as a child. Now these are all talking about the subject's feelings in the third-person omniscient, and this goes on in the next diff, starting with "Swan began to feel physically different from other children...". This is all great stuff for psychoanalysts to use, but this is not stuff that one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. The use of third-person omniscient there is also concerning, because that brings many possibilities to mind, including the possibility of some COI going on. (That's often but not always an indication of someone trying to write in the objective while thinking in the first person.)
- Then we have the next change in that diff, which is promoting the completely debunked theory of suppressed memories. Turns out that memory is a fluid and dynamic thing, and the unconscious mind is often very suggestable. Most research has revealed that suppressed memories are the result of poor interviewing techniques (ie: Did someone touch you? Was it your uncle? Did he touch you in a bad place?). This is not even fringe, but debunked theory.
- @Zaereth: What is the point? Take all those things out and there is a significant perspective on who she is that is missing. You might even come away from reading the article thinking Teal Swan is a mainstream health professional. The viewpoint that Swan is NOT a mainstream mental health professional is a significant viewpoint as attested by the numerous documentaries, podcasts and articles about her, and recommended by numerous other sources. It is unconscionable that we have reliable sources like the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times publishing about this perspective, but it is not even allowed on Wikipedia. That perspective should be represented in this article. Epachamo (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
What if we had a "controversy" section in the Teal Swan article. We could move the items from her biography that are not benign to that section, and source it as opinion. In that way, we would present a significant viewpoint of Swan, without giving credibility to her purported abilities. Epachamo (talk) 04:21, 3 July 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)
- "If it's not widely covered then there would appear to be little public interest...". Wow. 22:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is covered by NY Post.[5] 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.
- [6]
- 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)
- This edit[7] 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".[8] 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".[8] 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 [9], 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.[10] 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)
- There are people in this thread that are disputing whether the drunk driving charges are okay to include since they don't believe Pelosi is a public figure under WP:BLPCRIME. A RfC to decide the public figure issue is appropriate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have started the RfC. [11] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are people in this thread that are disputing whether the drunk driving charges are okay to include since they don't believe Pelosi is a public figure under WP:BLPCRIME. A RfC to decide the public figure issue is appropriate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Daniel Lacalle
There is a segment in Daniel Lacalle's biography called "plagiarism controversy" that uses an unreliable, non-neutral and libellous source that is under legal action from Daniel Lacalle. It should be erased as it is "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous".
Daniel Lacalle has started legal action against the website, which is not neutral (heavily ideologized including slander remarks against Lacalle since 2018) nor reliable as it refused to print any of the counter claims of many other academics. Legal action news: https://www.periodistadigital.com/periodismo/otros-medios/20220613/daniel-lacalle-llevara-juzgados-ignacio-escolar-eldiario-bulos-noticia-689404697397/
The source cited is not reliable and not neutral. The slander campaign has been debunked by other articles in other media:
https://www.libremercado.com/2022-06-07/escolar-vuelve-a-acusar-de-plagio-a-lacalle-pero-reconoce-que-cita-a-los-autores-6905236/
https://www.libremercado.com/2022-06-22/escolar-obsesionado-con-lacalle-ahora-confunde-el-texto-que-le-acusa-de-copiar-6910421/
https://www.libremercado.com/2022-05-31/la-lista-de-falsedades-del-periodico-de-ignacio-escolar-contra-lacalle-6902611/
Many academics have debunked the claims and the El Diario source only makes claims that have been already discarded by the university, judging panel and independent academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KildaMcHaggis (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, and thanks for bringing this to our attention. I looked at the sources, and some do seem fairly questionable. In particular, source 19 and 20 (Libremercado and Eldiario) are not real news stories, but instead op/ed columns, where the authors are doing their own analyses and giving their own opinions and interpretations of the "facts". Editorial columns like this are not reliable for this kind of info. I'd say both sources and the paragraph associated with them should probably be removed.
- But now that leads us to the next problem, because the next source looks pretty good, and so does the one after that. So now we have a well sourced lawsuit, it seems, and we need to give some context as to what it's about. Hmmm. Now that's a conundrum, because we also don't want to give this thing any more than it's due weight. (I mean, this is not what he's is primarily known for, right? Things like this can easily become what a person is primarily known for if they're not careful, and we have to apportion the article accordingly.) You know, what we really need here is someone who is fluent in Spanish to review these sources and make the necessary corrections. Zaereth (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Daniel Lacalle (Second discussion)
This article used the word "Plagiarism" when none of the articles published by El Diario used that word anywhere. It is very important because plagiarism is a very serious accusation and the articles only make allegations, never direct accusations, using unnamed sources about citation methodology and minor mistakes taken from a published book, not the actual doctoral thesis which was approved by a judging panel of academics from public and private universities and followed all the requirements as expressed in these articles debunking the allegations:
The El Diario articles should be seen by Wikipedia as not neutral due to its clear ideologic inclination and potentially defamatory and libelous as there is a legal action against the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KildaMcHaggis (talk • contribs) 10:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I already answered this above, There is no point listing the same thing on this page multiple times. Normally, this would have been a slam-sunk case, because both sources, El Diario and Libremercado, are not reliable sources, as described above. At best, they are primary sources that are only reliable for the authors' opinions. If that's all there was, I would have simply removed the entire section with no problem. The problem occurred when you added info about the lawsuit, because that was sourced to a reliable secondary-source, and that opened the door to possibly using these primary sources to help clarify what the lawsuit is all about. Now that you opened that door, it may not be so easy to close. This is why we need someone who is fluent in both Spanish and BLP policy to go through these sources and try to put everything into proper balance.
- The thing is, tactically speaking, the lawsuit may have been a bad idea on the subject's part. Not only has this guaranteed a place in our article for the allegations, but it runs the risk of the Streisand effect. If Spanish law on free speech is anything like American law, then suing someone for writing an opinion/editorial column probably won't go anywhere in court, but is very likely to generate unwanted attention to it. When someone is as little known as the subject of the article, then something like this could end up becoming what they are most notable for, because on Wikipedia notability is determined by a preponderance of reliable sources. If you hadn't added the lawsuit, it would have been a simple fix, but now that it's there, it really throws a monkey wrench into that idea. We need someone fluent in both the language and policy to help sort this out, so maybe someone will come along and see this. Zaereth (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Saadat Kadyrova
Initially I removed[12] statement about Kadyrova because her statement is not related to the official Azerbaijan's position. However, other user reverted me[13] and then added new sources[14].
Statement about Kadyrova is only supported by low quality sources. One of the sources is the Russian search engine Rambler.ru[15], which refers to not existing webpage Kdpconsulting.ru. When you click on Kdpconsulting.ru, it opens a random website called runews.biz. The second source[16], which seems to be personal blog[17] focusing on IT from French perspective, does not even know if Kadyrova is male or female, and wrongly refers to her as male, and focuses on her nationality, calling her Azerbaijani journalist, while not mentioning that she is actually a Russian journalist. I am not sure about this source[18] , as far I am concerned, this is not a high enough quality source to make a claim about a living person. It is more like a quick sensationalist news article, because in the TV show Kadyrova gives a lot of explanation, but this source cherry picked just some of her words.
Moreover, statement about Kadyrova is written in a sensationalist and non-neutral manner. At its current version, it completely disregards explanations of what Kadyrova said. --Abrvagl (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- If I wouldn't assume good faith, you still not launching that promised RfC after the very lengthy discussions on talk and admin talk page, I'd say you just don't like this information on that article and want to remove it by all means possible. But of course not, you're just concerned about BLP despite first saying "it's not official Azerbaijan response", then after being suggested multiple simple solutions like renaming sections to "Azerbaijani/Armenian" similar to International reactions to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, you said the suggestions are bad. You promised to launch that RfC which you still haven't. Now you bring this to BLP noticeboard which confuses me even more;
- Regarding sources, the original discovery24 is a Russian news website, it's perfectly fine for something that happened LIVE on Russian's 2nd most popular TV channel on a popular talk show. It even has her segment from the show as a video below the article, do you literally want a transcript of what she said? She's also described as Azerbaijani in that source, wheter she has Russian citizenship or not doesn't change the fact that she's an Azerbaijani-Russian journalist. She's described as Azerbaijani diaspora journalist by another source.
- Regarding RudgeBaguette, do you have a source describing it as a blog? Also, please don't use these unnecessary complex and embellished words to describe something that was an apparent typo (should've been "she" instead of "he", this is what Abrvagl tries to say), which doesn’t change the meaning of the cited paragraph in the source.
- Regarding Rambler source, again, this Kadyrova segment is something that happened LIVE on Russia 1, second most popular TV channel in Russia, and at the time, it caused a lot of controversy in Armenia and to some extent in Russia, it's not an extraordinary thing. It was one of the segments of a show in which an invited Azeri-Russian journalist Kadyrova said the things she said. If you want other sources, I can add multiple Armenian ones as well. But I deliberately didn't in favor of Russian and an English source. There are other Russian sources [19]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why focus on inflammatory rhetoric and explain to the reader what a person said or meant? High quality sources do not do that and there is a reason why wikipedia's WP:UNDUE policies exist. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Rambler & RudeBaguette sources seem weak. I don't know much about discovery24. Not sure the article should be putting WP:weight on them, especially if the items are contentious. They should stay removed until reliability is confirmed over at WP:RSN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did some research, and that it what I find on Discovery24:
- 1. Article is written by Вадим Ботнарюк
- 2. Seems that Discovery was created and owned by Вадим Ботнарюк [20], [21]
- 3. Email address of Discovery24: orkush2017yandex.ru
- Not sure who is that "Vadim Botnaruk", as I could not find much about him, but looks like that he is not specialist on politics. Discovery24 is very indistinct. Not sure if online publication with contact address orkush2017yandex.ru can be considered as quality one. Abrvagl (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Other than the headline of that specific article, I don't see anything alarmingly sensational in the article or the stories on the front page of the website, and they do have an editorial policy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you and actually thanks for your edits on the article. What worries me, that Discovery24 stresses on her ethnicity to make news more sensational. For the record, Kadyrova is citizen of Russia, works for the TASS and born in Turkmenistan. Is there weight in highlighting her ethnicity and linking her statement, which is basically cut from the TV show talk, not that she was making any official statements, to the Azerbaijan's official response? Why it should not be phrased neutrally?
- Moreover, I searched in many ways, and I could not find any well-known and respected news agencies or organizations writing about it. Only low quality and unknown indistinct online news organizations such as referenced. Abrvagl (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not going to speculate why discovery24 mentioned her race beyond establishing why Russia 1 might have had her speaking on this topic. Whether her opinion is appropriate for the section is a content dispute, but I see non-government opinions in the other sections. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Abrvagl, after 1) you kept changing your suggestions back and worth on article talk page, after 2) you finally agreed to the RfC the two editor were are having a dispute with agreed to, after 3) I wrote a text for that RfC for you to copy paste, and after 4) everyone has been patiently waiting till you recover and finally paste that RfC you change, you are coming back with yet another RfC suggestion and (!) now try remove the sentence you do not like on BLP Noticeboard? Have you paid attention to the three options the admin you asked advised? Yet now you are raising the question on a third platform - BLP noticeboard?? Please beware of raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively it is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus and there is a negative term for that - WP:FORUMSHOP. --Armatura (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Armatura. I will only shortly address concerns here because BLP board is not WP:NOTFORUM for interpersonal discussions. Please do not reply here. You(or anyone interested) can find my full reply here: User talk:Armatura#About concerns you raised.
- I never changed my suggestions, they were always the same. I number of times stated that there are potential BLP issues with Kadyrova's statement[2][3][4][5] and I actually said that this need to be first raised to the BLP board[6]:
After BLP board, where we agree if resources are reliable enough and how it should be worded...
. The BLP notification I raised did, in fact, resolve a number of BLP concerns. Abrvagl (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Abrvagl, after 1) you kept changing your suggestions back and worth on article talk page, after 2) you finally agreed to the RfC the two editor were are having a dispute with agreed to, after 3) I wrote a text for that RfC for you to copy paste, and after 4) everyone has been patiently waiting till you recover and finally paste that RfC you change, you are coming back with yet another RfC suggestion and (!) now try remove the sentence you do not like on BLP Noticeboard? Have you paid attention to the three options the admin you asked advised? Yet now you are raising the question on a third platform - BLP noticeboard?? Please beware of raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively it is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus and there is a negative term for that - WP:FORUMSHOP. --Armatura (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not going to speculate why discovery24 mentioned her race beyond establishing why Russia 1 might have had her speaking on this topic. Whether her opinion is appropriate for the section is a content dispute, but I see non-government opinions in the other sections. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Other than the headline of that specific article, I don't see anything alarmingly sensational in the article or the stories on the front page of the website, and they do have an editorial policy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Morbidthoughts The live talk show was in Russia and the hateful comments Kadyrova made are not going to be featured in New York Times, for understandable reasons. There is no doubt she provided that hateful analogy, though, multiple regional news websites quoted her comments and the video is widely available online. Importantly, it was notable enough to be included in the Armenia's and Artsakh's human rights defenders public report and the consequences were significant enough for the notable Azeri intelligentsia to try to save her public face. The incident was documented by multiple sources, casual search brining inosmi.ru, politnavigator.news, bragazeta.ru, etc. The attempts of Abrvagl to present Kadyrova as a Russian journalist who has nothing to do with Azerbaijan are misleading: here, on 1news.az she proudly tells how she, an ethnic Azerbaijani, despite not having lived in Azerbaijan, thinks of Azerbaijan as her homeland, and from Vestnik Kavkaza we learn that she is director of the Azerbaijan Trade and Exhibition Center in Moscow, financed from Heydar Aliyev Fund... --Armatura, she is not some neutral Russian journalist. (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- As I mentioned earlier, do not focus on inflammatory rhetoric and explain to the reader what a person said or meant.[22] High quality news sources do not do that. Our BLP policies require you to write about a person conservatively. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Morbidthoughts, I see your point and don't have any additional comments. Can you please also look at this edit[23] by Armatura. As far as I concerned this highly partisan and openly biased public report, which use print screens from social media to backup hate speech claims, is not suitable for Wikipedia at all, especially for BLP. Neither it is can be considered as independent reliable source. Thanks. Abrvagl (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
The attempts of Abrvagl to present Kadyrova as a Russian journalist who has nothing to do with Azerbaijan are misleading
- Please avoid attributing things to me that I never said. I never said that Kadyrova has nothing to do with Azerbaijan. I said that Kadyrova is Russian Journalist with Azerbaijani ethnicity and that what she said is not an official position of Azerbaijan. I will not address other staff that you wrote, because I believe that Morbidthoughts perfectly identified and addressed all BLP issues, and there is nothing relevant to BLP board left to discuss. Abrvagl (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Morbidthoughts The live talk show was in Russia and the hateful comments Kadyrova made are not going to be featured in New York Times, for understandable reasons. There is no doubt she provided that hateful analogy, though, multiple regional news websites quoted her comments and the video is widely available online. Importantly, it was notable enough to be included in the Armenia's and Artsakh's human rights defenders public report and the consequences were significant enough for the notable Azeri intelligentsia to try to save her public face. The incident was documented by multiple sources, casual search brining inosmi.ru, politnavigator.news, bragazeta.ru, etc. The attempts of Abrvagl to present Kadyrova as a Russian journalist who has nothing to do with Azerbaijan are misleading: here, on 1news.az she proudly tells how she, an ethnic Azerbaijani, despite not having lived in Azerbaijan, thinks of Azerbaijan as her homeland, and from Vestnik Kavkaza we learn that she is director of the Azerbaijan Trade and Exhibition Center in Moscow, financed from Heydar Aliyev Fund... --Armatura, she is not some neutral Russian journalist. (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Ike Ekweremadu
A senator from Nigeria Mr. Ekweremadu has been charged in the UK with bringing a child into the UK for organ harvesting purposes. His trial is set for July 7. He's a public figure. Is it reasonable to mention that he's been charged for these allegations on his page? I think so permitted the sources are present, which they are. If not please do let me know what the policy is or what I should do instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T929212 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 25 Jun 2022 (UTC)
- @T929212: There must be reliable sources for a claim like that to go in the article, because of the severity of the allegations. —C.Fred (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- The challenge I see here is that an individual by that name was charged, but there is nothing, other than date of birth, to positively say that it's the senator. —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @C.FredArise News was present at the arraignment and positively identified them; Reuters is also reporting it. Have added these sources. I do wonder if we should include the wife in this yes/no as she is less of a public figure. Maybe someone Nigerian can share their thoughts on this as to what extent she's a public figure. T929212 (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's not reasonable for you to insert the allegation into the article in three different places or explicitly name his wife as you did here. [24][25] Please read WP:BLPCRIME that explains why naming his wife in the context of the crime is improper. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @MorbidthoughtsI thought I had put it in the intro and the bottom, wasn't aware I (accidentally) put it into early career. The wife is allegedly a public figure also as reported in some of the sources, but I think the article as it is now is appropriate. T929212 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 26 Jun 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any evidence that she is a public figure. A google news search of her name is dominated by this current charge. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @MorbidthoughtsI thought I had put it in the intro and the bottom, wasn't aware I (accidentally) put it into early career. The wife is allegedly a public figure also as reported in some of the sources, but I think the article as it is now is appropriate. T929212 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 26 Jun 2022 (UTC)
"J.K Rowling has been referred to as a TERF"
This has been discussed extensively on the article talk page, and a new discussion has been started at Talk:J. K. Rowling#Options on "referred to as a TERF". There is reasonable consensus both here and at the article that there is no BLPvio that would necessitate invoking WP:BLPRESTORE, so in the interest of not splitting discussion, I'm closing this to keep discussion on the talk page. Opinions and arguments should be put forth there. Editors are reminded that while consensus can change, they should familiarize themselves with the history of the article wording to avoid rereading old ground. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I do not believe that 'People have been called slurs' is appropriate, especially on a BLP article. I think it goes against the spirit of WP:BLP to put harsh criticisms of people in their articles, attributed to 'Critics', and is not WP:DUE to mention such a derogatory term 'in passing'. The article on TERF identifies that the phrase is considered a 'slur' and that there is no consensus whether or not it is; as such I think the obvious position of the subject of the article (Rowling does not 'Own' being called a TERF) should be the leading factor.
Rowling has objected at length to the use of the phrase 'TERF,' https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ has characterised the term as a slur alongside "a cunt, a bitch, a TERF, I deserved cancelling, punching and death." I think the subject's incredibly negative reaction to the use of negative term against them should add weight to us needing a very, VERY, good reason to include the term in their article. As it stands we just have 'She has been called a TERF' as a random piece of trivia. If we had a list of 'The insults that people have used to describe Rowling' it would be a very long list, and equally inappropriate for Wikipedia.
I believe this accusation should be removed immediately from the article to comply with BLP, at least until it's discussed, but as I have been threatened with being blocked if I boldly remove slurs from her article in good faith https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JeffUK&oldid=1095031290, I'm bringing it here for discussion. JeffUK (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The controversy arising from Rowling's comments on transgender issues clearly merits coverage in her biography, but I'm inclined to agree with JeffUK here that "referred to as a TERF" is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- (As my message has been cited here:) Being bold is generally fine, reverting a bold edit is generally fine, and starting a discussion afterwards is perfect. If the "starting a discussion" part is replaced by a revert, it quickly becomes problematic. The current place of the discussion is Talk:J._K._Rowling#"and_she_has_been_referred_to_as_a_TERF", at which a consensus can be obtained. This consensus may well be for removing the criticized statement from the article. There is, however, currently also a consensus that the statement is not a BLP violation that needs to be removed immediately. As perceived BLP violations may lead to edit warring (perhaps even with WP:3RRNO#7 in mind), I took a moment to write a(n unnecessarily unfriendly) warning not to do so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- > If the "starting a discussion" part is replaced by a revert, it quickly becomes problematic.
- Yes, and someone chose to revert my edit in place of starting a discussion, I agree that was problematic.
- This is not a content question, it's a question of whether using a slur like 'TERF' to refer to someone is a violation of the BLP policies and guidelines. Consensus to violate (or not) those policies is irrelevant. JeffUK (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the specific phrasing used had already been discussed extensively including by editors well familiar with BLP. In a case like that, reverting to the consensus version is well accepted practice. While I'm normally the "one of you just start a blood discussion" camp, really when something has been discussed as extensively as I understand this was, I'm fine with saying the onus is on anyone who wants to establish a new consensus to start that new discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can't find any discussion about the use of 'TERF' in the body of the article. There was no consensus about her 'transphobic related views' in the lead here Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 11 - Wikipedia, and the only consensus here Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 9 was that 'TERF' is a non-neutral term and not appropriate for the lead. JeffUK (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @JeffUK: as I linked to on Talk:J. K. Rowling#"and she has been referred to as a TERF", the consensus for the current text of the Transgender people section was workshopped and discussed at length during the WP:FAR at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 5#Workshopping the transgender section. That discussion involved many editors over a not insubstantial amount of time to reach the current wording and has broad consensus amongst editors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note In the short time after writing the above comment, I noticed that several of the relative wikilinks within Archive 5 of the Rowling FAR were broken after those sections were archived. I've now gone though and fixed them, so if you'd read the archive and had encountered any broken intra-archive wikilinks, if you refresh the page those should be fixed now. I also plan on writing a FAQ for Talk:J. K. Rowling's header, linking to the FAR discussion for why certain terms are used, based on the discussion that has been unfolding both here and on the article talk page, incorporating the prominent questions as have been raised. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can't find any discussion about the use of 'TERF' in the body of the article. There was no consensus about her 'transphobic related views' in the lead here Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 11 - Wikipedia, and the only consensus here Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 9 was that 'TERF' is a non-neutral term and not appropriate for the lead. JeffUK (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the specific phrasing used had already been discussed extensively including by editors well familiar with BLP. In a case like that, reverting to the consensus version is well accepted practice. While I'm normally the "one of you just start a blood discussion" camp, really when something has been discussed as extensively as I understand this was, I'm fine with saying the onus is on anyone who wants to establish a new consensus to start that new discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Squarely in WP:SPADE territory here. Also, it is way, way down in the body of the article, in a section where her transphobia is being discussed. There'd be more of a possibly-valid quibble if the lede stated "JK Rowling, noted author and TERF", but there isn't. Zaathras (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wouldn't necessary use SPADE (that would imply that we state it in Wikivoice which, absolutely not), simply that PUBLICFIGURE applies, the claim is made in numerous RSes, clearly has affected her career, and it is presented as a attributed claim and not in Wikivoice. To not include it would be wrong, and its inclusion is done 100% inline with BLP and NPOV. --Masem (t) 13:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- TERF is seen by Rowling as an offensive slur; using 'Calling a spade a spade' to support calling someone a slur is equally offensive. Plenty of people have used slurs to describe Caitlyn Jenner [26], and Barack Obama [27] (to pick two at random!) and the people who use those slurs would say that they are 'describing something clearly and directly.' We don't include them in their articles. JeffUK (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- If we exclude everything subjects consider an offensive slur we couldn't mention how people are called anti-semitic, racist, white supremacist, sexist, homophobic, holocaust denier, climate change denier, dictator, etc. Heck even something like alt-right or far-right is often considered offensive by people called that. As BLP regulars would know, we get it all the time that someone claims you can't call person X because it's offensive/inaccurate/whatever even when there us extensive sourcing. So no, the fact that Rowling considers it an offensive slur is not particularly relevant. The question is the sources etc. Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, the last mega discussion supported generally providing in text attribution when using the term TERF, but it did not support excluding it completely in all cases. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive292#Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Facist, you forgot facist ;) -Roxy the bad tempered dog 14:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Is there anyone here who considers 'TERF' to be a neutral term commonly used in standard English? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As has been stated here, It's on a par with 'Fascist', 'Racist', 'White Supremacist' etc. As such it requires an extremely good justification to mention it in an article, it can't just be thrown around because 'some critics' have used it. 'Nazi' is used regularly in an attempt to discredit opponents accurately or otherwise. We don't say 'Donald Trump has been called a Nazi', nor 'Joe Biden has been called Creepy Joe' despite the verifiability of the fact those statements have been used to describe them.. JeffUK (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- In the case of Rowling, the issue of her being called a TERF has gone beyond just simple labeling, but has affected her career to a degree, and created a strong debate about the nature of TERF. I would normally agree that we should not include labels just because one or two sources use it, but this is a far different case. --Masem (t) 15:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- But why do we need to use the term at all? The article states that Rowling's comments have been described as transphobic. A word with a widely-understood meaning. What does 'TERF' add to this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The connection between Rowling and TERF is incredibly well-documented to the point that not including it would be a violation of UNDUE. It would be like not mentioning "conspiracy theorist" around Alex Jones. For Rowling, we just have to use care to make sure it is not in Wikivoice, as it presently is in the article. --Masem (t) 16:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- But why do we need to use the term at all? The article states that Rowling's comments have been described as transphobic. A word with a widely-understood meaning. What does 'TERF' add to this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- In the case of Rowling, the issue of her being called a TERF has gone beyond just simple labeling, but has affected her career to a degree, and created a strong debate about the nature of TERF. I would normally agree that we should not include labels just because one or two sources use it, but this is a far different case. --Masem (t) 15:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As has been stated here, It's on a par with 'Fascist', 'Racist', 'White Supremacist' etc. As such it requires an extremely good justification to mention it in an article, it can't just be thrown around because 'some critics' have used it. 'Nazi' is used regularly in an attempt to discredit opponents accurately or otherwise. We don't say 'Donald Trump has been called a Nazi', nor 'Joe Biden has been called Creepy Joe' despite the verifiability of the fact those statements have been used to describe them.. JeffUK (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Is there anyone here who considers 'TERF' to be a neutral term commonly used in standard English? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- If we exclude everything subjects consider an offensive slur we couldn't mention how people are called anti-semitic, racist, white supremacist, sexist, homophobic, holocaust denier, climate change denier, dictator, etc. Heck even something like alt-right or far-right is often considered offensive by people called that. As BLP regulars would know, we get it all the time that someone claims you can't call person X because it's offensive/inaccurate/whatever even when there us extensive sourcing. So no, the fact that Rowling considers it an offensive slur is not particularly relevant. The question is the sources etc. Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I have just now been pointed to this discussion, and find it a bit troubling that it has not been linked at the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Back on article talk, I've laid out four options at Talk:J. K. Rowling#Options on "referred to as a TERF". Collaborative discussion has served well in content development of this controversial article, and a couple dozen editors have been able to come to consensus without acrimony; please do weigh in with ideas there. But please do read the previous discussion first :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
My opinion on this claim of BLP vio (notwithstanding the ongoing discussion of how to improve that text): besides the number of mainstream sources that mention this, since Rowling herself raises the issue of having been called a TERF, it is difficult to see how it can be construed as a BLP vio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Sandy. It's not a BLP vio for two reasons; one, a number of reliable sources have linked her with TERFs - two; as Sandy says, she's discussed it herself. That's not saying she is one, merely that she has been accused of such. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- And to be clear, this absolutely falls under PUBLICFIGURE (as a third point). --Masem (t) 17:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Query (as I'm not entirely familiar with how this board functions); would it be appropriate, then, to close this discussion to help assure that discussion continues instead at the appropriate place (article talk)? It is very hard for me to see how this could ever be construed as a BLP vio, or the necessity for a forked discussion ... particularly on an article where everything has been very collaborative for half a year ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- And to be clear, this absolutely falls under PUBLICFIGURE (as a third point). --Masem (t) 17:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Helena Hummasten
Lead is "Helena Hummasten, also known as Helena Benaouda, (born 1959) is a former chair of the Swedish Muslim Council. She has proven controversial in Sweden because her daughter and son-in-law have been arrested on terrorism offence." That's all.
The last bit of her BLP says "Hummasten has condemned all forms of terrorism and denied all knowledge of their activities, although some commentators have expressed doubt about this and have argued that the organizations she works with are governed by the Muslim Brotherhood." Doug Weller talk 11:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see "controversial" and the last bit supported by the citations. Further the details of the allegation and conviction seem UNDUE given there is already a wikilink to her son-in-law and the cited articles are pre-conviction. One of the citations seems to be a tabloid also. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Morbidthoughts as written it seems to be an attack piece. Doug Weller talk 20:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like way too much info that are about other subjects than the article subject. It does seem worth mentioning her son-in-law, because he is notable enough to have an article of his own, but we don't need his life story. I would reduce that last paragraph to just the first and last sentence, because we should give her views on the subject as well. Details about the in-law should go in his article. Zaereth (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Emily Hampshire
I would like more eyes here, please – an approximate WP:DOB was properly sourced in the article (though the source date was incorrect, and was subsequently adjusted, though I forget to fix the date in the Infobox). ItsKesha first tried to change it to an exact DOB, despite that information not being in the source. Then they simply removed the information entirely, without an attempt to discuss. But the current source is perfectly acceptable for a {{Birth based on age as of date}} cite, and it should be restored. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- It was never changed to an exact DOB by myself. Please kindly correct yourself. If the source being used for a date of birth is deemed to be wrong, why is the information even there? The article in question from the Toronto Star was being used to claim she was 30 in 2012, despite the article being from 2009 saying she was 30 in 2009 (dob would be circa 1979); I noticed the error and corrected the date of the article, and then her date of birth accordingly. This edit can be seen here. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I owe ItsKesha an apology – I thought you changed templates, but you only changed the date in the {{Birth based on age as of date}} – would you be willing to self-revert this edit? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, why would I revert the edit? Either the source is correct and the dob is 1979 (based on being 30 in 2009, the date the article was written, not 2012), or the source is incorrect (which is tantamount to WP:OR by yourself), and the information should be removed as a violation of WP:BLP. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ItsKesha: OK, let me rephrase – could you please restore this information in the infobox as of ? – With the source date corrected, this information as of that edit is now correct(ed). It's better if you do it, as then it's non-confrontational. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall@ItsKesha is the dob well known? Because if not we don’t post it. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- If there's a reliable source that quotes an age, it is acceptable to include an approximate YOB – that is pretty standard practice. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall The year at the most, is that what you mean? Doug Weller talk 17:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, if you take a look at Emily Hampshire, that is how it is handled now – it's just a year (range). It's done this was at a number of BLP articles when a WP:RS quotes an age – most do not give an exact DOB. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good to know. I see too much of the other. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, if you take a look at Emily Hampshire, that is how it is handled now – it's just a year (range). It's done this was at a number of BLP articles when a WP:RS quotes an age – most do not give an exact DOB. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall The year at the most, is that what you mean? Doug Weller talk 17:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- If there's a reliable source that quotes an age, it is acceptable to include an approximate YOB – that is pretty standard practice. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @IJBall@ItsKesha is the dob well known? Because if not we don’t post it. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ItsKesha: OK, let me rephrase – could you please restore this information in the infobox as of ? – With the source date corrected, this information as of that edit is now correct(ed). It's better if you do it, as then it's non-confrontational. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, why would I revert the edit? Either the source is correct and the dob is 1979 (based on being 30 in 2009, the date the article was written, not 2012), or the source is incorrect (which is tantamount to WP:OR by yourself), and the information should be removed as a violation of WP:BLP. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I owe ItsKesha an apology – I thought you changed templates, but you only changed the date in the {{Birth based on age as of date}} – would you be willing to self-revert this edit? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Elon Musk's comments on employees
TLDR: User:HAL333 made 4 5 edits that were WP:BLP/WP:V violations (and just as importantly, but less urgently, WP:NPOV violations). User:HAL333 also clearly lied when challenged to make themselves look better, which is a display of bad faith. References are all provided below.
User:HAL333's first edit that violates WP:V due to unsourced/false content was[1][28] (bolded part mine):
- In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire factory workers not working 40 hours per week.
The misinformation part is:
- threatened to fire factory workers not working 40 hours per week.
This is not supported by the source. Here is the true information/quote of Elon Musk's company email from Ars Technica[2]:
- "Anyone who wishes to do remote work must be in the office for a minimum (and I mean *minimum*) of 40 hours per week or depart Tesla. This is less than we ask of factory workers,"
Contrary to HAL333's misinformation, factory workers were not working less than 40 hours per week, and Musk's email was not about threatening to fire factory workers for working less than 40 hours. Instead, office workers were working remotely and Musk's threat was that office workers would be fired for not being in office at least 40 hours per week. This misinformation ("threatened to fire factory workers not working 40 hours per week") is especially odious, because HAL333 unfairly cast the factory workers who were working overtime as working under-time.
I replaced it[3] as it was misinformation and per WP:BLP/WP:V, "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." HAL333 then left a message on my Talk Page accusing me of edit warring[4] and also added back the content that is a WP:BLP/WP:V violation a second time.[5][29] I replaced the content[6] with accurate material and explained the reasoning in my edit summary, because removing a WP:BLP/WP:V violation has priority over HAL333's argument for concision.
HAL333 then edited in this third version omitting the word "factory":[7][30]
- In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week.
and left a Talk:Elon Musk comment lying[8][31] about the content of the two edits[1][5] I said was misinformation / WP:BLP/WP:V violations[3][6]:
- I fail to see how my proposed text
In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week.
is "misinformation" as you claim
What I said was misinformation was "threatened to fire factory workers not working 40 hours per week", which they had edited in twice at this point,[1][5] but omitted the critical word "factory" in their Talk Page comment to try to make my responses look unreasonable. Irrefutable evidence of lying[8] is evidence of bad faith.
I pointed out to them on the Talk Page that they were lying, which they didn't refute. I also explained that this was still WP:NPOV, because it characterizes Tesla employees (in general) as working less than 40 hours, or that Musk's threat was about employees working less than 40 hours, when the sources do not support this.
They weren't convinced, even though this is clearly false information not supported by the sources, and then made a fourth edit[9][32] to add the word "and" to make the sentence more grammatical, again maintaining the false, unsourced content. I removed the misinformation[10] as per WP:BLP/WP:V. HAL333's editorialism "threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week" is not supported by the sources, as Musk was forcing employees into office, not forcing them to work. They then reported me for 3RR.
They also have a history of behavior that looked like WP:GAME (threatening 3RR and reverting themselves when I reverted their vandalism based on the Talk Page majority consensus to keep the content (WP:PLAYPOLICY, WP:GASLIGHT), discussed here), but looks more so now, given that there is clear evidence of bad faith via lying.
Edit: Now HAL333 made a fifth edit[11][33] that violates WP:BLP & WP:V: "In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla and threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week." TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC); edited TechnophilicHippie (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC); edited to include direct diffs in addition to inline citations of diffs TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is a retaliation thread of HAL333's report of TechnophilicHippie's edit warring. I suggest both editors to resolve the content dispute at the prior noticeboard first in order to avoid duplication and drama. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I already mentioned way before you at report of TechnophilicHippie's edit warring that I warned HAL333 for WP:BLP violation and that HAL333 reported me first to jump the gun. I also noted in the comments there a while back before you that I was creating this WP:BLPN report, so you are just injecting yourself into ANI without new information. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I forgot the word "and" in two earlier edits. If TechnophilicHippie were truly concerned about that, they simply would have added "and". Instead, they used it to add other content that had been reverted by two editors and for which there is no consensus. They used BLP claims to push their edit warring. And I'm gaming the system? That's funny. ~ HAL333 11:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is yet another example of HAL333's gaslighting and acting in bad faith. It is impossible to have productive discussions about content with someone who won't engage with the arguments and just tries to misrepresent the other person. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Musk was forcing employees into office, not forcing them to work
What do you think they would do at an office for 40 hours? Read the references. ~ HAL333 11:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)- At least as I understand the situation around Musk' comments, he did not trust people teleworking were "working", and thus wanted the office workers at the office for that 40 hr so that they could be supervised. Of course he'd be expecting them to work, but the whole issue is around the management of those employees, not their productivity (or at least, he wanted he and his managers to be able to eyewitness their productivity). --Masem (t) 12:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's what I got too. Would you say that "In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla and threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week." is supported by the sources? Does it need tweaking? Does it violate BLP? ~ HAL333 12:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- It would need to be "...fire employees who did not work at least 40 hours in Tesla's offices" to capture it. Masem (t) 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Does it violate BLP?
I assume the "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable" clause is in WP:BLP, because whether the material is positive versus negative is subjective and dependent on a person's values, so there is no way to objectively determine whether it is positive/negative. To put it simply, if it fails WP:V, then it's a BLP violation. Also note WP:PLAYPOLICY: "Example: Saying that content meets the policy on verifiability because it is cited to a source, when in fact the source is not reliable, or the content twists the source's point of view." TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's what I got too. Would you say that "In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla and threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week." is supported by the sources? Does it need tweaking? Does it violate BLP? ~ HAL333 12:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- At least as I understand the situation around Musk' comments, he did not trust people teleworking were "working", and thus wanted the office workers at the office for that 40 hr so that they could be supervised. Of course he'd be expecting them to work, but the whole issue is around the management of those employees, not their productivity (or at least, he wanted he and his managers to be able to eyewitness their productivity). --Masem (t) 12:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Now HAL333 made a fifth edit[11] that violates WP:BLP & WP:V: "In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla and threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week." TechnophilicHippie (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I really haven't been following this discussion, but what edit are you referring to? I clicked the link provided an it just took me to a reference at the bottom of the page. Anyhow, I don't know how that violates policy without seeing it in context, but what caught my eye is that the sentence has more than one meaning, depending on how you look at it. Is he going to fire workers instead of working? Or is he going to fire workers who were not working? It is awkward to read because of this and need to be fixed grammatically at the very least. I'd need an actual diff to better tell if this is a policy vio or not. Zaereth (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- The reference at the bottom of the page links to the diff. The problem is that HAL333's edit that fails WP:V, which he has done 5 times now, is not supported by the sources. Tesla employees have been working all this time, just remotely instead of in office; there is no evidence that they were working less than 40 hours per week and needed chastising. Suggesting that Tesla employees are lazy is an especially abhorrent distortion of the truth, since Tesla is known to overwork their employees in general. As admin MASEM said earlier on 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC),
It would need to be "...fire employees who did not work at least 40 hours in Tesla's offices" to capture it.
TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)- Well, yeah. Like I said, the grammar in the sentence is awful. Now I never would have found that link down there, because I never look for refs until I first see them in the diffs, so I know how they're being used. I need to see it in context. Thanks for the link. Much easier to find.
- The reference at the bottom of the page links to the diff. The problem is that HAL333's edit that fails WP:V, which he has done 5 times now, is not supported by the sources. Tesla employees have been working all this time, just remotely instead of in office; there is no evidence that they were working less than 40 hours per week and needed chastising. Suggesting that Tesla employees are lazy is an especially abhorrent distortion of the truth, since Tesla is known to overwork their employees in general. As admin MASEM said earlier on 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC),
- I really haven't been following this discussion, but what edit are you referring to? I clicked the link provided an it just took me to a reference at the bottom of the page. Anyhow, I don't know how that violates policy without seeing it in context, but what caught my eye is that the sentence has more than one meaning, depending on how you look at it. Is he going to fire workers instead of working? Or is he going to fire workers who were not working? It is awkward to read because of this and need to be fixed grammatically at the very least. I'd need an actual diff to better tell if this is a policy vio or not. Zaereth (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- So, to start with, this isn't really a BLP violation anymore than as it relates V and NPOV. Some people find it confusing, I think, because we get so much of this here, but every little thing that is disputed in an article is not automatically a BLP vio. Every other policy still applies just as it would for any other article. BLP policy is there to cover things specific to living people; in particular their safety and privacy among other things. This particular sentence is not something I would say rises to the level of BLP vio.
- That said, the grammar is bad, and I agree it needs rephrasing. At best it's a stumbling block for the reader. At worst, it comes off as nonsensical, because it can be read in three --if not four-- different ways. It all depends on how you look at it, kinda like a Necker cube. When I first read the sentence, it tripped me up, dead in my tracks. I read "..fired workers not working..." as if it was saying he would fire workers, but would not fire working itself, which made no sense to me. I was sitting there for a second blinking my eyes. For a moment my mind shorted out, and everything was completely erased. There are actually two more (possibly three) ways a person could read that sentence. Now, that's not intended to put down the author, because it happens to all of us from time to time. Writing for ourselves is easy, because we know what we meant before we ever put it to words, but writing for others is hard, that is, if you want them to understand what you meant. It's like "Never feed a baby chili." Great, but what is a "baby chili". How about "Never feed chili to a baby". Never underestimate the power of prepositions.
- So I agree, the sentence does need changing, if nothing else than to make it coherent and less of a stumbling block for the reader. And it may possibly need clarification if it's not giving the whole story, but if it means what I think it means, then it is not in violation of V, but by your own argument, it may be a bit of an NPOV problem if we're not getting important details. Zaereth (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
So, to start with, this isn't really a BLP violation anymore than as it relates V and NPOV.
According to WP:BLP, BLPs must adhere strictly to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR.BLP policy is there to cover things specific to living people; in particular their safety and privacy among other things.
According to WP:BLP, "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." Doesn't this mean that it covers more than an individual's safety and privacy, and adding content about Elon Must that fails WP:V and WP:NPOV—but is to his advantage against his employees—is also a BLP violation? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- So I agree, the sentence does need changing, if nothing else than to make it coherent and less of a stumbling block for the reader. And it may possibly need clarification if it's not giving the whole story, but if it means what I think it means, then it is not in violation of V, but by your own argument, it may be a bit of an NPOV problem if we're not getting important details. Zaereth (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting reply. As a friendly piece of advice, you might have better luck if you don't argue with people who are agreeing with you, or at least agreeing with your conclusion if not your premise. You may just find a better argument. (All roads lead to Rome.) Sometimes it's necessary to "cry BLP" when a really important issue is at hand, like when a court document is used as the sole source of a criminal allegation, or someone's personal information is posted somewhere. There are even cases where an NPOV vio can rise to the level of being a hazard to either our subjects or our readers. That's more what this board is for. But more often than not the main issue is with another policy entirely, and is just your garden variety content dispute. Here, this case of NPOV, and NPOVN may have been a better board to take it to, but now that we're here... Trying to make this a BLP issue is distracting you and everyone else from the real policy that you should be focusing on, which is counterproductive to your goals. V is already satisfied, and was confirmed by every source listed. He most certainly did threaten to fire workers who were not working 40 hour weeks (there, see how I wrote that?). Even if he did not use those exact words, the meaning was explicit. As long as they are at-will employees with no binding contract, every employer in America has that right, so it's not like it is something illegal or even bad. (A bit outlandish maybe, but look who we're talking about.) That is well sourced, so RS is satisfied. Now onto NPOV. Is it balanced? Even as a short summary, are we getting the whole story, or is there a little cherry-picking going on? (Maybe unconsciously? Just a little?) I agree with Masem's statement, that to cover the gist of it we need to include the where. And fix the sentence while you're at it. It looks odd to have two nouns side by side; separated by a "not" with no spatial orientation. Zaereth (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
V is already satisfied, and was confirmed by every source listed. He most certainly did threaten to fire workers who were not working 40 hour weeks (there, see how I wrote that?). Even if he did not use those exact words, the meaning was explicit. As long as they are at-will employees with no binding contract, every employer in America has that right, so it's not like it is something illegal or even bad.
No. Although every employer has that right, that is a separate fact which has nothing to do with the sources reporting the story that in June 2022, Musk sent company emails threatening to fire employees who, moving forward, spend less than 40 hours per week in Tesla or SpaceX offices.[2][12][13][14]Sometimes it's necessary to "cry BLP" when a really important issue is at hand, like when a court document is used as the sole source of a criminal allegation, or someone's personal information is posted somewhere. There are even cases where an NPOV vio can rise to the level of being a hazard to either our subjects or our readers. That's more what this board is for.
I understand the urgency in removing libel and personal information over other V violations in a BLP, that libel and the leaking of personal information are BLP violations, and that these kinds of problems are around 95% of BLP violations. However, WP:BLP says, "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. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Isn't the BLP Noticeboard the right place to report BLP violations that are not libel or leaking personal information?As a friendly piece of advice, you might have better luck if you don't argue with people who are agreeing with you, or at least agreeing with your conclusion if not your premise.
I don't think we are in agreement about either the premises or conclusion. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting reply. As a friendly piece of advice, you might have better luck if you don't argue with people who are agreeing with you, or at least agreeing with your conclusion if not your premise. You may just find a better argument. (All roads lead to Rome.) Sometimes it's necessary to "cry BLP" when a really important issue is at hand, like when a court document is used as the sole source of a criminal allegation, or someone's personal information is posted somewhere. There are even cases where an NPOV vio can rise to the level of being a hazard to either our subjects or our readers. That's more what this board is for. But more often than not the main issue is with another policy entirely, and is just your garden variety content dispute. Here, this case of NPOV, and NPOVN may have been a better board to take it to, but now that we're here... Trying to make this a BLP issue is distracting you and everyone else from the real policy that you should be focusing on, which is counterproductive to your goals. V is already satisfied, and was confirmed by every source listed. He most certainly did threaten to fire workers who were not working 40 hour weeks (there, see how I wrote that?). Even if he did not use those exact words, the meaning was explicit. As long as they are at-will employees with no binding contract, every employer in America has that right, so it's not like it is something illegal or even bad. (A bit outlandish maybe, but look who we're talking about.) That is well sourced, so RS is satisfied. Now onto NPOV. Is it balanced? Even as a short summary, are we getting the whole story, or is there a little cherry-picking going on? (Maybe unconsciously? Just a little?) I agree with Masem's statement, that to cover the gist of it we need to include the where. And fix the sentence while you're at it. It looks odd to have two nouns side by side; separated by a "not" with no spatial orientation. Zaereth (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- The admin's noticeboard for edit warring concluded that you were edit warring over that content. Your BLP claims are purely to game the system and justify your edit warring. ~ HAL333 21:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- That admin did not take into account that removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are projecting your own WP:GAME on to me. I explained to you that this was a BLP violation five times [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] and then you reported me for 3RR, which is WP:PLAYPOLICY: "Telling another user that by reverting your vandalism edits, they are violating the 3-revert rule. (Vandalism is a listed exception to the 3-revert rule.)". Per WP:NOT3RR, this is an exemption: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." TechnophilicHippie (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I think that all of us (me, TechnophilicHippie and HAL333) should close this thread and start forming a consensus at the article talk page. As proven in J. K. Rowling talk page, it is possible for us to work together and make the article more neutral, without going to noticeboards every once in a while. Accusing each other for foul play would lead us nowhere. Making a thread at NPOV noticeboard would not magically solve the NPOV conjecture. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. At this point, y'all are discussing hypothetical semantics because TechnophilicHippie is complaining about phrasing which isn't even present in the current article. ~ HAL333 15:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe this is really a ANI issue about your WP:GAME behavior instead? Where is the right place to report WP:BLP's "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." ? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Then do that instead of being uncivil and casting aspersions in an inappropriate venue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:NOT3RR a 3RR exemption is "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." My concern is that if I report to ANI, they will say this needs to be handled at BLPN, because it is a BLP-specific rule. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- You already brought that concern here, it has been rejected by the community. In fact you yourself have been warned for edit warring as a result of this dispute[39], your edits were not found to meet any of the edit warring exemptions. If you wish to pursue your allegations of WP:GAME ANI is the venue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
it has been rejected by the community.
This is incorrect; one user is not the community. I am in alignment with admin User:Masem who said that HAL333's edit was inaccurate and did not capture what was said by the sources. Non-admin User:Zaereth said they weren't following the discussion, they had problems understanding the sentence, and that if they understood the sentence, then it was a problem with confusing wording. (This is not the problem. I did not report to BLPN because of confusing wording.) User:Zaereth also said that only problems like libel and exposing personal information should be reported to BLPN. (This is incorrect. WP:BLP and WP:NOT3RR separately, technically and in spirit of the policies, say that this is a BLP violation; together, they say I should report this to BLPN.) User:Zaereth also said that the edit does not fail V, because it is legal for employers to fire employees for not working 40 hours per week. (I agree that it is legal, but it is a completely separate fact unrelated to the topic at hand, and did not start in June 2022, which would suggest that Tesla/SpaceX employees were working less than full-time before June 2022, which is the exact problem I am reporting.) Could you please read my original BLPN report?In fact you yourself have been warned for edit warring as a result of this dispute
[40] I already linked to HAL333's 3RR report in my original BLPN report, and stated above on 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC) that "That admin did not take into account that removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR."[41] If the admin took into account BLP violations, they would say it is not a BLP violation. They also didn't review this BLPN report, because they did not leave any comment on this BLPN report. If this is a BLP violation, then the 3RR report is unwarranted. Also, I did not actually get an admin warning, despite the board saying that I did, perhaps because the admin saw HAL333's messages my Talk Page which show enough of the history of HAL333's behavior against me and suggests inconsistencies with the narrative of HAL333's 3RR report. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)- These allegations are becoming more and more bizarre and less and less based in reality. If this is the path you are on I can not help you, I wish you the best of luck. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnophilicHippie: if you have evidence that an editor is
persistently or egregiously violate
BLP then yes you should report this to ANI not here. ANI will not direct you to here if you actually have such evidence because editor conduct issues especially those requiring sanction really belong there not here. But it's a moot point until you find the evidence. So far you've not shown any evidence of such a thing, so the end result of an ANI thread is more likely to be a WP:BOOMERANG. ANI is not the place for you to report minor disagreements about wording, nor a place for you to report minor mistakes an editor may have made, even those concerning a living person. Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)But it's a moot point until you find the evidence. So far you've not shown any evidence of such a thing.
Can you review and respond to my original BLPN report instead of relying on one editor's comments, User:Zaereth? Admin User:Masem seemed to be aligned with me. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)- @TechnophilicHippie: what on earth are you talking about? I've been seeing this silly thread for several days, long before Zaereth even said anything, frankly I barely read what they said. It's clear to me as I think to every editor here that you have not shown evidence of any editor "
persistently or egregiously violate
" BLP. And I need to take care when reading what others have said. Masem may feel your wording is better but I'm confident they do not feel any editor here has "persistently or egregiously violate
" from the evidence presented, or I'm sure they would have blocked, or at least given a clear warning about this behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)- Does adding in the BLP violation 5 times count as "persistently" violating BLP? How many times would it count as persistent? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnophilicHippie: what on earth are you talking about? I've been seeing this silly thread for several days, long before Zaereth even said anything, frankly I barely read what they said. It's clear to me as I think to every editor here that you have not shown evidence of any editor "
- BTW, TechnophilicHippie I'm very confused about what you're doing here. Do you still feel there is a BLP problem with the article? If you do, then why on earth aren't you trying to resolve that alleged problem by discussing the best wording preferably on the article talk page or at least here? How can a problem be severe enough that your talking about sanction yet you're making no effort to actually fix it via discussion? I'd note your last edit on the issue on the article talk page seems to have been before you opened this thread, and all your recent edits here seem to be complaining about editor behaviour rather than trying to come up with a wording that you feel does not violate BLP. If you don't feel there's a problem anymore than the simple answer is no one is really interested in a further post-mortem about who did what wrong, especially not on BLPN. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you still feel there is a BLP problem with the article?
I do not anymore, because HAL333 fixed it to admin User:Masem's wording after I updated in my BLPN report that they added in this BLP violation a fifth time... and after they reported me for 3RR for removing this BLP violation. You're right. This is more appropriate for ANI. I don't have time for ANI or too much Wikipedia right now because of real-life problems, so I will stop commenting here unless more aspersions are cast on me in the comments here, or you are replying to my original BLPN report, etc.all your recent edits here seem to be complaining about editor behaviour rather than trying to come up with a wording that you feel does not violate BLP.
I wasn't trying to come up with accurate wording, but trying to report the repeated BLP violations. I reverted/replaced the BLP violation with accurate wording 3 times, and HAL333 had reported me for 3RR. I thought BLPN was for reporting BLP violations, but I will leave this because I don't have time myself to keep arguing about this extensively. TechnophilicHippie (talk)
- You already brought that concern here, it has been rejected by the community. In fact you yourself have been warned for edit warring as a result of this dispute[39], your edits were not found to meet any of the edit warring exemptions. If you wish to pursue your allegations of WP:GAME ANI is the venue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:NOT3RR a 3RR exemption is "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." My concern is that if I report to ANI, they will say this needs to be handled at BLPN, because it is a BLP-specific rule. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Then do that instead of being uncivil and casting aspersions in an inappropriate venue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe this is really a ANI issue about your WP:GAME behavior instead? Where is the right place to report WP:BLP's "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." ? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's good to know, because I thought this was about fixing a problem, but instead it's about making into something bigger than it really was. Silly me. No wonder you can't see that I was agreeing with your solution, or that my advice was meant to help you reach your end goal. I was apparently confused about what the goal really was. This is not a BLP vio. It's a simple content dispute, which could have been easily resolved if people really listen to each other without getting all defensive, edit warring, and blowing it all out of proportion. I don't see anyone here casting aspersions. These may be perceived, but are not real. I mean, I could easily take someone writing my own words back to me as highly offensive, because it comes off as condescending, as if you're saying I'm too stupid to remember what I said. Or worse, that you're only reading pieces of what I wrote and ignoring the point of the whole. But I don't, because it really doesn't say anything about me. Now you can take it to ANI if you like, but I would recommend against that, because I do not foresee the outcome in your favor. That is also friendly advice, and you can take it or leave it, or argue with it if you want. The content dispute has been resolved, and that's all that really matters. Zaereth (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't see anyone here casting aspersions.
I don't think you have been reading this discussion. Here are some of the aspersions that I am responding to: [42] [43]. If aspersions were not cast against me to derail the original BLPN report, then I would not keep trying to refute them.These may be perceived, but are not real.
Did you expect that I would not be compelled to reply with the diffs if you are saying no one is casting aspersions against me in the comments? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)- Let me repeat, BLPN is simply not a good place to deal with editor conduct issues. If you actually have evidence of an editor violating BLP in a manner severe enough warrant sanction take it to ANI. So far, you've presented no such evidence so the end result of such a thread is likely to be a quick close if you're lucky or a boomerang if you're not. Note that BLPN is even less of a place to moan about editor conduct which is not severe enough to warrant sanction. As it stands, your responses remain contradictory. On the one hand, you're claiming there is a BLP violation with HAL333's edits, a violation severe enough to warrant sanction. But on the other hand, you're making no efforts to fix this violation beyond edit warring and some minor comments early on. Edit warring is easy. Properly discussing your concerns and coming up with a wording that deals with everyone's concerns, that isn't so easy but is the sort of work anyone should be doing if they see a severe BLP violation that no one else is seeing. The fact you aren't willing to put in the effort drastically increases the chances any ANI thread will boomerang. Because whatever you may claim, your actions suggest you do not see a severe BLP violation. Why else aren't you putting in the hard yards to resolve this severe BLP violation which is surely more important? Why is your sole focus instead trying to get an editor blocked and failing that, moaning about them and everyone else who disagrees with you? Your actions suggest that you're just annoyed that things haven't gone your way and so you're lashing out. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, the funning thing is, I actually felt and feel the earlier wordings were misleading to various levels albeit not the sort of issues worthy of bring to BLPN. As I said, I saw this thread early on, I think possibly before we came up with the current wording [44] (which looks good enough to me). I never said anything for a variety of reasons but one of them was because the focus of this thread always seems wrong and way too full of hyperbole. It always seemed to be an editor conduct complaint and an overreaction at that, rather then a genuine attempt to come up with a satisfactory wording. Point being, there's a good chance the wording problem could have been resolved or at least improved enough that most editors are satisfied earlier; and also more more people would have said (explicitly or implicitly) to HAL333, yeah I don't think you should have done that, if this hadn't been so poorly handled from the get-go. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Let me repeat, BLPN is simply not a good place to deal with editor conduct issues. If you actually have evidence of an editor violating BLP in a manner severe enough warrant sanction take it to ANI. So far, you've presented no such evidence so the end result of such a thread is likely to be a quick close if you're lucky or a boomerang if you're not. Note that BLPN is even less of a place to moan about editor conduct which is not severe enough to warrant sanction. As it stands, your responses remain contradictory. On the one hand, you're claiming there is a BLP violation with HAL333's edits, a violation severe enough to warrant sanction. But on the other hand, you're making no efforts to fix this violation beyond edit warring and some minor comments early on. Edit warring is easy. Properly discussing your concerns and coming up with a wording that deals with everyone's concerns, that isn't so easy but is the sort of work anyone should be doing if they see a severe BLP violation that no one else is seeing. The fact you aren't willing to put in the effort drastically increases the chances any ANI thread will boomerang. Because whatever you may claim, your actions suggest you do not see a severe BLP violation. Why else aren't you putting in the hard yards to resolve this severe BLP violation which is surely more important? Why is your sole focus instead trying to get an editor blocked and failing that, moaning about them and everyone else who disagrees with you? Your actions suggest that you're just annoyed that things haven't gone your way and so you're lashing out. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's good to know, because I thought this was about fixing a problem, but instead it's about making into something bigger than it really was. Silly me. No wonder you can't see that I was agreeing with your solution, or that my advice was meant to help you reach your end goal. I was apparently confused about what the goal really was. This is not a BLP vio. It's a simple content dispute, which could have been easily resolved if people really listen to each other without getting all defensive, edit warring, and blowing it all out of proportion. I don't see anyone here casting aspersions. These may be perceived, but are not real. I mean, I could easily take someone writing my own words back to me as highly offensive, because it comes off as condescending, as if you're saying I'm too stupid to remember what I said. Or worse, that you're only reading pieces of what I wrote and ignoring the point of the whole. But I don't, because it really doesn't say anything about me. Now you can take it to ANI if you like, but I would recommend against that, because I do not foresee the outcome in your favor. That is also friendly advice, and you can take it or leave it, or argue with it if you want. The content dispute has been resolved, and that's all that really matters. Zaereth (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c "→Managerial style and treatment of employees: concision".
- ^ a b Brodkin, Jon (June 1, 2022). "Musk to Tesla and SpaceX workers: Be in the office 40 hours a week or quit". Ars Technica.
- ^ a b "→Managerial style and treatment of employees: Fix misinformation caused by good faith, extreme attempt at concision".
- ^ "→Edit Warring: new section".
- ^ a b c "→Managerial style and treatment of employees: Please stop edit warring. Discuss this on the talk page".
- ^ a b "→Managerial style and treatment of employees: Fix unsourced content. WP:VERIFY has higher priority than the value of concision. Per WP:BLP, "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."".
- ^ "→Managerial style and treatment of employees: Per status quo and concision. You made a BOLD edit, were reverted, and now it is time to discuss. In fact, you already have this discussed whether it was due and failed to gain a consensus. If you continue reverting the this without gaining a consensus, I will bring you to ANI".
- ^ a b "→Greater weight given to hypothetical Martian colonists than real, living humans on Earth: Please stop edit warring. Discuss it further".
- ^ "→Managerial style and treatment of employees: ce".
- ^ "→Managerial style and treatment of employees: Replaced content that is a serious WP:NPOV violation and also WP:VERIFY violation in any neutral reading of the source. Per WP:BLP, "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."".
- ^ a b "→Managerial style and treatment of employees: partial revert to align with consensus and ANI result. If you still, object, let's try to open a larger discussion".
- ^ Bursztynsky, Jessica (1 Jun 2022). "Elon Musk tells Tesla workers to return to the office full time or resign". CNBC.
- ^ Jin, Hyunjoo; Datta, Tiyashi (1 Jun 2022). "Elon Musk tells Tesla staff: return to office or leave". Reuters.
- ^ Mac, Ryan (1 Jun 2022). "Elon Musk to Workers: Spend 40 Hours in the Office, or Else". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 1 Jun 2022.
Otylia Jędrzejczak
I've added info to Otylia Jędrzejczak about the fact that she committed a manslaughter. The info was provided with sources, literally every sentence had at least one source/ref. Sources were reliable - these are all known Polish news sites, most of them have even their own article here on en.wikipedia. Same sources were used YEARS ago in polish version of the article and nobody questioned it. Johannnes89 abused his revert privilege by reverting the changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otylia_J%C4%99drzejczak&type=revision&diff=1095417550&oldid=1095329201
Vstitle (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- see Special:Diff/1095420820#Manslaughter, you're violating WP:BLP across different language versions since you've been blocked in plWP [45], claiming it was murder [46] Johannnes89 (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- There seems to be too much WP:UNDUE detail about the accident and trial, even if she was convicted of it. Avoid WP:BLPGOSSIP. Every detail that you wish to include should have two citations to reliable sources per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The main one I see is either paywalled or just blocked in my country. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Kenes Rakishev
Greetings!
The existing entry in Wikipedia on Kenes Rakishev contains highly biased information that is being used in today's geopolitical climate to besmirch Mr. Rakishev to readers of this entry, particularly to Western readers.
One major example is this: Relationship with Ramzan Kadyrov[edit] Rakishev has frequently appeared in photographs with Chechen despot Ramzan Kadyrov.[4]
So? And why is Ramzan Kadryov being called a "despot?" - this is slanted reporting and it is designed to besmirch both of these men. I could see this being written in a neutral tone like "Mr. Rakishev is acquainted with many Central Asian leaders, including Ramzan Kadryov, the Head of the Chechen Republic."
But the way it is written is negative casting.
Further, the piece has a story, "Seizing the assets of BTA Bank", which seems to be the sole intent of the writer - to show Rakishev as some sort of evil businessman, CIS style / corrupt and so on. The piece is presently set up to cast aspersions on its subject material rather than to give a fair and neutral account of his life and work.
I am working on a project to correct this, and I have better sourcing, more balanced information and we would like to correct the existing piece. I am working with Mr. Rakishev's PR support because Mr. Rakishev is concerned about his name being smeared by the present piece. It is my intention to replace the existing material with a far more neutral stub that would better represent Mr. Rakishev in an objective manner - the good, the bad and the indifferent, and which would also not be set up as a deliberate effort to either glorify or persecute Mr. Rakishev.
What can I do to help update the page with the information I have? And yes, while I am working on this project as part of the efforts my Mr. Rakishev to not have himself falsely cast, we do strive for neutrality and a well-sourced and informative piece about him. My model is that of the piece about Elon Musk that is also on Wikipedia, and while Elon is certainly very popular among many people, the entry on him doesn't shy away from controversies and scandals Elon has been involved in.
What should I do to proceed?
Thank you! Aaron S Hanisch Seraphim1967
- Hello, and thanks for bringing this here, and for declaring your conflict of interest. It's a good sign when people try in good faith to do this according to policy. The first piece of advice --to anyone coming here-- or boards like this, is you'll be far more likely to get a reply if you provide a link to the article, at the very least.
- First, I agree about the subsection on pictures. That didn't give any indication of why this should be important to the reader, and just came off as trivia. Not to mention that the source is an op/ed column and not really a news article. Therefore I remove it. I also changed the heading for the BTA subsection, if for no other reason than a heading shouldn't begin with a verb. Also, the word "seizing" can have some negative connotations and doesn't seem the appropriate word give the content of that section. Perhaps the government seized the bank, but there is no indication that the subject did.
- For the rest of that section, I'll start by saying it was very difficult to get through without zoning-out every couple of sentences. I felt like it was going to put me to sleep. It's way too long and filled with far too many details we just don't need for an encyclopedia. All we need is the gist of it. The nitty gritty. I also have some concerns about WP:WEIGHT issues, because that section is nearly half the article, so all in all I think it needs to be trimmed down considerably.
- Personally, I don't have time to go through it all and do a really good job of weighing everything and putting the article in balance. My suggestion is to bring your concerns and sources to the article's talk page, and request your changes there. If you have multiple changes in mind, I'd try tackling them individually, because too much all at once tends to break a discussion into a million little tangents, and then nothing goes anywhere. Feel free to link this discussion for my critique.
- Also, I'd keep in mind, weight and balance often have a bigger impact than content. People often come here with the idea of "setting the record straight" by adding more sources and info, when what that really ends up doing is making the article all about that one thing. Just keep that in mind when you make your requests. Thanks, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Timothy_Hale-Cusanelli
Is Wikipedia for publishing dossiers on protesters arrested for trespassing? This article appears to be a motivated violation of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notanipokay (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- As NOTPUBLICFIGURE mentions, people who are not well known can still be notable enough for their own article on Wikipedia. If you object to this person having an article under WP:CRIMINAL, you can start a discusssion for deletion through the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Notanipokay,
arrested for trespassing
understates things considerably. He was convicted of five crimes, including a felony. His unusual behavior has clearly attracted more than enough attention from reliable sources to make him a notable person. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Notanipokay,
- WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP may apply: there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage before his role in 2021 United States Capitol attack. His accomplishments before the 2021 attack are unremarkable, even if subsequent news outlets mention them. This 2010 crime blotter is local routine coverage, not what get's someone into a global encyclopedia. There are over 700 people charged in the attack. Do we need a devoted article for every person who goes to trial? Lord I sure hope not. --Animalparty! (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I raised this to AfD, as irrespective of OP in this thread, I concur with Animalparty that the claim to notability is thin at best. Curbon7 (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Doreen Granpeesheh
The Doreen Granpeesheh has Edits which I believe violate WP:MEDRS by repeating and highlighting known misinformation about vaccines. My understanding is also that per WP:FRINGE these medical theories, especially when they are mere opinions of someone medically or scientifically unqualified to comment on such a subject, should just be removed because it does not provide any encyclopedic value. Further the quote is provided without any context or background, i.e. we don't know the overall context or history of Granpeesheh's involvement with the film or the context of vaccine/autism medical speculation in 2016. She appears to have a different opinion of vaccines in 2022. An uninformed reader might reasonably either believe the opinion is true today because they trust Granpeesheh or come to the conclusion that the article's subject is uneducated, highly misinformed or worse. Leading the reader to either conclusion is either promoting the theory or misleading in my view.
The spirit of WP:BLP is "Wikipedia must get the article right" These specific edits do not "get the article right" and because the change appears to violate several policies it was removed. However the removal's title included links to the Talk page where substantive rationale for the removal edit was provided. Is this not a reasonable approach to a WP:BRD discussion cycle and is it not reasonable for the editor's involved to then proceed with a thorough and civil discussion of the edits on the subject's Talk page? Is this not how WP:BRD cycle is supposed to proceed? There is no immediate urgency to publish this information. It would be wise to have a discussion and only add the material if it does not violate policies and it adds encyclopedia value. I also believe WP:ECREE applies.
The Doreen Granpeesheh is currently barely more than a stub article and really deserves better editor attention than it's current state. Second Edits which added interesting and positive information about her career are immediately blocked by consensus objection. No real effort is made to collaborate and expand and improve the article. The edits in question deserve a wider community review by Wikipedia Editors, because bio's of living persons do deserve extra care and I respectfully request a wider community review of this article.
Because the current article is only four sentences: a Los Angeles Times article is currently a better reference to understand the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsTrombone (talk • contribs) 10:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you MarsTrombone (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I can see othing wrong with that content - there is no "repeating and highlighting known misinformation about vaccines" as the article quite clearly says that the autism-MMR claim is debunked, and the other sources are reliable and talk about her involvement in the program. The material in Wikipedia's voice is neutral and sourced. Also, this is not WP:UNDUE as she is not some random person - she founded a centre for autism research. Black Kite (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Having answered this, I've now looked at the OPs actual editing on this BLP and its related article and can see that they're merely trying to remove critical material and add testimonials - which is concerning in the context of alternative "treatment" which alleges that it can treat autism. I see that they have been indefinitely pblocked from the BLP, which is the correct response. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Ashley Christensen
Citations 7 and 8 fall under defamatory and libelous information and accusations and should be removed. Ashley Christensen helped raise 1 million dollars to support restaurant workers in the pandemic: https://www.southernliving.com/news/local-news/ashley-christensen-nc-restaurant-workers-relief-fund
Her group has employed outside HR since 2016 to handle make sure employees safety and well-being is a top priority across her restaurants: https://indyweek.com/food-and-drink/features/ashley-christensen-bbs-chicken-profile/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GV2022 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pertinent diff.[47] I don't see anything that's contentious about the information supported by citation 7 unless you are disputing something in the cited article itself. As for citation 8, there are two other sources that report on the allegation and Christensen taking accountability [48][49] which would meet WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Do you have any connection to Christensen or her businesses? Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm comfortable that reference 8 is a reasonable source, and that it supports the text in the article. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- The problem as I see it is not WP:RS but, (as is far too common on Wikipedia), isolated dumb incidents getting disproportionate coverage. Why does this BLP of Christensen, barely more than a stub, contain the belabored passage "In 2020,a former employee revealed that they had been sexually assaulted on numerous occasions in one of Christensen's establishments. The victim's full name was publicly revealed by one of Christensen's establishment's Instagram accounts, including a reference to said victim's private exit interview." Is the victim of harassment closely tied to Christensen, or was this just daily news which someone with an itchy edit finger carelessly added? Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:ONUS, stuff like this should be omitted, at least until the article has expanded in length and detail, so that the public doesn't falsely conclude that a major aspect of Christensen's career and biography is a sexual harassment claim and Instagram drama. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- The length of the article is irrelevant, if it's something widely and well covered by RS, it belongs in the article. Perhaps this is what they are more notable for. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think you have a different understanding of BLP and NPOV than I: If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a stub, would it make sense to devote 1/4 of the stub to her time as a bartender and leave it as such? Per WP:PROPORTION, "For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Per WP:BLPBALANCE, "biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times". --Animalparty! (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- If that was what she was notable for, then I'd say that's balance. Christensen is notable for being a JB award winner, had minor coverage prior to the controversy. So I'd say that it's both wP:DUE and balanced. Fairness does not mean flattering. We summarize what independent reliable sources say - if they are covering this stuff, and overwhelmingly so, it's reasonable for us to include it. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- If. I have expanded the article somewhat, as she has had significant coverage before the controversy. I'm still not sure allegations filed by an employee at one of Christensen's restaurants (and not about Christensen herself, it should be noted), rise to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia, even if Christensen herself responded. Wikipedia shouldn't be slavishly incorporating news spikes into encyclopedias just because a fact gets printed, which is the entire crux of WP:ONUS. Controversies with no lasting effects or well documented significance are just news of the day. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to disagree about balance here. Christensen and her restaurants have had a lot more coverage nationally and locally rather than the disputed incident. I only see three articles on the sexual assault accusations in the same local sources where she's drawn much more coverage for her business and accolades. In fact, the #8 citation that focuses on her restaurant leaking the accusers's identity is only supported by one source which is less than what PUBLICFIGURE demands. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- If that was what she was notable for, then I'd say that's balance. Christensen is notable for being a JB award winner, had minor coverage prior to the controversy. So I'd say that it's both wP:DUE and balanced. Fairness does not mean flattering. We summarize what independent reliable sources say - if they are covering this stuff, and overwhelmingly so, it's reasonable for us to include it. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think you have a different understanding of BLP and NPOV than I: If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a stub, would it make sense to devote 1/4 of the stub to her time as a bartender and leave it as such? Per WP:PROPORTION, "For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Per WP:BLPBALANCE, "biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times". --Animalparty! (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- The length of the article is irrelevant, if it's something widely and well covered by RS, it belongs in the article. Perhaps this is what they are more notable for. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, it is reliably sourced in an article in which the subject and her businesses were central to the story. Maybe it does deserve mention, but judging by the sources. not much. Given the size of the article, I'd say one sentence at best, if even that. But first, there is a serious problem, because, as written, it does not say who allegedly assaulted who? Because ours is an article about the subject, that automatically implies that the subject did the assault, and we all know that is not the case ... well, all except the reader. That is a huge BLP vio. We need to make damn sure we do not in any way even hint the subject was complicit.
- But now that leads to another problem, precipitated by the first. A reader expects an article about a subject to, ironically enough, tell us something about that subject. Now, the source is not so much about the assault, but the fact that the victim was upset she never received an apology. Of course, that's to be expected, because in this sue-happy world, that's exactly what lawyers will tell you not to do. But, I digress. The point here is that we have missed the entire point of the source in order to focus on the part that has nothing to do with the subject directly.
- And then there's the next sentence. If nothing else, I think for the mere sake of NPOV it needs to be one or the other, at best, and most certainly not the second. But now, what is this supposed to be telling us about the subject? Are we just giving the reader instruction on how to go look up the victim's information? Is this some attempt to make the subject look bad, and if so, what is the connection? In my head, I'm thinking, 'say what you mean already". Like I said, it's like I have a couple pieces of a puzzle, but not enough to form a picture. I know it has to be short, but it also needs to capture the entire gist of the source -as it relates to the subject. It needs to tell us something about her, so the reader can feel like they've learned something. Zaereth (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I rewrote the last part that attempts to address why the incident is mentioned in the paragraph beyond implying she's a hypocrite.[50] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- And then there's the next sentence. If nothing else, I think for the mere sake of NPOV it needs to be one or the other, at best, and most certainly not the second. But now, what is this supposed to be telling us about the subject? Are we just giving the reader instruction on how to go look up the victim's information? Is this some attempt to make the subject look bad, and if so, what is the connection? In my head, I'm thinking, 'say what you mean already". Like I said, it's like I have a couple pieces of a puzzle, but not enough to form a picture. I know it has to be short, but it also needs to capture the entire gist of the source -as it relates to the subject. It needs to tell us something about her, so the reader can feel like they've learned something. Zaereth (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- At the risk of making it bigger, I added another small clarification that it was another employee who allegedly committed the assault, so there is no room for misinterpretation, here. Zaereth (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oops, my bad. Two employees. Thanks for catching that Morbidthoughts. Zaereth (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Monson Mavunkal
He looks to notable by notoriety but this article seems to violate NPOV. Welcome someone reviewing tone to make sure article accurately captures events without unnecessary senationalism. Slywriter (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is he a public figure? I don't see any convictions in the biography and some of the allegations go beyond cons like rape (even if he wasn't accused). Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- A deeper dive shows all his cases are pending. There does seem to be a significant amount of coverage of both types of allegations. I initially was debating CSD as attack page or stubbing but their own self-promotion and the amount of sustained coverage seems to counter WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and so dropped it here for more eyes. I certainly wouldn't object if others think the BLP concerns outweigh the coverage. Slywriter (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Negative Conspiracy theories about living person on Indian murder page
- 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Murder of Kanhaiya Lal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Discussion thread : Talk:Murder_of_Kanhaiya_Lal#Speculations_of_Rahul_Kanwal
- Controversial content being editwarred to be added
Special:Diff/1096311648/1096314102
On 1 July 2022, it was reported that Attari may have been planning to infiltrate the BJP through its loyalists, after photos of Attari attending BJP functions surfaced.[1]
References
- ^ Ojha, Arvind; Hizbullah, Md (1 July 2022). "Udaipur assailants may have plotted to infiltrate Rajasthan BJP Exclusive". India Today. Retrieved 3 July 2022.
Both pages are under WP:ARBIPA and WP:BLP discretionary sanctions. Asking help here as the discussion on Talk:Murder_of_Kanhaiya_Lal#Speculations_of_Rahul_Kanwal is on impasse, with some users pointing to verifiability as a sufficient condition to add this negative content about the living person.
This is clearly speculated and reliable sources have noted that no evidence has been forwarded to support the theory of infiltration. These speculations fail WP:BLP and may change at a later time after court screening. We should not add it. Hindustan Times (HT) is different site Notes "During interrogation, accused Riyaz Atri has not uttered a word about his trying to enter BJP or target the saffron party leaders." So I would take this speculation from "unknown sources" with a large teaspoon of salt.Venkat TL (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yet the article you linked says:
- "
While Ghous Mohammed was trained by DeI functionaries in Karachi, the second killer Riyaz Attari was trying to infiltrate into the minority cell of Rajasthan's Bharatiya Janata Party unit. The investigation revealed that Attari, is a follower of Dawat-e-Islami leader Illyas Attar Qadri, was trying to get close to BJP leaders and workers of the Muslim Rashtriya Manch. He had attempted to get close to BJP Minority Morcha member
"[51] - There is no BLP violation since the text is clear about treating it as a claim or discovery from investigation. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with @CapnJackSp. Especially if that person's appearance in such BJP events is included as a potential suggestion that he had links with BJP. Webberbrad007 (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- They did not admit but both @CapnJackSp and Webberbrad007 are parties to this content dispute, see WP:CNN and WP:NOTAVOTE. Venkat TL (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)That's not how BLP works. You wanted relevant opinion and anybody can comment here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Venkat TL Where have I participated about this before? Does participating in the editing of that article make me a party to any content dispute of that article? Webberbrad007 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus does not mean satisfy every last objection of a squeaky wheel. This appears to be a content dispute about sourcing, not a grave BLP problem. RfC is well equipped to handle it if local consensus can not be reached but consensus is neither unanimous nor satisfying to all editors. Slywriter (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I see no BLP violation. It's funny how Venkat was quick to add text that linked the assailant to BJP (based on pictures of the assailant with BJP members), but it's a BLP violation when multiple reliable sources link the assailants to trying to infiltrate BJP. Hmm, really makes you think. A clear attempt to make a content dispute into a "BLP issue" by throwing a hissy fit. NebulaOblongata (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- They did not admit but both @CapnJackSp and Webberbrad007 are parties to this content dispute, see WP:CNN and WP:NOTAVOTE. Venkat TL (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Amber Heard
Hello. There is a thread at WP:ANI detailing extensive misconduct on articles related to Amber Heard. So far, few or no truly uninvolved editors have responded to the report. I know that it's a long weekend for many Americans, but if you have the time and are interested in upholding BLP, please consider looking it over. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
David Sington (article on "The Fear of 13")
It appears to me that the section of the article on David Sington's documentary The Fear of 13 called "Controversy" is probably defamatory and in any event lacks any WP:RS. I posted an invitation for discussion/comment on this on Talk:The_Fear_of_13 in April, almost three months ago, and have had no responses. Should that part of the article just be deleted? PDGPA (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The answer is yes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Morbidthoughts Thanks much for your prompt response and decisive action. PDGPA (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Tim Wilson (Australian politician)
My name is Tim Wilson and I was a politician in Australia. An advocate in favor of my political opponent was continuously adding a lot of negative content to the page about me, before being blocked again. Wikipedia's rules against "outing" prohibit me from explaining the details, but the background isn't important.
The page (once again) has a lot of negative content cited to press releases, political advocacy groups, op-eds/columns, and other low-quality sources. I posted about it here before without much response, then at RSN, which devolved into conflict between myself and this now-blocked user. I apologize for making multiple posts. However, the article should be more stable now and I'd like to renew my request for impartial editor(s) to review for BLP-type issues. TimWilsonMP (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @TimWilsonMP The Tim Wilson article is overwhelming sourced to WP:GREL sources such as ABC News, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian and The Guardian. I've done a bit of tidying up and removed some of the more dubious sources such as The New Daily (who may have an understandably antagonistic view of the subject of the article) and Michael West Media. There are still several dubious/primary sources such as Star Observer, Armenian National Committee of Australia, a press release from George Brandis, parliamentary website etc but these do not seem to support controversial statements. Crikey and Junkee are yet to be looked at thoroughly in terms of their reliability but given they both have experienced editorial staff, I don't see a problem with their very limited use in this article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Hidayat Orujov
Article: Sumgait pogrom
Edit: [52]
The edit summary links to this discussion, Talk:Hidayat_Orujov#BLP_issue. I'll address some of the points;
Schiff only calls him “a leader”; not an official position, just saying he was an influential figure. The O’Connor source doesn’t appear to mention Schiff, so it’s not citing him, O’Connor source isn’t attributed to Schiff so it’s a separate source. My question being, was the removed information a BLP violation or not? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, this is addition to what I explained here Talk:Hidayat_Orujov#BLP_issue. In his speech Schiff clearly refers to Orujov as the
leader of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan
, and I don't see any option to interpret what he stated in the different way. The O’Connor describes Orujov asThe Communist Party of Azerbaijan representative"
. Both of the assertions are inaccurate, because Orujov never held any position in the Communist party of Azerbaijan (I did not find any RS claiming that). Moreover, according to Orujov, he never made such statement, he wasn't holding any political positions at the time, and he wasn't even in the Sumgait. Considering that neither of the sources provide any evidence or reference to prove that Orujov made such a comment, the alleged WP:REDFLAG statement of the Orujev is nothing more than gossip. Abrvagl (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Killing of Jayland Walker
Repeated BLP violations by insertion of uncited content claiming the officers involved in the incident are guilty of "police brutality". None of the cited sources mention or allege "police brutality". Links to Police Brutality and unsubstantiated claims the officers are guilty of "police brutality" should be removed and the article semi-protected. I have reverted the editor placing this content in the article 3 times, so I cannot edit the article again until this issue is resolved. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Glad someone made the article. I'll take a look EvergreenFir (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The page has been semi-protected for one week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Alice Ripley
An IP has removed a cited block of content from this article, stating "There is an active lawsuit and Wikipedia will be on the hook for libelous material. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." The content wrote about certain accusations that were in the news, in the voice of the multiple cited refs rather than in WP's own voice and seemed careful to avoid implying any of it was true. Ordinarily, I would simply start a talk-page discussion about it, but the IP has also removed that discussion from August 2021 on the same basis. Therefore, I'm coming here for others' input on whether the talk-page discussion, and beyond that the article content, should be kept.
Pinging Jbbdude who wrote the original article content after commenting in the talkpage and Sunshineisles2 who recently overhauled it. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)